Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with 
Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-
3650 MHz Band
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 12-354
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  April 23, 2014 Released: April 23, 2014
Comment Date: 40 days after publication in the Federal Register
Reply Comment Date: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register
By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel and O’Rielly issuing 
separate statements; Commissioner Pai concurring and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 9
III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 17
A. Proposed Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................. 18
1. Proposed Part 96 Rule Part...................................................................................................... 19
a. Subpart A – GENERAL RULES...................................................................................... 19
(i) Scope (§ 96.1) ............................................................................................................ 19
(ii) Definitions (§ 96.3) .................................................................................................... 23
(iii)Eligibility (§ 96.5) ...................................................................................................... 24
(iv) Authorization Required (§ 96.7) ................................................................................ 25
(v) Regulatory Status (§ 96.9).......................................................................................... 26
(vi) Frequencies (§ 96.11) ................................................................................................. 27
(vii) Frequency Assignments (§ 96.13)............................................................................. 28
b. Subpart B – INCUMBENT PROTECTIONS................................................................... 38
(i) Protection of Federal Incumbents (§ 96.15) ............................................................... 38
(ii) Protection of Existing Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations in the 3550-3650 
MHz Band (§ 96.17)................................................................................................... 39
(iii)Operation near Canadian and Mexican Borders (§ 96.19) ......................................... 40
c. Subpart C – PRIORITY ACCESS.................................................................................... 41
(i) Authorization (§ 96.21) .............................................................................................. 42
(ii) Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.23)............................................................................. 43
(iii)Application Window (§ 96.25)................................................................................... 53
(iv) Assignment of Licenses (§ 96.27).............................................................................. 54
(v) Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.29).................................................... 55
d. Subpart D – GENERAL AUTHORIZED ACCESS......................................................... 56
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
2
(i) Authorization and General Authorized Access Use (§ 96.31 and § 96.33)................ 56
(ii) Contained Access Facilities (§ 96.35) ........................................................................ 58
e. Subpart E – TECHNICAL RULES .................................................................................. 62
(i) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices General Requirements (§ 96.36)........... 62
(ii) End User Devices General Requirements (§ 96.37)................................................... 68
(iii)General Radio Requirements (§ 96.38) ...................................................................... 69
f. Subpart F – SPECTRUM ACCESS SYSTEM................................................................. 90
(i) Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality (§ 96.43) ............................... 93
(ii) Information Gathering and Retention (§ 96.44) ......................................................... 99
(iii)Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices 
(§ 96.45) ................................................................................................................... 102
(iv) Frequency Assignment (§ 96.46) ............................................................................. 103
(v) Security (§ 96.47)..................................................................................................... 104
(vi) Spectrum Access System Administrators (§ 96.48) ................................................. 105
(vii) Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees (§ 96.47) ......................................... 109
2. Modifications to Existing Rule Parts..................................................................................... 110
a. Table of Frequency Allocations (§ 2.106) ...................................................................... 111
b. Procedures for Priority Access Licenses Subject to Assignment by Competitive 
Bidding (§ 1.2101 et seq.)............................................................................................... 118
(i) Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules (§ 1.2101 et seq.) ....................... 119
(ii) Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding.......................................................... 120
(iii)Bidding Process Options .......................................................................................... 122
c. Secondary Markets ......................................................................................................... 135
B. Other Issues.................................................................................................................................. 136
1. Protections for Federal Incumbent Access Tier Users .......................................................... 137
2. Protections for Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices from Federal Radar 
Systems.................................................................................................................................. 143
3. Protections for Fixed Satellite Service Earth stations ........................................................... 145
a. Earth Stations in the 3.5 GHz Band ................................................................................ 145
b. Earth Stations in the C-Band........................................................................................... 152
4. Enforcement Issues................................................................................................................ 162
5. Extension of Part 96 Rules to 3650-3700 MHz Band ........................................................... 163
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 170
A. Ex Parte Rules ............................................................................................................................. 170
B. Filing Requirements..................................................................................................................... 172
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis......................................................................................... 176
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis................................................................................... 179
V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 180
APPENDIX A – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B – Supplemental Proposed Rules for the 3650-3700 MHz band
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We are in the midst of a communications revolution that has connected us to each other as 
never before through an ever increasing number of wireless devices.  As a result of the continuing 
proliferation of connected devices, demand for wireless broadband capacity is growing rapidly.  New, 
more efficient wireless network architectures and innovative approaches to spectrum management are 
tools that can help maximize the utility of existing spectrum resources and make new spectrum bands 
available for broadband access.  As we previously discussed,
1
our proposals for the 3550-3650 MHz band 
                                                     
1
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, 
GN Docket No. 12-354, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 15594, 15595, ¶ 1 (2012) (3.5 GHz NPRM).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
3
(3.5 GHz Band) focus on two components of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to address wireless 
coverage and capacity issues:  small cells and spectrum sharing—both of which were addressed in a 
report issued by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
2
  
2. With this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice), we 
propose specific rules for a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band that would make
the 3.5 GHz sharing regime originally described by PCAST a reality.  The 3.5 GHz Band could be an 
“innovation band,” where we can explore new methods of spectrum sharing and promote a diverse array 
of network technologies, with a focus on relatively low-powered applications.  If successful, the spectrum 
sharing model proposed for this band could ultimately be expanded to other spectrum bands and
“transform the availability of a precious national resource —spectrum—from scarcity to abundance.”
3
3. The proposed rules set forth herein build upon the record developed in response to a 
series of prior proposals and workshops over the past sixteen months. These detailed proposals will allow 
for more focused comment prior to establishing rules governing the proposed Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service in a new Part 96 of the Commission’s rules.
4
Specifically, the proposed rules would implement 
an innovative and comprehensive framework to authorize a variety of small cell and other broadband uses 
of the 3.5 GHz Band on a shared basis with incumbent federal and non-federal users of the band, with 
oversight and enforcement through a Spectrum Access System (SAS).  The proposed rules reflect our 
belief that the 3.5 GHz Band could be an ideal “innovation band,” well suited to exploring the next 
generation of shared spectrum technologies, to drive greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum use.  
4. The creation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service was originally proposed in a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3.5 GHz NPRM or NPRM) released in December 2012.
5
  After 
reviewing the record generated by the 3.5 GHz NPRM, we released a Public Notice to supplement the 
record with focused comment on specific concepts for the 3.5 GHz Band (Licensing PN).
6
  The Licensing 
PN described a “Revised Framework” that elaborated on some of the alternative licensing and 
authorization concepts set forth in the NPRM.
7
  With this FNPRM we fulfill a commitment made in 
issuing the Licensing PN that we would seek comment on specific detailed rules before publishing a First 
Report and Order in this proceeding.
8
5. As set forth in more detail below, we propose to establish a three-tiered authorization 
framework – Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers - based on 
the recommendations of PCAST and originally proposed in the NPRM.
9
  Under this framework, existing 
primary operations – including authorized federal users and grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
earth stations - would compose the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from harmful 
interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.  At this time, we propose to establish 
                                                     
2
See PCAST, Report to the President: Realizing the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic 
Growth (rel. July 20, 2012) (PCAST Report), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf 
(PCAST Report) at vi and 17-20.
3
See PCAST Report at vi.
4
See Appendix A.
5
See 3.5 GHz NPRM.
6
Commission Seeks Comment on Licensing Models and Technical Requirements in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN 
Docket No. 12-354, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 15300 (2013) (Licensing PN).
7
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15301, ¶ 2.
8
See id. at 15301, ¶ 3.
9
See PCAST Report at 16-21, 82-84; 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15612-22, ¶¶ 53-82.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
4
geographic Exclusion Zones
10
based on the models suggested in the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration’s (NTIA) Fast Track Report to protect federal Incumbent Access tier 
operations.
11
  We plan to work with NTIA in coming months to reassess these Exclusion Zones in light of 
new technologies envisioned in this FNPRM and new data from technical studies evaluating the 
coexistence of radars and wireless broadband services.  If there are further developments that would 
enable a reduction in the size of the Exclusion Zones, we encourage participants to file in the record to 
ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for public comment prior to issuance of a Report and Order in 
this proceeding.
6. Interference management with respect to the three tiers of service, including adherence to 
designated Exclusion Zones, would be managed by a dynamic SAS, conceptually similar to, but more 
advanced than the databases used to manage Television White Spaces (TVWS) devices.  Consistent with 
the Revised Framework, we propose to define each Priority Access License (PAL) as an authorization to 
use for one-year a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract.  PALs would be open to any prospective 
licensee that meets basic FCC qualifications and mutually exclusive applications for PALs would be
subject to competitive bidding.  PAL channels would be dynamically coordinated by the SAS and the 
exact spectral location of a given PAL authorization could shift from time to time as directed by the SAS
during its license term.
12
  The GAA tier would be licensed-by-rule to permit open, flexible access to the 
band to the widest possible group of potential users.  We propose to reserve at all times for GAA use, a 
minimum of 50 percent of the band that is not encumbered by Incumbent Access tier users in any given 
location.
7. We propose baseline technical standards for the operation of Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service Devices (CBSDs) and End User Devices in the 3.5 GHz Band as well as general rules for the 
operation of the SAS and approval of SAS Administrators.  Many of these concepts were originally raised 
in the NPRM and Licensing PN.  We also seek further comment on other important issues raised in this 
proceeding, including: (1) protection criteria for Incumbent Users; (2) potential protection of FSS earth 
stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band); (3) competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually 
exclusive applications for PALs; and (4) the possible extension of the proposed rules to include the 3650-
3700 MHz band.  Some of these issues, particularly those dealing with protection criteria for Incumbent 
Access tier users, may require additional focused input from government and private industry 
stakeholders.  
8. Our goal in this FNPRM is to generate focused comment on specific proposed rule text as 
a penultimate step before the establishment of a new rule part – Part 96 – authorizing fixed and mobile 
wireless use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
13
  Our goal is to adopt rules that promote efficient and widespread use 
of the 3.5 GHz Band for a variety of potential users.  We emphasize that this is an iterative process and 
that, while some issues remain open, the proposed rules set forth herein provide a clear framework that 
would allow users to begin operations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in designated geographic 
areas.
                                                     
10
Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms in this FNPRM are defined as set forth in section 96.3 of the Proposed 
Rules.  See Appendix A, § 96.3.
11
See NTIA, An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 
1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, 4200-4220 MHz, and 4380-4400 MHz Bands  (rel. October 
2010) (Fast Track Report), available at 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fasttrackevaluation_11152010.pdf.
12
We do not propose to create a fixed bandplan (i.e., 10x10 megahertz channels).  See infra section III (A)(1)(a) 
(vii).
13
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15301, ¶ 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
5
II. BACKGROUND
9. The Fast Track Report first identified the 3.5 GHz Band as potentially suitable for 
commercial broadband use.
14
  NTIA recommended that this band could be made available for commercial 
wireless broadband by 2015 based on the conditions outlined in the Fast Track Report.
15
  NTIA’s 
recommendation included significant geographic restrictions to protect existing Department of Defense 
(DoD) radar and FSS operations and to protect new commercial systems from co-channel interference 
from high-powered military in-band shipborne and adjacent band DoD ground-based radar systems.
16
The radar systems that operate in the 3.5 GHz Band overcome the inherent propagation limitations of this 
frequency range by employing high transmitter power levels and high-gain antennas.
17
  These 
characteristics of the radar systems were a contributing factor to the size of the exclusion zones in the Fast 
Track evaluation.
10. In July 2012, PCAST recommended that the Federal Government identify 1,000 
megahertz of federal spectrum for shared use to create “the first shared use spectrum superhighways.”
18
   
PCAST recommends that shared spectrum be organized into three tiers.  To ensure interference 
protection, all users would be required to register in a database modeled on the TVWS database.
19
  The 
first tier would consist of incumbent federal users.
20
  These users would be entitled to full protection for 
their operations within their deployed areas, consistent with the terms of their assignments.
21
  The second 
tier would consist of users that would receive short-term priority authorizations to operate within 
designated geographic areas.
22
  Secondary users would receive protection from interference from third tier 
users but would be required to avoid interference with and accept interference from Federal Primary 
users.
23
  Third tier users (GAA) would be entitled to use the spectrum on an opportunistic basis and would 
not be entitled to interference protection.  PCAST recommends that the Commission, in conjunction with 
NTIA, work expeditiously to implement its recommendations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
24
  
11. The Commission’s December 2012 NPRM proposed a three-tier, license-by-rule 
authorization framework, based on concepts described in the PCAST Report that are intended to facilitate 
rapid broadband deployment while protecting existing incumbent users of the 3.5 GHz Band.
25
  The 
NPRM solicited comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the appropriate licensing framework 
and the potential uses of each service tier. The Commission received extensive comment from a wide 
range of stakeholders in response.
26
  The NPRM also included a supplemental proposal to expand the 
                                                     
14
See Fast Track Report, at 1-6 – 1-7 and Appendix D.
15
Id. at 1-8.
16
Id. at 1-6 to 1-7, figures D-45 to D-55, and Appendix B.
17
Id. at 3-30 to 3-33.
18
PCAST Report at 50-52.
19
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.713-15.
20
See PCAST Report at 23-24.
21
Id.
22
Id. PCAST refers to the second tier as “Secondary Access."
23
Id.
24
Id. at 82-83.
25
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15612-21, ¶¶ 53-77, PCAST Report at 16-21, 82-84.
26
See generally comments filed in Docket No. 12-354.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
6
proposed licensing and authorization model to an additional adjacent 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 
3650-3700 MHz band, making up to 150 megahertz available for shared wireless broadband access.
27
12. As we noted in the NPRM, the technical characteristics of the 3.5 GHz Band and the 
existence of important incumbent operations in the band in many areas of the country contribute to make 
the band an ideal platform to explore innovative approaches to shared spectrum use and small cell 
technology.
28
NTIA’s Fast Track Report recommended, based on technical assumptions typical of 
traditional macrocell deployments of commercial wireless broadband technology, that new commercial 
uses of the band occur outside of large “exclusion zones” to protect Federal government operations.
29
  
Given that the exclusion zones would cover approximately 60 percent of the U.S. population
30
and 
because of limited signal propagation in the band, the band did not appear to be well-suited for macrocell 
deployment. However, as noted in the NPRM, these very disadvantages could be turned into advantages 
if the band were used to explore spectrum sharing and small cell innovation.
31
This proposal was based 
on recommendations put forth by the FCC’s Technology Advisory Council (TAC), which has advocated 
for the increased use of small cell devices in spectrum constrained areas and supported dedicating a 
spectrum band to small cell uses.
32
  The combination of small cells and spectrum sharing technologies 
could vastly increase the usability of the 3.5 GHz Band for wireless broadband and serve as a model for 
future coexistence among services in other spectrum bands.
13. In November 2013, in response to record comments received up to that point, we released 
the Licensing PN, which described a Revised Framework that elaborated upon some of the licensing 
concepts and alternatives set forth in the NPRM.
33
The Revised Framework retains the three-tier model 
proposed in the NPRM but expands eligibility to apply for PALs, and explores innovative means of 
assigning authorizations within that tier.
34
  Like the NPRM’s main proposal, the Revised Framework 
would leverage the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS technologies to enable sharing among users 
in the Priority Access and GAA tiers.  Specifically, the Revised Framework contains the following core 
concepts:
? An SAS to dynamically manage frequency assignments and automatically enforce access 
to the Priority Access and GAA tiers;
? Expansive eligibility for Priority Access tier use;
? Granular, but administratively-streamlined licensing of the Priority Access tier;  
? Exclusive spectrum rights for Priority Access subject to licensing by auction in the event 
of mutually exclusive applications;
? A defined “floor” of GAA spectrum availability, to ensure that GAA access is available 
nationwide (subject to Incumbent Access tier use);
                                                     
27
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15620-23, ¶¶ 77-86.
28
Id. 27 FCC Rcd at 15601-03, ¶¶ 17-25.
29
See Fast Track Report at 1-6 – 1-7 and Appendix D.
30
See Fast Track Report at 1-6 – 1-7 and Appendix D and 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15597 and 15601, ¶¶ 6 
and 17-18.
31
See 3.5 GHz NPRM at 15630-35, ¶¶ 113-23
32
See Technical Advisory Council, Chairman’s Report, (rel. April 22, 2011) at 3, available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306065A1.pdf.
33
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15301, ¶ 2.
34
Id. at 15305-10, ¶¶ 10-27.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
7
? Additional GAA access to unused Priority Access bandwidth, as identified and managed 
by the SAS, to maximize dynamic use of the unutilized portion of the band and ensure 
productive use of the spectrum; 
? Opportunities for Contained Access Users to obtain targeted priority spectrum use within 
specific facilities (such as buildings) that meet certain requirements to mitigate the 
potential for interference to and from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users; and
? A set of baseline technical standards to prevent harmful interference and ensure productive 
use of the spectrum.
35
14. The Licensing PN generated a robust supplementary record, eliciting comments from a 
wide range of stakeholders.  While most commenters support expanding Priority Access tier eligibility 
from “critical access” users to all qualified applicants,
36
opinions were split on other specific aspects of 
the Revised Framework.  Notably, commenters diverged greatly on the band plan, PAL specifications, 
authorization methodology, and technical specifications of CBSDs.  These submissions are addressed in 
greater detail on an issue-by-issue basis in Section III.
15. In addition, we have convened two workshops to discuss technical issues related to this 
proceeding.
37
The first workshop explored broad issues that emanated from the original NPRM.
38
More 
recently, on January 14, 2014, the Bureau and OET hosted a workshop to further explore the technical 
requirements, operational parameters, and architecture of the proposed SAS (SAS Workshop).
39
  A 
diverse group of engineers representing industry stakeholders, trade associations, and academia submitted 
                                                     
35
See Licensing PN.
36
See e.g., Reply Comments of CTIA in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 
2013) (CTIA Licensing PN Reply Comments) at 3; Comments of Alcatel-Lucent in Response to Licensing PN in 
GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (Alcatel-Lucent Licensing PN Comments) at 1-2; Comments of 
Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 
2013) (NSN Licensing PN Comments) at 4-8; Comments of Google, Inc. in Response to Licensing PN in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (Google Licensing PN Comments) at 5; and Comments of the 
Consumer Electronics Association in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) 
(CEA Licensing PN Comments) at 2-3; but see Comments of Utilities Telecom Council in Response to Licensing 
PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (UTC Licensing PN Comments) at 3-4; Reply Comments of 
the American Petroleum Institute in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) 
(API Licensing PN Reply Comments) at 2-4.
37
FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Announce Agenda for 
Workshop on the 3.5 GHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354, Public Notice, DA 13-367 
(2013) (First 3.5 GHz Workshop PN); FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and 
Technology Announce Agenda for Workshop to Discuss the Creation of a Spectrum Access System in the 3.5 GHz 
Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 174 (rel. January 9, 2014) (SAS Workshop Agenda PN); 
Workshop video and presentation materials available at: http://www.fcc.gov/events/35-ghz-spectrum-access-system-
workshop and http://www.fcc.gov/events/35-ghz-workshop.
38
See First 3.5 GHz Workshop PN; Video and presentation materials available at: http://www.fcc.gov/events/35-
ghz-workshop.
39
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Call for Papers on the 
Proposed Spectrum Access System for the 3.5 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 
15843 (rel. November 18, 2013) (SAS Papers PN); SAS Workshop Agenda PN; Workshop video and presentation 
materials available at: http://www.fcc.gov/events/35-ghz-spectrum-access-system-workshop.  The Commission also 
announced a two week online discussion to further explore topics addressed in the workshop.  The results of that 
discussion were added to the record.  See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and 
Technology Submission for the Record in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed March 31, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
8
technical papers in advance of the workshop and participated in panels throughout the day.
40
  We address 
many of these submissions in greater detail below.
41
16. The purpose of this FNPRM is to solicit focused comment on specific proposed rules and 
other specifically identified open issues.  To the extent that parties require additional background on any 
of the proposals we describe in this FNPRM, we encourage them to review prior releases in this docket, 
including the NPRM, the Licensing PN, and the recorded footage of the two workshops.
III. DISCUSSION
17. With this FNPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service.
42
  These proposed rules build upon the concepts and proposals set forth in the NPRM and the 
Licensing PN, in light of the record created in this proceeding.  Notably, the proposed rules would:
? Implement the three-tier model proposed in the NPRM;
? Establish Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between incumbent federal operations
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users;
? Create an open eligibility authorization system for Priority Access and GAA operations;
? Establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for the Priority Access tier, consistent with
parameters discussed in the Licensing PN;
? Set a defined “floor” for GAA spectrum availability, to ensure that GAA access is 
available nationwide (subject to Incumbent Access tier use); 
? Set guidelines to allow Contained Access Users to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved 
frequencies from the GAA pool for use within their facilities;
? Establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic base stations operating in the 3.5 
GHz Band;
? Set guidelines for the operation and certification of SASs in the band.
We seek detailed comment on these proposals, as well as viable alternative or supplemental rule 
provisions that could help to achieve our stated objectives.  We encourage commenters to focus their 
submissions on the specific proposed rule text and structure. We further encourage commenters to 
identify the specific costs and benefits associated with any proposal.  To the extent possible, commenters 
should provide specific data and information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific 
cost or benefit addressed, including a description of how the data or information was calculated or 
obtained, and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary support.
A. Proposed Regulatory Framework
18. Below we discuss the proposed Part 96 and its component subsections, as well as 
proposed modifications to our existing rules designed to accommodate the new proposed Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. The discussion parallels the proposed structure of Part 96, as detailed in 
Appendix A.
43
  
                                                     
40
See SAS Workshop Agenda PN; See generally, SAS workshop submissions in GN Docket No. 12-354. 
41
See infra section III (A)(1)(e)-(f).
42
See Appendix A.
43
Where rule sections are mentioned in this FNPRM (e.g., § 96.1), these refer to sections of the proposed rules set 
forth in Appendix A, unless otherwise noted.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
9
1. Proposed Part 96 Rule Part
a. Subpart A – GENERAL RULES
(i) Scope (§ 96.1)
19. We propose to implement the three-tier authorization framework originally described in 
the NPRM and further discussed in the Licensing PN.
44
  This proposal is consistent with the framework 
for the 3.5 GHz Band originally described in the PCAST Report.
45
  Under this framework, existing 
primary operations – including authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations - would 
make up the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from harmful interference consistent 
with the proposed rules.
46
  The Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be divided into Priority Access 
and GAA tiers of service, each of which would be required to operate on a non-interference basis with the 
Incumbent Access tier.
47
  We also propose that any party that meets basic eligibility requirements under 
the Communications Act be eligible to hold a PAL or, when authorized, operate a CBSD on a GAA basis 
in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
20. The proposed three-tier framework enjoys significant support from a diverse group of 
commenters, including AT&T, Google, Public Knowledge, and the Open Technology Institute at the New 
America Foundation.
48
  Others, including CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA), NSN, and 
Qualcomm have argued that a two-tier framework that would prohibit or segregate GAA users would be a 
more efficient way to manage the 3.5 GHz Band.
49
  
21. Some commenters, including some who have also expressed support for the three-tiered 
model, argue that the 3.5 GHz Band should be divided between two and three-tiered authorization 
schemes, at least on a transitional basis.
50
  Under this concept, as originally described by Verizon
Communications Inc. and Verizon Wireless Inc. (Verizon), a portion of the band would be set aside for a 
“transitional framework” sub-band which would be licensed on a more traditional, exclusive-use basis 
and would not include GAA users.
51
  The remainder of the band could be split between GAA-only use 
                                                     
44
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15612-14, ¶¶ 53-60; Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15304-13, ¶¶ 10-40.
45
See PCAST Report at 23-24.
46
See infra sections III(A)(1)(b) and (B)(1); Appendix A, § 96.15.
47
GAA users must also operate on a non-interference basis with respect to Priority Access Licensees.  See Appendix 
A, § 96.33.
48
See Google Licensing PN Comments at 1-2; Comments of AT&T Services Inc. in Response to Licensing PN in 
GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (AT&T Licensing PN Comments) at 3-6; Comments of the Open 
Technology Institute at the New America Foundation and Public Knowledge in Response to Licensing PN in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments) at 3-4; See also Letter from 
Amplex Electric, Inc. Aristotle Inc., Cambium Networks Ltd., CompTIA , Consumer Federation of America, Free 
Press, Google, Highspeedlink, JAB Wireless, Inc. , Microsoft, New America Foundation , Public Knowledge, 
Shelby Broadband, Texas Instruments, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., and Wireless Internet Service Providers Association 
to Marlene H. Dortch in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed March 24, 2014)  (Coalition Letter). 
49
See Comments of Qualcomm Incorporated in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
December 5, 2013) (Qualcomm Licensing PN Comments) at 4-5; CTIA Licensing PN Reply Comments at 3; NSN 
Licensing PN Comments at 8-15 (Proposing that the Commission assign the 3.5 GHz Band exclusively for Priority 
Access and the 3650-3700 MHz band for GAA use). 
50
See Comments of Verizon and Verizon Wireless in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
December 5, 2013) (Verizon Licensing PN Comments); Reply Comments of AT&T Services Inc., in Response to 
Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) (AT&T Licensing PN Reply Comments) at 3.
51
See Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 10-11 (arguing that the geographic area, terms, and administration of 
licenses in the “transitional framework” sub-band should approximate existing exclusive-use licensing models).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
10
and the proposed three-tiered sharing framework.  The “transitional framework” sub-band could then be 
phased out after the three-tier framework is proven to be workable in practice.
52
22. The specific Part 96 rules we propose today would apply the three-tier authorization 
model across the entire 3.5 GHz Band, based, at least in part, on concerns about  the impact that 
Balkanization of this spectrum may have in terms of limiting the development of a robust and varied 
shared spectrum ecosystem in the band.  We seek comment on the proposed section 96.1 and encourage 
commenters to consider the costs and benefits of any alternate proposals that they may put forward in 
light of the recommendations of PCAST and the Commission’s goals for this band.
(ii) Definitions (§ 96.3)
23. Section 96.3 of the proposed rules sets forth definitions for various terms included in the 
proposed Part 96. We seek comment on these definitions and any additional terms that may need to be 
defined.
(iii) Eligibility (§ 96.5)
24. We propose that any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the 
Communications Act be eligible to operate a CBSD on a Priority Access or GAA basis.
53
  Issues related 
to qualifications for Priority Access, GAA, and Contained Access Users are explored in greater detail 
below.
54
(iv) Authorization Required (§ 96.7)
25. We propose that operators be authorized consistent with this part prior to operating 
CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.  The proposed rules governing authorizations for 
Priority Access, GAA, and Contained Access Users are discussed in greater detail below.
55
  We seek 
comment on this proposed rule and on the proposed changes to Part 1 of the Commission’s rules.  We 
also seek comment on whether the licensing and authorization methods described herein would require 
the Commission to alter its existing rules governing filing, retention, and public access for licenses and 
applications in the Wireless Radio Services.
56
(v) Regulatory Status (§ 96.9)
26. We propose to allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to select whether to 
provide service on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis, regardless of whether they operate in 
the Priority Access tier, GAA tier, or both.  Users that choose to offer services on a common carrier basis 
would be required to comply with all of the Commission’s rules applicable to common carriers.  This is 
consistent with our approach in other licensed services.
57
  We seek comment on this proposal.  
Specifically, should GAA users be permitted to provide common carrier services?  Could the SAS 
effectively coordinate and enforce these individual service selections, subject to appropriate Commission 
oversight?
                                                     
52
Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 3.
53
See 47 U.S.C. § 310; We note, however, that only qualified Contained Access Users operating in Contained 
Access Facilities (CAFs) will be able to take advantage of the provisions of the proposed Section 96.35.  See 
Appendix A, § 96.35.
54
See infra section III(A)(1)(c)-(d).
55
See id.
56
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.901, et seq.
57
See e.g. 47 C.F.R. § 90.1309 (3650-3700 MHz Service) and 47 C.F.R. § 27.10 (Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Services).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
11
(vi) Frequencies (§ 96.11)
27. We propose to include the 3550-3650 MHz band in Part 96.  These proposed rules could 
be expanded to include the 3650-3700 MHz band or other encumbered spectrum bands in the future.  We 
discuss our supplementary proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band in greater detail below.
58
  We 
seek comment on the proposed section 96.11.
(vii) Frequency Assignments (§ 96.13)
28. Consistent with the concepts set forth in the Licensing PN, we propose to adopt rules 
governing frequency assignments that would balance the needs of Priority Access Licensees and GAA 
users.  To foster a robust GAA ecosystem, a meaningful amount of the 3.5 GHz Band must be reserved 
for GAA use in any given geographic area.  To that end, we propose to reserve for GAA use a minimum 
of 50 percent of the 3.5 GHz Band in any given census tract – after accounting for any frequencies
reserved for Incumbent Access tier use in the area - with the remainder to be assigned as PALs.  We do 
not propose to assign GAA users and Priority Access Licensees to fixed spectral locations (e.g., GAA 
from 3550-3600 MHz and Priority Access from 3600-3650 MHz).  Rather, under our proposal, the SAS 
would dynamically assign PAL channels and GAA bandwidth in real time to promote efficient spectrum 
use.
29. Under this proposal, PALs would be assigned in 10 megahertz channels, consistent with 
the processes described in section III(A)(1)(c) below, but we do not propose to establish a fixed channel 
size for GAA users.  Rather, GAA users would be permitted to operate on a range of frequencies within 
the GAA pool, as determined by the SAS.  In addition, in areas in which bandwidth has not yet been 
assigned to PALs or where assigned bandwidth is not in actual use by Priority Access Licensees, such 
bandwidth would be made available for additional GAA operations on an opportunistic basis.  The SAS 
would coordinate Priority Access and GAA operations consistent with its responsibilities under the 
proposed rules.
59
30. Proportional Assignment of GAA and Priority Access Frequencies.  In response to the 
Licensing PN, commenters supported a wide range of potential frequency assignment models for the 3.5 
GHz Band, ranging from rejection of a GAA Tier
60
to fully dynamic assignment of GAA and Priority 
Access rights based on demand and network needs.
61
  Of those commenters that supported the proposed 
three-tier model, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Google argued that a higher, fixed quantity of spectrum should be 
assigned for Priority Access use.
62
  Microsoft argued that a minimum of 50 megahertz of spectrum should 
be retained for GAA use while Public Knowledge argued that no less than 50 percent of available 
                                                     
58
See infra section III(B)(4).
59
See Appendix A, §§ 96.43-48.
60
See e.g., Qualcomm Licensing PN Comments at 4-5; CTIA Licensing PN Reply Comments at 3.
61
See Comments of Federated Wireless LLC in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
December 5, 2013) (Federated Licensing PN Comments) at 32-33.
62
See AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 6 (Arguing that 70 megahertz of the band should be reserved for Priority 
Access or 100 megahertz if the 3650-3700 MHz band is included); Comments of T-Mobile USA, Inc. in Response 
to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments) at 3 (60 
megahertz of the band should be reserved for Priority Access use if the Commission adopts a three-tier licensing 
model); Google Licensing PN Comments at 15 (Commission should reserve 100 megahertz of spectrum for Priority 
Access and 50 megahertz for GAA).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
12
spectrum should be reserved for GAA.
63
  WISPA argued that, in rural areas, 70 megahertz of the band 
should be available for GAA use while in non-rural areas only 50 megahertz should be reserved.
64
  
31. We seek comment on whether the proposed rule appropriately balances public interest 
considerations raised by commenters on this matter.  Does the proposed 50 percent floor for GAA 
bandwidth provide sufficient spectrum to foster a robust user ecosystem while ensuring that enough 
spectrum is made available for multiple Priority Access Licensees?  We seek comment on the proposed 
rule, including any costs and benefits of the proposed approach.  We also seek comment on alternative 
approaches to the apportioning of available spectrum between the PAL and GAA tiers.  
32. Dynamic Frequency Assignment.  Commenters differed as to whether frequency 
assignments should be fixed or dynamically assigned by the SAS.  Notably, Google and WISPA 
supported dynamic assignment of Priority Access and GAA frequencies and argued that the SAS would 
be able to efficiently and dynamically assign frequencies to appropriate parties.
65
Commenters including 
AT&T, T-Mobile, CTIA, and Ericsson argued for designated, fixed channel assignments, claiming that 
dynamic frequency assignments would interfere with network planning and channel aggregation.
66
  
33. Under our proposal, in place of fixed channel assignments, the SAS would dynamically 
assign bandwidth within given geographic areas to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in the proposed rules.
67
  The SAS would ensure that Priority 
Access Licensees have access to allotted 10 megahertz channels and that GAA users are provided access 
to at least 50 percent of the band.  However, the exact spectral location of any given authorization, 
whether Priority Access or GAA, would not be fixed.  For example, a licensee might have Priority Access 
rights for a single PAL, but the specific channel location assigned to that user would be managed by the 
SAS and could be reassigned from time to time (e.g., from 3550-3560 MHz to 3630-3640 MHz).  
Individual GAA users would be assigned available bandwidth of a size and spectral location determined 
by the SAS (e.g., from 3550-3556 MHz or 3662-3673 MHz).  The SAS would assign and maintain 
appropriate frequency assignments and ensure that lower tier users do not interfere with higher tier users.  
To the extent that some level of regional or national consistency of assignment facilitates the provision of 
service, SAS providers would be free to agree upon a common assignment convention. However, such a 
convention would not be specified in the rules, in order to allow the greatest degree of operational 
flexibility.
34. We seek comment on the proposed rule, including the capabilities that the SAS would 
have to incorporate to manage operations in the band consistent with this proposal.
68
  Alternately, should 
we adopt a more traditional model with static frequency assignments for GAA users and Priority Access 
Licensees?  What advantages and disadvantages would a fixed channel assignment model provide as 
compared to the dynamic system set forth in the proposed rules?  
35. We also seek comment on our proposal to allow the SAS to assign a flexible amount of 
bandwidth to individual GAA users.  Should GAA users instead be assigned a consistent amount of 
                                                     
63
See Comments of Microsoft, Inc. in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 
2013) (Microsoft Licensing PN Comments) at 4; OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 9-11.
64
See Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (WISPA Licensing PN Comments) at 14.
65
See WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 19; Google Licensing PN Comments at 10-13.
66
See AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 5-6; T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 10-12; Comments of Ericsson 
in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (Ericsson Licensing PN
Comments) at 7; CTIA Licensing PN Reply Comments at 7-8.
67
See infra section III(A)(1)(f); Appendix A, §§ 96.23, 96.33, and 96.46.
68
SAS capabilities are addressed in greater detail in section III(A)(1)(f).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
13
bandwidth (e.g., 10 megahertz) like Priority Access Licensees?  What would be the costs and benefits of 
such an approach?
36. GAA Access to Unused Priority Access Channels.  The Revised Framework discussed 
allowing GAA users to access unused Priority Access channels on an opportunistic basis.  AT&T and T-
Mobile supported the concept of allowing GAA users to make use of unused Priority Access tier channels 
so long as use was limited to unassigned and undeployed channels. Under their proposal, a channel 
would be unavailable for GAA once it is assigned to a Priority Access Licensee.
69
  Public Knowledge, 
The New America Institute, Federated Wireless, and Google as well as a broad coalition of broadband 
service providers, manufacturers, trade associations, and technology companies (Coalition) argued for a 
more flexible model that would allow GAA use over Priority Access channels that are not in actual use.
70
  
The rule we propose here would allow GAA use on unused PAL channels to promote efficient and 
consistent use of spectrum.  
37. We seek comment on the proposed rule, including any costs and benefits of the proposed 
approach.  How should “use” be practically and consistently determined in this context?  How should the 
determination be made in the context of our dynamic frequency assignment proposal?  If an assigned but 
previously unused PAL channel is later determined to be “in use,” how long should a GAA user be given 
to vacate the Priority Access channel?  What should be the triggering event that reserves assignment of a 
channel for PAL use? Should the event be based on action by a Priority Access Licensee (e.g., initiating 
service in a portion of the PAL) or by the SAS (e.g., assigning a channel to the PAL in response to a 
request from a Priority Access licensee)?
b. Subpart B – INCUMBENT PROTECTIONS
(i) Protection of Federal Incumbents (§ 96.15)
38. Consistent with the three-tier construct, we propose in Section 96.15 to require that 
CBSDs
71
may not cause harmful interference to and must accept interference from authorized federal 
users in the 3.5 GHz Band. As an initial matter, we also propose at this time that CBSDs comply with the
geographic Exclusion Zones based on the parameters set forth in the Fast Track Report to ensure 
compatibility with federal operations, and that the SAS ensure that CBSDs do not operate within 
Exclusion Zones.
72
We discuss issues related to these requirements in more detail, including the size of 
Exclusion Zones and our intention to revisit the appropriate incumbent protection criteria, in section 
III(B)(1) below. We seek comment on these proposed rules.
(ii) Protection of Existing Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations 
in the 3550-3650 MHz Band (§ 96.17)
39. We also propose to protect existing FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band by requiring 
that CBSDs not cause harmful interference to these sites. We discuss broader issues related to these 
requirements in more detail in Section III(B)(3)(a) below and seek comment on the issue of protection for 
“out-of-band” FSS earth stations in section III(B)(3)(b). We seek comment on these proposed rules.
                                                     
69
See AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 6, note 12; T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 9-10.
70
See OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 11-12; Google Licensing PN Comments at 15-16; Reply comments of 
Federated Wireless LLC in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) 
(Federated Licensing PN Reply Comments) at 6-10; Coalition Letter at 1.
71
Defined as “[f]ixed or Portable Base stations, or networks of such base stations, that operate on a Priority Access 
or General Authorized Access basis in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service consistent with this rule part.  Does not 
include End User Devices.”  See Appendix A.
72
See Fast Track Report at 1-6 to 1-7, figures D-45 to D-55, and Appendix B.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
14
(iii) Operation near Canadian and Mexican Borders (§ 96.19)
40. Our proposed rules note that Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations along the 
Canadian and Mexican borders would be subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.  
The SAS would be required to enforce these requirements. We seek comment on these proposed rules.
c. Subpart C – PRIORITY ACCESS
41. We propose not to limit eligibility for the Priority Access tier, to assign rights based upon 
targeted PAL parameters, resolve mutually exclusive license applications via competitive bidding, and to
require access coordination through an SAS.  These proposals are generally consistent with the Revised 
Framework described in the Licensing PN.  
(i) Authorization (§ 96.21)
42. Under our proposed rules, any entity eligible to hold an FCC license would be eligible to 
apply for, and hold, a PAL.
73
Commenters generally support expanding eligibility to the Priority Access 
tier to a broader class of users than we proposed in the NPRM.
74
  Expanded access to the Priority Access
tier would promote more intensive use of the 3.5 GHz Band and would promote investment in new small 
cell technologies.  We propose to require all applicants for PALs to demonstrate their qualification to hold 
an authorization and demonstrate how a grant of authorization would serve the public interest.
75
  
Qualifications would include those under Section 310 of the Act regarding foreign ownership.  The 
Commission has broad authority to prescribe “citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other 
qualifications” for its licensees.
76
We seek comment on how to apply this authority with respect to the 3.5 
GHz Band, and whether to adopt the same policies in this respect that the Commission has established for 
other services. We also propose that certain of the processes and requirements may be reasonably 
automated by SAS Administrators, in accordance with the Commission’s rules. We seek comment on 
these proposed rules, including on any limitations posed by our Title III obligations on the scope of 
authority that may be delegated to such SAS Administrators. 
(ii) Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.23)
43. Our proposed rules stipulate that Priority Access Licensees would receive interference 
protection from GAA users but would operate on a non-interfering basis with respect to Incumbent 
Users.
77
  Conceptually, the proposed PALs would be “building blocks” that an eligible licensee could 
aggregate over frequency, time, and geography to meet diverse spectrum needs.
78
The use of PALs - and 
interactions between and among tiers - would be managed by the SAS. This licensing and access model is 
consistent with the recommendations of PCAST and would effectively serve the public interest.  We seek 
comment on these proposed rules as described in more detail below.  
44. Geography.  We propose to authorize PALs at the census tract level and to permit 
geographic aggregation across license areas. As explained in the Licensing PN, census tracts offer a 
variety of benefits, including geographic sizes varying by population density, nesting into other political 
                                                     
73
See Appendix A, § 96.5.
74
See e.g., AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 3; T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 4; Alcatel Lucent Licensing 
PN Comments at 2; Comments of Spectrum Bridge in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
December 5, 2013) (Spectrum Bridge Licensing PN Comments) at 2; NSN Licensing PN Comments at 2; Google 
Licensing PN Comments at 5; OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 16-17; Coalition Letter at 1.
75
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 303, 307, 309, 310.
76
47 U.S.C. § 308(b).
77
See Appendix A, § 96.23.
78
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15305, ¶ 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
15
subdivisions including city lines, and aligning with other natural features that track population density.
79
  
Under our proposal, PAL applicants could target specific geographic areas in which they need additional 
coverage and avoid applying for areas that they do not intend to serve.  Our proposal reflects the unique 
technical characteristics of small cells to promote a high degree of spectral and spatial reuse while 
facilitating flexible, targeted deployment of CBSDs. 
45. We received a diverse record in response to our proposal to use census tracts as a 
licensing area. Some commenters agreed with our proposal.
80
Others argued that census tracts were 
inappropriate geographic license areas because the borders of census tracts frequently divide streets and 
their relatively small size would make co-channel coordination between Priority Access Licensees more 
difficult.
81
  Other commenters suggest that even smaller geographic areas, such as census block groups
would allow for granular and demand-focused assignments.
82
Others proposed larger, more traditional 
license areas such as counties, EAs, or CMAs.
83
Google suggests license boundaries be based on 
proposed network parameters and actual contours, as determined and enforced by the SAS.
84
  
46. Our census tract proposal occupies a middle ground among these diverse 
recommendations, and is designed as an equitable means of achieving the Commission’s public interest 
goals. Census tracts are sufficiently granular to promote intensive use of the band and are large enough, 
either on their own or in aggregate, to support a variety of use cases, including small cell base stations and 
backhaul.  We seek comment on the proposed rule including any potential costs or benefits.  Would 
adopting alternative geographic license sizes further the public interest given the Commission’s goals and 
contemplated use cases for the band?  We also seek comment on whether PALs could be deployed on an 
even more focused basis, employing a fine grained grid of “pixels” (i.e., small, regular geographic regions 
that can be combined to approximate, with high resolution, the operational and protection contours of 
various system deployments) to promote more targeted and customizable network deployment. If the 
Commission adopts census tracts, or something smaller, as the appropriate geographic license area, 
should package bidding or another mechanism that would allow applicants to bid on larger geographic 
areas be adopted? To the extent that commenters believe that the use of census tracts would foreclose a 
particular use case for the band, we encourage them to provide detailed technical analyses to support their 
claims.
47. Channels.  As described in the Revised Framework and section III (A)(1)(a)(vii) above, 
we propose to authorize PALs to operate over 10 megahertz unpaired channels.
85
  While a few 
commenters argued for larger or smaller channels,
86
the record generally supports our proposal to utilize 
                                                     
79
See id., 28 FCC Rcd at 15305-06, ¶ 15.
80
  See WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 7; Spectrum Bridge Licensing PN Comments at 2-3 (Supporting census 
tracts but arguing that a smaller grid may be preferable).
81
See AT&T Licensing PN Reply Comments at 6-7; Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 6-7; Reply Comments of 
T-Mobile USA, Inc. in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) at 7-8; 
Google Licensing PN Comments at 5-8.
82
See OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 19 (suggesting census block groups); Comments of Motorola Solutions in 
in Response to Licensing PN GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (Motorola Solutions Licensing PN
Comments) at 8-9 (suggesting 100 meter x 100 meter grid spaces); Microsoft Licensing PN Comments at 6-7 
(suggesting census block groups).
83
See Qualcomm Licensing PN Comments at 3-4; Ericsson Licensing PN Comments at 7-8; NSN Licensing PN
Comments at 5; T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 6-7.
84
Google Licensing PN Comments at 5-8.
85
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15307, ¶ 17.
86
See Federated Licensing PN Comments at 20-25 (Advocating the highest possible degree of granularity) and 
Ericsson Licensing PN Comments at 8 (Advocating for an interim assignment of 60-80 megahertz spectrum blocks).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
16
10 megahertz channels for PALs with the ability to aggregate multiple channels.
87
  Ten megahertz 
channels provide a flexible, scalable, practically deployable bandwidth for high data rate technologies that 
would permit multiple Priority Access Licensees to operate effectively in a given geographic area.  We
seek comment on the proposed rule.
48. In addition, consistent with the Revised Framework, we propose that once the 
Commission has assigned PAL rights to a user, the specific channels would be dynamically assigned to 
the PALs by the SAS.
88
  As discussed previously, some commenters argue for fixed channel 
assignments.
89
  Others, like Google and WISPA support the dynamic assignment model outlined in the 
Revised Framework.
90
  We should maximize flexibility in the band to allow the SAS to use channel 
assignments as a tool in maximizing efficiency and minimizing interference scenarios.  However, we 
propose that the SAS be permitted to assign specific frequencies to Priority Access Licensees upon their
request, when available and on a dynamic basis.  To the extent a licensee has PALs in adjacent census 
tracts, we propose that the SAS should endeavor to assign contiguous frequencies across geographic 
boundaries.  In addition, consistent with the dynamic nature of the proposed channel assignments, we 
encourage SAS Administrators to make reasonable efforts to assign adjacent frequencies to licensees with 
access rights to multiple channels in a single census tract.  Dynamically assigning spectrum based upon 
the demand within a geographic area at a given time would promote efficient use of the band across wider 
geographic areas without compromising flexibility.  We seek comment on this proposal.  What effect 
would such assignment have on spectrum efficiency as opposed to the use of channel bonding techniques 
across non-contiguous spectrum?  Would such a rule simplify or complicate the SAS’s ability to manage 
the spectrum within any given census tract?  What effect would such a rule have on the ability to predict 
and take measures to prevent harmful interference among users within the same census tract and users in 
nearby census tracts?
49. Term.  We propose to limit license terms to one-year with no renewal, but allow entities 
to aggregate up to five consecutive years of licenses, through competitive bidding.
91
  PALs would 
automatically terminate at the end of each year.  As explained in the Licensing PN, we believe that this 
approach would promote flexibility, simplify administration, and promote fungibility and liquidity in the 
secondary market.
92
  Allowing applications for multiple years of PALs would provide Priority Access 
Licensees with the certainty they may need to make capital investments in any PAL.  
50. The record related to these licensing concepts was also mixed. Some commenters agreed 
with our proposal of one-year terms with the option to aggregate multiple years.
93
  Others argued for 
                                                     
87
See e.g., AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 3-5; Google Licensing PN Comments at 10-13; Motorola Solutions 
Licensing PN Comments at 4; NSN Licensing PN Comments at 5-8 (Stating a preference for larger blocks but 
agreeing that 10 megahertz blocks have some advantage); OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 20; Qualcomm 
Licensing PN Comments (Supporting 10 megahertz or 20 megahertz unpaired channels); T-Mobile Licensing PN
Comments at 7.
88
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15310-15311, ¶ ¶ 30-32.
89
See AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 5-6; T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 10-12; Ericsson Licensing PN
Comments at 7; See supra section III(A)(1)(a)(vii). 
90
See WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 19; Google Licensing PN Comments at 10-13; See supra section 
III(A)(1)(a)(vii). 
91
See infra section III(A)(2)(b)(1).
92
Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15306, ¶ 13.
93
See WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 14-15 (one-year terms with a four-year aggregation limit); OTI/PK 
Licensing PN Comments at 16-18 (one-year terms with a three-year aggregation cap); Spectrum Bridge Licensing 
PN Comments at 2-3 (supporting one year “leases” but advocating a mix of fixed and variable length lease times);
See also AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 3-5 (supporting one-year terms but arguing for a “keep what you use” 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
17
license terms shorter than one year
94
while Microsoft agreed with the one-year proposal but argued for a 
prohibition on term aggregation.
95
  On the other hand, several commenters including Ericsson, NSN, and 
Qualcomm supported a more traditional licensing model with longer (e.g. 10-year) license terms.
96
51. Under this proposal, licensees would be able to hold up to five-years of PALs in a given 
geographic area at any given time.  Licensees holding less than five-years of PALs in a geographic area 
may apply for additional PALs in the same geographic area, up to a total (including their existing PALs) 
of five-years.  For example, a licensee awarded five-years of PALs through the annual application 
window in one year would be allowed to apply for a one year PAL through the annual application 
window in the subsequent year.
97
52. We note that in response to the Licensing PN, several commenters argued for a shorter 
temporal aggregation limit than we propose here. For example, WISPA suggests a four-year aggregation 
cap, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation suggest a three-year cap, Motorola Solutions 
suggests only two years, and Microsoft suggests we not permit term aggregation (effectively a one-year 
availability in the licensing window).
98
  AT&T, by contrast, suggests that licensees be permitted to retain 
their authorizations indefinitely for areas in which they have deployed equipment and provided service 
within one year.
99
  By combining short-term licenses with a multi-year application window, our proposal 
for one-year licenses with term aggregation balances the competing public interest concerns expressed in 
the record.  We seek comment on the proposed one-year, non-renewable license terms and aggregation 
limit, including any costs and benefits.
(iii) Application Window (§ 96.25)
53. We propose to accept applications for PALs annually and to make up to five consecutive 
years of PALs available in any given application window.  We seek comment on the proposed rule 
including any potential costs or benefits.
(iv)   Assignment of Licenses (§ 96.27)
54. We propose to adopt a geographic area license scheme for the Priority Access tier, which
permits the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive applications.  Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act requires that the Commission assign initial licenses through the use of competitive 
bidding when mutually exclusive applications for such licenses are accepted for filing, except in the case 
of certain specific statutory exemptions. Although the NPRM asked whether a licensing scheme for PALs 
should include a “mission critical” eligibility criterion that might involve such exemptions,
100
under our 
current eligibility proposal such exemptions would not appear applicable here.
101
  Consistent with the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
approach to renewals); Federated Licensing PN Comments at 17-25 (supporting one-year terms as a nominal level 
but advocating for finer temporal granularity with usage fees).
94
See Motorola Solutions Licensing PN Comments at 7-8 (quarterly terms with a two-year aggregation cap).
95
Microsoft Licensing PN Comments at 6.
96
See Ericsson Licensing PN Comments at 7-8; NSN Licensing PN Comments at 4-5; Qualcomm Licensing PN
Comments at 7-8.
97
Stated differently, a licensee that successfully acquires rights to a PAL for years X through X+4 (e.g., years 1, 2, 
3, 4, 5) during the year X (e.g., year 1) application window would be eligible to apply for, and acquire, rights to a 
PAL in year X+5 (e.g., year 6) during the year X+1 (e.g., year 2) application window.  
98
See OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 16-18; WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 15; Motorola Solutions 
Licensing PN Comments at 7-9; Microsoft Licensing PN Comments at 6.
99
AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 5.
100
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15618-19 and 22-23, ¶¶ 70-73, 85.
101
See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1), (2). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
18
Commission’s policy that competitive bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value the 
spectrum most highly, we believe that it would be in the public interest to adopt a licensing scheme for 
PALs which allows the filing of mutually exclusive applications that, if accepted, would be resolved 
through competitive bidding.  Accordingly, in section III(A)(2)(b) below, we seek comment on a number 
of proposals regarding competitive bidding rules that would apply to resolve any mutually exclusive 
applications accepted for PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.  
(v) Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses (§ 96.29)
55. OTI, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge argue that when mutual 
exclusivity exists no licensee should hold more than 20 megahertz of spectrum in a given license area.
102
  
They argue that the limitation would allow future entrants and new competitors to enter the market.
103
  We 
propose to allow licensees to hold up to three PALs in one census tract at one time (i.e., 30 megahertz in 
one census tract at any time).  Given the unique circumstances of this band and the proposed rules, it 
would be difficult to apply the Commission’s traditional competitive review process with respect to 
proposed transfers of licenses in the band. In this specific instance, a clear aggregation limit, applicable 
to all PAL licensees in the band, could promote competitive access to the band while avoiding the need 
for case-by-case review of license transfers. This approach should facilitate a liquid “spot market” in 
PALs, as described further in section III(A)(2)(c), below.  We seek comment on the proposed rule.  
Should we set a higher or lower allowance?  Should aggregation allowances only apply when mutual 
exclusivity exists?  Is an aggregation limit necessary when interested parties also have access to GAA 
spectrum, along with other bands that can be used for Wi-Fi and other similar services?  Should 
aggregation limits change if the band is partially encumbered by Incumbent Users?  What are the costs 
and benefits of higher or lower allowances?  Are there other methods to promote competition, incentivize 
investment and innovation, and ensure spectrum availability for diverse uses?
d. Subpart D – GENERAL AUTHORIZED ACCESS
(i) Authorization and General Authorized Access Use (§ 96.31 
and § 96.33)
56. As explained above, we propose to reserve a floor of at least 50 percent of available 
bandwidth in the 3.5 GHz Band in each census tract for GAA use, with additional frequencies to be made 
available on an opportunistic basis when not in use by Priority Access Licensees.
104
  As described in the 
NPRM and Licensing PN, GAA devices would be licensed-by-rule as under Section 307 of the 
Communications Act
105
to promote rapid deployment by a wide range of users at low cost and with 
minimal barriers to entry.
106
  GAA users would be required to use only certified, Commission-approved 
CBSDs and register with the SAS.
107
  Consistent with the proposed rules governing CBSDs, devices 
operating on a GAA basis would be required to provide the SAS with all information required by the 
rules – including operator identification, device identification, and geo-location information – upon initial 
registration and as required by the SAS.
108
  GAA users would also be required to comply with the
instructions of the SAS and avoid causing harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and 
Incumbent Access tier users.  Similar to unlicensed operations, GAA users would have no expectation of 
                                                     
102
OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 20.
103
OTI/PK Licensing PN Comments at 20.
104
See supra section III (A)(1)(a)(vii).
105
See 47 U.S.C. § 307(e)(1); Appendix A §§ 95.401 and 96.31.
106
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15309, ¶ 23; 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15616-17 and 15620, ¶¶ 61-63 
and 75-76.
107
See Appendix A, § 96.36 and 96.39.
108
See Appendix A, § 96.36.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
19
interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
109
Are there other licensing 
paradigms that the Commission should consider? If so, commenters are requested to provide a detailed 
analysis of the pros and cons of the approach.
57. As discussed previously, commenters took a variety of positions with regard to the 
portion of the band that should be used for GAA as well as our proposals to allow dynamic and 
opportunistic use of unused Priority Access channels.
110
  Some commenters also objected to our proposal 
to authorize the GAA tier on a license-by-rule basis.
111
  These positions are discussed in greater detail in 
sections III(A)(1)(a)(vii) and III(A)(2)(a).  Our proposals would ensure widespread availability of GAA 
frequencies for the broadest possible class of users and applications.  We seek comment on the proposed 
rules including potential costs and benefits.
(ii) Contained Access Facilities (§ 96.35)
58. As we noted in the NPRM and Licensing PN, a wide variety of critical services in the 
United States have current and future spectrum needs and there is currently insufficient spectrum to 
allocate exclusive bandwidth to all such services.
112
  While we believe that broad eligibility for use of the 
3.5 GHz Band will produce significant public interest benefits, we continue to believe that “the high 
spatial reuse characteristics of low-power 3.5 GHz transmissions, combined with access management 
facilitated by the SAS, should allow the 3.5 GHz Band to be utilized on a shared, licensed basis by a 
variety of critical users to provide high quality services to localized facilities.”
113
  To that end, the 
Licensing PN sought comment on whether it would be in the public interest to allow critical users to 
receive interference protections, akin to Priority Access users, within a limited portion (e.g., 20 
megahertz) of the GAA pool inside the confines of their facilities.  
59. Commenters responding the Licensing PN diverged as to how the Commission should 
treat critical facilities.  Commenters including T-Mobile and Spectrum Bridge support allowing critical 
access users to reserve spectrum on a highly localized basis.
114
  Motorola Solutions argues that critical 
facilities should be assigned 20 to 30 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz Band and be permitted to utilize that 
spectrum for indoor or outdoor applications, while UTC asserts that the entire Priority Access Tier should 
be reserved for critical access facilities.
115
  Google argues that preferential treatment for critical facilities 
should be limited to “available spectrum” and that such users should not be able to evict users that have 
already deployed network facilities.
116
  In addition, PCIA argues that the Commission should provide for 
the deployment of both critical and non-critical localized indoor networks.
117
60. We propose to allow Contained Access Users, such as hospitals, public safety 
organizations, and local governments to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from the 
GAA pool for indoor use within their facilities in furtherance of the public interest.  These frequencies 
may be used only for private internal radio services and may not be made available to the general public.  
Other GAA users would not be permitted to utilize the reserved frequencies within designated Contained 
                                                     
109
See 47 C.F.R. §15.5.
110
See supra section III(A)(1)(a)(vii).
111
See infra section III(A)(2)(a).
112
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15618, ¶ 70; Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15311-12, ¶ 36.
113
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15619, ¶ 73.
114
See T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 12-13; Spectrum Bridge Licensing PN Comments at 6.
115
See Motorola Solutions Licensing PN Comments at 2-5; UTC Licensing PN Comments at 4-6.
116
See Google Licensing PN Comments at 19.
117
See Comments of PCIA in Response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (PCIA 
Licensing PN Comments) at 5-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
20
Access Facilities (CAFs). Except for the ability to prohibit third-party use in CAFs, Contained Access
Users availing themselves of the reserved channels would still operate on a GAA basis and would have no 
special rights with respect to interference from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users. We also propose that Contained Access Users must undertake reasonable efforts to 
safeguard against harmful interference from GAA transmissions originating outside the CAF.  The 
“reasonable efforts” requirement would therefore ensure that Contained Access Users take advantage of 
RF isolation intrinsic to the CAF, along with any other potential interference “self-help” measures, to 
protect the RF environment within the CAF.
118
  Potential Contained Access Users would be required to 
receive approval from the Commission to be eligible to utilize reserved frequencies. The public interest 
would be served by giving designated Contained Access Users the ability to utilize reserved frequencies 
indoors, within CAFs in this fashion.  Moreover, the limited geographic and spectral impact of this 
proposal will allow for the effective coexistence of Contained Access Users, Incumbent Users, and other 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators.
61. We seek comment on the proposed rule including any costs or benefits.  Specifically, 
what types of entities should be considered qualified Contained Access Users?  Does this proposal 
adequately address the spectrum needs of Contained Access Users?  Would this proposal effectively 
address a demonstrated spectrum need for certain users that would not otherwise be addressed by the 
proposals in this FNPRM? Should this proposed framework be limited to Contained Access Users or 
expanded to include other types of facilities, including outdoor facilities?  Would the SAS be able to 
effectively manage spectrum use by a large number of facilities?  How would the SAS limit the operation 
of other GAA users within CAF premises?  Would this plan unacceptably encumber GAA spectrum?  We 
ask that commenters provide detailed technical and/or economic analysis to support their arguments.
e. Subpart E – TECHNICAL RULES
(i) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices General 
Requirements (§ 96.36)
62. To enable the SAS to authorize and effectively coordinate the use of shared spectrum in 
the 3.5 GHz Band, CBSDs must transmit certain operational and identification information to the SAS.  
In the NPRM, Licensing PN, and SAS Papers PN we sought comment on the types of information that 
CBSDs should be required to transmit.
119
  Commenters took a wide range of positions with regard to 
information transmission requirements for CBSDs.
120
  Elements of these proposals have been 
incorporated into proposed rule 96.36. Specifically, we propose that CBSDs must provide the SAS with 
the following information: (1) geographic location (within ±50 meters horizontal and ±3 meters vertical);
(2) antenna height above ground level (meters); (3) requested authorization status (Priority Access or 
General Authorized Access); (4) unique FCC identification number; (5) user contact information; and (6)
unique serial number. This information must be communicated when the CBSD initially registers at the 
SAS and at regular intervals thereafter.  We also propose that CBSDs must follow directions and updates 
sent by SAS in a timely manner.  For managed networks, while it is likely that information exchanges
                                                     
118
We note that Contained Access Users requiring stronger interference protections, or protections that extend 
beyond the perimeter of a CAF, could also apply for PALs using the same procedures as other potential Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operators.
119
See SAS Papers PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15845-46.
120
See e.g., WISPA Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (WISPA SAS Paper) at 3-4; InterDigital, Inc. Response to FCC Call for Papers 
on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (InterDigital SAS 
Paper) at 11-13; Google, Inc. Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in 
GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (Google SAS Paper) at 4; and Nokia Siemens Networks Response to 
FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 
2014) (NSN SAS Paper) at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
21
between CBSDs and the SAS would be aggregated through a proxy such as a network access manager,
121
the proposed requirements would still be applicable to all CBSDs operating in the band. 
63. Geo-location and Reporting Capability.  For the SAS to predict and evaluate potential 
interference and spectrum availability accurately it must have accurate location information for all 
CBSDs.  We propose that all CBSDs must accurately report the location of each of their antennas to 
within ±50 meters (horizontal) and ±3 meters (vertical).  The proposed horizontal geo-location 
requirement is consistent with a similar requirement in the TVWS rules.
122
  We also propose that CBSDs 
report their location to the SAS within 60 seconds of a change in location exceeding the accuracy 
requirement.  We seek comment on these proposals, including potential costs and benefits.  Is this degree 
of accuracy feasible with current technology?  Should we require greater accuracy?  What effect do the 
accuracy requirements have on actual spectrum efficiency and the SASs ability to manage interference 
potential among different users? Would the proposed geo-location requirement place undue burden on 
equipment manufacturers or SAS operators?  Is such a requirement reasonable to control the interference 
environment among users?  Is there a different timeframe for reporting that should be used?
64. Interoperability.  To facilitate our proposed dynamic approach to frequency 
assignment,
123
we propose to require CBSDs to be interoperable across all frequencies from 3550-3700 
MHz.  This would ensure that all CBSDS and End User Devices certified to operate in the band would be 
capable of sending and receiving information regardless of the frequencies assigned by the SAS.  It also 
anticipates the possible inclusion of the 3650-3700 MHz band. Several commenters also supported band-
wide device interoperability.
124
We seek comment on this proposal including any potential costs and 
benefits.  What effects would such a requirement have on equipment cost and design?  What are the 
implications of equipment that may only work over a portion of the band and may not be able to tune to
channels as assigned by the SAS?  To what extent would an interoperability requirement promote 
consumer choice, given the characteristics of this service?  To what extent should we seek to align the 
proposed interoperability requirement with existing international harmonization efforts for the 3.5 GHz 
Band (e.g., 3GPP Bands 42 and 43)?  Similarly, how are current coexistence efforts among products 
conforming to multiple industry standards (e.g., 3GPP, IEEE 802.11 series) affected by the proposed 
interoperability requirement?
125
65. Registration with SAS.  As set forth in greater detail below,
126
we also propose that 
CBSDs be permitted to operate only if authorized by the SAS and if they follow frequency assignments 
and power limitations set by SAS. We propose that CBSDs must move their transmission to another 
channel or stop operation in the band as directed by SAS within a reasonable time.  We seek comment on 
the appropriate time for CBSDs to respond to instructions from the SAS.  Is sixty seconds a reasonable 
response timeframe or could a shorter response period be imposed?  How does the timeframe affect the 
                                                     
121
See NSN SAS Paper at 6; Alcatel Lucent Inc. Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum 
Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (Alcatel Lucent SAS Paper) at 4; T-Mobile USA, 
Inc. Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 
(filed January 3, 2014) (T-Mobile SAS Paper) at 8; Ericsson and iconectiv Response to FCC Call for Papers on 
Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (Ericsson SAS Paper) 
at 6.
122
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.711(b).
123
See supra section III(A)(1)(a)(vii).
124
See Comments of Motorola Mobility LLC in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
December 5, 2013) at 3-4; Reply Comments of Google Inc. in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354
(filed December 20, 2013) (Google Licensing PN Reply Comments) at 9-10.
125
See Letter from Jessica de Simone, Telecommunications Law Professionals PLLC on behalf of Motorola 
Mobility, Inc. in GN Docket No. 12-354, Ex Parte (filed April 15, 2014).
126
See infra section III(A)(1)(f); Appendix A, §§ 96.43-48.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
22
overall spectrum efficiency within the band?  What effect would this timeframe have on the ability of the 
SAS to manage potential interference?
66. Interference Reporting.  Some commenters suggested that, to enable the SAS to tune or 
update its predictive models and also address real time interference issues, CBSDs should be required to 
provide the SAS with signal level measurements in their band or other adjacent frequency channels as 
requested by SAS.
127
  Many technologies already support this capability to allow radio resource 
management within a network.
128
  This capability could be a valuable tool for managing interference and 
promoting productive coexistence between multiple operators in the 3.5 GHz Band.  We propose to 
require CBSDs to measure and report on their local signal level environment as set forth in the proposed 
rules.
129
  We seek comment on this proposal.  What effect would the incorporation of such capability have 
on the cost of equipment?  How should such a requirement be structured?  Over what bandwidth or over 
how many channels should such measurements be reported?  Does the Commission need to adopt 
measurement guidelines or procedures specifying how such measurements should be taken to ensure 
consistency in reporting among users?
67. Security.  During the SAS Workshop many commenters also emphasized the importance
of end-to-end security for communications among CBSDs, End User Devices, and the SAS.
130
  We are 
mindful of the need to provide robust security for Federal information, personally identifiable 
information, and sensitive business information that may be transmitted between these devices and the 
SAS.  To that end, we propose a security requirement for all communications between authorized SASs 
and CBSDs.  We also propose to adopt comprehensive procedures to test and certify CBSDs and 
associated end user devices for operation in this band and to require the SAS to disconnect any device 
whose proper operation has been compromised. We seek comment on these proposed security measures.  
We ask commenters to suggest appropriate security protocols and discuss how these protocols would 
effectively safeguard sensitive information transmitted among the SAS, CBSDs, and End User Devices.  
If not, what additional measures should we adopt?  Are there other enforcement mechanisms that can be 
put in place to ensure proper security of devices?
(ii) End User Devices General Requirements (§ 96.37)
68. We propose that mobile, portable, or fixed End User Devices may operate only if they 
can positively receive and decode an authorization signal transmitted by a CBSD, including the 
frequencies and power limits for their operation.
131
  This requirement would effectively prevent End User 
Devices from unauthorized operation in the 3.5 GHz Band and ensure that such devices operate only 
according to the instructions transmitted from the SAS to the CBSD.  We seek comment on this proposed 
rule.
(iii) General Radio Requirements (§ 96.38)
69. Digital Modulation.  We propose that systems operating in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service use digital modulation techniques.  We seek comment on this proposed rule.
                                                     
127
See Google SAS Paper at 4.
128
See Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, 
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access, Radio Resource Control (RRC), Protocol specification (Release 12), 
3GPP TS 36.331 v. 11.7.0  (2014-03), available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36331.htm. 
129
See Appendix A, § 96.36.
130
See Google SAS Paper at 4-6; InterDigital SAS Paper at 16-17; Federated Wireless, LLC Response to FCC Call 
for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) 
(Federated SAS Paper) at 5-6.
131
See Appendix A, § 96.37.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
23
70. Conducted and Emitted Power Limits.  To prevent harmful interference among users of 
the 3.5 GHz Band, we propose to establish appropriate and flexible power limits for CBSDs and End User 
Devices when operating in this band.  In the Licensing PN, we sought comment on limiting CBSD 
emitted power to 24 dBm.
132
We also sought comment on a 6 dBi antenna gain for installations requiring 
an external antenna.
133
  With negligible cable and insertion loss, this makes the maximum effective 
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) 1W or 30 dBm.
134
  We noted that these are consistent with the values 
commonly assumed in various studies for small cell base stations.
135
We also indicated that the maximum 
operational EIRP of individual base stations might be reduced by the SAS to prevent interference and 
promote efficient network operation.
136
In addition, we assume that End User Devices would have 
configurable maximum power levels below typical 24 dBm values and support for some form of power 
control.
137
71. Commenters diverged greatly with regard to the maximum allowable power for devices 
operating in the band, with many supporting variable power limits for different use cases.  For instance, 
CommScope supported a 24 dBm maximum transmit power for base stations with low gain antennas.
138
  
T-Mobile supported a maximum transmit power of 24 dBm for GAA users and 37 dBm for Priority 
Access devices.
139
  Verizon advocated a maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for outdoor Priority Access 
base stations, while noting that 24 dBm might be appropriate for GAA indoor uses.
140
Similarly, 
Motorola Solutions, BliNQ, and Qualcomm supported maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for at least 
some use cases.
141
  WISPA encouraged the Commission to allow higher power operations in rural areas of 
the country.
142
72. Commenters also supported a wide range of allowable antenna gains for base stations -
from 6 dBi through 29 dBi - and maximum allowable power levels for different transmitters within that 
range.
143
  For the combination of transmit power and antenna gain, commenters proposed a range of EIRP 
from low 30 dBm to high 47 dBm for different use cases.  Motorola Solutions, Qualcomm, and 
CommScope (for lower than 12 dBi antenna gain) suggested a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm.
144
  Some, 
                                                     
132
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd 15314 at ¶¶ 45-46.
133
Id.
134
Id.
135
Id.
136
Id.
137
Id.
138
See Comments of CommScope in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) 
(Commscope Licensing PN Comments) at 5-6 (recommending maximum transmit power of 24 dBM and maximum 
EIRP of 30 dBM for devices with low gain antennas); See also T-Mobile SAS Paper at 13-14 (recommending  
maximum transmit power of 24 dBm for GAA users).
139
See T-Mobile Licensing PN Comments at 13-14. 
140
See Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 12.
141
See Motorola Solutions Licensing PN Comments at 6; Comments of BLiNQ Networks, Inc. in Response to 
Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (BLiNQ Licensing PN Comments) at 7; 
Qualcomm Licensing PN Comments at 4.
142
WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 8-12.
143
See CommScope Licensing PN Comments at 5-6; Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 12; BLiNQ Licensing PN
Comments at 7.
144
See Commscope Licensing PN Comments at 5; Motorola Solutions Licensing PN Comments at 6; Qualcomm 
Licensing PN Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
24
including Google (36 dBm), CommScope (37 dBm for equal or higher than 12 dBi antenna gain), and 
Verizon (47 dBm) argued for higher maximum EIRP figures.
145
  
73. We also received transmit power recommendations from parties who would like to utilize 
the 3.5 GHz Band for point-to-point and backhaul service.  BLiNQ argued that a maximum EIRP 
allowance of 43 dBm would help enable non-line-of-sight (NLOS) backhaul applications as well as other 
important services, such as rural point-to-point communications.
146
  CommScope also recommended 54 
dBm EIRP for point-to-point backhaul and Verizon suggested that 53 dBm EIRP would be appropriate 
for outdoor point-to-point service.
147
74. It is important to establish flexible rules that would allow for a wide variety of innovative 
services to be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band and we are encouraged that many commenters share this 
view.  Ensuring that the band is available for multiple use cases should encourage rapid network 
deployment, promote the development of a robust device ecosystem, and help to ensure the long-term 
viability of the band.  Therefore, we propose to adopt different transmit power levels to accommodate a 
range of Citizens Broadband Radio Service use cases. Except for fixed point-to-point radio systems 
addressed below, we propose to adopt a 24 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power for CBSDs that 
are not operating in rural areas. For devices with a 6 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate 
EIRP of 30 dBm for CBSDs located in non-rural areas. The power spectral density for such transmit 
power would be 14 dBm/MHz.  We also propose to adopt 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit 
power for CBSDs that operate in rural areas.
148
With 17 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum 
aggregate EIRP of 47 dBm for CBSDs located in rural environments. The power spectral density for such 
transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz.  These proposed transmit power limits are generally consistent 
with recommendations in the record.  These proposed maximum transmit power levels would help 
promote productive use of the band.
75. For fixed point-to-point radio systems, we propose a 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak 
transmit power limit for CBSDs.  With a 23 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of
53 dBm for CBSDs. We propose that the maximum allowable peak transmit power in this paragraph be 
reduced by 1 dB for every 1 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 23 dBi. The power 
spectral density for such transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz.  
76. We also propose that maximum EIRP for End User Devices not exceed 23 dBm in 10 
megahertz bandwidth.  We also propose that CBSDs and End User Devices limit their operating power to 
the minimum necessary for successful operation.  
77. We note that NTIA did not consider these proposed use cases or technical criteria in 
calculating the Fast Track Exclusion Zones.  What effects would these additional use cases have on the 
size of the Exclusion Zones?  
78. We seek comment on these proposed rules.  Are the proposals in this section appropriate 
for the variety of use cases possible in the 3.5 GHz Band?  Would these proposals further the public 
interest by promoting efficient and innovative use of spectrum resources? Should the proposed definition 
of “rural environments” be altered due to the use of small cells and in light of the fact that these systems 
are proposed to be deployed in areas smaller than counties? In light of the flexible approach to EIRP 
limits proposed herein, should we consider allowing higher power operations in the 3.5 GHz Band? We 
                                                     
145
See CommScope Licensing PN Comments at 5-6; Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 12; Google Licensing PN 
Comments at 20. 
146
See BLiNQ Licensing PN Comments at 7-8.
147
See CommScope Licensing PN Comments at 6; Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 12.
148
For purposes of the proposed Part 96, a rural area would be defined as a county (or equivalent) with a population 
density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census data. See Appendix 
A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
25
encourage commenters to support their positions with detailed technical and cost benefit analyses taking 
into account the various interference scenarios that may exist in this band among different CBSDs and 
among CBSDs and Incumbent Users.
79. Received Signal Strength Limits.  To perform proper frequency assignments and 
interference management, it is important for the SAS to have a baseline threshold for the maximum signal 
level from CBSDs at the border of their service area. Therefore, Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
should ensure that the aggregate signal level from their CBSDs as well as transmissions from their 
associated End User Devices at the edge of their authorized service areas remain at levels that would not 
harm other CBSDs in the same or higher tiers.  For small cell networks, the industry standards and studies 
have shown 20 dB and 55 dB of interference rise over noise to be acceptable for picocells and femtocells 
respectively.
149
  Based on these industry standards, and taking into account reasonable distance between 
authorized use operations, we propose a signal level threshold of - 80 dBm measured by a 0 dBi isotropic 
antenna in a 10 megahertz bandwidth anywhere along PAL service area boundaries between different 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
150
  We also propose to allow neighboring users to coordinate a 
higher signal level threshold. We seek comment on this proposed rule. How should this signal level be 
determined? Over what bandwidth should the signal threshold be measured?  The proposal implies that 
this signal level would need to be met at all points along the PAL service boundary at ground level and all 
heights above ground level.  Is such a requirement feasible?  Should there be a single point at which this 
signal level should be enforced?  What is the effect of this proposal on operation of CBSDs and on the 
interference potential within the band?  How feasible would it be for the SAS to calculate and enforce 
such a limit?  
80. Emission Limits.  In the NPRM we sought comment on whether to adopt out-of-band 
emission (OOBE) limits or other requirements to protect services in adjacent bands from harmful 
interference. We also asked for comment on the appropriate OOBE limits for small cells in the 3.5 GHz 
Band and the interference protection threshold limits of relevant services.
151
  Several commenters 
highlighted the importance of protecting incumbent and adjacent band services but differed as to the 
specific protection criteria.
152
Some commenters presented co-existence analysis and protection distances 
                                                     
149
See 3GPP,Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access 
(E-UTRA), Radio Frequency (RF) requirements for LTE Pico Node B (release 11), 3GPP TR 36.931 version 11.0.0 
(2012-09), available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36931.htm atsection 6.1.2.3.1; and 3GPP, Technical 
Specification Group Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA), TDD Home 
eNode B (HeNB) Radio Frequency (RF) requirements analysis (release 11), 3GPP TR 36.922 v11.0.0 (2012-09), 
available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36922.htm.
150
Under our proposal, PAL boundaries within a single Priority Access Licensee’s service area would not be subject 
to the -80 dBm threshold.
151
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15637-15638, ¶¶ 136-138.
152
See e.g., Reply Comments of Baron Services, Inc. in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 
2013, corrected April 10, 2013) (Baron NPRM Reply Comments) at 6-8; Comments of Spectrum Bridge in response 
to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (Spectrum Bridge NPRM Comments) at 13-16; 
Comments of WiMax Forum in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (WiMax 
Forum NPRM Comments) at 8; Comments of National Association of Broadcasters in response to NPRM in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) at 2-3; Comments of Pierre De Vries, Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons 
Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 
20, 2013) at 6-14; Comments of the Satellite Industry Association in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 
2013) (SIA NPRM Comments)at 18-20; Harris Corporation Reply Comments in response to NPRM in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 2013) at 5-6; Letter from Aparna Sridhar, Telecom Policy Counsel, Google Inc. to Julius 
Knapp and Ruth Milkman, ex parte, GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed September 3, 2013) (Google Letter); and  
Declaration of Dr. Preston Marshall, Principal Systems Architect, Google Services, ex parte, GN Docket No. 12-354 
(filed September 3, 2013) (Marshall Declaration).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
26
based on long-standing 43 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE limits.
153
  Issues specifically related to OOBE that 
could affect the operations of earth stations in the C-Band are addressed in detail in section III(B)(3)(b).
We also seek comment on whether to specify particular OOBE limits.
81. The Commission’s rules generally limit the amount of radio frequency (RF) power that 
may be emitted outside of, or in a range of frequencies outside of, the assigned frequencies/channel(s) of 
an RF transmission. Moreover, the Commission has previously concluded that in certain circumstances, 
attenuating transmitter OOBEs to at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB is appropriate to minimize harmful 
electromagnetic interference between operators.
154
This limit has served well as a basis for development 
of industry standards which may impose tighter limits in certain cases. For Priority Access and GAA 
operations in the 3.5 GHz Band, we propose to apply the limit of 43 + 10 log (P), which is equivalent to –
13 dBm / MHz, to all emissions outside of channel assignments and frequency authorizations by SAS in 
the 3.5 GHz Band. We seek comment on this limit and whether it should be more stringent (i.e., at a 
lower power spectral density) given the state-of-the art of modern radio technologies, and the potential 
gains in spectral efficiency and minimizing interference coupling distance between neighboring radios 
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band.
82. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, we recognize the need for Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service operations to protect incumbent and dissimilar radio services with sensitive weak signal 
receivers such as in-band and out-of-band FSS earth stations and DoD radar systems.
155
These incumbent 
radio service operations may be within and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz Band. Protection thresholds for weak 
signal receivers and minimizing the interference coupling distance to these receivers from new 3.5 GHz 
Band transmitters may require greater out-of-band attenuation (lower than -13 dBm / MHz) than can be 
achieved within the RF filter pass-band of 3.5 GHz Band radios. Striking the proper balance between the 
emission limits of CBSDs and End User Devices, along with the protection thresholds of incumbent 
receivers, may require more stringent OOBE limits in certain circumstances.
156
  We also recognize that 
there has been considerable technological advancement in transmitter and receiver device technologies 
deployed in the mobile broadband industry over recent years, such that more stringent OOBE limits may 
be practical without undue burden to manufacturers and operators.
83. For example, the current LTE standards for the use in PCS requires mobiles in 1850 –
1915 MHz to meet a limit of -50 dBm/MHz in 1930-1995 MHz.
157
The current capabilities for mobile 
broadband manufacturers will support this level of tolerance for interference. Given that other mobile 
broadband service operations may already be imposing OOBE at the -40 dBm/MHz level, we propose this 
limit specifically for CBSD emissions above 3680 MHz and below 3520 MHz. We recognize that a more 
stringent limit would enable closer proximity of neighboring service operations. We seek comment as to 
whether this limit should be more stringent at -50 dBm/MHz.
                                                     
153
See Comments of Redline Communications Inc. in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 
20, 2013) at 4; Comments of Tarana Wireless in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 
2013) at 4; Comments of the Utilities Telecom Council, Edison Electric Institute, and National Rural 
Telecommunications Cooperative in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) 
(UTC/EEI/NRTC NPRM Comments) at 23-24.
154
See e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 24.238(a); 27.53(h) (for PCS and AWS, respectively).
155
See infra section III(B)(1) and (3).
156
See infra section III(B)(3).
157
This applies to both LTE band 2, supporting PCS blocks A through F, and LTE band 25, supporting PCS blocks 
A through G. See 3GPP,Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio 
Access (E-UTRA), User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception (release 12), 3GPP TS 36.101 V12.2.0 
(2013-12), available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36101.htm (3GPP TS 36.101 rel. 12) at Table 6.6.3.2-1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
27
84. In general, while OOBE limits to -40 dBm/MHz are reasonable and not burdensome, a 
spectral transition gap immediately above and below the edges of the 3.5 GHz Band may be necessary 
given the limitations of RF/radio filter technology, in stepping down from an in-band limit of -13 
dBm/MHz to an out-of-band emission limit of -40 dBm/MHz. Some current research indicates that a 
transition gap of approximately 1 percent of the band edge frequency may be within the state-of-the-art of 
existing radio/filter technologies.
158
Therefore, we propose a transition gap of 30 MHz above 3650 MHz 
and 30 MHz below 3550 MHz, for setting the OOBE attenuation levels to -40 dBm/MHz. We seek 
comment on the size of this transition gap, whether it is in the range of existing RF filter technology, and 
whether the gap could be smaller through the use of more narrow RF filters in CBSD and user devices 
(e.g., two RF filters over 3550 – 3650 MHz, one covering the lower 50 MHz and the other covering the 
upper 50 MHz).
85. Reception Limits.  Priority Access Licensees may be authorized for operation in the same 
geographic area, with other Priority Access Licensees authorized to operate in adjacent or near-adjacent 
channels. The potential for interference between two or more Priority Access Licensees depends on both 
the transmitter and receiver performance of the respective radio systems, because unwanted RF energy 
received by a CBSD can be caused by both the emissions from an adjacent licensee spilling into the 
desired frequencies of operation, as well as the imperfections of radio receivers.  Establishing an RF field 
strength/power spectral density that PAL receivers would need to accept from nearby licensed 
transmitters, would effectively define the spectrum rights between PALs,
159
and enable the SAS to assign 
these rights with clear obligations between respective licensees.  We seek comment on this approach.
86. While the Commission’s rules in this regard are technology neutral, we note the signal 
strength levels of undesired interfering signals in widely adopted industry standards for receiver 
performance (e.g., 3GPP LTE).
160
We recognize the in-band and out-of-band blocking characteristics and 
adjacent channel selectivity of modern radio receivers that must perform over a high dynamic range of RF 
power levels. We note that the interfering signal mean power, for acceptable Home Base Station (HeNB; 
Femtocell) adjacent channel selectivity and blocking, ranges in the relevant 3GPP standards between -28 
dBm
161
and -15 dBm
162
(in all LTE channel bandwidths) with moderately high wanted signal power. The 
3GPP interfering signal power for acceptable LTE User Equipment adjacent channel selectivity and 
blocking performance, in many cases is -30 dBm or above.
163
Therefore, we propose a power spectral 
density limit of -30 dBm / 10 megahertz as the interference limit that CBSDs operating on a Priority 
Access basis must accept, not to be exceeded with greater than 99 percent probability, unless the affected 
user agrees to a higher or lower limit and communicates such agreement to the SAS. Establishing a 
probability threshold is important because worst-case conditions for highly transient and unlikely RF 
interference events would otherwise establish an excessive constraint on neighboring radio service 
                                                     
158
See International Wireless Industry Consortium, Mobile RF Filter Group, Ex Parte presentation in WT Docket 
No. 12-268 (2012).
159
See FCC Technological Advisory Council, Receivers and Spectrum Working Group, Interference Limits Policy -
The Use of Harm Claim Thresholds to Improve the Interference Tolerance of Wireless Systems, White Paper
(February 6, 2013) (TAC White Paper), available at: 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaperTACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf (Last visited August 30, 
2013); Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd 15315.
160
See 3GPP TS 36.101 rel. 12; and  3GPP, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Evolved 
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access, Base Station Radio Transmission and Reception (release 12), 3GPP TS 36.104 
V12.2.0, available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36104.htm (3GPP TS 36.104 rel. 12).
161
See 3GPP TS 36.104 rel. 12 at Table 7.5.1-5.
162
See id. at Table 7.6.1.1-1b (at frequencies further than 20 MHz from band edge).
163
See 3GPP TS 36.101 rel. 12 at Table 7.6.2.1-2 (frequency range categories 2, 3 and 4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
28
operations.
164
  Would such a scheme be feasible for the SAS to administer?  That is, how difficult would it 
be for the SAS to track, manage and enforce agreements between different users?  What mechanism 
would be used to communicate such agreements to the SAS?  How would an SAS be assured that all 
affected users are in agreement?
87. As described previously, GAA users must not cause harmful interference to and must 
accept harmful interference from Incumbent Users and Priority Access Licensees. Therefore, we propose 
that a GAA CBSD be required to change its operational frequencies, lower its transmit power, or cease 
transmitting in accordance with instructions from the SAS if its operations are causing harmful 
interference to higher tier users.  We seek comment on this proposal and any operational details necessary 
to ensure that the requirement is complied with.  What is an acceptable response time for GAA CBSDs to 
comply with instructions from the SAS?  How frequently should CBSDs be required to query the SAS 
regarding the status of their operations or should CBSDs only query the SAS when they change location 
in excess of the accuracy requirements and otherwise adjust operations only when receiving instructions 
from the SAS?  What are the implications for spectrum efficiency and network traffic for various 
communication requirements between CBSDs and the SAS?
88. We seek comment on these proposed rules. We also seek comment on methods and 
procedures that may be employed by Priority Access Licensees or the SAS to enforce these thresholds.  
We encourage commenters to provide detailed technical and cost benefit analyses analyses to support 
their proposals.  
89. In addition, as we noted in the Licensing PN, the TAC has been studying spectrum 
interference policy and receiver standards in general, and it recommends that the Commission consider 
forming one or more multi-stakeholder groups to study such standards and interference limits policy at 
suitable service boundaries, such as those related to the 3.5 GHz Band.
165
  The Wireless Innovation 
Forum, in its comments to the Licensing PN, recommended that the FCC encourage the formation of 
industry led multi-stakeholder groups, proposed key characteristics of such a process, and committed to 
establishing such a multi-stakeholder process to develop recommendations for the 3.5 GHz Band and 
other band opportunities.
166
Consistent with the recommendations of the TAC, we encourage and suggest 
industry action to charter a technical group of stakeholders to develop industry coordination agreements 
and protocols, including technical options and methods for managing spectrum access that would improve 
access to and make efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band.  What should the scope and charter be of such a 
multi-stakeholder group?  What should be the governance structure of such a group?
f. Subpart F – SPECTRUM ACCESS SYSTEM
90. The overall effectiveness of our proposals depends largely on the development and 
implementation of a robust SAS.  We therefore propose to codify several high-level SAS requirements in 
the Part 96 rules.  Following the TVWS database model, we expect that industry participants will take it 
upon themselves to develop technical implementations of these requirements and, where applicable, to 
develop industry-wide standards. 
91. Our proposed rules also assume that multiple SAS Administrators and, consequently, 
multiple SASs would be authorized to operate in the 3.5 GHz Band, much as multiple databases have 
                                                     
164
See 3GPP, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access, 
TDD Home eNode B Radio Frequency requirements analysis (release 11), 3GPP TR 36.922 V11.0.0 (2012-09) 
available at: http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/36922.htmat (3GPP TR 36.922 rel. 11) at Figure 6.2.2.2-2 (IoT level 
of HeNB, note the worst case (i.e., highest level of IoT) in contrast to IoT with relatively high probability (e.g., 
99%)).
165
See TAC White Paper at ¶ 50.
166
See Wireless Innovation Forum Licensing PN Comments.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
29
been authorized in the TVWS context,
167
to ensure that consumers are provided with a robust set of 
choices in the marketplace.  We seek comment on what techniques could be used to effectively coordinate 
multiple SASs in the band.  What other implementation challenges arise from the possibility of multiple 
SAS providers?  Are they solvable?  We seek comment on the proposal to authorize multiple SAS 
providers.  In responding to the questions and proposed rules in this section, we ask commenters to 
consider the implications of multiple authorized SASs and to address these issues in their filings.
92. We also intend to institute a comprehensive approval process for SASs and SAS
Administrators that closely follows the multi-step process used to test, certify, and approve TVWS 
databases and administrators.  In the TVWS context, prospective database administrators were invited to 
submit proposals outlining how their systems would meet the Commission’s requirements for database 
operators and provide information sufficient to show that they have the technical expertise to administer a 
database and a viable business plan for operating a database for a five-year term.
168
  OET then reviewed 
these proposals and approved the proposals of those operators that met the requirements.
169
  Approved 
operators were then required to attend mandatory workshops to ensure compliance with the rules, meet 
milestone dates set by OET for reporting and compliance, and submit to rigorous real-world testing of all 
database elements prior to making their services available to the public.
170
By following the precedent set 
in the TVWS proceeding, we can ensure that the technical solutions and developed by prospective SAS 
Administrators are consistent with the letter and spirit of our high-level rules, especially with regard to the 
protection of Incumbent Access tier users.
171
(i) Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality (§
96.43)
93. We sought comment on the essential high level requirements of the SAS in both the 
Licensing PN and the NPRM.
172
  In addition, in recognition of the complexity of the proposed SAS 
framework, OET and the Bureau held a workshop to discuss the operational and functional parameters of 
the SAS.
173
  The workshop and associated technical papers were organized according to the following 
focus areas: (1) General Responsibilities and Composition of the SAS; (2) SAS Functional Requirements; 
(3) SAS Monitoring and Management of Spectrum Use; and (4) Issues related to the Initial Launch and 
Evolution of the SAS and Band Plan.
174
94. While commenters and workshop presenters submitted a diverse set of positions 
regarding the necessary features of the SAS, most agreed that an effective SAS would need to be more 
                                                     
167
See FCC, “Whitespace Database Administrator Guide,” available at: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/white-
space-database-administrators-guide (last visited February 20, 2014).
168
See Office of Engineering and Technology Invites Proposals from Entities Seeking to be Designated TV Band 
Device Database Managers, ET Docket No. 04-186, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14136 (OET 2009). The 
information requested in the Public Notice was based on rules for TVWS databases and administrators adopted in 
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and 
in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 04-186, ET Docket No. 02-380, Second Report and Order and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16807 (2008).
169
See Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 
MHz and in the 3 GHz Band,  ET Docket No. 04-186, ET Docket No. 02-380, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 554 (OET 2011).
170
See id. at 556-57 and 559-60, ¶¶ 9-10 and 15-19.
171
See supra section III(A)(1)(f)(vi).
172
See 3.5 GHz NPRM 27 FCC Rcd at 15625-28, ¶¶ 95-108; Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15313, ¶¶ 41-43.
173
See SAS Workshop Agenda PN.
174
See id. SAS Papers PN.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
30
dynamic and responsive than the current TVWS database.
175
  Moreover, many commenters agreed that the 
FCC should set only baseline parameters and guidelines for the SAS and should allow industry 
stakeholders to develop detailed policies and standards to facilitate operation consistent with the 
Commission’s rules.
176
  Some commenters that supported a two-tiered licensing model also advocated a 
simplified, “binary” SAS that would only inform Priority Access Licensees whether or not they could 
operate in a given area or frequency range without causing harmful interference to incumbents.
177
  Other 
commenters opposed giving the SAS the ability to dynamically assign channels or modify the maximum 
allowable transmit power for CBSDs.
178
  
95. After thorough review of the record and using the TVWS rules as a guide, we propose 
that authorized SASs would perform the following core functions:
? Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic location and assign them to CBSDs; 
? Determine the maximum permissible radiated transmission power level for CBSDs at a given 
location and communicate that information to the CBSDs; 
? Register and authenticate the identification information and location of CBSDs; 
? Enforce Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users and incumbent federal operations; 
? Protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful interference from General Authorized Access 
Users; 
? Reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF; 
? Ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS and CBSDs.
179
  
96. Under our proposal, each SAS would provide nationwide service.  Each SAS would also 
collect and retain all information provided by CBSDs and Incumbent Users according to the proposed 
rules and enforce robust security protocols to protect such information.
180
  If multiple SASs are 
authorized, each SAS would be responsible for sharing this information with other authorized SASs to 
ensure effective coordination of operations within the band.  The proposed rules outline the essential 
requirements for a successful SAS and would promote innovation and productive use of the 3.5 GHz 
Band.  Further, these rules represent the lightest regulatory approach possible to accomplish the core 
objectives of the SAS.
97. We seek comment on these proposed rules.  Specifically, do the proposed rules 
accurately describe the necessary functions of an SAS?  What additional elements, if any, should be 
included in the SAS?  What responsibilities should SASs (and SAS Administrators) have to maximize use 
by and minimize interference among GAA users, notwithstanding any absence of interference protection 
rights that may be extended to such users under our rules?  How should the Commission most 
appropriately discharge its Title III responsibilities in supervising these and other functions that may be 
                                                     
175
See e.g., BLiNQ Licensing PN Comments at 14-16; WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 18-19; Google SAS 
Paper.
176
See Spectrum Bridge Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) (Spectrum Bridge SAS Paper); Google SAS Paper at 2-3.
177
See Qualcomm Response to FCC Call for Papers on Proposed 3.5 GHz Spectrum Access System in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed January 3, 2014) (Qualcomm SAS Paper); NSN SAS Paper. 
178
See AT&T Licensing PN Reply Comments at 4-5 (Supporting fixed channel assignments for PALs); T-Mobile 
SAS Paper.
179
See Appendix A, §§ 96.43 – 96.48.
180
See id., §§ 96.44 and 96.47 - 96.48.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
31
delegated to the SASs and SAS Administrators?  Are the proposed rules unduly burdensome for potential 
SAS Administrators? Could a compliant SAS be built and operated using existing or “in development” 
technology?   
98. In addition, under this proposal multiple SASs could be authorized, much as multiple 
databases have been authorized in the TVWS context,
181
to ensure that consumers are provided with a 
robust set of choices in the marketplace.  We seek comment on what techniques could be used to 
effectively coordinate multiple SASs in the band?  What other implementation challenges could arise 
from the possibility of multiple SAS providers?  Are they solvable?  We seek general comment on the 
proposal to authorize multiple SAS providers.
(ii) Information Gathering and Retention (§ 96.44)
99. To protect Incumbent Users and effectively coordinate Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users, we propose that the SAS retain information on all operations within the 3.5 GHz Band.  For 
CBSDs, such information would include all data that they are required to transmit to the SAS pursuant to 
the proposed section 96.36.
182
  For incumbent FSS operators, the SAS would maintain a record of the 
location of protected earth stations as well as the direction and look angle of all earth station receivers and 
any other information needed to perform its functions.  For incumbent federal users, the SAS would 
include only the geographic coordinates of the Exclusion Zones.
183
We seek comment on these proposed 
rules and alternative approaches.
100. With regard to federal operations, if Exclusion Zones are altered or other incumbent 
protection criteria implemented in future phases of this proceeding, the SAS may eventually need to 
gather and manage a significant amount of data on federal operations.  Much of this information is likely 
to be sensitive or classified and would require additional safeguards that may not be necessary to protect 
non-federal information.  Some commenters raised the possibility of establishing a separate database to 
store sensitive federal information and instruct registered SASs on the required protection contours for 
federal operations.
184
  We seek comment on whether a separate database should be established for federal 
information.  Would such a database be more efficient and secure than entrusting federal information to 
each registered SAS?  What additional security measures should be required for a database holding 
sensitive federal information?  Who should maintain such a database?   We will continue to work with 
NTIA and incumbent federal users to develop this aspect of the SAS requirements.
101. Some commenters have argued that the SAS should be required to incorporate spectrum 
sensing information from CBSDs or other remote beaconing and sensing sites to accurately detect 
incumbent usage models and respond to the interference environment.
185
  We seek comment on whether 
such capabilities would be helpful for the operation of the SAS.
(iii) Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service Devices (§ 96.45)
102. In addition to gathering required information from CBSDs, the SAS would confirm and 
verify the identity of any CBSD seeking to use the 3.5 GHz Band prior to authorizing its operation.  The 
SAS would also prevent CBSDs from operating within any Exclusion Zones.  We seek comment on these 
proposed rules.
                                                     
181
See FCC, “Whitespace Database Administrator Guide,” available at: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/white-
space-database-administrators-guide (last visited February 20, 2014).
182
See Appendix A, § 96.36.
183
See id, § 96.44 and 96.48.
184
See Ericsson SAS Paper at 4-5.
185
See Federated SAS Paper at 3-4; Comments of Shared Spectrum Company in Response to Licensing PN in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (Shared Spectrum Licensing PN Comments).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
32
(iv) Frequency Assignment (§ 96.46)
103. As discussed in section III(A)(1)(a)(7) above, under our proposal, assignment of PAL 
channels and GAA frequencies in the 3.5 GHz Band would be a dynamic process.  The SAS would be 
responsible for determining the available and appropriate frequencies at a location using the location 
information supplied by CBSDs, compliance with Exclusion Zones, the authorization status and operating 
parameters of CBSDs in the surrounding area, and such other information necessary to ensure effective 
operations of CBSDs.  The SAS would also take into consideration any channel requests submitted by 
CBSDs as well as geographic and spectral efficiency considerations.  We also propose that the SAS be 
able to provide a list of available frequencies in a given area and confirm that any CBSDs causing 
harmful interference to an Incumbent User have been deactivated or reassigned upon request.  We seek 
comment on these proposed rules.
(v) Security (§ 96.47)
104. We propose to require that the SAS employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all 
communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that 
unauthorized parties cannot access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD.  These 
protocols and procedures would be reviewed and approved by the Commission before the SAS 
Administrator could be certified.
186
  We seek comment on these proposed rules and on any additional 
safeguards needed to protect sensitive federal information.
(vi) Spectrum Access System Administrators (§ 96.48)
105. Drawing on our experience with the TVWS, we propose that SASs be operated only by 
designated SAS Administrators that have been approved by the Commission. As noted above, this 
approval process will be essential to determining that the SAS can meet the regulatory requirements, 
without having to provide overly prescriptive and detailed rules about its implementation.
187
106. To this end, we propose that SAS Administrators be required to: 
? maintain a regularly updated database that contains the information described in the 
proposed rules; 
? establish a process for acquiring and storing in the database necessary and appropriate 
information from the Commission's databases; 
? establish and follow a process for ensuring compatibility between Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users and Incumbent Users, including enforcement of Exclusion Zones; 
? establish and follow processes for registering and coordinating Priority Access 
Licensees and GAA users; 
? establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that Incumbent Users are 
protected from harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operators; 
? establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that Priority Access Licensees 
are protected from harmful interference from Priority Access and GAA users; 
? establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications and 
interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure; 
? make its services available on a non-discriminatory basis; 
                                                     
186
See supra section III(A)(1)(f)(vi).
187
See supra section III(A)(1)(f).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
33
? respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, as appropriate, data in the 
event that the Commission or a party brings claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its 
attention;
? securely transfer the information in the SAS to another designated entity in the event it 
does not continue as the SAS administrator at the end of its term; 
? cooperate with other SAS Administrators to develop a standardized process for 
coordinating and exchanging required information; 
? provide a means to make public information available to the public in an accessible 
manner; 
? establish protocols to maintain appropriate security clearances and other security 
measures as may be determined by the Commission for access to and storage of 
required federal incumbent information if required in future phases of this 
proceeding.
188
  
107. Under our proposed rules, SAS Administrators would be authorized to provide service 
for a five-year term, which could be renewed at the Commission’s discretion.  We further propose that the 
Bureau review applications for certification and establish procedures for reviewing the qualifications of 
prospective SAS Administrators.  What conflict of interest requirements, competitive or other selection 
process, technical qualifications, or other standards should govern this process?  Do other models 
involving Commission selection of third-party assistance provide useful insights into these questions?
108. We seek comment on this proposal.  Do the proposed rules establish appropriate 
qualifications for SAS Administrators?  What procedures should the Bureau adopt to select SAS 
Administrators, ensure that they are qualified to perform their duties, and ensure that SASs are able to 
perform the functions required by the proposed rules.  What steps should the Commission take to ensure 
that SAS Administrators are properly supervised and operating within the bounds of the law? 
Commenters should provide a detailed analysis, including economic costs and benefits, of any alternate or 
supplemental approach they propose.
(vii) Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees (§ 96.47)
109. We propose to allow SAS Administrators to collect reasonable fees from Priority Access 
Licensees and General Authorized Access users for use of the SAS and associated services.  We based 
this proposal on a similar rule adopted for TVWS database administrators.
189
We seek comment on this 
proposed rule.  We also seek comment on whether SAS Administrators should be permitted to collect fees 
from all Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.  Specifically, should SAS Administrators be permitted 
to collect fees from GAA users?  Or should fees be collected only from Priority Access Licensees?  
Would limiting fees to Priority Access Licensees effectively promote diverse and innovative use of the 
GAA service tier?  What role, if any, should the Commission play in resolving any disputes or other 
issues regarding the collection of any such fees by the SAS Administrators?
2. Modifications to Existing Rule Parts
110. In addition to the proposed new Part 96, we also seek comment on any necessary 
amendments to existing rule parts, as discussed below.
                                                     
188
See Appendix A, § 96.48.
189
See 47 C.F.R. § 47.1515.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
34
a. Table of Frequency Allocations (§ 2.106)
111. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the allocation structure that should 
be used to accommodate the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
190
The NPRM proposed to retain the 
primary allocation for existing federal radar systems in the 3.5 GHz Band, while also proposing to 
allocate that band for non-federal fixed and mobile use.  The NPRM observed that this proposed structure 
is consistent with international allocations for use of the 3.5 GHz Band, and also appears consistent with 
requirements for the allocation of flexible use spectrum under Section 303(y) of the Communications 
Act.
191
However, the NPRM sought comment on what allocation scheme would best accomplish the goals 
set forth in that NPRM, and also inquired how that scheme should account for potential Federal fixed and 
mobile use of the band.
192
112. The NPRM also proposed to restrict primary non-federal FSS earth station use in the 
3600-3650 MHz band to the FSS earth stations licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the 
Report and Order in this proceeding.
193
Additionally, the NPRM noted the existence in the 3.5 GHz Band 
of federal allocations for Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service and mobile ground-based radars, and 
stated that the Commission would work with NTIA regarding the continued need for those allocations.
194
Moreover, the NPRM noted the existence of a non-Federal secondary allocation for radiolocation 
services, and requested comment on what existing 3.5 GHz band allocations should be maintained.
195
  
Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the potential for interference to and from existing and future 
international operations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
196
113. There was limited comment on the allocation proposals per se, although the great 
majority of commenting parties support shared federal/non-federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band for new 
broadband technologies.
197
This suggests implicit support for adopting an allocation structure that will 
                                                     
190
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15623-25, ¶¶ 87-94.
191
Id. at 15624-25, ¶ 91.
192
Id. at 15624, ¶ 90.
193
Id. at 15625, ¶ 92. In connection with the NPRM, the Commission also issued an order freezing applications for 
new FSS earth stations more than 10 statute miles from a license earth station’s coordinates.  Id. at 15642-45, ¶¶ 
154-55.
194
Id. at 15625, ¶ 93.
195
Id.
196
Id. at 15625, ¶ 94.
197
See, e.g., Comments of  Microsoft Corporation in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 
20, 2013) at 2 (Microsoft NPRM Comments); Comments of  Motorola Solutions, Inc.  in response to NPRM in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (Motorola Solutions NPRM Comments) at 1-2; Comments of  Nokia 
Siemens Networks US LLC in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (NSN NPRM 
Comments) at 23; Comments of PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the DAS Forum, a 
Membership Section of  PCIA in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013,) at 2; 
Comments of Qualcomm Incorporated in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) 
(Qualcomm NPRM Comments)at ii; Comments of Shared Spectrum Company in response to NPRM in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (Shared Spectrum NPRM Comments)at ii; Comments of  T-Mobile USA, Inc. 
in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) at 2-3; Comments of Wi-Fi Alliance in 
response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) at 2; WiMax Forum NPRM Comments at 8; 
Reply Comments of AT&T Services, Inc. in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 2013) at 2; 
Reply Comments of Exelon Corporation in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 2013) at 2; 
Reply Comments of Spectrum Bridge, Inc. in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 2013) at 
1; Reply Comments of Verizon and Verizon Wireless in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed April 8, 
2013) at 1; Reply Comments of Wireless Internet Service Providers Association in response to NPRM in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 (filed April 5, 2013) at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
35
allow for this type of use.
198
Of the commenters that explicitly discuss the allocation proposals, the 
Utilities Telecom Council, Edison Electric Institute, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 
contend that a non-federal fixed and mobile allocation of the 3.5 GHz Band would spur innovation and 
investment in new wireless technologies with little or no impact on incumbent uses, including federal 
radar systems, and support the proposal to restrict FSS earth station use of the 3600-3650 MHz band to 
the FSS earth stations licensed or applied-for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this 
proceeding.
199
  SIA, however, expresses concern about the impact on FSS earth stations and contends that, 
if there are any small cell operations in allowed in the 3.5 GHz Band, they should be permitted only on a 
secondary basis.
200
114. We propose to add new primary fixed and land mobile allocations to the 3.5 GHz Band to 
permit commercial use of the band consistent with our accompanying licensing and service rule 
proposals.
201
The adoption of a United States allocation structure that permits that band to be used for 
fixed and land mobile services on a primary basis is also consistent with the approach the Commission 
has previously taken when it has determined that uses of other bands for new broadband purposes was in 
the public interest.
202
  Moreover, the proposed allocation is consistent with the Region 2 International 
allocation for the band.
203
We do not think it serves the public interest to pursue a secondary fixed and 
mobile allocation, as suggested by SIA, and we will continue to propose that FSS earth stations be 
restricted to those that were licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this 
proceeding.  As we observed in the NPRM, our proposed treatment of FSS earth stations is the same as 
what has previously been implemented in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
204
  Additionally, we note that FSS 
earth stations are authorized to use other nearby spectrum at 3.7-4.2 GHz on a primary basis.
205
  For these 
                                                     
198
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.102(a) (stating that “…the assignment of frequencies … and the actual use of such frequencies 
… shall be in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations.”).
199
See UTC/EEI/NRTC NPRM Comments at 19.
200
See SIA NPRM Comments at 10-12 and 21.
201
We note that, while the NPRM proposed to include all mobile services in the new 3.5 GHz Band allocation, the 
low-power nature of the proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service makes it inconsistent with higher-power 
aeronautical and maritime mobile uses.  The United States falls under Region 2 in the International Table of 
Frequency Allocations, and the Region 2 allocation for the 3.5 GHz Band is “Mobile except aeronautical mobile.”  
See 47 CFR § 2.106.  Thus, our proposal would be somewhat more restrictive than the Region 2 allocation, but in no 
way would constrain the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.  In particular, we note that our proposal would not 
preclude Citizens Broadband Radio Service use on-board a vessel, as such use would fall under the definition of a 
land mobile service rather than a maritime mobile service, provided that the subscriber was communicating through 
a base station – rather than a coast station – within the geographical limits of the United States.  The two services are 
defined in our rules as follows:  Land Mobile Service. “A mobile service between base stations and land mobile 
stations, or between land mobile stations.”  Maritime Mobile Service. “A mobile service between coast stations and 
ship stations, or between ship stations, or between associated on-board communication stations; survival craft 
stations and emergency position-indicating radiobeacon stations may also participate in this service.”  See 47 C.F.R.
§ 2.1.  
202
For example, when the Commission found that it was in the public interest to transfer TV Channels 52-69       
(698-806 MHz) from broadcast use to new wireless and public safety uses, it added primary fixed and mobile 
allocations to the 698-806 MHz band.  See Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band,     
ET Docket No. 97-157, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998); and Reallocation and Service Rules for the 
698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
1022 (2002).
203
The 3.5 GHz band is already allocated on a primary basis in Region 2 for fixed and mobile except aeronautical 
mobile services, but in the United States it is not allocated to those services.  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.  
204
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15625, ¶ 92.
205
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
36
reasons, providing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service a primary allocation offers important new 
opportunities to make robust use of our spectrum resources, and we propose appropriate technical rules to 
protect existing incumbent FSS operations. 
115. We further observe that, with respect to the GAA tier, some commenting parties express 
a preference for an unlicensed (Part 15) framework, rather than the NPRM’s proposed licensed-by-rule
framework.
206
We nevertheless propose to adopt a primary fixed and land mobile allocation across the 
entire band.  Doing so could afford us the flexibility to adopt a licensing framework for all Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service tiers that will ensure that these operations are prioritized over existing 
secondary users in the band.  This could also help ensure that quality spectrum is available for GAA 
users.  We seek comment on this proposal and other licensing frameworks.
116. In addition to proposing to add fixed and land mobile allocations to the 3.5 GHz Band in 
the non-Federal Table, we propose to remove the secondary radiolocation service allocation from that 
band in the non-Federal Table and to add three US footnotes (US106, US107, and US433, respectively) 
to:  (1) permit 3.5 GHz Band non-federal stations in the radiolocation service that were licensed or 
applied for prior to the effective date of any Report and Order we adopt in this proceeding to continue to 
operate on a secondary basis until the end of the equipment’s useful lifetime; (2) limit primary FSS use of 
the 3600-3650 MHz band to earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of an application filed 
prior to, the effective date of any Report and Order we adopt in this proceeding, and constructed within 12 
months of initial authorization; and specify that FSS use of that band for all other earth stations will be on 
a secondary basis to non-federal stations in the fixed and land mobile services;  (3) both specify 
provisions for 3.5 GHz Band federal use of the aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based) and 
radiolocation services, and provide for continued federal use in light of new non-federal fixed and mobile 
operations in the band; and (4) prohibit federal use of airborne radar systems in the 3.5 GHz Band. We 
seek comment on these proposals, including whether the potential effects on federal incumbents would 
serve the public interest.
117. We also note that the NPRM sought comment on allowing federal fixed and mobile use in 
the band.  Should we consider permitting federal fixed and mobile operations in the 3.5 GHz Band?  If so, 
how should such uses be effectively implemented and managed?  What, if any, implications would 
federal fixed and mobile use have for non-federal use of the band?  
b. Procedures for Priority Access Licenses Subject to Assignment by 
Competitive Bidding (§ 1.2101 et seq.)
118. If we adopt our proposed geographic area licensing approach for PALs that would permit 
the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, we will be required to resolve such 
applications through competitive bidding consistent with the mandate of Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act.
207
  Accordingly, we seek comment on a number of proposals relating to 
competitive bidding for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.  
(i) Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules (§ 1.2101 et
seq.)
119. We consider here changes to the Commission’s general competitive bidding rules set 
forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission’s rules that may be necessary or desirable to conduct an 
auction of initial PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.  We propose to employ the general competitive bidding 
rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q to resolve any mutually exclusive applications received for initial 
                                                     
206
See, e.g., AT&T Licensing PN Comments at 2; Microsoft Licensing PN Comments at 5; Google Licensing PN
Reply Comments at 3-5; Reply Comments of Open Technology Institute of the New America Forum and Public 
Knowledge in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) (OTI/PK Licensing 
PN Reply Comments) at 3.
207
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
37
PALs.  The Commission’s competitive bidding rules provide a framework from which the Commission 
develops final procedures—through a series of public notices with opportunities for comment—for the 
particular competitive bidding processes that it conducts.  The public notice process allows both the 
Commission and interested parties to focus and provide input on certain details of the auction design and 
the auction procedures after the rules have been established and the remaining procedural issues are better 
defined.   Our experience with spectrum license auctions demonstrates the value of this approach and 
therefore, we anticipate following a similar approach here.  Under this proposal, any modifications that 
the Commission may adopt for its Part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future would apply to an 
auction of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.  In addition, consistent with our long-standing approach, auction-
specific matters such as the competitive bidding design and mechanisms, as well as minimum opening 
bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined through these public notices.  We seek comment on this 
approach, including the costs and benefits of this approach. We also seek comment on whether any of our 
Part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction for licenses in the 3.5GHz Band.  
(ii) Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding 
120. To date, the Commission has considered two or more parties seeking to bid for a 
particular license to present mutually exclusive applications for the license, irrespective of whether each 
party subsequently bids for the license.  Where only one party seeks a particular license offered in 
competitive bidding, that license will be removed from the competitive bidding process and the 
Commission will consider that party’s non-mutually exclusive application for the license through a 
process separate from the competitive bidding.
208
  This has worked well with respect to defined licenses 
that have parameters such as frequency and geography defined apart from and in advance of competitive 
bidding.  
121. Here we have proposed that the Commission, on an annual basis, would open windows 
for applications for available PALs.  To accommodate the ability of licensees to aggregate consecutive 
one-year terms, the Commission may offer multiple consecutive years of PAL rights simultaneously.  At 
the close of such a window, the Commission would hold an auction to assign PALs where there are 
mutually exclusive applications pending.  Consistent with the Commission’s approach in other spectrum 
auctions, mutual exclusivity would be triggered when more applications are submitted than can be 
accommodated geographically, temporally, and spectrally.  Under our proposed licensing framework in 
which we assign PALs in an auction that offers generic (non-frequency-specific) blocks, we propose to 
determine that mutual exclusivity exists when the total number of applicants for a PAL in a specific 
geographic area for a given year exceeds the total number of PALs available in that geographic area for 
that year.  We seek comment on this proposal.
(iii) Bidding Process Options
122. Competitive Bidding Design Options.  The Commission’s current rules list types of 
auction designs from which the Commission may choose when conducting competitive bidding for 
spectrum licenses.
209
  These options include sequential and simultaneous auctions, single and multiple 
round auctions, and auctions with combinatorial bidding.
210
  Since the Commission’s Part 1 competitive 
bidding rules were originally adopted, auction design has evolved and continues to evolve in new 
directions, sometimes combining several of these listed auction design elements and sometimes utilizing 
different elements.       
                                                     
208
47 C.F.R. § 1.2102(a); see Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 
PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348 at 2376, ¶ 165 (1994).
209
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2103.
210
47 C.F.R. § 1.2103(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
38
123. In the Broadcast Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 
proposed to revise the current list of auction design options set forth in section 1.2103 of the rules.
211
  In 
particular, the Commission proposed a rule that provides for the establishment of specific auction 
procedures governing bid collection, assignment of winning bids, and the determination of payment 
amounts in spectrum license auctions.
212
  Such auctions may use one or more rounds of bidding and/or 
contingent stages of bidding; and may incorporate bids or offers that simply specify a price for an item, 
that indicate demand for an item at a specified price, or that are more complex.  We anticipate that 
procedures established to implement these broad auction design elements would take into account sound 
economic principles and practice and the needs of the Commission and the bidders. We seek comment on 
whether, in light of the licensing proposals set forth in this FNPRM, we should adopt any other or 
additional revisions to section 1.2103 in addition to those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive Auction
proceeding.  Given the large number of license areas and relatively short license terms envisioned for 
PALs, are there any auction mechanisms that would enhance the Commission’s ability to effectively 
manage the use of the Priority Access tier?  
124. Section 1.2104 of the Commission’s current rules sets forth various mechanisms that can 
be used in connection with any system of competitive bidding for Commission licenses.
213
  For example, 
the rules enable the Commission to determine how to sequence or group the licenses offered;
214
whether 
to utilize reserve prices,
215
minimum opening bids and minimum or maximum bid increments;
216
whether 
to establish stopping or activity rules;
217
and how to determine payments required in the event of bid 
withdrawal, default, or disqualification.
218
  We note, however, that section 1.2104 does not attempt to list 
exhaustively all potential aspects of the Commission’s procedures for competitive bidding.
125. The Commission recently proposed to amend the current stopping rule contained in 
section 1.2104 to permit the Commission to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round 
auctions in order to terminate the auctions not only within a reasonable time, but also in accordance with 
the goals, statutory requirements, and rules for the auction, including the reserve price or prices.
219
The 
revised stopping rule would thereby allow us to adopt criteria to determine, prior to terminating the 
auction, whether such requirements have been met.  We seek comment on whether we should adopt any 
other revisions to section 1.2104, in addition to those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive Auction
proceeding?
126. Payment Rules. Our existing competitive bidding rules also establish additional 
procedures regarding the competitive bidding process.  More specifically, our existing rules address 
applications to participate in competitive bidding,
220
communications among applicants to participate,
221
                                                     
211
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2103;  Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 
Auctions, Docket No. 12-2678, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (BIA NPRM) at 12456, ¶¶ 298-
99 (2012).
212
See BIA NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 12456, ¶¶ 298-99.
213
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104.
214
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(a)-(b).
215
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(c).
216
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(d).
217
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(e)-(f).
218
47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g).  A bidder assumes a binding obligation to pay its full bid amount upon acceptance of the 
winning bid at the close of an auction.  47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g)(2).
219
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(e); BIA NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 12457, ¶¶ 300-02.
220
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105.
221
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
39
reporting requirements, upfront payments from competitive bidding participants,
222
down and final 
payments by winning bidders,
223
and applications for licenses by winning bidders,
224
as well as the 
processing of such applications and default by and disqualification of winning bidders.
225
  We seek 
comment on whether these existing rules require any revisions in connection with the conduct of an 
auction of PALs.  
127. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should revise any of our payment rules to 
take into consideration the proposed short license term for PALs, and the potential for applicants to 
become winning bidders for licenses that do not become effective until a year or more after the initial 
PAL?  For instance, should we revise our upfront payment requirement to better safeguard the 
Commission against defaults by a winning bidder on consecutive years of a PAL? Should we require a 
winning bidder for consecutive years of a PAL to make a larger down payment to better safeguard the 
Commission from defaults in subsequent years? Currently, unless otherwise noted by public notice, the 
Commission’s rules require that within 10 business days after being notified that it is a high bidder on a 
particular license the winning bidder must submit its down payment necessary to bring its total deposits 
up to twenty (20) percent of its winning bid(s) or it will be deemed to have defaulted.
226
Should we 
increase the down payment percentage here to be forty (40) percent of the winning bid(s)? Similarly, 
unless otherwise specified by public notice, auction winners are required to pay the balance of their 
winning bids in a lump sum within ten (10) business days following the release of a public notice 
establishing the payment deadline.
227
  Here, we could collect the down payment required for each PAL at
the close of the auction, including PALs for consecutive years, but final payment(s) would not be due 
until we are ready to grant a particular PAL at the beginning of the subsequent license term.
Alternatively, in order to provide further incentives for the productive use of spectrum, could the further 
payment be required upon initiation of service in specific PAL?  Will retaining down payments on deposit 
for consecutive PALs, particularly if the down payment obligation for such PALs is increased, help the 
Commission safeguard against the potential of default in subsequent years?  Are there any statutory or 
other legal considerations that the Commission should consider in designing payment rules to 
accommodate these proposals?
128. We also seek comment on whether we should revise our default rule to ensure that if a 
winning bidder wins PALs in a licensing area for consecutive years and defaults on a payment obligation 
for a PAL in that area, it loses its ability to be granted a license for any winning bids for PALs in that area 
in any subsequent year, and is considered to be in default on those winning bids?  Would such a default 
provision ensure that a winning bidder could not game the results of an auction by bidding upon 
consecutive year PALs only to seek to selectively pay for some but not others of those bids at a later date?  
In situations where the Commission has determined that a bidder’s default might have a greater potential 
to detrimentally impact the integrity of an auction, it has adopted a higher default percentage to serve as 
deterrent against such an outcome.
228
  If we hold an auction that offers individual PALs for several 
consecutive years, should we hold a winning bidder for such licenses who defaults on its winning bids 
responsible for a larger default payment?  What percentage of the defaulted bid should be assessed as the 
additional payment portion of the default payment obligation?  Should the amount of the additional 
payment be greater than the percentage prescribed in our rules for defaults on combinatorial bids?
                                                     
222
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2106.
223
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2107.
224
See id.
225
See 47 C.F.R. § § 1.2107; 1.2109.
226
47 C.F.R. § 1.2107.
227
47 C.F.R. § 1.2109.
228
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g)(2)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
40
129. Would such a default rule adequately safeguard the Commission should a winning bidder 
file bankruptcy between the close of an auction and the date of a future payment obligation?  Commenters 
should address in particular the application of the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that an agency “may 
not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license . . . or other similar grant to,” or “discriminate 
with respect to such a grant against,” a debtor or a bankrupt “solely because” it “has not paid a debt that is 
dischargeable” in bankruptcy.
229
  In other contexts, the Commission has addressed its potential financial 
risks arising out of the bankruptcy of a winning bidder by requiring appropriate letters of credit for each 
winning bid.
230
However, these bids were for Mobility Fund Phase I financial support rather than for 
spectrum licenses, and thus did not pose the risk of being unable to re-auction and put to more efficient 
use the spectrum licensed to an entity that later files for bankruptcy.  Would the Commission be restricted 
by the bankruptcy laws in its efforts to recover and re-auction spectrum won by a defaulting bidder that 
had filed for bankruptcy?  Would the costs of obtaining a letter of credit be reasonable in light of the 
expected value of the spectrum?  Would a payment bond be equally effective in giving financial security 
to the Commission and protecting the Commission from a winning bidder’s bankruptcy?  Could bids be 
aggregated for purposes of issuing a letter of credit, without jeopardizing the Commission’s ability to 
recover the auction amounts and any reasonable penalty associated from default?  Would the benefits of 
our proposed annual payment mechanism outweigh the risks in bankruptcy and the associated costs?
130. Further, we seek comment regarding whether we should amend any of our other Part 1 
rules to accommodate our proposals for assigning PALs and facilitate more frequent auctions and the 
dynamic auction mechanisms that may be required?  For example, are there any changes that we should 
make to the auction application process or the information that we collect from applicants to participate in 
an auction of PALs?  Do we need to amend any of our rules regarding prohibited communications for an 
auction that offers generic spectrum blocks?  In considering our proposed licensing model, are there any 
particular aspects of the administration of auctions of PALs with which SAS Administrators or another 
third party could be effective in assisting the Commission, consistent with its statutory responsibilities?
231
  
131. Bidding Credits.  In authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress 
mandated that the Commission “ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses 
owned by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the 
provision of spectrum-based services.”
232
  One of the principal means by which the Commission furthers 
these statutory goals is the award of bidding credits to small businesses.  To award these bidding credits, 
the Commission defines eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking 
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in establishing 
                                                     
229
See 11 U.S.C. § 525(a).  
230
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.1007; GCI Communication Corp. Waiver of Section 54.1007(a) of the Commission’s Rules,  
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 15874 (WTB Nov. 21, 2013); See also Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for 
Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service 
Support; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board, WC Docket No. 10-
90, GN Docket No. 09-5, WC Docket No. 07-135, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 01-92, CC Docket No. 
96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17812 ¶ 449 (2011) (“It is well established that an LOC and the proceeds 
thereunder are not property of a debtor’s estate under section 541 of Title 11 of the [Bankruptcy Code].”).
231
See Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15309, ¶ 25.
232
See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D).  Such entities are collectively described as “designated entities.”  See 47 C.F.R. 
§ 1.2110(a).  In addition, section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that in establishing eligibility criteria and bidding 
methodologies, the Commission shall promote “economic opportunity and competition . . . by avoiding excessive 
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small 
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.”  47 
U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
41
the appropriate threshold.
233
Bidding credits have proven an effective means to allow small businesses to 
compete with larger, more well-established companies.  However, we also note that in deciding whether 
to offer bidding credits, the Commission takes into account both the nature of the service and the nature 
of the parties most likely to be interested in using the spectrum.  
132. Many of our proposals for PALs envision more flexible and dynamic auction and 
licensing mechanisms for effective and administratively streamlined management of the Priority Access 
tier.  We anticipate that the robust licensing and spectrum access models we propose could serve to ensure 
that small businesses are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service.  We therefore seek comment on whether awarding bidding credits in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service would be necessary to ensure the participation of small businesses in 
competitive bidding.
234
Would our proposals to offer numerous licenses within relatively small 
geographic licensing areas, and our proposals to cap the number of licenses any particular entity may hold 
in a license area adequately promote the dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants, 
including small businesses and rural telephone companies?
235
  Likewise, will the one-year license term 
and the size of the license area we propose make it more likely that small businesses will be able to 
effectively compete for a PAL and the opportunity to participate in the provision of Priority Access 
service?  Do the unique characteristics of this service reduce the likelihood that small businesses will face 
barriers in gaining accessing to capital?  We request that commenters address the expected capital 
requirements for service in this band and other characteristics of the service.   We invite commenters to 
use comparisons with other services for which the FCC has already established auction procedures as a 
basis for their comments regarding whether we should adopt small business size standards and bidding 
credits for PALs and if so, the appropriate small business size standards.  Moreover, to the extent that 
commenters propose provisions to ensure participation by minority-owned or women-owned businesses, 
they should address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial 
review.
236
133. We note that under our existing Part 1 rules, a winning bidder for a PAL will be eligible 
to receive a bidding credit for serving a qualifying tribal land within that market, provided that it complies 
with the applicable competitive bidding rules.
237
  We seek comment on whether any revisions to our rules 
governing eligibility for or implementation of Tribal land bidding credits are necessary for PALs.  In 
addition, the Commission currently has under consideration various provisions and policies intended to 
promote greater use of spectrum over tribal lands.
238
  We seek comment regarding whether any rules and 
policies adopted in that proceeding should apply to any licenses that may be issued through competitive 
bidding in a PAL auction.  We also note that the award of bidding credits can be an administratively 
intensive process, requiring verification of eligibility and other aspects of the application. We seek 
comment on whether the relative costs of this process are greater in the context of highly granular PALs 
                                                     
233
  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(c)(1); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive 
Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7245 at 7269, ¶ 145 (1994).  
See also Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-
82, ET Docket No. 94-32, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC 
Rcd 374 at 388, ¶ 18 (1997).
234
See 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(4)(B). 
235
Id.
236
Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, Secretary of Transportation, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (requiring a strict scrutiny 
standard of review for Congressionally mandated race-conscious measures); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 
(1996) (applying an intermediate standard of review to a state program based on gender classification).
237
See 47 C.F.R. §1.2110(f)(3).
238
Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over 
Tribal Lands, WT Docket 11-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 2623 (2011) (Tribal Lands NPRM).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
42
as compared to more traditional FCC licenses for large geographic areas and license terms. We also seek 
comment on the degree to which the administrative process for bidding credits might be reasonably 
automated to reduce transaction costs.
134. Commission Notices.  Upon the conclusion of spectrum license auctions, the Commission 
typically issues a public notice declaring the bidding closed and identifying the winning bidders.  We 
propose to do so for the PAL auction.  We invite comment on this proposal and ask commenters to 
address whether there are any other issues we should consider with respect to notifying auction 
participants and the public of the auction results.  
c. Secondary Markets
135. We seek comment on the extent to which our existing secondary market rules (both for 
license transfers and for leases) might be appropriately modified with respect to the secondary market for 
PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. Commenters had varied opinions about the frequency with which we should 
conduct auctions for PALs.  Some commenters argued for more frequent auctions so as to accommodate 
changes in market demand for PALs.
239
  Others noted that the development of a robust secondary market 
in the 3.5 GHz Band would be beneficial for potential Priority Access Licensees.
240
  We emphasize that, 
while auctions are a mode of initial assignment, the secondary market could provide a viable means of 
matching supply and demand in units more granular than our proposed PAL structure.  Indeed, we are 
interested in the possibility that one or more spectrum exchanges, operating pursuant to our secondary 
market rules, could facilitate a vibrant and deep market for PAL rights.
241
  Such an exchange could 
improve the ability of individual licensees to obtain micro-targeted (in geography, time, and bandwidth) 
access to priority spectrum rights narrowly tailored to their needs on a highly customizable, fluid basis.  
We note that any spectrum exchange would be subject to the requirements of Section 310(d) of the 
Communications Act and other relevant statutory provisions.
242
  To the extent that commenters agree with 
this concept, we request specific and focused comment on any necessary changes to our Part 1 rules to 
facilitate the secondary market for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.  We are particularly interested in 
modifications that could reduce transaction costs and allow increased automation of transfer and lease 
applications.  What would such a spectrum exchange entail?  What legal, technical, or logistical issues 
could be raised by this proposal?
B. Other Issues
136. In addition to the proposed rules described above, several other issues implicated by this 
proceeding would benefit from additional, focused comment.  We seek further, focused comment on the 
following issues, and request that commenters provide suggested rules or other specific approaches to 
implement any proposals they put forward: 
? Interference protection for federal incumbents; 
? Interference protection for CBSDs from federal radar transmissions; 
? Interference protection for in-band FSS operations;
? Interference protection for FSS earth stations in the C-Band; and 
                                                     
239
Google Licensing PN Comments at 19-20; Reply Comments of Google, Inc. in response to NPRM (filed April 5, 
2013) at 12; Federated Licensing PN Comments at 11-12; Comments of Telecommunications Industry Association 
in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 2013) (TIA NPRM Comments) at 5.
240
See Alcatel Lucent Licensing PN Comments at 6-7; TIA NPRM Comments at 5; Cantor Fitzgerald Telecom 
Services, LLC, GN Docket No. 12-354, ex parte (filed July 31, 2013) (Cantor Ex Parte).
241
See Cantor Ex Parte.
242
47 U.S.C. § 310(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
43
? The potential integration of the 3650-3700 MHz band into the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service. 
1. Protections for Federal Incumbent Access Tier Users
137. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on measures that would optimize the 
use of spectrum while protecting both incumbent operations and prospective users of the band.  
Incumbent operations of this band include high-powered DoD radar systems using ground-based, 
shipboard, and airborne platforms, as well as non-Federal FSS earth stations used for receive-only, space-
to-earth operations and feeder links.
243
  
138. In its Fast Track Report, NTIA concluded that geographic separation and frequency 
offsets could be used to minimize interference between commercial networks and ground-based, airborne, 
and shipborne radar systems currently operating in the 3.5 GHz Band.  However, NTIA’s analysis 
indicated that it would be necessary to put in place extensive exclusion zones to prevent incumbent 
operations and broadband wireless systems from causing interference to each other.  NTIA concluded that 
effective exclusion zone distances around ground-based and airborne radar systems would extend 
approximately one to 60 kilometers, coupled with frequency offsets of 40 or 50 megahertz,
244
while 
exclusion zones around certain high-power shipborne Naval radars would require over-land separation 
distances of several hundred kilometers.
245
  NTIA acknowledged, however, that its analysis assumed 
deployment of high power, macrocell networks, and stated that its conclusions would require revision to 
the extent the Commission proposes to implement systems with different technical characteristics.
246
  
139. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the large exclusion zones and limited signal 
propagation in the 3.5 GHz Band weighed against the use of macrocell deployment in the band.  Instead, 
the Commission stated that the use of the 3.5 GHz Band could be significantly increased through 
spectrum sharing and application of small cell technology.  The Commission therefore proposed the 
creation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service premised on 1) technical rules that focused on the use 
of low-powered small cells, and 2) the use of a dynamic SAS to manage users of the band.  In light of the 
small cell deployment model, the Commission noted that some of the assumptions made in the Fast Track 
Report’s analysis regarding the requisite exclusion zone distances would not apply and would need to be 
revisited.
247
  The Commission indicated that it may be possible to reduce any exclusion zones through 
technical and operational parameters for small cells in combination with an effective SAS and other 
interference mitigation techniques.  The Notice therefore requested technical analysis as to how 
application of small cell and access management technologies may impact interference to and from 
incumbent 3.5 GHz Band users as well as the size of exclusion zones necessary to ensure compatibility 
with incumbent and prospective users of the band.
248
  
140. Many of the comments filed in response to the Notice supported the tentative conclusion 
that the size of Exclusion Zones as estimated by NTIA should be re-evaluated given the proposal to apply 
the small cell model.
249
We note that the Exclusion Zones were a condition for the Executive Branch 
                                                     
243
See Fast Track Report at 3-30 – 3-33.  See also 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15602-15605, ¶¶ 22-28 
(discussion of entities operating in the 3.5 GHz and adjacent bands).
244
Id. at 5-3 – 5-4. 
245
Id. at 5-6, Table 5-4.  See also 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15633 ¶ 118.
246
Fast Track Report at 1-7.
247
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15633, ¶ 118.
248
Id. at 15618, ¶ 68.
249
See e.g., Comments of AT&T Services, Inc. in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed February 20, 
2013) at 12; Comments of the Consumer Electronics Association in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 
(filed February 20, 2013) at 8; Comments of InterDigital in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
44
agreeing to provide access to this spectrum for non-federal use.
250
  As a starting point for continued 
analysis and discussion, we propose to implement the geographic Exclusion Zones proposed in the Fast 
Track Report.
251
  Nevertheless, preliminary studies have been performed on the potential effects of small 
cells on radar operations, with additional studies planned, that could lead to a reduction in Exclusion 
Zones in the near future.
252
  We also note that the rules proposed in this FNPRM contemplate additional 
uses other than small cells, with varying maximum transmit power levels and antenna gains, which must 
factor into the consideration of Exclusion Zones.
141. We are continuing our dialogue with NTIA and the federal agencies on this matter and, if 
possible, plan to reduce the Exclusion Zone distances from the instant proposal based on the Fast Track 
Report, which distances, we emphasize, we propose as a starting point for further analysis. We intend to 
work collaboratively and expeditiously with NTIA and other relevant federal agencies on this project. 
We emphasize that important technical studies involving federal agencies, industry, and academia are 
underway and will likely provide data that will be informative in determining whether and to what extent
the size of the Exclusion Zones can be reduced. If there are further developments that would enable a 
reduction in the size of the Exclusion Zones, we encourage participants to file them in the record to 
ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for public comment prior to issuance of a Report & Order in 
this proceeding.  We will also consider any data and studies submitted in this proceeding in our ongoing 
discussions with NTIA and other federal agencies on this topic.  
142. Additionally, in the NPRM, the Commission stated that GAA use could be allowed in 
areas where small cell operations would not cause harmful interference to Incumbent Access tier users but 
where signals from incumbent users could possibly interfere with GAA uses.
253
  However, the NPRM
noted that Priority Access users, which have quality-of-service expectations, would only be permitted 
where CBSD operations would not interfere with incumbent operations, and where harmful interference 
would not be reasonably expected from Incumbent Access tier operations.
254
  It may eventually be 
practicable to authorize coordinated operations for GAA – and possibly Priority Access - tier users inside 
the proposed Exclusion Zones. We anticipate such use would involve a level of dynamic access to the 
spectrum and would be authorized through the SAS. However, adding this kind of dynamic element to 
the SAS raises many technical and operational questions that are not ripe for resolution at this time.
Accordingly, we will explore the topic of dynamic coordinated access within the Exclusion Zones (i.e.,
converting Exclusion Zones to protection zones) in future phases of this proceeding.
255
  We seek comment 
on allowing Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations within currently designated Exclusion Zones 
and encourage commenters to submit technical analyses to support their positions.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
February 20, 2013) at 3-4; Motorola Solutions NPRM Comments at 7; NSN NPRM Comments at 22-23; Qualcomm 
NPRM Comments at 16-17; Shared Spectrum NPRM Comments at 3-4; TIA NPRM Comments at 3; Comments of 
the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed 
February 20, 2013) at 10.
250
See Fast Track Report 1-6 – 1-7 and 5-3 – 5-8.
251
See Fast Track Report at 5-6, Table 5-4; See also 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15633 ¶ 118.
252
See Qualcomm NPRM Comments at 16-18; Jeffrey H. Reed, Charles Clancy, Virginia Tech (sponsored by 
NSWC Dahlgren Division), Measurement Results for Radar and Wireless System Coexistence at 3.5 GHz, 
(presented January 14, 2014), available at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/workshops/sas_01-14-2014/end/Reed-
VA_TECH.pdf; Frank Sanders, Robert Sole, and John Carroll, NTIA, Effects of Pulsed Radar Waveforms on LTE 
(TDD) Receiver Performance (presented January 14, 2014), available at:  http://wireless.fcc.gov/workshops/sas_01-
14-2014/end/Sanders-NTIA.pdf.
253
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15614, ¶ 59.
254
Id. at 15618, ¶ 70.
255
See Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
45
2. Protections for Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices from Federal 
Radar Systems
143. While the proposed Exclusion Zones will prevent interference from radar systems into 
CBSDs, the possibility of future CBSD operations in close proximity to high power federal radar systems 
may require that Priority Access Licensees and GAA users take reasonable measures to protect their 
CBSDs from these high powered operations.  Radar systems operating at the power levels described in 
the NTIA Fast Track Report
256
could lead to peak field strengths in excess of 180 dBuV/m (~33 dBm) at 
line of sight distances of approximately 1 km.
257
  We also recognize that modern receiver technologies 
incorporate Surface Acoustic Wave / Bulk Acoustic Wave filters that may have peak input power limits in 
the range of 10 dBm to 33 dBm.  To ensure that end users are not adversely affected by the hard failure of 
receiver components due to interference from such radars, we propose that CBSDs must be capable 
accept interference in authorized areas of operation up to a peak field strength level of 180 dBuV/m.  We 
seek comment on these proposals and ask that commenters support their proposals with detailed technical 
analyses. How would such a requirement impact the design and cost of equipment for this band?  
Alternatively, are there measures that licensees can take to minimize the potential of receiving 
interference from federal incumbent operations?
144. In addition to the high-power interference effects discussed in the previous paragraph, 
pulsed radar signals can also cause degradation of CBSD receiver performance.  NTIA recently 
performed measurements to examine the impact of pulsed radar signals on digital receiver performance.
258
  
Three receiver parameters were examined: (1) data throughput rates; (2) block error rates; and (3) internal 
noise level.  These performance parameters were measured as a function of radar pulse parameters and 
the incident power level of radar pulses.  We seek comments on how the NTIA report can be used to 
develop thresholds for CBSD receivers to be used in assessing potential interference from federal 
incumbent operations.
3. Protections for Fixed Satellite Service Earth stations
a. Earth Stations in the 3.5 GHz Band
145. As noted in the NPRM, the Commission has licensed primary FSS earth stations to 
receive on frequencies in the 3600-3650 MHz band in 37 locations.
259
  Currently, FSS earth station 
facilities in 32 cities are authorized to receive in the 3625-3650 MHz sub-band, and Vizada, Inc. operates 
two gateway earth stations (located northeast of Los Angeles and New York City) that provide feeder 
links for Inmarsat’s L-band mobile-satellite service system.
260
  While the Commission directed the 
International Bureau to cease accepting applications for new earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band in an 
order accompanying the NPRM, these existing stations would be included in the Incumbent Use tier and 
afforded protection from lower-tier operations in the proposed Citizen’s Broadband Radio Service.
261
                                                     
256
See Fast Track Report at 4-59 to 4-69, ship radars #1 - #5. Peak radar transmit power levels vary depending on 
the type of radars, up to 98 dBm for ship radar #3, main beam antenna gain 41.8 dB, with 3.4 dB transmit antenna 
insertion loss.
257
Id. at 4-63, Ship radar #3, Peak transmit EIRP = 98 dBm – 3.4 + 41.8 dBi = 136.4 dBm. Free space path loss at 1 
km (in dB, = 20 log (4/) ? 103.6	dB at 3600 MHz), resulting in peak power at 1km = 136.4 dBm – 103.6 = 
32.8 dBm, approximately 1 watt. 1 km is chosen in this calculation as an approximation of a minimum coupling loss 
distance. 180 dBuV/m at 3600 MHz ? 31.7	dBm.
258
Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA Report 13-499, 
Effects of Radar Interference on LTE Base Station Receiver Performance (Dec. 2013).
259
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15642-43and 15647-48, ¶¶ 154-55 and Appendix A.
260
See id. at 15647-48, Appendix A for a complete list of these FSS earth stations.  
261
See id. at 15642-43, ¶¶ 154-55.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
46
146. The NPRM also sought extensive comment on appropriate interference protection and 
mitigation strategies for incumbent FSS earth stations.
262
  Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on 
whether geographic protection zones would be necessary to protect existing FSS earth stations from 
harmful interference.
263
  Commenters offered a variety of perspectives on these questions in the record.  
147. Notably, SIA filed several comments and letters arguing that the Commission should 
allow small cell operations in the 3.5 GHz Band only if it can show that in-band and C-Band satellite 
services will be protected from interference and asking the Commission to lift the freeze on earth station 
applications in the band.
264
  SIA also submitted a technical analysis that indicated that in-band FSS earth 
stations would require protection distances of up to 107.4 km to mitigate long-term interference and 487 
km to mitigate short-term interference.
265
  
148. On September 3, 2013, Google made an ex parte submission addressing potential 
interference from proposed Citizens Broadband operations into existing in-band and out-of-band satellite 
earth stations.
266
  With regard to grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, Google asserts 
that these earth stations can be protected by the SAS through a combination of coordination, spectral 
separation, and protection zones.
267
  Google also asserts that SIA’s submission overstates the potential for 
interference from CBSDs into in-band FSS earth stations.
268
According to Google, these overstatements 
are largely due to inappropriate assumptions about terrain, small cell emissions output, and typical small 
cell power levels as well as a reliance on an ITU interference protection standard that was not intended to 
apply in this context.
269
149. Harris Corporation filed comments encouraging the Commission to extend the Incumbent 
Access tier to include satellite earth stations and incumbent teleport stations in the adjacent 3650-3700 
MHz band and limit mobile and itinerant commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
270
  Baron Services, Inc. 
(Baron) also filed comments encouraging the Commission to adopt rules that would protect S-band 
weather radar systems with equipment authorizations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
271
  To accomplish this, Baron 
suggests that the Commission enforce substantial exclusion zones around S-band radar installations and 
impose strict OOBE limits on Citizens Broadband Radio Service base stations and handsets.
272
  As stated 
above, the proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be co-primary with existing incumbent 
                                                     
262
See id. at 15635-36, ¶¶ 124-127.
263
Id. 
264
See SIA NPRM Comments; Reply Comments of Satellite Industry Association in response to NPRM in GN 
Docket No. 12-354 (SIA NPRM Reply Comments); Comments of Satellite Industry Association in response to 
Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) (SIA Licensing PN Comments); Reply Comments 
of Satellite Industry Association in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed December 20, 2013) 
(SIA Licensing PN Reply Comments); Letter from Patricia Cooper, President, Satellite Industry Association to 
Marlene Dortch in GN Docket No. 12-354, Ex Parte (filed February 3, 2014) (SIA February 2014 Letter).
265
  See Letter from Satellite Industry Association to Marlene Dortch, ex parte, GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed August 
20, 2013) (SIA August 2013 Letter); Satellite Industry Association, Sharing Considerations Between Small Cells 
and Geostationary Satellite Networks in the Fixed-Satellite Service in the 3.4-4.2 GHz Frequency Band, ex parte, 
GN Docket No. 12-354 (filed August 20, 2013) (SIA Earth Station Interference Study) at 4.
266
See Google Letter and  Marshall Declaration.
267
See Google Letter at 7.
268
Id. at 8.
269
Id. SIA responded to Google’s assertions in its February 2014 letter.  See SIA February 2014 Letter.
270
See Harris NPRM Comments at 3-7.
271
See Baron NPRM Comments.
272
See id. at 4-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
47
operations and would supersede existing secondary uses of the band in the table of allocations.
273
  At this 
time, as stated above, we do not believe that it would be in the public interest to grant Incumbent Access 
tier status to current or planned non-federal secondary radiolocation operations in the band.
150. We propose to require CBSDs to avoid causing harmful interference to currently 
operational grandfathered FSS earth stations.  It may be possible to minimize or eliminate geographic 
protection areas around FSS earth stations by incorporating detailed information on the “look angles” of 
FSS earth stations, the emissions characteristics of CBSDs and End User Devices, detailed regional 
topographical information, and other relevant variables into the SAS. An analytic model of expected 
aggregate power-flux density could be used by the SAS to authorize operations to ensure that aggregate 
power-flux density interference limits are not exceeded, over a specified probabilistic function. Can a 
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF) of the aggregate power flux density be used 
for this purpose? We seek comment on the necessity of geographic protection areas and, if necessary, the 
size of such areas.  We also seek comment on additional or alternative mitigation strategies that could be 
employed to prevent harmful interference to FSS earth stations from CBSDs.  What criteria should the 
SAS incorporate to ensure that FSS earth stations are protected while maximizing the areas available for 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations?  How would the SAS manage this data?
151. We also seek comment on protection approaches other than protection areas. For 
example, we are interested in whether field strength, power-flux density, or some other technical metric, 
measured in relation to the earth station’s technical configuration (antenna characteristics, etc.) might 
provide FSS earth stations with adequate protections while maximizing the available geographic area and 
bandwidth for Citizens Broadband Radio Service Users.  To the extent such an approach is dependent 
upon operation of the SAS, we seek comment on what functionalities would need to be required by rule 
and what functionalities could be specified through other means (e.g., industry standards, multi-
stakeholder groups, etc.). Again, we request that parties provide specific and actionable suggestions in 
providing comments on this issue, including the potential costs and benefits of these approaches.
b. Earth Stations in the C-Band
152. In addition to protections for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, we sought 
comment on the degree to which the performance of FSS receivers in the C-Band could be affected by 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
274
  We also sought comment on methods for mitigating potential 
harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations into these receivers.  Parties 
submitted multiple comments, presentations, and technical analyses related to this issue.  These 
submissions relied on very different assumptions about CBSDs, the capabilities of the SAS, receiver 
performance, and other technical criteria and, as a result, commenters reached very different conclusions 
regarding the need for protection for C-Band earth stations.
153. Notably, a coalition of media companies and trade organizations, including Fox 
Entertainment Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc., the Walt Disney Company, CBS Corporation, 
and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) (jointly, Content Interests) filed jointly to encourage 
the Commission to study the potential for interference into C-Band satellite operations before considering 
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
275
  Their filings included technical reports from Comsearch 
                                                     
273
See supra section III(A)(2)(a).
274
See 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15635-36, ¶¶ 124-127.
275
See National Association of Broadcasters, News Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc., CBS Corporation, 
and The Walt Disney Company, ex parte, GN Docket No. 12-354 (Content Interests Letter) and Attachment A, 
Comsearch, “Estimating the Required Separation Distances to Avoid Interference from Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service Transmitters into C-Band Earth Stations” (Comsearch Report) (filed May 8, 2013); Reply Comments of 
CBS Corporation, the National Association of Broadcasters, Fox Entertainment Group Inc., Time Warner Inc., 
Viacom Inc., and The Walt Disney Company response to NPRM in GN Docket No. 12-354 (Content Interests 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
48
and Alion Science and Technology (Alion) that concluded that C-Band earth stations would require 
significant geographic protection from CBSDs.
276
  Alion asserts that separation distances ranging from 
600 meters to 9 Km
277
would be required to protect C-Band earth station locations with appropriate filters 
installed while unfiltered sites would require 19 to 33 Km separation distances.
278
  The separation 
distances would increase to 14 to 28 Km for filtered sites if the full 3550-3700 MHz band is utilized.
279
  
154. The Comsearch Report largely comports with Alion’s findings.  Comsearch noted that 
the 43+10 log (P) dB OOBE limit proposed in the NPRM is equivalent to OOBE of -13 dBm/MHz (-43 
dBW/MHz), the same as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) 
baseline “Category A” limits.
280
  Comsearch suggests that adopting the ITU’s more stringent “Category 
B” limit for OOBE would significantly reduce required protection zones around C-Band earth stations.
281
  
According to Comsearch, interference could occur at a range of up to 47.6 km from C-Band receivers 
with typical separation distances of 5.1 km if Category A devices are authorized by the Commission.
282
  
The typical separation distance would be reduced to 0.7 km if devices are limited to Category B emission 
limits.
283
155. SIA’s comments also addressed protection criteria for C-Band earth stations.
284
  SIA’s 
technical analysis indicated that C-Band earth stations would require protection zones of up to 36.4 km to 
protect them from OOBE in the 3.5 GHz Band.
285
  SIA also asserts that simply determining the size of 
these protection zones is insufficient to ensure protection of existing FSS operations and that the 
Commission must ensure that these protection zones are effectively enforced.
286
156. Google also made multiple submissions, including a detailed technical analysis, 
addressing potential interference from proposed Citizens Broadband operations into C-Band earth 
stations.
287
  Google asserts that emissions from small cells in the 3.5 GHz Band would cause minimal 
interference issues to C-Band receivers and that any potential interference would come from operations in 
close spatial and spectral proximity to those earth stations.
288
  Moreover, Google claims that the look 
angle of C-Band earth stations can have a significant effect on potential interference from OOBE and that 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
NPRM Reply Comments) and Attachment A, Alion Science and Technology, “Effects of the Proposed Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service to C-Band Domsat Earth Stations” (Alion Report) (filed April 5, 2013).
276
See Alion Report and Comsearch Report.
277
All interference calculations assume that commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band utilize 10 megahertz 
bandwidth channels.  See Alion Report at 2-3.
278
The specific distance varies depending on the elevation angle and interference to noise (I/N) ratio of each C-Band
earth station.  See id.
279
Detailed charts showing proposed separation distances under different circumstances can be found at pages 13-18 
of the Alion Report. See id. at 3, 13-18.
280
See id. at 6.
281
See Comsearch Report at 6.
282
Id. at 10.
283
Id.
284
See SIA NPRM Comments at 18-20; SIA NPRM Reply Comments at 22-24; SIA August 2013 Letter; SIA Earth 
Station Interference Study; SIA February 2014 Letter.
285
See SIA Earth Station Interference Study at 6.
286
See SIA August 2013 Letter at 2-3.
287
See Google Letter and Marshall Declaration.
288
See Google Letter at 4-7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
49
protection zones can be significantly reduced by including the positions of these receivers in the SAS.
289
While SIA disagrees with many of Google’s conclusions, they agree that relevant data related to CBSDs 
and earth stations could be programmed into the SAS to allow for real-time calculation of required 
protection distances.
290
157. According to Google’s studies, accounting for the elevation angle of C-Band dishes 
coupled with appropriate placement of Citizens Broadband devices can further reduce the required 
separation distances and areas around C-Band earth stations.
291
  Using Google’s assumptions,
292
the 
maximum required protection distance for any C-Band earth station would be 1.67 km (with an excluded 
area of only .55 km) for an earth station with a 5 degree elevation.
293
  The average protection area for a 
typical earth station would be approximately 0.285 km.
294
  Google asserts that these shaped exclusion 
zones could be managed and enforced by the SAS and that the same techniques could be applied to 
grandfathered earth stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band.
295
  
158. Google also asserts that, due to differences in international C-Band allocations, many C-
Band earth stations in the U.S. “listen” to transmissions well outside of their authorized spectrum 
allocations.
296
  Indeed, Google claims that many such earth stations “listen” for transmissions as low as 
3400 MHz, a full 300 megahertz below their authorized allocation.
297
  The ITU studies cited by SIA 
consider these equipment specifications in reaching their conclusions about harmful interference from 
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
298
  Google asserts that existing C-Band operators should not 
be afforded special protections for equipment that listens well beyond their licensed allocation.
299
Moreover, according to Google, many C-Band earth stations can effectively mitigate interference from 
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band by utilizing readily available, low-cost filters.
300
  Indeed, 
Google asserts that C-Band operators already utilize similar filters to protect themselves from Federal 
radar operations on the 3500-3700 MHz band.
301
159. While the proposed Part 96 rules do not necessarily address all concerns about potential 
interference into C-Band earth stations raised in the record, they do include stricter-than-normal out of 
band emission limits for CBSDs/user devices, and a spectrum access framework utilizing a dynamic SAS. 
The SAS can calculate the expected aggregate power flux density at in-band station locations attributable 
to authorized CBSDs and End User Devices, and authorize operations to ensure that interference 
protection criteria are not exceeded. We propose an equivalent power flux density (EPFD), which would 
                                                     
289
See id. at 6-7 and Marshall Declaration at 7-17.
290
See SIA February 2014 Letter at 5-6.
291
Id. at 5-8.
292
See Marshall Declaration.
293
See id. at 13.
294
See id. at 13-14.
295
See id. at 14-17.
296
See Google Letter at 2.
297
See id.
298
See id.
299
See id.
300
See id. at 1-3 and Marshall Declaration at 4-7.  In their Reply Comments, the Content Interests asserted that, 
while RF front end filters may work in some circumstances, they are not a “panacea.”  See Content Interests NPRM 
Reply Comments at 3.
301
See Google Letter at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
50
be the sum of the power flux densities produced at a geostationary satellite system receive Earth station, 
by CBSD and End User Devices in the area of that earth station. The EPFD would be calculated to take 
into account the off-axis discrimination of the Earth station receiving antenna assumed to be pointing in 
its nominal direction. We seek comment as to whether CBSD and End User Device emission limits based 
on EPFD and SAS authorization controls would adequately address concerns over potential interference 
with C-Band earth stations, or whether additional protections are necessary.
160. The “look angle” of FSS earth stations would have a significant impact on the potential 
for interference from CBSDs, particularly those located at moderate angles (e.g., > 15°) from the axis of 
the FSS earth station main lobe. We seek comment on the effect of the “look angles” of FSS earth 
stations for potential interference from CBSDs, including any potential costs and benefits.  Would the 
SAS be able to effectively monitor and manage information on FSS earth station “look angles” to 
calculate EPFD interference limits, and dynamically adjust any potential protection areas around these 
earth stations accordingly?
161. We also seek comment on additional mitigation strategies that could be employed to 
prevent harmful interference to earth stations and reduce or eliminate the need for geographic separation 
between CBSDs and C-Band earth stations.  Specifically, to what degree could filters be utilized to reduce 
or eliminate harmful interference?  Are current commercially available filters sufficient?  What would be 
the likely cost of installing filters in C-Band and 3.5 GHz Band FSS earth stations? 
4. Enforcement Issues
162. We acknowledge that the proposals in this FNPRM may raise unique enforcement issues 
for the Commission.  Managing real time interactions between a large number of potential Priority Access 
Licensees and GAA Users while ensuring that Incumbent Users are protected from harmful interference 
could present novel enforcement challenges for the Commission to address.  Our proposals, including 
SAS specifications, CBSD technical requirements, and security protocols would help address some of 
these issues and facilitate secure and consistent access to the 3.5 GHz Band for all authorized users.  
Regardless of the degree of automation incorporated into the SAS, the Commission retains ultimate 
responsibility for ensuring that its rules are enforced.  We seek comment on additional enforcement 
techniques and protocols that could be implemented, inside or outside the SAS, to address the unique 
enforcement concerns raised by the proposals set forth in this FNPRM.
5. Extension of Part 96 Rules to 3650-3700 MHz Band
163. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a supplemental proposal to include 
the adjacent 3650-3700 MHz band in the proposed regulatory regime.
302
  As noted in the NPRM, 
incorporating this additional 50 megahertz would create a 150 megahertz contiguous block of spectrum 
that could be used by existing licensees in the 3650-3700 MHz band – as well as new licensees – to 
expand the services that they are already providing.  Subsequently in the Licensing PN the Commission 
sought comment on extending the Revised Framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band, and asked what 
provisions would need to be made for existing operators and how much transition time would be 
required.
303
164. Commenters generally support the proposal to create a 150 megahertz contiguous block 
of spectrum,
304
while a few commenters oppose changing the existing framework for the 3650-3700 MHz 
                                                     
302
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15620-22, ¶¶ 77-82.
303
Licensing PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 15315-16, ¶ 51.
304
See e.g., Google Licensing PN Comments at 13-16; NSN Licensing PN Comments at 8-15; T-Mobile Licensing 
PN Comments at 14; Verizon Licensing PN Comments at 4-5; Qualcomm NPRM Comments at 19.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
51
band.
305
  In addition, WISPA believes that existing 3650–3700 MHz users should get priority access 
protection and have five years to transition to the new framework.
306
  
165. There could be long term gains and significant public interest benefits to extending the 
rules proposed here to the 3650-3700 MHz band, both in terms of terms of spectrum efficiency and 
availability, and economies of scale for equipment across the full 150 megahertz.  However, we recognize 
the significant investment that incumbent 3650-3700 MHz licensees have made.  Should we incorporate 
3650-3700 MHz into the regulatory scheme proposed in this FNPRM, we would seek to do so in a way 
that would maximize the benefits to all potential licensees, while minimizing the costs to incumbent 
licensees.  Below we set forth proposed rules in the event that we opt to incorporate the 3650-3700 MHz 
band into our proposed regulatory framework.
307
166. If we extend these proposed rules, we propose to grandfather existing 3650-3700 MHz 
operations for a period of five years after the effective date of the proposed rules.  More specifically, we 
would treat each incumbent 3650-3700 MHz nationwide licensee (Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Provider) as an Incumbent User within the service contours of its registered base stations or fixed access 
points during the transition period.  During the transition period, existing licensees would be permitted to 
operate stations in accordance with the technical rules in Part 90, Subpart Z, if any have been authorized, 
and would have priority over GAA and Priority Access users in the 3650-3700 MHz band.  During this 
period, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers would be required to avoid causing harmful 
interference to federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations, in accordance with existing Part 90 
rules.
308
  After the transition period, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers would be required to 
protect incumbent operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band consistent with any applicable protection 
criteria the Commission develops in conjunction with NTIA, DoD, and other stakeholders.  Because the 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Provider would continue to operate under Part 90 rules and would not 
operate equipment that is authorized by the SAS, GAA use would not be permitted to interfere with the 
service contour of Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers during the transition period.
167. At the end of the transition period Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers would 
have the option, available to all eligible 3.5 GHz Band users, to apply for PALs or to operate on a GAA 
basis consistent with Part 96 rules.  During the transition period, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Provider with overlapping service contours would be required to coordinate with one another as currently 
required by Part 90, Subpart Z.
309
  
168. We seek comment on this proposed approach to incorporating the 3650-3700 MHz band 
into the regulatory scheme described in this FNPRM.  In particular, we seek comment on whether the five 
year transition period proposed is appropriate. What are current equipment upgrade cycles for fixed and 
mobile equipment in the 3650-3700 MHz band?  Given upgrade cycles, what is the incremental cost of 
                                                     
305
See Comments of Neptuno Media, Inc. d/b/a Neptuno Networks in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 
12-354 (filed December 5, 2013) at 8-9; UTC Licensing PN Comments at 6 (The Commission should only extend 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service to the 3650-3700 MHz band if it adopts the licensing proposals set forth in 
the NPRM); Reply Comments of KanOkla Communications, Inc. in response to Licensing PN in GN Docket No. 12-
354 (filed December 20, 2013) at 1-2 (Arguing that the Commission should maintain the status quo in the 3650-
3700 MHz band).
306
WISPA Licensing PN Comments at 19.
307
See Appendix B.
308
We note that operators in the 3650-3700 MHz band currently operate without restriction within the Exclusion 
Zones we propose.  As such, we do not propose to exclude Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations from these 
areas. However, operators in the 3650-3700 MHz band t would be required to continue to protect grandfathered FSS 
earth stations and the grandfathered federal radiolocation facilities listed in Section 90.1331 of the Commission’s 
Rules.  47 C.F.R. § 90.1331.
309
47 C.F.R. § 90.1319.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
52
upgrading a 3650-3700 MHz system to one that can operate consistent with the proposed Part 96 rules 
over a five year period?  How do these costs weigh against the possibility of upgrading to equipment that 
could access a full 150 megahertz on a PAL or GAA basis?  We seek comment on our proposal to protect 
the service contour of existing licensees.  More specifically what criteria should be used to define the 
existing service contour?  What criteria should be used to define interference to the existing contour from 
GAA users?  We also seek comment on whether there are other grandfathering and transition mechanisms 
that we should consider.  
169. We also seek comment on how the band should be assigned to GAA and Priority Access 
tier users after the transition period.  Under the proposed rules, a minimum of 50 percent of available 
bandwidth would be made available for GAA use at any given time in any given geographic area.  Would 
this formulation still be in the public interest if the supplemental proposal is adopted?  Notably, Microsoft 
suggested that a minimum of 50 megahertz of spectrum should be reserved for GAA uses at all times.
310
  
If we adopt the supplemental proposal, should we guarantee a fixed spectrum floor for GAA (i.e., 50 
megahertz) and make the remainder of the spectrum available as PALs?  We encourage commenters to 
consider the costs and benefits of any proposals they put forth.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules
170. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
311
  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 section 1.1206(b).
312
  In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f)
313
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.
171. We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception for all ex parte
presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives.
314
  This FNPRM raises 
significant technical issues implicating federal and non-federal spectrum allocations and users. Staff from 
NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged in technical discussions in the development of this FNPRM, and 
we anticipate these discussions will continue after this FNPRM is released. These discussions will benefit 
                                                     
310
See Microsoft Licensing PN Comments at 4.
311
47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 et seq.
312
47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).
313
47 C.F.R. § 1.49(f).
314
See 47 C.F.R. §1.1204
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
53
from an open exchange of information between agencies, and may involve sensitive information 
regarding the strategic federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing the value of federal agency 
collaboration on the technical issues raised in this FNPRM, NTIA’s shared jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz 
Band, the importance of protecting federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from interference, and the goal of 
enabling spectrum sharing to help address the ongoing spectrum capacity crunch, we find that this 
exemption serves the public interest.
B. Filing Requirements
172. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,
315
interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  
Comments may be filed using:  (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 
Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
316
  
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.
? Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
o All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s 
Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
St., SW, Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20554.  All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber 
bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.  
The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
o U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 
12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
173. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12
th
Street, S.W., CY-A257, Washington, D.C., 20554.  These documents will also be 
available via ECFS.  Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
174. To request information in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).  This document can also be downloaded in 
Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
175. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Paul Powell of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-1613 or Paul.Powell@fcc.gov.
                                                     
315
See id. §§ 1.415, 1.419.
316
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 
FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
54
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
176. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
317
the Commission 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) relating to the NPRM.  No parties filed 
comments responding to that IRFA.  We seek comment on how the proposed rules set forth herein could 
affect the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as 
comments filed in response to this FNPRM as set forth on the first page of this document and have a 
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
177. Our previous IRFA set forth the need for and objectives of our proposed rules;
318
the legal 
basis for the proposed action;
319
a description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the 
proposed rules would apply;
320
a description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for small entities;
321
steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small 
entities and significant alternatives considered;
322
and a statement that there are no federal rules that may 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rules.
323
  Those descriptions remain unchanged by our
FNPRM, except that we now propose unrestricted eligibility for Priority Access use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
178. Our FNPRM does, however, provide greater detail on some of the specific reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on which we are now seeking comment.  For example, 
it proposes qualifications requirements, and requirements to designate whether users have selected 
common carrier status.  It proposes specific requirements for interactions with the SAS. It would require 
devices to be interoperable across all frequencies from 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz.  It proposes Exclusion 
Zones to ensure compatibility between incumbent federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users, application window procedures for PALs, and limits on the geographic areas, time periods, 
and numbers of PALs that may be acquired, as well as auction procedures that would govern mutually 
exclusive applications therefor.  It proposes a 24 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power limit for 
CBSDs in non-rural areas, and 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) for rural areas.  For fixed point-to-point radio 
systems, it proposes a 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power limit.  It proposes a maximum 
EIRP for End User Devices of 23 dBm (per 10 megahertz), and a -80 dBm signal level threshold as 
measured by a 0 dBi isotropic antenna in 10 megahertz anywhere along any PAL service area boundaries.  
It proposes OOBE of 43 + 10 log (P) dB, and 70 + 10 log (P) dB for emissions below 3520 MHz and 
above 3680 MHz.  In the 3.5 GHz NPRM, the Commission also asked for comment on other alternatives, 
such as utilizing a two-tiered authorization framework, establishing a license-by-rule approach to Priority 
Access, and utilizing an alternative “licensed light” framework akin to the authorization model currently 
used for the 3650-3700 MHz band.  This FNPRM also seeks comment on alternatives, including static 
rather than dynamic frequency assignments and prescribed GAA bandwidths.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
179. This FNPRM contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements.  
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
                                                     
317
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  The SBREFA 
was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA). 
318
3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15649, App. B ¶¶ 2-5.
319
Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15650, App. B ¶ 6.
320
Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15650-51, App. B ¶¶ 7-12.
321
Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15651, App. B ¶¶ 13-15.
322
Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15652, App. B ¶¶ 16-18.
323
Id., 27 FCC Rcd at 15652, App. B ¶ 19. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
55
requirements contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
198,
324
we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
180. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 301, 302(a), 303, 
307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 
157, 301, 302(a), 303, 307(e), and 316, that this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket 
No. 12-354 IS ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
324
See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
APPENDIX A
Proposed Rules
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to amend parts 1, 2, 90, and
95 and add a new Part 96 to Part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as set forth below:
Part 1 – Practice and Procedure
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 
309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
2. Section 1.901 is amended to read as follows: 
§1.901   Basis and purpose
These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et 
seq. The purpose of these rules is to establish the requirements and conditions under which entities may 
be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 
80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter.
3. Section 1.902 is amended to read as follows:
§1.902   Scope
In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart and the rules set forth in Parts 13, 20, 22, 
24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, the 
rules in part 1 shall govern.
4. Section 1.907 is amended to read as follows:
§ 1.907 Definitions
****
Private Wireless Services.Wireless Radio Services authorized by parts 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 
that are not Wireless Telecommunications Services, as defined in this part.
****
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 
96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
Wireless Telecommunications Services.Wireless Radio Services, whether fixed or mobile, that meet the 
definition of “telecommunications service” as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended, and are therefore 
subject to regulation on a common carrier basis. Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio 
services authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, and 27 of this chapter. In addition, Wireless 
Telecommunications Services include Public Coast Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, and common carrier fixed 
microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Local Multipoint Distribution 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
57
Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, 
and Citizens Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this chapter.
5. Section 1.1307 is amended to read as follows:
§ 1.1307 - Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental 
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * *
(b) * * * *
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services 
pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; 
the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite 
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth stations 
only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band 
Service, or the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless 
Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) 
pursuant to part 95 of this chapter; or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this 
chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization 
or use, as specified in §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Part 2 – Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; General Rules and Regulations
6. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
7. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:
a. Revise pages 39-40.
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, add footnotes US106, US107, and US433.
§ 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
58
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                                      2655-4990 MHz (UHF/SHF) Page 
39
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
2655-2670
FIXED  5.410
MOBILE except 
aeronautical
   mobile  5.384A
BROADCASTING-
SATELLITE
   5.208B  5.413  5.416
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149  5.412
2655-2670
FIXED  5.410
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(Earth-to-space)
   (space-to-Earth)  5.415
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.384A
BROADCASTING-
SATELLITE
   5.413  5.416
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149  5.208B
2655-2670
FIXED  5.410
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-
to-space)
   5.415
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.384A
BROADCASTING-
SATELLITE
   5.413  5.416
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149  5.208B  5.420
2655-2690
Earth exploration-
satellite (passive)
Radio astronomy  
US385
Space research 
(passive)
2655-2690
FIXED  US205
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
Wireless
   
Communications 
(27)
2670-2690
FIXED  5.410
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.384A
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149  5.412
2670-2690
FIXED  5.410
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(Earth-to-space)
   (space-to-Earth)  
5.208B  5.415
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.384A
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149
2670-2690
FIXED  5.410
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-
to-space)
   5.415
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.384A
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
(Earth-to-
   space)  5.351A  5.419
Earth exploration-satellite 
(passive)
Radio astronomy
Space research (passive)
5.149 US205 US385
2690-2700
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340  5.422
2690-2700
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY  US74
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US246
2700-2900
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.337
Radiolocation
5.423  5.424
2700-2900
METEOROLOGICAL 
AIDS
AERONAUTICAL 
RADIONAVI-
   GATION  5.337  US18
Radiolocation  G2
5.423  G15
2700-2900
5.423  US18
Aviation (87)
2900-3100
RADIOLOCATION  5.424A
RADIONAVIGATION  5.426
5.425  5.427
2900-3100
RADIOLOCATION  
5.424A  G56
MARITIME 
RADIONAVIGATION
5.427  US44  US316
2900-3100
MARITIME 
RADIONAVIGATION
Radiolocation  US44
5.427  US316
Maritime (80)
Private Land 
Mobile (90)
3100-3300
RADIOLOCATION
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Space research (active)
5.149  5.428
3100-3300
RADIOLOCATION  G59
Earth exploration-
satellite (active)
Space research (active)
US342
3100-3300
Earth exploration-satellite 
(active)
Space research (active)
Radiolocation
US342
Private Land 
Mobile (90)
3300-3400
RADIOLOCATION
3300-3400
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Fixed
Mobile
3300-3400
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
3300-3500
RADIOLOCATION  
US108  G2
3300-3500
Amateur
Radiolocation  US108
Private Land 
Mobile (90)
Amateur Radio 
(97)
5.149  5.429  5.430 5.149 5.149  5.429 US342 5.282  US342
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
59
3400-3600
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
Mobile  5.430A
Radiolocation
3400-3500
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
Amateur
Mobile  5.431A
Radiolocation  5.433
5.282
3400-3500
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
Amateur
Mobile  5.432B
Radiolocation  5.433
5.282  5.432  5.432A
5.431
3500-3700
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
Radiolocation  5.433
3500-3600
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
   5.433A
Radiolocation  5.433
3500-3550
RADIOLOCATION  G59
AERONAUTICAL 
RADIONAVI-
   GATION (ground-
based)  G110
3500-3550
Radiolocation Private Land 
Mobile (90)
3550-3650
RADIOLOCATION   G59
AERONAUTICAL 
RADIONAVI-
   GATION (ground-
based)  G110
US106  US107  US245  
US433 
3550-3600
FIXED
LAND MOBILE
US106  US433
3600-4200
FIXED 
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
Mobile
3600-3700
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
Radiolocation  5.433
5.435
3600-3650
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
   US107  US245
LAND MOBILE
US106  US433
Satellite
   
Communications 
(25)
Private Land 
Mobile (90)
3650-3700
US109  US349
3650-3700
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
   NG169  NG185
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
US109  US349
3700-4200
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
3700-4200 3700-4200
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
   NG180
Satellite
   
Communications 
(25)
Fixed Microwave 
(101)
4200-4400
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.438
5.439  5.440
4200-4400
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
5.440  US261
Aviation (87)
4400-4500
FIXED
MOBILE  5.440A
4400-4500
FIXED
MOBILE
4400-4500
4500-4800
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.441
MOBILE  5.440A
4500-4800
FIXED
MOBILE
US245
4500-4800
FIXED-SATELLITE 
(space-to-Earth)
   5.441  US245
4800-4990
FIXED
MOBILE  5.440A  5.442
Radio astronomy
4800-4940
FIXED
MOBILE
US203  US342
4800-4940
US203  US342
5.149  5.339  5.443
4940-4990
5.339  US342  US385  
G122
4940-4990
FIXED
MOBILE except 
aeronautical mobile
5.339  US342  US385
Public Safety 
Land Mobile
   (90Y)
                        
Page 40
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
60
* * * * *
UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
US106  In the band 3550-3650 MHz, non-Federal stations in the radiolocation service that were 
licensed or applied for prior to [effective date of Report and Order] may continue to operate on a 
secondary basis until the end of the equipment’s useful lifetime.
US107  In the band 3600-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall apply to earth stations in the 
fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth):
(a) Earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of an application filed prior to, [effective 
date of Report and Order], and constructed within 12 months of initial authorization may operate 
indefinitely on a primary basis.  Applications for new earth stations or modifications to earth station 
facilities shall not be accepted, except for changes in polarization, antenna orientation or ownership.
(b) The assignment of frequencies to new earth stations shall be authorized on secondary basis to 
non-Federal stations in the fixed and land mobile services.
* * * * *
US433  In the band 3550-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall apply to Federal use of the 
aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based) and radiolocation services and to non-Federal use of the 
fixed and land mobile services:
(a) Airborne radar systems shall not be authorized.
(b) Non-Federal stations in the fixed and land mobile services shall not be authorized within [XXX
km] of the territorial sea baseline.
(c) Ground-based radar systems operate at the following fixed sites:  [RESERVED].  Non-federal 
operations shall not be permitted within [XX km] of these fixed sites.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
61
§ 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices
* * * * *
(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this 
chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal 
Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services 
pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 
27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this 
chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant 
to part 90 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this 
chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization 
or use if:
* * * * *
§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices
* * * * *
(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this 
chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite 
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station 
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band 
Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless 
Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), 
pursuant to subparts H and I of part 95 of this chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal communication 
service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under §§15.253(f), 15.255(g), 
15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to 
part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment 
authorization or use.
* * * * *
Part 90 – Private Land Mobile Radio Services
8. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
9. Section 90.103 is amended by revising the “3500 to 3650” entry in the Megahertz portion of the 
Radiolocation Service Frequency Table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 90.103  Radiolocation Service.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
62
                                                 RADIOLOCATION SERVICE FREQUENCY TABLE
Frequency or band Class of station(s) Limitation
Kilohertz
* * * * *
Megahertz
420 to 450 ……….….……. ......do 21
2450 to 2500 ……….……. ......do 9, 22, 23
2900 to 3100 …….….……. ......do 10, 11
3100 to 3300 ……………... ......do 12
3300 to 3500 ……………... ......do 12, 13
3500 to 3550 ……………... ......do 12
* * * * *
Part 95 – Personal Radio Services
10. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
11. Section 95.401 is amended to read as follows:
§ 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are Citizens Band Radio Services?
*****
(h) Citizens Broadband Radio Service – The rules for this service, including technical rules, are 
contained in Part 96 of the Commission’s rules.  Only Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices 
authorized on a General Authorized Access basis, as those terms are defined in section 96.3, are 
considered part of the Citizens Band Radio Services.
12. Section 95.601 is amended to read as follows:
§95.601   Basis and purpose
This section provides the technical standards to which each transmitter (apparatus that converts 
electrical energy received from a source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) 
used or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal Radio Services listed below 
must comply. This section also provides requirements for obtaining certification for such transmitters. 
The Personal Radio Services to which these rules apply are the GMRS (General Mobile Radio 
Service)—subpart A, the Family Radio Service (FRS)—subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
63
Service)—subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)—subpart D, the Low Power Radio 
Service (LPRS)—subpart G, the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS)—subpart H, the 
Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio)—subpart I, the Multi-Use Radio Service 
(MURS)—subpart J, and Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-
OBUs)—subpart L.
A new Part 96 is added to read as follows:
13. The authority citation for Part 96 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.
Part 96 – Citizens Broadband Radio Service
Subpart A – GENERAL RULES
§ 96.1 – Scope
§ 96.3 – Definitions
§ 96.5 – Eligibility
§ 96.7 – Authorization Required
§ 96.9 – Regulatory Status
§ 96.11 – Frequencies
§ 96.13 – Frequency Assignments
Subpart B – INCUMBENT PROTECTION
§ 96.15 – Protection of Federal Incumbents
§ 96.17 – Protection of Existing Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth Stations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band
§ 96.19 – Operation Near Canadian and Mexican Borders
Subpart C – PRIORITY ACCESS
§ 96.21 – Authorization
§ 96.23 – Priority Access Licenses
§ 96.25 – Application Window
§ 96.27 – Competitive Bidding Procedures
§ 96.29 – Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses
Subpart D – GENERAL AUTHORIZED ACCESS
§ 96.31 – Authorization
§ 96.33 – General Authorized Access Use
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
64
§ 96.35 – Contained Access Facilities (CAFs)
Subpart E – TECHNICAL RULES
§ 96.36 – Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) General Requirements
§ 96.37 – End User General Requirements
§ 96.38 – General Radio Requirements
§ 96.39 – Equipment Authorization
§ 96.41 – RF Safety
Subpart F – SPECTRUM ACCESS SYSTEM
§ 96.43 – Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality
§ 96.44 – Information Gathering and Retention
§ 96.45 – Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices
§ 96.46 – Frequency Assignment
§ 96.47 – Security
§ 96.48 – Spectrum Access System Administrators
§ 96.49 – Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees
Subpart A - GENERAL RULES
96.1 – Scope
(a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of devices in the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service.  Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) may be used in the frequency bands 
listed in section 96.11.  The operation of all CBSDs shall be coordinated by one or more authorized 
Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).  
(b) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service includes Priority Access and General Authorized 
Access tiers of service.  Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users shall be 
authorized to operate only outside of the Exclusion Zones detailed in section 96.15 and must not cause 
harmful interference to Incumbent Users, including authorized federal users and the fixed satellite service
(FSS) sites set forth in sections 96.15 and 96.17.  General Authorized Access Users must not cause 
harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and must accept interference from Priority Access 
Licensees, consistent with section 96.33.
96.3 – Definitions
Census Tract: Census tracts are relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or 
equivalent entity that are updated by local participants prior to each decennial census as part of the 
Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program.  Census tracts are defined by the United States 
Census Bureau and current census tract maps can be found at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
data/maps/2010tract.html.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
65
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD): Fixed or Portable Base stations, or networks 
of such base stations, that operate on a Priority Access or General Authorized Access basis in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service consistent with this rule part.  Does not include End User Devices.
Contained Access Facility (CAF): An indoor or otherwise physically contained location used by 
Contained Access Users for the express purpose of performing core mission operations.
Contained Access Use: Private internal radio services, not made commercially available to the 
public, employed by Contained Access Users.
Contained Access User: Qualified government and non-government entities entitled to protection 
within CAFs in furtherance of a mission that supports the public interest.
End User Device: A fixed, portable, or mobile device authorized and controlled by an authorized 
CBSD.  These devices may not be used as intermediate service links or to provide service to other End 
User Devices.
Exclusion Zone: A geographic area wherein no CBSD shall operate.  Exclusion Zones shall be 
enforced and maintained by the SAS.
Fast Track Report: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “An 
Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 1675-
1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, 4200-4220 MHz, and 4380-4400 MHz Bands” (October 
2010).
Geo-Location Capability: The capability of a CBSD to determine its geographic coordinates 
within the level of accuracy specified in section 96.36 (i.e., 50 meters horizontally and 3 meters 
vertically). This capability is used by a SAS to determine frequency availability and maximum power 
limits for CBSDs.
General Authorized Access User: An authorized user of CBSDs operating on a General 
Authorized Access basis, as set forth in this part.
Incumbent User: A federal entity or fixed satellite service operator authorized to operate on a 
primary basis on frequencies designated in section 96.11.
Priority Access License (PAL): A license to operate on a Priority Access basis, consistent with 
section 96.21, et seq.
Priority Access Licensee: A holder of one or more PALs.  Priority Access Licensees shall be 
entitled to protection from harmful interference from General Authorized Access Users and other Priority 
Access Licensees within the defined limits of their PAL, consistent with the rules set forth in this part.
Rural Area. For purposes of this part, a Rural Area is defined as a county (or equivalent) with a 
population density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census 
data.
Spectrum Access System (SAS): A system that maintains records of all authorized services and 
devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service frequency bands, is capable of determining the available 
channels at a specific geographic location, provides information on available channels to CBSDs that 
have been certified under the Commission's equipment authorization procedures, determines and enforces 
maximum power levels for CBSDs, and enforces protection criteria for Incumbent Users and Priority 
Access Licensees, and performs other functions as set forth in section 96.43, et seq.  Spectrum Access 
System shall also refer to multiple Spectrum Access Systems operating in coordination and in accordance 
with this rule part.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
66
SAS Administrator:  An entity authorized by the Commission to operate an SAS in accordance 
with the rules and procedures set forth in section 96.48.
96.5 – Eligibility
Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to be a Priority Access Licensee or General Authorized Access User 
under this part, except as set forth in section 96.35.
96.7 – Authorization Required
(a) CBSDs must be used and operated consistent with the rules in this part.  
(b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application, provided that the applicant 
is qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the 
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 
308, 309, and 310.  The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, 
conditions, and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the provisions of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 
96.9 – Regulatory Status
(a) Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users are permitted to provide 
services on a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier basis. An authorized Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service user may render any kind of communications service consistent with the regulatory status 
in its authorization and with the Commission's rules applicable to that service.
96.11 – Frequencies
(a) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service shall be authorized in the 3550-3650 MHz frequency 
band.
96.13 – Frequency Assignments
(a) A minimum of fifty percent of the bandwidth, rounded to the nearest 10 megahertz,  available 
for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users in a given census tract must be reserved for General 
Authorized Access use.  The remaining bandwidth shall be made available to Priority Access Licensees, 
consistent with the procedures in subpart C of this rule part. 
(b) Each PAL shall be authorized to use a 10 megahertz channel as set forth in section 96.23.
(c) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in use by a Priority Access 
Licensee may be utilized by General Authorized Access Users.
(d) The SAS shall assign particular authorized users to specific frequencies, which may be 
reassigned by the SAS.
Subpart B - INCUMBENT PROTECTION
96.15 – Protection of Federal Incumbents
(a) CBSDs must not cause harmful interference to and must accept harmful interference from 
federal users authorized to operate on frequencies set forth in section 96.11.  
(1)  To ensure compatibility between incumbent federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service user, an Exclusion Zone consistent with the recommendations of the Fast Track Report shall be 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
67
maintained around terrestrial federal radiolocation sites and the coastline.  This Exclusion Zone shall be 
enforced by the SAS.
(3) The SAS must immediately suspend operation of any CBSDs found to be causing harmful
interference to Incumbent Users until such harmful interference can be resolved.
96.17 - Protection of Existing FSS Earth Stations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band  
(a) CBSDs shall not cause harmful interference to the FSS earth stations listed in the chart below:
Earth Station 
No.
State City Call Sign Coordinates
1 CA Livermore KA232 37° 45' 40.0" N, 121° 47' 53.0" W
2 CA Malibu E980066 34° 04' 52.6" N, 118° 53' 52.9" W
KA273 34° 04' 50.3" N, 118° 53' 46.4" W
KA91 34° 04' 49.7" N, 118° 53' 43.9" W
KB32 34° 04' 51.0" N, 118° 53' 44.0" W
3 CA Mountain Home KA86 37° 45' 01.7" N, 121° 35' 38.8" W
4 CA Napa E950307 38° 14' 43.7" N, 122° 16' 50.9" W
5 CA Nuevo E010206 33° 47' 46.1" N, 117° 05' 15.1" W
E020169 33° 47' 46.5" N, 117° 05' 15.0" W
E020314 33° 47' 46.0" N, 117° 05' 14.0" W
E020315 33° 47' 45.0" N, 117° 05' 15.0" W
6 CA Salt Creek KA371 38° 56' 20.2" N, 122° 08' 48.0" W
KA372 38° 56' 21.0" N, 122° 08' 49.2" W
KA373 38° 56' 22.3" N, 122° 08' 49.6" W
7 CA San Ramon E6241 37° 45' 39.7" N, 121° 47' 56.8" W
8 CA Santa Paula KA31 34° 24' 05.0" N, 119° 04' 26.0" W
KB34 34° 24' 05.0" N, 119° 04' 29.4" W
KA249 34° 24' 05.0" N, 119° 04' 29.4" W
E980136 34° 24' 06.0" N, 119° 04' 21.8" W
9 CA Somis KA318 34° 19' 31.0" N, 118° 59' 41.0" W
10 CA Sylmar KA274 34° 19' 04.0" N, 118° 29' 00.0" W
E6148 34° 18' 55.0" N, 118° 29' 12.0" W
11 CT Southbury KA312 41° 27' 06.3" N, 073° 17' 21.4" W
KA313 41° 27' 06.3" N, 073° 17' 16.4" W
WA28 41° 27' 05.0" N, 073° 17' 21.0" W
WB36 41° 27' 05.3" N, 073° 17' 19.4" W
WB36 41° 27' 05.1" N, 073° 17' 19.0" W
12 FL Medley E960068 25° 51' 19.0" N, 080° 19' 52.0" W
13 Miami KA407 25° 48' 35.0" N, 080° 21' 10.0" W
KA412 25° 48' 35.0" N, 080° 21' 11.0" W
14 GUM Pulantat KA28 13° 25' 00.0" N, 144° 44' 57.0" E
15 GUM Yonagu KA326 13° 25' 05.2" N, 144° 45' 05.7" E
16 HI Haleiwa E080059 21° 40' 10.4" N, 158° 01' 59.4" W
KA25 21° 40' 14.6" N, 158° 02' 03.1" W
17 HI Kapolei E010016 21° 20' 08.0" N, 158° 05' 25.0" W
E980250 21° 20' 12.6" N, 158° 05' 21.1" W
E100091 21° 20' 10.2" N, 158° 05' 18.0" W
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
68
Earth Station 
No.
State City Call Sign Coordinates
E030087 21° 20' 09.0" N, 158° 05' 25.0" W
18 HI Paumalu KA265 21° 40' 27.0" N, 158° 02' 16.0" W
KA266 21° 40' 15.5" N, 158° 02' 06.1" W
KA267 21° 40' 14.1" N, 158° 02' 06.1" W
KA270 21° 40' 24.0" N, 158° 02' 16.0" W
19 MD Clarksburg KA260 39° 13' 05.0" N, 077° 16' 12.0" W
KA275 39° 13' 07.0" N, 077° 16' 12.0" W
KA259 39° 13' 05.6" N, 077° 16' 12.4" W
KA263 39° 13' 04.4" N, 077° 16' 13.9" W
KA264 39° 13' 05.2" N, 077° 16' 13.9" W
20 MD Hagerstown KA262 39° 35' 57.0" N, 077° 45' 23.0" W
E030071 39° 35' 57.9" N, 077° 45' 17.3" W
E030082 39° 35' 57.9" N, 077° 45' 21.4" W
E030100 39° 35' 59.6" N, 077° 45' 21.4" W
E030101 39° 35' 59.6" N, 077° 45' 17.4" W
E030103 39° 35' 59.1" N, 077° 45' 18.4" W
E000296 39° 35' 54.0" N, 077° 45' 35.0" W
KA261 39° 35' 57.0" N, 077° 45' 22.0" W
E100118 39° 35' 55.0" N, 077° 45' 22.0" W
21 ME Andover E000700 44° 38' 01.2" N, 070° 41' 51.3" W
KA386 44° 37' 58.2" N, 070° 41' 55.3" W
KA349 44° 37' 58.2" N, 070° 41' 54.0" W
22 NJ Franklin E6777 41° 07' 04.0" N, 074° 34' 33.0" W
23 NY Hauppauge E950436 40° 49' 15.4" N, 073° 15' 48.4" W
24 PA Catawissa E980493 40° 53' 39.3" N, 076° 26' 19.8" W
25 PA Roaring Creek KA444 40° 53' 35.9" N, 076° 26' 22.6" W
WA33 40° 53' 37.5" N, 076° 26' 21.8" W
26 PR Humacao E872647 18° 09' 05.0" N, 065° 47' 20.0" W
27 PR San Juan E050314 18° 24' 23.9" N, 066° 01' 46.6" W
28 TN Nashville E960050 36° 14' 05.7" N, 086° 45' 21.4" W
E960073 36° 14' 05.7" N, 086° 45' 19.4" W
E970010 36° 14' 06.2" N, 086° 45' 20.4" W
29 VA Alexandria KA81 38° 47' 36.0" N, 077° 09' 59.0" W
E970267 38° 47' 38.0" N, 077° 09' 46.0" W
30 VA Bristow E000696 38° 47' 02.4" N, 077° 34' 21.9" W
E000152 38° 47' 01.6" N, 077° 34' 24.3" W
E000726 various
31 VA Sterling E030336 38° 59' 07.0" N, 077° 26' 45.0" W
32 VA Quicksburg E000589 38° 43' 45.4" N, 078° 39' 25.1" W
E990175 38° 43' 45.4" N, 078° 39' 24.2" W
33 WA Brewster KA294 48° 08' 50.5" N, 119° 41' 33.2" W
E960222 48° 08' 51.0" N, 119° 41' 29.0" W
E120128 48° 08' 50.0" N, 119° 41' 28.0" W
34 WA Yacolt KA221 45° 51' 46.4" N, 122° 23' 44.3" W
KA323 45° 51' 45.5" N, 122° 23' 43.8" W
35 WV Albright KA413 39° 34' 07.0" N, 079° 34' 45.0" W
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
69
Earth Station 
No.
State City Call Sign Coordinates
36 WV Etam KA378 39° 16' 50.0" N, 079° 44' 13.0" W
WA21 39° 16' 48.0" N, 079° 44' 14.0" W
37 WV Rowlesburg KA351 39° 16' 52.1" N, 079° 44' 10.7" W
These operational restrictions shall be enforced by the Spectrum Access System authorized pursuant to 
section 96.48 below. 
(1) These protection criteria shall only apply to FSS earth stations that are in actual use.  FSS 
earth station licensees must inform SAS Administrators of their operational status annually, no later than 
30 days before the end of the preceding calendar year.
(2) CBSDs may operate within areas that may cause harmful interference to FSS earth stations 
listed in this section provided that the licensee of the FSS earth station and an SAS Administrator 
mutually agree on such operation and the terms of any such agreement are provided to SAS and can be 
enforced by the SAS. 
96.19 – Operation Near Canadian and Mexican Borders
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operation in the 3550-3650 MHz band is subject to current and 
future international agreements with Mexico and Canada.  The terms of these agreements shall be 
enforced by the SAS.
Subpart C - PRIORITY ACCESS
96.21 – Authorization
(a) In general, applications for PALs must:
(1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an authorization;
(2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
(3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application forms;
(4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance with all rules governing the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service; and
(5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and complete in all significant 
respects, in accordance with the provisions of §1.65 of this chapter.
(b) Authorization processes and requirements may be reasonably automated by SAS 
Administrators approved by the Commission in accordance with section 96.48.  The Commission shall 
oversee these processes consistent with its responsibilities under the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended.
(c) CBSDs used for Priority Access must register with the SAS and comply with its instructions 
consistent with section 96.36.
96.23 – Priority Access Licenses
(a) Frequencies shall be made available for Priority Access use, consistent with section 96.13. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
70
(b) Priority Access Licensees shall be protected from harmful interference from CBSDs operated 
by other Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users, consistent with the technical 
rules and interference avoidance criteria set forth in sections 96.36 and 96.38.  Priority Access Licensees 
must protect Incumbent Users from harmful interference, consistent with sections 96.15 and 96.17.  
(c) PALs shall have the following parameters: 
(1) Geography: Each PAL shall consist of a single census tract, as defined in the 2010 census.  
(i) Contiguous Geographic Areas: The SAS shall make reasonable efforts to assign 
geographically contiguous PALs held by the same licensee to the same frequencies.
(2) Channels: Each PAL shall consist of a 10 megahertz channel within the frequency range set 
forth in section 96.13.  Channels shall be assigned by the SAS and the exact frequencies of specific 
assigned channels may be changed at the SAS Administrator’s discretion, in coordination with other SAS 
Administrators.  Priority Access Licensees may request a particular channel or frequency range but will 
not be guaranteed a particular assignment.
(i) Contiguous Channel Frequencies: The SAS shall make reasonable efforts to assign multiple 
channels held by the same Priority Access Licensee to contiguous frequencies.
(3) License Term: Each PAL shall be issued for one-year.  Each PAL shall automatically 
terminate at the end of its one-year term and may not be renewed.  However, Priority Access Licensees 
may reapply for subsequent authorizations in the same census tract, subject to the limitations set forth in 
section 96.25.  Priority Access Licensees may hold consecutive PALs up to the maximum established in
96.25.
(d) CBSDs operating under a PAL authorization must register with an SAS and comply with its 
instructions in accordance with sections 96.36, 96.45, and 96.46. 
(e) Unused PAL channels shall be made available for assignment by the SAS for General 
Authorized Access use provided:
(1) General Authorized Access operation on unused PAL channels must obey the same field 
strength limits established in section 96.38 with respect to any operational areas within the PAL 
assignment; and
(2) Generally Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of interference protection from 
any other users and shall operate on a non-interfering basis with respect to Priority Access Licensees and 
Incumbent Users, consistent with sections 96.15, 96.17, and 96.23.
96.25 – Application Window
(a) Applications for PALs will be accepted annually.  The annual application window and 
application process will be announced by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau via Public Notice.
(b) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may make up to five consecutive years of any PAL 
available through the same application window.  Applicants may apply for PALs up to five years in 
advance of the effective license date.
96.27 – Competitive Bidding Procedures
(a) Mutually exclusive initial applications for PALs 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
71
96.29 – Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses
(a) Priority Access Licensees may aggregate up to three channels in any single census tract.   
Subpart D - GENERAL AUTHORIZED ACCESS
96.31 – Authorization
(a) Any party meeting the eligibility requirements set forth in section 96.5 is authorized to operate 
a CBSD on a General Authorized Access basis by this rule without an individual station license.
(b) CBSDs used for General Authorized Access must register with the SAS and comply with its 
instructions consistent with sections 96.36, 96.45, and 96.46.
96.33 – General Authorized Access Use
(a) Frequencies shall be made available for General Authorized Access use consistent with the 
section 96.13.
(b) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to utilize frequencies assigned to PALs 
when such frequencies are not in use, as determined by the SAS. 
(c) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access Use shall be made available on 
a shared basis and shall not be assigned for the exclusive use of any party. 
(d) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of interference protection from 
other General Authorized Access Users and shall avoid causing harmful interference to Priority Access 
Licensees and Incumbent Users, consistent with sections 96.15, 96.17, and 96.23.
96.35 –Contained Access Facilities (CAFs)
(a) Commission approved Contained Access Users may request an assignment of up to 20 
megahertz of frequencies reserved for GAA use from the SAS to be reserved for Contained Access Use 
inside a CAF.
(1) The requestor must certify to the SAS that it will use the reserved frequencies for Contained 
Access Use within each specifically requested location. 
(b) Such reserved frequencies shall not be available for use by other General Authorized Access 
Users within the physical confines of the CAF, provided:
(1) The requestor undertakes reasonable efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from 
General Authorized Access transmissions originating outside the CAF;
(2) All other rules applicable to General Authorized Access Users apply to CAF use of the 
reserved frequencies, including, but not limited to the requirements that that there shall be no expectation 
of interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users and that CAF users shall not cause 
harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and Incumbent Users, consistent with sections 96.15, 
96.17, and 96.23.
Subpart E - TECHNICAL RULES 
96.36 Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) General Requirements
(a) Geo-location and Reporting Capability: 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
72
(1) The CBSD shall be able to determine its geographic coordinates (referenced to the North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)) to an accuracy of ±50 meters horizontal and  ±3 meters elevation. 
Such geographic coordinates shall be reported to SAS at the time of first activation from a power-off 
condition.  
(2) A CBSD must re-establish its position and report that position within 60 seconds to the SAS
each time it is activated from a power-off condition.
(3) A CBSD must check its location at least once every 60 seconds while in operation and report 
to SAS any location changes exceeding ±50 meters horizontal and  ±3 meters elevation within 60 seconds 
of such location change.
(b) Interoperability: All CBSDs must be capable of operating on any frequency from 3550-3700 
MHz as instructed by the SAS.
(c) Registration with SAS: A CBSD must register with and be authorized by an SAS prior to its 
initial service transmission.  The CBSD shall provide the SAS with its geographic location, antenna 
height above ground level (meters), requested authorization status (Priority Access or General Authorized 
Access), unique FCC identification number, and unique serial number.  If any of this information 
changes, the CBSD shall update the SAS within 60 seconds.  A CBSD shall only operate at or below the 
maximum power level and within locations/areas permitted by the SAS on the frequencies authorized by 
the SAS.  
(1) A CBSD must query the SAS regarding frequency availability at 10 minute intervals and it 
must also receive any incoming commands from the SAS about any changes to power limits and 
frequency availabilities.  CBSD operation must cease within 60 seconds if the SAS indicates that an 
assigned frequency is no longer available or as otherwise instructed by the SAS.
(d) Interference Reporting: CBSDs shall report to an SAS if they experience interference in 
exceeding a threshold as set by an SAS. Such interference reporting may be based on received 
interference signal strength in the same and adjacent channels, packet error rates or other common 
standard metrics as set by SAS.
(e)  Security: CBSDs shall incorporate adequate security measures sufficient to ensure that they 
are capable of communicating with respect to lists of available frequencies only with SASs operated by 
approved SAS Administrators, and that communications between CBSDs and SASs, between individual 
CBSDs, and between CBSDs and mobile devices are secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized 
interception of data. 
(1) For purposes of obtaining operational limits and availabilities and their updates, CBSDs shall 
only contact SASs operated by SAS Administrators approved by the Commission in accordance with 
section 96.48.
(2) All communications between CBSDs and SASs are to be transmitted using secure methods 
that protect the systems from corruption or unauthorized modification of the data.  
(3) Communications between a CBSD and all End User Devices for purposes of obtaining 
operational power and frequency assignments shall employ secure methods that protect the system from 
corruption or unauthorized modification of the data.  
(4) An SAS shall be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data. To 
provide this protection, the SAS Administrator shall establish communications authentication procedures 
sufficient to ensure that the data that the CBSDs receive is from an authorized source.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
73
(f) Device Security: All CBSDs and End User Devices must contain security features sufficient to 
protect against modification of software by unauthorized parties. Applications for certification of CBSDs 
and End User Devices must include an operational description of the technologies and measures that are 
incorporated in the device to comply with the security requirements of this section. In addition, 
applications for certification of CBSDs and End User Devices must identify at least one of the SAS 
databases operated by a designated SAS database administrator that the device will access for 
channel/frequency availability and affirm that the device will conform to the communications security 
methods used by such databases.
(g) Airborne operations by CBSDS and End User Devices are prohibited. 
96.37 - End User Devices General Requirements
Mobile, portable or fixed End User Devices may operate only if they can positively receive and 
decode an authorization signal transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequency channels and power limits 
for their operation. 
96.38 – General Radio Requirements
The requirements in this section apply to CBSDs and their associated End User Devices, unless otherwise 
specified.
(a) Digital Modulation: Systems operating in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service must use 
digital modulation techniques.
(b) Conducted and Emitted Power Limits: Unless otherwise specified in this subsection, the 
maximum conducted output power, maximum transmit antenna gain, maximum Equivalent Isotropically 
Radiated Power (EIRP), and maximum Power Spectral Density (PSD) of any CBSD and End User 
Device must comply with the limits shown in the table below:
Maximum 
Conducted 
Output 
Power 
(dBm/10 
megahertz)**
Maximum 
EIRP
(dBm/10
megahertz)
Maximum
Conducted
PSD 
(dBm/MHz)
End User Device All n/a 23 n/a
CBSD Baseline* 24 30 14
CBSD Rural Areas 30 47 20
CBSD
Fixed Point to 
Point System 
(PTP) 30 53 20
1. *Baseline is all cases not qualified under rural or fixed PTP.
2. ** Maximum Conducted Output Power (as defined in paragraph (4) of this 
section)
(1) For fixed point-to-point radio systems, the maximum conducted output power in paragraph (b) 
must be reduced by 1 dB for every 1 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 23dBi. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
74
(2) CBSDs shall limit their operating power to the minimum necessary for successful operations.  
(3) CBSDs shall include transmit power control capability and the capability to adjust maximum 
EIRP in response to instructions from an SAS (either directly or through an intermediary system). 
Applicants for PAL or General Authorized Access use of the band must include a description of these two 
functionalities for all CBSDs and End User Devices.
(4) Maximum Conducted Output Power is defined as the total transmit power delivered to all 
antennas and antenna elements averaged across all symbols in the signaling alphabet when the transmitter 
is operating at its maximum power control level. Power must be summed across all antennas and antenna 
elements. The average must not include any time intervals during which the transmitter is off or is 
transmitting at a reduced power level. If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g., alternative 
modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power is the highest total transmit power occurring 
in any mode.
(c) Received Signal Strength Limits: CBSD transmissions shall be managed such that the median 
signal strength at any location on the boundary of a co-channel PAL shall not exceed -80 dbm as 
measured by a 0 dBi isotropic antenna in 10 megahertz unless the affected licensees or incumbents agree 
to a different field strength and communicate that to SAS.  
(d) 3.5 GHz Emissions and Interference Limits:
(1) General protection levels. Except as otherwise specified below, for channel and frequency 
assignments made by the SAS to CBSDs operating in the 3550 -3650 MHz band, the power of any 
emission outside the fundamental emission (whether in or outside of the authorized band) shall be 
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the 
power of any emissions below 3520 MHz and above 3680 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter 
power (P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(3) Measurement procedure:
(i) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a 
resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside 
and adjacent to the licensee's authorized frequency channel, a resolution bandwidth of no less than one 
percent of the fundamental emission bandwidth may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is
permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy provided the measured power is integrated over 
the full reference bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as specified).  The emission 
bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center 
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at 
least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring unwanted emissions to demonstrate compliance with the limits, the CBSD and 
End User Device nominal carrier frequency/channel shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's authorized 
frequency block edges, both upper and lower, as the design permits.
(iii) Emission power measurements shall be performed with a peak detector in maximum hold. 
(4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the 
Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
75
(e) Reception Limits:
(1) Priority Access Licensees must accept adjacent channel and in-band blocking interference 
(emissions from other Priority Access users transmitting between 3550 and 3650 MHz) up to a power 
spectral density level not to exceed -30dBm/10 megahertz with greater than 99% probability, unless the 
affected licensees agree to a higher or lower power spectral density limit and communicate with the terms 
of such agreement to the SAS. 
(2) General Authorized Access operations are subject to the conditions that they cause no harmful 
interference to Incumbent Users or Priority Access Licensees and they can claim no protection from 
interference received from Incumbent Users or Priority Access Licensees. The operator of a General 
Authorized Access CBSD shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a SAS that 
the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the 
harmful interference has been corrected.
(3) PA and GAA Licensees must accept interference in authorized areas of operation from federal 
radar systems up to a peak field strength level of 180 dBuV/m.
96.39 – Equipment Authorization
(a) Each CBSD or End User Device utilized for operation under this part and each transmitter 
marketed as set forth in §2.803 of this chapter must be of a type which has been certificated for use under 
this part.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services must request 
equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 
Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station 
authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
96.41 – RF safety
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency radiation exposure requirements 
specified in § 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for 
equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a 
statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted 
emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the 
Commission upon request.
Subpart F – SPECTRUM ACCESS SYSTEM
96.43 – Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality
The SAS serves the following purposes:
(a) To determine and provide to CBSDs the available channels/frequencies at their location.
(b) To determine the maximum permissible transmission power level available to CBSDs at a 
given location and communicate that information to the CBSDs.
(c) To register the identification information and location of CBSDs.
(d) To retain information on and enforce Exclusion Zones in accordance with sections 96.15 and 
96.17.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
76
(e) To protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful interference from General Authorized 
Access Users consistent with 96.23.
(f) To reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF consistent with 96.35.
(g) To ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS and CBSDs. 
96.44 - Information Gathering and Retention
(a) The SAS shall maintain information on registered CBSDs, FSS locations listed in section 
96.17, and Exclusion Zones  
(1) For CBSDs, such information shall include all information required by section 96.36.
(2) For incumbent FSS operators, the SAS shall maintain a record of the location of protected 
earth stations as well as the direction and look angle of all earth station receivers and any other 
information reasonable necessary to perform its functions under this part.
96.45 - Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices
(a) An SAS must collect required information from CBSDs in accordance with the provisions of 
this part.  CBSDs composed of a network of base and fixed stations may employ a subsystem for 
aggregating and communicating all required information with the SAS.
  (1) The SAS must also verify that the FCC identifier (FCC ID) of a device seeking access to its 
services is valid.  A list of devices with valid FCC IDs and the FCC IDs of those devices is to be obtained 
from the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.
(2) The SAS shall not permit CBSDs within Exclusion Zones to register or operate within the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
96.46 - Frequency Assignment
(a) The SAS will determine the available and appropriate channels/frequencies at a given location 
using the geographic information supplied by CBSDs, the frequency assignment data for Incumbent 
Users in the SAS, the authorization status and operating parameters of CBSDs in the surrounding area, 
and such other information necessary to ensure effective operations of CBSDs consistent with this part.
(1) Upon request from the Commission or a CBSD, the SAS shall confirm whether frequencies 
are available in a given geographic area.
(2) Upon request from the Commission, the SAS shall confirm that CBSDs in a given geographic 
area and frequency band have been shut down in response to a request from an Incumbent User.
96.47 – Security
(a) The SAS shall employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications and 
interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot 
access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD.
(b) Communications between CBSDs and the SAS, between individual CBSDs, and between 
different SASs, shall be secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data.  An SAS shall 
be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
77
(c) An SAS shall verify that the FCC identification number supplied by a CBSD is for a certified 
device and may not provide service to an uncertified device.
96.48 – Spectrum Access System Administrators
The Commission will designate one or more entities to administer the SAS. The Commission 
may, at its discretion, permit the functions of an SAS, such as a data repository, federal information 
database, registration, and query services, to be divided among multiple entities; however, it shall 
designate one or more specific entities to be an SAS Administrator responsible for coordination of the 
overall functioning of an SAS and providing services to operators in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service. Each SAS Administrator designated by the Commission shall:
(a) Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the information described in section 
96.44.
(b) Establish a process for acquiring and storing in the database necessary and appropriate 
information from the Commission's databases and synchronizing the database with the current 
Commission databases at least once a day to include newly licensed facilities or any changes to licensed 
facilities.
(c) Establish and follow a process for registering and protecting the Incumbent Users and 
enforcing the protection criteria set forth in sections 96.15 and 96.17.
(d) Establish and follow a process for registering and coordinating Priority Access Licensees.
(e) Establish and follow a process for registering and coordinating General Authorized Access 
Users.
(g) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to ensure that Incumbent Users are 
protected from harmful interference from Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access 
Users consistent with sections 96.15 and 96.17. 
(h) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to ensure that Priority Access 
Licensees are protected from harmful interference from spectrally or geographically adjacent Priority 
Access Licensees and from General Authorized Access Users.
(i) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to ensure that all communications and 
interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot 
access or alter the SAS or the information transmitted from the SAS to CBSDs.
(j) Make its services available to Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users 
on a non-discriminatory basis.
(k) Provide service for a five-year term. This term can be renewed at the Commission's discretion.
(l) Respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, as appropriate, data in the event that 
the Commission or a party brings claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention. This requirement 
applies only to information that the Commission requires to be stored in the SAS.
(m) Secure transfer the information in the SAS, along with the IP addresses and URLs used to 
access the system, and a list of registered CBSDs, to another designated entity in the event it does not 
continue as the SAS administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a reasonable price for such 
conveyance.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
78
(p) If more than one SAS is developed, the administrators shall cooperate to develop a 
standardized process for providing on a daily basis or more often, as appropriate, the data collected 
pursuant to section 96.44.
(q) Provide a means to make all information that the rules require the SAS to collect available to 
the public in a reasonably accessible fashion.
(r) Coordinate with other SAS Administrators including, to the extent possible, sharing 
information, facilitating non-interfering use by CBSDs connected to other SASs, maximizing available 
General Authorized Access frequencies by assigning PALs to similar channels in the same geographic 
regions, and other functions necessary to ensure that available spectrum is used efficiently consistent with 
this part.
96.49 – Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees
(a) An SAS Administrator may charge Citizens Broadband Radio Service users a reasonable fee 
for provision of the services set forth in section 96.43, et seq.
(b) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can require changes in those fees if 
they are found to be excessive.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
79
APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
…
3650 Addendum
In this Appendix, proposed additions to existing and proposed rules are underlined and proposed deletions 
are noted in strike through text,
Part 2 – Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; General Rules and Regulations
2.106 – Table of Frequency Allocations.
Part 90 – Private Land Mobile Radio Services
90.1303 – Eligibility
(a) Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to hold a license under this part.
(a) Eligibility under this part is limited to entities authorized under this Part as of [adoption date].  
(b) Eligibility for all authorized users under this Part terminates 5 years after [adoption date].
90.1307 – Licensing
(a) The 3650-3700 MHz band is licensed on the basis of non-exclusive nationwide licenses. Non-
exclusive nationwide licenses will serve as a prerequisite for registering individual fixed and base 
stations. A licensee cannot operate a fixed or base station before registering it under its license and 
licensees must delete registrations for unused fixed and base stations.
(a)  The Commission shall issue no new non-exclusive nationwide licenses for this band after 
[adoption date], 
90.1311 – License Term
(a) The license term is ten years, beginning on the date of the initial authorization (non-exclusive 
nationwide license) grant. Registering fixed and base stations will not change the overall renewal period 
of the license.
(a) All licenses will terminate in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part [x referencing 
relevant Part 96 rules] 5 year after [adoption date].
90.1338 – Grandfathered Operation and Transition to Citizens Broadband Radio Service
(a) Existing licenses as of [adoption date] may continue to operate fixed or base stations that were 
registered prior to [adoption date] in a manner consistent with the rules in this Part for a period of 5 years 
after [adoption date].
(1) Fixed and Base station registrations (for access points) filed prior to [adoption date] will be 
afforded protection from interference caused by GAA users for 5 years from [adoption date]
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
80
(b) Existing licensees as of [adoption date] may register new fixed and base stations under their 
existing non-exclusive nationwide license until 5years after [adoption date].  Registrations filed after 
[adoption date] will not be afforded protection from harmful interference unless the licensee applies 
separately under the provisions in section 96.23.  
(c) Existing licensees as of [adoption date] may add new mobile or portable stations (as defined in 
90.1333) and/or add new subscriber units that operate above the power limit defined in 90.1333, but 
otherwise comply with the requirement to operate only if they can positively receive and decode an 
enabling signal from a base station.   Such mobile/portable/subscriber units may operate until 5 years after 
[adoption date].  
(d) After 5 years from [adoption date], licensees that wish to continue operation must either apply 
for a PAL license and operate consistent with the rules set forth in Part 96, subpart C or operate as a  
GAA user consistent with the Rules in Part 96, subpart D .
Part 96 – Citizens Broadband Radio Service
Subpart A - GENERAL RULES
96.3 – Definitions
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee:  A licensee authorized to operate in the 3650-3700 
MHz band under the rules in Part 90 subpart Z as of date of [adoption].
96.7 – Authorization Required
(c) (c) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees are authorized as to operate their fixed base 
station access points that were registered as of [adoption date], for a period of 5 years [from the date of 
adoption].
Subpart [X] - INCUMBENT PROTECTION
96.20 – Protection of Existing Operators in the 3650-3700 MHz Band
(a) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees shall be granted Incumbent User status for the 
area of operation and frequencies of  their fixed base station access points that were registered prior to 
[adoption date] for 5 years from [adoption date].  Notwithstanding this status, Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensees shall avoid harmful interference to authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS 
earth stations consistent with the rules governing Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators in this part.
(1) The area of operation for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees will be defined as the 
service contour of an existing registered base or fixed access point.  Registered subscriber units 
(subscriber units that were registered because they operate above the mobile power limit listed in 
90.1333) will not be included in these service contour calculations.  These contours will be included in 
the SAS.
(2) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees may operate within their service contours 
consistent with the technical rules in Part 90, subpart Z until 5 years from [adoption date].
(3) Where the service contours of Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees overlap, the 
licensees will be required to share the spectrum as previously required under the technical rules in Part 90, 
subpart Z.  After 5 years from [adoption date] licensees that wish to continue operation after that date 
must apply for PALs consistent with the rules set forth in Part 96 subpart C or operate as a GAA user 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
81
consistent with the Rules in Part 96, subpart D .  Mutually exclusive applications for PALs in the initial 
window after these grandfathering provisions sunset will be resolved as set forth in section 96.27.
(a) To protect authorized federal operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band, an Exclusion Zone of 
[XX] kilometers from the following locations shall be maintained.  
St.	Inigoes,	MD—38??10??N.,	76?,	23??W.
Pascagoula,	MS—30??22??N.,	88?,	29??W.
Pensacola,	FL—30??21??28??N.,	87?,	16??26?W.
This Exclusion Zones shall be enforced by the SAS.
(b) To protect grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band a protection zone of 
150 kilometers from the locations of grandfathered FSS earth stations shall be maintained for 5 years 
from [adoption date] for Citizens Broadband Radio Services operating in the 3650 -3700 MHz band.  
Thereafter, such FSS earth stations shall be protected from harmful interference consistent with the 
protections afforded other FSS earth stations pursuant to section 96.17.
Subpart [X] – SPECTRUM ACCESS SYSTEM
96.43 – Spectrum Access System
(a) . . .
(b) . . .
. . .
(3) For incumbent federal users, the SAS shall maintain a record of any information submitted by 
federal users necessary to protect their operations in the 3550-3650 3700 MHz band.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
82
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 
3550-3650 MHz Band, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354
Today we take an important step towards a new spectrum future. Not only are we proposing to 
open up the 3.5 GHz band, but we are also enabling the powerful new concept of spectrum sharing among 
multiple users on an hierarchical basis.
In July 2012, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a 
landmark report on maximizing the potential of wireless spectrum to grow our economy and enable other 
benefits for the American people. The PCAST report highlighted spectrum sharing as a next-generation 
policy innovation that holds the potential to revolutionize the way we manage our airwaves. With this 
item, the Commission takes another significant step to turning this concept into reality.
Both the PCAST and the FCC’s Technological Advisory Council, which I was honored to lead, 
recommended that the Commission target the 3.5 GHz as an “innovation band.” Building on what the 
Commission has already done under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski and Chairwoman Clyburn, 
that’s exactly what we’re doing in this item.
This Notice proposes a three-tiered spectrum access model, which includes federal and non-
federal incumbents, priority access licensees, and general authorized access users. The three-tiered 
construct was a key aspect of the PCAST report, and is necessary to realizing the full potential of 
spectrum sharing.
Second, it proposes a single, highly flexible band plan, avoiding the analog trap of Balkanizing 
spectrum into sub-bands, each with its own sets of rules.
Third, the Notice anticipates a wide range of flexible uses. Small cells will undoubtedly be a core 
use case, but we would not limit the band to such use.
Finally, the Notice reflects economic incentives. Even with the most efficient technology, there 
will always be places and times where there is rivalry for spectrum access. To that end, the Notice 
proposes a flexible auction and licensing scheme that leverages the technical capabilities of a Spectrum 
Access System (SAS) database. Think of the SAS as a traffic cop for spectrum in that it can assess what 
spectrum is available so that it can be accessed by prioritized users.
I know that the three-tier construct and non-traditional licensing scheme is a bit nouveau. That’s 
by design; if we are going to have sufficient spectrum for the needs of the 21
st
century, we are going to 
have to think anew. This proposal could unlock vast new opportunities for wireless – in huge verticals 
like energy, healthcare, and financial services. We also see the 3.5 GHz band as a potential home for new 
technologies like LTE-Unlicensed, which could inhabit the General Authorized Access tier. Or it could 
allow for new flavors of Wi-Fi. There is huge upside within this proceeding. We should not flinch from 
the opportunity simply because it is not standard operating procedure.
Thank you to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Office of Engineering and 
Technology, the International Bureau, and the Office of the General Counsel for their outstanding, out-of-
the-box work on this issue.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
83
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 
3550-3650 MHz Band, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354
There are some who say that – like oil and water – regulation and innovation just don't mix.  All 
too often, they contend, regulation effectively protects incumbents and stifles innovation by creating 
barriers to entry for new entrants and disruptive technologies.  
This proceeding, which builds upon recommendations in the July 2012 PCAST Report, offers a 
possible rebuttal to that position.  It clearly shows the federal government understands that technological 
advances can enable us to depart from traditional regulatory models and adopt new approaches, with 
lower administrative costs, which could spur even greater innovation from incumbent carriers, and new 
entrants.  Because repurposing federal spectrum for commercial use can take years, and the country’s 
demand for mobile broadband services will not wait that long, the PCAST Report recommended that 
commercial services share underutilized federal spectrum to the maximum extent possible.  The advances 
in small cell networks and the concepts in the successful TV White Space databases, make that degree of 
spectrum sharing possible.  
So, in 2012, we adopted an NPRM that proposed new spectrum management concepts with a 
license by rule framework which would provide for Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General 
Authorized Access tiers.  We proposed a highly flexible band plan to facilitate rapid broadband 
deployment while protecting existing federal and commercial incumbent users in the 3.5 Gigahertz band.  
That NPRM also improved on the PCAST recommendation by including the 3650 to 3700 megahertz 
band.  This band is used extensively by wireless Internet service providers, or WISPs, to provide 
broadband in rural and other underserved areas.  
This Further Notice brings even more creativity to the proceeding, by revising the licensing 
framework, in order to incentivize more efficient use of the Priority Access tier.  Instead of licensing that 
tier to only certain institutions by rule, we propose to expand the eligibility to all entities and establish 
granular flexible Priority Access Licenses that would amount to a 10 megahertz license, for one census 
tract, for one year that can be aggregated.  If more than one entity wants the same license for the same 
year, there will be an auction.  Although these licenses would have some of the key features of traditional 
FCC licenses, such as exclusive spectrum rights, because they are shorter in duration, they would not 
have other features, such as performance requirements.  The goal is to establish a license, with lower 
administrative costs, that would allow for micro-targeted network deployments; and easy aggregation, to 
serve a larger footprint for a longer period of time.  
By enabling aggregation, this framework would allow for the type of predictability that would 
attract larger carriers, to invest in equipment for the band.  Because we also propose to require 
interoperability across all three tiers throughout the 150 megahertz in the band, this approach has the 
added benefit of bringing greater spectrum availability and equipment scale economies to WISPs, new 
entrants, and small businesses who want to provide service in the band.  
I want to thank Roger Sherman, Julie Knapp, and the staffs of the Wireless Bureau, OET and 
International Bureau, and my legal advisor, Louis Peraertz, for their hard work on this item and their 
contributions throughout this proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
84
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 
3550-3650 MHz Band, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354
If you want to get a glimpse into the future of spectrum policy, take a look at the 3.5 GHz band.  
What we are poised to do with this band is creative, innovative, and could serve as the blueprint for 
making smarter use of our airwaves going forward.   
But before looking ahead, it is helpful to look back at how we got here.  Four years ago, the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) identified the 3.5 GHz band as 
one of the spectrum bands most suitable for shared use between government and commercial interests.  
But the response to the NTIA proposal was muted, interest was limited, and enthusiasm was hard to find.  
Because it was apparent to everyone that protecting existing users in the band—from Department of 
Defense radars to commercial fixed satellite services—would mean significant geographic limitations for 
new services.  As a result, the ability to make use of this spectrum was limited in the most populous areas 
of the country.  Moreover, because the band is above 3 GHz, it did not hold much appeal for mobile 
broadband.  After all, signals at high frequency like this can fade too quickly.  
So the outlook for commercial opportunity in the 3.5 GHz band was not good.  But now, based on 
recommendations from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, rather than 
discarding this band as junk, we are staring at new opportunities.  These opportunities will be built on a 
creative three-tiered approach to spectrum access.  This proposal simultaneously protects existing users, 
creates new spectrum licenses custom-built for small cell deployments, and opens up more spectrum for 
unlicensed services—the jet fuel of wireless innovation.  This is very cool—and very smart, too.
But setting aside history and the here and now, I want to talk about what our proposals mean for 
the future.  
First, with our work on the 3.5 GHz band we demonstrate that we are leaving behind the tired 
notion that we face a choice between licensed and unlicensed airwaves.  This kind of division is a 
simplistic relic from the spectrum past.  We cannot let it haunt us in the future.  Because there is no doubt 
that good spectrum policy requires both licensed and unlicensed services.  Moreover, the next generation 
of wireless devices and the coming Internet of Things will not rely on a single spectrum band to function.  
Instead, services will overcome spectral and physical challenges by moving from frequency to 
frequency—sometimes on spectrum that is licensed and sometimes on spectrum that is unlicensed.  
Second, with our work on the 3.5 GHz band we make clear that small cells have a big future.  
They can expand connectivity and facilitate more efficient use of existing frequencies.  They can cover 
areas that cannot be reached using macro cell services—and at the same time they can limit interference 
risk.  In fact through small cell use, what was once considered a weakness of higher spectrum bands—
namely short propagation distance—can be turned into a strength.  
Third, if we can manage the exclusion zones that have previously limited interest in the 3.5 GHz 
band, we may have also discovered the key to unlocking use of another 120 megahertz in the 5 GHz band.  
That’s because the same kinds of federal radar systems that use the 3.5 GHz band also operate in the 
5350-5470 MHz band.  If this band sounds familiar, that’s because it was a band identified by Congress 
in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act as a potential new home for unlicensed services.  But 
our efforts to realize this potential have been frustrated by the usual and familiar—the needs of existing 
users in the band, including federal radar systems.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
85
However, as we move closer to solutions for the 3.5 GHz band, we just might have blueprint for 
freeing more spectrum for unlicensed services in the 5350-5470 MHz band.  In other words, what we 
learn from managing exclusion zones in the 3.5 GHz band could yield possibilities for commercial 
services in the 5 GHz band.  That would be a good way to honor our directive from Congress, a good way 
to reduce congestion on licensed service networks, and a good way to increase unlicensed spectrum 
opportunities.  These are all good things that can lead to more spectral support for the Internet of Things.  
So thank you to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and 
Technology for your creative work on the 3.5 GHz band and for your continuing work on more 
innovative spectrum possibilities in the future.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
86
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 
3550-3650 MHz Band, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354
To those familiar with spectrum policy, it should be no surprise that federal incumbents aren’t the 
most efficient users.  The 3.5 GHz band is a case in point—relatively minor use of that band along the 
nation’s coasts has left the majority of this spectrum under-utilized for decades.  Now it’s time to put it to 
work for consumers.  As I observed when we launched this proceeding,
1
a simple test must guide our 
approach:  What works?  Can our proposals for the 3.5 GHz band be implemented in the real world?  Can 
consumer products be brought to market in a timely manner?  We must approach the 3.5 GHz band from 
a practical perspective, not merely a theoretical one.
When viewed through this lens, today’s item is a mixed bag, and I therefore will be voting to 
concur.  I am pleased that our proposals have improved in some respects over the course of the last 
sixteen months.  For example, while the 2012 NPRM proposed that the Commission set aside the entire 
category of tier two priority access authorizations for a small and defined set of preferred users, today’s 
item moves in a different direction.  It liberalizes access to the band and proposes that any entity should 
be eligible to hold a priority access authorization.  The item finds that open eligibility will promote more 
intensive use of the band and promote investment in new small cell technologies that could make 3.5 GHz 
a success.  That’s the right approach.
Unfortunately, much of this item is “déjà vu all over again” as Yogi Berra once put it, and 
represents a disappointing lack of progress.  The foremost problem involves exclusion zones.  Back in 
2010, when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) first identified the 
3.5 GHz band for possible commercial use, the agency drew enormously large protection zones around 
the federal incumbent users.  It developed these zones based on its analysis and modeling of a specific 
type of commercial use—one that involved high-power, high-site, macro-cell deployments.
In light of NTIA’s determination, our 2012 NPRM declined to pursue a macro-cell approach for 
the 3.5 GHz band.  Instead, we sought comment on low-power, small cell deployments.
2
  Because this 
kind of network architecture is vastly different from traditional deployments, we noted that some key 
NTIA assumptions would “not apply and would need to be revisited.”
3
  We indicated our view that those 
2010 exclusion zones could be reduced significantly in light of our small cell proposal.  And we asked 
commenters to perform and provide the technical analyses that would be necessary to do so.
4
They did.  The private sector took up the Commission’s call and supplied us with detailed and 
unchallenged technical analyses showing that NTIA’s 2010 exclusion zones can be dramatically reduced 
for small cell deployments.
5
  The calculations performed by Qualcomm have been particularly helpful. 
                                                     
1
See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550–3650 MHz Band,
GN Docket No. 12-354, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 15594, 15658 (2012) (Statement of 
Commissioner Ajit Pai).
2
See, e.g., id. at 15597, para. 6.
3
Id. at 15633, para. 118.
4
See, e.g., id. at 15629–34, paras. 109–18.
5
See, e.g., Letter from John W. Kuzin, Senior Director of Government Affairs – Regulatory, Qualcomm, to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 12-354 (Apr. 15, 2014) (Qualcomm Ex Parte Letter); see also
Qualcomm Comments at iii, 17 (Feb. 20, 2013).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
87
They show that NTIA’s exclusion zones, which reached a maximum of 346 miles, can be reduced to less 
than 10 miles for small cell deployments.
6
But unfortunately, the FCC has not done its part.  Today’s item does not incorporate the 
unrebutted technical evidence showing that the 2010 exclusion zones can be dramatically reduced while 
still protecting incumbent federal users—evidence we asked parties to submit.  In fact, the Commission 
refuses even to seek comment on that analysis and simply proposes to codify the 2010 exclusion zones.  
Instead of going where the facts take us, the Commission double downs on where they don’t.  To be clear, 
the Commission does not simply seek comment on this issue.  It proposes to adopt those zones as rules.
This is surprising for two basic reasons.  First, I have yet to hear from anyone who believes 
NTIA’s 2010 exclusion zones are appropriate for the type of small cell uses we’re proposing for this 
band.  Indeed, even NTIA did not propose that the Commission adopt those zones for small cell use cases.  
Its Fast Track Report included the express caveat that NTIA would “need to revise the analysis” for any 
use case other than the high-power one it studied.
7
  Similarly, the 2012 PCAST Report explained that 
those zones would be necessary for high-power, wide-area uses but concluded that low-power uses 
greatly minimize the need for exclusion zones and could even eliminate them entirely.
8
Second, I have serious concerns about what the item’s proposed exclusion zones mean for the 
success of the 3.5 GHz band.  I noted at the outset of this proceeding that a decision to adopt those zones 
would mean that 60 percent of the U.S. population would be prohibited from using 3.5 GHz devices.  I 
explained that this was particularly troublesome because the substantial majority of spectrum-limited 
markets in the U.S. would fall within those zones.  And now the record indicates that the band simply 
“would not be commercially viable” were the 3.5 GHz band only available for consumer use outside of 
those 2010 zones.
9
So, to summarize:  The entity that drew the 2010 exclusion zones did not recommend that they 
apply here; PCAST found that they are not needed for small cell deployments; the unchallenged record 
evidence shows that they’re unnecessary to protect federal incumbents; and no one that I’m aware of 
believes that they make sense for the use cases we’re considering.  Nonetheless, we once again propose to 
codify them.
Going forward, the success of the 3.5 GHz band depends on shrinking the proposed exclusion 
zones.  I hope interested parties take advantage of the Commission’s characterization of this proposal as a 
“starting point” and, once again, share their ideas and analysis on how to accomplish that goal.
Beyond the exclusion zones, I have additional concerns regarding some of today’s proposals.  For 
instance, I question the proposal to impose a hard, 30 MHz cap on the amount of priority access spectrum 
that any one entity can hold.  Similarly, I question the item’s proposal to carve out 20 MHz of spectrum 
as a set aside for certain groups of preferred users.  I am skeptical that these attempts to pick winners and 
losers will serve the public interest.
Notwithstanding these concerns, I look forward to learning from the record that will be compiled 
as a result of today’s item.  And I hope we meaningfully improve our proposals so that American 
consumers will be able to benefit from the 3.5 GHz band.  In this sentiment, I take inspiration from 
another of Yogi Berra’s wise aphorisms, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”
                                                     
6
See Qualcomm Comments at 17 (Feb. 20, 2013).
7
See NTIA, An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 
1675–1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 3500–3650 MHz, 4200–4220 MHz, and 4380–4400 MHz Bands at 1–7 (2010).
8
See President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President: Realizing the Full 
Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth at 7 n.33 (July 20, 2012); see id. at 51.
9
See, e.g., Qualcomm Ex Parte Letter at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
88
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 
3550-3650 MHz Band, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354
Today, we take another step towards allocating the 3.5 GHz Band for additional wireless uses.  
Currently, this valuable spectrum is used for federal and non-federal services, such as radar systems and 
satellite earth stations.  In the future, it could be opened up for use by small cell systems, wireless 
backhaul, or the next innovative wireless technology.  But, we are faced with balancing the introduction 
of new wireless services with the challenging task of protecting incumbents from harmful interference.  
That is why I strongly prefer clearing federal government users and reallocating over sharing.  In 
this unique case, however, it may be worthwhile to pursue sharing to move forward quickly instead of 
waiting for a better solution or for clearing to be completed.  To this end, the 3.5 GHz Band will be one 
big experiment in terms of the proposed sharing design and licensing scheme.  We place a lot of trust that 
this novel effort will be successful.  But, if it does not meet expectations, we are not precluded from 
altering it in the future.  Accordingly, I will vote in favor today’s further notice that seeks to ask 
questions, acquire additional information, and obtain necessary data on how this experiment should best 
proceed.  While I will keep an open mind as the record develops, I have several concerns that I would like 
to see addressed before any final rulemaking.
First, I worry that the proposed exclusion zones are too large to attract adequate interest and 
investment in this band.  Despite evidence in the record showing that low-power small cell systems will 
not require such large exclusion zones, there has been no progress in reducing their size, even for this 
limited purpose.  Today’s further notice walls off the same 60 percent of the United States population as 
introduced by NTIA in 2010 and put forth in the Commission’s original notice in December 2012.
1
  The 
3.5 GHz Band would be largely unusable on the east and west coasts and along the Gulf.  As you can see 
from the slide, New England, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana; almost all of New York, Virginia, 
California; and half of Texas are in exclusion zones.
2
  I hope and trust that they can be substantially 
reduced and that there will be opportunities for the new wireless operators and federal incumbents to 
coordinate in these areas.    
Second, I am concerned that the proposed term and geographic size of the Priority Access 
Licenses, or “PALs,” may also hinder investment and innovation.  For example, the PALs may be 
licensed for one year terms that may be aggregated up to five years.  There is no certainty that, after 
making the capital expenditure during that time, a licensee would be able to continue its priority access.  
Additionally, the item proposes to license PALs by census tracts, which means there would be 
approximately 74,000 licenses.
3
  As a result, applicants could face the difficulty of bidding on thousands 
of licenses in order to cover any one metropolitan area.  
                                                     
1
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, An Assessment of 
the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 
3500-3650 MHz, 4200-4220 MHz, and 4380-4400 MHz Bands (rel. Oct. 2010) (NTIA Fast Track Report), available 
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fasttrackevaluation_11152010.pdf; Amendment of the 
Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15594 (2012).
2
NTIA Fast Track Report at 5-7, Fig. 5-3.
3
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2010 Census Tallies of Census Tracts, Block Groups & Blocks, 
https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tallies/tractblock.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
89
Third, this further notice supports a three-tiered use system that includes incumbents, PALs, and 
General Authorized Access (GAA) users.  If this is not complicated enough, the Commission proposes to
reserve up to 20 megahertz of spectrum for critical users within indoor facilities and may expand this 
preferential treatment to certain outdoor facilities.  This could reduce available spectrum for GAA users.  
And, although we have not fully defined this class of users at this stage, it does not appear that many 
hospitals, public safety entities or local governments are actively seeking this spectrum.  Why not 
eliminate Contained Access User set-asides and allow GAA or PAL providers to offer services to these 
users?  Similarly, if critical users have a need, why can’t they apply for GAA spectrum or PALs?  
Further, this item proposes spectrum aggregation limits for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band which I 
believe to be completely unnecessary.  Given the propagation characteristics of this spectrum and its ease 
of reuse, there will be plenty of opportunity for operators to deploy any number of devices and services in 
this spectrum.    
Finally, the 3.5 GHz Band is ideal for placement of small cells which are helping carriers manage 
network congestion as data use increases exponentially every year.  We need to do all we can to enable 
more efficient small cell deployment to bring better wireless broadband service to Americans.  Therefore, 
I hope that the Commission will expeditiously conclude this proceeding to make the additional spectrum 
available for this purpose.  At the same time, we should work to finalize the proceeding to implement 
section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, or separate off for its own proceeding 
consideration of just small cells, whichever can be done faster.  If we want the 3.5 GHz experiment to 
work, we need to move on small cell siting.   
I thank the dedicated staff from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology and the International Bureau for all of their efforts so far, including sensitive 
and complicated negotiations with NTIA and other federal agencies, and for all the work that lies ahead to 
get this rulemaking across the finish line.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-49
90
Source: NTIA Fast Track Report at 5-7, Fig. 5-3.
Composite	Depiction	of	Exclusion	Zone	Distances,						
Shipborne	Radar	Systems