[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7910-7937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 87, and 88
[WT Docket No. 22-323; FCC 22-101; FR ID 122915]
Spectrum Rules and Policies for the Operation of Unmanned
Aircraft Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(``FCC'' or ``Commission'') seeks comment on rules to promote access by
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operators to licensed spectrum to
support UAS operations. First, this document seeks comment on service
rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band that will provide UAS operators with
access to licensed spectrum with the reliability necessary to support
safety-critical UAS command-and-control communications links. Second,
due to the increasing interest in operating UAS using existing
terrestrial flexible-use spectrum networks, this document seeks comment
on whether the Commission's current rules are adequate to ensure co-
existence of terrestrial mobile operations and UAS use or whether
changes to these rules are necessary.
[[Page 7911]]
Third, to further promote the safe integration of unmanned aircraft
operations in controlled airspace and facilitate flight coordination,
this document proposes a process for UAS operators to obtain a license
in the aeronautical very high frequency (VHF) band to communicate with
air traffic control and other aircraft. Together, these measures will
help to promote the growth and safety of UAS operations.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 9, 2023. Reply comments are
due on or before April 10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 22-323,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
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 45 L Street NE, 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.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Trachtenberg, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-7369, or by email to
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
proposed Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing
Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 22-323, FCC 22-101,
adopted on December 23, 2022, and released on January 4, 2023. The full
text of this document, including all Appendices, is available for
inspection and viewing via the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-101A1.docx or ECFS by entering
the docket number, WT Docket No. 22-323. 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), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Discussion
A. UAS Communications in the 5030-5091 MHz Band
1. We propose to adopt a band plan and service rules in the 5030-
5091 MHz band to enable UAS operators to use interference-protected
control-and-non-payload-communications (CNPC) links. We seek comment on
our proposal and on options to make the band available for this
purpose. We further seek comment on the costs and benefits of any such
options, including the costs and benefits of the specific band plan and
service rules options discussed below. We seek comment on measures that
will facilitate UAS use and promote equity for these underserved
populations.
2. Through this proceeding, we seek to provide UAS operators with
access to an additional spectrum resource that may complement other
spectrum resources that are currently available or in development. We
tentatively conclude that, while other spectrum bands are available for
UAS communications, licensing the 5030-5091 MHz band specifically for
UAS CNPC will have important public interest benefits. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion and the extent to which the 5030-5091 MHz
band may offer unique advantages over other bands in supporting UAS
CNPC.
1. Band Plan
3. For the purpose of this band and its service rules, and
consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) definitions
of the terms, we propose to define UAS as an unmanned aircraft (UA) and
its associated elements (including communication links and the
components that control the UA) that are required for the safe and
efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States, and
to define a UA as an aircraft operated without the possibility of
direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. We seek
comment on these proposed definitions and on any alternatives. We
further identify two broad UAS use cases for purposes of determining
the appropriate band plan and service rules--non-networked operations,
generally occurring within radio-line-of-sight (hereinafter line-of-
sight or LOS) of the UAS operator, and network-supported operations,
which rely on network infrastructure to go beyond radio-line-of-sight
of the operator. Non-networked operations involve flights within a
sufficiently localized area that can rely on direct wireless links
between the UAS operator's controller and the UA and therefore do not
require any supporting network infrastructure. In contrast, network-
supported operations rely on deployed network infrastructure, such as
cell towers and sites, to relay information between the operator and
the UA and may therefore extend far beyond the range of direct wireless
links between operator and UA. We seek comment on whether any other UAS
use cases should be considered in determining the appropriate band plan
and service rules.
4. Hereinafter, we use the term Non-Networked Access (NNA) to
indicate spectrum or licenses (e.g., NNA blocks) that would be governed
by service rules appropriate to support non-networked communications.
Likewise, we use the term Network-Supported Service (NSS) in connection
with spectrum or licenses to indicate that the relevant spectrum or
licenses would be governed by service rules appropriate to support the
provision of network-based services. Further, we propose to use NNA and
NSS in the rules to designate the spectrum allocated for non-networked
and network-supported use cases, respectively.
5. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) suggests that RTCA's
terminology for these two use cases should be used. RTCA uses the term
``point-to-point'' for non-networked communications links and the term
``Command-and-Control Communications Service Providers'' to describe
network-supported services. We tentatively find that our proposed
terminology is more descriptive of the use cases we seek to support,
and that the use of the term point-to-point,
[[Page 7912]]
which has been long used in Commission rules and orders to reference
systems providing a data communication link between two fixed stations,
may itself contribute to confusion in this context. We seek comment on
the proposed terminology, and on alternatives.
6. To accommodate both NNA and NSS in the 5030-5091 MHz band, we
propose to partition the band, to dedicate different segments of
spectrum in the band for each use case, and to license each of these
segments in a manner that is appropriate to support the relevant use
cases. We seek comment broadly on the placement of NNA and NSS spectrum
to ensure efficient, reliable, and safe use of the band. We seek
comment on whether to make spectrum available for multi-purpose uses,
e.g., expansion bands for temporary NNA or NSS use. We seek comment on
our proposals and on alternatives.
7. We specifically propose to dedicate at least 10 megahertz of
spectrum for NNA operations, and seek comment on this proposal. AIA
argues that 10 megahertz will be sufficient to promote deployment while
preserving the opportunity for an incremental approach to licensing the
band that will better accommodate developing industry standards. We
seek comment on AIA's argument. We seek comment on the placement of the
NNA spectrum within the band and whether, consistent with AIA's
proposal, we should place 5 megahertz blocks at the bottom (5030-5035
MHz) and top (5086-5091 MHz) of the band for NNA use. Alternatively,
should we locate the dedicated NNA blocks somewhere internal in the
band rather than at the band edges? If so, should we designate the
spectrum at the edges of the band for NSS?
8. An analysis by RTCA based in part on the use of an ``online
filter-design tool'' finds that filters that sufficiently protect
services in the adjacent bands ``would necessitate guardbands unusable
by terrestrial CNPC at both ends of the 5030-5091 MHz bands, reducing
the 61 MHz of usable passband width to 42-52 MHz depending on the
case.'' It further states, however, that ``[c]ustom filter designs
could probably provide larger usable passbands than those obtained
using the online tool, possibly at the cost of increased size and
weight.'' We seek comment on this analysis, and whether fixed guard
bands at one or both ends of the band are warranted to protect services
in the spectrum adjacent to the 5030-5091 MHz band, including (1)
radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) downlinks in the 5010-5030 MHz
band, (2) aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) downlinks to support
flight testing in the 5091-5150 MHz band, and (3) the Aeronautical
Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) in the 5000-5030 MHz
and 5091-5150 MHz bands. Alternatively, does the need to protect
adjacent band services argue for dedicating the edge spectrum to
something other than NNA assignments, such as satellite?
9. We further seek comment on whether, instead of designating
separate upper and lower NNA blocks, we should place all dedicated NNA
spectrum together in one contiguous block. Is placement of the NNA
spectrum into two or more separate blocks useful for technical or other
reasons? Conversely, would providing the spectrum in a single
contiguous block reduce interference challenges (e.g., by potentially
reducing the adjacency of NNA and NSS blocks) or better support certain
channelizations of the band or important use cases that may require
channel bandwidths of more than 5 megahertz? Further, with regard to
any technical standards that commenters may recommend applying to
services or equipment in the 5030-5091 MHz band, we seek comment on
whether these standards require the use of contiguous spectrum.
10. With regard to the remaining spectrum in the band, we seek
comment on how to structure it consistent with the goal of dedicating a
segment of spectrum for exclusive use NSS licenses. We seek comment on
how much of the spectrum to dedicate for NSS operations, and how we
should license any remaining spectrum. For the spectrum that we
dedicate to NSS operations, we seek comment on the placement of the NSS
blocks and on the appropriate block size for NSS licenses to promote
investment and competition and support the current and evolving
bandwidth needs of NSS services. In the current record, AIA proposes 5
to 10 megahertz blocks, and Wisk supports 10 megahertz blocks. We seek
comment on these options and on any other appropriate block sizes. What
size spectrum blocks would be necessary to support CNPC services? What
block size would be appropriate if we permit NSS licensees to support
non-CNPC communications? Would the flexibility of larger block sizes
(such as 10 or 20 megahertz) better facilitate mixed CNPC and non-CNPC
use?
11. While we anticipate that a significant portion of this
remaining spectrum would be designated for NSS, we seek comment on
whether we should use a portion of the spectrum for opportunistic use
by both NNA or NSS licensees (multi-purpose use). Should we instead use
a portion of the spectrum to increase the amount of spectrum dedicated
to NNA operations? To the extent we dedicate spectrum for NSS licenses,
we also seek comment on making that spectrum available for NNA
operations on an interim, opportunistic basis. Under this approach, NNA
users, in addition to having access to dedicated NNA spectrum, could
use frequencies in a dedicated NSS block in geographic areas where the
NSS licensee has not yet deployed an operating network. Once a network
is deployed and operational in a particular area, NNA users would no
longer have opportunistic access to the spectrum in that area. This
approach would enable the NSS spectrum in an area to be used
productively prior to the issuance of NSS licenses and deployment of
networks, while providing NSS licensees with complete exclusivity once
their systems are deployed. We seek comment on the costs and benefits
of this approach, including its technical and economic feasibility, and
on alternative approaches to NNA opportunistic access or alternative
methods of ensuring productive usage of dedicated NSS spectrum prior to
network deployment.
12. With these issues and questions in mind, we seek comment
broadly on an appropriate band plan for the 5030-5091 MHz band. As one
possible option for structuring the band overall, we invite comment on:
Dedicating 10 megahertz of spectrum for NNA operations,
with 5 megahertz blocks at the bottom (5030-5035 MHz) and top (5086-
5091 MHz) of the band.
Dedicating 40 megahertz of spectrum for NSS operations,
divided into 4 licensed blocks of 10 megahertz each, with NNA
opportunistic access as described above.
Making the remaining 11 megahertz available for temporary,
opportunistic use by either NNA users or NSS licensees (multi-purpose
use).
We also seek comment on alternatives to this band plan, including
plans that designate the edge spectrum for some purpose other than NNA
operations (such as for NSS operations) or that provide different
amounts of spectrum for NNA, NSS, and/or multi-purpose use than those
presented in the example discussed above.
13. We further invite comment on alternative approaches to
allocating the 5030-5091 MHz band for the support of UAS. For example,
AIA proposes that we allocate and license the 51 megahertz between 5035
MHz and 5086 MHz on a geographic area basis in a
[[Page 7913]]
phased, incremental manner over a period of years--e.g., allocating and
licensing only 5 megahertz in the first year, and then licensing
additional spectrum over the following years with blocks and geographic
areas sized according to user demand and service provider applications.
AIA suggests that such an incremental approach would help the
Commission to accommodate different UAS markets defined by different
UAS missions that are expected to emerge over time. We seek comment on
this possible approach, and more generally on whether we should
allocate only a portion of the band at this time and defer allocation
of the remainder of the band. We further seek comment on whether we
should preserve part of the band at this time for experimental use, or
for potential future satellite-based CNPC that relies on the
aeronautical mobile-satellite route (R) service (AMS(R)S) allocation in
the band.
14. As another alternative, Qualcomm recommends that the Commission
allocate 20 megahertz for direct UA-to-UA communications, including
communications between the aircraft to facilitate detect and avoid
(DAA) operations, and communications to broadcast Remote ID
information. Qualcomm proposes that the remaining 41 megahertz of
spectrum be licensed in two 20.5 megahertz blocks or four 10.25
megahertz blocks to network providers for the provision of NSS CNPC
services and for payload transmissions to the extent that capacity is
not needed for CNPC. We seek comment on this option and on Qualcomm's
assertion that supporting the functionalities of DAA and Remote ID
broadcasts will require 20 megahertz of 5030-5091 MHz band spectrum. We
also seek comment on the compatibility of UA-to-UA transmissions and UA
broadcast with CNPC links between a ground control station and a UA. If
they are not compatible, should a portion of the band be designated
exclusively for UA-to-UA or UA broadcast transmissions, and if so, how
much spectrum should be designated for this purpose?
15. We seek comment on whether we should establish any internal
guard bands, such as between the NNA and NSS blocks, or whether we can
rely on appropriate technical rules to ensure that UAS operations in
one block do not cause harmful interference to UAS operations in
adjacent spectrum blocks. We request that parties proposing guard bands
provide detailed technical justification and specify the width and
placement of the proposed guard bands. We further seek comment on
whether fixed guard bands at one or both ends of the band are warranted
to protect services in the spectrum adjacent to the 5030-5091 MHz band,
including (1) radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) downlinks in the
5010-5030 MHz band, (2) aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) downlinks
to support flight testing in the 5091-5150 MHz band, and (3) the
Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) in the
5000-5030 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz bands.
2. Dynamic Frequency Management System
16. To address the complexities involved in coordinating shared
interference-protected access to the 5030-5091 MHz band, we propose
that access to the band be managed by one or more dynamic frequency
management systems (DFMS). We use the term DFMS to describe a frequency
coordination system that, in response to requests from UAS operators
for frequency assignments in NNA spectrum, would determine and assign
to the requesting operator, through an automated (non-manual) process,
temporary use of certain frequencies for a particular geographic area
and time period tailored to the operator's submitted flight plan. For
the duration of the assignment, the operator would have exclusive and
protected use of the assigned frequencies within the assigned area and
timeframe, after which the frequencies would be available in that area
for assignment to another operator. We contemplate that each DFMS would
be administered by a private third party, which we refer to as a DFMS
administrator. We further contemplate that each system would be capable
of coordination-related activities across the entire 5030-5091 MHz
band. While we contemplate that NSS licensees would be responsible for
the use and coordination of frequencies within the scope of their
licenses, requiring a DFMS to be capable of coordination across the
entire band would enable a DFMS to provide dynamic access to any
portions of the 5030-5091 MHz band that are, in the initial order or
subsequently, assigned for NNA use, as well as to implement
opportunistic access to portions of the band that are assigned for NSS
use as appropriate. We tentatively conclude that these systems could
(1) facilitate the efficient and intensive use of a limited spectrum
resource for interference-protected CNPC; (2) give UAS operators access
to reliable CNPC for operations where those communications links are
safety-critical; (3) enable UAS operators to gain spectrum access in a
timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner; (4) enforce compliance
with frequency assignments through access controls, checking existing
frequency assignments, providing updates in authorized databases, and
other mechanisms; (5) protect critical communications inside the band
and in adjacent spectrum; (6) support opportunistic use in unused
portions of spectrum sub-bands designated for exclusive use licenses;
and (7) promote rapid evolution of the use of the band in response to
technological, market, or regulatory changes, such as if the Commission
deploys spectrum in the band incrementally or, in the future, finds
that modifying the access rules in a particular sub-band is in the
public interest to better meet market demand. We seek comment on our
proposal and its costs and benefits.
17. The support in the current record for the use of a DFMS, along
with the success of the 3.5 GHz band Spectrum Access System (SAS) and
the potential to build on the SAS experience and technology, lead us to
tentatively conclude that a DFMS solution can feasibly be implemented
to enable near-term use of the band with the benefits discussed above.
We seek comment on our tentative conclusion, and the extent of interest
in providing such DFMS services in the 5030-5091 MHz band. In addition
to the specific questions below, what other aspects of the 3.5 GHz band
SAS approach would be appropriate here, and what aspects should be
changed? How should the Commission supervise the operations of the
DFMS?
18. We propose to permit more than one DFMS to operate in the band,
each providing access to frequencies nationwide, and to require
coordination and communication between them to ensure that the
assignments of one DFMS are consistent with the assignments of the
others. We seek comment on this proposal.
19. DFMS requirements and responsibilities. We seek comment on the
appropriate regulatory framework to establish for a DFMS, including its
requirements and responsibilities and the requirements and
responsibilities of a DFMS administrator. We seek comment on whether
and to what extent we can draw on the requirements and responsibilities
governing the SAS and SAS administrators in the 3.5 GHz band. For
example, we seek comment on whether to follow our policy for the 3.5
GHz SASs and establish only the minimum high-level requirements
necessary to ensure the effective development and operation of fully
functional DFMSs, leaving other requirements to be addressed by the
[[Page 7914]]
DFMS administrators and multi-stakeholder groups. If we follow this
policy, what high-level requirements should we establish?
20. One of the most important responsibilities of the DFMS would be
to ensure that UAS operators receiving 5030-5091 MHz assignments and
operating consistent with their assignments are protected from harmful
interference and that they do not cause harmful interference to other
protected operations in the band and adjacent bands, including
protected Federal operations. We seek comment on whether the Commission
should simply establish an appropriate high-level requirement on the
DFMS, such as a requirement to provide protected access to spectrum
appropriate to cover a submitted and valid request, to the extent such
spectrum is available, and defer to the DFMS administrators, or
potentially a multi-stakeholder group, to determine the appropriate
means of doing so. To the extent the Commission should codify more
detailed requirements, we seek comment on all measures the Commission
should adopt to facilitate the ability of the DFMS to provide reliable,
interference-protected assignments, including any necessary
specifications, requirements, responsibilities, authority, processes,
or remedies. We further seek comment on the interference mitigation
techniques that can be employed by UAs, such as geo-fencing.
21. At a minimum, we propose to require that a DFMS administrator
adopt procedures to immediately respond to requests from Commission
staff for information they store or maintain and to comply with any
Commission enforcement instructions they receive, as well as to
securely transfer all the information in the DFMS to another approved
entity in the event it does not continue as the DFMS Administrator at
the end of its term. We seek comment on these proposals. In addition,
what requirements should we impose on the DFMS or DFMS administrator
with regard to retention of records and information, including
registration and assignment records? Should we require retention of all
such information for at least five years? What requirements should we
adopt to ensure data security in DFMS operations, including the
security of end-to-end communications between operators and a DFMS and
the security of information stored by a DFMS?
22. What requirements, if any, should be imposed on NNA operators
in the band to help ensure the DFMS's ability to provide interference-
protected access or to promote more robust or efficient use of the
spectrum? Should these requirements be high-level, with additional
development through a DFMS administrator or multi-stakeholder group, or
should they be more detailed? What information should we require
operators to provide to the DFMS regarding ground stations and unmanned
aircraft stations? Should that information be provided prior to any
requests, with an assignment request, or on an ongoing or periodic
basis during an operation? For example, should we require operators to
provide ground station geographic location, effective isotropically
radiated power (EIRP), and/or antenna patterns? Assuming a DFMS has the
necessary information about the ground station, is information about
the location or transmitter characteristics of the UA unnecessary to
prevent harmful interference? Should we require an active UAS relying
on an NNA assignment in the band to provide a DFMS with the UA
information that must be broadcast under the Remote ID rule or some
subset or variation of that information? Should an operator be required
to provide the DFMS specific information about the UA, including its
manufacturer, model, or other technical or identifying information?
Should an operator be required to affirmatively communicate to the
DFMS, in real time or within a certain period of time of the relevant
event, the initiation and termination of the flight or, alternatively,
the initiation and termination of the operator's use of the assigned
frequencies? Are there other circumstances or information (aside from
the request) that the operator should be required by rule to
communicate to the DFMS? Should any requirements be imposed on UAS
operators relying on NSS networks to facilitate the DFMS's ability to
provide interference-protected NNA assignments?
23. We further seek comment on whether to mandate that a UAS
operator register with a DFMS as a precondition to requesting NNA
frequency assignments, and if so, what requirements we should impose
with respect to such registration. Should the Commission simply require
registration and leave the details to be developed by, for example, the
DFMS administrators or a multi-stakeholder group? To the extent the
Commission should codify further details, what information should be
included with registration? Should UAS operators be required to
register ground and UA stations? Should we impose requirements with
regard to if and when registration should be updated and, if so, what
is the appropriate duration of the initial registration term and the
renewal term? Under what circumstances should the Commission or the
relevant DFMS administrator revoke a UA operator's registration? While
we envision that any registration requirements would apply only to
operators seeking NNA assignments, we seek comment on whether to
require operators relying on a network service in NSS spectrum to
register with a DFMS.
24. We also seek comment on what requirements, if any, we should
impose with respect to the submission of UAS operator requests for NNA
assignments, and conversely what, if any, details of the request
process should be left to be developed by a multi-stakeholder group.
For example, should we impose specifications of what information should
be included in a request, and if so, what data should we require?
Should requests include the relevant ground and unmanned aircraft
stations that will be used in the operation, and if so, how should
these be identified? To the extent we permit mobile ground stations,
should requests provide a specification of the route of the mobile
ground station over time and the times at which the station will reach
specific locations in order to enable frequency assignment to consider
the range coverage of the station as a function of time? Should we
require submission of a flight plan, and if so, what information should
the flight plan include, and in what format? For example, should it
specify time of use, and flight positions and flight altitude over the
course of the flight plan, as suggested by AIA? Should an operator be
required to submit requests no more than a certain specified time
period in advance of a flight?
25. As a general matter, should a DFMS grant a frequency assignment
for the duration and other parameters requested, provided the
unassigned spectrum is available to meet the request? Alternatively,
should limits or restrictions be placed on what can be granted?
26. As several parties have noted, operators may need to revise
their assignments after a flight has commenced (e.g., where the flight
needs to deviate from its anticipated flight path and UAS CNPC
transmissions for the revised flight would not be covered by the
original assignment, or where a flight takes longer than provided under
the assignment). We seek comment on any rules we should adopt to enable
or facilitate the filing and timely processing of such requests for
revised assignments or to otherwise address an operator's mid-flight
need for revised
[[Page 7915]]
assignment. Do we need to adopt any rule to address cases where the
revised request cannot be granted consistent with other previously
granted assignments?
27. In the 3.5 GHz band, SASs may require fixed stations to
implement reassignment to new frequencies, reduction of the permitted
transmitting power level, or cessation of operations, as necessary to
avoid or eliminate harmful interference and implement spectrum access
priorities. Is an active management approach feasible and appropriate,
and if so, what regulatory requirements should be adopted to enable or
implement such an approach? If not feasible, what approaches or
mechanisms will be available to the DFMS to ensure the reliability of
communications? In particular, given that the proposed assignments
would be limited in both frequency, time, and geography, what
requirements, procedures, penalties, or other measures should be in
place to prevent or address (1) flights that use unauthorized
frequencies; (2) flights that occur outside an authorized time period,
such as a flight that exceeds its authorized duration; or (3) flights
that occur outside an authorized area. If a DFMS's role is merely to
reserve appropriate spectrum for UAS flights, and a DFMS takes no other
active measures to ensure or enforce compliance with the assignments or
the protection of operations, will spectrum access be sufficiently
reliable for mission critical purposes?
28. Fees. Under the 3.5 GHz rules, an SAS administrator is
authorized to charge users ``a reasonable fee'' for the provision of
its services, and the Commission ``can require changes to those fees if
they are found to be unreasonable.'' We propose to adopt a similar
provision authorizing the administrator of a DFMS to charge reasonable
fees for its provision of services, including registration and channel
assignment services, and to permit parties to petition the Commission
to review fees and require changes if they are found to be excessive.
To encourage efficient use of the limited spectrum resource and
discourage any attempt at warehousing, we seek comment on specifically
authorizing reasonable usage-based fees, and on standards and
approaches for establishing the amounts of such fees.
29. Selection process. We seek comment on the process for selecting
the DFMS administrators, and whether the 3.5 GHz SAS approval process
could serve as a model. Under the approach for SAS approval, the
Commission delegated authority to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to
administer the process and provided that (1) the Bureaus would issue a
Public Notice requesting proposals from entities desiring to administer
a SAS; (2) applicants would be required, at a minimum, to demonstrate
how they plan to meet the Commission's rules governing SAS operations,
demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate a SAS, and
provide any additional information requested by WTB and OET; (3) based
on these applications, WTB and OET would determine whether to
conditionally approve any of the applicants; and (4) any applicants
that received conditional approval would be required to demonstrate
that their SASs meet all the requirements in the rules and any other
conditions the Bureaus deemed necessary, and at a minimum, to allow
their systems to be tested and analyzed by Commission staff. We seek
comment on adopting this approach. In particular, we seek comment on
facilitating the potential selection of multiple DFMSs through an
application and certification process by which any entity found to meet
the requirements can be the administrator of such a system, and we seek
comment on what eligibility requirements should be set and whether (or
to what extent) they should be codified or established through a
separate process. We also seek comment on whether we should provide a
testing or trial phase for DFMS technology prior to the submission of
applications, to facilitate or inform the requirements of the
application process. Following the SAS model, we propose to delegate
jointly to WTB and OET the authority to administer the selection
process and make the selection. We seek comment on what role the FAA
and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
should have in setting up the process, reviewing applications, and
making the selection.
30. Coordination with flight authorization. In addition to spectrum
access, i.e., authorization to transmit, UAS operators also need
approved or otherwise authorized access from the FAA to conduct flights
in the airspace of the United States. We seek comment on whether and
how frequency assignments should be coordinated with airspace
authorization for low altitude, high altitude, and terminal (departure/
arrival) operations. For example, should a DFMS be required to
determine that a requesting party has any necessary flight authority as
a condition of granting a spectrum assignment request? If so, we seek
comment as to whether and how a DFMS would interact with air traffic
control or the relevant UAS Traffic Management (UTM) systems (such as
the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)
system), or otherwise obtain information regarding airspace approvals,
authorizations, or availability.
31. Alternative approaches to dynamic spectrum access. We seek
comment on other options to enable dynamic spectrum access to the 5030-
5091 MHz band. Some parties suggest that we adopt some form of
cognitive radio solution, in which UAS radios would directly detect and
identify available spectrum channels. They argue that a centralized
system like the DFMS will be complex and labor intensive to use, will
be inefficient in spectrum assignments and vulnerable to spectrum
warehousing, and will have difficulty ensuring link protection and
responding quickly to developments such as changes in flight plans
while a UA is already in flight. We seek comment on these concerns and
whether they can be addressed by a DFMS, and we seek comment on the
feasibility, costs, and benefits of alternative options as compared to
the DFMS discussed above, and whether such alternatives would be
sufficiently reliable to support even the most safety-critical uses
such as flights in controlled airspace. We further seek comment on
whether there are existing technologies that could be applied or
adapted to implement these alternative approaches, and on any standards
work or other studies regarding the safety and reliability of links
under such systems.
32. We seek comment on whether a similar system to the 6 GHz
database or the white space database established in the TV bands could
be adopted for NNA operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band, under which
5030-5091 MHz radios would be required to directly and periodically
query a central database for available channels. Given that the 6 GHz
and white space systems are implemented to enable unlicensed devices to
access spectrum without interference protection, we seek comment on
whether this type of system could be suitable to implement interference
protection for UAS NNA operations. If the Commission adopts rules
providing for the establishment of such a system, should we require
that the system database be updated in real time with relevant
parameters of the NNA systems currently in operation? We further seek
comment on whether any such system and any tool used to perform the
interference analysis should be certified and approved for use by the
[[Page 7916]]
Commission and/or other appropriate authorities prior to operation.
33. In the event that we adopt rules providing for the
establishment and operation of a DFMS or some other coordination system
or process, there may be a significant period of time before such
coordination system is operational in the band and some operators may
want protected access to the band during this interim period.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether to establish some method by
which operators can get temporary protected access to frequencies in
the 5030-5091 MHz band, or a portion of the band, during this interim
period.
3. Multi-Stakeholder Group
34. We seek comment on a possible role for a multi-stakeholder
group to help develop the requirements and processes applicable to the
DFMSs, as well as to study standards and interference issues associated
with UAS operations in the band. We seek comment on whether, consistent
with the successful approach in the 3.5 GHz band, we should encourage a
multi-stakeholder group to address implementation issues in the 5030-
5091 MHz band, but without the Commission formally designating such a
group or imposing a formal process for how the group reaches its
determinations or recommendations. If such a multi-stakeholder group
were to be formed by third parties, what selection procedures might be
desirable to ensure that the group appropriately reflects the diversity
of UAS stakeholders? What role might Federal agency stakeholders have
in this process? We seek comment on these and any additional procedures
or approaches that a multi-stakeholder group might implement,
particularly in light of the positive experience with the 3.5 GHz band
stakeholder group.
35. Assuming there is a role for a multi-stakeholder group, we seek
comment on the appropriate extent of that role and the responsibilities
it might most usefully undertake. We seek comment on the matters a
multi-stakeholder group should address with consensus standards or
other determinations, or with the development of recommendations to one
or more of the stakeholder agencies. We further seek comment on the
matters that the Commission should address independently of any multi-
stakeholder group and the rules it should adopt to establish a basic
regulatory framework to govern the 5030-5091 MHz band and the DFMSs.
4. Scope of Permissible Services
36. As discussed above, the Commission added an AM(R)S allocation
in the 5030-5091 MHz band to support UAS communications. AM(R)S is
reserved exclusively for communications relating to the safety and
regularity of flight, primarily along national or international civil
air routes. Consistent with the scope of the allocation and the
expressed purpose for its incorporation, we propose to permit only CNPC
and to define CNPC as any UAS transmission that is sent to or from the
UA component of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of
the UA's flight. We seek comment on these proposals and on alternatives
that would be consistent with the allocation and its purpose. Should we
alternatively define CNPC to cover any communications to or from a UA
other than payload communications, and to define payload as information
sent to achieve mission objectives? RTCA DO-362A, which provides
Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS CNPC in the
5030-5091 MHz band, states that ``payload communications,'' for
purposes of the standard, ``specifically include communications
associated with the UA mission payloads, which do not contain safety-
of-flight information,'' and clarifies that ``[s]afety-of-flight
information is any information/data sent to or received from the UA
that is necessary to ensure the UAS is operated/operating in a manner
that protects people and/or property from harm due to unintentional
events.'' We seek comment on whether to adopt these or similar terms to
define the scope of permissible CNPC. NTIA proposes that we limit the
band to a subset of CNPC, specifically communications for the control
of the UA and other ``safety-critical functions,'' in order to limit
UAS use to ``essential services.'' RTCA DO-362A similarly provides that
CNPC includes ``[d]ata and information sent to/from the Pilot Station
and the UA for the control of the UA and other safety-critical
functions.'' We seek comment on this option, on the costs and benefits
of limiting the band to only the ``safety-critical'' communications, on
what types of communications would be considered ``safety-critical,''
and what, if any, types of non-payload but safety-related
communications would not be considered ``safety-critical.'' More
generally, should we restrict communications to a subset of CNPC? We
seek comment on whether dual-purpose communications should be
permissible if one of the purposes falls within the permissible scope.
37. We seek comment on whether, instead of a general definition of
scope or, potentially, as a clarifying and non-exclusive supplement to
a general definition, we should specify certain categories of
communications that are covered, such as (1) telecommands to the UA;
(2) telemetry from the UA that is relied upon for flight guidance or
other flight safety-related purposes, such as geo-fencing to protect
sensitive areas, i.e., Microwave Landing System sites, radio astronomy
sites, adjacent licensees, etc.; (3) DAA-related transmissions; (4)
video transmissions from the UA relied upon for flight guidance or
other flight safety-related purposes; (5) Air Traffic Control
communications relayed via the UA; and (6) remote identification
transmissions. We seek comment on whether permissible communications
should be restricted to communications between the control station and
the UA station, i.e., excluding broadcast from the UA or UA-to-UA
communications. We further seek comment on whether we should establish
priorities among different categories of CNPC, or leave the rules
flexible on this matter, with such prioritization potentially to be
considered and developed through appropriate standards development by
multi-stakeholder groups.
38. We note that the regulatory definition of AM(R)S limits the
allocation to communications ``relating to safety and regularity of
flight, primarily along national or international civil air routes.''
As the allocation does not require that communications be exclusively
for flights along such air routes, we propose not to restrict the scope
of permissible CNPC services to such communications. We seek comment on
this proposal and the extent to which operations outside civil air
routes will need access to the 5030-5091 MHz band for CNPC (as opposed
to being able to rely on other spectrum solutions that may or may not
provide the same level of reliability or air safety assurance).
Assuming some measure is necessary or appropriate to reflect the focus
on flights primarily along national or international civil air routes,
we seek comment on whether it would be sufficient to ensure that the
applicable rules and technical standards provide the necessary
reliability and safety to support the use of the band for such flights.
39. We also seek comment on whether we should restrict NNA to CNPC
but permit NSS licensees a broader scope such as a scope permitting UAS
payload communications or permitting both
[[Page 7917]]
UAS and non-UAS communications, provided that licensees ensure the
safety and reliability of CNPC and ensure that communications
associated with the safety of flight always have both priority and
preemption over other communications. We seek comment on whether such
an expansion of scope would be permissible under section 303(y) of the
Communications Act, which places certain limits on the Commission's
authority to ``allocate electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide
flexibility of use.''
40. If we conclude that NSS licensees should be permitted a broader
scope of permissible communications on an ancillary basis, we seek
comment on adding an appropriate allocation if necessary, on what type
of allocation should be adopted to support the broader scope, on
whether to subject the allocation to secondary status under the AM(R)S
allocation and to the limitations applicable to the AM(R)S allocation,
and on any measures we should adopt to ensure that the primary use of
the spectrum is for CNPC. Should we rely on appropriate multi-
stakeholder groups to develop the details of requirements to implement
prioritization and preemption? Should any mechanisms for implementing
preemption and prioritization be subject to specific review and
approval by the Commission, the FAA, and/or an appropriate third-party
group?
5. Eligibility Restrictions
41. We propose that any entity be eligible to obtain a 5030-5091
MHz NSS license other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act and those that are barred under 47 U.S.C. 1404 from
participating in auctions. We seek comment on this proposal and whether
eligibility should be more restricted. We further seek comment on how,
in this context, we should interpret section 310(b), which imposes
restrictions on who can hold or be granted a ``broadcast or common
carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station
license.'' Under the various authorization proposals discussed herein,
would a licensee be considered as holding a ``common carrier[,]
aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license''? If
so, how should we evaluate any foreign-ownership holdings?
42. We also seek comment on whether to provide that any entity is
eligible to operate NNA stations using assignments from a DFMS other
than those precluded by section 310 from holding station licenses.
Given our proposal elsewhere to license NNA stations by rule, we seek
comment on whether section 310 ownership restrictions, which apply to
``station licenses,'' apply to operators of stations licensed by rule.
We further seek comment, if section 310 does not apply to operators of
licensed-by-rule stations, on whether NNA station operators, or the
parties receiving assignments from a DFMS for such operation, should be
subject to eligibility restrictions comparable to those imposed by
section 310 on station licensees.
43. NTIA recommends that, to be eligible for a license for 5030-
5091 MHz UAS operations, an applicant be required to certify that it
has the requisite FAA remote pilot certification or, in the case of an
organization, to certify that it will only utilize individuals with
this qualification for its UAS operations in the band. Compliance by
5030-5091 MHz operators with applicable FAA remote pilot regulations
will be critical to the safe operation of UAS in the 5030-5091 MHz
band, and we seek comment on the best approach to achieve this goal,
and on NTIA's proposal as one option. To the extent that we adopt a
licensed-by-rule model for NNA as proposed, however, UAS operators will
not be required to submit individual license applications, and
accordingly, there will be no individual license applications in which
UAS operators could make the proposed certifications. Further,
provision of network-based NSS would likely involve a network
provider's provision of CNPC services to other entities, and thus, it
is likely the relevant UAS operator will be neither a licensee nor an
employee of a licensee. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether
requiring license applicants to certify that they have the requisite
FAA remote pilot certification or will utilize operators with such
qualifications is a practical option in either the NNA or NSS context.
44. We further seek comment on the costs and benefits of
conditioning either NNA or NSS eligibility on a certification that the
party has the necessary FAA remote pilot certification or compliance
with other FAA requirements. We seek comment on whether it provides a
significant regulatory benefit to specifically limit eligibility in
this manner, given that UAS operators using 5030-5091 MHz spectrum will
in any case be subject directly to FAA rules and enforcement and would
not be able to lawfully operate unless they comply with all applicable
FAA requirements. We also seek comment on any administrative concerns
from having the Commission potentially be required to interpret and
enforce the regulatory regime of another agency.
45. To the extent that there should be some mechanism in addition
to the FAA's enforcement authority to adequately ensure that use of the
5030-5091 MHz band will be consistent with FAA requirements, we seek
comment on whether we can instead rely on the DFMS and NSS licensees to
ensure that UAS operators have the necessary FAA approvals. For
example, to address NNA users, users registering with a DFMS could be
required to make the requisite certification as a condition of
registration. Alternatively, we might impose a more general requirement
on a DFMS to adopt measures that reasonably ensure that operators have
the requisite FAA remote pilot authority, and defer to the DFMS
administrator (or a multi-stakeholder group) on specific mechanisms to
implement this requirement. We seek comment on these and other
alternatives.
6. Non-Networked Access (NNA) Service Rules
46. Licensing rules. We seek comment on the licensing regime or
mechanism we should adopt to enable authorization of NNA operations in
the 5030-5091 MHz band and the costs and benefits of any proposed
approach. We propose to reduce the administrative burdens on operators
and the Commission by adopting a licensing approach that would not
require individual licensing of these numerous operators and/or
stations. Specifically, we propose to implement a licensed-by-rule
authorization for aircraft and ground stations in the band, as
recommended by AIA and others. Under this framework, operators would
not be required to apply for individual spectrum licenses for
themselves or their mobile or ground stations in order to conduct NNA
operations in the band. Instead, parties using rule-compliant stations
and operating in compliance with the rules would only need to obtain
the requisite temporary frequency assignment from the DFMS in order to
transmit in the band in the requested location, frequency, and
timeframe. We further propose to permit the stations used by the
operator on the ground to send and receive signals to the UA to be
either fixed stations or mobile stations (such as hand-held
controllers). As used in this document, the term ``mobile station''
refers to a station ``intended to be used while in motion or during
halts at unspecified points.'' We seek comment, however, on whether to
require all NNA ground stations in the band to be fixed stations, and
on the costs and benefits of permitting the use of mobile ground
[[Page 7918]]
stations. To what extent would prohibiting such stations facilitate
coordination in the NNA portion of the band, or reduce the likelihood
of harmful interference, failures to comply with assignments, or
challenges with administering or policing the system? If we do not
permit mobile ground stations, should we differentiate ``portable''
stations, i.e., stations that can be moved but are not intended to be
used while in motion?
47. Section 307(e) of the Act authorizes the Commission to adopt a
licensed-by-rule approach for certain specific categories of services,
including the ``citizens band radio service,'' and also expressly
delegates to the Commission the discretion to define the scope of the
term ``citizens band radio service.'' In the Commission's rules, the
citizens band radio service is defined as ``any radio service or other
specific classification of radio stations used primarily for wireless
telecommunications for which the FCC has determined that it serves the
public interest, convenience and necessity to authorize by rule the
operation of radio stations in that service or class, without
individual licenses, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 307(e)(1).'' We tentatively
find that licensing by rule of NNA stations would serve the public
interest, convenience, and necessity, and accordingly, we propose to
implement licensing by rule by including NNA within the scope of the
citizens band radio service. We seek comment on our tentative
conclusion and proposal, on the scope of our authority under section
307(e) to adopt a licensed-by-rule approach to UAS operations, and on
alternative licensing approaches we might adopt that would not require
individual licensing of operators or stations in the band.
48. Section 307(e)(1) also expressly authorizes licensing by rule
in ``the aviation radio service for aircraft stations'' but does not
provide an equivalent grant of authority to adopt licensing by rule for
aviation service ground stations. We seek comment on whether we
nevertheless have authority in this case to adopt licensing by rule for
both aircraft and ground stations in the aviation service.
49. Technical requirements. We seek comment on appropriate
technical requirements to govern 5030-5091 MHz NNA equipment and
operations. In the current record, NTIA, AIA, and many other parties
support adoption of the technical requirements in the RTCA DO-362A
standard for this purpose. RTCA DO-362A contains MOPS for terrestrial-
based (i.e., non-satellite) CNPC point-to-point or point-to-multipoint
links in the 5030-5091 MHz band, including power limits, emission
limits, and frequency accuracy requirements. We propose to adopt the
RTCA DO-362A standard or technical requirements based on that standard
to govern NNA equipment and operations and seek comment on this
proposal. We seek comment on the adequacy of the RTCA DO-362A specified
equipment and operational performance requirements, including both
transmitter power and receiver input power, and required minimum
coupling loss (separation distance) between ground and airborne CNPC
radios and emissions from other licensed radio services.
50. We seek comment on an appropriate measure of CNPC link
reliability to assess RTCA DO-362A and other standards, on the specific
anticipated level of CNPC link reliability through radios compliant
with the RTCA DO-362A standard, and on any available data that confirms
that reliability. We seek comment on any current or past operation of
equipment compliant with RTCA DO-362 or RTCA DO-362A, on the results of
any such operations, and on the extent to which they support or raise
issues or concerns about incorporation of the standard as the governing
technical framework for the 5030-5091 MHz band. We also seek comment on
whether parties have deployed experimental UAS equipment in the 5030-
5091 MHz band in reliance on any other technical standard. Is there any
benefit to requiring formal experimental trials or testing for 5030-
5091 MHz band equipment?
51. We also seek comment on any costs or disadvantages in imposing
the RTCA DO-362A standard. For example, we seek comment on whether and
to what extent imposition of this standard may limit the scope of UAS
operations that can make use of links in the band. We also seek comment
on whether any such limitations are a result of hard constraints
codified in the standard on the scope of UAS operations that may occur
consistent with the standard specifications, or instead are a
consequence of practical constraints, such as if the standard requires
the development and installation of radio equipment that may be too
heavy for some UA to carry.
52. Canada states that some technical incompatibilities have been
identified between RTCA DO-362A and a proposed standard by the European
Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) for satellite-based
CNPC in the same band, designated draft ED-265, and asserts that
adoption of the RTCA DO-362A standard without addressing the
incompatibilities may create difficulties in managing the operation of
CNPC links in support of international UAS operations. We seek comment
on these concerns, the nature of the incompatibilities, and what, if
any, measures, requirements, or restrictions are necessary to address
them. We note that RTCA has been considering the ``ED-265/DO-362
interference issue.'' We seek comment on any determinations that have
been made regarding these incompatibilities and whether the issue is
adequately addressed in the current RTCA DO-362A version of the
standard or will be addressed in a future version. If revisions to RTCA
DO-362A are necessary or appropriate to address these issues, we seek
comment on whether the next version of the standard is anticipated to
be backwardly compatible with RTCA DO-362A, and if not, whether
adoption of final rules should be deferred until these issues are
resolved in a new version of the standard. We seek comment on whether
any coordination or other requirements are necessary to ensure adequate
protection of foreign satellite-based CNPC services in the band,
particularly insofar as they may operate near United States
jurisdictional boundaries. We also note that footnote 5.443C of the
Table of Frequency Allocations limits the use of the 5030-5091 MHz band
to ``internationally standardized aeronautical systems.'' We seek
comment on whether this provision requires the Commission to adopt a
standard that is compatible with the EUROCAE standard, and whether RTCA
DO-362A would meet our obligations under footnote 5.443C.
53. If we incorporate the RTCA DO-362A standard into our rules, we
seek comment on whether to do so through adoption of a general
requirement that, to be certified for use under or operated under the
NNA rules, all radio equipment must comply with the requirements of
RTCA DO-362A, rather than to separately incorporate the various
technical requirements of RTCA DO-362A (e.g., power, frequency
stability, and emission limitations) into the service rules. If we
adopt a general requirement to comply with RTCA DO-362A, we propose to
also separately codify requirements for power and emission bandwidth
based on the RTCA DO-362A standard, to provide clarity and ease of
reference in the rules. If, alternatively, we do not have a requirement
of general compliance with RTCA DO-362A, but require compliance with
only selected
[[Page 7919]]
provisions of the standard, which provisions or requirements from RTCA
DO-362A should we impose? Which specific provisions of RTCA DO-362A are
necessary for compatible use of the 5030-5091 MHz band? Should the
Commission's technical framework require compliance more broadly with
section 2, the Equipment Performance Requirements and Test Procedures
applicable to the link system radios, or both sections 2 and 3, the
latter of which includes performance standards for the link system when
installed in a UA and ground location? Alternatively, is it sufficient,
for purposes of establishing the baseline technical framework, to
require compliance with the specific frequency capture range (which
includes a frequency accuracy standard), power limits, and emission
limits stipulated by the standard?
54. RTCA states that emission limit requirements should also
require equipment compliance with the 50 ms Time Division Duplex (TDD)
requirements specified under section 2.2.1.3 of the standard. It
asserts that use of non-TDD systems or TDD systems with different time
length frames operating in the 5030-5091 MHz band within the same radio
horizon as RTCA DO-362A compliant equipment will cause unacceptable
levels of interference. We seek comment on RTCA's assertion and
recommendation, and whether adoption of the standard for NNA will
necessarily require all equipment in the band, including equipment in
neighboring NSS blocks, to use RTCA DO-362A compliant TDD equipment to
avoid harmful interference to NNA operations.
55. We seek comment on whether any of the general technical
requirements in subpart D of part 87 should apply to NNA equipment.
NTIA proposes, for example, that in addition to meeting the out-of-band
emissions limits in RTCA DO-362A, we should also require equipment to
meet the out-of-band emissions limit specified in Sec. 87.139(c). RTCA
argues, however, that the current requirements of Sec. 87.139(c) are
less stringent than those in RTCA DO-362A, and that the Commission
should just require compliance with the latter. L3Harris Technologies
(L3Harris) asserts that it is not clear whether Sec. 87.139 is
applicable, as it applies only to communications using certain specific
Emissions Designators and the RTCA DO-362A mandatory modulation makes
no reference to these designators. We seek comment on NTIA's proposal,
on whether Sec. 87.139(c) may, under its existing terms, apply to UAS
communications anticipated in the 5030-5091 MHz band, and whether such
application is in the public interest. We further seek comment on
whether we need to specify authorized emission classes and designators
for this service, such as has been done with aviation services. If so,
we seek comment on what classes and designators are appropriate, and
whether we should use one of the types of assignable emissions already
defined in, for example, Sec. 87.137 of the rules. We propose emission
designators of G8D for data and G8F for video and seek comment on their
appropriateness for operations subject to RTCA DO-362A.
56. We seek comment on any other requirements we should impose on
NNA equipment. For example, what requirements should we adopt to
facilitate a DFMS's ability to communicate with or otherwise control
such equipment in the execution of the DFMS's responsibilities? Should
equipment be required to enable the DFMS to make direct (machine-to-
machine) frequency assignments to the UAS equipment, in order to ensure
that assignments are accurately programmed? Should this capability be
available at all times, or only pre-flight? To the extent DFMS
communications or control signals are intended to affect operating
parameters of the UA, should such communications or control signals be
required to occur exclusively through communications between the DFMS
and the relevant ground control station or stations, rather than
through direct communications with a UA station? In the 3.5 GHz band,
fixed stations must respond automatically to SAS directions to modify
certain operational parameters such as frequency or power limit. Should
requirements be adopted for NNA equipment to provide the DFMS with
similar control? We further seek comment on whether to impose
requirements to ensure interoperability between NNA and NSS network
services. Potentially, UA flights that initially rely on a network
service may extend into areas where no network has been deployed. What
requirements, if any, should we adopt to facilitate operations that can
seamlessly switch between network service for CNPC and NNA assignments
for that purpose?
57. We note that RTCA has also adopted another standard applicable
to CNPC in the 5030-5091 MHz band, designated RTCA DO-377A, Minimum
Aviation System Performance Standards for C2 Link Systems Supporting
Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. Airspace (RTCA DO-
377A). Whereas RTCA DO-362A describes minimum performance standards for
the ground and airborne radios used for a direct link, focusing on
certain design characteristics of these radios such as power and
emissions limits, RTCA DO-377A describes the minimum performance of an
overall ``C2 Link System,'' defined as a system used to send
information exchanges between a control station and an unmanned
aircraft and to manage the connection between them, and which can be
comprised of one or many Air/Ground links and Ground/Ground links. To
the extent that RTCA DO-377A applies to NNA operations, we seek comment
on whether we should adopt rules requiring compliance with the
standard. Alternatively, should we limit our requirements, as AIA
recommends, to technical requirements based on RTCA DO-362A and leave
system performance, safety, and security requirements, such as those in
RTCA DO-377A, to be considered by a multi-stakeholder group or
addressed by the FAA?
Incorporation by reference. As discussed above, we propose to adopt
the technical standard RTCA DO-362A in whole or in part; RTCA DO-362A
provides technical requirements for NNA operations in the 5030-5091 MHz
band. To accomplish this, we propose to incorporate the standard by
reference into our rules under 1 CFR part 51. The material is available
from RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, via
email: [email protected] or http://RTCA.org.
58. Application of Part 87 Aviation Service Rules and Part 1
Wireless Radio Service Rules. We seek comment on where to locate the
new NNA services rules within the organization of the Commission's
rules. Some parties argue that the new service should be located in
part 87, which ``states the conditions under which radio stations may
be licensed and used in the aviation services.'' We seek comment on
this option. We seek comment on whether, alternatively, we should
locate the new UAS rules in a new rule part rather than in part 87, as
reflected in the amendments at the end of this document. We further
seek comment on alternative options for the appropriate home for the
new rules.
59. Whether we locate the rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band in part
87, a new rule part, or elsewhere, we seek comment on whether and to
what extent the generally applicable rules in subparts B through F of
part 87 should apply to or be incorporated into the new NNA service,
either in their current form or with modifications.
60. As an example, Sec. 87.89 requires that, with certain
exceptions, operators of licensed aviation service stations ``must hold
a commercial radio operator
[[Page 7920]]
license or permit.'' The operator license requirement is distinct from
and wholly independent of the requirement that each station be licensed
and requires individuals seeking an operator license to demonstrate, by
passing a formal examination, sufficient knowledge of the relevant
radio technologies. The operator license requirement stems from section
318 of the Act, which requires operators of transmitting equipment of
licensed stations to hold an operator's license, except where the
Commission finds that the public interest, convenience, or necessity
will be served by waiving such requirement. We seek comment on whether,
in addition to the station license (which, as discussed, we propose to
provide through licensing by rule), we should require UAS operators
using a NNA assignment in the 5030-5091 MHz band to have an individual
operator license. Conversely, would it be in the public interest to
forgo any such operator licensing or permitting requirements as
unnecessary or inappropriate in light of FAA regulation of and
authority over UAS remote pilot qualifications, or for other reasons?
61. We also seek comment on whether the new service should be
subject to rules under part 1, subpart F, governing ``Wireless Radio
Service'' applications and proceedings. We seek comment on whether NNA
services, even if licensed by rule, should be included in and subject
to the subpart F rules for Wireless Radio Services to the same extent
as other licensed-by-rule services.
62. Streamlined procedures to update incorporated standards. We
anticipate that any technical standard developed by a standards
organization that we incorporate by reference into our rules will be
subject to ongoing revisions as parties gain more experience and the
UAS industry continues to rapidly evolve. To help ensure that the rules
for 5030-5091 MHz UAS operations continue to reflect the most current
version of any incorporated standard for 5030-5091 MHz UAS operations,
we invite comment on whether we should adopt a comparable delegation of
rulemaking authority in this case. Specifically, we seek comment on
whether to delegate joint rulemaking authority to WTB and OET to
incorporate into the Commission's rules, after consultation with the
FAA and NTIA, and notice and an opportunity for public comment, any
updated version of a previously incorporated technical standard
applicable to UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Similar to
limitations the Commission has placed in some earlier delegations of
rulemaking authority to update standards, should we limit this
delegated authority to the incorporation of standard updates that do
not raise major compliance issues?
7. Network Supported Service (NSS) Service Rules
63. We seek comment on the license terms and service rules we
should adopt for NSS licenses. We seek comment in particular on issuing
exclusive use, geographic area defined licenses for a specific term of
years, with rights of renewal, subject to specific performance (network
coverage) obligations. We seek comment on appropriate technical and
operational requirements and on the assignment process rules.
64. Geographic area licenses. Consistent with our approach in
several other bands that has promoted the deployment of wide area
networks for a variety of fixed and mobile services, we propose to
license NSS spectrum blocks in the 5030-5091 MHz band for exclusive use
on a geographic area basis. We seek comment on this approach, on its
costs and benefits, and on alternative licensing approaches. 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.
65. We further seek comment on the appropriate geographic license
area or areas for NSS licenses to support NSS UAS operations and
facilitate investment, including investment by small entities, and
robust spectrum use. We seek comment on whether we should adopt larger
license areas such as Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAG) or
nationwide markets to facilitate NSS uses that may often involve flight
over long distances, adopt a more granular scheme such as Partial
Economic Areas (PEA), which would provide more flexibility to serve a
smaller area but still permit parties to achieve a larger area through
aggregation, or adopt a mix of large and small license areas for
different spectrum blocks. While NTIA supports licensing by REAG, AIA
argues in its comments to the Refresh Public Notice (PN), 86 FR 50715
(Sept. 10, 2021), that license areas corresponding to the Air Route
Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) areas or other areas ``that make sense
in an aviation system context'' would be appropriate, and Wisk
similarly recommends use of the ARTCC areas to provide ``alignment with
a general air traffic density basis.'' We seek comment on whether to
adopt license areas based on a geographic area division of the country
that has been developed specifically for aviation purposes, such as the
ARTCC areas.
66. License term. We propose to issue NSS licenses for an initial
15-year term. AIA and Wisk both support a license term ``longer than 10
years,'' and we believe that circumstances in the band, including the
need to set up a DFMS in the band and integrate its functions with
operations in NSS spectrum, as well as the nascent stage of standards
development and other technical work regarding NSS networks generally,
favor the use of a longer initial license term. We propose to limit
subsequent terms to 10 years. We seek comment on these proposals.
67. Performance (network build-out or coverage) requirements. We
seek comment on performance requirements (i.e., build-out or coverage
requirements) that are appropriate for NSS licensees and UAS operation.
We seek comment in particular on whether to adopt a population-based
performance metric, such as a requirement to cover at least 80 percent
of the population in the license area within 12 years of the grant of
the license, as the Commission recently adopted for geographic licenses
in other bands. We also seek comment on whether to adopt an appropriate
interim performance requirement, such as a requirement to cover at
least 45 percent of the population in the license area within six years
of license grant.
68. AIA argues that aircraft uses require reliable control links
for all geographic areas of flight regardless of proximity to
population centers, and suggests that a build-out requirement based on
``user demand, special diversity and signal strength'' would better
meet the needs of beyond-radio-line-of-sight UAS operations. We seek
comment on AIA's arguments, and on whether we should either require
licensees to meet some criteria other than population, such as
geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area at year six and 50%
of the license area at year 12. Alternatively, should we provide
licensees with the option of meeting either a population-based
requirement or some alternative? To the extent commenters recommend
alternative build-out requirements, we ask them to propose either
specific numerical benchmarks or other specific and objectively
verifiable buildout criteria.
69. We seek comment on appropriate rules for compliance
demonstration and enforcement. As for compliance demonstration, we
propose to adopt a process similar to compliance rules applicable to
part 27 licensees, requiring a demonstration of compliance with the
[[Page 7921]]
performance requirements by filing a construction notification with the
Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable
benchmark, including electronic coverage maps accurately depicting the
boundaries of the licensed area and the boundaries of the actual areas
to which the licensee provides service. If a coverage map is used to
demonstrate compliance, we seek comment on the appropriate standardized
parameters for the propagation model. For example, should there be
standardized values for inputs such as cell edge probability, cell
loading, and clutter? As for enforcement, we propose that if a licensee
fails to meet the final performance requirement, the license
authorization will terminate automatically without specific Commission
action. If we adopt an interim requirement, we propose that failure to
meet the requirement would result in the reduction by two years of both
the due date for the final performance requirement and the license term
(resulting in a final performance requirement at year 10 and a license
term of 13 years).
70. License Renewal. We seek comment on the appropriate standard
for license renewal. In the WRS Second R&O, 82 FR 41530 (Sept. 1,
2017), the Commission adopted a unified regulatory framework for the
Wireless Radio Services (WRS) that replaced the existing patchwork of
service-specific rules regarding renewal with a single unified
standard, and safe harbors for meeting that standard for different
service categories, including a safe harbor for geographic licensees
providing commercial service. We seek comment on whether the regulatory
renewal framework for WRS commercial geographic licensees is
appropriate for NSS licensees. If we apply this framework, are there
any special factors we need to account for or incorporate in the
context of networks for support of UAS operations?
71. Competitive bidding or other assignment procedures. In the
event that mutually exclusive license applications are received, we
propose to assign these exclusive-use licenses through a system of
competitive bidding. Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures
the Commission has used in previous auctions, we propose to conduct any
auction for geographic area 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. We seek comment on whether any of
these rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction
of licenses in this band. Consistent with the statutory requirement and
our longstanding approach, we propose to use a public notice process to
solicit public input on certain details of auction design and the
auction procedures. Our proposal to assign these licenses through
competitive bidding assumes that Congress amends section 309(j)(1) of
the Communications Act to extend the Commission's authority to award
licenses by competitive bidding. We seek comment on alternate
assignment procedures in the event that the Commission's statutory
authority to auction licenses is not extended.
72. If we provide for the assignment of these licenses through a
system of competitive bidding, we also propose to make bidding credits
for designated entities available for this band and seek comment on
this proposal. If we decide to offer small business bidding credits, we
seek comment on how to define a small business. In recent years, for
other flexible-use licenses, we have adopted bidding credits for the
two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the
Commission's part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits. We
propose to use the same definitions here.
73. The standardized schedule of bidding credits provided in Sec.
1.2110(f)(2)(i) of the rules defines small businesses based on average
gross revenues for the preceding three years. In December 2018,
Congress revised the standard set out in the Small Business Act for
categorizing a business concern as a ``small business concern,'' by
changing the annual average gross receipts benchmark from a three-year
period to a five-year period. Thus, as a general matter, a Federal
agency cannot propose to categorize a business concern as a ``small
business concern'' for Small Business Act purposes unless the size of
the concern is based on its annual average gross receipts ``over a
period of not less than 5 years.'' For consistency with the statutory
requirements, we therefore propose to adopt the Small Business Act's
revised five-year average gross receipts benchmark for purposes of
determining which entities qualify for small business bidding credits.
74. Accordingly, we propose 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 percent and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be eligible
for a bidding credit of 25 percent. We also seek comment on whether the
aviation-safety purpose of the band, the characteristics of these
frequencies, or any other factor suggest that we should not make
available one or either of these designated entity bidding credits, or
that we should adopt different small business size standards and
associated bidding credits than we have in the past. Finally, we seek
comment on whether we should offer rural service providers a designated
entity bidding credit for licenses in this band. Commenters addressing
these proposals or advocating for any alternatives should consider what
specific details of the licenses or operations in the band may affect
whether designated entities will apply for them and whether designated
entities should be supported by bidding credits.
75. AIA proposes that the Commission directly select NSS licensees
from the submitted license applications based on criteria to be
established by the FAA or by a multi-stakeholder group to ensure that
applicants meet aviation performance levels and minimum performance
standards established in RTCA DO-377A. We seek comment on AIA's
proposal or alternative approaches for selecting the NSS licensees and
whether such approaches would be consistent with our statutory
obligation under section 309(j) of the Act to use competitive bidding
to resolve mutually exclusive applications, and with our general
responsibility for licensing of spectrum uses under Title III of the
Communications Act.
76. Regardless of the assignment mechanism, we seek comment on
whether NSS licensees should be subject to a particular limit on the
amount of NSS spectrum they can aggregate in the 5030-5091 MHz band,
such as a limit of 20 megahertz. To the extent that NSS spectrum is
assigned on geographic market basis, are limits on 5030-5091 MHz
spectrum aggregation necessary to ensure competition for network-based
CNPC services?
77. Technical requirements. We seek comment on appropriate
technical requirements and parameters for NSS licenses. As an initial
matter, the appropriate technical requirements may depend in part on
the types of operations likely to be carried out in the band and the
network architectures necessary to support such operations.
Accordingly, we seek comment on what operations commenters anticipate
the NSS licensees will be used to support. Will they include Advanced
Air Mobility, package delivery services, or
[[Page 7922]]
infrastructure inspection? Are they likely to be predominantly
operations above, or below, a certain altitude, or to involve
predominantly large or predominantly small UA? Will they involve
autonomous operations, and if so, to what extent and for what purposes
will such autonomous operations likely require network-based CNPC? For
those anticipated operations, we seek comment on what type of network
architectures will likely be needed in the band to support such uses.
Will they necessarily be like the terrestrial cellular networks, or
will there be other architectures, and if so, of what nature? To the
extent that parties have already developed or plan to deploy network
infrastructure to support UAS NSS operations, we seek comment on what
type of network architectures they have developed or plan to deploy for
this purpose.
78. We seek to adopt technical rules that will promote efficient
use of spectrum and provide licensees as much flexibility as possible
in terms of the services they wish to provide, while also providing
adequate protection of licensees in the band or adjacent bands. We seek
comment on requirements that will achieve these goals in the context of
spectrum intended to support network-based UAS CNPC with the level of
reliability needed for safety-critical aviation purposes. In
particular, we seek comment on whether the RTCA DO-362A standard or
equivalent technical parameters, which we propose above for NNA
operations, should also apply to NSS licenses. Would adopting similar
requirements for NSS help to ensure compatibility between NNA and NSS
operations? We ask that commenters discuss the adequacy of the RTCA DO-
362A specified equipment and operational performance requirements for
NSS operations, including both transmitter power and receiver input
power, and required minimum coupling loss (separation distance) between
ground and airborne CNPC radios and emissions from other licensed radio
services. We also seek comment on whether to require NSS licensees to
comply with RTCA DO-377A, which addresses the minimum performance,
safety, and security standards for a CNPC link system overall, whether
that system relies on a network or a direct link. As noted above, AIA
recommends that we require UAS equipment to comply with RTCA DO-362A,
but leave the requirements in RTCA DO-377A to be considered by the FAA
or an appropriate group of stakeholders. We seek comment on whether to
take this approach for NSS licensees. To the extent that NSS licensees
are permitted to support communications other than CNPC, we seek
comment on whether those services should be subject to the same
technical requirements as apply to CNPC.
79. Because the RTCA DO-362A standard is focused on point-to-point
or point-to-multipoint (i.e., non-networked) link performance rather
than network services, and RTCA DO-377A on establishing the minimum
performance, security, and safety standards of a system rather than
mitigating interference impacts on other systems, we seek comment on
whether application of either of these standards sufficiently address
the impact of wide area network operations, including cellular
networks, on other services in-band or in adjacent bands. We further
seek comment on whether applying these standards, or specific
parameters drawn from these standards, to network-based services in the
band may unnecessarily restrict the range of services or operations in
the band. We seek comment on whether there are any additional or
alternative technical requirements that we should consider for NSS
licenses and on the extent to which communications under these
technical requirements would have sufficient reliability for safety-
critical aviation purposes. To the extent that parties argue for
alternative technical requirements, we ask that they be specific as to
what requirements they propose be adopted in the rules.
80. We note that work is ongoing to develop technical standards for
reliable UAS communications over mobile networks. We seek comment on
these efforts, on the scope, status, and anticipated completion date of
any other current or planned studies or standards development work
regarding the reliability of UAS communications over Long-Term
Evolution (LTE) or other mobile network technologies, and on whether
these studies or standards will address or apply to UAS network-based
communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band. If not, we seek comment on
whether the development of these studies or standards may nevertheless
be helpful in determining the appropriate requirements for networks in
the 5030-5091 MHz band. We further seek comment on the extent to which
any of these studies or standards are being or will be coordinated with
the aviation community or the FAA to ensure that they provide
sufficient reliability for all UAS use cases, including aviation
flights where communications is safety-critical. We also seek comment
on the extent to which mobile networks using LTE or other mobile
network technologies can be implemented in the 5030-5091 MHz band
consistent with the RTCA DO-362A standard.
81. As an alternative to requiring NSS compliance with the RTCA DO-
362A standard generally, are there certain specific requirements of
RTCA DO-362A that we should minimally impose, to ensure compatibility
with NNA operations or for other purposes? For example, as we noted
earlier, RTCA asserts that all equipment in the band must comply with
the 50 ms Time Division Duplex (TDD) requirements specified under
section 2.2.1.3 of the RTCA DO-362A standard to ensure that UAS
operations in the band are compatible with each other. We seek comment
on whether, even if we do not require general compliance with RTCA DO-
362A, we should mandate compliance with the TDD requirements under
section 2.2.1.3. Further, we seek comment on whether we should, at a
minimum, require NSS equipment to comply with the power limits and out-
of-band emission limits established in the standard to ensure that such
equipment is compatible with AeroMACS.
82. We seek comment on any other technical issues that need to be
addressed to enable the deployment of NSS networks. For example, in
order to prevent harmful interference between geographic area
licensees, such licensees are typically subject to market boundary
power strength limitations. Because the networks deployed by geographic
area licensees are terrestrial in nature, these limitations were
developed using certain technical assumptions--i.e., that natural and
manmade terrestrial obstacles attenuate signals, reducing the potential
of harmful interference between users in adjacent license service
areas. Obstacles such as hills, trees, buildings, and other natural and
manmade structures attenuate emissions, lessening the interference
impact between licensees. UAS operations typically fly above many of
these obstacles and, depending on the UA altitude and its distance to
the service area boundary border, a UA may be in direct line-of-sight
with adjacent license areas and users, greatly increasing the potential
for harmful interference. As we anticipate adopting geographic area-
based licenses for NSS spectrum, we request comment on an appropriate
field strength limit to protect NSS licensees given this increased
potential for harmful interference. We seek comment on other necessary
technical specifications, such as out-of-band emission limits, and ask
[[Page 7923]]
that any proposals include technical justifications and analysis, such
as UA altitude assumptions, power levels, antenna assumptions, the
increasing interference effects resulting from the increasing number of
transmitting UA (aggregate effects), and the victim receiver
characteristics such as receiver sensitivity, and adjacent and non-
adjacent channel rejection.
83. Application of requirements from aviation service and wireless
radio service rules. As with NNA service rules above, we seek comment
on whether and to what extent the NSS service rules should incorporate
or be subject to the rules generally applicable to aviation services
under subparts B through F of part 87 of the Commission's rules, either
in their current form or with modifications. We also seek comment on
whether the NSS service should be subject to rules under part 1,
subpart F, governing Wireless Radio Service applications and
proceedings. In particular, we seek comment on whether to allow
partitioning and disaggregation of NSS licenses in secondary market
transactions as well as spectrum leasing, including whether we should
consider any competitive impacts associated with such transactions.
84. We anticipate that NSS licenses will be used to provide mobile
network services to UAS operators on a commercial basis. Accordingly,
we also seek comment on whether and to what extent we should
incorporate regulations that regulate commercial mobile networks in
other bands, such as the requirements generally applicable to part 27
flexible-use licensees. For example, should we incorporate or apply the
requirements of Sec. 27.52 (RF safety), Sec. 27.56 (antenna structure
height for the protection of air safety), or Sec. 27.64 (protection
from interference)?
85. Other requirements. We seek comment on any other service rules
we should adopt for NSS licensees. For example, to ensure that UA
flights are supported in the event they need to cross license area
boundaries, should we adopt a roaming requirement? If anything more
than market forces is necessary to address this issue, should the
current roaming requirements under Sec. 20.12(e) of the Commission's
rules, requiring commercial mobile data service providers to offer
roaming arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable
terms and conditions, be extended to NSS licensees for this purpose? If
these requirements are sufficient, how and where should we integrate
them in the context of NSS service rules? If they are insufficient,
what additional rules are needed to ensure that UAS operate continually
and safely across licensing areas? We also seek comment on whether to
adopt an interoperability requirement, for example, requiring NSS
equipment to be capable of operating over any part of the 5030-5091 MHz
band dedicated to NSS operations, or requiring support for the entire
band. We further seek comment on whether to impose requirements to
enable seamless switching between NNA and NSS services to support
flights that may need to rely on both modes of spectrum access. Should
we require NSS licensees to provide any other information, including
the manufacturer, model, or other details regarding the UAs that will
be flown? We seek comment on any requirements or other measures that
would promote intensive use of the band. For example, we seek comment
on how we might facilitate use of NSS for both low and high altitude
uses, and whether we should require NSS licensees to support both low
and high altitude uses or should take other steps to ensure that both
low and high uses are supported.
86. Satellite-based networks. We seek comment on whether to
authorize NSS licensees, at their discretion, to provide network-
supported service for UAS CNPC through either a satellite or
terrestrial network, or alternatively, whether the Commission should
provide that certain NSS licenses are dedicated exclusively to
satellite-based service. We seek comment on whether and to what extent
there is interest in the United States in providing a satellite service
for CNPC in the 5030-5091 MHz band, on the costs and benefits of
permitting NSS licensees to deploy satellite services for network-
supported CNPC, and on the advantages and disadvantages of a satellite
option over terrestrial networks in this context.
87. Assuming we permit NSS licensees to deploy satellite-based
service, we seek comment on how to permit and integrate the provision
of such services and on the appropriate service rules. We seek comment
on the application of the Commission's part 25 rules, which govern
satellite communications, to such services, and the extent to which the
rules applicable to terrestrial NSS networks should also apply to
satellite-based NSS networks. We further seek comment on how the DFMS
and other proposals discussed above would work for satellite
communications. For example, how would a DFMS implement opportunistic
access to spectrum in which satellite operations might be deployed? We
also seek comment on how to ensure that any such satellite services are
compatible with both terrestrial NSS and NNA operations in the band and
other in-band and adjacent-band services, and on the circumstances,
requirements, coordination processes, and/or restrictions necessary to
ensure compatibility and to provide the reliability intended for CNPC
in this band. For example, should we permit an NSS licensee to deploy a
satellite service only if the NSS license is nationwide or the licensee
in question has aggregated all geographic area licenses in a particular
block throughout the nation? Are guard bands necessary between blocks
with satellite deployments and blocks used for terrestrial networks or
operations? Footnote 5.443D of the Table of Frequency Allocations
provides that services under the satellite allocation in the 5030-5091
MHz band are subject to coordination under ITU Radio Regulations (R.R.)
No. 9.11A, and that the use of this frequency band by the AMS(R)S is
limited to internationally standardized aeronautical systems. We seek
comment on what rules, if any, we should adopt to implement the
requirements under footnote 5.443D.
88. High-Altitude Platform Stations. We seek comment on whether to
permit NSS licensees to deploy High-altitude Platform Stations (HAPS).
The Commission's rules define a ``High Altitude Platform Station'' as
``[a] station located on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 km and at
a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to the Earth.'' Potentially,
these stations could be used by NSS licensees as a long-range relay of
CNPC between two or more stations, and RTCA DO-362A includes extensive
analysis of such an option, which it refers to as a ``High-altitude
Relay System.'' We seek comment on whether and to what extent there is
current interest in deploying HAPS as all or part of a network solution
for CNPC, on the technical feasibility and commercial viability of the
use of HAPS to provide all or part of a network service in the 5030-
5091 MHz band, and on the costs and benefits of permitting HAPS for
this purpose. To the extent it is feasible and economic, are there
limitations on the circumstances or uses to which it can be applied?
For example, would it be available only to provide relay between two or
more UA, or could it also provide relay between UA and stations on the
ground? We also seek comment on what technical or other requirements or
restrictions are needed either to ensure that NSS use of HAPS to
provide network service would be compatible with other operations and
services or for
[[Page 7924]]
other reasons. For example, we seek comment on whether, consistent with
the definition of HAPS in the Commission's rules, we should specify an
altitude floor and/or ceiling on the use of such stations. Given the
potential footprint of a HAPS-based service, should we permit an NSS
licensee to deploy HAPS only if the NSS licensee holds a nationwide
market or holds all geographic area licenses on a particular block
nationwide? We further seek comment on whether permitting such systems
warrants any revisions to the proposals or options for the NSS rules.
In addition, because the HAPS acting as network relays for UA
communications would also themselves be UA, we seek comment on whether
an NSS licensee's operation of such stations may require CNPC (during
ascent, descent, or otherwise), whether and to what extent such
stations should be permitted to use NNA assignments for CNPC, and if
so, what changes to our NNA proposals or other rules are needed. We
note that No. 4.23 of the ITU Radio Regulations provides that
``[t]ransmissions to or from high altitude platform stations shall be
limited to bands specifically identified in Article 5 (WRC-12).'' At
present, Article 5 does not specifically identify the 5030-5091 MHz
band for this purpose. We seek comment on whether, if we restricted
such stations to deployments below the 20 km floor for HAPS as defined
in the ITU Radio Regulations, permitting HAPS in the band could
nonetheless be consistent with No. 4.23 or if, to permit such use, we
would need to seek a revision to the bands in which HAPS is permitted
under ITU R.R., Article V. We seek comment on whether there is any
other legal constraint or consideration to address in permitting such
use.
8. Equipment Authorization
89. To ensure that equipment in the new band has the level of
reliability and safety required of aviation equipment, we propose to
impose equipment authorization requirements similar to those under
Sec. Sec. 87.145 and 87.147 of the Commission's rules to all equipment
intended for use in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Section 87.145 requires
that each transmitter must be certificated for use in the relevant
service, and Sec. 87.147 establishes a specific equipment
authorization process for part 87 equipment, which, for the frequencies
in the 5030-5091 MHz band among others, requires coordination with the
FAA. We seek comment on our proposals.
9. Protection of Other Services
a. Microwave Landing Systems
90. We seek comment on what measures we should adopt to protect
Federal Microwave Landing System (MLS) services from harmful
interference by UAS communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Should we
establish exclusion zones around the Air Force bases with MLS
deployments, with a process to add or eliminate exclusion zones to the
extent Federal MLS stations are deployed or deactivated? AIA proposes
that the Commission codify the locations at which MLS operations are
conducted and establish a coordination mechanism to enable UAS CNPC
operations near those MLS stations. We seek comment on this option, the
specifics of any such coordination mechanism, and how this or any
option would address the deployment of new Federal MLS stations,
particularly in the case of NSS licensees that may have already
deployed networks in the area of the new deployment.
91. Because we find no current licensed non-Federal MLS systems in
operation, and given that the FAA does not anticipate the future use of
these systems at airports, we seek comment on whether any measures are
necessary to protect non-Federal MLS. We also seek comment on whether
to provide that no future non-Federal MLS licenses (including MLS
radionavigation land test licenses at 5031 MHz) will be granted in the
5030-5091 MHz band by amending Sec. Sec. 87.173(b) and 87.475 of our
part 87 rules to remove the 5030-5091 MHz band as a band that can be
used for non-Federal MLS. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of
this option. Would eliminating the potential for future non-Federal MLS
in the 5030-5091 MHz band help to ensure a stable spectral environment
that may facilitate the use of the band for UAS CNPC? Would it
facilitate the use of the band for other communications, to the extent
such communications may be permitted? Given the development and
widespread adoption of alternative solutions for instrument-based
landing and the apparent abandonment of MLS, is there any need to
preserve the option in our rules for licensing of non-Federal MLS in
this band?
b. Out-of-Band Services
92. Radioastronomy. To address the potential impact on radio
astronomy observations from UAS transmissions in the 5030-5091 MHz
band, NTIA requests that Footnote US211 continue to apply to any
services authorized in the 5030-5091 MHz band. NTIA also recommends
that the Commission require coordination of UAS operations within the
National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ). NTIA further recommends that
``additional criteria'' be developed to minimize UAS impact to
particular radio astronomy sites, particularly from low-altitude
operations, but does not elaborate or propose particular criteria. As a
further measure, NTIA recommends that the requirements for licensees in
the band include passing a test or similar effort to promote awareness
of radio astronomy sites.
93. We seek comment on whether additional measures are necessary to
protect radio astronomy and on NTIA's recommendations in this regard.
We propose, consistent with NTIA's recommendations, to continue to
apply the requirements of Footnote US211 in the 5030-5091 MHz band, to
prohibit UAS operations within the NRQZ without prior coordination with
the NRQZ administrator and, in the case of NNA operations relying on
DFMS assignments, to require the submission of a concurrence from the
NRQZ administrator with any request to a DFMS for frequency assignment
within the NRQZ. We seek comment on these proposals. We note that Sec.
1.924(a) of the Commission's rules establishes required procedures for
licensees and applicants that seek to construct or operate new or
modified fixed stations to coordinate their deployments in the NRQZ.
Should we apply these licensee/applicant procedures for the NRQZ to all
UAS operations relying on the 5030-5091 MHz band in the NRQZ? To the
extent we require NRQZ administrator concurrence for licensed-by-rule
operations, we seek comment on the appropriate procedures to apply. To
the extent measures beyond coordination and concurrence requirements
for UAS operations are warranted, we seek comment on what other
measures are practicable.
94. AeroMACS. AeroMACS is a broadband aeronautical mobile (route)
service system that will enable communications for surface operations
at airports between aircraft and other vehicles and between other
critical fixed assets. The Commission has allocated both the 5000-5030
MHz and 5091-5150 MHz bands for such use but has not yet established
service rules in either band.
95. We seek comment on whether any special measures are necessary
to ensure compatibility between UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz
band and AeroMACS. AIA indicates that RTCA is currently working on a
revision to the AeroMACS technical standard, RTCA DO-346, that will
ensure that future
[[Page 7925]]
AeroMACS deployments will be compatible with CNPC links that are in
compliance with RTCA DO-362A, and that no other special limitations on
5030-5091 MHz operations beyond compliance with RTCA DO-362A are
necessary. More recently, RTCA's Program Management Committee (PMC)
held its June 2022 meeting approving RTCA DO-346A with these revisions.
We seek comment on whether the revised AeroMACS standard and compliance
with the power and out-of-band emission limits of RTCA DO-362A are
adequate measures to protect AeroMACS operations from harmful
interference from 5030-5091 MHz UAS operations, and whether the
revisions to the AeroMACS standard require specific service rules for
the 5030-5091 MHz band. Should we adopt exclusion zones around airports
with AeroMACS deployments, or prohibit use of a certain amount of
spectrum at the edge of the 5030-5091 MHz band in the vicinity of such
airports?
96. Radionavigation-satellite service. The 5010-5030 MHz band also
includes an allocation for the radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS)
(space-to-Earth) for potential future use. Footnote 5.443C of the Table
of Frequency Allocations addresses requirements in the 5030-5091 MHz
band for the protection of RNSS downlinks. Specifically, it provides
that ``[u]nwanted emissions from the aeronautical mobile (R) service in
the frequency band 5030-5091 MHz shall be limited to protect RNSS
system downlinks in the adjacent 5010-5030 MHz band'' and that
``[u]ntil such time that an appropriate value is established in a
relevant ITU-R Recommendation, the e.i.r.p. density limit of -75 dBW/
MHz in the frequency band 5010-5030 MHz for any AM(R)S station unwanted
emission should be used.'' As CNPC services would be part of the AM(R)S
allocation, this requirement applies to such services in the 5030-5091
MHz band. We propose to require 5030-5091 MHz operations to comply with
the specific EIRP spectral density limit specified in Footnote 5.443C
and seek comment on that proposal. Footnote 5.443C further limits
AM(R)S use of the 5030-5091 MHz band to ``internationally standardized
aeronautical systems.'' We seek comment on codifying this requirement
as a service rule and on whether any other measure is necessary to
implement the restriction. We further seek comment on whether any other
special measures applicable to the 5030-5091 MHz band, such as a guard
band at the bottom edge of the 5030-5091 MHz band, should be adopted to
protect RNSS system downlinks.
97. Flight testing. The 5091-5150 MHz band is also allocated for
aeronautical mobile telemetry communications from aircraft stations,
subject to the technical parameters in ITU Resolution 418 (WRC-12)
intended to ensure compatibility with other services. According to
NTIA, Federal agencies currently use this allocation in the 5091-5150
MHz band to support flight testing. We seek comment on whether measures
beyond generally applicable out-of-band emissions limits are necessary
to ensure that 5030-5091 MHz operations are compatible with such
services.
c. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
98. In the event of any adjustments made to the agreements with
Mexico or Canada regarding use of the 5030-5091 MHz band, we note that
our proposed rules, and any rules that may ultimately become effective
pursuant to this proceeding, may need to be modified to comply with
those agreements. We seek comment on whether we should adopt an interim
measure to address UAS communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band that
may cause harmful interference to operations in Mexico or Canada during
the period prior to any adjustments made to the agreements between the
United States, Mexico, and/or Canada regarding use of the band. If so,
what should this interim measure provide?
B. Airborne Use of Flexible-Use Spectrum
99. While the Commission remains committed to allowing flexibility
in the use of existing spectrum and networks, we are uncertain about
the potential interference impacts of UAS use. Therefore, we seek
comment on the adequacy of current rules to ensure co-existence of
existing terrestrial wireless networks and UAS and on the regulatory
solutions that may be necessary to facilitate and encourage such use.
1. Applicable Spectrum Bands
100. The flexible-use spectrum landscape for potential UAS use is
varied, consisting of bands that prohibit airborne use (in the Table of
Frequency Allocations or by rule) and bands that are silent on airborne
operation. For example, parts 22 and 96 explicitly prohibit the
airborne use of Cellular Radiotelephone Service and Citizens Broadband
Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum. Likewise, the Table of Frequency
Allocations precludes aeronautical mobile use for several other
spectrum bands, including all or portions of the 1670-1675 MHz, 1.4
GHz, 2.3 GHz (Wireless Communications Service), and 3.7 GHz bands.
Other flexible-use bands, however, are silent regarding airborne
operations. We seek comment on the spectrum bands that might be
utilized for UAS, as well as the spectrum bands that would not be
suitable for such operation (e.g., frequency bands with co-channel or
adjacent channel services that require protection).
101. To inform our review, commenters should indicate the flexible-
use bands in which they are currently operating or testing UAS. In
addition, we ask commenters to detail the flexible-use band(s) that
they may be interested in using for UAS in the future, including bands
with and without explicit rules or allocations prohibiting airborne
use. We also ask commenters to identify the type of communication
contemplated, e.g., command and control, telemetry, or payload (video,
etc.) for the desired band, as well as the type of technology or
infrastructure needed to support such use.
2. Sufficiency of Existing Rules
102. Certain entities maintain that our existing service and
technical rules for the various flexible-use bands are sufficient to
address the potential for harmful interference from UAS operations.
While our existing rules promote optimal flexibility for licensees,
these rules are largely focused on terrestrial operations and were not
designed with airborne operations in mind. Although studies are
underway to develop techniques to manage and mitigate the increased
risk of harmful interference posed by UAS, at this time it is unclear
whether these mitigation techniques and standards enhancements would be
sufficient to protect existing wireless users and adjacent service
area/band licensees from harmful interference caused by UAS use.
Further, the functionality exhibited by UAs may necessitate revising
our rules to enable UAS operation on existing flexible-use networks. In
light of these interference concerns, we seek comment on whether
modifications to our rules to protect existing terrestrial and other
airborne operations are warranted.
103. Interference mitigation. Use of flexible-use spectrum by UAS
can raise interference problems for co-channel and potentially
adjacent-channel operations--particularly the high-density use that is
expected to occur in the future. The impact of UAs on mobile networks
is different than conventional mobile devices due to the high altitude
[[Page 7926]]
and high mobility of UAs. The higher altitude of UAs means that they
(1) can see and be seen by more base stations than a conventional
mobile device; and (2) have more favorable propagation conditions than
propagation experienced by terrestrial operations. In addition, this
high mobility, coupled with moving velocities up to 100 miles per hour
under current FAA restrictions, can result in base station handoff
issues and other network issues as described in detail below. These
factors underlie two scenarios in which harmful interference can occur
in the presence of UAS operating on flexible-use spectrum--downlink
interference and uplink interference.
104. In the downlink--communications from the base station to UAs--
the UAs may operate at an altitude that is within line of sight of
multiple base stations and, as a result, the UAs can receive downlink
interference from those base stations. Accordingly, UAs may experience
more downlink interference than terrestrial user equipment because the
enhanced propagation conditions and greater line-of-sight cause
downlink interference resulting from the multiple base stations visible
to, and attempting to connect to, the UA. The increased downlink
interference leads to increased resource utilization levels in the
network and eventually degrades the downlink performance of both
airborne and terrestrial equipment.
105. At the same time, in the uplink--communications from the UA to
the base station--the same UA can also cause interference to these
multiple line-of-sight base stations. Uplink interference could
increase as more UAs are introduced into the network. This interference
may also increase depending on the UA's intended uses. For example, UAs
may generate more uplink traffic than is typical of conventional mobile
devices due to the use of data rate-intensive applications, such as
video streaming and data streaming; such applications increase spectrum
demand and present an increased risk of uplink interference. The
increased uplink interference from UAs affects the throughput
performance of terrestrial user equipment: as the number of UAs
operating in a network increases, uplink resource utilization in the
network also increases and at a greater rate than terrestrial-only
operation. Eventually, the uplink performance of both UA and
terrestrial equipment in the network is degraded.
106. To support use of UAS in terrestrial mobile networks, in 2017,
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) published a technical report
(TR36.777) investigating the ability for UAs to be served using
terrestrial LTE networks. The report's findings--which were based on
the analysis of field trials performed by various companies analyzing
LTE commercial network performance with the introduction of UAs--
validated that downlink and uplink interference may result from UAS
operation. The report proposed various network and UA enhancements to
minimize LTE throughput degradation and interference to the network and
to UAs and terrestrial devices.
107. TR36.777 confirmed the effect that UAS operations may have on
downlink operations. The report observed that UAs uniformly distributed
between 1.5 meters and 300 meters above ground level experienced
downlink interference as a direct result of the UAs operating in the
direct line-of-sight of more cells than terrestrial user equipment.
This causes the UAs to receive downlink intercell interference from
multiple cells. The resulting increase in resource utilization to
provide for the introduction of UAs further decreases the spectral
efficiency in the network and degrades downlink throughput performance
of both UAs and terrestrial user equipment.
108. The report similarly validated impacts on uplink interference.
To this end, it also was observed that since the UAs experience line-
of-sight propagation conditions to more cells than terrestrial devices,
the UAs would cause interference to more cells in the uplink than a
typical terrestrial device. The uplink interference caused by UAs
degrades the throughput performance of terrestrial devices. The
increase in resource utilization level further increases interference
in the network, which in turn degrades the uplink throughput
performance of both UAs and terrestrial user equipment.
109. The report suggested several potential solutions to mitigate
both uplink and downlink interference. Many of the solutions can be
implemented by network providers independently and do not require an
update to the 3GPP standard. To mitigate downlink interference, the
report proposed the following solutions:
Full-Dimensional MIMO (FD-MIMO)--This solution would use
multiple antennas at the eNodeB (base station) transmitter to mitigate
the interference in the downlink to UAs. FD-MIMO can also limit the
mean terrestrial user equipment (UE) packet throughput loss.
Directional Antenna at UAs--Interference in the downlink
can be mitigated by equipping UAs with a directional antenna instead of
an omnidirectional antenna. A directional antenna can be used to
mitigate the interference in the downlink to UAs by decreasing the
interference power coming from a broad range of angles.
Receive Beamforming at UAs--The UAs are assumed to be
equipped with more than two receive antennas to mitigate the
interference in the downlink to UAs. Downlink interference mitigation
can be achieved in this case by using receive beamforming at UAs. In
this solution, multiple cells belonging to the same site are
coordinated and data is jointly transmitted to the UAs.
Intra-Site Joint Transmission Coordinated Multi-Point
Operation (JT CoMP)--In this solution, multiple cells are coordinated
and data is jointly transmitted to the UAs.
Coverage Extension--In this solution, coverage extension
techniques via downlink shared channels, physical broadcast channels,
and physical downlink shared channels are used to enhance
synchronization and initial access for UAs. Because the UA is
synchronized with the network, downlink interference is mitigated.
Coordinated Data and Control Transmission--In this
solution, multiple cells belonging to the same or different sites are
coordinated. Data, common signal/channels (e.g., synchronization signal
and Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH)), and control channels can be
jointly transmitted to the UAs. The coordinated cells could construct a
larger cell for UAs, and terrestrial user equipment is served by
physical cells without coordination, simultaneously. A dedicated
downlink resource within the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)
region of the coordinated cells can be reserved for these coordinated
transmissions.
110. The report proposed the following techniques to mitigate
uplink interference:
User Equipment Specific Fractional Pathloss Compensation
Factor--In this solution, an enhancement to the existing open loop
power control mechanism is considered where a device-specific
fractional pathloss compensation factor is introduced.
User Equipment Specific Power Output Parameter--
Configuring a lower power output for UAs compared to terrestrial
devices improves terrestrial uplink user equipment throughput
performance. Such a configuration, however, reduces UA uplink
throughput.
Closed Loop Power Control--In this solution, the target
received powers for the UAs are adjusted. By applying
[[Page 7927]]
closed loop power control, mean terrestrial user equipment uplink
throughput improvement can be improved.
Full-Dimensional MIMO (FD-MIMO)--By using FD-MIMO with
multiple antennas at the eNB receiver interference in the uplink can be
mitigated. In addition, FD-MIMO can limit the mean terrestrial user
equipment packet throughput loss.
111. In addition to TR 36.777, 3GPP made changes to Technical
Standard TS36.331 to help address UA interference to the base station.
In LTE networks, measurement reports are messages sent from a UA to a
base station that help the base station make network decisions. The
changes to TS36.331 included measurement report triggers for two
reporting events: H1 (above) and H2 (below) UA height thresholds sent
from the UA to the base station to help the base station see the UA and
to deal with potential interference. 3GPP is also making additional
enhancements to integrate UAS into LTE networks that do not relate to
interference.
112. While the 3GPP TR 36.777 report concluded that it is feasible
to use existing LTE networks to provide UA connectivity, the report and
its findings have their limitations. The 3GPP quantitative analyses for
Release 15 evaluated only the self-network performance impact of
various potential solutions to interference detection and mitigation.
Moreover, the technical solutions identified do not eliminate the
interference from UAs, they merely reduce the levels of interference.
The report also noted that interference challenges become more visible
when the density of UAs increases. Beyond these limitations, the report
did not evaluate the interference potential and impact on neighboring
wireless networks or other radio services in the vicinity of UAS
operation, nor did it evaluate the costs associated with the proposed
technical solutions. As a result, there are open questions about the
level of interference that licensees may experience and deem acceptable
from neighboring licensees deploying UAS, the mitigation measures that
may be necessary, and the costs licensees are willing to absorb to
protect themselves from interference. Thus, the current 3GPP studies,
while a valuable start, point to the need to address additional UAS
interference issues.
113. Given that it appears that UAS operations within a single
terrestrial mobile network will likely result in an increased level of
intra-network interference and decreased network efficiency, it is also
likely that adjacent markets and networks will be affected by UAS
operations. While we seek to provide licensees with as much flexibility
as possible to deploy a wide range of services and applications,
including UAS, the increased risk of harmful interference from such
operations is a concern. Neighboring licensees, whether they deploy or
decide not to deploy UAS/airborne technologies, will be impacted and
may be required to implement protections for their own networks. A
difficult situation may arise for all parties when adjacent licensees--
both of which are operating within the Commission's rules--reach an
impasse regarding interference, and the failure to reach a resolution
may detrimentally affect operations for one or both licensees.
114. We seek comment on how licensees deploying UAS technologies
could protect licensees in neighboring markets and neighboring spectrum
bands from interference. Some flexible-use licensees planning to deploy
airborne technology (e.g., UAS) may believe that such use is not
problematic from an interference standpoint because they may assume
that (1) all licensees will deploy the same technology, (2) all
terrestrial networks are equally prepared to protect themselves, and
(3) other potentially incompatible airborne technologies will not also
be deployed. While this best-case scenario may turn out to be true as
the market for airborne services develops, our rules must be expansive
enough to account for the increased potential for harmful interference.
Our rules should, at a minimum, set out a framework for UAS operations
that is broad enough to account for varying interference scenarios. For
these reasons, we seek comment on whether our rules can accommodate UAS
operations while also protecting co-channel and adjacent band
operations, including satellite operations, where permitted. In
addition, we seek comment on changes to our rules that may be necessary
to accommodate these scenarios.
115. For example, the power limitations for mobile devices vary
depending on the service. For the personal communications services
(PCS) band, the limit is 2 Watts EIRP. Hand-held stations operating in
the 698-757 MHz, 776-788 MHz, 805-806 MHz, and 600 MHz uplink band are
limited to 3 Watts Effective Radiated Power (ERP). Are these and other
power limitations for mobile devices in the flexible-use bands
appropriate for UAS operation? Considering the increased interference
potential of UAS, should the power limitations for UAs be lower than
for terrestrial devices?
116. Additionally, for many services, a licensee's predicted or
measured median field strength limit must be calculated and may not be
exceeded at any given point along its service area boundary. These
limits were developed considering only terrestrial devices. With the
introduction of UAS, how will licensees ensure these boundary limits
are not exceeded? Are the current limits sufficient to protect the
boundary of a neighboring licensee on the same or adjacent channel
block? Can a UAS report and store power control and location metrics to
ensure boundary limits are not exceeded?
117. As noted, the higher the altitude at which UAs are operating,
the greater the number of line of sight paths between a UA and
surrounding base stations, and thus the greater the potential impact on
adjacent networks. We seek comment on the altitudes that are being
considered for UA operations involving flexible-use spectrum. Will
operations on these bands likely be limited to low altitudes such as
400 feet above ground level (AGL), or is it anticipated that UAS use on
flexible-use bands will include operations at higher altitudes such as
10,000 feet AGL or greater? Given the increased potential for
interference at high altitudes, should the Commission impose altitude
restrictions on UAS operations using flexible-use spectrum?
118. Further, it is not clear whether existing out-of-band
emissions rules adequately account for the favorable line-of-sight
propagation conditions associated with UAS. Should such rules be
modified to account for UAS operations in flexible-use spectrum, and if
so, how? We seek comment on these and other technical rules that should
be evaluated and perhaps revised to facilitate the use of flexible-use
bands for UAS.
119. To inform our analysis regarding whether rule revisions may be
necessary, we seek technical studies and analyses regarding the
potential for UAS operations to cause interference to adjacent channel,
adjacent band, or adjacent market operations. Among other issues, these
studies and analyses should address how licensees deploying UAS
technologies plan to protect terrestrial or satellite licensees in
neighboring markets or spectrum bands from harmful interference. We
request comment on the challenges and issues that carriers have
experienced when testing or deploying UAS operations relative to the
carrier's own terrestrial wireless network. What solutions have
carriers developed or are carriers developing to address those
challenges, specifically, the hardware, software,
[[Page 7928]]
processes required, as well as the costs entailed in deploying such
solutions? What UAS altitude and UA density assumptions have been used
to analyze deployment challenges and protection of neighbors? Are these
solutions to be implemented applicable to the UA, or are they network-
based? For licensees employing LTE, can the solutions identified in the
3GPP TR36.777 Report be applied to resolve interference issues within
the network and to adjacent networks? Given that flexible-use spectrum
licensees may deploy networks other than LTE, what additional
interference issues may be encountered and what are the technical
solutions that could be applied, given that there may be varying levels
of compatibility with airborne technologies? We note that some areas,
such as Quiet Zones require the application of more stringent measures
to reduce the potential for interference; how will licensees continue
to protect such areas when operating at higher altitudes? Are there
network-based solutions being developed that could prevent individual
UAs from approaching or entering such noise-sensitive locations or
other restricted areas that would mitigate the potential for UAs to
cause interference or endanger safety of life and property in such
areas? We also seek comment on any other regulatory matters that may be
affected by UAS operations. For example, will UAS/airborne technologies
affect other regulatory requirements like 911 location accuracy?
120. Different Use Cases. Our regulatory approach with respect to
flexible-use bands is to provide licensees with sufficient flexibility
to choose the services that they wish to provide. Licensees could offer
a wide range of services and applications, ranging from
``conventional'' command and control (C2) and payload offerings to UTM
management services. This ability of licensees to engage in a wide
range of use cases creates additional technical uncertainty when
deploying UAS operations. We seek comment on the airborne use cases
that commenters are considering for flexible-use spectrum. Is there a
need for specific rules to permit different applications? Further,
should licensees that incorporate UAS operations be required to meet
different limitations than what currently exist?
121. One application being explored is the use of UAs as airborne
base stations. HAPS systems can potentially be used to provide both
fixed broadband connectivity for end users and transmission links
between the mobile and core networks for backhauling traffic. As noted,
the Commission's rules--as well as ITU Radio Regulations--define HAPS
as radio stations located on an object at an altitude of 12-31 miles
(20-50 kilometers) and at a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to
the Earth.
122. We note that the Commission is currently considering whether
HAPS or other stratospheric-based services could be used in any portion
of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-94 GHz, and 94.1-95 GHz (70/80/90 GHz)
bands to provide or support broadband internet access. Are there
flexible-use bands that could potentially accommodate such use? Would
such use be compatible with ``conventional'' UAS and terrestrial,
flexible-use operations given the potential impact that such high
altitude use could have on other operations in the band? If so, what
rule changes or regulatory considerations would be necessary to permit
such uses?
123. Other examples of airborne base station platforms include the
use of tethered UAS, which typically are UAs physically connected to
the ground via cables that provide power and data links to the UAs. We
are aware that there has been research and development in the use of
tethered UAS as temporary base stations, particularly as part of
disaster recovery efforts. What issues are raised by the use of
tethered UAS temporary base stations? If the station is essentially
functioning as a conventional base station, should the existing rules
applicable to the particular band be applied? Or is it necessary to
apply other service and technical parameters, e.g., antenna height and
power output? What additional concerns are raised where tethered UAS
base stations as well as HAPS are deployed? Further, what would be the
impact of a mobile airborne base station on airborne user equipment
(i.e., UAS)? What changes or additions to our rules are necessary to
address such concerns?
124. Elimination of Rules Which Impede UAS. In its Final Report,
the Beyond Visual Line of Sight Aviation Rulemaking Committee (BVLOS
ARC) recommended that the Commission reconsider the restrictions on
airborne use that apply to certain spectrum bands. The BVLOS ARC Final
Report noted that beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations require that
spectrum bands with appropriate characteristics are sufficiently
available to meet the needs of numerous users operating in a variety of
operating environments. Similarly, the Technological Advisory Council
(TAC) has noted that the Commission should reassess the technical basis
for prohibiting use of certain terrestrial mobile bands above ground
level. To the extent that measures can be identified that resolve or
mitigate the impact of UAS use on adjacent operations, we seek comment
on whether current prohibitions on airborne operations should be
removed. For example, the Cellular Radiotelephone Service airborne use
prohibition in Sec. 22.925 was put in place specifically because of
the heightened risk of interference by airborne mobiles to cellular
networks. Can such operations be protected in the presence of UAS use?
If solutions are developed that effectively mitigate the increased
potential for harmful interference posed by UAS use, should UAS
operations be permitted in Cellular Radiotelephone Service or other
bands? Are there certain noise-restricted bands that must retain the
prohibition regardless of any UAS interference mitigation measures? If
a commenter seeks to eliminate or modify an existing prohibition, the
commenter should specifically explain why the airborne use would not
cause harmful interference to a co-channel or adjacent channel
licensee's operations.
125. Canadian and Mexican Coordination. The use of UAS will likely
have an impact in areas beyond United States borders. There are several
agreements that address use of the flexible-use bands in the border
regions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These agreements
do not contemplate UAS use. Because UAS operation in these bands would
increase the interference potential in the border regions, commenters
should be aware that UAS use may not be permitted in border areas until
such time as the agreements are updated to accommodate such use, or
agreements on such use are reached with both countries. We seek comment
on how to address issues arising from UAS use in the border regions
pending any changes to existing agreements.
3. UAS Impact on Spectrum Rights
126. The Commission's rules largely presume that wireless networks
are terrestrial in nature, which raises questions regarding the extent
of spectrum rights granted as part of existing commercial
authorizations. Pursuant to the Communications Act and the Commission's
rules, the Commission grants licensees the right to operate radio
systems on a particular radio frequency. In some services, such as
those with allocations prohibiting aeronautical mobile use, it can be
presumed that a licensee only has rights with respect to ground-based
operations. Likewise, other services have technical rules which suggest
that
[[Page 7929]]
only terrestrial networks were contemplated for those services. By
contrast, rules for geographic market-based licenses define market
areas according to geographic boundaries, but they are silent as to the
vertical scope of such markets. The Commission has never explicitly
stated what it believes to be the vertical limit of a licensee's
spectrum rights, leaving a question as to the ``ceiling'' of license
areas and the attendant protections associated with these geographic
markets. As the interference discussion above highlights, however,
market boundaries become crucial at higher altitudes.
127. The ability of a licensee to exercise or protect its spectrum
rights with respect to adjacent licensees becomes relevant in the
context of UAS use, given that the operation of UAs well within the
boundaries of one license area can affect and be affected by base
stations located inside the boundaries of another license area--more so
than for conventional mobile operation. UAs will have line-of-sight
connectivity to base stations both within the geographic market area
where the UA is flying, as well as base stations in other adjacent
geographic areas. The potential for a UA to establish a network
connection with a base station in an adjacent market causes a tension
between Commission policies: (1) a licensee's authorization generally
provides the licensee exclusive use of the spectrum within its licensed
market area; and (2) historically, our rules consider mobile devices to
be operating under the authority of the licensee whose transmitter is
providing service. UA operation creates a tension between these two
policies because a UA can be served by a transmitter that is well
outside of the licensee's market boundary. The greater line-of-sight of
UAs could extend the reach of a transmitter further into an adjacent
market, thus muddling the concept of license exclusivity.
128. This aspect of UAS use raises questions regarding how and
under what circumstances a licensee is able to enforce rights under its
license. For example, it may be difficult to determine UAS operation as
a cause of interference to a network because such operation is
intermittent and because the effect may vary depending on the position
and movement of the UA. Moreover, even if UAS operation is determined
to be a cause of interference, the offending licensee is likely to be
operating within the Commission's rules regarding conventional mobile
operations. This poses questions regarding the circumstances under
which the ``victim'' licensee, i.e., the licensee experiencing harmful
interference, may seek relief from the Commission where both entities
are compliant with service rules.
129. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
identify a vertical limit at which flexible-use licenses may be used to
support UAS on an exclusive or primary basis. Use beyond this limit
would be on a non-primary basis. ``Non-primary'' in this context would
mean that a licensee would be required to cure harmful interference to
an adjacent licensee caused by its UAS operation even if it is
operating within the rules. First, is it appropriate to establish a
vertical limit for primary UAS operations in our rules? If we adopt a
limit, what should that limit be? What factors should the Commission
consider regarding a vertical limit for licensed UAS operations?
130. Second, we seek comment on how to determine whether a licensee
should be required to cure harmful interference caused by its non-
primary operations to adjacent licensees even if it is operating within
the service rules for the license. How should we determine whether an
entity should be obligated to take corrective measures, as there may be
scenarios in which it could be difficult to determine fault? We request
comment on how licensees should be able to enforce their license
rights. What interference resolution mechanism would be appropriate?
B. Licensing UAS Operators for VHF Communications
131. The aeronautical VHF band (117.975 MHz-137 MHz) is used by
aviation for air traffic control and advisory communications among
other aviation-safety purposes. In some instances, to ensure the safety
of the National Airspace System, the FAA requires operators of UAS to
communicate with air traffic control (ATC) facilities when operating on
or in the vicinity of an airport or operating in controlled airspace
over the VHF traffic control and advisory frequencies. To meet this
requirement, operators may use a VHF station integrated into the UA
itself whereby the UAS operator's control station connects with the UA
using a non-VHF channel and the UA completes the connection to ATC over
the normal VHF channels. This approach is commonly referred to as ATC
relay. Implementation of ATC relay in UA technology is still nascent
and UAS operators have, therefore, continued to rely on ground-based
VHF stations. The part 87 aviation service rules governing the use of
the aeronautical VHF band do not, however, provide a licensing
mechanism for the operator of a UAS to obtain a ground-based station
license. Accordingly, UAS operator requests for such authorization are
currently handled by special temporary authority on a case-by-case
basis. We propose to establish a mechanism by which UAS operators may
apply for a regular license for this purpose, with appropriate
requirements, restrictions, and conditions to maintain the integrity of
the band and service legitimate needs for flight coordination.
132. Although aeronautical VHF stations are generally licensed by
rule under part 87 if the aircraft does not make international flights
or communications, we do not propose to authorize ground-based VHF
stations under a licensed-by-rule approach. Rather, under our proposal,
we would require operators to file a license application with the
Commission for an individual license covering their VHF station. Given
the potential number of UAS operators, we have concerns that a
licensed-by-rule approach applied to these operators' stations in the
VHF band could endanger this critical and limited amount of
aeronautical spectrum and the safety of the National Airspace System.
133. In addition, given the wide availability of inexpensive, off-
the-shelf VHF hand-held radios that can be easily operated without
training, we are concerned about the greater potential for parties to
obtain and use ground stations on a licensed-by-rule basis to contact
ATC, because they may not have adequate training for such
communications. We are further concerned that licensed-by-rule
operators would be difficult to identify during communications with ATC
or afterwards in the event of problems. We tentatively conclude that
ground stations for VHF communications should not be licensed by rule,
and seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusion.
134. While we typically do not individually license aircraft
stations operating on VHF for domestic flights and communications, we
seek comment on licensing ATC relay operations. ATC relay
implementation is currently in its nascent stage, however we expect
relay operations to increase with a corresponding increase in UA
operations near airports and in controlled airspace. Given that ATC
relay and ground-based VHF stations will both be used to communicate
with ATC, are there inherent differences between ground radio operators
and relay operators for the purpose of the communications? Is there a
reason to expect operators using ATC relay
[[Page 7930]]
stations are better trained for such communications? Are there other
licensing related issues that we should consider that make relay
systems unique?
135. We seek to adopt a licensing mechanism that addresses these
concerns and maintains the integrity of the band while also meeting the
legitimate needs of certain UAS operators for communications in the VHF
band. To achieve these goals, we propose several measures below. We
seek comment on these measures, and on any alternative approaches that
would provide a regular licensing mechanism that meets the Commission's
goals.
136. First, we propose to individually license ground stations for
UAS operator communication with control towers and other aircraft
pilots under a new category of licensed station, an Unmanned Aircraft
Operator VHF Ground Station, and to define the new station as ``a
station on the ground providing unmanned aircraft pilot radio
communication relating to safety and regularity of flight on air
traffic control, flight service station, unicom, or multicom
frequencies.'' Individual licensing will enable the Commission to
identify authorized operators, identify unauthorized users, and aid in
resolving instances of harmful interference. Accordingly, under this
proposal, parties will be required to submit individual license
applications. We propose that parties use the FCC Form 605, which is
used generally for, inter alia, authorizations for stations in the
``aircraft service,'' and we seek comment on whether any modifications
to the form are necessary or helpful to facilitate its use for this
purpose.
137. Second, we propose to provide that these stations may operate
over all air traffic control, flight service station, aeronautical
advisory station (unicom), and aeronautical multicom station (multicom)
channels authorized for use by aircraft. We seek comment on which
specific channels to cover for this purpose.
138. Third, we propose to permit mobile stations (stations intended
to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points), and
we further seek comment on whether to permit non-mobile stations as
well. To the extent parties support the inclusion of non-mobile
stations, we seek comment on whether coverage of such stations for
communications between two non-mobile sites (i.e., the operator's fixed
VHF station and air traffic control) is consistent with the
aeronautical mobile and aeronautical mobile (route) allocations
applicable to the air traffic control frequencies.
139. Fourth, we propose to require that license applications
include an endorsement from the FAA. An endorsement must be included in
a written document issued by the FAA, such as a Certificate of Approval
(COA). We propose to provide that a license will not be issued without
an FAA endorsement. We further propose that the approved license will
be subject to any restrictions or conditions specified on the FAA
endorsement. While licenses under part 87 are normally issued for 10
years, we seek comment on whether to provide that license terms for
these stations will be the lesser of 10 years or the duration of the
FAA endorsement, if any is specified. We further seek comment on
whether a party seeking license renewal should be required to submit a
new FAA written endorsement.
140. Finally, we propose to adopt a clarification of Sec. 87.18
that will make clear that licensing by rule continues to apply to UAS
aircraft stations, such as the VHF stations used for ATC relay. As
discussed above, while we seek comment on whether the concerns that
underlie our proposal that a UAS operator's ground-based VHF stations
should be individually licensed warrant the same approach for UAS
aircraft stations, we are not proposing at this time to require
individual licensing for those UAS aircraft stations used for VHF
communications. To avoid any confusion as to the continued application
of licensing by rule to such stations that might result from our
proposal to license a UAS operator's ground-based VHF station
individually, we propose to clarify in Sec. 87.18(b) that licensing by
rule applies to aircraft stations, whether ``manned or unmanned.''
141. We believe these steps will help to promote the safe
integration of UAS into the National Airspace System, while maintaining
the integrity of the aeronautical VHF band. We request comment on these
proposals and alternatives. We seek comment on whether a provision
enabling UAS operators to license ground-based stations to communicate
over the aeronautical VHF band is necessary or if instead we should
continue to address requests for authorization for ground-based
stations on a case-by-case basis. If providing a mechanism for
licensing of ground-based VHF stations is warranted, we seek comment on
whether the proposed rules adequately address this need or unduly
restrict the ability of UAS operators to communicate with ATC or with
manned aircraft. Conversely, we seek comment on whether the proposal is
too broad, and whether we should further restrict the circumstances
under which UAS operators may obtain licensed ground stations to use
the aeronautical VHF band. We also request comment on whether the FAA's
planned integration of the Next Gen Data Communications system into the
136-137 MHz band or other innovations have any current or future effect
on this need, including whether they may alter the frequencies that a
future UAS operator needs to use to communicate with ATC or otherwise
warrant modifications to our proposal.
142. We further seek comment on the appropriate technical and
operational requirements for the new category of station, and whether
we should generally require such stations to comply with the technical
and operational requirements applicable to aircraft stations licensed
in the same frequency, or if any additional or alternate requirements
should be adopted. In particular, we note that, under Sec. 87.89 of
the Commission's rules, operators of aviation service stations are
generally required to hold a commercial radio operator license or
permit, and that the operator license or permit requires passing a
requisite knowledge test. The rule also specifies, however, that no
operator license is required to ``[o]perate a VHF telephony transmitter
providing domestic service or used on domestic flights.'' We seek
comment on whether a UAS operator's VHF communications with ATC would
constitute the operation of a VHF telephony transmitter providing
domestic service or used on domestic flights, and if so, whether we
should create an exception to this provision and provide that UAS
operators that operate a licensed Unmanned Aircraft Operator Ground VHF
Station must have a commercial radio operator license. Should we
specify an alternative permit or training requirement for such
operators?
143. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals in
this document may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and
[[Page 7931]]
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
II. Procedural Matters
144. Ex parte presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 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.
145. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact
the rule and policy changes addressed in this document.
146. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains
proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 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), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
147. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA, including comments on any alternatives.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
148. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on several rule amendments
to address the growing need of the operators of UAS for access to
licensed spectrum. Together, the proposals and the measures upon which
the NPRM seeks comment will help further the development and promote
the growth and safety of UAS operations.
149. First, the NPRM seeks comment on service rules for the 5030-
5091 MHz band that will provide UAS operators with access to licensed
spectrum with the reliability necessary to support safety-critical UAS
communications links. The Commission's objective in this proceeding is
to provide UAS operators with access to an additional spectrum resource
that may complement other spectrum resources that are currently
available or in development.
150. Second, due to the increasing interest in operating UAS using
existing terrestrial flexible-use spectrum networks, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether the Commission's rules are adequate to ensure co-
existence of terrestrial mobile operations and UAS use or whether
changes to our rules are necessary. To this end, it seeks comment on
the sufficiency of the current flexible-use rules to prevent
interference to and from UAS operations, and on whether the Commission
can eliminate the current prohibitions on airborne operations
applicable to certain of these flexible-use bands.
151. Third, to further promote the safe integration of unmanned
aircraft operations in controlled airspace and facilitate flight
coordination, the NPRM proposes a process for UAS operators to obtain a
VHF license to communicate with air traffic control and other aircraft.
B. Legal Basis
152. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4,
301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
153. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Below is a list of such entities.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers.
Satellite Telecommunications Providers.
Other Telecommunications Providers.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturers.
Unmanned Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers.
Unmanned Aircraft System Operators.
[[Page 7932]]
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
154. The NPRM proposes to adopt a band plan and service rules for
the 5030-5091 MHz band to enable small and other UAS operators, to
access interference-protected spectrum for control-and-non-payload
communications (CNPC) links, and seeks comment on various options. We
expect the proposals and service rules upon which we seek comment in
the NPRM will impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/
or other compliance obligations on small and other UA operators for
access and use of the 5030-5091 MHz band spectrum. At this time
however, the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance and
cannot determine whether small entities will have to hire professionals
to comply with the rule changes that may be adopted in this proceeding.
Below we discuss proposals in the NPRM and their potential compliance
requirements for small and other entities to operate in the 5030-5091
MHz band.
155. The Band Plan. The NPRM proposes to partition the 5030-5091
MHz band to accommodate both non-networked radio-line-of-sight--or Non-
Networked Access (NNA)--use cases, which can rely on direct
communication links between an operator's controller and the unmanned
aircraft (UA), and beyond-radio-line-of-sight--or Network-Supported
Service (NSS)--use cases, which typically depend on network
infrastructure to support communications between the operator and the
UA. The NPRM proposes to dedicate a minimum of 10 megahertz of spectrum
for NNA operations, and seeks comment on various options for the
remaining 51 megahertz of spectrum, including dedicating 40 megahertz
of spectrum for network-based NSS operations by dividing the spectrum
into 4 licensed blocks of 10 megahertz each, and providing 11 megahertz
for temporary additional spectrum available to either NNA-based
operators or NSS licensees. The NPRM further proposes to permit only
CNPC in the band, to define CNPC as any UAS transmission that is sent
to or from the UA component of the UAS and that supports the safety or
regularity of the UA's flight. It further proposes to provide that any
entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications
Act, will be eligible to obtain a 5030-5091 MHz NNA station or obtain a
5030-5091 MHz NSS license, and seeks comment on similarly restricting
the eligibility of entities to operate NNA stations using assignments
from a DFMS.
156. Dynamic Frequency Management System. The NPRM proposes that
access to the band be managed by one or more dynamic frequency
management systems (DFMSs). A DFMS would be a frequency coordination
system that, in response to requests from registered NNA users, would
determine and assign to the requesting user, through an automated (non-
manual) process, temporary use of certain frequencies for a particular
geographic area and time period tailored to the user's submitted flight
plan. The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate regulatory framework to
establish for a DFMS, including what requirements should be imposed on
UAS operators in the band to help ensure a DFMS's ability to provide
interference-free access. Among other possible requirements, the NPRM
seeks comment on what information the operator should be required to
provide regarding ground stations and unmanned aircraft stations,
including whether an active UAS in the band should be required to
submit information required by FAA's Remote ID rule, or some subset or
variation of the information, and whether a UAS should be required to
communicate to the DFMS, in real time or within a certain period of
time of the relevant event, the initiation and termination of the
flight or, alternatively, the initiation and termination of the
operator's use of the assigned frequencies. Both of these potential
rules would likely have reporting implications for small and other UAS
operators, if adopted. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to
require UAS operators to register with a DFMS as a pre-condition of
receiving NNA assignments and to provide certain information with such
registration, which could also impact recordkeeping and reporting
obligations. The NPRM proposes to authorize the administrator of a DFMS
to charge UAS operators reasonable fees for its provision of services,
including registration and channel assignment services, and to permit
parties to petition the Commission to review fees and require changes
if they are found to be excessive.
157. NNA Service Rules. The NPRM proposes to adopt service rules
for NNA operations, including rules for licensing and technical
requirements, and seeks comment broadly on the licensing regime or
mechanism to enable authorization of NNA operations in the 5030-5091
MHz band and the costs and benefits of any proposed approach. For the
licensing of stations in NNA spectrum, the NPRM proposes to adopt a
licensed-by-rule authorization for aircraft and ground stations in the
band. For technical requirements, the NPRM proposes to adopt the
technical standard RTCA DO-362A or technical requirements based on this
standard, which contains Minimum Operational Performance Standards for
terrestrial-based (i.e., non-satellite) CNPC point-to-point or point-
to-multipoint links in the 5030-5091 MHz band, including power limits,
emission limits, and frequency accuracy requirements. In both the
licensing eligibility and technical standards requirement discussions,
we inquire whether to impose certification requirements that would
likely be filed with the Commission, thereby impacting reporting
requirements for users of the 5030-5091 MHz band.
158. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether any of the general
technical requirements in subpart D of part 87 of the Commission's
rules should apply to NNA equipment, and whether to adopt any other
requirements on NNA equipment to facilitate a DFMS's ability to
communicate with or otherwise control such equipment in the execution
of the DFMS's responsibilities. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on
the potential application of the generally applicable rules in subparts
B through F of part 87, including whether to require each UAS operator
using an NNA assignment in the 5030-5091 MHz band to have an operator
license or permit. It further seeks comment on whether the new service
should be subject to rules under part 1, subpart F, governing
``Wireless Radio Service'' applications and proceedings. The
application and/or incorporation of existing rules under part 87 or any
other part of the Commission's rules would subject NNA users of the
5030-5091 MHz band to any applicable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under those rules unless explicitly excluded in the final
rules.
159. NSS Service Rules. The NPRM also seeks comment on service
rules for NSS licenses, including rules addressing, in particular,
whether to issue geographic area defined licenses for a specific term
of years, with rights of renewal. More specifically, the NPRM seeks
comment on rules addressing (1) the geographic area scheme for
licenses, (2) the appropriate initial and subsequent license terms, (3)
performance requirements, (4) license renewal framework, and (5)
technical and operational requirements.
160. For the geographic area of licenses, the NPRM seeks comment on
whether to adopt larger licenses areas such as Regional Economic Area
Groupings, a more granular scheme
[[Page 7933]]
such as Partial Economic Areas, or a geographic division of the country
developed specifically for aviation purposes. The NPRM proposes to
issue NSS licenses for an initial 15-year term, and to limit subsequent
terms to 10 years. The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate standard
for license renewal, and on whether the regulatory renewal framework
for commercial geographic licensees of wireless radio services under
part 1 of the Commission's rules is appropriate for NSS licensees. The
NPRM also seeks comment on performance requirements, such as a
requirement to cover 80 percent of the population within 12 years of
license grant, and 45 percent coverage of the population within six
years of license grant. For compliance demonstration, the NPRM proposes
to adopt a process similar to compliance rules applicable to part 27
licensees, requiring licensees to file a construction notification with
the Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable
benchmark, including submission of electronic coverage maps accurately
depicting the boundaries of the licensed area and the boundaries of the
actual areas to which the licensee provides service. For enforcement,
the NPRM proposes that if a licensee fails to meet the final
performance requirement, the license authorization will terminate
automatically without specific Commission action, and that failure to
meet the interim requirement would result in the reduction by two years
of both the due date for the final performance requirement and the
license term.
161. In the event that the Commission receives mutually exclusive
license applications for NSS licenses, the NPRM proposes to assign
these exclusive use licenses through a system of competitive bidding.
Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the Commission has
used in previous auctions, the NPRM proposes to conduct any auction for
geographic area 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. For small entities, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to make
bidding credits available for eligible small businesses and rural
service providers.
162. The NPRM also seeks comment on appropriate technical
requirements for NSS licenses, and whether the technical standard RTCA
DO-362A or equivalent technical parameters should also apply to NSS
licenses. As an alternative to requiring NSS licensee compliance with
the RTCA DO-362A standard generally, the NPRM also seeks comment on
whether there are certain specific requirements of RTCA DO-362A that
the Commission should minimally impose on NSS licensees to ensure
compatibility with NNA operations, or for other purposes, such as the
Time Division Duplex requirements of the RTCA DO-362A standard. In
addition, the NPRM seeks comment on adoption of a field strength limit
to prevent interference between adjacent geographic area licensees.
163. As with NNA service rules, the NPRM seeks comment on whether
and to what extent the NSS service rules should incorporate or be
subject to the requirements generally applicable to aviation services
under subparts B through F of part 87 of the Commission's rules, either
in their current form or with modifications, and whether the NSS
service should be subject to rules under part 1, subpart F, governing
wireless radio service applications and proceedings. In particular, the
NPRM seeks comment on whether to allow partitioning and disaggregation
of NSS licenses as well as spectrum leasing. Likewise as mentioned
earlier in the NNA service rules discussion, NSS users would be subject
to any applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements under
existing Commission's rules incorporated into the requirements for the
5030-5091 MHz band. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to authorize
NSS licensees, at their discretion, to provide network-supported
service for UAS CNPC through either a satellite or terrestrial network,
or alternatively, whether the Commission should provide that certain
NSS licenses are dedicated exclusively to satellite-based service. It
further seeks comment on whether to permit NSS licensees to deploy
High-altitude Platform Stations (HAPS).
164. Equipment Authorization. To ensure that equipment in the new
band has the level of reliability and safety required of aviation
equipment, the NPRM proposes to impose equipment authorization
requirements similar to those under Sec. Sec. 87.145 and 87.147 of the
Commission's rules to all equipment intended for use in the 5030-5091
MHz band. Section 87.145 requires that each transmitter must be
certificated for use in the relevant service, and Sec. 87.147
establishes a specific equipment authorization process. Section 87.147
specifically requires an applicant for certification of equipment to
notify the FAA of the filing of the application, and provides that the
Commission will not act on the application until it receives the FAA's
determination regarding whether it objects to the application for
equipment authorization.
165. Protection of Other Services. The NPRM seeks comment on any
measures the Commission should adopt to protect Federal Microwave
Landing System (MLS) deployments in the 5030-5091 MHz band, and on
whether to provide that no future non-Federal MLS licenses (including
MLS radionavigation land test licenses at 5031 MHz) will be granted in
the 5030-5091 MHz band. To protect radio astronomy operations, the NPRM
proposes, consistent with NTIA's recommendations, to continue to apply
to the 5030-5091 MHz band the requirements of Footnote US211 of the
Table of Frequency Allocations, and to prohibit UAS operations within
the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) without prior coordination with
the NRQZ administrator and submission of a concurrence from the NRQZ
administrator with any request to a DFMS for frequency assignment
within the NRQZ. The NPRM also seeks comment on applying to all UAS
operations relying on the 5030-5091 MHz band in the NRQZ the licensee/
applicant procedures for the NRQZ under Sec. 1.924(a) of the
Commission's rules, which include written notification filing
requirements. The NPRM further seeks comment on any special measures
necessary to ensure compatibility between UAS operations in the 5030-
5091 MHz band and AeroMACS and flight testing in adjacent bands. To
protect radionavigation-satellite service in the 5010-5030 MHz band,
the NPRM proposes to require 5030-5091 MHz operations to comply with
the specific effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP) spectral
density limit specified in Footnote 5.443C of the Table of Frequency
Allocations. With regard to Canadian and Mexican coordination, the NPRM
proposes to provide that all operations in the band are subject to
international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
166. Airborne Use of Flexible-Use Spectrum. Regarding UAS
operations in flexible-use spectrum, the Commission did not make
specific proposals and seeks comment on the adequacy of its current
rules to ensure co-existence of existing terrestrial wireless networks
and UAS, and on the regulatory solutions that may be necessary to
facilitate and encourage such use. Thus, at this time the Commission is
not in a position to determine what rule changes could result from the
questions raised in the NPRM, and which of those changes, if any, will
result in reporting and/or recordkeeping obligations for small
entities.
[[Page 7934]]
167. VHF Licenses for UAS Pilots. The NPRM proposes that the
Commission individually license stations for UA pilot communication
with control towers and other aircraft pilots under a new category of
licensed station, an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Ground VHF Station, and
to define the new station as ``a station on the ground providing
unmanned aircraft pilot radio communication relating to safety and
regularity of flight on air traffic control, flight service station,
unicom, or multicom frequencies.'' The NPRM further proposes to provide
that these stations may operate over all air traffic control, flight
service station, aeronautical advisory station (unicom) and
aeronautical multicom channels authorized for use by aircraft. In
addition, the NPRM proposes to permit mobile stations (stations
intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified
points), and seeks comment on whether to permit non-mobile stations as
well. Under this proposal, UAS operators would be required to file a
license application with the Commission for an individual license
covering their VHF station.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
168. Proposed UAS service rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band would,
in part, overlap with and, depending on the UAS equipment requirements
established in this proceeding, may be inconsistent with the FAA's
Technical Standard Order (TSO) C213a, which establishes minimum
performance standards for UAS radios in the 5030-5091 MHz MHz band.
IV. Ordering Clauses
169. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301,
303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332, that
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
170. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the Aerospace Industries Association in the Commission's rulemaking
proceeding RM-11798 is granted to the extent specified herein, that RM-
11798 is incorporated into this proceeding, WT Docket No. 22-323, and
that RM-11798 is terminated.
171. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications,
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 87
Radio.
47 CFR Part 88
Communications, Communications equipment, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unmanned aircraft
control services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR chapter I 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 note,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.901 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901 Basis and purpose.
The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The purpose of the rules
in this subpart is to establish the requirements and conditions under
which entities may be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as
described in this part and in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87,
88, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter.
0
3. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions of ``Private
Wireless Services'' and ``Wireless Radio Services'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Private Wireless Services. Wireless Radio Services authorized by
parts 80, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter that are not
Wireless Telecommunications Services, as defined in this part.
* * * * *
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13,
20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this
chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
* * * * *
PART 87--AVIATION SERVICES
0
4. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e), unless otherwise
noted.
0
5. Section 87.3 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 87.3 Other applicable rule parts.
* * * * *
(g) Part 88 contains rules governing the use of the 5030-5091 MHz
band by unmanned aircraft systems.
0
6. Section 87.5 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a definition
of ``Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground Station'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 87.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground Station. A station on the
ground providing unmanned aircraft pilot radio communication relating
to safety and regularity of flight on air traffic control, flight
service station, unicom, or multicom frequencies.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 87.18 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding the words ``(manned or unmanned)'' after ``An aircraft
station'' in the first sentence of paragraph (b); and
0
b. By adding paragraph (c).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 87.18 Station license required.
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, Unmanned
Aircraft Operator VHF Ground Stations are not licensed by rule and must
be licensed by the FCC either individually or by fleet for
communications on air traffic control, flight service station, unicom,
or multicom frequencies in accordance with Sec. 87.49.
0
8. Section 87.49 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 87.49 Application for an Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground
Station license.
A person may apply for an Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground
Station license to communicate on air traffic control, flight service
station, unicom, or multicom frequencies if written approval is first
obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant
must provide, with the license application, a copy of the
[[Page 7935]]
written approval from the FAA, such as a Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization (COA), approving the applicant's use of the specific
frequencies requested in connection with unmanned aircraft activity.
License grant will be subject to any conditions, coordination, or
restrictions imposed by the FAA in its written approval.
0
9. Part 88 is added to read as follows:
PART 88--UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CONTROL SERVICES
Subpart A--General Rules
Sec.
88.1 Scope.
88.3 Application of other rule parts.
88.5 Definitions.
Subpart B--Non-Networked Access
88.25 Scope.
88.27 Authorization.
88.29 Frequencies.
88.31 Non-Networked Access use.
Subpart C--[Reserved]
Subpart D--Technical Requirements
88.101 Transmitter power.
88.103 Bandwidth of emission.
88.105 Types of emission.
88.107 Acceptability of transmitters for licensing.
88.109 Authorization of equipment.
88.111 Performance standards.
88.113 RF safety.
88.115 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart E--Dynamic Frequency Management Systems
88.135 DFMS requirements.
88.137 DFMS Administrators.
88.139 DFMS Administrator fees.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307.
Subpart A--General Rules
Sec. 88.1 Scope.
This part sets forth the regulations governing the use of the 5030-
5091 MHz band by unmanned aircraft systems. The regulations in this
part do not govern unmanned aircraft systems communications services in
any bands other than the 5030-5091 MHz band.
Sec. 88.3 Application of other rule parts.
(a) Except as expressly provided under this part, part 87 of this
chapter shall not apply to unmanned aircraft systems communications in
the 5030-5091 MHz band.
(b) Non-Networked Access (NNA) devices, as defined in this part,
are considered part of the Citizens Band Radio Service, as defined in
Sec. 95.303 of this chapter. Except for Sec. 95.303, the rules of
part 95 of this chapter shall not apply to such devices.
Sec. 88.5 Definitions.
The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this
part.
Control and Non-payload Communications (CNPC). Any unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) transmission that is sent to or from the unmanned
aircraft (UA) component of the UAS and that supports the safety or
regularity of the UA's flight.
DFMS Administrator. An entity authorized by the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) to operate a DFMS in
accordance with the rules and procedures set forth in subpart E of this
part.
Dynamic Frequency Management System (DFMS). An automated frequency
coordination system operating in the 5030-5091 MHz band that, in
response to frequency assignment requests from UAS operators, assigns
to the requesting operator, through an automated (non-manual) process,
temporary use of certain frequencies for a particular geographic area
and time period tailored to the operator's submitted flight plan.
Ground station. A land or mobile station not on board a UA that is
part of a UAS and for communication with an unmanned aircraft station.
NNA device. A ground station or unmanned aircraft station
authorized under this part and designed to communicate using NNA
assignments consistent with subparts B and D of this part.
NNA user. An authorized user of spectrum in the 5030-5091 MHz band
operating on an NNA basis, as set forth in subpart B of this part.
Non-Networked Access (NNA). Temporary, interference-protected
access to the 5030-5091 MHz band pursuant to a frequency assignment
from a DFMS and consistent with subpart B of this part.
Unmanned aircraft (UA). An aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft.
Unmanned aircraft station. A mobile station authorized under this
part and located on board a UA.
Unmanned aircraft system (UAS). A UA and its associated elements
(including an unmanned aircraft station, communication links, and the
components not on board the UA that control the UA) that are required
for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the
United States.
Subpart B--Non-Networked Access
Sec. 88.25 Scope.
Transmissions over an NNA assignment may include any form of CNPC.
Sec. 88.27 Authorization.
(a) Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, and otherwise
meets the technical, financial, character, and citizenship
qualifications that the Commission may require in accordance with such
Act is eligible to be an NNA user and operate NNA devices under this
part.
(b) NNA devices, including ground stations and unmanned aircraft
stations, are licensed by the rules in this part and do not need an
individual license issued by the Commission. Even though an individual
license is not required, an NNA device licensed by the rules in this
part must comply with all applicable operating requirements,
procedures, and technical requirements found in this part.
(c) NNA users must register with a DFMS and comply with its
instructions and the rules in this part.
(d) NNA users may transmit in the 5030-5091 MHz band only using NNA
devices compliant with the rules of this part, and only pursuant to and
consistent with the terms of a frequency assignment from a Commission-
approved DFMS.
Sec. 88.29 Frequencies.
The 5030-5035 MHz and 5086-5091 MHz bands are allocated for CNPC
use to NNA users.
Sec. 88.31 Non-Networked Access use.
(a) NNA users registered with a DFMS may submit a request for
temporary assignment of frequencies for CNPC limited to the duration
and geographic coverage necessary to support a single submitted UAS
flight plan. Requests may also be made either prior to or during the
relevant operation to modify an assignment. Such requests must be made
to the same DFMS responsible for the original assignment.
(b) If frequencies meeting the request are available, the DFMS
shall assign them on an exclusive but temporary basis. The scope of the
assignment shall be tailored in both duration and geographic coverage
to ensure interference-free communications for the entire submitted UAS
flight plan.
(c) When registering with or using the services of a DFMS, an NNA
user shall comply with all instructions of the DFMS Administrator,
including those
[[Page 7936]]
regarding registration, requests and other submissions to the DFMS, and
operational use of NNA assignments.
(d) An NNA user operating under a DFMS assignment must provide
indication to the DFMS, within 5 minutes of the event, when a flight
has commenced and when it has terminated.
(e) NNA users are prohibited from engaging in UAS operations using
NNA assignments within the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) without
prior coordination with the NRQZ administrator. Any request to a DFMS
for frequency assignment within the NRQZ must include submission of a
Letter of Concurrence from the NRQZ administrator, and NNA users
submitting such a request shall comply with all conditions enumerated
in the Letter of Concurrence. NNA users are urged to take all
practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the 5000-
5250 MHz band.
Subpart C--[Reserved]
Subpart D--Technical Requirements
Sec. 88.101 Transmitter power.
The power of the transmitter is defined as the average envelope
measured during the duration of the burst transmission bounded by the
first preamble symbol to the last midamble symbol, measured at the
transmitter's radio frequency (RF) output port with a 50 ohm load
attached. The power must be determined by direct measurement at the
transmitter output terminals. The maximum power of a transmitter must
not exceed the values listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) For an Airborne Radio Transmitter:
(1) High Power Mode: 10 watts.
(2) Low Power Mode: 100 mW.
(b) For a Ground Radio Transmitter: 10 watts.
Sec. 88.103 Bandwidth of emission.
The authorized bandwidth is the maximum occupied bandwidth
authorized to be used by a station. Equipment must be tunable in 2.5
kHz steps within the range 5030-5091 excluding center frequencies 5030
MHz and 5091 MHz. The authorized bandwidth is limited to multiples of 5
kHz according to the following:
(a) One In-flight Emergency Video Channel having a width of 500
kHz.
(b) Two takeoff and Landing Video Channels of 250 kHz width per
channel.
(c) Non-Video Channels may operate on up to 250 kHz-wide channels
in multiples of 5 kHz.
Sec. 88.105 Types of emission.
The assignable emission designators in multiples of 5 kHz up to 500
kHz are as follows:
(a) G8D--for data.
(b) G8F--for video.
Sec. 88.107 Acceptability of transmitters for licensing.
Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part and each
transmitter marketed as set forth in Sec. 2.803 of this chapter must
be certificated by the Commission following the procedures set forth in
part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
Sec. 88.109 Authorization of equipment.
An applicant for certification of equipment must notify the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) of the filing of a certification
application. The letter of notification must be mailed to: FAA, Office
of Spectrum Policy and Management, ASR-1, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591 prior to the filing of the application with the
Commission.
(a) The notification letter must describe the equipment, and give
the manufacturer's identification, antenna characteristics, rated
output power, emission type and characteristics, the frequency or
frequencies of operation, and essential receiver characteristics if
protection is required.
(b) The certification application must include a copy of the
notification letter to the FAA. The Commission will not act until it
receives the FAA's determination regarding whether it objects to the
application for equipment authorization. The FAA should mail its
determination to: Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory,
Authorization and Evaluation Division, 7435 Oakland Mills Rd.,
Columbia, MD 21046. The Commission will consider the FAA determination
before taking final action on the application.
Sec. 88.111 Performance standards.
Transmitters operating in the 5030-5091 MHz band must comply with
and operate in accordance with technical standard RTCA-DO-362A
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 88.115).
Sec. 88.113 RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b),
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile devices operating
under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with
these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted
emissions and technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
Sec. 88.115 Incorporation by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR)
material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact FCC at: 45 L Street NE, Reference
Information Center, Room 1.150, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270,
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
[email protected]. The material may be obtained from the following
source:
(a) RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036,
email: [email protected] or http://RTCA.org.
(1) RTCA-DO-362A, Command and Control (C2) Data Link Minimum
Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) (Terrestrial), dated December
17, 2020 (RTCA-DO-362A), IBR approved for Sec. 88.111.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart E--Dynamic Frequency Management Systems
Sec. 88.135 DFMS requirements.
(a) DFMS must provide a process for NNA users to register with the
system for the purpose of submitting frequency assignment requests and
obtaining frequency assignments.
(b) A DFMS must be capable of processing frequency assignment
requests nationwide and across the entire 5030-5091 MHz band. However,
a DFMS may only grant assignments for spectrum within those frequencies
specified under Sec. 88.29.
(c) In response to frequency assignment requests from a registered
NNA user, a DFMS shall determine and provide, through an automated
(non-manual) process, an assignment of frequencies for a particular
geographic area and time period tailored to the NNA user's submitted
flight plan, to the extent that frequencies are available to meet the
request and grant of the assignment is otherwise consistent with this
part. Assignments must provide protected access to frequencies over a
duration and geographic area sufficient to cover the entire submitted
flight plan.
[[Page 7937]]
(d) Assignments for operations in the National Radio Quiet Zone
(NRQZ) must be accompanied by a Letter of Concurrence from the NRQZ
Administrator and may only be granted within the terms and conditions,
if any, specified in the Letter of Concurrence.
(e) Assignments must account for the need to protect other
authorized operations.
Sec. 88.137 DFMS Administrators.
The Commission will approve one or more DFMS Administrators to
manage access to the 5030-5091 MHz band on a nationwide basis as
specified under Sec. 88.135. Each DFMS Administrator is responsible
for the functioning of a DFMS and providing services to operators in
the Unmanned Aircraft Control Service. Each DFMS Administrator approved
by the Commission must:
(a) Operate a DFMS consistent with the rules of this part.
(b) Establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure
compliance with the rules set forth in this part.
(c) Provide service for a ten-year term. This term may be renewed
at the Commission's discretion.
(d) Securely transfer all the information in the DFMS to another
approved entity in the event it does not continue as the DFMS
Administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a reasonable price
for such conveyance.
(e) Cooperate to develop a standardized process for coordinating
operations with other approved DFMSs, avoiding any conflicting
assignments, and maximizing shared use of available frequencies.
(f) Coordinate with other DFMS Administrators including, to the
extent possible, sharing assignment and other information, facilitating
non-interference to and from operations relying on assignments from
other DFMSs, and other functions necessary to ensure that use of
available spectrum is safe and efficient and consistent with this part.
(g) Ensure that the DFMS shall be available at all times to
immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel
for any and all information stored or retained by the DFMS.
(h) Establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement
instructions from the Commission.
Sec. 88.139 DFMS Administrator fees.
(a) A DFMS Administrator may charge users a reasonable fee for
provision of its services, including usage-based fees for frequency
assignments.
(b) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can
require changes in those fees if they are found to be excessive.
[FR Doc. 2023-00961 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P