[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