# Commission Seeks Comment on Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-11732 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** June 2, 2014 - **Citation:** 79 FR 31247 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 90, 95, and 96 [GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 14-49] Commission Seeks Comment on Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this further notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on specific rule proposals for the establishment of a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). DATES: Submit comments on or before July 14, 2014 and reply comments on or before August 1, 2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12-354, by any of the following methods: Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, Attorney Advisor, Wireless Bureau—Mobility Division at (202) 418-1613 or Paul.Powell@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 14-49, adopted and released April 23, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Comment Filing Instructions Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ex Parte Rules This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 § 1.1206(b). See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f), 47 CFR 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. We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception for all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives. See 47 CFR 1.1204. This FNPRM raises significant technical issues implicating federal and non-federal spectrum allocations and users. Staff from NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged in technical discussions in the development of this FNPRM, and we anticipate these discussions will continue after this FNPRM is released. These discussions will benefit from an open exchange of information between agencies, and may involve sensitive information regarding the strategic federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing the value of federal agency collaboration on the technical issues raised in this FNPRM, NTIA's shared jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz Band, the importance of protecting federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from interference, and the goal of enabling spectrum sharing to help address the ongoing spectrum capacity crunch, we find that this exemption serves the public interest. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis This FNPRM contains proposed new and 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 FNPRM, 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, we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Synopsis of the Further Public Notice of Proposed Rulemaking I. Introduction We are in the midst of a communications revolution that has connected us to each other as never before through an ever increasing number of wireless devices. As a result of the continuing proliferation of connected devices, demand for wireless broadband capacity is growing rapidly. New, more efficient wireless network architectures and innovative approaches to spectrum management are tools that can help maximize the utility of existing spectrum resources and make new spectrum bands available for broadband access. As we previously discussed, See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 78 FR 1188, January 8, 2013, our proposals for the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band) focus on two components of the Commission's ongoing efforts to address wireless coverage and capacity issues: Small cells and spectrum sharing—both of which were addressed in a report issued by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). With this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we propose specific rules for a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band that would make the 3.5 GHz sharing regime originally described by PCAST a reality. The 3.5 GHz Band could be an “innovation band,” where we can explore new methods of spectrum sharing and promote a diverse array of network technologies, with a focus on relatively low-powered applications. If successful, the spectrum sharing model proposed for this band could ultimately be expanded to other spectrum bands and “transform the availability of a precious national resource —spectrum—from scarcity to abundance.” The proposed rules set forth herein build upon the record developed in response to a series of prior proposals and workshops over the past sixteen months. These detailed proposals will allow for more focused comment prior to establishing rules governing the proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service in a new part 96 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the proposed rules would implement an innovative and comprehensive framework to authorize a variety of small cell and other broadband uses of the 3.5 GHz Band on a shared basis with incumbent federal and non-federal users of the band, with oversight and enforcement through a Spectrum Access System (SAS). The proposed rules reflect our belief that the 3.5 GHz Band could be an ideal “innovation band,” well suited to exploring the next generation of shared spectrum technologies, to drive greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum use. The creation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service was originally proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3.5 GHz NPRM or NPRM) released in December 2012. After reviewing the record generated by the 3.5 GHz NPRM, we released a public notice to supplement the record with focused comment on specific concepts for the 3.5 GHz Band (Licensing PN). See Licensing PN, 78 FR 72851, December 4, 2013. The Licensing PN described a “Revised Framework” that elaborated on some of the alternative licensing and authorization concepts set forth in the NPRM. With this FNPRM we fulfill a commitment made in issuing the Licensing PN that we would seek comment on specific detailed rules before publishing a First Report and Order in this proceeding. As set forth in more detail below, we propose to establish a three-tiered authorization framework—Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers—based on the recommendations of PCAST and originally proposed in the NPRM. Under this framework, existing primary operations—including authorized federal users and grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations—would compose the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. At this time, we propose to establish geographic Exclusion Zones based on the models suggested in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Fast Track Report to protect federal Incumbent Access tier operations. We plan to work with NTIA in coming months to reassess these Exclusion Zones in light of new technologies envisioned in this FNPRM and new data from technical studies evaluating the coexistence of radars and wireless broadband services. If there are further developments that would enable a reduction in the size of the Exclusion Zones, we encourage participants to file in the record to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for public comment prior to issuance of a Report and Order in this proceeding. Interference management with respect to the three tiers of service, including adherence to designated Exclusion Zones, would be managed by a dynamic SAS, conceptually similar to, but more advanced than the databases used to manage Television White Spaces (TVWS) devices. Consistent with the Revised Framework, we propose to define each Priority Access License (PAL) as an authorization to use for one-year a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract. PALs would be open to any prospective licensee that meets basic FCC qualifications and mutually exclusive applications for PALs would be subject to competitive bidding. PAL channels would be dynamically coordinated by the SAS and the exact spectral location of a given PAL authorization could shift from time to time as directed by the SAS during its license term. The GAA tier would be licensed-by-rule to permit open, flexible access to the band to the widest possible group of potential users. We propose to reserve at all times for GAA use, a minimum of 50 percent of the band that is not encumbered by Incumbent Access tier users in any given location. We propose baseline technical standards for the operation of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) and End User Devices in the 3.5 GHz Band as well as general rules for the operation of the SAS and approval of SAS Administrators. Many of these concepts were originally raised in the NPRM and Licensing PN. We also seek further comment on other important issues raised in this proceeding, including: (1) Protection criteria for Incumbent Users; (2) potential protection of FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band); (3) competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually exclusive applications for PALs; and (4) the possible extension of the proposed rules to include the 3650-3700 MHz band. Some of these issues, particularly those dealing with protection criteria for Incumbent Access tier users, may require additional focused input from government and private industry stakeholders. Our goal in this FNPRM is to generate focused comment on specific proposed rule text as a penultimate step before the establishment of a new rule part—part 96—authorizing fixed and mobile wireless use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Our goal is to adopt rules that promote efficient and widespread use of the 3.5 GHz Band for a variety of potential users. We emphasize that this is an iterative process and that, while some issues remain open, the proposed rules set forth herein provide a clear framework that would allow users to begin operations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in designated geographic areas. II. Background The Fast Track Report first identified the 3.5 GHz Band as potentially suitable for commercial broadband use. NTIA recommended that this band could be made available for commercial wireless broadband by 2015 based on the conditions outlined in the Fast Track Report. NTIA's recommendation included significant geographic restrictions to protect existing Department of Defense (DoD) radar and FSS operations and to protect new commercial systems from co-channel interference from high-powered military in-band shipborne and adjacent band DoD ground-based radar systems. The radar systems that operate in the 3.5 GHz Band overcome the inherent propagation limitations of this frequency range by employing high transmitter power levels and high-gain antennas. These characteristics of the radar systems were a contributing factor to the size of the exclusion zones in the Fast Track evaluation. In July 2012, PCAST recommended that the Federal Government identify 1,000 megahertz of federal spectrum for shared use to create “the first shared use spectrum superhighways.” PCAST recommends that shared spectrum be organized into three tiers. To ensure interference protection, all users would be required to register in a database modeled on the TVWS database. The first tier would consist of incumbent federal users. These users would be entitled to full protection for their operations within their deployed areas, consistent with the terms of their assignments. The second tier would consist of users that would receive short-term priority authorizations to operate within designated geographic areas. Secondary users would receive protection from interference from third tier users but would be required to avoid interference with and accept interference from Federal Primary users. Third tier users (GAA) would be entitled to use the spectrum on an opportunistic basis and would not be entitled to interference protection. PCAST recommends that the Commission, in conjunction with NTIA, work expeditiously to implement its recommendations in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Commission's December 2012 NPRM proposed a three-tier, license-by-rule authorization framework, based on concepts described in the PCAST Report that are intended to facilitate rapid broadband deployment while protecting existing incumbent users of the 3.5 GHz Band. The NPRM solicited comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the appropriate licensing framework and the potential uses of each service tier. The Commission received extensive comment from a wide range of stakeholders in response. The NPRM also included a supplemental proposal to expand the proposed licensing and authorization model to an additional adjacent 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 3650-3700 MHz band, making up to 150 megahertz available for shared wireless broadband access. As we noted in the NPRM, the technical characteristics of the 3.5 GHz Band and the existence of important incumbent operations in the band in many areas of the country contribute to make the band an ideal platform to explore innovative approaches to shared spectrum use and small cell technology. NTIA's Fast Track Report recommended, based on technical assumptions typical of traditional macrocell deployments of commercial wireless broadband technology, that new commercial uses of the band occur outside of large “exclusion zones” to protect Federal government operations. Given that the exclusion zones would cover approximately 60 percent of the U.S. population and because of limited signal propagation in the band, the band did not appear to be well-suited for macrocell deployment. However, as noted in the NPRM, these very disadvantages could be turned into advantages if the band were used to explore spectrum sharing and small cell innovation. This proposal was based on recommendations put forth by the FCC's Technology Advisory Council (TAC), which has advocated for the increased use of small cell devices in spectrum constrained areas and supported dedicating a spectrum band to small cell uses. The combination of small cells and spectrum sharing technologies could vastly increase the usability of the 3.5 GHz Band for wireless broadband and serve as a model for future coexistence among services in other spectrum bands. In November 2013, in response to record comments received up to that point, we released the Licensing PN, which described a Revised Framework that elaborated upon some of the licensing concepts and alternatives set forth in the NPRM. The Revised Framework retains the three-tier model proposed in the NPRM but expands eligibility to apply for PALs, and explores innovative means of assigning authorizations within that tier. Like the NPRM's main proposal, the Revised Framework would leverage the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS technologies to enable sharing among users in the Priority Access and GAA tiers. Specifically, the Revised Framework contains the following core concepts: • An SAS to dynamically manage frequency assignments and automatically enforce access to the Priority Access and GAA tiers; • Expansive eligibility for Priority Access tier use; • Granular, but administratively-streamlined licensing of the Priority Access tier; • Exclusive spectrum rights for Priority Access subject to licensing by auction in the event of mutually exclusive applications; • A defined “floor” of GAA spectrum availability, to ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent Access tier use); • Additional GAA access to unused Priority Access bandwidth, as identified and managed by the SAS, to maximize dynamic use of the unutilized portion of the band and ensure productive use of the spectrum; • Opportunities for Contained Access Users to obtain targeted priority spectrum use within specific facilities (such as buildings) that meet certain requirements to mitigate the potential for interference to and from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users; and • A set of baseline technical standards to prevent harmful interference and ensure productive use of the spectrum. The Licensing PN generated a robust supplementary record, eliciting comments from a wide range of stakeholders. While most commenters support expanding Priority Access tier eligibility from “critical access” users to all qualified applicants, opinions were split on other specific aspects of the Revised Framework. Notably, commenters diverged greatly on the band plan, PAL specifications, authorization methodology, and technical specifications of CBSDs. These submissions are addressed in greater detail on an issue-by-issue basis in Section III. In addition, we have convened two workshops to discuss technical issues related to this proceeding. The first workshop explored broad issues that emanated from the original NPRM. More recently, on January 14, 2014, the Bureau and OET hosted a workshop to further explore the technical requirements, operational parameters, and architecture of the proposed SAS (SAS Workshop). A diverse group of engineers representing industry stakeholders, trade associations, and academia submitted technical papers in advance of the workshop and participated in panels throughout the day. We address many of these submissions in greater detail below. The purpose of this FNPRM is to solicit focused comment on specific proposed rules and other specifically identified open issues. To the extent that parties require additional background on any of the proposals we describe in this FNPRM, we encourage them to review prior releases in this docket, including the NPRM, the Licensing PN, and the recorded footage of the two workshops. III. Discussion With this FNPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. These proposed rules build upon the concepts and proposals set forth in the NPRM and the Licensing PN, in light of the record created in this proceeding. Notably, the proposed rules would: • Implement the three-tier model proposed in the NPRM; • Establish Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between incumbent federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users; • Create an open eligibility authorization system for Priority Access and GAA operations; • Establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for the Priority Access tier, consistent with parameters discussed in the Licensing PN; • Set a defined “floor” for GAA spectrum availability, to ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent Access tier use); • Set guidelines to allow Contained Access Users to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from the GAA pool for use within their facilities; • Establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic base stations operating in the 3.5 GHz Band; • Set guidelines for the operation and certification of SASs in the band. We seek detailed comment on these proposals, as well as viable alternative or supplemental rule provisions that could help to achieve our stated objectives. We encourage commenters to focus their submissions on the specific proposed rule text and structure. We further encourage commenters to identify the specific costs and benefits associated with any proposal. To the extent possible, commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, including a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary support. A. Proposed Regulatory Framework Below we discuss the proposed Part 96 and its component subsections, as well as proposed modifications to our existing rules designed to accommodate the new proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The discussion parallels the proposed structure of Part 96, as detailed in Appendix A. 1. Proposed Part 96 Rule Part a. Subpart A—General Rules (i) Scope (§ 96.1) We propose to implement the three-tier authorization framework originally described in the NPRM and further discussed in the Licensing PN. This proposal is consistent with the framework for the 3.5 GHz Band originally described in the PCAST Report. Under this framework, existing primary operations—including authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations—would make up the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from harmful interference consistent with the proposed rules. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be divided into Priority Access and GAA tiers of service, each of which would be required to operate on a non-interference basis with the Incumbent Access tier. We also propose that any party that meets basic eligibility requirements under the Communications Act be eligible to hold a PAL or, when authorized, operate a CBSD on a GAA basis in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The proposed three-tier framework enjoys significant support from a diverse group of commenters, including AT&T, Google, Public Knowledge, and the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation. Others, including CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA), NSN, and Qualcomm have argued that a two-tier framework that would prohibit or segregate GAA users would be a more efficient way to manage the 3.5 GHz Band. Some commenters, including some who have also expressed support for the three-tiered model, argue that the 3.5 GHz Band should be divided between two and three-tiered authorization schemes, at least on a transitional basis. Under this concept, as originally described by Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Wireless Inc. (Verizon), a portion of the band would be set aside for a “transitional framework” sub-band which would be licensed on a more traditional, exclusive-use basis and would not include GAA users. The remainder of the band could be split between GAA-only use and the proposed three-tiered sharing framework. The “transitional framework” sub-band could then be phased out after the three-tier framework is proven to be workable in practice. The specific Part 96 rules we propose today would apply the three-tier authorization model across the entire 3.5 GHz Band, based, at least in part, on concerns about the impact that Balkanization of this spectrum may have in terms of limiting the development of a robust and varied shared spectrum ecosystem in the band. We seek comment on the proposed section 96.1 and encourage commenters to consider the costs and benefits of any alternate proposals that they may put forward in light of the recommendations of PCAST and the Commission's goals for this band. (ii) Definitions (§ 96.3) Section 96.3 of the proposed rules sets forth definitions for various terms included in the proposed Part 96. We seek comment on these definitions and any additional terms that may need to be defined. (iii) Eligibility (§ 96.5) We propose that any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act be eligible to operate a CBSD on a Priority Access or GAA basis. Issues related to qualifications for Priority Access, GAA, and Contained Access Users are explored in greater detail below. (iv) Authorization Required (§ 96.7) We propose that operators be authorized consistent with this part prior to operating CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The proposed rules governing authorizations for Priority Access, GAA, and Contained Access Users are discussed in greater detail below. We seek comment on this proposed rule and on the proposed changes to Part 1 of the Commission's rules. We also seek comment on whether the licensing and authorization methods described herein would require the Commission to alter its existing rules governing filing, retention, and public access for licenses and applications in the Wireless Radio Services. (v) Regulatory Status (§ 96.9) We propose to allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to select whether to provide service on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis, regardless of whether they operate in the Priority Access tier, GAA tier, or both. Users that choose to offer services on a common carrier basis would be required to comply with all of the Commission's rules applicable to common carriers. This is consistent with our approach in other licensed services. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, should GAA users be permitted to provide common carrier services? Could the SAS effectively coordinate and enforce these individual service selections, subject to appropriate Commission oversight? (vi) Frequencies (§ 96.11) We propose to include the 3550-3650 MHz band in Part 96. These proposed rules could be expanded to include the 3650-3700 MHz band or other encumbered spectrum bands in the future. We discuss our supplementary proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band in greater detail below. We seek comment on the proposed § 96.11. (vii) Frequency Assignments (§ 96.13) Consistent with the concepts set forth in the Licensing PN, we propose to adopt rules governing frequency assignments that would balance the needs of Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. To foster a robust GAA ecosystem, a meaningful amount of the 3.5 GHz Band must be reserved for GAA use in any given geographic area. To that end, we propose to reserve for GAA use a minimum of 50 percent of the 3.5 GHz Band in any given census tract—after accounting for any frequencies reserved for Incumbent Access tier use in the area—with the remainder to be assigned as PALs. We do not propose to assign GAA users and Priority Access Licensees to fixed spectral locations ( e.g., GAA from 3550-3600 MHz and Priority Access from 3600-3650 MHz). Rather, under our proposal, the SAS would dynamically assign PAL channels and GAA bandwidth in real time to promote efficient spectrum use. Under this proposal, PALs would be assigned in 10 megahertz channels, consistent with the processes described in section III(A)(1)(c) below, but we do not propose to establish a fixed channel size for GAA users. Rather, GAA users would be permitted to operate on a range of frequencies within the GAA pool, as determined by the SAS. In addition, in areas in which bandwidth has not yet been assigned to PALs or where assigned bandwidth is not in actual use by Priority Access Licensees, such bandwidth would be made available for additional GAA operations on an opportunistic basis. The SAS would coordinate Priority Access and GAA operations consistent with its responsibilities under the proposed rules. Proportional Assignment of GAA and Priority Access Frequencies. In response to the Licensing PN, commenters supported a wide range of potential frequency assignment models for the 3.5 GHz Band, ranging from rejection of a GAA Tier to fully dynamic assignment of GAA and Priority Access rights based on demand and network needs. Of those commenters that supported the proposed three-tier model, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Google argued that a higher, fixed quantity of spectrum should be assigned for Priority Access use. Microsoft argued that a minimum of 50 megahertz of spectrum should be retained for GAA use while Public Knowledge argued that no less than 50 percent of available spectrum should be reserved for GAA. WISPA argued that, in rural areas, 70 megahertz of the band should be available for GAA use while in non-rural areas only 50 megahertz should be reserved. We seek comment on whether the proposed rule appropriately balances public interest considerations raised by commenters on this matter. Does the proposed 50 percent floor for GAA bandwidth provide sufficient spectrum to foster a robust user ecosystem while ensuring that enough spectrum is made available for multiple Priority Access Licensees? We seek comment on the proposed rule, including any costs and benefits of the proposed approach. We also seek comment on alternative approaches to the apportioning of available spectrum between the PAL and GAA tiers. Dynamic Frequency Assignment. Commenters differed as to whether frequency assignments should be fixed or dynamically assigned by the SAS. Notably, Google and WISPA supported dynamic assignment of Priority Access and GAA frequencies and argued that the SAS would be able to efficiently and dynamically assign frequencies to appropriate parties. Commenters including AT&T, T-Mobile, CTIA, and Ericsson argued for designated, fixed channel assignments, claiming that dynamic frequency assignments would interfere with network planning and channel aggregation. Under our proposal, in place of fixed channel assignments, the SAS would dynamically assign bandwidth within given geographic areas to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users in accordance with the procedures set forth in the proposed rules. The SAS would ensure that Priority Access Licensees have access to allotted 10 megahertz channels and that GAA users are provided access to at least 50 percent of the band. However, the exact spectral location of any given authorization, whether Priority Access or GAA, would not be fixed. For example, a licensee might have Priority Access rights for a single PAL, but the specific channel location assigned to that user would be managed by the SAS and could be reassigned from time to time ( e.g., from 3550-3560 MHz to 3630-3640 MHz). Individual GAA users would be assigned available bandwidth of a size and spectral location determined by the SAS ( e.g., from 3550-3556 MHz or 3662-3673 MHz). The SAS would assign and maintain appropriate frequency assignments and ensure that lower tier users do not interfere with higher tier users. To the extent that some level of regional or national consistency of assignment facilitates the provision of service, SAS providers would be free to agree upon a common assignment convention. However, such a convention would not be specified in the rules, in order to allow the greatest degree of operational flexibility. We seek comment on the proposed rule, including the capabilities that the SAS would have to incorporate to manage operations in the band consistent with this proposal. Alternately, should we adopt a more traditional model with static frequency assignments for GAA users and Priority Access Licensees? What advantages and disadvantages would a fixed channel assignment model provide as compared to the dynamic system set forth in the proposed rules? We also seek comment on our proposal to allow the SAS to assign a flexible amount of bandwidth to individual GAA users. Should GAA users instead be assigned a consistent amount of bandwidth ( e.g., 10 megahertz) like Priority Access Licensees? What would be the costs and benefits of such an approach? GAA Access to Unused Priority Access Channels. The Revised Framework discussed allowing GAA users to access unused Priority Access channels on an opportunistic basis. AT&T and T-Mobile supported the concept of allowing GAA users to make use of unused Priority Access tier channels so long as use was limited to unassigned and undeployed channels. Under their proposal, a channel would be unavailable for GAA once it is assigned to a Priority Access Licensee. Public Knowledge, The New America Institute, Federated Wireless, and Google as well as a broad coalition of broadband service providers, manufacturers, trade associations, and technology companies (Coalition) argued for a more flexible model that would allow GAA use over Priority Access channels that are not in actual use. The rule we propose here would allow GAA use on unused PAL channels to promote efficient and consistent use of spectrum. We seek comment on the proposed rule, including any costs and benefits of the proposed approach. How should “use” be practically and consistently determined in this context? How should the determination be made in the context of our dynamic frequency assignment proposal? If an assigned but previously unused PAL channel is later determined to be “in use,” how long should a GAA user be given to vacate the Priority Access channel? What should be the triggering event that reserves assignment of a channel for PAL use? Should the event be based on action by a Priority Access Licensee ( e.g., initiating service in a portion of the PAL) or by the SAS ( e.g., assigning a channel to the PAL in response to a request from a Priority Access licensee)? b. Subpart B—Incumbent Protections (i) Protection of Federal Incumbents (§ 96.15) Consistent with the three-tier construct, we propose in Section 96.15 to require that CBSDs may not cause harmful interference to and must accept interference from authorized federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band. As an initial matter, we also propose at this time that CBSDs comply with the geographic Exclusion Zones based on the parameters set forth in the Fast Track Report to ensure compatibility with federal operations, and that the SAS ensure that CBSDs do not operate within Exclusion Zones. We discuss issues related to these requirements in more detail, including the size of Exclusion Zones and our intention to revisit the appropriate incumbent protection criteria, in section III(B)(1) below. We seek comment on these proposed rules. (ii) Protection of Existing Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band (§ 96.17) We also propose to protect existing FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band by requiring that CBSDs not cause harmful interference to these sites. We discuss broader issues related to these requirements in more detail in Section III(B)(3)(a) below and seek comment on the issue of protection for “out-of-band” FSS earth stations in section III(B)(3)(b). We seek comment on these proposed rules. (iii) Operation Near Canadian and Mexican Borders (§ 96.19) Our proposed rules note that Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations along the Canadian and Mexican borders would be subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada. The SAS would be required to enforce these requirements. We seek comment on these proposed rules. c. Subpart C—Priority Access We propose not to limit eligibility for the Priority Access tier, to assign rights based upon targeted PAL parameters, resolve mutually exclusive license applications via competitive bidding, and to require access coordination through an SAS. These proposals are generally consistent with the Revised Framework described in the Licensing PN. (i) Authorization (§ 96.21) Under our proposed rules, any entity eligible to hold an FCC license would be eligible to apply for, and hold, a PAL. Commenters generally support expanding eligibility to the Priority Access tier to a broader class of users than we proposed in the NPRM. Expanded access to the Priority Access tier would promote more intensive use of the 3.5 GHz Band and would promote investment in new small cell technologies. We propose to require all applicants for PALs to demonstrate their qualification to hold an authorization and demonstrate how a grant of authorization would serve the public interest. Qualifications would include those under section 310 of the Act regarding foreign ownership. The Commission has broad authority to prescribe “citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications” for its licensees. We seek comment on how to apply this authority with respect to the 3.5 GHz Band, and whether to adopt the same policies in this respect that the Commission has established for other services. We also propose that certain of the processes and requirements may be reasonably automated by SAS Administrators, in accordance with the Commission's rules. We seek comment on these proposed rules, including on any limitations posed by our Title III obligations on the scope of authority that may be delegated to such SAS Administrators. (ii) Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.23) Our proposed rules stipulate that Priority Access Licensees would receive interference protection from GAA users but would operate on a non-interfering basis with respect to Incumbent Users. Conceptually, the proposed PALs would be “building blocks” that an eligible licensee could aggregate over frequency, time, and geography to meet diverse spectrum needs. The use of PALs—and interactions between and among tiers—would be managed by the SAS. This licensing and access model is consistent with the recommendations of PCAST and would effectively serve the public interest. We seek comment on these proposed rules as described in more detail below. Geography. We propose to authorize PALs at the census tract level and to permit geographic aggregation across license areas. As explained in the Licensing PN, census tracts offer a variety of benefits, including geographic sizes varying by population density, nesting into other political subdivisions including city lines, and aligning with other natural features that track population density. Under our proposal, PAL applicants could target specific geographic areas in which they need additional coverage and avoid applying for areas that they do not intend to serve. Our proposal reflects the unique technical characteristics of small cells to promote a high degree of spectral and spatial reuse while facilitating flexible, targeted deployment of CBSDs. We received a diverse record in response to our proposal to use census tracts as a licensing area. Some commenters agreed with our proposal. Others argued that census tracts were inappropriate geographic license areas because the borders of census tracts frequently divide streets and their relatively small size would make co-channel coordination between Priority Access Licensees more difficult. Other commenters suggest that even smaller geographic areas, such as census block groups would allow for granular and demand-focused assignments. Others proposed larger, more traditional license areas such as counties, EAs, or CMAs. Google suggests license boundaries be based on proposed network parameters and actual contours, as determined and enforced by the SAS. Our census tract proposal occupies a middle ground among these diverse recommendations, and is designed as an equitable means of achieving the Commission's public interest goals. Census tracts are sufficiently granular to promote intensive use of the band and are large enough, either on their own or in aggregate, to support a variety of use cases, including small cell base stations and backhaul. We seek comment on the proposed rule including any potential costs or benefits. Would adopting alternative geographic license sizes further the public interest given the Commission's goals and contemplated use cases for the band? We also seek comment on whether PALs could be deployed on an even more focused basis, employing a fine grained grid of “pixels” ( i.e., small, regular geographic regions that can be combined to approximate, with high resolution, the operational and protection contours of various system deployments) to promote more targeted and customizable network deployment. If the Commission adopts census tracts, or something smaller, as the appropriate geographic license area, should package bidding or another mechanism that would allow applicants to bid on larger geographic areas be adopted? To the extent that commenters believe that the use of census tracts would foreclose a particular use case for the band, we encourage them to provide detailed technical analyses to support their claims. Channels. As described in the Revised Framework and section III (A)(1)(a)(vii) above, we propose to authorize PALs to operate over 10 megahertz unpaired channels. While a few commenters argued for larger or smaller channels, the record generally supports our proposal to utilize 10 megahertz channels for PALs with the ability to aggregate multiple channels. Ten megahertz channels provide a flexible, scalable, practically deployable bandwidth for high data rate technologies that would permit multiple Priority Access Licensees to operate effectively in a given geographic area. We seek comment on the proposed rule. In addition, consistent with the Revised Framework, we propose that once the Commission has assigned PAL rights to a user, the specific channels would be dynamically assigned to the PALs by the SAS. As discussed previously, some commenters argue for fixed channel assignments. Others, like Google and WISPA support the dynamic assignment model outlined in the Revised Framework. We should maximize flexibility in the band to allow the SAS to use channel assignments as a tool in maximizing efficiency and minimizing interference scenarios. However, we propose that the SAS be permitted to assign specific frequencies to Priority Access Licensees upon their request, when available and on a dynamic basis. To the extent a licensee has PALs in adjacent census tracts, we propose that the SAS should endeavor to assign contiguous frequencies across geographic boundaries. In addition, consistent with the dynamic nature of the proposed channel assignments, we encourage SAS Administrators to make reasonable efforts to assign adjacent frequencies to licensees with access rights to multiple channels in a single census tract. Dynamically assigning spectrum based upon the demand within a geographic area at a given time would promote efficient use of the band across wider geographic areas without compromising flexibility. We seek comment on this proposal. What effect would such assignment have on spectrum efficiency as opposed to the use of channel bonding techniques across non-contiguous spectrum? Would such a rule simplify or complicate the SAS's ability to manage the spectrum within any given census tract? What effect would such a rule have on the ability to predict and take measures to prevent harmful interference among users within the same census tract and users in nearby census tracts? Term. We propose to limit license terms to one-year with no renewal, but allow entities to aggregate up to five consecutive years of licenses, through competitive bidding. PALs would automatically terminate at the end of each year. As explained in the Licensing PN, we believe that this approach would promote flexibility, simplify administration, and promote fungibility and liquidity in the secondary market. Allowing applications for multiple years of PALs would provide Priority Access Licensees with the certainty they may need to make capital investments in any PAL. The record related to these licensing concepts was also mixed. Some commenters agreed with our proposal of one-year terms with the option to aggregate multiple years. Others argued for license terms shorter than one year while Microsoft agreed with the one-year proposal but argued for a prohibition on term aggregation. On the other hand, several commenters including Ericsson, NSN, and Qualcomm supported a more traditional licensing model with longer ( e.g. 10-year) license terms. Under this proposal, licensees would be able to hold up to five-years of PALs in a given geographic area at any given time. Licensees holding less than five-years of PALs in a geographic area may apply for additional PALs in the same geographic area, up to a total (including their existing PALs) of five-years. For example, a licensee awarded five-years of PALs through the annual application window in one year would be allowed to apply for a one year PAL through the annual application window in the subsequent year. We note that in response to the Licensing PN, several commenters argued for a shorter temporal aggregation limit than we propose here. For example, WISPA suggests a four-year aggregation cap, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation suggest a three-year cap, Motorola Solutions suggests only two years, and Microsoft suggests we not permit term aggregation (effectively a one-year availability in the licensing window). AT&T, by contrast, suggests that licensees be permitted to retain their authorizations indefinitely for areas in which they have deployed equipment and provided service within one year. By combining short-term licenses with a multi-year application window, our proposal for one-year licenses with term aggregation balances the competing public interest concerns expressed in the record. We seek comment on the proposed one-year, non-renewable license terms and aggregation limit, including any costs and benefits. (iii) Application Window (§ 96.25) We propose to accept applications for PALs annually and to make up to five consecutive years of PALs available in any given application window. We seek comment on the proposed rule including any potential costs or benefits. (iv) Assignment of Licenses (§ 96.27) We propose to adopt a geographic area license scheme for the Priority Access tier, which permits the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. Section 309(j) of the Communications Act requires that the Commission assign initial licenses through the use of competitive bidding when mutually exclusive applications for such licenses are accepted for filing, except in the case of certain specific statutory exemptions. Although the NPRM asked whether a licensing scheme for PALs should include a “mission critical” eligibility criterion that might involve such exemptions, under our current eligibility proposal such exemptions would not appear applicable here. Consistent with the Commission's policy that competitive bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value the spectrum most highly, we believe that it would be in the public interest to adopt a licensing scheme for PALs which allows the filing of mutually exclusive applications that, if accepted, would be resolved through competitive bidding. Accordingly, in section III(A)(2)(b) below, we seek comment on a number of proposals regarding competitive bidding rules that would apply to resolve any mutually exclusive applications accepted for PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. (v) Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.29) OTI, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge argue that when mutual exclusivity exists no licensee should hold more than 20 megahertz of spectrum in a given license area. They argue that the limitation would allow future entrants and new competitors to enter the market. We propose to allow licensees to hold up to three PALs in one census tract at one time ( i.e., 30 megahertz in one census tract at any time). Given the unique circumstances of this band and the proposed rules, it would be difficult to apply the Commission's traditional competitive review process with respect to proposed transfers of licenses in the band. In this specific instance, a clear aggregation limit, applicable to all PAL licensees in the band, could promote competitive access to the band while avoiding the need for case-by-case review of license transfers. This approach should facilitate a liquid “spot market” in PALs, as described further in section III(A)(2)(c), below. We seek comment on the proposed rule. Should we set a higher or lower allowance? Should aggregation allowances only apply when mutual exclusivity exists? Is an aggregation limit necessary when interested parties also have access to GAA spectrum, along with other bands that can be used for Wi-Fi and other similar services? Should aggregation limits change if the band is partially encumbered by Incumbent Users? What are the costs and benefits of higher or lower allowances? Are there other methods to promote competition, incentivize investment and innovation, and ensure spectrum availability for diverse uses? d. Subpart D—General Authorized Access (i) Authorization and General Authorized Access Use (§ 96.31 and § 96.33) As explained above, we propose to reserve a floor of at least 50 percent of available bandwidth in the 3.5 GHz Band in each census tract for GAA use, with additional frequencies to be made available on an opportunistic basis when not in use by Priority Access Licensees. As described in the NPRM and Licensing PN, GAA devices would be licensed-by-rule as under Section 307 of the Communications Act to promote rapid deployment by a wide range of users at low cost and with minimal barriers to entry. GAA users would be required to use only certified, Commission-approved CBSDs and register with the SAS. Consistent with the proposed rules governing CBSDs, devices operating on a GAA basis would be required to provide the SAS with all information required by the rules—including operator identification, device identification, and geo-location information—upon initial registration and as required by the SAS. GAA users would also be required to comply with the instructions of the SAS and avoid causing harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and Incumbent Access tier users. Similar to unlicensed operations, GAA users would have no expectation of interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Are there other licensing paradigms that the Commission should consider? If so, commenters are requested to provide a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of the approach. As discussed previously, commenters took a variety of positions with regard to the portion of the band that should be used for GAA as well as our proposals to allow dynamic and opportunistic use of unused Priority Access channels. Some commenters also objected to our proposal to authorize the GAA tier on a license-by-rule basis. These positions are discussed in greater detail in sections III(A)(1)(a)(vii) and III(A)(2)(a). Our proposals would ensure widespread availability of GAA frequencies for the broadest possible class of users and applications. We seek comment on the proposed rules including potential costs and benefits. (ii) Contained Access Facilities (§ 96.35) As we noted in the NPRM and Licensing PN, a wide variety of critical services in the United States have current and future spectrum needs and there is currently insufficient spectrum to allocate exclusive bandwidth to all such services. While we believe that broad eligibility for use of the 3.5 GHz Band will produce significant public interest benefits, we continue to believe that “the high spatial reuse characteristics of low-power 3.5 GHz transmissions, combined with access management facilitated by the SAS, should allow the 3.5 GHz Band to be utilized on a shared, licensed basis by a variety of critical users to provide high quality services to localized facilities.” To that end, the Licensing PN sought comment on whether it would be in the public interest to allow critical users to receive interference protections, akin to Priority Access users, within a limited portion ( e.g., 20 megahertz) of the GAA pool inside the confines of their facilities. Commenters responding the Licensing PN diverged as to how the Commission should treat critical facilities. Commenters including T-Mobile and Spectrum Bridge support allowing critical access users to reserve spectrum on a highly localized basis. Motorola Solutions argues that critical facilities should be assigned 20 to 30 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz Band and be permitted to utilize that spectrum for indoor or outdoor applications, while UTC asserts that the entire Priority Access Tier should be reserved for critical access facilities. Google argues that preferential treatment for critical facilities should be limited to “available spectrum” and that such users should not be able to evict users that have already deployed network facilities. In addition, PCIA argues that the Commission should provide for the deployment of both critical and non-critical localized indoor networks. We propose to allow Contained Access Users, such as hospitals, public safety organizations, and local governments to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from the GAA pool for indoor use within their facilities in furtherance of the public interest. These frequencies may be used only for private internal radio services and may not be made available to the general public. Other GAA users would not be permitted to utilize the reserved frequencies within designated Contained Access Facilities (CAFs). Except for the ability to prohibit third-party use in CAFs, Contained Access Users availing themselves of the reserved channels would still operate on a GAA basis and would have no special rights with respect to interference from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We also propose that Contained Access Users must undertake reasonable efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from GAA transmissions originating outside the CAF. The “reasonable efforts” requirement would therefore ensure that Contained Access Users take advantage of RF isolation intrinsic to the CAF, along with any other potential interference “self-help” measures, to protect the RF environment within the CAF. Potential Contained Access Users would be required to receive approval from the Commission to be eligible to utilize reserved frequencies. The public interest would be served by giving designated Contained Access Users the ability to utilize reserved frequencies indoors, within CAFs in this fashion. Moreover, the limited geographic and spectral impact of this proposal will allow for the effective coexistence of Contained Access Users, Incumbent Users, and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators. We seek comment on the proposed rule including any costs or benefits. Specifically, what types of entities should be considered qualified Contained Access Users? Does this proposal adequately address the spectrum needs of Contained Access Users? Would this proposal effectively address a demonstrated spectrum need for certain users that would not otherwise be addressed by the proposals in this FNPRM? Should this proposed framework be limited to Contained Access Users or expanded to include other types of facilities, including outdoor facilities? Would the SAS be able to effectively manage spectrum use by a large number of facilities? How would the SAS limit the operation of other GAA users within CAF premises? Would this plan unacceptably encumber GAA spectrum? We ask that commenters provide detailed technical and/or economic analysis to support their arguments. e. Subpart E—Technical Rules (i) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices General Requirements (§ 96.36) To enable the SAS to authorize and effectively coordinate the use of shared spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band, CBSDs must transmit certain operational and identification information to the SAS. In the NPRM, Licensing PN, and SAS Papers PN we sought comment on the types of information that CBSDs should be required to transmit. Commenters took a wide range of positions with regard to information transmission requirements for CBSDs. Elements of these proposals have been incorporated into proposed rule 96.36. Specifically, we propose that CBSDs must provide the SAS with the following information: (1) Geographic location (within ±50 meters horizontal and ±3 meters vertical); (2) antenna height above ground level (meters); (3) requested authorization status (Priority Access or General Authorized Access); (4) unique FCC identification number; (5) user contact information; and (6) unique serial number. This information must be communicated when the CBSD initially registers at the SAS and at regular intervals thereafter. We also propose that CBSDs must follow directions and updates sent by SAS in a timely manner. For managed networks, while it is likely that information exchanges between CBSDs and the SAS would be aggregated through a proxy such as a network access manager, the proposed requirements would still be applicable to all CBSDs operating in the band. Geo-location and Reporting Capability. For the SAS to predict and evaluate potential interference and spectrum availability accurately it must have accurate location information for all CBSDs. We propose that all CBSDs must accurately report the location of each of their antennas to within ±50 meters (horizontal) and ±3 meters (vertical). The proposed horizontal geo-location requirement is consistent with a similar requirement in the TVWS rules. We also propose that CBSDs report their location to the SAS within 60 seconds of a change in location exceeding the accuracy requirement. We seek comment on these proposals, including potential costs and benefits. Is this degree of accuracy feasible with current technology? Should we require greater accuracy? What effect do the accuracy requirements have on actual spectrum efficiency and the SASs ability to manage interference potential among different users? Would the proposed geo-location requirement place undue burden on equipment manufacturers or SAS operators? Is such a requirement reasonable to control the interference environment among users? Is there a different timeframe for reporting that should be used? Interoperability. To facilitate our proposed dynamic approach to frequency assignment, we propose to require CBSDs to be interoperable across all frequencies from 3550-3700 MHz. This would ensure that all CBSDS and End User Devices certified to operate in the band would be capable of sending and receiving information regardless of the frequencies assigned by the SAS. It also anticipates the possible inclusion of the 3650-3700 MHz band. Several commenters also supported band-wide device interoperability. We seek comment on this proposal including any potential costs and benefits. What effects would such a requirement have on equipment cost and design? What are the implications of equipment that may only work over a portion of the band and may not be able to tune to channels as assigned by the SAS? To what extent would an interoperability requirement promote consumer choice, given the characteristics of this service? To what extent should we seek to align the proposed interoperability requirement with existing international harmonization efforts for the 3.5 GHz Band ( e.g., 3GPP Bands 42 and 43)? Similarly, how are current coexistence efforts among products conforming to multiple industry standards ( e.g., 3GPP, IEEE 802.11 series) affected by the proposed interoperability requirement? Registration with SAS. As set forth in greater detail below, we also propose that CBSDs be permitted to operate only if authorized by the SAS and if they follow frequency assignments and power limitations set by SAS. We propose that CBSDs must move their transmission to another channel or stop operation in the band as directed by SAS within a reasonable time. We seek comment on the appropriate time for CBSDs to respond to instructions from the SAS. Is sixty seconds a reasonable response timeframe or could a shorter response period be imposed? How does the timeframe affect the overall spectrum efficiency within the band? What effect would this timeframe have on the ability of the SAS to manage potential interference? Interference Reporting. Some commenters suggested that, to enable the SAS to tune or update its predictive models and also address real time interference issues, CBSDs should be required to provide the SAS with signal level measurements in their band or other adjacent frequency channels as requested by SAS. Many technologies already support this capability to allow radio resource management within a network. This capability could be a valuable tool for managing interference and promoting productive coexistence between multiple operators in the 3.5 GHz Band. We propose to require CBSDs to measure and report on their local signal level environment as set forth in the proposed rules. We seek comment on this proposal. What effect would the incorporation of such capability have on the cost of equipment? How should such a requirement be structured? Over what bandwidth or over how many channels should such measurements be reported? Does the Commission need to adopt measurement guidelines or procedures specifying how such measurements should be taken to ensure consistency in reporting among users? Security. During the SAS Workshop many commenters also emphasized the importance of end-to-end security for communications among CBSDs, End User Devices, and the SAS. We are mindful of the need to provide robust security for Federal information, personally identifiable information, and sensitive business information that may be transmitted between these devices and the SAS. To that end, we propose a security requirement for all communications between authorized SASs and CBSDs. We also propose to adopt comprehensive procedures to test and certify CBSDs and associated end user devices for operation in this band and to require the SAS to disconnect any device whose proper operation has been compromised. We seek comment on these proposed security measures. We ask commenters to suggest appropriate security protocols and discuss how these protocols would effectively safeguard sensitive information transmitted among the SAS, CBSDs, and End User Devices. If not, what additional measures should we adopt? Are there other enforcement mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure proper security of devices? (ii) End User Devices General Requirements (§ 96.37) We propose that mobile, portable, or fixed End User Devices may operate only if they can positively receive and decode an authorization signal transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequencies and power limits for their operation. This requirement would effectively prevent End User Devices from unauthorized operation in the 3.5 GHz Band and ensure that such devices operate only according to the instructions transmitted from the SAS to the CBSD. We seek comment on this proposed rule. General Radio Requirements (§ 96.38) Digital Modulation. We propose that systems operating in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service use digital modulation techniques. We seek comment on this proposed rule. Conducted and Emitted Power Limits. To prevent harmful interference among users of the 3.5 GHz Band, we propose to establish appropriate and flexible power limits for CBSDs and End User Devices when operating in this band. In the Licensing PN, we sought comment on limiting CBSD emitted power to 24 dBm. We also sought comment on a 6 dBi antenna gain for installations requiring an external antenna. With negligible cable and insertion loss, this makes the maximum effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP) 1W or 30 dBm. We noted that these are consistent with the values commonly assumed in various studies for small cell base stations. We also indicated that the maximum operational EIRP of individual base stations might be reduced by the SAS to prevent interference and promote efficient network operation. In addition, we assume that End User Devices would have configurable maximum power levels below typical 24 dBm values and support for some form of power control. Commenters diverged greatly with regard to the maximum allowable power for devices operating in the band, with many supporting variable power limits for different use cases. For instance, CommScope supported a 24 dBm maximum transmit power for base stations with low gain antennas. T-Mobile supported a maximum transmit power of 24 dBm for GAA users and 37 dBm for Priority Access devices. Verizon advocated a maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for outdoor Priority Access base stations, while noting that 24 dBm might be appropriate for GAA indoor uses. Similarly, Motorola Solutions, BliNQ, and Qualcomm supported maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for at least some use cases. WISPA encouraged the Commission to allow higher power operations in rural areas of the country. Commenters also supported a wide range of allowable antenna gains for base stations—from 6 dBi through 29 dBi—and maximum allowable power levels for different transmitters within that range. For the combination of transmit power and antenna gain, commenters proposed a range of EIRP from low 30 dBm to high 47 dBm for different use cases. Motorola Solutions, Qualcomm, and CommScope (for lower than 12 dBi antenna gain) suggested a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm. Some, including Google (36 dBm), CommScope (37 dBm for equal or higher than 12 dBi antenna gain), and Verizon (47 dBm) argued for higher maximum EIRP figures. We also received transmit power recommendations from parties who would like to utilize the 3.5 GHz Band for point-to-point and backhaul service. BLiNQ argued that a maximum EIRP allowance of 43 dBm would help enable non-line-of-sight (NLOS) backhaul applications as well as other important services, such as rural point-to-point communications. CommScope also recommended 54 dBm EIRP for point-to-point backhaul and Verizon suggested that 53 dBm EIRP would be appropriate for outdoor point-to-point service. It is important to establish flexible rules that would allow for a wide variety of innovative services to be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band and we are encouraged that many commenters share this view. Ensuring that the band is available for multiple use cases should encourage rapid network deployment, promote the development of a robust device ecosystem, and help to ensure the long-term viability of the band. Therefore, we propose to adopt different transmit power levels to accommodate a range of Citizens Broadband Radio Service use cases. Except for fixed point-to-point radio systems addressed below, we propose to adopt a 24 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power for CBSDs that are not operating in rural areas. For devices with a 6 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of 30 dBm for CBSDs located in non-rural areas. The power spectral density for such transmit power would be 14 dBm/MHz. We also propose to adopt 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power for CBSDs that operate in rural areas. With 17 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of 47 dBm for CBSDs located in rural environments. The power spectral density for such transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz. These proposed transmit power limits are generally consistent with recommendations in the record. These proposed maximum transmit power levels would help promote productive use of the band. For fixed point-to-point radio systems, we propose a 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power limit for CBSDs. With a 23 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of 53 dBm for CBSDs. We propose that the maximum allowable peak transmit power in this paragraph be reduced by 1 dB for every 1 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 23 dBi. The power spectral density for such transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz. We also propose that maximum EIRP for End User Devices not exceed 23 dBm in 10 megahertz bandwidth. We also propose that CBSDs and End User Devices limit their operating power to the minimum necessary for successful operation. We note that NTIA did not consider these proposed use cases or technical criteria in calculating the Fast Track Exclusion Zones. What effects would these additional use cases have on the size of the Exclusion Zones? We seek comment on these proposed rules. Are the proposals in this section appropriate for the variety of use cases possible in the 3.5 GHz Band? Would these proposals further the public interest by promoting efficient and innovative use of spectrum resources? Should the proposed definition of “rural environments” be altered due to the use of small cells and in light of the fact that these systems are proposed to be deployed in areas smaller than counties? In light of the flexible approach to EIRP limits proposed herein, should we consider allowing higher power operations in the 3.5 GHz Band? We encourage commenters to support their positions with detailed technical and cost benefit analyses taking into account the various interference scenarios that may exist in this band among different CBSDs and among CBSDs and Incumbent Users. Received Signal Strength Limits. To perform proper frequency assignments and interference management, it is important for the SAS to have a baseline threshold for the maximum signal level from CBSDs at the border of their service area. Therefore, Citizens Broadband Radio Service users should ensure that the aggregate signal level from their CBSDs as well as transmissions from their associated End User Devices at the edge of their authorized service areas remain at levels that would not harm other CBSDs in the same or higher tiers. For small cell networks, the industry standards and studies have shown 20 dB and 55 dB of interference rise over noise to be acceptable for picocells and femtocells respectively. Based on these industry standards, and taking into account reasonable distance between authorized use operations, we propose a signal level threshold of—80 dBm measured by a 0 dBi isotropic antenna in a 10 megahertz bandwidth anywhere along PAL service area boundaries between different Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We also propose to allow neighboring users to coordinate a higher signal level threshold. We seek comment on this proposed rule. How should this signal level be determined? Over what bandwidth should the signal threshold be measured? The proposal implies that this signal level would need to be met at all points along the PAL service boundary at ground level and all heights above ground level. Is such a requirement feasible? Should there be a single point at which this signal level should be enforced? What is the effect of this proposal on operation of CBSDs and on the interference potential within the band? How feasible would it be for the SAS to calculate and enforce such a limit? Emission Limits. In the NPRM we sought comment on whether to adopt out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits or other requirements to protect services in adjacent bands from harmful interference. We also asked for comment on the appropriate OOBE limits for small cells in the 3.5 GHz Band and the interference protection threshold limits of relevant services. Several commenters highlighted the importance of protecting incumbent and adjacent band services but differed as to the specific protection criteria. Some commenters presented co-existence analysis and protection distances based on long-standing 43 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE limits. Issues specifically related to OOBE that could affect the operations of earth stations in the C-Band are addressed in detail in section III(B)(3)(b). We also seek comment on whether to specify particular OOBE limits. The Commission's rules generally limit the amount of radio frequency (RF) power that may be emitted outside of, or in a range of frequencies outside of, the assigned frequencies/channel(s) of an RF transmission. Moreover, the Commission has previously concluded that in certain circumstances, attenuating transmitter OOBEs to at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB is appropriate to minimize harmful electromagnetic interference between operators. This limit has served well as a basis for development of industry standards which may impose tighter limits in certain cases. For Priority Access and GAA operations in the 3.5 GHz Band, we propose to apply the limit of 43 + 10 log (P), which is equivalent to −13 dBm/MHz, to all emissions outside of channel assignments and frequency authorizations by SAS in the 3.5 GHz Band. We seek comment on this limit and whether it should be more stringent ( i.e., at a lower power spectral density) given the state-of-the art of modern radio technologies, and the potential gains in spectral efficiency and minimizing interference coupling distance between neighboring radios operating in the 3.5 GHz Band. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, we recognize the need for Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations to protect incumbent and dissimilar radio services with sensitive weak signal receivers such as in-band and out-of-band FSS earth stations and DoD radar systems. These incumbent radio service operations may be within and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz Band. Protection thresholds for weak signal receivers and minimizing the interference coupling distance to these receivers from new 3.5 GHz Band transmitters may require greater out-of-band attenuation (lower than −13 dBm/MHz) than can be achieved within the RF filter pass-band of 3.5 GHz Band radios. Striking the proper balance between the emission limits of CBSDs and End User Devices, along with the protection thresholds of incumbent receivers, may require more stringent OOBE limits in certain circumstances. We also recognize that there has been considerable technological advancement in transmitter and receiver device technologies deployed in the mobile broadband industry over recent years, such that more stringent OOBE limits may be practical without undue burden to manufacturers and operators. For example, the current LTE standards for the use in PCS requires mobiles in 1850-1915 MHz to meet a limit of −50 dBm/MHz in 1930-1995 MHz. The current capabilities for mobile broadband manufacturers will support this level of tolerance for interference. Given that other mobile broadband service operations may already be imposing OOBE at the −40 dBm/MHz level, we propose this limit specifically for CBSD emissions above 3680 MHz and below 3520 MHz. We recognize that a more stringent limit would enable closer proximity of neighboring service operations. We seek comment as to whether this limit should be more stringent at −50 dBm/MHz. In general, while OOBE limits to 40 dBm/MHz are reasonable and not burdensome, a spectral transition gap immediately above and below the edges of the 3.5 GHz Band may be necessary given the limitations of RF/radio filter technology, in stepping down from an in-band limit of −13 dBm/MHz to an out-of-band emission limit of −40 dBm/MHz. Some current research indicates that a transition gap of approximately 1 percent of the band edge frequency may be within the state-of-the-art of existing radio/filter technologies. Therefore, we propose a transition gap of 30 MHz above 3650 MHz and 30 MHz below 3550 MHz, for setting the OOBE attenuation levels to −40 dBm/MHz. We seek comment on the size of this transition gap, whether it is in the range of existing RF filter technology, and whether the gap could be smaller through the use of more narrow RF filters in CBSD and user devices ( e.g., two RF filters over 3550-3650 MHz, one covering the lower 50 MHz and the other covering the upper 50 MHz). Reception Limits. Priority Access Licensees may be authorized for operation in the same geographic area, with other Priority Access Licensees authorized to operate in adjacent or near-adjacent channels. The potential for interference between two or more Priority Access Licensees depends on both the transmitter and receiver performance of the respective radio systems, because unwanted RF energy received by a CBSD can be caused by both the emissions from an adjacent licensee spilling into the desired frequencies of operation, as well as the imperfections of radio receivers. Establishing an RF field strength/power spectral density that PAL receivers would need to accept from nearby licensed transmitters, would effectively define the spectrum rights between PALs, and enable the SAS to assign these rights with clear obligations between respective licensees. We seek comment on this approach. While the Commission's rules in this regard are technology neutral, we note the signal strength levels of undesired interfering signals in widely adopted industry standards for receiver performance ( e.g., 3GPP LTE). We recognize the in-band and out-of-band blocking characteristics and adjacent channel selectivity of modern radio receivers that must perform over a high dynamic range of RF power levels. We note that the interfering signal mean power, for acceptable Home Base Station (HeNB; Femtocell) adjacent channel selectivity and blocking, ranges in the relevant 3GPP standards between −28 dBm and −15 dBm (in all LTE channel bandwidths) with moderately high wanted signal power. The 3GPP interfering signal power for acceptable LTE User Equipment adjacent channel selectivity and blocking performance, in many cases is −30 dBm or above. Therefore, we propose a power spectral density limit of −30 dBm/10 megahertz as the interference limit that CBSDs operating on a Priority Access basis must accept, not to be exceeded with greater than 99 percent probability, unless the affected user agrees to a higher or lower limit and communicates such agreement to the SAS. Establishing a probability threshold is important because worst-case conditions for highly transient and unlikely RF interference events would otherwise establish an excessive constraint on neighboring radio service operations. Would such a scheme be feasible for the SAS to administer? That is, how difficult would it be for the SAS to track, manage and enforce agreements between different users? What mechanism would be used to communicate such agreements to the SAS? How would an SAS be assured that all affected users are in agreement? As described previously, GAA users must not cause harmful interference to and must accept harmful interference from Incumbent Users and Priority Access Licensees. Therefore, we propose that a GAA CBSD be required to change its operational frequencies, lower its transmit power, or cease transmitting in accordance with instructions from the SAS if its operations are causing harmful interference to higher tier users. We seek comment on this proposal and any operational details necessary to ensure that the requirement is complied with. What is an acceptable response time for GAA CBSDs to comply with instructions from the SAS? How frequently should CBSDs be required to query the SAS regarding the status of their operations or should CBSDs only query the SAS when they change location in excess of the accuracy requirements and otherwise adjust operations only when receiving instructions from the SAS? What are the implications for spectrum efficiency and network traffic for various communication requirements between CBSDs and the SAS? We seek comment on these proposed rules. We also seek comment on methods and procedures that may be employed by Priority Access Licensees or the SAS to enforce these thresholds. We encourage commenters to provide detailed technical and cost benefit analyses analyses to support their proposals. In addition, as we noted in the Licensing PN, the TAC has been studying spectrum interference policy and receiver standards in general, and it recommends that the Commission consider forming one or more multi-stakeholder groups to study such standards and interference limits policy at suitable service boundaries, such as those related to the 3.5 GHz Band. The Wireless Innovation Forum, in its comments to the Licensing PN, recommended that the FCC encourage the formation of industry led multi-stakeholder groups, proposed key characteristics of such a process, and committed to establishing such a multi-stakeholder process to develop recommendations for the 3.5 GHz Band and other band opportunities. Consistent with the recommendations of the TAC, we encourage and suggest industry action to charter a technical group of stakeholders to develop industry coordination agreements and protocols, including technical options and methods for managing spectrum access that would improve access to and make efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. What should the scope and charter be of such a multi-stakeholder group? What should be the governance structure of such a group? f. Subpart F—Spectrum Access System The overall effectiveness of our proposals depends largely on the development and implementation of a robust SAS. We therefore propose to codify several high-level SAS requirements in the Part 96 rules. Following the TVWS database model, we expect that industry participants will take it upon themselves to develop technical implementations of these requirements and, where applicable, to develop industry-wide standards. Our proposed rules also assume that multiple SAS Administrators and, consequently, multiple SASs would be authorized to operate in the 3.5 GHz Band, much as multiple databases have been authorized in the TVWS context, to ensure that consumers are provided with a robust set of choices in the marketplace. We seek comment on what techniques could be used to effectively coordinate multiple SASs in the band. What other implementation challenges arise from the possibility of multiple SAS providers? Are they solvable? We seek comment on the proposal to authorize multiple SAS providers. In responding to the questions and proposed rules in this section, we ask commenters to consider the implications of multiple authorized SASs and to address these issues in their filings. We also intend to institute a comprehensive approval process for SASs and SAS Administrators that closely follows the multi-step process used to test, certify, and approve TVWS databases and administrators. In the TVWS context, prospective database administrators were invited to submit proposals outlining how their systems would meet the Commission's requirements for database operators and provide information sufficient to show that they have the technical expertise to administer a database and a viable business plan for operating a database for a five-year term. OET then reviewed these proposals and approved the proposals of those operators that met the requirements. Approved operators were then required to attend mandatory workshops to ensure compliance with the rules, meet milestone dates set by OET for reporting and compliance, and submit to rigorous real-world testing of all database elements prior to making their services available to the public. By following the precedent set in the TVWS proceeding, we can ensure that the technical solutions and developed by prospective SAS Administrators are consistent with the letter and spirit of our high-level rules, especially with regard to the protection of Incumbent Access tier users. (i) Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality (§ 96.43) We sought comment on the essential high level requirements of the SAS in both the Licensing PN and the NPRM. In addition, in recognition of the complexity of the proposed SAS framework, OET and the Bureau held a workshop to discuss the operational and functional parameters of the SAS. The workshop and associated technical papers were organized according to the following focus areas: (1) General Responsibilities and Composition of the SAS; (2) SAS Functional Requirements; (3) SAS Monitoring and Management of Spectrum Use; and (4) Issues Related to the Initial Launch and Evolution of the SAS and Band Plan. While commenters and workshop presenters submitted a diverse set of positions regarding the necessary features of the SAS, most agreed that an effective SAS would need to be more dynamic and responsive than the current TVWS database. Moreover, many commenters agreed that the FCC should set only baseline parameters and guidelines for the SAS and should allow industry stakeholders to develop detailed policies and standards to facilitate operation consistent with the Commission's rules. Some commenters that supported a two-tiered licensing model also advocated a simplified, “binary” SAS that would only inform Priority Access Licensees whether or not they could operate in a given area or frequency range without causing harmful interference to incumbents. Other commenters opposed giving the SAS the ability to dynamically assign channels or modify the maximum allowable transmit power for CBSDs. After thorough review of the record and using the TVWS rules as a guide, we propose that authorized SASs would perform the following core functions: • Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic location and assign them to CBSDs; • Determine the maximum permissible radiated transmission power level for CBSDs at a given location and communicate that information to the CBSDs; • Register and authenticate the identification information and location of CBSDs; • Enforce Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and incumbent federal operations; • Protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful interference from General Authorized Access Users; • Reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF; • Ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS and CBSDs. Under our proposal, each SAS would provide nationwide service. Each SAS would also collect and retain all information provided by CBSDs and Incumbent Users according to the proposed rules and enforce robust security protocols to protect such information. If multiple SASs are authorized, each SAS would be responsible for sharing this information with other authorized SASs to ensure effective coordination of operations within the band. The proposed rules outline the essential requirements for a successful SAS and would promote innovation and productive use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Further, these rules represent the lightest regulatory approach possible to accomplish the core objectives of the SAS. We seek comment on these proposed rules. Specifically, do the proposed rules accurately describe the necessary functions of an SAS? What additional elements, if any, should be included in the SAS? What responsibilities should SASs (and SAS Administrators) have to maximize use by and minimize interference among GAA users, notwithstanding any absence of interference protection rights that may be extended to such users under our rules? How should the Commission most appropriately discharge its Title III responsibilities in supervising these and other functions that may be delegated to the SASs and SAS Administrators? Are the proposed rules unduly burdensome for potential SAS Administrators? Could a compliant SAS be built and operated using existing or “in development” technology? In addition, under this proposal multiple SASs could be authorized, much as multiple databases have been authorized in the TVWS context, to ensure that consumers are provided with a robust set of choices in the marketplace. We seek comment on what techniques could be used to effectively coordinate multiple SASs in the band? What other implementation challenges could arise from the possibility of multiple SAS providers? Are they solvable? We seek general comment on the proposal to authorize multiple SAS providers. (ii) Information Gathering and Retention (§ 96.44) To protect Incumbent Users and effectively coordinate Citizens Broadband Radio Service users, we propose that the SAS retain information on all operations within the 3.5 GHz Band. For CBSDs, such information would include all data that they are required to transmit to the SAS pursuant to the proposed § 96.36. For incumbent FSS operators, the SAS would maintain a record of the location of protected earth stations as well as the direction and look angle of all earth station receivers and any other information needed to perform its functions. For incumbent federal users, the SAS would include only the geographic coordinates of the Exclusion Zones. We seek comment on these proposed rules and alternative approaches. With regard to federal operations, if Exclusion Zones are altered or other incumbent protection criteria implemented in future phases of this proceeding, the SAS may eventually need to gather and manage a significant amount of data on federal operations. Much of this information is likely to be sensitive or classified and would require additional safeguards that may not be necessary to protect non-federal information. Some commenters raised the possibility of establishing a separate database to store sensitive federal information and instruct registered SASs on the required protection contours for federal operations. We seek comment on whether a separate database should be established for federal information. Would such a database be more efficient and secure than entrusting federal information to each registered SAS? What additional security measures should be required for a database holding sensitive federal information? Who should maintain such a database? We will continue to work with NTIA and incumbent federal users to develop this aspect of the SAS requirements. Some commenters have argued that the SAS should be required to incorporate spectrum sensing information from CBSDs or other remote beaconing and sensing sites to accurately detect incumbent usage models and respond to the interference environment. We seek comment on whether such capabilities would be helpful for the operation of the SAS. (iii) Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (§ 96.45) In addition to gathering required information from CBSDs, the SAS would confirm and verify the identity of any CBSD seeking to use the 3.5 GHz Band prior to authorizing its operation. The SAS would also prevent CBSDs from operating within any Exclusion Zones. We seek comment on these proposed rules. (iv) Frequency Assignment (§ 96.46) As discussed in section III(A)(1)(a)(7) above, under our proposal, assignment of PAL channels and GAA frequencies in the 3.5 GHz Band would be a dynamic process. The SAS would be responsible for determining the available and appropriate frequencies at a location using the location information supplied by CBSDs, compliance with Exclusion Zones, the authorization status and operating parameters of CBSDs in the surrounding area, and such other information necessary to ensure effective operations of CBSDs. The SAS would also take into consideration any channel requests submitted by CBSDs as well as geographic and spectral efficiency considerations. We also propose that the SAS be able to provide a list of available frequencies in a given area and confirm that any CBSDs causing harmful interference to an Incumbent User have been deactivated or reassigned upon request. We seek comment on these proposed rules. (v) Security (§ 96.47) We propose to require that the SAS employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD. These protocols and procedures would be reviewed and approved by the Commission before the SAS Administrator could be certified. We seek comment on these proposed rules and on any additional safeguards needed to protect sensitive federal information. (vi) Spectrum Access System Administrators (§ 96.48) Drawing on our experience with the TVWS, we propose that SASs be operated only by designated SAS Administrators that have been approved by the Commission. As noted above, this approval process will be essential to determining that the SAS can meet the regulatory requirements, without having to provide overly prescriptive and detailed rules about its implementation. To this end, we propose that SAS Administrators be required to: • Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the information described in the proposed rules; • establish a process for acquiring and storing in the database necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's databases; • establish and follow a process for ensuring compatibility between Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and Incumbent Users, including enforcement of Exclusion Zones; • establish and follow processes for registering and coordinating Priority Access Licensees and GAA users; • establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that Incumbent Users are protected from harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators; • establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that Priority Access Licensees are protected from harmful interference from Priority Access and GAA users; • establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure; • make its services available on a non-discriminatory basis; • respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, as appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention; • securely transfer the information in the SAS to another designated entity in the event it does not continue as the SAS administrator at the end of its term; • cooperate with other SAS Administrators to develop a standardized process for coordinating and exchanging required information; • provide a means to make public information available to the public in an accessible manner; • establish protocols to maintain appropriate security clearances and other security measures as may be determined by the Commission for access to and storage of required federal incumbent information if required in future phases of this proceeding. Under our proposed rules, SAS Administrators would be authorized to provide service for a five-year term, which could be renewed at the Commission's discretion. We further propose that the Bureau review applications for certification and establish procedures for reviewing the qualifications of prospective SAS Administrators. What conflict of interest requirements, competitive or other selection process, technical qualifications, or other standards should govern this process? Do other models involving Commission selection of third-party assistance provide useful insights into these questions? We seek comment on this proposal. Do the proposed rules establish appropriate qualifications for SAS Administrators? What procedures should the Bureau adopt to select SAS Administrators, ensure that they are qualified to perform their duties, and ensure that SASs are able to perform the functions required by the proposed rules. What steps should the Commission take to ensure that SAS Administrators are properly supervised and operating within the bounds of the law? Commenters should provide a detailed analysis, including economic costs and benefits, of any alternate or supplemental approach they propose. (vii) Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees (§ 96.47) We propose to allow SAS Administrators to collect reasonable fees from Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access users for use of the SAS and associated services. We based this proposal on a similar rule adopted for TVWS database administrators. We seek comment on this proposed rule. We also seek comment on whether SAS Administrators should be permitted to collect fees from all Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Specifically, should SAS Administrators be permitted to collect fees from GAA users? Or should fees be collected only from Priority Access Licensees? Would limiting fees to Priority Access Licensees effectively promote diverse and innovative use of the GAA service tier? What role, if any, should the Commission play in resolving any disputes or other issues regarding the collection of any such fees by the SAS Administrators? 2. Modifications to Existing Rule Parts In addition to the proposed new Part 96, we also seek comment on any necessary amendments to existing rule parts, as discussed below. a. Table of Frequency Allocations (§ 2.106) In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the allocation structure that should be used to accommodate the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The NPRM proposed to retain the primary allocation for existing federal radar systems in the 3.5 GHz Band, while also proposing to allocate that band for non-federal fixed and mobile use. The NPRM observed that this proposed structure is consistent with international allocations for use of the 3.5 GHz Band, and also appears consistent with requirements for the allocation of flexible use spectrum under Section 303(y) of the Communications Act. However, the NPRM sought comment on what allocation scheme would best accomplish the goals set forth in that NPRM, and also inquired how that scheme should account for potential Federal fixed and mobile use of the band. The NPRM also proposed to restrict primary non-federal FSS earth station use in the 3600-3650 MHz band to the FSS earth stations licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this proceeding. Additionally, the NPRM noted the existence in the 3.5 GHz Band of federal allocations for Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service and mobile ground-based radars, and stated that the Commission would work with NTIA regarding the continued need for those allocations. Moreover, the NPRM noted the existence of a non-Federal secondary allocation for radiolocation services, and requested comment on what existing 3.5 GHz band allocations should be maintained. Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the potential for interference to and from existing and future international operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. There was limited comment on the allocation proposals per se, although the great majority of commenting parties support shared federal/non-federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band for new broadband technologies. This suggests implicit support for adopting an allocation structure that will allow for this type of use. Of the commenters that explicitly discuss the allocation proposals, the Utilities Telecom Council, Edison Electric Institute, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association contend that a non-federal fixed and mobile allocation of the 3.5 GHz Band would spur innovation and investment in new wireless technologies with little or no impact on incumbent uses, including federal radar systems, and support the proposal to restrict FSS earth station use of the 3600-3650 MHz band to the FSS earth stations licensed or applied-for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this proceeding. SIA, however, expresses concern about the impact on FSS earth stations and contends that, if there are any small cell operations in allowed in the 3.5 GHz Band, they should be permitted only on a secondary basis. We propose to add new primary fixed and land mobile allocations to the 3.5 GHz Band to permit commercial use of the band consistent with our accompanying licensing and service rule proposals. The adoption of a United States allocation structure that permits that band to be used for fixed and land mobile services on a primary basis is also consistent with the approach the Commission has previously taken when it has determined that uses of other bands for new broadband purposes was in the public interest. Moreover, the proposed allocation is consistent with the Region 2 International allocation for the band. We do not think it serves the public interest to pursue a secondary fixed and mobile allocation, as suggested by SIA, and we will continue to propose that FSS earth stations be restricted to those that were licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this proceeding. As we observed in the NPRM, our proposed treatment of FSS earth stations is the same as what has previously been implemented in the 3650-3700 MHz band. Additionally, we note that FSS earth stations are authorized to use other nearby spectrum at 3.7-4.2 GHz on a primary basis. For these reasons, providing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service a primary allocation offers important new opportunities to make robust use of our spectrum resources, and we propose appropriate technical rules to protect existing incumbent FSS operations. We further observe that, with respect to the GAA tier, some commenting parties express a preference for an unlicensed (Part 15) framework, rather than the NPRM's proposed licensed-by-rule framework. We nevertheless propose to adopt a primary fixed and land mobile allocation across the entire band. Doing so could afford us the flexibility to adopt a licensing framework for all Citizens Broadband Radio Service tiers that will ensure that these operations are prioritized over existing secondary users in the band. This could also help ensure that quality spectrum is available for GAA users. We seek comment on this proposal and other licensing frameworks. In addition to proposing to add fixed and land mobile allocations to the 3.5 GHz Band in the non-Federal Table, we propose to remove the secondary radiolocation service allocation from that band in the non-Federal Table and to add three US footnotes (US106, US107, and US433, respectively) to: (1) Permit 3.5 GHz Band non-federal stations in the radiolocation service that were licensed or applied for prior to the effective date of any Report and Order we adopt in this proceeding to continue to operate on a secondary basis until the end of the equipment's useful lifetime; (2) limit primary FSS use of the 3600-3650 MHz band to earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of an application filed prior to, the effective date of any Report and Order we adopt in this proceeding, and constructed within 12 months of initial authorization; and specify that FSS use of that band for all other earth stations will be on a secondary basis to non-federal stations in the fixed and land mobile services; (3) both specify provisions for 3.5 GHz Band federal use of the aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based) and radiolocation services, and provide for continued federal use in light of new non-federal fixed and mobile operations in the band; and (4) prohibit federal use of airborne radar systems in the 3.5 GHz Band. We seek comment on these proposals, including whether the potential effects on federal incumbents would serve the public interest. We also note that the NPRM sought comment on allowing federal fixed and mobile use in the band. Should we consider permitting federal fixed and mobile operations in the 3.5 GHz Band? If so, how should such uses be effectively implemented and managed? What, if any, implications would federal fixed and mobile use have for non-federal use of the band? b. Procedures for Priority Access Licenses Subject to Assignment by Competitive Bidding (§ 1.2101 et seq.) If we adopt our proposed geographic area licensing approach for PALs that would permit the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, we will be required to resolve such applications through competitive bidding consistent with the mandate of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. Accordingly, we seek comment on a number of proposals relating to competitive bidding for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. (i) Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules (§ 1.2101 et seq.) We consider here changes to the Commission's general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules that may be necessary or desirable to conduct an auction of initial PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. We propose to employ the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q to resolve any mutually exclusive applications received for initial PALs. The Commission's competitive bidding rules provide a framework from which the Commission develops final procedures—through a series of public notices with opportunities for comment—for the particular competitive bidding processes that it conducts. The public notice process allows both the Commission and interested parties to focus and provide input on certain details of the auction design and the auction procedures after the rules have been established and the remaining procedural issues are better defined. Our experience with spectrum license auctions demonstrates the value of this approach and therefore, we anticipate following a similar approach here. Under this proposal, any modifications that the Commission may adopt for its Part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future would apply to an auction of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. In addition, consistent with our long-standing approach, auction-specific matters such as the competitive bidding design and mechanisms, as well as minimum opening bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined through these public notices. We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of this approach. We also seek comment on whether any of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction for licenses in the 3.5GHz Band. (ii) Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding To date, the Commission has considered two or more parties seeking to bid for a particular license to present mutually exclusive applications for the license, irrespective of whether each party subsequently bids for the license. Where only one party seeks a particular license offered in competitive bidding, that license will be removed from the competitive bidding process and the Commission will consider that party's non-mutually exclusive application for the license through a process separate from the competitive bidding. This has worked well with respect to defined licenses that have parameters such as frequency and geography defined apart from and in advance of competitive bidding. Here we have proposed that the Commission, on an annual basis, would open windows for applications for available PALs. To accommodate the ability of licensees to aggregate consecutive one-year terms, the Commission may offer multiple consecutive years of PAL rights simultaneously. At the close of such a window, the Commission would hold an auction to assign PALs where there are mutually exclusive applications pending. Consistent with the Commission's approach in other spectrum auctions, mutual exclusivity would be triggered when more applications are submitted than can be accommodated geographically, temporally, and spectrally. Under our proposed licensing framework in which we assign PALs in an auction that offers generic (non-frequency-specific) blocks, we propose to determine that mutual exclusivity exists when the total number of applicants for a PAL in a specific geographic area for a given year exceeds the total number of PALs available in that geographic area for that year. We seek comment on this proposal. (iii) Bidding Process Options Competitive Bidding Design Options. The Commission's current rules list types of auction designs from which the Commission may choose when conducting competitive bidding for spectrum licenses. These options include sequential and simultaneous auctions, single and multiple round auctions, and auctions with combinatorial bidding. Since the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules were originally adopted, auction design has evolved and continues to evolve in new directions, sometimes combining several of these listed auction design elements and sometimes utilizing different elements. In the Broadcast Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to revise the current list of auction design options set forth in § 1.2103 of the rules. In particular, the Commission proposed a rule that provides for the establishment of specific auction procedures governing bid collection, assignment of winning bids, and the determination of payment amounts in spectrum license auctions. Such auctions may use one or more rounds of bidding and/or contingent stages of bidding; and may incorporate bids or offers that simply specify a price for an item, that indicate demand for an item at a specified price, or that are more complex. We anticipate that procedures established to implement these broad auction design elements would take into account sound economic principles and practice and the needs of the Commission and the bidders. We seek comment on whether, in light of the licensing proposals set forth in this FNPRM, we should adopt any other or additional revisions to § 1.2103 in addition to those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive Auction proceeding. Given the large number of license areas and relatively short license terms envisioned for PALs, are there any auction mechanisms that would enhance the Commission's ability to effectively manage the use of the Priority Access tier? In, § 1.2104 of the Commission's current rules sets forth various mechanisms that can be used in connection with any system of competitive bidding for Commission licenses. For example, the rules enable the Commission to determine how to sequence or group the licenses offered; whether to utilize reserve prices, minimum opening bids and minimum or maximum bid increments; whether to establish stopping or activity rules; and how to determine payments required in the event of bid withdrawal, default, or disqualification. We note, however, that § 1.2104 does not attempt to list exhaustively all potential aspects of the Commission's procedures for competitive bidding. The Commission recently proposed to amend the current stopping rule contained in § 1.2104 to permit the Commission to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to terminate the auctions not only within a reasonable time, but also in accordance with the goals, statutory requirements, and rules for the auction, including the reserve price or prices. The revised stopping rule would thereby allow us to adopt criteria to determine, prior to terminating the auction, whether such requirements have been met. We seek comment on whether we should adopt any other revisions to § 1.2104, in addition to those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive Auction proceeding? Payment Rules. Our existing competitive bidding rules also establish additional procedures regarding the competitive bidding process. More specifically, our existing rules address applications to participate in competitive bidding, communications among applicants to participate, reporting requirements, upfront payments from competitive bidding participants, down and final payments by winning bidders, and applications for licenses by winning bidders, as well as the processing of such applications and default by and disqualification of winning bidders. We seek comment on whether these existing rules require any revisions in connection with the conduct of an auction of PALs. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should revise any of our payment rules to take into consideration the proposed short license term for PALs, and the potential for applicants to become winning bidders for licenses that do not become effective until a year or more after the initial PAL? For instance, should we revise our upfront payment requirement to better safeguard the Commission against defaults by a winning bidder on consecutive years of a PAL? Should we require a winning bidder for consecutive years of a PAL to make a larger down payment to better safeguard the Commission from defaults in subsequent years? Currently, unless otherwise noted by public notice, the Commission's rules require that within 10 business days after being notified that it is a high bidder on a particular license the winning bidder must submit its down payment necessary to bring its total deposits up to twenty (20) percent of its winning bid(s) or it will be deemed to have defaulted. Should we increase the down payment percentage here to be forty (40) percent of the winning bid(s)? Similarly, unless otherwise specified by public notice, auction winners are required to pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum within ten (10) business days following the release of a public notice establishing the payment deadline. Here, we could collect the down payment required for each PAL at the close of the auction, including PALs for consecutive years, but final payment(s) would not be due until we are ready to grant a particular PAL at the beginning of the subsequent license term. Alternatively, in order to provide further incentives for the productive use of spectrum, could the further payment be required upon initiation of service in specific PAL? Will retaining down payments on deposit for consecutive PALs, particularly if the down payment obligation for such PALs is increased, help the Commission safeguard against the potential of default in subsequent years? Are there any statutory or other legal considerations that the Commission should consider in designing payment rules to accommodate these proposals? We also seek comment on whether we should revise our default rule to ensure that if a winning bidder wins PALs in a licensing area for consecutive years and defaults on a payment obligation for a PAL in that area, it loses its ability to be granted a license for any winning bids for PALs in that area in any subsequent year, and is considered to be in default on those winning bids? Would such a default provision ensure that a winning bidder could not game the results of an auction by bidding upon consecutive year PALs only to seek to selectively pay for some but not others of those bids at a later date? In situations where the Commission has determined that a bidder's default might have a greater potential to detrimentally impact the integrity of an auction, it has adopted a higher default percentage to serve as deterrent against such an outcome. If we hold an auction that offers individual PALs for several consecutive years, should we hold a winning bidder for such licenses who defaults on its winning bids responsible for a larger default payment? What percentage of the defaulted bid should be assessed as the additional payment portion of the default payment obligation? Should the amount of the additional payment be greater than the percentage prescribed in our rules for defaults on combinatorial bids? Would such a default rule adequately safeguard the Commission should a winning bidder file bankruptcy between the close of an auction and the date of a future payment obligation? Commenters should address in particular the application of the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that an agency “may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license . . . or other similar grant to,” or “discriminate with respect to such a grant against,” a debtor or a bankrupt “solely because” it “has not paid a debt that is dischargeable” in bankruptcy. In other contexts, the Commission has addressed its potential financial risks arising out of the bankruptcy of a winning bidder by requiring appropriate letters o [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-11732. Public record. Not legal advice.