82 FR 56193 - Promoting Investment in the 3500-3700 MHz Band
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 227 (November 28, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 227 (November 28, 2017)
| Page Range | 56193-56201 | |
| FR Document | 2017-25672 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 56193-56201] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-25672] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 96 [GN Docket No. 17-258; FCC 17-134] Promoting Investment in the 3500-3700 MHz Band AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes and seeks comment on reforms of its licensing rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). Specifically, the Commission proposes extending PAL license terms from three years to 10 years, with the possibility for renewal; seeks comment on increasing the PAL geographic licensing area; proposes to allow portioning and disaggregation of PALs on the secondary market; and proposes to amend the rules governing assignment of PALs. The Commission also proposes to remove a rule requiring public disclosure of device registration information, and seeks comment on changes to the technical rules to allow operation over wider bandwidths. DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before December 28, 2017, and reply comments on or before January 29, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 17-258, by any of the following methods:Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally, 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. Commenters are only required to file copies in GN Docket No. 13-111. 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 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (TTY). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Greffenius, [email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2896. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 17-134, released on October 24, 2017. The complete text of the NPRM is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, GN Docket No. 17-258. The complete text of the NPRM is also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202- 488-5300, fax 202-488-5563. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit- but- [[Page 56194]] disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules (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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. We find that all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives are exempt under our exemption for presentations by federal agencies sharing jurisdiction with the Commission (see 47 CFR 1.1204(a)(5)). Synopsis I. Introduction and Background In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 17-258 (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on several proposed changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) that will be issued in 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band)--including longer license terms, renewability, larger geographic license areas, and auction methodology. These changes are consistent with the service rules and license assignment models that helped foster the development of 4G and LTE services in the United States. We anticipate that adopting similar rules for the 3.5 GHz Band similarly will encourage robust investment in network deployment. We also seek comment on changes to the technical rules that could facilitate operations over wider bandwidths while ensuring that current and future incumbent operations continue to be protected from interference. In addition, we seek changes to the information security requirements that would help safeguard private information and protect critical infrastructure. In 2015, the Commission adopted rules for commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3.5 GHz Band. Specifically, the First Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354, adopted April 15, 2015 and released April 21, 2015 (FCC 15-47), created a three-tiered framework to coordinate shared federal and non-federal use of the band. Incumbents comprise the highest tier and receive protection from all other users, followed by PAL, the second tier, and General Authorized Access (GAA), the third tier. PALs receive protection from GAA operations; GAA is licensed-by- rule and must accept interference from all other users. Automated frequency coordinators, known as Spectrum Access Systems (SASs), will coordinate operations between and among users in different access tiers. The service and technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band were adopted as the new Part 96 of the Commission's rules. In June 2017, both CTIA and T-Mobile (together, Petitioners) filed petitions for rulemaking, which ask the Commission to reexamine several of the PAL licensing rules. CTIA proposes several changes to the PAL licensing rules; T-Mobile supports CTIA's proposals and makes additional proposals, including proposed changes to the amount of spectrum available for PALs and to the technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band. Petitioners argue that these changes are necessary to promote 5G network deployment in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology sought comment on the Petitions--and on related issues raised in ex parte communications--on June 22, 2017 (DA 17-609), and received comments and reply comments from more than 120 parties. II. NPRM A. PAL Licensing Rules 1. License Term and Renewability The rules adopted in the First Report and Order established a three-year license term for PALs. Under the current rules, at the end of its term, a PAL will terminate automatically and may not be renewed. During the first application window, however, an applicant may apply for up to two consecutive three-year terms for a given PAL. During subsequent regular application windows, only the next three-year license term will be made available for any given PAL. Petitioners ask the Commission to increase the PAL license term to ten years, and to include an expectation of renewal. Petitioners and some commenters argue that a longer, renewable license term will better encourage investment in the 3.5 GHz Band, stressing that a three-year term with automatic termination creates a risk that Priority Access licensees will face stranded investment in just three (or, initially, six) years. Petitioners and some commenters also disagree with the assumption underlying the current rule--that a user's ability to switch between Priority Access and GAA use will provide sufficient incentives for investment. T-Mobile argues that the current rule does not account for challenges ``that providers have reported experiencing in the real world today'' that can delay network deployment. For example, CTIA cites difficulties in obtaining siting approvals, which they argue are magnified in this band, given the complexity of rolling out a high number of small cell deployments. CTIA and several commenters also note that a ten-year, renewable licensing scheme is consistent with the Commission's ``proven approach'' in most other licensed mobile bands, including the bands at issue in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding which, like the 3.5 GHz Band, ``will see network deployments comprised mostly of small cells.'' Others argue that ten-year terms would harmonize the U.S. approach with the global approach to actively encourage 5G network deployment in the mid-band spectrum. Other commenters, however, support the existing rules. They argue that that a longer, renewable license--combined with other potential rule changes sought by the Petitioners--would make PALs economically viable investments only for large entities, and would convert the 3.5 GHz Band from an innovative framework into a traditionally licensed [[Page 56195]] band. These commenters also argue that the investments already made in the band based on the current rules belie concerns about barriers to investment and that any changes to the band should permit a diversity of deployment models and use cases and not be solely designed for the benefit of one (i.e., 5G). We propose to revise our rules by increasing the PAL license term from three years to ten years and by eliminating the requirement that PALs automatically terminate at the end of the license term. We also seek comment on this change and on the appropriate performance requirements and renewal standards for PALs. This approach is consistent with that adopted for other wireless services and will afford each licensee sufficient time to design and acquire the necessary equipment and devices and to deploy facilities across the license area. We invite detailed comments on this proposal from all stakeholders. We seek comment on whether the proposed rule changes will affect investment already made, as well as how they will incentivize future investment, in this band. What specific impact will a longer, renewable license have on investments and business plans already underway? How will the proposal affect investment in the future, particularly given the longer term of ten years and the possibility of renewal? To what extent would a longer license term with the possibility of renewal facilitate the deployment of a wide array of technologies? We also seek comment on how a longer, renewable license term for PALs could affect deployments in rural areas. Does the proposed rule change effectively promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services to benefit the public, including those residing in rural areas? Given concerns raised by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) and other commenters about access to spectrum in rural areas, does the proposed rule change appropriately balance the objectives in Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j))? Do these arguments present a persuasive case for maintaining the current three-year license term for PALs in rural areas? Further, does extending the license term to ten years lead to barriers to exit for companies that could impede innovation and investment or is the ability to return a license to the Commission sufficient to allay such concerns? Additionally, we seek comment on alternative approaches to the length of the license term, including different, hybrid approaches for particular subsets of PALs (e.g., three years for some PALs, five years for some, and ten for yet others). Many of these other approaches are already in the record. For example, Charter proposes a six-year renewable term, Motorola Solutions proposes a five-year term with only a single renewal allowed, and Southern Linc and WISPA suggest that a subset of PALs could have a five-year term, with PALs seeking renewal paying a fee. What other alternative licensing terms and conditions might be appropriate for this band? What impact would these alternatives have on investment, deployment, and on smaller or rural entities seeking PALs? Commenters that submit alternative proposals should include a cost-benefit analysis to support their approach. If the license term is increased to ten years with the possibility of renewal, PALs would more closely resemble other licenses issued by the Commission under its auction authority. Such licenses include performance requirements--typically construction requirements--and many services also include renewal standards. Some commenters argue that, if PALs are licensed for a ten-year, renewable term, the Commission should impose construction requirements on Priority Access licensees, as it has for other licensed wireless services. We seek comment on whether, if we adopt longer term, renewable PALs, it would serve the public interest to adopt certain performance requirements to ensure that the spectrum is put to its best use in an efficient and effective manner. If so, what types of performance requirements would be appropriate? Which performance metrics (e.g., population coverage, geographic coverage) and benchmarks would be appropriate? Does the opportunistic GAA use of the band--including unused PAL channels--alleviate concerns involving spectrum warehousing or otherwise satisfy the Commission's statutory obligations? If so, how can we take that into account in determining performance requirements for longer term, renewable PALs? In addition, to obtain renewal, a licensee generally must show that it has continued to provide at least the initially-required level of service necessary to satisfy its performance requirement, and that it has substantially complied with the Communications Act and Commission rules. If we adopt the proposed changes to PALs, what standard, if any, would be appropriate for the Commission to apply at the end of the PAL license term to determine whether renewal is warranted? Would such a requirement be appropriate in this band? If so, how should it be applied and what level of service should be used as a renewal standard? Some commenters have argued that, instead of renewability, the licenses should be reauctioned at the end of the license term. For example, Paul Milgrom describes an auction format under which an incumbent would be required to bid for a renewal of its license at the end of the license term, but it would be given a bidding credit so that, if it won, it would have to pay only a fraction of the auction- determined price. Moreover, if the incumbent loses, it would be compensated with a transferable bidding credit to apply to the purchase of other outcomes. Milgrom argues that this would mitigate the risk that the incumbent licensee's investments may become stranded. We seek comment on this approach and its assumptions, as well as on other approaches that might offer an alternative to renewability and still encourage robust investment in the band. Could this approach promote competition and efficient use of spectrum? 2. Geographic License Area The First Report and Order defined the geographic license area for each PAL as one census tract. Petitioners request that the Commission increase the geographic licensing area from census tracts to Partial Economic Area (PEAs). T-Mobile argues that doing so would ``be consistent with the geographic licensing area that the Commission has already identified as best for 5G operations'' in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding. Petitioners and some commenters contend that licensing PALs on a census tract-basis--which could result in over 500,000 PALs--will be challenging for SAS Administrators, the Commission, and licensees to manage, and will create unnecessary interference risks due to the large number of border areas that will need to be managed and maintained. Petitioners and some commenters contend that these challenges ultimately will make PALs unattractive to licensees and reduce investment. They argue that PEAs are small enough to allow for flexible and targeted networks, but large enough to reduce border areas and decrease administrative burdens. Some commenters also contend that a larger license area (along with a longer, renewable license term) will promote global harmonization of the 3.5 GHz Band for 5G development. Many commenters oppose expanding the geographic license area of PALs [[Page 56196]] from census tracts to PEAs or other larger areas. These commenters argue that PEAs--especially in combination with other potential changes to the PAL licensing rules--could foreclose smaller entities from participating in the PAL auction. Some commenters similarly contend that enlarging the geographic area and extending the license term will effectively grant permanent spectrum rights to large carriers, and upend planned business models for targeted, local, and rural uses. Some of these commenters--including, Google and Sony, which have applied to be SAS Administrators--argue that managing licenses in over 70,000 geographic areas would not pose an undue burden ``given the meaningful advances in database management, cloud computing, and other technologies and engineering systems in recent years.'' NCTA and Charter suggest that county-sized license areas could strike a balance between preserving low barriers to entry and minimizing administrative burdens. Some commenters propose using a hybrid approach to offer more than one PAL license size (e.g., offering some licenses by PEAs and others by county or census tracts). GeoLinks similarly asks us to consider whether rural areas would benefit more from using census tracts or counties to ensure more timely broadband access to rural communities, while more urban areas could benefit from using PEAs. We seek comment on increasing the geographic licensing area of PALs to stimulate additional investment, promote innovation, and encourage efficient use of spectrum resources. We seek comment on this proposal and on the potential effects of this change on investment in and use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We also seek comment on whether a larger license area would provide additional flexibility to facilitate the deployment of a wide variety of technologies, including 5G. We seek comment on Petitioners' specific request to increase the license size of PALs to PEAs, and how this would affect investment in PALs--both investments currently underway and future PAL investment-- and diversity of PAL uses and users. Would PEAs strike an appropriate balance between facilitating access to spectrum by both large and small providers while incentivizing investment in, and rapid deployment of, new technologies? We also note that, like census tracts, counties nest into PEAs, which in turn nest into EAs. This nesting would make it easier for operators to combine or partition their PEAs into the license area of their choice. Would the larger size of PEAs and the ability to combine and partition licenses to customize service areas effectively address the concerns raised by commenters and promote robust deployment in the band? Commenters should include cost-benefit analyses when comparing licensing PALs on a PEA-basis versus a census tract-basis, as well as for options in between these choices (e.g., licensing on a county-basis). Would PEAs effectively balance the objectives set forth in Section 309(j) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), including encouraging ``efficient and intensive'' use of the 3.5 GHz spectrum and prescribing license area designations that promote ``an equitable distribution of licenses and services among geographic areas'' and ``economic opportunity for a wide variety of applications''? What impact would licensing PALs using PEAs have on smaller entities, rural deployments, and existing investments? Would PEA-based licensing facilitate compatible, authorized users and uses occupying the same spectrum? We also seek comment on alternatives or hybrid approaches, including those already in the record. Would counties, or a combination of PAL license areas (e.g., a hybrid combination of PEAs in urban areas and census tracts in rural areas, offering PALs of different sizes, such as PEAs and census tracts, or some other combination) ensure a diversity of auction participants, differing technologies, and rural deployments? Since we are offering seven PALs, commenters in favor of offering different license sizes in rural and urban areas should discuss what would be the appropriate balance between larger geographic areas and census tracts. Are there other possibilities that could promote such objectives? Should the Commission reconsider package bidding of census tracts or other geographic areas for a limited number of PALs? Would this approach promote our objectives? Would package bidding, bidding credits for certain bidders or areas, or other auction design mechanisms be appropriate for us to consider if we were to increase the license area? Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should adopt the bidding credits we used in the 600 MHz Band (Incentive Auction). Commenters should include a cost-benefit analysis of their proposed alternatives or hybrid approaches and discuss how their proposed approach appropriately balances the objectives set forth in Section 309(j) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)). In addition, we seek comment generally on how changes to the license area (on their own, and in combination with changes to the license term) could affect auction complexity. How might such changes affect bidding strategies? How would a combination of license areas affect the auction mechanism and bidding strategies? Are there insights from bidders' experience during recent auctions that may be relevant in this context? In light of the proposed change to modify the geographic license area, as well as any other changes considered in this NPRM, should the Commission modify the current 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation limit? Should we remove it altogether? What are the costs and benefits of higher or lower limits? How would changes affect competition and new entrants? 3. Secondary Markets In the Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354 (FCC 16-55), the Commission prohibited Priority Access licensees from partitioning or disaggregating their licenses because the Commission found typical reasons for permitting partitioning and disaggregation in more traditionally licensed bands were not present in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Commission also determined that a light-touch leasing process could achieve the goal of making PAL spectrum use rights available in secondary markets--on a targeted, flexible basis--without the need for the Commission oversight required of partitioning and disaggregation. In its Petition, T-Mobile asks the Commission to consider allowing partitioning and disaggregation of PALs, if it permits licensing on a PEA basis. Several commenters agree that allowing partitioning and disaggregation will help ensure that PAL spectrum rights flow to their best use and support a wide variety of deployments. These commenters also argue that partitioning and disaggregation will encourage service to targeted areas, mitigating concerns that licensing larger area PALs might result in in inefficient spectrum use. Several commenters oppose the concept of secondary market transactions as a replacement for smaller geographic areas and shorter term PALs to encourage efficient use of spectrum by a variety of users. They argue that there is no guarantee that the licensee will lease or sell idle spectrum in the secondary market. Other commenters, however, suggest that, if the Commission were to make changes to the PAL license term, renewability, and geographic area, then the ability of a PAL licensee to partition or disaggregate its license on the secondary market could be a useful tool to ensure [[Page 56197]] robust and targeted use of the spectrum throughout the license area. We propose to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs in secondary market transactions. Allowing partitioning and disaggregation would be consistent with other changes considered in this NPRM, and is consistent with the licensing paradigm for other similarly licensed services. We also anticipate that the ability to partition and disaggregate a PAL will be an effective way to improve spectral efficiency and facilitate targeted network deployments, particularly if the Commission adopts a longer license term or larger license area for PALs. We seek comment on this proposal and its underlying assumptions. If we were to adopt a larger geographic license area for some or all PALs, would allowing partitioning and disaggregation of PALs enable prospective PAL licensees to acquire PAL rights in smaller geographic areas where their business needs call for it? Are partitioning and disaggregation effective means to facilitate the ability of small entities to access the spectrum they desire for targeted, local deployments? If the Commission does not adopt some or all of the other proposed revisions to PALs, should we still allow partitioning and disaggregation? If so, why? To what extent would partitioning and disaggregation help the Commission facilitate the objectives of Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), which, among other considerations, asks us to promote ``economic opportunity for a wide variety of applications''? We note that several commenters argue the PAL licensees will lack an incentive to disaggregate or partition a larger, longer-term PAL. T- Mobile, in response, suggests that this ``can be remedied by adopt[ing] reasonable performance requirements associated with renewal expectations.'' We seek comment on the relationship between secondary market transactions and performance requirements. What types of requirements would be appropriate to encourage a robust secondary market for PALs to facilitate targeted and intensive spectrum use? How would requirements related to secondary markets interplay with construction requirements for PALs more broadly? How could performance requirements and secondary markets incentivize users to provide service to rural and other difficult-to-serve areas? 4. SAS Public Disclosure of CBSD Registration Information In the First Report and Order, the Commission required that SAS Administrators make Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) registration information available to the general public. When doing so, however, SAS Administrators must ``obfuscate the identities of the licensees.'' In doing so, the Commission acknowledged ``the concerns raised by commenters about disclosure of confidential business information to the public.'' Both CTIA and T-Mobile, supported by several commenters, ask the Commission to eliminate the rule requiring public disclosure of CBSD registration information. Petitioners assert that the rule raises both competitive concerns and ``cybersecurity and national security concerns.'' AT&T also claims that ``the SAS will be required to collect extensive data regarding users' network configuration, uses, and technical parameters''--data that ``amounts to critical infrastructure data'' that must be adequately protected to avoid competitive and cybersecurity concerns.'' In addition, Petitioners and commenters argue that obfuscating the licensees' identities does not adequately address these concerns because it still may be possible to uncover the identities of individual licensees based on publicly available information. Petitioners and commenters also contend that, since potential GAA operators can coordinate directly with the SAS Administrators to deploy GAA services, the public disclosure requirement is unnecessary to ensure that operations in the band are effectively coordinated. Google, Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge (OTI/PK), and WISPA support retention of the current rule, arguing that it benefits potential operators that need to investigate the feasibility of deploying GAA or PAL service before incurring the cost of attempting to reserve or auction spectrum. OTI/PK contends that meaningful transparency allows incumbents and public advocacy groups to play a productive role in holding SAS Administrators and other stakeholders accountable for responsibilities such as military radar protection and ensuring that valuable PAL spectrum does not lie fallow. Google denies that anonymized public registration data presents security or competitive concerns and argues that such information is already available, as wireless carriers' transceiver locations are visible to a passerby, logged by crowd-sourced applications, and publicly documented. Google also notes that several aspiring SAS Administrators--including CTIA--already have negotiated a model sharing agreement, and that CTIA itself has stated that the agreement ``provides the necessary protections for SAS customers' proprietary and competitively sensitive information, as well as end users' private information.'' In response, AT&T argues that the model sharing agreement that Google references addresses SAS-to-SAS information sharing, not public availability of information, and that Google incorrectly assumes that licensees plan network deployment based on activities of others rather than on internal objectives and consumer behavior. Charter, Federated Wireless, and NCTA encourage the Commission to seek comment on how it could ensure that prospective users of the band can obtain sufficient information to execute network deployments without disclosing detailed CBSD registration information to the public. We propose to amend the current rules to prohibit SASs from disclosing publicly CBSD registration information that may compromise the security of critical network deployments or be considered competitively sensitive. We seek comment on the proposal and ask which specific information should be withheld from public disclosure to address the concerns raised by Petitioners and Commenters. We ask commenters to address the potential competitive, security, or other forms of risk presented by the rule, as well as on specific and actionable suggestions to mitigate these risks. Nothing we propose here will affect SAS-to-SAS information sharing requirements. We also note that some commenters claim that potential GAA and PAL users will use registration information to plan deployments. As such, we seek comment on how to appropriately balance the potential competitive and security risks with potential users' need for information about CBSD deployment. Is there a mechanism--other than full public disclosure of CBSD registration information--for potential users to plan future GAA and/or PAL deployments? For example, could potential users communicate with an SAS on a confidential basis? We also seek comment on whether there is certain information that the SAS can publicly provide while balancing data sensitivity and security concerns. 5. Competitive Bidding Procedures for PALs a. Assignment of PALs Section 309(j) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) requires that the Commission assign licenses using competitive bidding when ``mutually [[Page 56198]] exclusive applications are accepted for any initial license,'' subject to certain exemptions not applicable to this band. Because of the ``generic'' nature of PAL frequency assignments, mutual exclusivity exists when multiple applicants apply to bid on more PALs than exist in a given census tract. In the First Report and Order, the Commission decided that, when there are two or more applicants for PALs in a given census tract, it will make available one fewer PAL than the total number of PALs for which all applicants have applied in that license area, up to a maximum of seven PALs. The Commission also concluded that assigning PALs on a non-auctioned basis would not result in the most efficient assignment of the spectrum. It therefore decided that, where there is only a single applicant for one or more PALs in a license area, it would not proceed to an auction or assign any PALs for that license area and there would only be shared GAA access to that spectrum until the next filing window for competitive bidding. In its Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 12-354 (FCC 16-55), the Commission granted a limited exception for certain rural areas, finding it in the public interest to assign a PAL even if there is only a single applicant, given the likelihood of lower demand in rural areas. T-Mobile and several commenters ask the Commission to make all PALs available, regardless of the number of applications the Commission receives in any given license area. GeoLinks argues that, by prohibiting the assignment of PALs when there is only one interested carrier, the Commission will ``surely create gaps in rural, sparsely populated parts of the country that could benefit from an interested service provider.'' Further, several commenters, like AT&T and Ericsson, argue that the Commission's current policy will eventually phase out PAL licenses in a market with each subsequent auction if there is no renewal expectancy, rendering the auctions ``essentially a game of musical chairs for PAL licensees.'' No commenter opposes T- Mobile's mutual exclusivity proposal specifically. United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) argues that the Commission should assign PALs in any given license area by subjecting all PALs to a minimum opening bid and the existing spectrum aggregation limit of four PALs. If the aggregate demand in a license area does not exceed seven PALs, USCC suggests that the applicant(s) would receive the number of PALs for which they applied, subject to the payment of the minimum opening bid for those PALs, and remaining spectrum would be available on a GAA basis. Consistent with our proposals to lengthen the PAL license term, make them renewable, and increase the PAL geographic license area, we also propose to employ our standard practice for finding mutual exclusivity among accepted applications. We propose to eliminate the rule that limited the number of PALs the Commission would make available. We also propose to assign PALs even when there is only one applicant in a given license area, assuming the applicant is otherwise qualified. We seek comment on these changes, which appear consistent with the broad opposition to the current requirements already in the record. The other proposed changes to PAL licensing discussed in this NPRM--including longer, renewable license terms and a larger geographic area--would make PALs more similar to licenses offered in the Incentive Auction and other recent spectrum auctions, where there was no need for the requirements in Sections 96.29(c) and 96.29(d) of our rules (47 CFR 96.29(c) and 47 CFR 96.29(d)). We seek comment on this proposal. What are the costs and benefits of removing these requirements? Are these changes consistent with the statutory objectives of Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), including to ``promot[e]economic opportunity and competition,'' ``ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible,'' ``avoid[ ] excessive concentration of licenses'' and ``disseminat[e] licenses among a wide variety of applicants''; ``recover[ ] for the public of a portion of the value of the of the public spectrum''; and promote ``efficient and intensive use of electromagnetic spectrum.'' Additionally, as fully described below, we also seek comment on whether a PAL for any given license area is mutually exclusive to GAA use in that area such that the Commission would have the authority to assign PALs by auction in those situations. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted these two limitations on the assignment of PALs because it concluded that assigning PALs on a non-auctioned basis would not result in as efficient an assignment of the spectrum as licensing the spectrum for shared GAA use. The Commission found that ensuring widespread GAA use of spectrum in any geographic area for which it had not received mutually exclusive PAL applications was the best way to discharge its statutory obligation to ``encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.'' However, the Commission reached these conclusions regarding nonrenewable PALs that had substantially shorter license terms than we are now proposing to adopt for PALs. Under our current proposals, the use case for PALs could vary more significantly from GAA use than under our current rules. The Commission also noted in the First Report and Order that the determination of mutual exclusivity of PAL applications would not be a one-time event for this band, because PALs would be licensed for three-year, non- renewable terms and the Commission would periodically open application windows for new PALs, as well as interim filing windows to accept applications for unassigned PALs. If we adopt our proposal to increase PAL license terms to 10 years, such frequent application or filing windows likely would not be necessary. We seek comment on whether the circumstances that will pertain if our proposals regarding license term, renewability, and geographic area are adopted warrant our elimination of the current limits on the number of PALs we make available. Moreover, the record indicates that PALs will be more useful to a wide variety of potential licensees if PALs are renewable, longer term, and/or licensed for a larger geographic area. USCC suggests that, if the Commission adopts PEA-based license areas and a ten-year license period with a renewal expectancy, ``it will be far less likely that the aggregate demand in any license area will be less than seven PALs.'' We seek comment on whether our proposed changes in the term, renewability, and service area of PALs would make them more useful to a wider range of potential licensees and, if so, whether that would reduce the benefit of limiting the number of PALs available in a given license area or not assigning PALs in any area for which there is only one applicant. We note that, if we adopt the above proposal to make all of the PALs in a given license area available for assignment regardless of the number of applicants that have applied in that area, it would still be possible, albeit less likely, for the number of PALs being offered to exceed applicant demand in a given area. Similarly, if we were to assign PALs in a license area for which only a single applicant applied for a PAL, as some commenters advocate, in those instances we would not have accepted mutually exclusive PAL applications, which is the prerequisite for assigning PALs by auction. While the Commission has the authority in both situations to assign the PALs on a [[Page 56199]] non-auctioned basis, we seek comment on whether it would be consistent with our statutory objectives to do so on a non-auctioned basis given the nature of the changes we propose to adopt for PALs. Such a circumstance raises questions of how to accommodate GAA use such that the sharing envisioned within this band could occur. To the extent necessary and as an alternative, we also seek comment on whether we nevertheless have authority to assign PALs by auction in these situations because a PAL for any given area is mutually exclusive to GAA use in that area. If we were to assign PALs by auction in these situations, applicants would be required to submit at least the minimum opening bid for each PAL consistent with the Commission's general competitive bidding procedures. Would such an approach be consistent with our statutory requirements and objectives under Section 309 of Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j))? Commenters that support this proposal should describe in detail the mechanism by which such a change would work, particularly within the sharing regime contemplated in the 3.5 GHz Band, and how it would fit within the Commission's statutory requirements. b. Bidding on Specific PAL License Blocks Under the current rules, Priority Access licensees do not bid on specific spectrum blocks. Rather, SAS Administrators assign frequencies based on the amount of spectrum that the PAL licensee is authorized to use in a given license area. Licensees may request a particular channel or frequency range from the SAS, but are not guaranteed a particular assignment. The SAS will ``assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same Priority Access Licensee to the same channels in each geographic area'' and ``assign multiple channels held by the same Priority Access Licensee to contiguous frequencies within the same License Area'' when it is feasible to do so. T-Mobile instead asks the Commission to allow applicants to bid on particular channels, rather than bidding solely on an amount of spectrum that will later be assigned by the SAS. A few commenters support T-Mobile's proposal. Ericsson argues that this approach would ensure a ``stable and predictable'' spectrum environment, while 5G Americas and GSMA argue that it would encourage robust use of the band for 5G and would align with what other countries have planned for the band. Commenters opposing this proposal question how it would work given the need to protect incumbent rights. Vivint Wireless calls it ``unnecessary and a bit confusing,'' arguing that it ``would seem to limit the available channels should a PAL licensee need to move to avoid interfering with a protected incumbent.'' Google argues that, if the Commission permitted parties to manually select frequencies, an operator could position itself in the middle of the PAL spectrum, preventing other PAL holders from aggregating contiguous blocks. It argues that ``the current SAS dynamic assignment framework allows protection of federal incumbent and Priority Access operations while enabling a seamless experience for end users of [Citizens Broadband Radio Service] services.'' We seek comment on the feasibility and desirability of allowing PAL licensees to bid on specific channel assignments. How could the Commission accomplish this given the other constraints of the band, including the need to protect incumbents? Would having a separate voluntary channel assignment phase of the auction--as was done recently in the Incentive Auction--work in this context? For example, could we first allow applicants to bid on the amount of PAL spectrum they desire, then in a separate round, allow PAL bidders to value and bid on specific channel assignments? Would this allow PAL bidders to value their PAL spectrum more accurately by knowing their primary location vis-a-vis federal and other incumbents and adjacent band licensees? Would the Commission need to make changes to the assignment phase framework used in the Incentive Auction to accommodate interference protection of federal incumbents by PALs? And if so, what changes would it need to make? Should the Commission adopt rules to ensure that bidders are assigned to contiguous frequencies within a geographic area, where possible? We also seek comment on what alternative auction methodologies might be appropriate to balance the SAS Administrator's need to dynamically avoid interference with Priority Access licensees' desire for certainty and the ability to aggregate contiguous spectrum. Are there other auction designs that could better balance interests in this context? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of any proposed approaches. B. Emissions and Interference Limits In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted the following emission limits: -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the assigned channel edge; -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the assigned channel edge down to 3530 megahertz and up to 3720 megahertz; -40 dBm/MHz below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission denied petitions for reconsideration that requested changes to these limits. T-Mobile's Petition requests changes to the emission limits that it claims are necessary to support channels wider than 10 megahertz without power reduction. Specifically, T-Mobile argues that the -13 dBm/MHz limit should apply from 0-20 megahertz outside the channel edge, and the -25 dBm/MHz requirement should be eliminated (or, alternatively, apply at least 20 megahertz from the channel edge). Outside of the 3550-3700 MHz band, T-Mobile contends that the -40 dBm/ MHz limit should be eliminated (or, alternatively, the transition gap should be 40 megahertz instead of 20 megahertz). Qualcomm agrees that the emission limits should be relaxed to facilitate wider channels without power reduction. Qualcomm argues that, for single or aggregated channels that are the channel bandwidth (B) megahertz wide (up to 40 megahertz), the -13 dBm/MHz requirement should apply from 0 to B megahertz above and below the channel edges, and the-25 dBm/MHz requirement should apply at frequencies beyond B megahertz. Qualcomm does not request changes to the -40 dBm/MHz emission limit outside of the 3550-3700 megahertz band. Several other commenters also support relaxation of the emission limits. Others, including Motorola Solutions and Vivint Wireless, support the current emissions limits. Motorola Solutions argues that no changes are necessary because current technologies can be utilized to meet the existing limits, and the existing rules allow higher power with wider bandwidth which helps counteract the need for power reduction. Vivint Wireless asserts that relaxing the emissions limits will increase the risk of interference between adjacent channel operations. Our current rules were designed to accommodate 10 megahertz and 20 megahertz channels. We propose to relax the emissions mask in a manner that will be scalable to accommodate wider bandwidth channels. Petitioners and commenters agree on the value of the first step of attenuation at -13 [[Page 56200]] dBm/MHz--starting at the channel edge--and many of them agree on the value of the lowest attenuation in the band at -25 dBm/MHz. We believe that relaxation of the current emission limits, while enabling efficient frequency and power assignments, would promote innovation and investment in the band and allow operators to make use of wider channels without reducing their transmit power. However, we are not persuaded by T-Mobile's proposals to eliminate the -25 dBm/MHz limit or to eliminate the -40 dBm/MHz limit below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz. We also are not persuaded by T-Mobile's proposal to increase the transition bandwidth to 40 megahertz outside of the band, because of the impact these changes would have on protecting adjacent operations. Rather, we seek comment on two alternative proposals. First, we seek comment on Qualcomm's proposal to: (1) Extend the -13 dBm/MHz limit from 0 to 100% of B; (2) apply the -25 dBm/MHz limit beyond 100% of B; and (3) not change the -40 dBm/MHz limit specified in Section 96.41(e)(2). Second, we seek comment on a more graduated reduction of the emission limits in Qualcomm's proposal, with the addition of an attenuation step between the channel edge and a full channel bandwidth from the channel edge, as follows: -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to B/2 (i.e., 50% of B) megahertz from the assigned channel edge; -20 dBm/MHz from B/2 to B (i.e., 100% of B) megahertz from the assigned channel edge; -25 dBm/MHz beyond B megahertz from the assigned channel edge, down to 3530 megahertz and up to 3720 megahertz; -40 dBm/MHz below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz. We seek comment on these two proposals and on the tradeoffs in the number and levels of the attenuation steps. A more relaxed mask gives more margin to accommodate bandwidths wider than 10 megahertz, although this could raise the potential for increased interference to users operating on adjacent channels. We seek quantitative analysis of these tradeoffs and we seek comment on whether alternative attenuation steps could balance these tradeoffs more effectively. What is the balance between vendor cost, radio performance, and spectrum efficiency? For example, are there tradeoffs in the design complexity of out-of-band signal reduction techniques, balanced with flexible and efficient spectrum sharing? Will either or both of the proposed masks facilitate the use of wider channels in the band without requiring power reduction? In the second proposal above, we seek comment on an attenuation step of -20 dBm/MHz between -13 dBm/MHz and -25 dBm/MHz, between one- half channel (50% of B) and one channel bandwidth (100% of B) from the channel edge. This additional attenuation step may enable more efficient SAS-based frequency and power assignments while facilitating wider channel bandwidths. Without this step, frequency separation between PAL channels (and other GAA/PAL channels) may be larger under some operational use cases. We seek comment on the capabilities of current and future CBSDs and end user devices to meet these masks, and the attenuation steps used in other bands for other wireless services. We also seek quantitative analysis of TDD interference scenarios to assess the tradeoff and balance between the emission mask and the statistical likelihood of interference between licensees. We note that studies have shown that device output power and out- of-band emissions are likely to be lower than regulatory limits or industry standards. For instance, an Ofcom study describes a case where the actual out-of-band emissions is lower than the minimum requirements specified in 3GPP by ~8 dB in the first adjacent channel. The study also shows the non-linear effect of out-of-band emissions at maximum power, and higher reduction in out-of-band emissions for every dB of reduction in fundamental transmit power. Ofcom notes that the increased emission leakage that accompanies increasing fundamental power is due to the non-linear behavior of the power amplifier when it is driven into saturation. What are the likely effects of this behavior in devices that will be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band? We seek comment and quantitative evidence that actual out-of-channel emissions in the 3.5 GHz Band will be substantially lower than worst case values. Are the margins found in the Ofcom study typical and representative of the margins that can be expected in 3.5 GHz? We also seek comment on the tradeoffs inherent in any change to the emission mask(s) in the band. Specifically, what are the tradeoffs between the margins of actual emissions, and the spectral efficiency of frequency assignments in the 3.5 GHz Band? Will either or both of the proposed masks meet the more restrictive 3GPP Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) emissions limit (i.e., 30 dBc for user devices and 45 dBc for base stations)? Finally, given the existing OOBE limits that apply above 3720 MHz and below 3530 MHz--which we do not propose to change-- we seek comment on whether either of these proposals would facilitate the use of wider bandwidth channels at or near the band edges. III. Procedural Matters Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this NPRM, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates on the first page of this NPRM. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis The NPRM contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 96 Telecommunications, Radio. Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 96 as follows: [[Page 56201]] PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE 0 1. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307. 0 2. Section 96.25 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read as follows: Sec. 96.25 Priority access licenses. (a) An applicant must file an application for an initial authorization for all PALs desired. Initial authorizations shall be granted in accordance with Section 96.29. Priority Access Licensees must operate CBSDs consistent with the technical rules and interference protection requirements set for in this part. (b) * * * (3) License term. Each PAL has a ten-year license term. Licensees must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.949. * * * * * Sec. 96.27 [Removed and Reserved] 0 3. Remove and reserve Sec. 96.27. 0 4. Section 96.29 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 96.29 Competitive bidding procedures. Mutually exclusive initial applications for Priority Access Licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart. 0 5. Section 96.32 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 96.32 Priority access assignments of authorization, transfer of control, and leasing arrangements. * * * * * (b) Priority Access Licensees may partition or disaggregate their licenses and partially assign or transfer their licenses and may enter into de facto leasing arrangements for a portion of their licenses. * * * * * 0 6. Section 96.41 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 96.41 General radio requirements. (e) * * * (2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the conducted power of any emissions below 3530 MHz or above 3720 MHz shall not exceed -40dBm/MHz. * * * * * Sec. 96.55 [Amended]. 0 7. Section 96.55 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3). [FR Doc. 2017-25672 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules 56193
On October 25, 2017, the Corps issued determinations under the Coastal Zone • Filings can be sent by hand or
a report recommending changes to nine Management Act. messenger delivery, by commercial
nationwide permits to reduce burdens Dated: November 17, 2017. overnight courier, or by first-class or
on domestic energy producers. The Thomas P. Smith,
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
report is available at: http:// filings must be addressed to the
Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division,
www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/ Directorate of Civil Works.
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
civilworks/nwp/NWP_13783_ Secretary, Federal Communications
[FR Doc. 2017–25554 Filed 11–27–17; 8:45 am]
25sept2017_castle.pdf?ver=2017-10-25- Commission.
092532-813. BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
• All hand-delivered or messenger-
The Corps issues nationwide permits delivered paper filings for the
to authorize certain categories of Commission’s Secretary must be
activities that require Department of the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
Army permits under section 404 of the COMMISSION 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
47 CFR Part 96
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
Nationwide permits are general permits [GN Docket No. 17–258; FCC 17–134] deliveries must be held together with
that authorize activities across the rubber bands or fasteners. Any
country that result in no more than Promoting Investment in the 3500– envelopes and boxes must be disposed
minimal individual and cumulative 3700 MHz Band of before entering the building.
adverse environmental effects. AGENCY: Federal Communications • Commercial overnight mail (other
Nationwide permits can be issued for a Commission. than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
period of 5 years, and the current and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
ACTION: Proposed rule.
nationwide permits were issued on Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
December 21, 2016. Those nationwide SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 20701.
permits were published in the Federal Communications Commission • U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR (Commission) proposes and seeks Express, and Priority mail must be
1860) and went into effect on March 19, comment on reforms of its licensing addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
2017. Those nationwide permits expire rules governing Priority Access Licenses Washington, DC 20554.
on March 18, 2022. There are 52 (PALs) in the 3550–3700 MHz band (3.5 People with Disabilities: To request
nationwide permits, and the report GHz Band). Specifically, the materials in accessible formats for
identifies 12 nationwide permits that Commission proposes extending PAL people with disabilities (Braille, large
authorize activities associated with license terms from three years to 10 print, electronic files, audio format),
domestic energy production and use. years, with the possibility for renewal; send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
The report suggests modifications to seeks comment on increasing the PAL the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
nine of those nationwide permits to geographic licensing area; proposes to Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
reduce burdens on domestic energy allow portioning and disaggregation of 418–0432 (TTY).
producers. PALs on the secondary market; and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The nine nationwide permits (NWPs) proposes to amend the rules governing Jessica Greffenius, Jessica.Greffenius@
recommended for changes include: assignment of PALs. The Commission fcc.gov, of the Wireless
NWP 3, Maintenance; NWP 12, Utility also proposes to remove a rule requiring Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility
Line Activities; NWP 17, Hydropower public disclosure of device registration Division, (202) 418–2896.
Projects; NWP 21, Surface Coal Mining information, and seeks comment on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
Activities; NWP 39, Commercial and changes to the technical rules to allow summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Institutional Developments; NWP 49, operation over wider bandwidths. Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN
Coal Remining Activities; NWP 50, DATES: Interested parties may file Docket No. 17–258, FCC 17–134,
Underground Coal Mining Activities; comments on or before December 28, released on October 24, 2017. The
NWP 51, Land-Based Renewable Energy 2017, and reply comments on or before complete text of the NPRM is available
Generation Projects; and NWP 52, January 29, 2018. for viewing via the Commission’s ECFS
Water-Based Renewable Energy ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Web site by entering the docket number,
Generation Pilot Projects. identified by GN Docket No. 17–258, by GN Docket No. 17–258. The complete
The Corps will coordinate with the any of the following methods: text of the NPRM is also available for
administration to determine if the • Electronic Filers: Comments may be public inspection and copying from 8:00
recommended changes in the report will filed electronically using the Internet by a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)
be pursued. Any modifications to the accessing the Commission’s Electronic Monday through Thursday or from 8:00
nine nationwide permits identified in Comment Filing System (ECFS): http:// a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the
the report would require rulemaking to fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic FCC Reference Information Center, 445
change those nationwide permits. That Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
rulemaking process requires publishing Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–
a proposed rule in the Federal Register • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 488–5300, fax 202–488–5563.
to solicit comments on the proposed file by paper must file an original and Alternative formats are available for
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
changes to the nationwide permits, one copy of each filing. Generally, if people with disabilities (Braille, large
evaluating the comments received, and more than one docket or rulemaking print, electronic files, audio format), by
issuing a final rule to modify those number appears in the caption of this sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or
nationwide permits. Modification of proceeding, filers must submit two calling the Consumer and Government
those nationwide permits will also additional copies for each additional Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530
require, as applicable, water quality docket or rulemaking number. (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
certifications under section 401 of the Commenters are only required to file The proceeding this NPRM initiates
Clean Water Act and consistency copies in GN Docket No. 13–111. shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_56420/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules 56197
robust and targeted use of the spectrum Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) stated that the agreement ‘‘provides the
throughout the license area. registration information available to the necessary protections for SAS
We propose to allow partitioning and general public. When doing so, customers’ proprietary and
disaggregation of PALs in secondary however, SAS Administrators must competitively sensitive information, as
market transactions. Allowing ‘‘obfuscate the identities of the well as end users’ private information.’’
partitioning and disaggregation would licensees.’’ In doing so, the Commission In response, AT&T argues that the
be consistent with other changes acknowledged ‘‘the concerns raised by model sharing agreement that Google
considered in this NPRM, and is commenters about disclosure of references addresses SAS-to-SAS
consistent with the licensing paradigm confidential business information to the information sharing, not public
for other similarly licensed services. We public.’’ availability of information, and that
also anticipate that the ability to Both CTIA and T-Mobile, supported Google incorrectly assumes that
partition and disaggregate a PAL will be by several commenters, ask the licensees plan network deployment
an effective way to improve spectral Commission to eliminate the rule based on activities of others rather than
efficiency and facilitate targeted requiring public disclosure of CBSD on internal objectives and consumer
network deployments, particularly if the registration information. Petitioners behavior.
Commission adopts a longer license assert that the rule raises both Charter, Federated Wireless, and
term or larger license area for PALs. We competitive concerns and NCTA encourage the Commission to
seek comment on this proposal and its ‘‘cybersecurity and national security seek comment on how it could ensure
underlying assumptions. If we were to concerns.’’ AT&T also claims that ‘‘the that prospective users of the band can
adopt a larger geographic license area SAS will be required to collect obtain sufficient information to execute
for some or all PALs, would allowing extensive data regarding users’ network network deployments without
partitioning and disaggregation of PALs configuration, uses, and technical disclosing detailed CBSD registration
enable prospective PAL licensees to parameters’’—data that ‘‘amounts to information to the public.
acquire PAL rights in smaller critical infrastructure data’’ that must be We propose to amend the current
geographic areas where their business adequately protected to avoid rules to prohibit SASs from disclosing
needs call for it? Are partitioning and competitive and cybersecurity publicly CBSD registration information
disaggregation effective means to concerns.’’ In addition, Petitioners and that may compromise the security of
facilitate the ability of small entities to commenters argue that obfuscating the critical network deployments or be
access the spectrum they desire for licensees’ identities does not adequately considered competitively sensitive. We
targeted, local deployments? If the address these concerns because it still seek comment on the proposal and ask
Commission does not adopt some or all may be possible to uncover the which specific information should be
of the other proposed revisions to PALs, identities of individual licensees based withheld from public disclosure to
should we still allow partitioning and on publicly available information. address the concerns raised by
disaggregation? If so, why? To what Petitioners and commenters also Petitioners and Commenters. We ask
extent would partitioning and contend that, since potential GAA commenters to address the potential
disaggregation help the Commission operators can coordinate directly with competitive, security, or other forms of
facilitate the objectives of Section 309(j) the SAS Administrators to deploy GAA risk presented by the rule, as well as on
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)), which, among other services, the public disclosure specific and actionable suggestions to
considerations, asks us to promote requirement is unnecessary to ensure mitigate these risks. Nothing we propose
‘‘economic opportunity for a wide that operations in the band are here will affect SAS-to-SAS information
variety of applications’’? effectively coordinated. sharing requirements.
We note that several commenters Google, Open Technology Institute
We also note that some commenters
argue the PAL licensees will lack an and Public Knowledge (OTI/PK), and
claim that potential GAA and PAL users
incentive to disaggregate or partition a WISPA support retention of the current
will use registration information to plan
larger, longer-term PAL. T-Mobile, in rule, arguing that it benefits potential
deployments. As such, we seek
response, suggests that this ‘‘can be operators that need to investigate the
comment on how to appropriately
remedied by adopt[ing] reasonable feasibility of deploying GAA or PAL
balance the potential competitive and
performance requirements associated service before incurring the cost of
security risks with potential users’ need
with renewal expectations.’’ We seek attempting to reserve or auction
for information about CBSD
comment on the relationship between spectrum. OTI/PK contends that
meaningful transparency allows deployment. Is there a mechanism—
secondary market transactions and
incumbents and public advocacy groups other than full public disclosure of
performance requirements. What types
to play a productive role in holding SAS CBSD registration information—for
of requirements would be appropriate to
Administrators and other stakeholders potential users to plan future GAA and/
encourage a robust secondary market for
accountable for responsibilities such as or PAL deployments? For example,
PALs to facilitate targeted and intensive
military radar protection and ensuring could potential users communicate with
spectrum use? How would requirements
that valuable PAL spectrum does not lie an SAS on a confidential basis? We also
related to secondary markets interplay
fallow. Google denies that anonymized seek comment on whether there is
with construction requirements for
public registration data presents certain information that the SAS can
PALs more broadly? How could
security or competitive concerns and publicly provide while balancing data
performance requirements and
argues that such information is already sensitivity and security concerns.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
secondary markets incentivize users to
provide service to rural and other available, as wireless carriers’ 5. Competitive Bidding Procedures for
difficult-to-serve areas? transceiver locations are visible to a PALs
passerby, logged by crowd-sourced
4. SAS Public Disclosure of CBSD applications, and publicly documented. a. Assignment of PALs
Registration Information Google also notes that several aspiring Section 309(j) of the Communications
In the First Report and Order, the SAS Administrators—including CTIA— Act (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) requires that the
Commission required that SAS already have negotiated a model sharing Commission assign licenses using
Administrators make Citizens agreement, and that CTIA itself has competitive bidding when ‘‘mutually
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_56420/page/5.svg)
![56198 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
exclusive applications are accepted for the minimum opening bid for those use of radio in the public interest.’’
any initial license,’’ subject to certain PALs, and remaining spectrum would However, the Commission reached these
exemptions not applicable to this band. be available on a GAA basis. conclusions regarding nonrenewable
Because of the ‘‘generic’’ nature of PAL Consistent with our proposals to PALs that had substantially shorter
frequency assignments, mutual lengthen the PAL license term, make license terms than we are now
exclusivity exists when multiple them renewable, and increase the PAL proposing to adopt for PALs. Under our
applicants apply to bid on more PALs geographic license area, we also propose current proposals, the use case for PALs
than exist in a given census tract. In the to employ our standard practice for could vary more significantly from GAA
First Report and Order, the Commission finding mutual exclusivity among use than under our current rules. The
decided that, when there are two or accepted applications. We propose to Commission also noted in the First
more applicants for PALs in a given eliminate the rule that limited the Report and Order that the determination
census tract, it will make available one number of PALs the Commission would of mutual exclusivity of PAL
fewer PAL than the total number of make available. We also propose to applications would not be a one-time
PALs for which all applicants have assign PALs even when there is only event for this band, because PALs
applied in that license area, up to a one applicant in a given license area, would be licensed for three-year, non-
maximum of seven PALs. The assuming the applicant is otherwise renewable terms and the Commission
Commission also concluded that qualified. We seek comment on these would periodically open application
assigning PALs on a non-auctioned changes, which appear consistent with windows for new PALs, as well as
basis would not result in the most the broad opposition to the current interim filing windows to accept
efficient assignment of the spectrum. It requirements already in the record. The applications for unassigned PALs. If we
therefore decided that, where there is other proposed changes to PAL adopt our proposal to increase PAL
only a single applicant for one or more licensing discussed in this NPRM— license terms to 10 years, such frequent
PALs in a license area, it would not including longer, renewable license application or filing windows likely
proceed to an auction or assign any terms and a larger geographic area— would not be necessary. We seek
PALs for that license area and there would make PALs more similar to comment on whether the circumstances
would only be shared GAA access to licenses offered in the Incentive Auction that will pertain if our proposals
that spectrum until the next filing and other recent spectrum auctions, regarding license term, renewability,
window for competitive bidding. In its where there was no need for the and geographic area are adopted warrant
Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket requirements in Sections 96.29(c) and our elimination of the current limits on
No. 12–354 (FCC 16–55), the 96.29(d) of our rules (47 CFR 96.29(c) the number of PALs we make available.
Commission granted a limited exception and 47 CFR 96.29(d)). We seek comment Moreover, the record indicates that
for certain rural areas, finding it in the on this proposal. What are the costs and PALs will be more useful to a wide
public interest to assign a PAL even if benefits of removing these variety of potential licensees if PALs are
there is only a single applicant, given requirements? Are these changes renewable, longer term, and/or licensed
the likelihood of lower demand in rural consistent with the statutory objectives for a larger geographic area. USCC
areas. of Section 309(j) (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), suggests that, if the Commission adopts
T-Mobile and several commenters ask including to ‘‘promot[e]economic PEA-based license areas and a ten-year
the Commission to make all PALs opportunity and competition,’’ license period with a renewal
available, regardless of the number of ‘‘ensur[e] that new and innovative expectancy, ‘‘it will be far less likely
applications the Commission receives in technologies are readily accessible,’’ that the aggregate demand in any license
any given license area. GeoLinks argues ‘‘avoid[ ] excessive concentration of area will be less than seven PALs.’’ We
that, by prohibiting the assignment of licenses’’ and ‘‘disseminat[e] licenses seek comment on whether our proposed
PALs when there is only one interested among a wide variety of applicants’’; changes in the term, renewability, and
carrier, the Commission will ‘‘surely ‘‘recover[ ] for the public of a portion of service area of PALs would make them
create gaps in rural, sparsely populated the value of the of the public spectrum’’; more useful to a wider range of potential
parts of the country that could benefit and promote ‘‘efficient and intensive licensees and, if so, whether that would
from an interested service provider.’’ use of electromagnetic spectrum.’’ reduce the benefit of limiting the
Further, several commenters, like AT&T Additionally, as fully described below, number of PALs available in a given
and Ericsson, argue that the we also seek comment on whether a license area or not assigning PALs in
Commission’s current policy will PAL for any given license area is any area for which there is only one
eventually phase out PAL licenses in a mutually exclusive to GAA use in that applicant.
market with each subsequent auction if area such that the Commission would We note that, if we adopt the above
there is no renewal expectancy, have the authority to assign PALs by proposal to make all of the PALs in a
rendering the auctions ‘‘essentially a auction in those situations. given license area available for
game of musical chairs for PAL In the First Report and Order, the assignment regardless of the number of
licensees.’’ No commenter opposes T- Commission adopted these two applicants that have applied in that
Mobile’s mutual exclusivity proposal limitations on the assignment of PALs area, it would still be possible, albeit
specifically. because it concluded that assigning less likely, for the number of PALs being
United States Cellular Corporation PALs on a non-auctioned basis would offered to exceed applicant demand in
(USCC) argues that the Commission not result in as efficient an assignment a given area. Similarly, if we were to
should assign PALs in any given license of the spectrum as licensing the assign PALs in a license area for which
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
area by subjecting all PALs to a spectrum for shared GAA use. The only a single applicant applied for a
minimum opening bid and the existing Commission found that ensuring PAL, as some commenters advocate, in
spectrum aggregation limit of four PALs. widespread GAA use of spectrum in any those instances we would not have
If the aggregate demand in a license area geographic area for which it had not accepted mutually exclusive PAL
does not exceed seven PALs, USCC received mutually exclusive PAL applications, which is the prerequisite
suggests that the applicant(s) would applications was the best way to for assigning PALs by auction. While
receive the number of PALs for which discharge its statutory obligation to the Commission has the authority in
they applied, subject to the payment of ‘‘encourage the larger and more effective both situations to assign the PALs on a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_56420/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules 56199
non-auctioned basis, we seek comment need to protect incumbent rights. Vivint • ¥13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10
on whether it would be consistent with Wireless calls it ‘‘unnecessary and a bit megahertz from the assigned channel
our statutory objectives to do so on a confusing,’’ arguing that it ‘‘would seem edge;
non-auctioned basis given the nature of to limit the available channels should a • ¥25 dBm/MHz beyond 10
the changes we propose to adopt for PAL licensee need to move to avoid megahertz from the assigned channel
PALs. Such a circumstance raises interfering with a protected incumbent.’’ edge down to 3530 megahertz and up to
questions of how to accommodate GAA Google argues that, if the Commission 3720 megahertz;
use such that the sharing envisioned permitted parties to manually select • ¥40 dBm/MHz below 3530
within this band could occur. To the frequencies, an operator could position megahertz and above 3720 megahertz.
extent necessary and as an alternative, itself in the middle of the PAL In the Second Report and Order, the
we also seek comment on whether we spectrum, preventing other PAL holders Commission denied petitions for
nevertheless have authority to assign from aggregating contiguous blocks. It reconsideration that requested changes
PALs by auction in these situations to these limits.
argues that ‘‘the current SAS dynamic
because a PAL for any given area is T-Mobile’s Petition requests changes
assignment framework allows protection to the emission limits that it claims are
mutually exclusive to GAA use in that of federal incumbent and Priority
area. If we were to assign PALs by necessary to support channels wider
Access operations while enabling a than 10 megahertz without power
auction in these situations, applicants seamless experience for end users of
would be required to submit at least the reduction. Specifically, T-Mobile argues
[Citizens Broadband Radio Service] that the ¥13 dBm/MHz limit should
minimum opening bid for each PAL services.’’
consistent with the Commission’s apply from 0–20 megahertz outside the
general competitive bidding procedures. We seek comment on the feasibility channel edge, and the ¥25 dBm/MHz
Would such an approach be consistent and desirability of allowing PAL requirement should be eliminated (or,
with our statutory requirements and licensees to bid on specific channel alternatively, apply at least 20
objectives under Section 309 of Act (47 assignments. How could the megahertz from the channel edge).
U.S.C. 309(j))? Commenters that support Commission accomplish this given the Outside of the 3550–3700 MHz band, T-
this proposal should describe in detail other constraints of the band, including Mobile contends that the ¥40 dBm/
the mechanism by which such a change the need to protect incumbents? Would MHz limit should be eliminated (or,
would work, particularly within the having a separate voluntary channel alternatively, the transition gap should
sharing regime contemplated in the 3.5 assignment phase of the auction—as be 40 megahertz instead of 20
GHz Band, and how it would fit within was done recently in the Incentive megahertz).
the Commission’s statutory Auction—work in this context? For Qualcomm agrees that the emission
requirements. example, could we first allow applicants limits should be relaxed to facilitate
to bid on the amount of PAL spectrum wider channels without power
b. Bidding on Specific PAL License reduction. Qualcomm argues that, for
they desire, then in a separate round,
Blocks single or aggregated channels that are
allow PAL bidders to value and bid on
Under the current rules, Priority specific channel assignments? Would the channel bandwidth (B) megahertz
Access licensees do not bid on specific this allow PAL bidders to value their wide (up to 40 megahertz), the ¥13
spectrum blocks. Rather, SAS PAL spectrum more accurately by dBm/MHz requirement should apply
Administrators assign frequencies based knowing their primary location vis-a-vis from 0 to B megahertz above and below
on the amount of spectrum that the PAL federal and other incumbents and the channel edges, and the¥25 dBm/
licensee is authorized to use in a given adjacent band licensees? Would the MHz requirement should apply at
license area. Licensees may request a Commission need to make changes to frequencies beyond B megahertz.
particular channel or frequency range the assignment phase framework used Qualcomm does not request changes to
from the SAS, but are not guaranteed a in the Incentive Auction to the ¥40 dBm/MHz emission limit
particular assignment. The SAS will accommodate interference protection of outside of the 3550–3700 megahertz
‘‘assign geographically contiguous PALs federal incumbents by PALs? And if so, band. Several other commenters also
held by the same Priority Access what changes would it need to make? support relaxation of the emission
Licensee to the same channels in each Should the Commission adopt rules to limits.
geographic area’’ and ‘‘assign multiple Others, including Motorola Solutions
ensure that bidders are assigned to
channels held by the same Priority and Vivint Wireless, support the current
contiguous frequencies within a
Access Licensee to contiguous emissions limits. Motorola Solutions
geographic area, where possible? We
frequencies within the same License argues that no changes are necessary
also seek comment on what alternative
Area’’ when it is feasible to do so. T- because current technologies can be
auction methodologies might be
Mobile instead asks the Commission to utilized to meet the existing limits, and
appropriate to balance the SAS the existing rules allow higher power
allow applicants to bid on particular
Administrator’s need to dynamically with wider bandwidth which helps
channels, rather than bidding solely on
avoid interference with Priority Access counteract the need for power
an amount of spectrum that will later be
licensees’ desire for certainty and the reduction. Vivint Wireless asserts that
assigned by the SAS.
A few commenters support T-Mobile’s ability to aggregate contiguous relaxing the emissions limits will
proposal. Ericsson argues that this spectrum. Are there other auction increase the risk of interference between
approach would ensure a ‘‘stable and designs that could better balance adjacent channel operations.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
predictable’’ spectrum environment, interests in this context? We seek Our current rules were designed to
while 5G Americas and GSMA argue comment on the costs and benefits of accommodate 10 megahertz and 20
that it would encourage robust use of any proposed approaches. megahertz channels. We propose to
the band for 5G and would align with B. Emissions and Interference Limits relax the emissions mask in a manner
what other countries have planned for that will be scalable to accommodate
the band. In the First Report and Order, the wider bandwidth channels. Petitioners
Commenters opposing this proposal Commission adopted the following and commenters agree on the value of
question how it would work given the emission limits: the first step of attenuation at ¥13
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_56420/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules 56201
PART 96—CITIZENS BROADBAND § 96.55 [Amended]. Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2015–
RADIO SERVICE ■ 7. Section 96.55 is amended by 0161; Division of Policy, Performance,
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3). and Management Programs; U.S. Fish
■ 1. The authority citation for part 96 [FR Doc. 2017–25672 Filed 11–27–17; 8:45 am] and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg
continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307. 22041–3803.
We will post all comments on https://
■ 2. Section 96.25 is amended by www.regulations.gov. This generally
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR means that we will post any personal
as follows: information you provide us (see Public
Fish and Wildlife Service Comment Procedures and Public
§ 96.25 Priority access licenses.
Availability of Comments under
(a) An applicant must file an 50 CFR Part 91 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
application for an initial authorization [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0161; information).
for all PALs desired. Initial FXMB12330900000//189//FF09M13200] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
authorizations shall be granted in Suzanne Fellows, (703) 358–2145,
accordance with Section 96.29. Priority RIN 1018–BB23
suzanne_fellows@fws.gov.
Access Licensees must operate CBSDs
Revision of Federal Migratory Bird SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
consistent with the technical rules and
interference protection requirements set Hunting and Conservation Stamp Background
for in this part. (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations
History of the Federal Migratory Bird
(b) * * * AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck
(3) License term. Each PAL has a ten- Interior. Stamp) Program
year license term. Licensees must file a ACTION: Revised proposed rule; request
renewal application in accordance with On March 16, 1934, Congress passed,
for comments. and President Franklin D. Roosevelt
the provisions of Section 1.949.
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting
* * * * * Stamp Act. Popularly known as the
Service (Service), are revising our
§ 96.27 [Removed and Reserved] previous proposal to revise regulations Duck Stamp Act, it required all
governing the annual Migratory Bird waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to
■ 3. Remove and reserve § 96.27.
Hunting and Conservation Stamp buy a stamp annually. The revenue
■ 4. Section 96.29 is revised to read as generated was originally earmarked for
follows: Contest (also known as the Federal Duck
Stamp Contest (contest)). The proposals the Department of Agriculture, but 5
§ 96.29 Competitive bidding procedures. in this document are revisions to our years later was transferred to the
February 11, 2016, proposed rule and Department of the Interior and the
Mutually exclusive initial
consist of further updates to the Service.
applications for Priority Access Licenses In the years since its enactment, the
are subject to competitive bidding. The scientific names of species on our list of
contest design subjects, updates to Federal Duck Stamp Program has
general competitive bidding procedures become one of the most popular and
set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this recognize technological advances in
stamp design and printing, and successful conservation programs ever
chapter will apply unless otherwise initiated. Today, some 1.8 million
provided in this subpart. proposed requirements specific to the
2018 contest. stamps are sold each year, and as of
■ 5. Section 96.32 is amended by
2017, Federal Duck Stamps have
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: DATES: We will accept comments that
generated more than $1 billion for the
we receive on or before December 28, preservation of more than 6 million
§ 96.32 Priority access assignments of 2017. Please note that if you are using
authorization, transfer of control, and acres of waterfowl habitat in the United
leasing arrangements.
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see States. Numerous other birds, mammals,
ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for
* * * * * fish, reptiles, and amphibians have
submitting an electronic comment is similarly prospered because of habitat
(b) Priority Access Licensees may 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
partition or disaggregate their licenses protection made possible by the
date. program. An estimated one-third of the
and partially assign or transfer their
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Nation’s endangered and threatened
licenses and may enter into de facto
by one of the following methods: species find food or shelter in refuges
leasing arrangements for a portion of
• Electronically: Go to the Federal preserved by Duck Stamp funds.
their licenses.
eRulemaking Portal: http:// Moreover, the protected wetlands help
* * * * * www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, dissipate storms, purify water supplies,
■ 6. Section 96.41 is amended by enter FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0161, which store flood water, and nourish fish
revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as is the docket number for this proposed hatchlings important for sport and
follows: rule. Then, in the Search panel on the commercial fishermen.
§ 96.41 General radio requirements.
left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the History of the Duck Stamp Contest
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
(e) * * * Proposed Rules link to locate this The first Federal Duck Stamp was
(2) Additional protection levels. document. You may submit a comment designed at President Roosevelt’s
Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please request by Jay N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling, a
section, the conducted power of any ensure that you have found the correct nationally known political cartoonist for
emissions below 3530 MHz or above rulemaking before submitting your the Des Moines Register and a noted
3720 MHz shall not exceed ¥40dBm/ comment. hunter and wildlife conservationist. In
MHz. • By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail subsequent years, noted wildlife artists
* * * * * or hand delivery to: Public Comments were asked to submit designs. The first
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Nov 27, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_56420/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2017-11-28 01:50:55
Document Modified: 2017-11-28 01:50:55
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Interested parties may file comments on or before December 28, 2017, and reply comments on or before January 29, 2018. | |
| Contact | Jessica Greffenius, [email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2896. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 56193 | |
| CFR Associated | Telecommunications and Radio |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR