The Commission is proposing to amend 5 CFR 4401.102 (Rule 102), its Supplemental Standards.

On August 7, 1992, OGE published the OGE Standards. See 57 FR 35006-35067, as corrected at 57 FR 48557, 57 FR 52483, and 60 FR 51167, with additional grace period extensions for certain existing provisions at 59 FR 4779-4780, 60 FR 6390-6391, and 60 FR 66857-66858. The OGE Standards, codified at 5 CFR part 2635, effective February 3, 1993, established uniform standards of ethical conduct that apply to all executive branch personnel.

Section 2635.105 of the OGE Standards authorizes an agency, with the concurrence and joint issuance of OGE, to adopt agency-specific supplemental regulations that are necessary and appropriate to properly implement its ethics program. The Commission has previously adopted supplemental regulations—found at 5 CFR part 4401—in 2010 with the concurrence and joint issuance of OGE. See 75 FR 42273, July 20, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 19902, Apr. 11, 2011. The Commission now seeks to amend those existing supplemental regulations for the reasons set forth below. The Commission, with OGE's concurrence, has determined that the following proposed revisions to the supplemental regulations are appropriate and necessary for successful implementation of the SEC's ethics program in light of its unique programs and operations.

The Commission, with the concurrence of OGE, is proposing to amend its Supplemental Standards to (1) prohibit employee ownership of sector funds that have a stated policy of concentrating investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission (referred to herein as “Financial Industry Sector Funds”), (2) eliminate pre-clearance, reporting, and holding period requirements for certain diversified investments (referred to herein as “Permissible Diversified Investment Funds”), (3) enhance consistency, timeliness, and accountability in employee reporting of purchases, sales, acquisitions, and dispositions of securities by authorizing the Commission to collect such information automatically from the employee's brokerage or financial institution(s) through a third-party automated compliance application, (4) clarify that the limitation on purchasing securities that are part of an initial public offering (IPO) until seven days after the IPO also applies to direct listings of securities, and (5) make other structural and technical corrections to the regulations.

The SEC's revised supplemental rule would retain several important compliance controls, which are among the most extensive compliance restrictions in the Federal Government, including pre-clearance, confirmation, and reporting of covered transactions (such as stocks, bonds, and sector mutual funds), required minimum holding periods, and mandatory annual certification of compliance.

The Commission is responsible for regulating the trading of securities, investigating securities fraud and manipulations, requiring registration of brokers, dealers, and investment advisers, and supervising the activities of entities it regulates for compliance with the securities laws. 17 CFR 200.1. To ensure that the public can have the utmost trust in these activities, the Commission has long prevented employees from purchasing or owning any “security or other financial interest in an entity directly regulated by the Commission.” 5 CFR 4401.102(c)(1). The Commission is proposing to amend § 4401.102(c)(1) to explicitly prohibit employee ownership of certain Financial Industry Sector Funds by expanding the scope of “entities directly regulated by the Commission” to include registered investment companies, common investment trusts of a bank, companies exempt in part or in total from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or other pooled investment vehicles that have a stated policy of concentrating their investments in entities directly regulated by the Commission. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to avoid conflicts and appearance concerns with employee ownership of sector funds that invest in entities the SEC directly regulates such as registered broker dealers and investment advisers. The existing rule prohibits employees from purchasing or holding securities issued by such entities. Investments in mutual funds (including exchange-traded funds), however, are permissible, provided employees comply with OGE's regulatory exemptions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(2) found in 5 CFR 2640.201(b), which restrict participation in matters affecting one or more holdings of a sector fund. Consistent with the Commission's risk-based approach, the proposed revision recognizes Financial Industry Sector Funds pose a substantial risk of conflicting with SEC work. Thus, to guard against actual and perceived conflicts and appearance concerns, the Commission proposes to expand the existing prohibition to include investments in sector funds that focus on entities directly regulated by the agency. In accordance with 5 CFR 2635.403(d), affected employees will be given a reasonable period of time to divest Financial Industry Sector Funds. Except in cases of unusual hardship, as determined by the agency, a reasonable period shall not exceed 90 days from the date divestiture is first directed. Affected employees may be eligible for a Certificate of Divestiture under section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code and 5 CFR part 2634, subpart J.

The SEC's existing supplemental regulations require employees to pre-clear all securities transactions and to confirm securities transactions by reporting them to the SEC within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction. This current requirement applies to all securities not explicitly exempted, including diversified mutual funds and other diversified investment products that pose little or no conflicts of interest for members and employees. These diversified investment products, referred to herein as “Permissible Diversified Investment Funds” include diversified registered investment companies (including open and closed-end mutual funds and unit investment trusts), money market funds, as defined in 17 CFR 270.2a-7 (Investment Company Act Rule 2a-7), 529 plans, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 529, and diversified pooled investment funds held in employee benefit plans or pension plans.

To the extent that such funds qualify as diversified mutual funds or diversified unit investment trusts in accordance with 5 CFR 2640.201(a), OGE has already provided broad exemptions from criminal financial conflict of interest law, 18 U.S.C. 208, that permit employees to participate in particular matters that could affect the underlying holdings of such funds or the funds themselves. See 5 CFR 2640.201(a), (d). Other Permissible Diversified Investment Funds may pose little or no conflict of interest concerns, such as pre-paid college tuition plans authorized by States under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code and collective investment trusts that are commonly held in defined contribution retirement plans. As a result, the SEC's current pre-clearance and reporting requirements, as applied to Permissible Diversified Investment Funds, have proven disproportionately burdensome for both SEC employees and the SEC's Office of the Ethics Counsel (OEC) staff, given the minimal risks such assets pose for most SEC employees. In order to shift agency ethics compliance resources to better focus on relatively higher-risk trading and reporting of equities and the detection of any prohibited holdings, the Commission is proposing to modify its rules to reduce the emphasis on reporting and pre-clearing of Permissible Diversified Investment Funds, assets that pose substantially lower ethics risk. This risk-based approach would appropriately tailor compliance activities to address trading and holdings that pose the most significant potential for conflicts of interest. Based thereon, the SEC is proposing to add a new paragraph (g)(1)(vi) to eliminate the preclearance, reporting, and holding requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds and to modify existing paragraphs (c)(2) and (6), and paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), to reflect the changes regarding such funds. These changes would not apply to any sector funds, including Financial Industry Sector Funds, as described above, or to any other entities directly regulated by the Commission, or to any private equity, venture capital, hedge fund, or similar pooled investment instruments.

Currently, members and employees are required to report transactions of securities to the OEC within five business days after receipt of confirmation of the transaction so that ethics officials can reconcile precleared trades. This reporting requirement is authorized under 5 CFR 4401.102(f) and constitutes an additional supplemental confidential reporting requirement authorized by OGE pursuant to section 107 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, and 5 CFR 2634.103. Reporting is currently conducted by members and employees through the Commission's Personal Trading Compliance System and relies on employees to manually confirm and also provide evidence of transactions through submission of brokerage or other financial institution account statements. Although this process has been successful, requiring employees to manually submit transaction and brokerage data is burdensome and presents the opportunity for human error. Moreover, OEC is aware that a number of private corporations have shifted to automated software systems that provide direct notification of securities transactions from an individual's broker or other financial institution.

The Commission therefore proposes to amend paragraph (f) of the regulation to authorize OEC to collect covered securities transactions and holdings data directly from financial institutions through a third-party automated electronic system to satisfy the requirements to report securities holdings and transaction information. This amendment would reduce the burden on employees and compliance staff, and improve data accuracy and completeness, by replacing the requirements for manually submitted account statements and manual transaction confirmations. It would also facilitate compliance by allowing the OEC to independently verify employee holdings and transactions. Further, it would reduce the risk of human error or oversight in reporting and reviewing of securities holdings and transactions.

The Commission has consulted with OGE on the proposal to authorize OEC to require members and employees to comply with the reporting requirements in paragraph (f) through a third-party automated compliance system. OGE has advised that the proposed system is consistent with section 107 of the Ethics in Government Act, which permits OGE (and agencies, subject to OGE approval) to impose additional confidential financial disclosure requirements on officers and employees of the executive branch. Although the automated transmission of brokerage statements and transaction information would be effectuated by a member or employee's broker or other financial institution, the broker is acting as an agent of the member or employee in transmitting the information, and the ultimate responsibility for complying with the reporting requirement is that of the employee. To ensure that all employees are able to comply with the reporting requirement, the Commission is proposing to provide that the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) may permit a member or employee to provide the required information through another means if they cannot obtain consent from their brokerage or financial institution to use the third-party automated compliance system. In exceptional circumstances, the DAEO may permit any member or employee to report the required holding and transaction information outside of any eventual automated personal trading compliance system such as where OEC has determined under the specific facts that use of the automated system is not possible or would result in significant undue hardship.

The Commission is also proposing to revise transaction reporting deadlines to provide necessary flexibility to adjust for securities transactions and holdings data obtained as proposed from financial institutions though a third-party automated compliance system. The Commission proposes to modify the existing five business day reporting requirement to require all employees to report transactions in the manner and according to the schedule required by the DAEO. It is OEC's hope that any eventual automated third-party compliance system would allow for trade notifications sooner than the current five day requirement, and this amendment would maintain flexibility for the DAEO to require earlier (or permit later) reporting for SEC employees, as appropriate, using an automated third-party compliance system.

Members and employees of the Commission are currently prohibited from purchasing a security in an initial public offering (“IPO”) for seven calendar days after the IPO is effective, except for IPOs of shares in a registered investment company or other publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund. This restriction ensures that employees do not use, or appear to use, material, non-public information to their advantage in purchasing such securities.

The Commission believes that securities that are directly listed on an exchange present the same appearance concerns and risks as securities offered in a traditional IPO, given that direct listings are typically accompanied by the filing of a registration statement, as in a traditional IPO. For that reason, the Commission proposes to expand the limitation found at paragraph (c)(2) of the regulation to prohibit a member or employee from purchasing securities that are directly listed to an exchange for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date.

The Commission also proposes to remove the current exception to the prohibition on purchasing within seven calendar days for IPO shares in a registered investment company or publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund because the Commission's proposed exception for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds in paragraph (g) would cover IPO shares in a registered investment company or publicly traded or publicly available collective investment fund.

Finally, the Commission is proposing to make certain definitional and technical changes to its rules, which include updating language to reflect that the Office of the Ethics Counsel is no longer part of the Office of General Counsel.

We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed amendments, other matters that might have an impact on the proposed amendments, and suggestions for additional changes. Comments are of particular assistance if accompanied by analysis of the issues addressed in those comments and any data that may support the analysis. We urge commenters to be as specific as possible.

The Commission finds, in accordance with section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 1 that the proposed amendments relate solely to agency organization, procedure, or practice. They are therefore not subject to the provisions of the APA requiring notice, opportunity for public comment, and publication. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980  2 therefore does not apply. Nevertheless, we have determined that it would be useful to publish the proposed amendments for notice and comment before adoption. Because the proposed rule relates to “agency organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the right or obligations of non-agency parties,” the proposed rule is not subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C)). The proposed rule does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 3

The Commission is sensitive to the economic effects of its rules, including the costs and benefits that result from its rules. 4 As discussed further below, we expect the economic effects of the proposed amendments would be limited. The amendments do not substantially alter preexisting requirements and are directed at internal procedures that apply only to Commission members and employees. Thus, we expect these changes would not impose any costs on parties other than the Commission and its members and employees, or if there are any such costs, we expect those costs to be negligible. We further believe that the changes would not have any significant impact on the functioning of securities markets, and so would have minimal, if any, effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Where possible, we have attempted to quantify the costs, benefits, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation expected to result from the proposed amendments.

As explained above, the proposed amendments would allow the DAEO flexibility to adjust transaction and reporting requirements for securities and holdings data obtained as proposed from financial institutions through a third-party automated compliance system and eliminate disproportionately burdensome compliance requirements for assets that pose minimal ethics risk, while expanding the scope of the Supplemental Standards to include certain funds that pose relatively higher ethics risk. We discuss below the potential benefits, costs, and economic effects of three significant categories of proposed amendments to the Supplemental Standards: (1) prohibiting employees from holding Financial Industry Sector Funds; (2) eliminating the preclearance, reporting, and holding period requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds; (3) authorizing OEC to collect covered securities transactions data directly from financial institutions through a third-party automated electronic system and adjusting transaction reporting deadlines to account for implementation of such systems; and (4) prohibiting purchases of direct listed assets for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date. In addition, the proposed amendments make certain definitional and technical changes that we believe would not have a substantial economic effect.

The Commission is proposing to explicitly prohibit employee ownership of Financial Industry Sector Funds by expanding the scope of “entities directly regulated by the Commission,” and excluding Financial Industry Sector Funds from the exception for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds. The existing rules prohibit members and employees from purchasing or holding securities of entities directly regulated by the Commission, but not Financial Industry Sector Funds that focus on investing in entities directly regulated by the Commission. Investments in Financial Industry Sector Funds, however, are subject to preclearance, reporting, and holding period requirements in the Supplemental Standards.

The proposed amendments could enhance the integrity of the capital markets by further guarding against the perception of improper use of nonpublic information by SEC employees. Expanding the prohibition to include investments in Financial Industry Sector Funds would reduce the risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interests and could bolster investor confidence in capital markets.

The cost to implementing this amendment would be borne mostly by the members and employees who currently hold these funds, as the Commission would require members and employees to sell, or otherwise divest, these types of assets. We do not have sufficient information to quantify the total effects associated with such divestment. Finally, we expect that implementing the proposed amendments would not add significant technical and administrative costs to the Commission as compliance would be accomplished via the Commission's existing compliance system with minimal upgrade costs.

The Commission is proposing to modify its rules to eliminate the preclearance, reporting, and holding period requirements for Permissible Diversified Investment Funds by making them exempt from such requirements under Rule 102(g)(1). Under the current rule, Commission members and employees are required to preclear all trades in Permissible Diversified Investment Funds and confirm any such executed transactions. Commission members and employees are required to hold Permissible Diversified Investment Funds for at least 30 days before selling.

The proposed amendments would benefit Commission members and employees by removing certain procedural requirements that currently apply to their purchases and sales of Permissible Diversified Investment Funds and consequently reducing delays in executing investment choices. The magnitude of the benefits, however, would depend on how implementing the proposed amendments would affect individual members' and employees' investment decisions and portfolios, which is difficult to predict.

We do not expect that the proposed amendments would impose costs on the Commission, its members and employees, or the public. Because Permissible Diversified Investment Funds are diversified and therefore eligible for most applicable regulatory conflicts exemptions, we expect that the proposed exemption would add no significant risk of real or perceived conflicts of interest, and would allow the Commission to focus on employees' holdings or transactions that present more significant conflicts and appearance concerns.

The Commission is proposing to amend Rule 102(f) to authorize OEC to collect covered securities transactions and holdings data directly from financial institutions through a third-party automated electronic system to satisfy the requirements to report securities holdings and transaction information and to modify the existing five-business-days reporting requirement to require all members and employees to report transactions that are not exempt under Rule 102(g)(1) in the manner and according to the schedule required by the DAEO.

We do not expect the proposed amendments to result in significant economic effects to the Commission or members of the public. The proposed amendments would benefit Commission members and employees by reducing their reporting costs because manual submission of transaction data would no longer be necessary. 5 In addition, the proposed amendments could enhance the integrity of Commission operations by allowing more effective OEC oversight of member and employee activity through improved data accuracy and completeness and independent verification of employee holdings and transactions. The proposed amendments may provide more or less time for Commission members and employees to report the transactions depending on the schedule set by the DAEO.

The costs of implementing an automated electronic reporting system would be borne mostly by the Commission, including both initial costs of setting up the system and ongoing maintenance costs. We do not expect that the proposed amendments will impose costs on the public.

The Commission is proposing to expand the limitation in Rule 102(c)(2) to prohibit a member or employee from purchasing securities that are directly listed on an exchange for seven calendar days after the direct listing effective date.

The Commission believes that the proposed limitation could benefit the integrity of the capital markets by further guarding against the perception of improper use of nonpublic information by SEC employees. Expanding the prohibition to include direct listed assets would reduce the risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interests and could bolster investor confidence in capital markets.

The costs from implementing this amendment would be borne mostly by the members and employees who may otherwise have purchased securities that are directly listed on an exchange insofar as the proposed limitation will restrict their investment options. We do not expect that the proposed amendments will impose costs on the Commission or the public.

We request comment on all aspects of our economic analysis, including the potential costs and benefits of proposed amendments. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data, estimation methodologies, and other factual support for their views.

These amendments to the Commission's ethics rules are being proposed pursuant to statutory authority granted to OGE and to the Commission. These include 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. Ch 131. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159; 3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547; 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2634.103, 5 CFR 2634.201(f); 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.803; 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78w, 77sss, 80a-37, 80b-11.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the SEC, with the concurrence of OGE, is proposing to amend title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter XXXIV, part 4401, as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0061; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-10) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0061; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal Airways V-51, V-115, V-243, V-267, V-311, V-333, and V-415; and to revoke V-463 in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This program aims to improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System by transitioning from ground-based navigation systems to satellite based navigation. The proposed changes are described below.

V-51: V-51 consists of two parts: From Pahokee, FL to Louisville, KY; and from Shelbyville, IN, to Chicago Heights, IL. The FAA proposes to remove Alma, GA; Athens, GA; and Harris, GA, from the route. As a result, V-51 would consists of three parts: From Pahokee, FL, to Craig, FL; and from Hinch Mountain, TN, to Louisville, KY; and from Shelbyville, TN to Chicago Heights, IL.

V-115: V-115 consists of two parts: From Crestview, FL, to Volunteer, TN; and from Charleston, WV, to Parkersburg, WV. The FAA proposes to remove the segment from the BOAZE, AL, Fix to the Choo Choo, TN (GQO), VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigational System (VORTAC), to the DUBBS, TN, Fix, which is dependent on the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC. As amended, V-115 would extend, in three parts: From Crestview, FL, to the intersection of the of the Vulcan, AL 048°(T)/046°(M) and the Gadsden, AL 333°(T)/331°(M) radials (the charted BOAZE, AL) Fix; from the Intersection of the Hinch Mountain, TN 160°(T)/162°(M) and the Volunteer, TN 228°(T)/231°(M) radials to Volunteer; and from Charleston, WV, to Parkersburg, WV.

V-243: V-243 extends from Craig, FL, to Choo Choo, TN. This action would remove the segment from the intersection of the LaGrange, GA 342° and the Choo Choo, TN 189° radials (the charted HEFIN, AL, Fix) to Choo Choo due to the planned decommissioning of the Choo Choo, TN (GQO), VORTAC. The HEFIN Fix would be redefined by replacing the Choo Choo radial with the Gadsden, AL, Non-Directional Beacon/Distance Measuring Equipment (NDB/DME) 124°(T)/122°(M) radial. Because this is a new radial, both True and Magnetic values are cited in the NPRM. As amended, V-243 would extend from Craig, FL, to the intersection of the LaGrange, GA 342° and the Gadsden, AL, 124°(T)/122°(M) radials (the HEFIN, AL, Fix).

V-267: V-267 extends from Dolphin, FL, to Volunteer, TN. This action proposes to remove the segments from Dolphin, FL, to Pahokee, FL. In addition, the Harris, GA (HRS), VORTAC and the Volunteer, TN (VXV), VORTAC would be removed from the route. As amended, V-267 would extend from Orlando, FL, to the charted CORCE, GA, Fix. The CORCE Fix is currently defined in the V-267 description as the intersection of the Athens, GA 340° and the Harris, GA 148° radials. Due to the removal of the Harris, GA (HRS), VORTAC, the Harris radial would be replaced in the description by the Rome, GA 077°(T)/076°(M) radial.

V-311: V-311 extends from Hinch Mountain, TN, to Charleston, SC. This action proposes to remove the segments from Electric City, SC, to Charleston, SC. As amended, V-311 would extend from Hinch Mountain, TN, to Electric City, SC.

V-333: V-333 extends from the intersection of the Rome, GA 133° and the Gadsden, AL 091° radials to Lexington, KY. The action would remove the Choo Choo, TN (GQO), VORTAC from the route. As amended, V-333 would consist of two parts: From the intersection of the Rome, GA, and Gadsden, AL, radials identified in the previous sentence to Rome, GA; and from Hinch, Mountain, TN, to Lexington, KY.

V-415: V-415 extends from Montgomery, AL, to the intersection of the Spartanburg, SC, 101° and the Charlotte, NC, 229° radials. This action proposes to remove the segments from the HEFIN, AL, Fix, to the NELLO, GA, Fix. As amended, V-415 would consist of two parts: From Montgomery, AL, to the intersection of the Montgomery 029°(T)/026°(M) and the Gadsden, AL, 124°(T)/122°(M) radials; and from the intersection of the Rome, GA, 060° and the Foothills, SC, 258° radials, to the intersection of the Spartanburg, SC, 101° and the Charlotte, NC, 229° radials.

V-463: V-463 is a 49 nautical mile long route that extends from the intersection of the Harris, GA, 179° and the Foothills, SC 222° radials, to Harris, GA. The FAA proposes to remove the route to support the scheduled decommissioning of the Harris, GA (HRS), VORTAC.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be published and removed subsequently from FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0235; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANM-52 and be submitted to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0235; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANM-52.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is decommissioning underutilized navigational aids (NAVAIDS) throughout the National Airspace System (NAS) through the VOR Minimal Operation Network (MON) program. The goal is to transition the NAS to use of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) through use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) as the primary means of aircraft navigation, retaining a reduced number of ground-based NAVAIDS to provide backup in the event of a loss of GPS. The decommissioning of Liberator VOR is part of this program.

With the planned decommissioning of Liberator VOR, the remaining ground-based coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of certain segments of V-330. As such, this proposal would result in these unsupported segments being revoked. The segment between the Boise VORTAC and the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° radial and Liberator VOR 084° radial requires no mitigation as it shares routing with V-4 and V-253. The establishment of T-470 is proposed to replace the revoked segment between the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° and Liberator VOR 084° radials and the intersection of the Liberator VOR 084° radial and the Burley VOR 323° radial. Additionally, T-470 is proposed to continue eastward beyond the intersection of the Liberator VOR 084° radial and the Burley VOR 323° radial. This continuance of T-470 will increase NAS efficiency and aviation safety by providing routing through the Snake River Valley in Idaho and south of the Wind River Range in Wyoming. This routing will allow for lower Minimum Enroute Altitudes and will avoid areas of downslope winds.

V-330: V-330 is currently made up of two separate portions. The first navigates between the Wildhorse, OR, VOR; and the intersection of the Liberator VOR 084° radial and the Burley VOR 323° radial. The second section navigates between the Idaho Falls, ID, VOR; and the Muddy Mountain, WY, VOR. The FAA proposes changes to the first portion. The FAA does not propose changes to the second portion.

In the first portion, the FAA proposes to revoke two contiguous segments. The first is the segment between the Boise VORTAC and the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° radial and Liberator VOR 084° radial. The second is between the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° radial and Liberator VOR 084° radial and the intersection of the Liberator VOR 084° radial and the Burley VOR 323° radial.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The V-330 airway listed in this document would be modified subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish RNAV T-route T-470 in the vicinity of Boise, ID.

The new route is described as follows:

T-470: RNAV route T-470 extends between ALKAL, ID; KINZE, ID; VIPUC, WY; IDECA, WY; DEDNE, WY; DEKKR, WY; SWEAT, WY; and CHOMP, WY.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0049; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-17) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0049; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV route Q-101, in the eastern United States. This action would support the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project by linking Q-101 to other east coast Air Traffic Service routes to enhance air traffic flows.

The proposed route amendment is as follows:

Q-101: Q-101 currently extends between the SKARP, NC, waypoint (WP), and the TUGGR, VA, WP. The FAA proposes to extend Q-101 approximately 10 nautical miles to the north of the TUGGR WP, to the KALDA, VA, Fix. This would provide additional routing options for northbound and southbound air traffic.

United States area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The area navigation route listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking REG-112096-22 that was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, November 22, 2022, 87 FR 71271.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments telephonically at the hearing that previously submitted written comments by January 23, 2023, must submit an outline on the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by February 10, 2023. A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments.

After receiving outlines, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. The agenda will be available via Federal eRulemaking Portal ( www.Regulations.gov ) under the title of Supporting & Related Material by February 12, 2023. The public hearing agenda will contain the telephone number and access code.

Individuals who want to attend (by telephone) the public hearing must also send an email to publichearings@irs.gov to receive the telephone number and access code for the hearing. The subject line of the email must contain the regulation number [REG-112096-22] and the word ATTEND. For example, the subject line may say: Request to ATTEND Hearing for REG-112096-22. The email requesting to attend the public hearing must be received by 5 p.m. EDT two (2) business days before the date that the hearing is scheduled.

The telephonic hearing will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during the telephonic hearing please contact the Publications and Regulations Branch of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) by sending an email to publichearings@irs.gov (preferred) or by telephone at (202) 317-5306 (not a toll-free number) by Friday, February 10, 2023.

Any questions regarding speaking at or attending a public hearing may also be emailed to publichearings@irs.gov.

Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA and is a process that ensures federally-supported transportation activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purposes of the SIP. Examples of transportation activities include federally-supported highway projects, transit projects, transportation plans, and transportation improvement projects (TIPs). Transportation conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment for transportation-related national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) ( i.e., ozone, particulate matter ( e.g., PM 2.5 and PM 10 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 )) and to certain areas that have been redesignated to attainment of a transportation-related NAAQS. 1

Pursuant to CAA section 176(c), conformity means conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and that no federal or federally-supported activity under section 176(c)(1) will: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The requirements of section 176(c) of the CAA apply to all departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the federal government. Transportation conformity refers only to the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects that are funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. chapter 53). Pursuant to section 176(c) of the CAA, EPA issues criteria and procedures for determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects to a SIP. One of the requirements is that each state submit a revision to its SIP to include conformity criteria and procedures.

EPA promulgated the first federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (“Conformity Rule”) on November 24, 1993 ( see 58 FR 62188), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93. Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions of the conformity rule in their SIPs, frequently referred to as “conformity SIPs.” Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim into the SIP. Since then, the rule has been revised on August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780), April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18911), August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), and January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4438).

On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation conformity provisions by streamlining the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c). In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.

A transportation conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, a memorandum of understanding (MOU), or a memorandum of agreement (MOA). The MOA/MOU must establish the roles and procedures for transportation conformity and include the detailed consultation procedures developed for that particular area. The MOAs are enforceable through the signature of all the transportation and air quality agencies, including EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) which consists of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). States may use an MOU or MOA as long as it meets the following requirements: “(1) it is fully enforceable under state law against all parties involved in interagency consultation and in approving, adopting and implementing transportation projects, TIPs, or transportation plans, (2) the state submits it to EPA for inclusion into the SIP, and (3) it has been signed by all agencies covered by the conformity rule . . .”  2

The transportation conformity rule applies to certain NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas in the state. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the state department of transportation (DOT) (in absence of an MPO), state and local air quality agencies, EPA, and the USDOT are involved in the process of making conformity determinations. Conformity determinations are made on programs and plans such as a TIP, transportation plans, and transportation projects. The projected emissions that will result from implementation of the transportation plans and programs are calculated and compared to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP. The calculated emissions must be equal to or smaller than the federally approved MVEB for the USDOT to make a positive conformity determination with respect to the SIP.

Pursuant to federal regulations, when an area is designated nonattainment for a transportation-related NAAQS, the state is required to submit a transportation conformity SIP within one year of the effective date of the nonattainment area designations. See 40 CFR 51.390(c). Previously, North Carolina established, and EPA subsequently approved, a transportation conformity SIP to address areas that were designated nonattainment or previously designated nonattainment for the CO and 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 67 FR 32549 (December 27, 2002) for EPA's rulemaking approving North Carolina's transportation conformity SIP. North Carolina subsequently submitted a SIP revision on July 12, 2013, to update and replace North Carolina's previously approved transportation conformity SIP. EPA approved this revision on December 26, 2013. See 78 FR 78266.

On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA (“ South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138) that affected the process for making transportation conformity decisions in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The case revolved around a challenge to EPA's final rule establishing implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and revoking the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, known as the 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). As a result of this rule, areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS were no longer required to implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In South Coast II, multiple environmental interest groups challenged EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. The Court vacated portions of EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule, but upheld EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

The Court decision referred to the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as “orphan areas.” The decision stated that transportation conformity still applies for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in these orphan areas. For areas that were nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation conformity applies as an anti-backsliding measure. See South Coast II, 882 F.3d at 1149. For areas that were maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation conformity applies based on the court's interpretation of CAA section 176(c)(5)(B). See id. at 1155.

Based on the Agency's review of the court decision, EPA has concluded that the decision does not affect transportation conformity requirements for areas originally designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS ( see 77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012), or areas designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS ( see 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). However, as a result of this court decision, the previous 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas are required to implement transportation conformity. These areas are as follows for North Carolina: (1) the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC; (2) Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC; (3) Great Smoky National Park (North Carolina portion); (4) Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC; (5) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; and (6) Rocky Mount, NC.

CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) and 40 CFR 51.390(b) require states to develop conformity SIPs that address three specific provisions of federal regulations. First, EPA's transportation conformity rule requires states to develop their own processes and procedures which meet the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency consultation and resolution of conflicts among the federal, state, and local agencies. The SIP revision must include processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, state DOT, and the USDOT in consultation with the state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making conformity determinations. The conformity SIP revision must also include processes and procedures for the state and local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, and the USDOT. Second, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) states that conformity SIPs must require written commitments to control measures to be obtained prior to a conformity determination if those measures are not included in an MPO's transportation plan and TIP. This rule also requires that such commitments are fulfilled. Finally, 40 CFR 93.125(c) states that conformity SIPs must require that written commitments to mitigation measures must be obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination, and that the project sponsors comply with these commitments.

On July 12, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through DAQ, submitted its “Conformity SIP” for the applicable transportation-related NAAQS. Specifically, North Carolina requested EPA approval of its Conformity SIP which included MOAs signed by the federal and state transportation and air quality partners, and all of the MPOs in the state subject to transportation conformity requirements. EPA approved these MOAs into the North Carolina SIP on December 26, 2013. See 78 FR 78266.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, conformity SIP revisions add new interagency partners and MPOs, establish new procedures for interagency consultation, dispute resolution, public participation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures, and supersede the MOAs incorporated into the SIP on December 26, 2013. For a list of MPOs for which North Carolina has established MOAs in the September 24, 2021, submission, see Table 1, below. Table 1 also includes a list of the areas and/or counties which are covered under the updated MOAs.

Table 2, below, identifies the applicable NAAQS for which each planning agency is required to implement transportation conformity, and therefore, establish interagency consultation procedures. As stated above, the MOAs are the documents which establish each area's interagency consultation procedures.

Aside from some minor language edits and clarifications, each updated MOA makes changes to address federal transportation conformity requirements. Details on EPA's analysis of each updated MOA and its reasoning for proposing to approve them is presented in the sections below.

There are three MPOs within the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. These MPOs are:

• Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO);

• Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO); and

• Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO).

Several counties (or portions of counties) in the bi-state Charlotte Area comprise the maintenance area for the CO NAAQS, as well as the maintenance areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Based on the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Cabarrus, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union Counties in North Carolina, and a portion of York County in South Carolina, 4 are required to implement transportation conformity requirements. 5 DAQ worked with CRMPO, CRTPO, GLMPO, NC DOT, and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the bi-state Charlotte Area to develop and execute updated MOAs to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity requirements for the Area. These MOAs are provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions, through the MOAs, update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and the modifications of agreement section. The MOAs for MPOs in the bi-state Charlotte Area were primarily updated to make minor non-substantive changes such as minor language edits, renumbering changes throughout the MOAs, one change in a timing provision, and the removal of one section. Additionally, the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions include several other changes such as definition changes, and a few new clauses.

The bulk of the changes in the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions concern minor language edits, clarifications, the correction of a typographical error, and the removal of an unnecessary section. For example, one language edit changes the word “under” to “pursuant to.” An example of clarifying edits made in the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area was to update the names and abbreviations of the involved state and local agencies to their current names throughout the MOAs. Additionally, the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area included updates to the format for statutes and regulations, for example changing “North Carolina Administrative Code (hereinafter, `N.C.A.C.'), Subchapter 2D” to “North Carolina Administrative Code (hereinafter, `NCAC'), Subchapter 2D.” One other edit made in all the MOAs is to clarify the timing provision for the Interagency Consultation Conformity Determination Meeting, to be more explicit that the meeting must take place prior to a conformity determination being made. Previously, the description of the meeting timing was unclear, so the edits require the meeting to take place at least nine months before a conformity determination is needed. The updates for the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area also fix a typographical error in clause 6.3.1.5 when referencing a specific regulation provision. Lastly, the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area remove the “Termination of Agreement” section. Further minor, non-substantive changes include adding the term “MOA” to refer to the Memorandum of Agreement throughout the document, basic word preference changes, grammatical changes, and necessary renumbering of sections to incorporate the addition or removal of provisions, which are further discussed below.

The MOAs also include several changes to the definitions sections of the MOAs, including the modification of two definitions and the addition of another. The MOAs all replaced the definition of “Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)” with “Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).”  6 The definition for MTP in the new MOAs is, “. . . the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan transportation process.” The definition for MTP is nearly identical to the definition for LRTP, with the one difference being the description as to how the plan is developed. The LRTP definition stated that it was developed through the “statewide transportation planning process” while the MTP definition states that “the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan transportation planning process.” The MTP definition comes from 23 CFR part 450, titled “Planning Assistance and Standards.” 40 CFR part 93 states that transportation conformity determinations are required for the adoption, acceptance, approval, or support of transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and their amendments, developed pursuant to 23 CFR part 50. See 40 CFR 93.102. Since transportation plans are developed pursuant to the requirements outlined in 23 CFR part 450, EPA preliminarily agrees with this change. North Carolina replaces all references to the LRTP with MTP throughout the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Additionally, the MOA updates modify the definition of “Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).”  7 8 The updated definition of STIP is identical to the definition in 23 CFR part 450. Finally, North Carolina also adds a definition for “Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)” in the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Transportation conformity requires that federally-supported transportation activities, such as TIPs, are consistent with the purpose of the SIP. As transportation conformity includes TIPs, EPA preliminarily finds the addition of this definition to each MOA acceptable.

North Carolina also added several new clauses in each MOA for the bi-state Charlotte Area. First, DAQ adds clause 2.1.6 in the “MPO Duties” sub-section, under the “Duties of the Parties” section, requiring that the:

40 CFR part 93.105 and 40 CFR part 93.122(a) require the MPOs conduct an analysis for all FHWA/FTA projects proposed in transportation plans, TIPs, or other regionally significant projects. This clause was added to meet this requirement. DAQ also adds a clause and sub-clauses to the “Modifications of Agreement” section. The clause and its corresponding sub-clauses allow NC DEQ to make administrative amendments as necessary to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the MOAs. The sub-clauses define what constitutes an administrative amendment. These modifications make this section more stringent by limiting acceptable amendments to the following: typographical errors, legal citations to accurately account for any reorganization of laws or regulations, and public information changes, such as the renaming of an organization. Further, EPA preliminarily finds these modifications acceptable as any amendments will still have to go through the SIP process to modify the transportation conformity SIP.

DAQ has also modified several clauses in each MOA. A clause DAQ modifies in each MOA is 2.1.13 in the “MPO Duties” sub-section under the “Duties of the Parties” section. This clause now requires that the applicable MPO or MPO designee submit a request to NC DEQ or its designee for written emissions modeling results required for conformity determinations instead of for emission factors. Further, the change also requires the MPO, or its designee, to provide vehicle speed, vehicle miles travelled, and other input data necessary to generate emissions modeling results. Emissions modeling is a more comprehensive way to characterize emissions resulting from transportation conformity projects than simply using emissions factors because it accounts for more variables, such as meteorology. 40 CFR 93.105(c) requires that the agencies subject to an MOA evaluate and choose a model for regional emissions analyses, and 40 CFR 93.122 outlines how these models should be designed. Other provisions referring to emissions factors previously in the MOAs are revised to refer to emissions modeling results instead. For example, subsection 7.1.2 in each MOA specifies that the conformity analysis reports must include the mobile model inputs and outputs used to develop the emissions modeling results. One last clause that is modified in each MOA is 2.2.11, which is in the “NCDEQ Duties” sub-section, also under the “Duties of the Parties” section. This clause requires NC DEQ to consult and review project narratives to determine if a conformity project is an air quality concern pursuant to 40 CFR part 93. Previously, it only required a review of project narratives to determine if the conformity project had any particulate matter air quality concerns. The modification to the clause makes it more stringent because it is now not limited to particulate matter air quality concerns.

EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOAs and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOAs for the CRMPO, CRTPO, and GLMPO, relating to the bi-state Charlotte Area into the North Carolina SIP.

Portions of Haywood and Swain Counties comprise the Great Smoky National Park maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As indicated above, the Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area is required to implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a maintenance area. As such, DAQ worked with the National Park Service, NC DOT, and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area to develop and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity requirements for the area. This MOA is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

The bulk of the changes in the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions concern minor language edits, clarifications, and a correction of a typographical error. For example, one language edit changes the word “under” to “pursuant to.” An example of clarifying edits to the Great Smoky Mountains MOA was to update the names and abbreviations of the involved state and local agencies to their current names throughout the MOA. Additionally, the format for statues and regulations in the MOA have been revised, for example changing “49 U.S.C., 40 CFR 93.101” to “49 U.S.C., 40 CFR 93.101” and changing, “40 CFR 93.126, .127, and .128” to “40 CFR 93.126, 93.127, and 93.128.” The MOA was also updated to fix a typographical error in clause 3.2.2.5 when referencing a specific regulation provision. Further minor, non-substantive changes throughout the document include basic word preference changes, grammatical changes, and the necessary renumbering of sections to incorporate the addition of a clause.

The updates to the MOA also include several other changes, including the modification of two definitions, the addition of one clause, and the modification of one section. First, the MOA updates modify the definition of “Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).”  9 10 The updated definition of STIP is identical to the definition in 23 CFR part 450. The definition of “Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)” has also been modified in the MOA. 11 12 This definition is similar to the one for TIP found in 23 CFR part 450. As explained in the previous section, since transportation plans are developed pursuant to the requirements outlined in 23 CFR part 450, EPA finds these changes acceptable. The updates also include adding clause 4.1.2 to the “Conformity Analysis Results and Reporting” Section, which states that the conformity analysis should include, “Mobile model inputs and outputs needed to develop road network emissions modeling results . . .” As all the parties involved are required to evaluate and choose models and the associated assumptions for these models pursuant to 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i), EPA preliminarily finds the addition of this clause requiring the conformity analysis report to include the mobile model inputs and outputs acceptable and helpful. Finally, the “Modifications and Renewal of Agreement” section has been heavily modified in the MOA. The modifications to this section of the Greater Smoky Mountain Area MOA are identical to the changes made in the “Modifications of Agreement” section for the bi-state Charlotte MPOs. EPA finds these changes acceptable for the same reasons described in Section II.A.

EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOA and has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOA for the Great Smoky Mountain Area into the North Carolina SIP.

There are four MPOs within the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area. These MPOs are:

• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO);

• Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GMPO);

• High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO); and

• Winston-Salem-Forsyth Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSFUA).

Several counties (or portions of counties) in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area comprise the maintenance area for the CO NAAQS, the previous maintenance area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 13 The Burlington-Graham MPO is comprised of Alamance County and portions of Guilford and Orange Counties for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. The Greensboro Urban MPO is comprised of the City of Greensboro, the majority of unincorporated Guilford County, and the towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, and Summerfield for the annual 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. The High Point Urban MPO is comprised of Archdale, Denton, High Point, Jamestown, Lexington, Thomasville, Trinity, and Wallburg Counties, as well as portions of Davidson, Forsyth and Randolph Counties for the CO and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. Lastly, the Winston-Salem Urban MPO is comprised of portions of Forsyth, Davidson, Davie and Stokes Counties for the CO NAAQS and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. Although no longer required, DAQ worked with the BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, WSFUA, NC DOT, and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Area to develop and execute updated MOAs to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity requirements such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for the Area. 14 These MOAs are provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions for the MOAs associated with the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area, make the same changes to these MOAs as the bi-state Charlotte MOAs. As such, North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and the “Modifications of Agreement” section. Since the updates to the MOAs in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area are the same as those to the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA has preliminarily determined that these modifications are consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOAs for the BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, and WSFUA, relating to the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

The Hickory Area consists of one MPO, the Greater Hickory MPO, which is comprised of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties. The Hickory Area is a maintenance area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. As indicated above, the Hickory Area was previously required to implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as a maintenance area. Although no longer required, DAQ worked with the Greater Hickory MPO, and other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Hickory Area to develop and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity requirements such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for the Area. This MOA is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same changes to the Greater Hickory MOA as those made to the MOAs for the bi-State Charlotte Area. As such, these changes update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and the Modifications of Agreement section. Since the updates to the Greater Hickory MOA are the same as those made to the MOAs for the bi-State Charlotte Area, EPA has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOA for the Greater Hickory MPO, relating to the Hickory Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

There are two MPOs within the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill Area. These MPOs are:

• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO; and

• North Carolina Capital Area MPO.

Several counties (or portions of counties) in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area comprise a maintenance area for the CO NAAQS and a maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO consists of Durham County; the portion of Orange County that contains the towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough; and Northeast Chatham County. The North Carolina Capital Area MPO consists of Franklin, Granville, Harnett, Johnston, and Wake Counties. Durham, Franklin, Granville, Orange, Johnston, Person, 15 and Wake Counties, in their entireties, and a portion of Chatham County in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area were included in the maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, are required to implement transportation conformity requirements. 16

DAQ worked with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, the North Carolina Capital Area MPO, NC DOT, and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Area to develop and execute updated MOAs to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for the Area. These MOAs are provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same changes to the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area MOAs as the bi-State Charlotte MOAs. As such, North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and the Modifications of Agreement section. Since the updates to the MOAs in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area are the same as those to the MOAs in the bi-State Charlotte Area, EPA has preliminarily determined that these are consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOAs for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Cabarrus MPO and North Carolina Capital Area MPO, relating to the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

There is one MPO in the Rocky Mount Area, the Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO, which is comprised of the City of Rocky Mount, the towns of Nashville and Sharpsburg, and portions of Edgecombe and Nash Counties. Edgecombe and Nash Counties are in maintenance for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. DAQ worked with the Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO and other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Rocky Mount Area to develop and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements for the Area. This MOA is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same changes to the Rocky Mount Area MOA as those made to the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area with the exception of the definition for TIP. 17 As such, these changes update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and the Modifications of Agreement section. Since the updates to the Rocky Mount MOA are the same as those to the MOAs in the bi-state Charlotte Area, 18 EPA has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOA for the Rocky Mount Area into the North Carolina SIP.

NC DOT is the responsible party for interagency consultation and compliance with transportation conformity requirements if no MPO exists in an area that is subject to 40 CFR part 93. Currently, Person County is subject to transportation conformity per the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and does not have an MPO responsible for it. Therefore, NC DOT administers transportation conformity requirements for this area in accordance with the MOA for rural areas. DAQ worked with NC DOT and other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the area to develop and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c). This MOA is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions for the Rural Area MOA make many of the same changes as the bi-State Charlotte MOAs and the Great Smoky Mountain Area MOA. With respect to “Duties of the Parties” section, the Interagency Consultation Conformity Determination Meeting timing clarification, a typographical error in clause 6.3.1.5, the removal of the “Termination of Agreement” section, and the Modifications of Agreement section, the Rural Area MOA makes the same changes as those made in the bi-state Charlotte MOAs. With respect to the definitions for “Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)” and “Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)”, the Rural Area MOA makes the same changes as the Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area MOA. EPA finds these changes acceptable of the same reasons outlined in Sections II.A and II.B. Further minor, non-substantive changes throughout the document include basic word preference changes, grammatical changes, and the necessary renumbering of sections to incorporate the addition of a clause.

EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOA and has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOA for the Rural Area into the North Carolina SIP.

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the replacement of Transportation Conformity MOAs for the Burlington-Graham MPO, Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO, Greater Hickory MPO, Greensboro Urban Area MPO, High Point Urban Area MPO, North Carolina Capital Area MPO, Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NPS), and Rural Area (NC DOT). EPA is proposing to find that these actions are consistent with section 110 and 176 of the CAA and will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Are certified as not having significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP revisions are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rules do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

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.

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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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 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 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 § 87.139(c). RTCA argues, however, that the current requirements of § 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 § 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 § 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, § 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: info@rtca.org 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, § 87.89 requires that, with certain exceptions, operators of licensed aviation service stations “must hold a commercial radio operator 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?

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 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 § 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 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 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 § 27.52 (RF safety), § 27.56 (antenna structure height for the protection of air safety), or § 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 § 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 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.

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 §§ 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 § 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.

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 §§ 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?

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 § 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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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 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, 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 § 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.

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 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?

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 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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.

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.

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.

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR chapter I as follows:

The addition reads as follows: