Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101 
 Before the 
Federal Communications Commission  
Washington, D.C. 20554  
 
 
In the Matter of  
 
Spectrum Rules and Policies for the Operation of 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems  
 
Petition of AIA for Rulemaking to Adopt Service 
Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Command 
and Control in the 5030 -5091 MHz Band  ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
 
WT Docket No. 22- 323 
 
 RM-11798 (terminated)  
 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING  
 
Adopted:  December 23, 2022  Released:  January 4, 2023 
 
Comment Date:  (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)  
Reply Comment Date:  ( 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)  
 
By the Commission: Commissioner Starks issuing a statement.  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Heading  Paragraph #  
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 
II. UAS COMMUNICATIONS IN THE 5030 -5091 MHZ BAND  ....................................................4 
A. Background  ....................................................................................................................4 
B. Discussion  .................................................................................................................... 11 
1. Band Plan  ............................................................................................................... 13 
2. Dynamic Frequency Management System  ................................................................... 26 
3. Multi- stakeholder Group  ........................................................................................... 45 
4. Scope of Permissible Services .................................................................................... 47 
5. Eligibility Restrictions  .............................................................................................. 53 
6. Non-Networked Access ( NNA) Service Rules .............................................................. 58 
7. Network Supported Service (NSS) Service Rules .......................................................... 75 
8. Equipment Authorization  .......................................................................................... 99 
9. Protection of Other Services  .................................................................................... 100 
a. Microwave Landing Systems  ............................................................................. 100 
b. Out-of-band Services  ........................................................................................ 104 
c. Canadian and Mexican Coordination  ................................................................... 110 
III. AIRBORNE USE OF FLEXIBLE -USE SPECTRUM  ............................................................ 111 
A. Background  ................................................................................................................ 114 
B. Applicable Spectrum Bands  .......................................................................................... 120 
C. Sufficiency of Existing Rules  ........................................................................................ 122 
D. UAS Impact on Spectrum Rights  ................................................................................... 146 
IV. LICENSING UAS OPERATORS FOR VHF COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 151 
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ............................................................................................... 164 
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES  .................................................................................................... 170 
APPENDIX A – Proposed Rules   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
2 APPENDIX B – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters  
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Unmanned aircraft are being used to deliver consumer packages and life -saving medical 
supplies, facilitate the rapid restoration of power infrastructure after a storm, and aid in first responder 
missions such as search and rescue and wildfire management , among innumerable other beneficial public 
and private uses.  These operations depend on wireless communications for purposes ranging from flight control communications between a ground- based control station and the unmanned aircraft (UA) 
(hereinafter referenced collectively in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as an unmanned aircraft system or UAS) to the  delivery of mission- related payload information from the UA.
1  In this 
NPRM, we take several steps to promote access by UA operators to licensed spectrum for these purposes.  
2. First, we address the 5030- 5091 MHz band, which the Commission previously alloc ated 
to support terrestrial control links for UAS without adopting service rules.  Because technical work regarding UAS is still in a nascent stage, we anticipate that service rules sufficient to facilitate UAS operations will likely require development in phases.   We now take the first step to develop such rules.  
We seek comment on service rules for the 5030- 5091 MHz band that will provide UAS operators with 
access to licensed spectrum with the reliability necessary to support safety -critical UAS communic ations 
links.  Second, due to the increasing interest in operating UAS using existing terrestrial flexible -use 
spectrum networks, we seek comment on whether the Commission’s rules are adequate to ensure co-existence of terrestrial mobile operations and UAS  use or whether changes to our rules are necessary.
2  
Third, to further promote the safe integration of unmanned aircraft operations in controlled airspace  and 
facilitate flight coordination, we propose a process for UAS operators to obtain a license in t he 
aeronautical VHF band to communicate with air traffic control and other aircraft.  Together, these measures will help to promote the growth and safety of UAS operations.
3  
3. This proceeding implicates the jurisdiction and concerns of multiple federal age ncies.  
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the jurisdictional responsibility to ensure the safety of 
aircraft, including UAS , and  is tasked by statute with the safe integration of UAS into the National 
Airspace System.4  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA), which 
 
1 More specifically, we use the term unmanned aircraft system(s) (UAS) in this NPRM to reference a UA together 
with all the associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the UA) that are 
required for the safe and efficie nt operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States.  As discussed below, we 
seek comment on our proposal to adopt this definition of “unmanned aircraft system” for the 5030 -5091 MHz band 
service rules.  
2 To this end, we seek comment on the suffici ency of the current flexible- use rules to prevent interference to and 
from UAS operations, and on whether we can eliminate the current prohibitions on airborne oper ations applicable to 
certa in of these flexible -use bands.  
3 We note that AURA Network System s OpCo, LLC and A2G Communications, LLC, have a pending petition for 
rulemaking requesting rule changes to allow the 450 MHz General Aviation Air -Ground Radiotelephone Service 
band to be used for a broader range of services, including data communications w ith UAS.  See Petition for 
Rulemaking by AURA Network Systems OpCo, LLC and A2G Communications, LLC to Permit the Transmission of Da ta in Air -Ground Radio Telephone Automated Service Channels Between 454.675 -454.975 MHz a nd 459.675-
459.975 MHz, RM -11912 (f iled Feb. 16, 2021) (AURA/A2G Petition).  We expect to address the AURA/A2G 
Petition in another proceeding.  
4 See 49 U.S.C. § 44802.  The National Airspace System consists of (1) a network of both controlled and 
uncontrolled airspace, (2) air navigation fa cilities, equipment and services, (3) a irports a nd la nding a reas, (4)  
aeronautical charts, information and services, (5) rules and regulations, (6) procedures and technical information, and (7) manpower and material.  See FAA, National Airspace System , https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas/
 (la st 
visited Sept. 6 , 2022) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
3 administers the federal use of spectrum, has jurisdictional interests in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, including 
potentially using the band for federal UAS operations and ensuring the  adequate protection of certain 
other federal uses in and adjacent to the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  As a part of their respective jurisdictional 
responsibilities, both the FAA and NTIA have been examining the potential use of the 5030- 5091 MHz 
band for UAS operations, and the FAA has adopted a minimum performance standard for UAS radio 
equipment operating in the 5040- 5050 MHz sub- band of the 5030- 5091 MHz band.5  Accordingly, a 
whole-of- government approach is needed to ensure that this proceeding addresses the relevant concerns 
and issues within the responsibility of each stakeholder agency and that our efforts in this area work in 
complement with those of our federal partners to support and promote the safe and productive operation of UAS.  To facilitate this a pproach, we have consulted with these agencies in the preparation of this 
NPRM, and will continue to do so as the proceeding advances.  
II. UAS COMMUNICATIONS IN THE 5030 -5091 MHZ BAND  
A. Background 
4. Because a UA, to the extent its route is not pre -programmed, mus t be operated remotely, 
the operator depends critically on wireless communications between a ground- based control station and 
the UA to control the flight of the UA, including communications to send commands to the aircraft and to 
receive telemetry and oth er data from it.  UAS also increasingly employ wireless signals for other safety -
related purposes, such as to detect and avoid other aircraft.  Currently, no spectrum is licensed in the 
United States exclusively for UAS communications, and operators have generally relied on unlicensed 
operations or experimental licenses.  Neither of these spectrum resources provide the user with any right to protection from harmful interference, and as a result, the reliability of communications using these resources can be uncertain.  As UA flights increasingly involve operations with a higher risk profile, such 
as flights that use large aircraft, carry heavy cargo or human passengers, or travel into the controlled airspace used by commercial passenger aircraft ,
6 operators have a growing need for the greater reliability 
that interference- protected licensed spectrum provides for control -related and other safety -related 
communications.   
 
5 The FAA’s actions to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System have also involved many regulatory efforts 
not specific to the 5030 -5091 MHz band.  For example, in 2016, the FAA, together with the Office of the Secretary 
of Tra nsportation, a dopted ru les authorizing the routine oper ation of small UAs (those weighing less than 55 
pounds), subject to certain restrictions and limitations.  See Federal Avia tion Administration a nd Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Oper ation a nd Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 42064 (June 28, 2016) (to be codified at 14 CFR pts. 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, 183) .  
Among other restrictions, the rules did not permit such operations over people or at ni ght without an individual 
wa iver.  See id. at  42102, 42123.   Subsequently, the FAA modified these regula tions a nd a uthorized routine 
operations of small UAs over people and operation at night under certain circumstances.  See Federal Aviation 
Administration and Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Operation of Small 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People, 86 Fed. Reg. 4314, 4314 -15 (Jan. 15, 2021).  At the same time, the FAA 
a lso a dopted rules establishing requirements fo r the remote identification of UAs operating in the United States.  See 
Federal Aviation Administration, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft, 86 Fed. Reg. 4390 (Jan. 15, 2021) 
(Remote ID Rules ).  
6 The FAA defines “controlled airspace” as “an airspa ce of defined dimensions within which a ir tra ffic control 
service is provided to [instrument flight rules] flights and to [visual flight rule] flights in accordance with the 
airspace classification.  NOTE: Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, 
and Class E airspace.”  14 CFR § 1.1 (General Definitions).  Controlled airspace is found around some airports and 
at certain altitudes where air traffic controllers are actively communicating with, directing, and separa ting a ll a ir 
traffic.  See FAA, Airspace 101: Rules of the Sky , 
https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101/  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
4 5. In 2017, the Commission determined that the 5030- 5091 MHz band should be alloca ted 
to help address that need.7  Prior to the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC -12), the 
5030- 5091 MHz band was allocated both internationally and in the United States to the aeronautical 
mobile -satellite (route) service (AMS(R)S) and the aero nautical radionavigation service (ARNS) on a 
primary basis.8  Footnote 5.444 of the Table of Frequency Allocations further provides that the spectrum 
is to be used for the operation of the international standard system (microwave landing system) for 
preci sion approach and landing and gives microwave landing systems priority over other uses of the 
band.9  At the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference, the United States proposed that the 5030-
5091 MHz band also be allocated to the aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) on a primary basis in order to support terrestrial control links for UAS, in light of (1) the anticipated growth of UAS 
operations, (2) the limited use of the band worldwide at that time, and (3) the lack of microwave landing 
system de ployment in the United States at 5030- 5091 MHz.
10  Consistent with the United States proposal, 
the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference allocated the 5030- 5091 MHz band internationally to 
the AM(R)S on a primary basis in all Regions.11 
6. In 2017, the Com mission adopted a Report and Order taking several steps in response to 
the decisions from the 2012 World Radio Conference.12  Among other measures, the Commission 
mirrored the international allocation at 5030- 5091 MHz in its domestic allocations, specifica lly allocating 
the 5030- 5091 MHz band to the AM(R)S on a primary basis for both federal and non- federal use.13  
Under the Commission rules, “AM(R)S” is defined as “[a]n aeronautical mobile service reserved for communications relating to safety and regulari ty of flight, primarily along national or international civil 
air routes.”
14  The Commission found that adopting the new AM(R)S allocation would “support the 
 
7 See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the 
Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012)(WRC -12), Other Allocation Issues, and 
Related Rule Updates , ET Docket No. 15 -99, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 2703, 2717, para. 42  (2017) ( WRC -12 
R&O ). 
8 See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding 
Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC -07), Other 
Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates et al. , ET Docket No. 12 -338, et al., Report and Order, Order, and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4262, paras. 223 -24 (2015) ( WRC -12 NPRM ); 47 CFR § 2.106.  
Under the Commission’s Table of Frequency Allocations rules, Aeronautical Mobile -Satellite Route Service 
(AMS(R)S) is defined as “[a]n aeronautical mobile- satellite service reserved for communications relating to safety 
and regularity of flights, primarily along national or international civil air routes.”  47 CFR § 2.1(c).  Aeronautical 
Radionavigation Service (ARS) is defined as “[a] radio -navigation service intended for the benefit and for the safe 
operation of aircraft.”  Id. 
9 See 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.444.  
10 See WRC -12 NPRM , 30 FCC Rcd at 4262, para. 225.   
11 See WRC -12 NPRM , 30 FCC Rcd at 4263, para. 226.  
12 See generally WRC -12 R&O . 
13 See WRC -12 R&O , 32 FCC Rcd at 2717, para. 41.  The status of “prima ry” gives AM(R)S priority over any 
services allocated on a “secondary” basis, see 47 CFR § 2.105(c)(2), but AM(R)S remains subject to the higher 
priority of MLS provided by Footnote 5.444.  See 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.444.  The Commission a lso a dded 
Footnote 5.443C to this a llocation band limiting its use to internationally standardized aeronautical systems and 
setting limits for unwa nted emissions from AM(R)S stations to a djacent band radionaviga tion- satellite service 
(RNSS) downlinks to an EIRP density  of -75 dBW/MHz.  See WRC -12 R&O , 32 FCC Rcd at 2717, par a. 41; see 
also 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.443C.  
14 47 CFR § 2.1(c).  The Commission defines the term “aeronautical mobile service,” in relevant part, as “[a] mobile 
service between aeronautical stati ons and aircraft stations, or between aircraft stations[.]”  Id.  An aeronautical 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
5 anticipated growth of UAS and promote their safe operation.”15  The Commission did not adopt any r ules 
to license or govern UAS services in the band, however; instead, it stated that “[t]echnical and operational 
rules relating to altitude, weight, or other requirements will be addressed in the service rules for this band, which will be promulgated in a  separate proceeding.”
16  
7. AIA Petition for Rulemaking.  On February 8, 2018, the Aerospace Industries Association 
(AIA) filed a petition for rulemaking recommending licensing and service rules for control -and-non-
payload communications (CNPC) links in the 5030- 5091 MHz band to support UAS operations in the 
United States (AIA Petition).17  AIA proposed that individual UAS operators that meet certain 
qualifications or organizations that employed such operators be able to obtain a non- exclusive, nationwide  
Commission spectrum license, which would authorize them to use the 5030- 5091 MHz band for UAS 
CNPC subject to a dynamic frequency assignment process.18  AIA further recommended the Minimum 
Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS CNPC links issued by RTCA in 2016 and 
designated as RTCA DO -362 as a “good starting point for the Commission’s consideration of licensing 
and operational rules[.]”19  Noting that the AM(R)S allocation of the band is limited to “communications 
(Continued from previous page)   
station is defined as “[a] land station in the aeronautical mobile service.”  Id.  An aircraft station is defined as “[a] 
mobile sta tion in the a eronautical mobile service, o ther than a survival craft station, located on board an aircraft.”  
Id. 
15 See WRC -12 R&O , 32 FCC Rcd at 2717, para. 42 ; see also id.  at 2704, para. 1 (stating that “AM(R)S use of the 
5030- 5091 MHz band will support unmanned aircraft systems”).  
16 See WRC -12 R&O , 32 FCC Rcd at 2717, para. 42.  
17 See Petition of AIA for Rulemaking to Adopt Service Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) Command 
and Control in the 5030 -5091 MHz Band, RM -11798 (filed Feb. 8, 2018) (AIA Petition).  
18 See AIA Petition at 6 -7, 9-10.  In its petition, AIA used the terms “control -a nd-non-payload” a nd “command -and-
control” (or C2) interchangeably.  See, e.g., AIA Petition at 7 (referring to “CNPC links”), 8 (referring to “C2 
communications links”).  We similarly do so throughout this  NPRM.  
19 See AIA Petition at 7.  RTCA is a standards development organization that works with the FAA to develop 
standards that can be used as means of compliance with FAA regulations.  See RTCA, About Us , 
https://www.rtca.org/about/  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022) .  RTCA Special Committees (SCs) develop Minimum 
Opera tional Performance Standards (MOPS) among other standards documents re lated to aviation.  See RTCA, 
Standards & Guidance Materials Descriptions , https://www.rtca.org/standards/standards -guidance -materials/  (la st 
visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  According to RTCA’s website, “MOPS provide standards for specific equipment(s) useful to 
designers, manufacturers, installers and users of the equipment. . . .  MOPS provide the information needed to 
understand the rationale for equipm ent characteristics and requirements stated, describe typical equipment 
applications and oper ational goals, and establish the basis for required performance under the standard.  Definitions 
and assumptions essential to proper understanding are provided as well a s insta lled equipment tests a nd operational 
performance characteristics for equipment installations.”  Id.  RTCA MOPS are often referenced as a basis for 
equipment certification in FAA technical standard orders.  See id.  Technical standard orders es tablish minimum 
performance standards for specified materials, parts, and appliances used on civil aircraft.  See FAA, Technical 
Standard Orders (TSO) , https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/a ir_cert/design_approvals/tso/  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).     
RTCA’s Special Committee 228 (SC -228), established on May 20, 2013, is working to develop, among other things, 
Command- and-Control Data Link MOPS for the 50 30-5091 MHz band.  See RTCA, SC-228, Minimum 
Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems , https://www.rtca.org/content/sc -228 (la st visited Sept. 6 , 
2022) .  The committee published the first version in September 2016 with the release of DO -362, Command a nd 
Control (C2) Data Link Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) (Terrestrial) (RTCA DO -362).  In 
response, the FAA adopted Technical Standard Order C213, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Control and Non -Payload 
Communications Terrestrial Link System Radios, effective March 9, 2018.  See Federal Avia tion Administration, 
Aircra ft Certification Service, Technical Standard Order C213, Unmanned Aircraft Systems C ontrol a nd Non -
Payload Communications Terrestrial Link System Radios (2018) (TSO -C213) .  TSO -C213 adopted the RTCA DO -
362 standard as a minimum performance standard for new models of UAS CNPC Link System radios oper ating in 
the 5040 -5050 MHz portion of the  5030 -5091 MHz band.  See TSO-C213 at 1.  On December 20, 2022, t he FAA 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
6 relating to safety and regularity of flight,” AIA also advocated for prohibiting any non- UAS use of the 
5030- 5091 MHz band or any UAS use for “payload communications or other non- safety or non-route 
services.”20   
8. The Commission sought public comment on AIA’s petition on April 26, 2018.21  Eight 
parties filed comments, and four filed replies.22  The majority of commenters supported commencement 
of a rulemaking to license the 5030- 5091 MHz band for UAS communications, and several supported 
aspects of the AIA proposal.23  Some raised conc erns, however, that the proposal was too restrictive in the 
operations it would support or permit and that the 5030- 5091 MHz band would not in any case be able to 
support all UAS operations; those commenters recommended that the Commission not preclude use  of 
other bands for UAS operations.24 
9. Section 374 Report.   Section 374 of the  FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directs the 
FAA, the FCC, and NTIA to submit a report to specified committees of the House and Senate on, among 
other things , “whether [UAS] opera tions should be permitted, but not required, to operate on [the 5030-
5091 MHz band] on an unlicensed, shared, or exclusive basis, for operations within the [ UAS Traffic 
Management ] system or outside of such a system .”25  On November 25, 2019, the Office of  Engineering 
and Technology (OET) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively, the Bureaus) 
sought public comment on this issue and others identified in Section 374 of the FAA Reauthorization Act 
(Section 374 Public Notice ).26  Twenty -three parties filed comments, and eleven filed replies.27  On 
August 20, 2020, the Bureaus jointly submitted a report to Congress on behalf of the Commission addressing the matters specified in Section 374.
28  In their report, the Bureaus found that “[t] he 5030- 5091 
(Continued from previous page)   
issued a revision of TSO -C213, designated TSO -C213a.  See Federal Avia tion Administration, Aircra ft Certification 
Service, Technical Standard Order C213 a, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Con trol a nd Non -Payload Communications 
Terrestrial Link System (20 22) (TSO -C213a ), available at FAA, Technical Standard Orders , 
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/TSO/doctypeDetails .  TSO -C213a replaces TSO -C213 going forward, adopting a spects of 
RTCA DO- 362A, the second version of the  RTCA  MOPS for the 5030 -5091 MHz band , as minimum performance 
standards for CNPC Link Systems designed for oper ations within any spectrum in the 5030 -5091 MHz band .  See 
TSO-C213a at 2; RTCA, Command a nd Control (C2) Da ta Link Minimum Operational Performance Standards 
(MOPS) (Terrestrial), RTCA -DO-362A  (2020) (RTCA DO -362A).   
20 AIA Petition at 10.  
21 See Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference Information Center Petition for Rulemakings Filed , 
Public Notice, Report No. 3089 (CGB Apr. 26, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC -350441A1.pdf . 
22 Parties that filed comments and reply comments in response to the AIA Petition are listed in Appendix C.  
23 See Elefa nte Group AIA Petition Comments a t 1 -2 (supporting petition framework as a “starting point”); Integrity 
Commu nications AIA Petition Comments a t 1 (sa me); Raytheon AIA Petition Comments at 1 -2 (same); see also 
Boeing AIA Petition Comments at I; Lockheed Martin AIA Petition Comments at 1; RTCA SC -228 AIA Petition 
Comments a t 1; AeroVironment AIA Petition Reply at 1 ; Rockwell Collins AIA Petition Reply a t 1.  
24 See CTIA AIA Petition Comments a t 7 -9; see also AURA AIA Petition Comments a t 2; Small UAV Coa lition AIA 
Petition Comments a t 3.  
25 See FAA Rea uthorization  Act of 2018,  § 374 , Pub.  L. No. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186,  3313 -14 (2018) (Section 374).   
26 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Seek Comment on 
Unmanned Aerial System Operations in the 960 -1164 MHz and 5030- 5091 MHz Bands, Pursuant to Section 374 of 
the FAA Reauth orization Act of 2018 , GN Docket No. 19 -356, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 11038 (WTB/OET 2019) 
(Section 374 Public Notice ). 
27 Parties that filed comments and reply comments in the Section 374 proceeding are listed in Appendix C.  
28 See WTB & OET, Report on Section 374 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, GN Docket No. 19 -356, 1 
(2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC -366460A1.pdf  (Section 374  Report ).  The Section 374 Report 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
7 MHz band appears to offer promise for intensive UAS use because it is unencumbered”29 and 
“recommend [ed] that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to develop service and licensing 
rules enabling UAS use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band in collaboration with the FAA and NTIA.”30     
10. Refresh Public Notice .  On August 20, 2021, WTB released a public notice to update the 
record on AIA’s proposal to reflect developments since 2018 and to further develop the record on certain 
aspects of the proposal .31  The Bureau received 24 comments and four reply comments in response to the 
Refresh Public Notice .32   
B. Discussion  
11. As reflected in the comments to the AIA Petition and the record in response to the 
Refresh Public Notice , UAS manufacturers and other stakeholders have continued to express strong 
interest in a proceeding  to enable licensing of the 5030- 5091 MHz band for UAS  CNPC links  since the 
Commission added an AM(R)S allocation in the 5030- 5091 MHz band to enable interference -protected 
UAS communications.33  The Section 374 Report released by WTB and OET in 2020 also supports the 
commencement of a rulemaking proceeding t o adopt service rules enabling UAS operations in the 5030-
5091 MHz band.34  Accordingly, we propose to adopt a band plan and service rules in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band to enable UAS operators to use interference -protected CNPC links.  We seek comment on our 
proposal and on options to make the band available for this purpose.  We further seek comment on the 
costs and benefits of any such options, including the costs and benefits of the specific band plan and 
service rules options discussed below.  UAS platforms  offer potential benefits in particular to 
disadvantaged, remote and rural communities, including delivery of essential goods or medical and other 
critical supplies in hard -to-reach areas, as well as innovative agricultural uses.  We seek comment on 
measur es that will facilitate UAS use and promote equity for these underserved populations.  We 
encourage stakeholders to develop and submit consensus recommendations on service rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band, including recommendations on the issues and propos als discussed below.  
12. We do not intend to mandate that all UAS CNPC occur exclusively in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band.  Other licensed bands, including the flexible -use bands where mobile networks are already 
deployed nationwide and the 450 MHz General Aviation Air -Ground band, are being explored as 
platforms for UAS operations, including UAS CNPC.  Commenters in this proceeding broadly support 
the availability of these bands as resources to help meet the rapidly growing spectrum access needs of the 
UAS community .
35  In addressing the 5030- 5091 MHz service rules, we do not propose to mandate that 
all CNPC occur within the band, nor do we intend that the future rules adopted in this proceeding for 5030- 5091 MHz will necessarily govern any UAS operations in other ba nds.  Rather, through this 
proceeding, we seek to provide UAS operators with access to an additional spectrum resource  that may 
complement other spectrum resources that are currently available or in development.   The 5030- 5091 
(Continued from previous page)   
stated that separate reports to Congress were anticipated from the NTIA and FAA regarding matters under their 
respective areas of authority.  Section 374 Report at 2. 
29 Section 374 Report  at 12.  
30 Id. at 1. 
31 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record on Unmanned Aircraft Systems Use of the 
5 GHz Band , RM -11798, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 12706 (WTB 2021) ( Refresh Public Notice ). 
32 Parties that filed comments and reply comments in response to  the Refresh Public Notice are listed in Appendix C.  
33 See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments a t 1 -3; ASRI Refresh PN Comments at 1, 4; AURA Refresh PN Comments 
at 1; AeroVironment Refresh PN Comments a t 1; CDA Refresh PN Comments a t 1; EEI Refresh PN Comments  a t 1; 
FPL Refresh PN Comments a t 4; Qualcomm Refresh PN Comments at 1.  
34 Section 374 Report  at 1, 12.  
35 See infra n.2 55.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
8 MHz band is a limited resourc e, and the demand for protected UAS CNPC may well exceed the capacity 
of the band as UAS operations increase over time.36  Further, while existing networks operating in other 
bands such as flexible -use bands may provide sufficient reliability for many UAS use cases, authorization 
of the 5030- 5091 MHz band for UAS use offers an opportunity to apply standards and rules designed to 
meet even the most safety -critical communications needs.37  In addition, as we discuss below, technical 
standards have already been developed for the 5030- 5091 MHz band specifically to support reliable UAS 
CNPC, wh ereas work is still nascent to establish or demonstrate the reliability of CNPC standards or 
operations in other bands .  As a result, the 5030- 5091 MHz band has the potential to be available for 
safety -critical aviation needs more quickly than licensed spe ctrum in these other bands.  We tentatively 
conclude that, while other spectrum bands are available for UAS communications, licensing the 5030-
5091 MHz band specifically for UAS CNPC will have important public interest benefits.  We seek 
comment on this te ntative conclusion and the extent to which the 5030- 5091 MHz band may offer unique 
advantages over other bands in supporting UAS CNPC.      
1. Band Plan  
13. Below, we seek comment on an appropriate band plan for communications to support the 
growth and safety of UAS operations.  For the purpose of this band and its service rules, and consistent 
with the FAA definitions of the terms, we propose to define UAS as an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its 
associated elements (including communication links and the components t hat control the UA) that are 
required for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States, and to define a 
UA as an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the 
aircraft.38  We seek comment on these proposed definitions and on any alternatives.  We further identify 
two broad UAS use cases for purposes of determining the appropriate band plan and service rules – non-
networked operations, generally occurring within radio- line-of-sight39 of the UAS operator, and network-
supported operations, which rely on network infrastructure to go beyond radio- line-of-sight of the 
operator.  Non- networked operations involve flights within a sufficiently localized area that can rely on 
direct wire less links between the UAS operator’s controller and the UA and therefore do not require any 
supporting network infrastructure.  Such operations may include, for example, tower or other site 
 
36 See Letter from John W. Kuzin, Vice President, Spectrum Policy & Regulatory Counsel, Qualcomm, to Marlene 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, RM -11798 (filed Mar. 15, 2022) (Qualcomm Mar. 15, 2022  Ex Parte ).  Qualcomm 
performed simulations that purport to show that, as the number of UAS per “cell” increases, both uplink data 
throughput and uplink latency increase to levels that m ay exceed acceptable target values.  See id. , Attach. at 12 -17.  
To combat these capacity issues in the 5030 -5091 MHz band, Qualcomm suggests that terrestrial mobile networks in 
other bands could be utilized for lower altitude operations and offloaded to t he 5030- 5091 MHz band above a 
certain height threshold.  See id. , Attach. a t 22.  
37 See, e.g., ASRI Refresh PN Comments at 1 (asserting that the 5030 -5091 MHz band is central to successful UAS 
development and advancement, “particularly for larger UAS operating in [FAA] -controlled airspace”).  
38 See 14 CFR § 1.1; accord 49 U.S.C. § 44801(11), (12) (defining “unmanned aircraft” and “unmanned aircraft 
system”).  W hile our rule proposal thus focuses use of the band on communications for the operation of a t ype of 
a ircra ft, which meets the definition of a part 87 aviation service, see 47 CFR § 87.5, we note that a network -based 
communications service offered to operators of UAS would typically also be a commercial service providing access 
to wide -area network s, in contr ast to the largely if not entirely non -commercial and non -network -based services 
regulated under part 87.  See generally 47 CFR pt. 87.  Below, we seek comment on the regulatory treatment of 
these services, including their placement in the organ ization of our rules.  See, e.g., infra paras. 70-73. 
39 References to “line- of-sight” herein correspond to ra dio -line-of-sight.  This is in contrast to FAA rules, which 
consider whether UAS operations are within visual -line-of-sight rather than ra dio -line-of-sight.  See 14 CFR § 
107.31.  We focus on whether a UA is beyond -rad io -line-of-sight in this context because the suitability of the 
different licensing approaches we consider below (direct link connections as opposed to network -based connections) 
appear s to depend to a greater extent on whether an operation is within radio -line-of-sight of the operator than on 
whether or not an operation is in visual sight of the operator.  A UA that is beyond -visual- line-of-sight but within 
ra dio -line-of-sight can still be controlled by a direct wireless link between the controller’s radio and the UA.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
9 inspections, public safety operations, or localized surveillance.   In contrast, network- supported operations 
rely on deployed network infrastructure, such as cell towers and sites, to relay information between the 
operator and the UA and may therefore extend far beyond the range of direct wireless links between operator  and UA.
40  While UAS operations have in the past been predominantly non- networked 
operations, there is growing interest in and exploration of network- supported operations, such as for 
package delivery, mapping, search -and-rescue, long -range infrastructure  inspections ( e.g., involving 
railroad tracks, power distribution infrastructure, or pipelines) and long- range surveillance flights.41  We 
find substantial support in the response to the Refresh Public Notice for both use cases.42  We seek 
comment on whether any other UAS use cases should be considered in determining the appropriate band plan and service rules.  
14. Hereinafter, we use the term Non -Networked Access (NNA) to indicate spectrum or 
licenses (e.g., NNA blocks) that would be governed by service rules appropriate to support non-networked communications.
43  Likewise, we use the term Network -Supported Service (NSS) in 
connection with spectrum or licenses to indicate that the relevant spectrum or licenses would be governed by service rules appropriate to s upport the provision of network- based services.
44  Further, we propose to 
use NNA and NSS in the rules to designate the spectrum allocated for non- networked and network-
supported use cases, respectively.   
15. AIA suggests that RTCA’s terminology for these two use cases should be used.45  RTCA 
uses the term “point -to-point” for non- networked communications links and the term “Command- and-
Control  Communications Service Providers ” to describe network- supported services.46  We tentatively 
find that our proposed terminology is more descriptive of the use cases we seek to support, and that the 
use of the term point -to-point, which has been long used in Commission rules and orders to reference 
systems providing a data communic ation link between two fixed stations, may itself contribute to 
confusion in this context.47  We seek comment on the proposed terminology, and on alternatives.  
16. To accommodate both NNA and NSS in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, we propose to 
partition the band, to dedicate different segments of spectrum in the band for each use case, and to license 
each of these segments in a manner that is appropriate to support the rele vant use cases.  We seek 
comment broadly on the placement of NNA and NSS spectrum to ensure efficient, reliable, and safe use of the band.  We seek comment on whether to make spectrum available for multi -purpose uses, e.g., 
 
40 See, e.g., CTIA Refresh PN Comments at 11 (“To the extent this band is to be used for [beyond -line-of-sight], the 
spectrum will either need to be deployed on existing n ationwide infrastructure, or brand -new infrastructure that can 
accommodate UAS flight over long distances.”).  Such oper ations have also relied on satellite -based connections or, 
in some cases, a utonomous a ircraft that do not require ra dio control.  
41 See, e.g., Sma ll UAV Coa lition Section 374 Report Comments a t 2 -4 (discussing recent tests and studies involving 
beyond -visual -line-of-sight operations); T -Mobile Section 374 Report  Comments a t 2 (sta ting that T -Mobile ha s 
been selected to work with three state  and local departments of transportation to explore how its LTE network can 
be used to support advanced drone operations, including beyond -visual -line-of-sight flying).    
42 See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments at 5; EEI Refresh PN Comments at 5 (supporting licensing for beyond -
ra dio -line-of-sight operations); L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 18; RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 3.  
43 We seek comment elsewhere on whether the scope of permitted services should encompass types of 
communications o ther than CNPC.  
44 Network -supported operations will require a different licensing approach than non -networked access due to the 
need in the former case to provide the regulatory framework and incentives to support the investment in and 
deployment of subst antial network infrastructure.  
45 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 5.   
46 See id. at 5.  
47 See, e.g., 47 CFR pt. 101, subpts. H, I.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
10 expansion bands for temporary NN A or NSS use.  For example, an NSS licensee operating a network in 
one of the NSS license blocks might request and receive a temporary assignment from a multi -purpose 
spectrum block to temporarily supplement the network provider’s spectrum capacity in a pa rticular cell 
site in order to provide more capacity to an active UAS operation in that cell.  We seek comment on our 
proposals and on alternatives.   
17. We specifically propose to dedicate at least 10 megahertz of spectrum for NNA 
operations, and seek comment on this proposal.  AIA and AURA support initially dedicating 10 megahertz for this purpose, and we find no support for dedicating less than 10 megahertz.
48  AIA argues 
that 10 megahertz will be sufficient to promote deployment while preserving the opport unity for an 
incremental approach to licensing the band that will better accommodate developing industry standards.49  
We seek comment on AIA’s argument.  We seek comment on the placement of the NNA spectrum within the band and whether, consistent with AIA ’s proposal, we should place 5 megahertz blocks at the bottom 
(5030- 5035 MHz) and top (5086- 5091 MHz) of the band for NNA use.  Alternatively, should we locate 
the dedicated NNA blocks somewhere internal in the band rather than at the band edges?  If so, s hould we 
designate the spectrum at the edges of the band for NSS?   
18. An analysis by RTCA based in part on the use of an “online filter -design tool” finds that 
filters that sufficiently protect services in the adjacent bands “would necessitate guardbands unusable by terrestrial CNPC at both ends of the 5030- 5091 MHz bands, reducing the 61 MHz of usable passband 
width to 42- 52 MHz depending on the case.”
50  It further states, however, that “[c]ustom filter designs 
could probably provide larger usable passbands  than those obtained using the online tool, possibly at the 
cost of increased size and weight.”51  We seek comment on this analysis, and whether fixed guard bands 
at one or both ends of the band are warranted to protect services in the spectrum adjacent to the 5030-
5091 MHz band, including (1) radionavigation -satellite service (RNSS) downlinks in the 5010- 5030 MHz 
band, (2) aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) downlinks to support flight testing  in the 5091- 5150 MHz 
band, and (3) the Aeronautical Mobile Airp ort Communications System (AeroMACS) in the 5000- 5030 
MHz and 5091- 5150 MHz bands.  Alternatively, does the need to protect adjacent band services argue for 
dedicating the edge spectrum to something other than NNA assignments, such as satellite?52  Below, we 
discuss more generally whether any measures beyond appropriate power and out -of-band- emissions limits 
are needed to protect these adjacent band services.  
19. We further seek comment on whether, instead of designating separate upper and lower 
NNA blocks, we should place all dedicated NNA spectrum together in one contiguous block.  Is placement of the NNA spectrum into two or more separate blocks useful for technical or other reasons?  Conversely, would providing the spectrum in a single contiguous block reduc e interference challenges 
(e.g., by potentially reducing the adjacency of NNA and NSS blocks) or better support certain 
channelizations of the band or important use cases that may require channel bandwidths of more than 5 megahertz?  Further, with regard t o any technical standards that commenters may recommend applying to 
 
48 See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments at 17; AURA Refresh PN Comments at 6.  
49 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 7 -8; see also AURA Refresh PN Comments a t 8 (a sserting that 10 megahertz 
will “a ccomplish the Commission’s goal of effectively promoting deployment”).  
50 RTCA DO- 362A, Appx. T at T.5, T.6.  
51 Id. at T.6. 
52 For example, in its analysis, RTCA asserts that although any guard band s at the edge of the 5030 -5091 MHz band 
“would be unusable by terrestrial CNPC links, they could still be used by satellite -based CNPC if a  sa tellite system 
is built to ta ke a dvantage of the AMS(R)S allocation.”  Id. at T.1.  We further discuss the protect ion of adjacent -
band services below.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
11 services or equipment in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, we seek comment on whether these standards require 
the use of contiguous spectrum.53 
20. With regard to the remaining spectrum in the band, we seek comment on how to structure 
it consistent with the goal of dedicating a segment of spectrum for exclusive use NSS licenses.  We seek 
comment on how much of the spectrum to dedicate for NSS operations, and how we should license any 
remaining spectrum.  For the spectrum that we dedicate to NSS operations, w e seek comment on the 
placement of the NSS blocks and on the appropriate block size for NSS  licenses to promote investment 
and competition and support the current and evolving bandwidth needs of NSS  services.54  In the current 
record, AIA proposes 5 to 10 megahertz blocks, and Wisk supports 10 megahertz blocks.55  We seek 
comment on these options  and on any other appropriate block sizes .  Below, we seek comment on the 
appropriate scope of permissible services, including whether to restrict communications in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band to CNPC, or permit transmissions of other types of communications.  What size spectrum 
blocks would be necessary to support CNPC services?  What block size would be appropriate if we 
permit NSS licensees to support non- CNPC communications?  Would the flexibility of larger block sizes 
(such as 10 or 20 megahertz) better facilitate mixed CNPC and non- CNPC use?  
21. While we anticipate that a significant portion of this remaining spectrum would be 
designated for NSS, we seek comment on whether we should use a portion of the spectrum for 
opportunistic use by both NNA or NSS licensees (multi -purpose use).  Should we instead use a portion of 
the spectrum to increase the amount of spectrum dedicated to NNA operations?  To the extent we dedicate spectrum for NSS licenses, we also seek comment on making that spectrum available for NNA 
operations on an interim, opportunistic basis.   Under this approach, NNA users, in addition to having 
access to dedicated NNA spectrum, could use frequencies in a dedicated NSS block in geographic areas 
where the NSS licensee has not yet deployed an operating network.  Once a network is deployed and operational in a particular area, NNA users would no longer have opportunistic access to the spectrum in 
that area.  This approach would enable the NSS spectrum in an area to be used productively prior to the 
issuance of NSS licenses and deployment of networks, while providing NSS licensees with complete 
exclusivity once their systems are deployed.  We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this 
approach, including its technical and economic feasibility, and on alternative approaches to NNA 
opportunistic access or alternative methods of ensuring productive usage of dedicated NSS spectrum prior 
to network deployment.  
22. With these issues and questions in mind, we seek comment broadly on an appropriate 
band plan for the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  As one possible opti on for structuring the band overall, we 
invite comment on:  
• Dedicating 10 megahertz of spectrum for NNA operations, with 5 megahertz blocks at the bottom (5030- 5035 MHz) and top (5086- 5091 MHz) of the band.  
• Dedicating 40 megahertz of spectrum for NSS opera tions, divided into 4 licensed blocks of 10 
megahertz each, with NNA opportunistic access as described above.   
 
53 For example, L3H asserts that RTCA DO- 362 requires CNPC uplinks or downlinks to operate within a contig uous 
channel.  See L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 15.   
54  See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments at 17 (arguing that frequency band partitioning a nd channelization schemes 
should not impede future use of the spectrum by advanced radio technologies).  
55 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 17 (asserting that a 5 megahertz block is sufficient to per mit a provider to ser ve 
a decen t-sized market a nd provide operational experience controlling out -of-band emissions and in -band 
interference); AURA Refresh PN Comments at 8 -9 (recommending blocks of at least five megahertz to provide “the 
industry with sufficient bandwidth to tailor inte rnal network requirements and to safety serve a variety of UAS use 
cases”); Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 6 (supporting 10 megahertz blocks); see also Qualcomm Refresh PN 
Comments at 2 (proposing that, for the “network mode” of UAS communications, the Commis sion license either 
four 10.25 megahertz blocks or two 20.5 megahertz blocks).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
12 • Making the remaining 11 megahertz available for temporary, opportunistic use by either NNA 
users or NSS licensees (multi -purpose use).   
This potential option is illustrated in Figure 1; however, we seek comment on alternative band plans including plans that designate the edge spectrum for some purpose other than NNA operations (such as for NSS operations) or that provide different amounts of spectrum for NNA, NSS, and/or multi -purpose 
use than those presented in the depicted example.   
 
23. We further invite comment on alternative approaches to allocating the 5030- 5091 MHz 
band for the support of UAS.  For example, AIA proposes that we allocate and l icense the 51 megahertz 
between 5035 MHz and 5086 MHz on a geographic area basis in a phased, incremental manner over a period of years —e.g., allocating and licensing only 5 megahertz in the first year, and then licensing 
additional spectrum over the following years with blocks and geographic areas sized according to user demand and service provider applications.
56  AIA suggests that such an incremental approach would help 
the Commission to accommodate different UAS markets defined by different UAS missions  that are 
expected to emerge over time.57  We seek comment on this possible approach, and more generally on 
whether we should allocate only a portion of the band at this time and defer allocation of the remainder of the band.  We further seek comment on whether we should preserve part of the band at this time for 
experimental use, or for potential future satellite -based CNPC that relies on the AMS(R)S allocation in 
the band.  
24. As another alternative, Qualcomm recommends that the Commission allocate 20 
megahertz for direct UA -to-UA communications, in cluding communications between the aircraft to 
facilitate detect and avoid (DAA) operations, and communications to broadcast Remote ID information .
58  
 
56 See Letter from Karina Perez Molina, Director, Unmanned and Emerging Aviation Technologies, Aerospace 
Industries Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, RM -11798 (file d Feb. 1, 2022) (AIA Feb. 1, 2022  Ex 
Parte ) (filing notice of presentation to Ethan Lucarelli), Atta ch. a t 6 -7. 
57 See Letter from Karina Perez, Director, Unmanned and Emerging Aviation Technologies, Aerospace Industries 
Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secr etary, FCC, RM -11798 (filed Sept. 14, 2021) (AIA Sept. 14, 2021  Ex Parte ), at 
1; AIA Feb. 1, 2022 Ex Parte , Attach. at 6 -7 (arguing that “[a] phased implementation preserves large sections of 
the band for future licensing or use,” with the opportunity to o pen the band to new uses a nd updated technologies 
and standards).  
58 See Qualcomm Refresh PN Comments at 1.  DAA involves a range of still -developing technologies to enable 
UAS or their operators to detect other aircr aft or property and avoid collisions.  See, e.g., S. Ramasamy & R. 
Sa batini, A Novel Approach to Cooperative and Non -Cooperative RPAS Detect -and-Avoid , SAE Technical Paper 
2015- 01-2470, 1 (Sept. 15, 2015), available at https://www.sae.org/publications/technical- papers/content/2015- 01-
2470/  ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  DAA can rely on transmissions in a variety of ground -based or aircraft -based 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
13 Qualcomm proposes  that the remaining 41 megahertz of spectrum be licensed in two 20.5 megahertz 
blocks or four 10.25 megahertz blocks to network providers for the provision of NSS  CNPC services and 
for payload transmissions to the extent that capacity is not needed for CNP C.59  We seek comment on this 
option and on Qualcomm’s assertion that supporting the functionalities of DAA and Remote ID 
broadcasts will require 20 megahertz of 5030- 5091 MHz band spectrum .60  We also seek comment on the 
compatibility of UA -to-UA transmis sions and UA broadcast with CNPC links between a ground control 
station and a UA.  If they are not compatible, should a portion of the band be designated exclusively for 
UA-to-UA or UA broadcast transmissions, and if so, how much spectrum should be designated for this 
purpose?61   
25. We seek comment on whether we should establish any internal guard bands, such as 
between the NNA and NSS blocks, or whether we can rely on appropriate technical rules to ensure that UAS operations in one block do not cause harmful  interference to UAS operations in adjacent spectrum 
blocks.  We request that parties proposing guard bands provide detailed technical justification and specify 
the width and placement of the proposed guard bands.  We further seek comment on whether fixed guard 
bands at one or both ends of the band are warranted to protect services in the spectrum adjacent to the 5030- 5091 MHz band, including (1) radionavigation -satellite service (RNSS) downlinks in the 5010- 5030 
MHz band, (2) aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) downlinks to support flight testing in the 5091-5150 MHz band, and (3) the Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS) in the 5000-
5030 MHz and 5091- 5150 MHz bands.  Below, we discuss more generally whether any measures beyond 
appropriate power and out -of-band- emissions limits are needed to protect these adjacent band services.  
2. Dynamic Frequency Management System  
26. To address the complexities involved in coordinating shared interference -protected 
access to the 5030 -5091 MHz band, we propose that access to the band be managed by one or more 
dynamic frequency management systems (DFMS).  We use the term DFMS to describe a frequency coordination system that, in response to requests from UAS operators for frequency assignments in NNA 
spectrum , would determine and assign to the requesting operator, through an automated (non- manual) 
process, temporary use of certain frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the operator’s submitted flight plan.  For the duration of  the assignment, the operator would have 
exclusive and protected use of the assigned frequencies within the assigned area and timeframe, after 
which the frequencies would be available in that area for assignment to another operator.  We 
contemplate that ea ch DFMS would be administered by a private third party, which we refer to as a 
DFMS administrator.  We further contemplate that each system would be capable of coordination- related 
activities across the entire 5030 -5091 MHz band.  While we contemplate that  NSS licensees would be 
responsible for the use and coordination of frequencies within the scope of their licenses, requiring a 
(Continued from previous page)   
implementations, for example non -cooperative detection methods such as on -board sensors or cooperative methods 
that involve the communication between UAS to facilitate cooperative collision avoidance.  See id.  Remote I D, a s 
required by FAA rules that became effective on April 21, 2021, is the ability of UAS in flight to broadcast 
identification and location information that can be received by other parties.  See FAA, UAS Remote Identification , 
https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin g_started/remote_id/  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022). We note that FAA rules currently 
require Remote ID to be broadcast  using devices authorized under the Commission’s part 15 rules .  See 14 CFR § 
89.320(g).  
59 See Qualcomm Refresh PN Comments a t 2.  
60 See Qualcomm Refresh PN Comments at 8 (asserting that 20 megahertz will be needed for “broadcasting of 
detection information by UAVs for ‘remain well clear’ messaging and collision avoidance, [broadcast Remote ID], and potentially other important sa fety a nd security use cases”).  
61 See, e.g., AIA Feb. 1, 2022  Ex Parte , Attach. at 5 , 7 (suggesting that allocating some portion of the band for UAS 
vehicle -to-vehicle (V2V) communications would “provide situational awareness f or UAS tha t ca nnot use ADS -B 
due to the Remote ID (RID) rule” but that 20 meg ahertz for V2V would be “an oversupply” ).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
14 DFMS to be capable of coordination across the entire band would enable a DFMS to provide dynamic 
access to any portions of the 5030- 5091 MHz band that are, in the initial order or subsequently, assigned 
for NNA use, as well as to implement opportunistic access to portions of the band that are assigned for 
NSS use as appropriate.  We tentatively conclude that these systems could (1)  facilitate the efficient and 
intensive use of a limited spectrum resource for interference -protected CNPC; (2) give UAS operators 
access to reliable CNPC for operations where those communications links are safety -critical; (3) enable 
UAS operators to gain spectrum access in a timely, efficient, and cost -effective manner; (4) enforce 
compliance with frequency assignments through access controls, checking existing frequency 
assignments, providing updates in authorized databases, and other mechanisms; (5) protect critical 
communications inside the band and in adjacent spectrum; (6) support opportunistic use in unused 
portions of spectrum sub- bands designated for exclusive use licenses; and (7) promote rapid evolution of 
the use of the band in response to technological, market, or regulatory changes, such as if the Commission 
deploys spectrum in the band incrementally or, in the future, finds that modifying the access rules in a 
particular sub -band is in the public interest to better meet market demand.  We seek  comment on our 
proposal and its costs and benefits.  
27. The record and past Commission experience further lead us to tentatively conclude that 
the DFMS approach we propose is feasible and practical.  The record reflects support from a number of parties for th e use of such a system to manage shared access to the 5030 -5091 MHz band.
62  In addition, 
the Commission has successfully relied on automated dynamic frequency management systems in other 
bands, including the Spectrum Access System (SAS) that was adopted i n the 3.55- 3.7 GHz band (3.5 
GHz band) to coordinate spectrum access to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), allowing incumbent radar systems, licensed services, and licensed -by-rule services to coexist in the band.
63  Several 
parties in the record  state that aspects of the SAS can be leveraged or incorporated in the development and 
deployment of a DFMS.64  The support in the current record for the use of a DFMS, along with the 
success of the 3.5 GHz band SAS and the potential to build on the SAS experience and technology, lead us to tentatively conclude that a DFMS solution can feasibly be implemented to enable near -term use of 
the band with the benefits discussed above.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusion, and the extent 
of interest in providing such DFMS services in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  In addition to the specific 
questions below, what other aspects of the 3.5 GHz band SAS approach would be appropriate here, and 
what aspects should be changed?  How should the Commission supervise the operations of the DFMS?  
28. We propose to permit more than one DFMS to operate in the band, each providing access 
to frequencies nationwide, and to require coordination and communication between them to ensure that 
the assignments of one DFMS are consistent wi th the assignments of the others.  This approach would 
provide the benefits of competition to DFMS services, including promoting technological innovation in 
such services , encouraging responsiveness to market demands  through tailored and differentiated 
services, helping to prevent discriminatory conduct based on potential conflicts of interest , and placing 
competitive pressure on fees and service quality.
65  Further, the use of multiple competitive administrators 
 
62 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 4, 7; AURA Refresh PN Comments a t 8; Boeing Refresh PN Comments a t 5; 
DSA Refresh PN Comments at 3; Fede rated Wireless Refresh PN Comments at 2 -3; FPL Refresh PN Comments at 
4; L3H Refresh PN Comments at 3; W InnForum Refresh PN Comments a t 3 -4; Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 3; 
Xcel Refresh PN Reply a t 5.  
63 See 47 CFR pt. 96; see also , generally , Amendment of t he Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial 
Operations in the 3550 -3650 MHz Band , GN Docket No. 12 -354, Report and Order a nd Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959 (2015) ( 3.5 GHz R&O).  
64 See DSA Refresh PN Comments a t 2 -3; Federated Wireless Refresh PN Comments at 3 -7; WInnForum Refresh 
PN Comments a t 5; see also AIA Refresh PN Comments at 8 (stating that the SAS as used in the 3.5 GHz band does 
not meet all the requirements for aviation use, having been designed for use by fixed, ground -based networks, but 
finding that some aspects of the concept could be incorpor ated).  
65 See, e.g., 3.5 GHz R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 4063 -64, 4066, paras. 354, 357, 366.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
15 was successfully implemented in the 3.5 GHz band, where the Commission has, to date, authorized six  
SASs for full commercial operations in the band.66  We seek comment on this proposal.  
29. DFMS requirements and responsibilities.   We seek comment on the appropriate 
regulatory framework to establish for a DFMS, including its requirements and responsibilities and the 
requirements and responsibilities of a DFMS administrator.  We seek comment on whether and to what 
extent we can draw  on the requirements and responsibilities governing the SAS and SAS administrators 
in the 3.5 GHz band.67  For example, we seek comment on whether to follow our policy for the 3.5 GHz 
SASs and establish only the minimum high- level requirements necessary to  ensure the effective 
development and operation of fully functional DFMSs, leaving other requirements to be addressed by the 
DFMS administrators and multi- stakeholder groups.68  If we follow this policy, what high- level 
requirements should we establish?  B elow, we explore in greater detail a potential regulatory framework 
for DFMSs, and the extent to which aspects of the DFMS requirements and operation should be specified 
in our rules.  
30. One of the most important responsibilities of the DFM S would be to ensur e that UAS 
operators  receiving 5030- 5091 MHz assignments and operating consistent with their assignments are 
protected from harmful interference and that they do not cause harmful interference to other protected 
operations in the band and adjacent bands, i ncluding protected federal operations .69  In light of the many 
challenges of ensuring appropriate protection and reliability for all authorized UAS operations in the band, which could involve highly diverse and evolving operations with different risk profi les, altitudes, 
flight speeds, and spectrum needs  in a shared spectrum environment, and could potentially involve the 
need for mid- flight alterations to flight plans and other operational complications, we seek comment on 
whether  the Commission should simply establish an appropriate high- level requirement on the DFM S, 
such as a requirement to provide protected access to spectrum appropriate to cover a submitted and valid request, to the extent such spectrum is available, and defer to the DFM S administrators , or potentially a 
multi- stakeholder group, to determine the appropriate means of doing so.  To the extent the Commission 
should codify more detailed requirements, we seek comment on all measures the Commission should 
adopt to facilitate the ability of the  DFM S to provide reliable, interference- protected assignments, 
 
66 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Approve Four Spectrum Access 
System Administrators for Full Scale Commercial Deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band and Emphasize Licensee 
Compliance Obligations in the 3650- 3700 MHz Band Under Part 96 , GN Docket No. 15 -319, Public Notice, 35  
FCC Rcd 117, 117, para. 1 (WTB/OET 2020) (certifying CommScope, Federated Wireless, Inc., Google, and Sony, 
Inc. as SAS Administr ators); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology 
Approve Spectrum Access System Administrator Amdocs for Full Scale Commercial Deployment in the 3.5 GHz 
Band , GN Docket No. 15 -319, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 3687, 3687, pa ra. 1 (2020 WTB/OET) (certifying 
Amdocs, Inc. as a SAS Administrator); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Approve Spectrum Access System Administrator Key Bridge Wireless for Full Scale Commercial 
Deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band , GN Docket No. 15 -319, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 4880, 4880, para. 1 
(WTB/OET 2021) (certifying Key Bridge Wireless LLC as a SAS Administrator).  On May 1, 2021, the 
Commission ga ve conditional a pproval to three a dditional parties as SAS Admin istrators, subject to further testing 
and review before final certification.  See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and 
Technology Conditionally Approve Three Spectrum Access System Administrators for the 3.5 GHz Band , GN 
Docket Nos. 17 -258, 15 -319, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 8255 (WTB/OET 2021) (conditionally approving 
Fa irspectrum LLC, Nokia, a nd RED Technologies).  See also , e.g., DSA Refresh PN Comments at 5 (recommending 
that the Commission “continue its policy of authorizing multiple commercia l dynamic spectrum management system 
a dministrators,” a nd a sserting that competition among these providers “will spur grea ter innovation a nd reduce 
costs”).   
67 See 47 CFR pt. 96 subpt. F (Spectrum Access System); see also 3.5 GHz R&O , 30 FCC Rcd at § III.H.   
68 We discuss a  potential role for a  multi- stakeholder group in greater detail below.  
69 See infra  Section II.B.9  (seeking comment on measures necessary to protect federal Microwave Landing Systems 
in the 5030 -5091 MHz band and various  out-of-band services).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
16 including any necessary specifications, requirements, responsibilities, authority, processes, or remedies.   
We further seek comment on the interference mitigation techniques that can be employe d by UAs, such as 
geo-fencing.70 
31. At a minimum, we propose to require that a DFMS administrator adopt procedures to 
immediately respond to requests from Commission staff for information they store or maintain and to 
comply with any Commission enforcement instructions they receive, as well as to securely transfer all the 
information in the DFMS to another approved entity in the event it does not continue as the DFMS Administrator at the end of its term.  We seek comment on these proposals.  In addition, what 
requirements should we impose on the DFMS or DFMS administrator with regard to retention of records 
and information, including registration and assignment records?  Should we require retention of all such 
information for at least five years?  What requirem ents should we adopt to ensure data security in DFMS 
operations, including the security of end- to-end communications between operators and a DFMS and the 
security of information stored by a DFMS?  
32. What requirements, if any, should be imposed on NNA operator s in the band to help 
ensure the DFMS’s ability to provide interference -protected access or to promote more robust or efficient 
use of the spectrum?  Should these requirements be high- level, with additional development through a 
DFMS administrator or multi- stakeholder group, or should they be more detailed?  What information 
should we require operators to provide to the DFMS regarding ground stations and unmanned aircraft stations?  Should that information be provided prior to any requests, with an assignme nt request, or on an 
ongoing or periodic basis during an operation?  For example, should we require operators to provide 
ground station geographic location, effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP), and/or antenna 
patterns?  Assuming a DFMS has the ne cessary information about the ground station, is information 
about the location or transmitter characteristics of the UA unnecessary to prevent harmful interference?  
Should we require an active UAS relying on an NNA assignment in the band to provide a DFM S with the 
UA information that must be broadcast under the Remote ID rule or some subset or variation of that information?
71  Should an operator be required to provide the DFMS specific information about the UA, 
including its manufacturer, model, or other technical or identifying information?  Should an operator be required to affirmatively communicate to the DFMS, in real time or within a certain period of time of the 
relevant event, the initiation and termination of the flight or, alternatively, the initi ation and termination of 
the operator’s use of the assigned frequencies?  Are there other circumstances or information (aside from 
the request) that the operator should be required by rule to communicate to the DFMS?  Should any requirements be imposed on UAS operators relying on NSS networks to facilitate the DFMS’s ability to 
provide interference -protected NNA assignments?  
33. We further seek comment on whether to mandate that a UAS operator register with a 
DFMS as a precondition to requesting NNA frequency assignments, and if so, what requirements we should impose with respect to such registration.  Should the Commission simply require registration and 
leave the details to be developed by, for example, the DFMS administrators or a multi -stakeholder group?  
To the extent the Commission should codify further details, what information should be included with 
registration?  Should U AS operators be required to register ground and UA stations?  Should we impose 
requirements with regard to if and when registration should be updated and, if so, what is the appropriate 
duration of the initial registration term and the renewal term?  Under  what circumstances should the 
Commission or the relevant DFMS administrator revoke a UA operator’s registration?  While we 
 
70 Geo-fencing is a  technique of defining a virtual geographic boundary (defined by coordinates) a round a n a rea.  
Depending on the implementation, when a UA approaches the boundary, the UA or its controller could receive a 
transmissi on to change course to avoid the area.  
71 The FAA’s rules for Remote ID require most UAS operating in United States airspace to have Remote ID 
ca pability.  See Remote ID Rules at 4403 -04; 49 CFR § 89.101.  Remote ID capability includes the broadcast of 
information such a s the identity, location, a nd a ltitude of a  drone in flight, including its control sta tion or ta ke -off 
loca tion.  See 14 CFR § 89.305.        Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
17 envision that any registration requirements would apply only to operators seeking NNA assignments, we 
seek comment on whether to require operators relying on a network service in NSS spectrum to register with a DFMS.  
34. We also seek comment on what requirements , if any, we should impose with respect to 
the submission of UA S operator requests  for NNA assignments, and conversely what , if an y, details of 
the request process should be left to be developed by a multi -stakeholder group.  For example, should we 
impose specifications of what information should be included in a request, and if so, what data should we require?  Should requests include the relevant ground and unmanned aircraft stations that will be used in 
the operation, and if so, how should these be identified?  To the extent we permit mobile ground stations, should requests provide a specification of the route of the mobile ground station over time and the times at which the station will reach specific locations in order to enable frequency assignment to consider the range coverage of the station as a function of time?  Should we require submission of a flight plan, and if so, what information should the flight plan include, and in what format?  For example, should it specify 
time of use, and flight positions and flight altitude over the course of the flight plan, as suggested by 
AIA?
72  Should an operator be required to submit requests no more than a certain specified time period in 
advance of a flight?73      
35. As a general matter, should a DFMS grant a frequency assignment for the duration and 
other parameters requested, provided the unassigned spectrum is available to meet the reque st?  
Alternatively, should limits or restrictions be placed on what can be granted?  For example, should a limit be placed on the maximum duration of an assignment to prevent monopolization of the spectrum by one or a few parties with flights of long or indefinite duration?
74  Should a limit be placed on the number of 
simultaneous temporary frequency assignments allowed by the DFMS to reduce the potential for harmful interference?   
36. As several parties have noted, operators may need to revise their assignments after a 
flight has commenced (e.g., where the flight needs to deviate from its anticipated flight path and UAS CNPC transmissions for the revised flight would not be covered by the original assignment, or where a flight takes longer than provided under the assignment).  We  seek comment on any rules we should adopt 
to enable or facilitate the filing and timely processing of such requests for revised assignments or to otherwise address an operator’s mid- flight need for revised assignment.  Do we need to adopt any rule to 
address cases where the revised request cannot be granted consistent with other previously granted 
assignments?  
37. In the 3.5 GHz band, SASs  may require fixed stations  to implement reassignment to new 
frequencies, reduction of the permitted transmitting power level, or cessation of operations, as necessary to avoid or eliminate harmful interference and implement spectrum access priorities.
75  We note, however, 
that the 5030- 5091 MHz band presents challenges to such an approach that are not present in the 3.5 GHz 
band.  First, whereas the 3.5 GHz stations under SAS control are all fixed stations  (i.e., stations operating 
from a fixed location) , facilitating a SAS’s ability to communicate with such stations and determine their 
location, we seek comment below on permi tting UAS ground stations in the NNA portion of the 5030-
5091 MHz band to  be mobile stations (e.g. , hand- held controllers) .76  Second, active management of 
 
72 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 9.  
73 See AIA Petition at 14 (indicating that RTCA DO -362 “anticipates” that requests will be made no more than 20 
minutes in advance of a flight).  But see RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 4 (sta ting that “[i]n some circumstances, 
requests for channel assignments for flights could be made days in advance”).  
74 See, e.g., dronelife, Heavy Lift Tethered Drone Flies for a Week: Zenith AeroTech Celebrates 108 Hours of 
Uninterrupted Flight , https://dronelife.com/2021/06/10/heavy -lift-tethered -drone -flies-for-a- week -zenith -aerotech -
celebrates -108-hours -of-uninterrupted -flight/  ( la st visited Se pt. 6, 2022).  
75 See 47 CFR § 96.39(c)(2).  
76 See infra para. 58 & n.112.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
18 spectrum access during an ongoing UAS operation could introduce significant safety hazards, such as if a 
DFM S were to require automatic cessation or powering -down of a UAS CNPC link while a flight was 
ongoing, resulting in a mid- operation loss of control.77  Given such challenges, is an active management 
approach feasible and appropriate, and if so, what  regulatory requirements should be adopted to enable or 
implement such an approach?   If not feasible, what approaches or mechanisms will be available to the 
DFM S to ensure the reliability of communications?  In particular, given that the proposed assignments 
would be limited in both frequency, time , and geography, what requirements , procedures, penalties, or 
other measures should be in place to prevent or address (1)  flights that use unauthorized frequencies; (2) 
flights that occur outside an authorized tim e period, such as a flight that exceeds its authorized duration;  
or (3)  flights that occur outside an authorized area .  If a DFM S’s role is merely to reserve appropriate 
spectrum for UAS flights, and a  DFM S takes no other active measures to ensure or enforce compliance 
with the assignments or the protection of operations, will spectrum access be sufficiently reliable for 
mission critical purposes?  
38. Fees.  Under the 3.5 GHz rules, an SAS administrator is authorized to charge users “a 
reasonable fee” for the provision of its services, and the Commission “can require changes to those fees if 
they are found to be unreasonable.”78  We prop ose to adopt a similar provision authorizing the 
administrator of a DFMS to charge reasonable fees for its provision of services, including registration and 
channel assignment services, and to permit parties to petition the Commission to review fees and re quire 
changes if they are found to be excessive.  To encourage efficient use of the limited spectrum resource 
and discourage any attempt at warehousing, we seek comment on specifically authorizing reasonable 
usage -based fees, and on standards and approache s for establishing the amounts of such fees.  
39. Selection process.   We seek comment on the process for selecting the DFMS 
administrators, and whether the 3.5 GHz SAS approval process could serve as a model.79  Under the 
approach for SAS approval, the Commissi on delegated authority to WTB and OET to administer the 
process and provided that (1) the Bureaus would issue a Public Notice requesting proposals from entities desiring to administer a SAS; (2) applicants would be required, at a minimum, to demonstrate how they 
plan to meet the Commission ’s rules governing SAS operations , demonstrate their technical qualifications 
to operate a SAS, and provide any additional information requested by WTB and OET; (3) based on these 
applications, WTB and OET would determine whether to conditionally approve any of the applicants; and (4) any applicants that received conditional approval would be required to demonstrate that their SASs meet all the requirements in the rules and any other conditions the Bureaus deemed necessary,  and at a 
minimum, to allow their systems to be tested and analyzed by Commission staff.
80  We seek comment on 
 
77 For this reason, some parties in the record oppose mechanisms that would automatically revoke an assignment 
after the duration of assignment has expired.  See EEI Refresh PN Comments  a t 8 (“Frequency assignments should 
not be revoked during flights because it would create potential safety concerns.”); L3H Refresh PN Comments at 5 -6 
(suggesting that use of an assignment beyond its duration should be subject to post -flight investigation  and 
enforcement, but that “[r]evocation of a frequency channel should never occur during a UAS flight”).  But see 
RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 5 ( sta ting that a utomatic revocation of a n assignment without confirmation from 
the UAS operator “should happen o nly after the frequency a ssignment manager has followed documented, disclosed 
and agreed upon . . . safety procedures”).     
78 See 47 CFR § 96.65(a), (b).  
79 See 3.5 GHz R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 4067, paras. 369 -73; see also , e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bur eau and 
Office of Engineering and Technology Conditionally Approve Seven Spectrum Access System Administrators for the 
3.5 GHz Band , GN Docket No. 15 -319, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 13355, 13356 -59, paras. 7 -10 (WTB/OET 
2016).    
80 See 3.5 GHz R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 4067, paras. 371 -72; see also  47 CFR §§ 0.241(j), 0.331(f) (jointly delegating 
to the Chiefs of OET and WTB authority to administer the SAS and SAS Administrator functions, and “to develop specific methods that will be used to designate SAS  Administrators; to designate SAS Administrators; to develop 
procedures that these SAS Administrators will use to ensure compliance with the requirements for SAS operation; to 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
19 adopting this approach.  In particular, we seek comment on facilitating the potential selection of multiple 
DFMSs through an application and certification process by which any entity found to meet the requirements can be the administrator of such a system, and we seek comment on what eligibility requirements should be set and whether (or to what extent) they should be codified or established through a separate process.  We also seek comment on whether we should provide a testing or trial phase for 
DFMS technology prior to the submission of applications, to facilitate or inform the requirements of the 
application process.  Following the SAS model, we  propose to delegate jointly to WTB and OET the 
authority to administer the selection process and make the selection.  We seek comment on what role the FAA and NTIA should have in setting up the process, reviewing applications, and making the selection.  
40. Coordination with flight authorization.  In addition to spectrum access , i.e., authorization 
to transmit, UAS operators also need approved or otherwise authorized access from the FAA to conduct 
flights in the airspace of the United States.  For example, under part 107, UAS operators are authorized to fly in uncontrolled airspace below 400 feet above the ground (AGL) and in accordance with part 107 of 
the FAA’s rules without specific airspace authorization, whereas part 107 flights in controlled airspace 
gener ally require a specific airspace authorization from air traffic control.
81  Under the UAS Traffic 
Management (UTM) program, however, the FAA has been developing a separate ecosystem of 
requirements, services, and other features to enable the traffic management of low -altitude UAS 
operations, including systems for automating the flight approval process.82  One result of the program has 
been the deployment of the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)  system, 
through which UAS operator s can apply to LAANC service providers to receive a near real -time airspace 
authorization for operations under 400 feet in controlled airspace around airports.83 
41. We seek comment on whether and how frequency assignments should be coordinated 
with airspace authorization for low altitude, high altitude, and terminal (departure/arrival) operations.  For example, should a DFMS be required to determine that a requesting party has any necessary flight authority as a condition of granting a spectrum assignment request?  If so, we seek comment as to whether and how a DFMS would interact with air traffic control or the relevant UTM systems (such as LAANC), or otherwise obtain information regarding airspace approvals, authorizations, or availability.  
42. Alternative approaches to dynamic spectrum access.  We seek comment on other options 
to enable dynamic spectrum access to the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  Some parties suggest that we adopt 
some form of cognitive radio solution, in which UAS radios would directly detect and identif y available 
spectrum channels.
84  They argue that a centralized system like the DFMS will be complex and labor 
intensive to use, will be inefficient in spectrum assignments and vulnerable to spectrum warehousing, and will have difficulty ensuring link protection and responding quickly to developments such as changes in 
(Continued from previous page)   
ma ke determinations regarding the continued a cceptability of individual SAS Administrators; a nd to perform other 
functions as needed for the administration of the SAS”).  
81 See FAA, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UA) Regulations (Part 107) , https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small -
unmanned -aircraft -systems -uas-regulations -part-107 ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022) (sta ting that part 107 “[o]perations 
in Cla ss G a irspa ce a re allowed without air tra ffic control (ATC) permission” while such “[o]perations in Cla ss B, C, D a nd E a irspace need ATC a uthorization.”).  
82 See FAA, Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management , 
https://www.faa.gov/u as/research_development/traffic_management  (la st visited Sept. 6, 2022 ); see also  NASA, 
Aeronautics Research , https://www.nasa.gov/utm  (la st visite d Sept. 6, 2022).    
83 See FAA, UAS Data Exchange (LAANC) , https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/data_exchange/  (la st 
visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
84 See L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 13 (a sserting that cognitive ra dios would have benefits and a re “worthy of 
further consideration”); SSC Refresh PN Comments at 4 -5 (proposing a system inclu ding “multiple types of 
evidence” to determine a vaila bility including da tabase query a nd optional device -based sensing).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
20 flight plans while a UA is already in flight.85  We seek comment on these concerns and whether they can 
be addressed by a DFMS, and we seek comment on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of alternative 
options as compared to the DFMS discussed above, and whether such alternatives would be sufficiently reliable to support even the most safety- critical uses such as flights in controlled airspace.  We further 
seek comment on whether there are ex isting technologies that could be applied or adapted to implement 
these alternative approaches, and on any standards work or other studies regarding the safety and reliability of links under such systems.  
43. We note that the Commission has, in two cases, adopted a variation of the DFMS 
approach in which, for a particular device to access the relevant spectrum band, automated and periodic queries of spectrum availability are made to a central database by the device itself.  In the 6 GHz band, 
the Commission adopted a system that allows unlicensed access to temporarily unused portions of the 
band while protecting incumbent services through a database of incumbent operations that certain 
unlicensed devices must query to determine available channels for their cover age area.
86  Similarly, in the 
TV bands, the Commission established a TV white space database that is queried by an unlicensed device 
seeking access to the bands  and that authorizes operations only on unused spectrum throughout the 
unlicensed device’s coverage area.87  We seek comment on whether a similar system could be adopted for 
NNA operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, under which 5030- 5091 MHz radios would be required to 
directly and periodically query a central database for available channels.  Given that the 6 GHz and white 
space systems are implemented to enable unlicensed devices  to access spectrum without interference 
protection, we seek comment on whether this type of system could be suitable to implement interference 
protection for UAS NNA operations.  Could such a system be implemented in a manner that provides an assignment of protected spectrum that covers all applicable stations in a particular UAS NNA operation (e.g., both the operator’s control station and the associated airbor ne radio) and ensures protected access 
for the duration of an entire UAS flight plan?  Alternatively, could such a device query function be added 
to the DFMS as a second and optional means of receiving authorization from the DFMS for use cases 
where such a uthorization is sufficient?  If the Commission adopts rules providing for the establishment of 
such a system, should we require that the system database be updated in real time with relevant parameters of the NNA systems currently in operation?  We further  seek comment on whether any such 
system and any tool used to perform the interference analysis should be certified and approved for use by the Commission and/or other appropriate authorities prior to operation.  
44. In the event that we adopt rules providing for the establishment and operation of a DFMS 
or some other coordination system or process, there may be a significant period of time before such 
coordination system is operational in the band and some operators may want protected access to the band 
during this interim period.  While such operators may currently apply for special temporary authority to 
use the band, these authorizations do not provide interference protection.
88  Accordingly, we seek 
comment on whether to establish some method by w hich operators can get temporary protected access to 
frequencies in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, or a portion of the band, during this interim period.  Should we 
provide that parties may apply during this period for licenses comparable to grants of part 5 speci al 
temporary authority (STA) ( e.g., a duration of no more than 6 months) but with rights of interference 
 
85 See, e.g., SSC Refresh PN Comments a t 9 -11. 
86 See Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band et al. , ET Docket No. 18 -295, et a l., Report a nd Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020) ( 6 GHz R&O).  
87 See generally 47 CFR pt. 15, subpt. H.  See also , generally , Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for 
Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed  600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex 
Gap and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37 , et al. , ET Docket No. 14 -65, et a l., Report a nd Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9551 
(2015).   
88 See 47 CFR § 1.931(b)(1); Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials 
under Part 5 of the Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules et al. , ET Docket No. 10 -236, et al., 
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 758, 760, para. 3 (2013).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
21 protection, and subject to pre -application coordination through a frequency coordinator group and to 
termination in the event a DFMS becomes operationa l?  Should such uses have the same opportunity for 
renewal as part 5 STAs?  Moreover, we seek comment on an interim frequency management process 
through which parties could obtain limited, short -term access to spectrum, such as access suitable for a 
single  flight or event.  
3. Multi-stakeholder Group  
45. We seek comment on a possible role for a multi- stakeholder group to help develop the 
requirements and processes applicable to the DFMSs, as well as to study stan dards and interference issues 
associated with UAS op erations in the band.  There are aviation -specific considerations that may affect 
how spectrum access should be managed, and it may be beneficial for stakeholders versed in such 
considerations ( e.g., members of the aviation industry, the UAS standards -maki ng community, frequency 
managers, and network operators) to assist in the development of requirements and processes.  In the 
context of the 3.5 GHz band, the Commission encouraged the informal creation of a multi -stakeholder 
group to develop various implem entation details to facilitate development of CBRS, and this approach 
proved highly successful.89  This informal reliance on multi- stakeholder group activities has been adopted 
in other contexts as well, including the implementation of Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) 
systems in the 6 GHz band.90  Further, several parties in the record support a role for a multi -stakeholder 
group to further develop requirements for the DFMS and the 5030- 5091 MHz band, although some 
advocate the designation of a more f ormal, governing body to serve in this role.91  We seek comment on 
whether, consistent with the successful approach in the 3.5 GHz band, we should encourage a multi -
stakeholder group to address implementation issues in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, but without t he 
Commission formally designating such a group or imposing a formal process for how the group reaches 
its determinations or recommendations.  If such a multi -stakeholder group were to be formed by third 
parties, what selection procedures might be desirabl e to ensure that the group appropriately reflects the 
diversity of UAS stakeholders?  What role might federal agency stakeholders have in this process?  We 
 
89 See 3.5 GHz R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 4081, paras. 416, 417 (finding that a mult i-stakeholder group could be 
instrumental in developing answers to some of the novel technical questions raised by the CBRS rules, declining to 
formally designate a group or adopt a specific process for reviewing and responding to their recommendations, bu t 
encouraging any such group to work to share their findings with the Commission and to incorporate their work, to 
the extent feasible, into the development of the 3.5 GHz band SAS and citizens band radio service devices).  To 
serve as a multi -stakeholder group for this purpose, the Wireless Innovation Forum (W InnForum) created the 
Spectrum Sharing Committee, which, inter alia , collaborated with relevant government agencies to develop 10 
sta ndards for the 3.5 GHz band a ddressing a range of CBRS a nd SAS tech nical a nd operational issues.  See, e.g., 
WInnForum Refresh PN Comments at 1 -2. 
90 See 6 GHz R&O, 35 FCC Rcd at  3918 -19, paras. 174 -80 (encouraging the formation of a multi -stakeholder group 
to provide a forum for the industry to study technical and operational issues raised by 6 GHz band unlicensed access 
and work cooperatively tow ards solutions); see also Expandin g Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band , GN Docket 
No. 18 -122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2467, para. 333 (2020).  
91 Compare Federated Wireless Refresh PN Comments at 7 -8 (recommending that the Commission follow the 
approach taken in the 3.5 GHz band and rely on cross -industry stakeholder groups to develop consensus standards 
for the performance of a shared access system for the 5030 -5091 MHz band), with AIA Refresh PN Comments at 
13, 18 (recommending that the Com mission and FAA jointly authorize an independent governing board to oversee 
the band), and  ASRI Refresh PN Comments a t 8 (supporting the establishment of a  “governing body formed from 
the UAS user community with FAA and Commission participation to oversee the frequency m anagement system”).  
See also L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 2, 5 -6 (proposing that the FCC and FAA collaborate with industry to 
establish a “UAS Spectrum Committee” responsible for establishing policies, procedures, and standards for 
a ssignment  of frequencies and procedures for processing frequency requests, as well as policies and procedures for 
releasing channels following the end of flight).  While AIA proposes establishment of a formal “governing body,” it also discusses a potential role for  “standards development organizations” to determine standards for such matters as 
the returning of frequency assignments.  See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 10, 13.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
22 seek comment on these and any additional procedures or approaches that a multi -stakeholder group might 
implement, particularly in light of the positive experience with the 3.5 GHz band stakeholder group.     
46. Assuming there is a role for a multi- stakeholder group, we seek comment on the 
appropriate extent of that role and the responsibilities it might mos t usefully undertake.  We seek 
comment on the matters a multi- stakeholder group should address with consensus standards or other 
determinations, or with the development of recommendations to one or more of the stakeholder agencies.  
We further seek comment  on the matters that the Commission should address independently of any multi -
stakeholder group and the rules it should adopt to establish a basic regulatory framework to govern the 
5030- 5091 MHz band and the DFMSs.  
4. Scope of Permissible Services  
47. In conside ring the appropriate scope of services to permit in the band, we begin with the 
services permitted by the underlying allocation.  As discussed above, the Commission added an AM(R)S allocation in the 5030- 5091 MHz  band to support UAS communications.  AM(R)S is reserved exclusively 
for communications relating to the safety and regularity of flight, primarily along national or international civil air routes.
92  Consistent with the scope of the allocation and the expressed purpose for its 
incorporation, we propose to permit only CNPC and to define CNPC as any UAS transmission that is sent to or from the UA component of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA’s flight.
93  
We seek comment on these proposals and on alternatives that would be consistent with the allocation and 
its purpose.  Should we alternatively define CNPC to cover any communications to or from a UA other 
than payload communications, and to define payload as information sent to achieve missi on objectives?94  
RTCA DO -362A, which provides MOPS for UAS CNPC in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, states that 
“payload communications,” for purposes of the standard, “specifically include communications associated 
with the UA mission payloads, which do not conta in safety -of-flight information,” and clarifies that 
“[s]afety -of-flight information is any information/data sent to or received from the UA that is necessary to 
ensure the UAS is operated/operating in a manner that protects people and/or property from har m due to 
unintentional events.”95  We seek comment on whether to adopt these or similar terms to define the scope 
of permissible CNPC.  NTIA proposes that we limit the band to a subset of CNPC, specifically communications for the control of the UA and othe r “safety -critical functions,” in order to limit UAS use 
to “essential services.”
96  RTCA DO -362A similarly provides that CNPC includes “[d]ata and information 
sent to/from the Pilot Station and the UA for the control of the UA and other safety- critical fu nctions.”97  
We seek comment on this option, on the costs and benefits of limiting the band to only the “safety-critical” communications, on what types of communications would be considered “safety- critical,” and 
what, if any, types of non- payload but safe ty-related communications would not be considered “safety-
critical.”   More generally, should we restrict communications to a subset of CNPC?  
 
92 See 47 CFR §§ 2.1, 2.106.   
93 See ASRI Refresh PN Comments at 5 -6 (arguing that band access should be dedicated to “UAS safety and 
regula rity of flight communications”); AURA Refresh PN Comments at 6; Boeing Refresh PN Comments at 8; 
RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 7 (recommending that “payload a nd non -safety  or non -route related information 
should not be sent over systems using this band.”).  
94 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments at 3 (proposing that the scope of services “does not include any messages sent 
to achieve mission (payload) objectives”); AIA Refresh PN Co mments at 11.   
95 See RTCA DO- 362A, § 1.1.  
96 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 3; see also L3H Refresh PN Comments at 2 (arguing that the Commission 
should prohibit “non -safety -of-life communications in the 5030 -5091 MHz band, with the exception of Health & 
status reports generated by the UAV and sent to the PIC for the sole purpose of ensuring flight reliability and integrity.”).   
97 RTCA DO- 362A, Appx. A.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
23 48. Conceivably, the same data from a UA may be both for the purpose of achieving flight 
mission objectives and for fli ght safety -related purposes, for example, video transmissions relied upon 
both as surveillance data and to assist in flight guidance, or UA telemetry data with respect to local 
weather conditions such as turbulence and wind shear.  We seek comment on whether such dual -purpose 
communications should be permissible if one of the purposes falls within the permissible scope.98  Would 
it better serve the public interest to only include communications that are exclusively for purposes of 
flight safety or regularit y? 
49. We seek comment on whether, instead of a general definition of scope or, potentially, as 
a clarifying and non- exclusive supplement to a general definition, we should specify certain categories of 
communications that are covered, such as (1) telecommands  to the UA; (2) telemetry from the UA that is 
relied upon for flight guidance or other flight safety- related purposes, such as geo- fencing to protect 
sensitive areas, i.e., Microwave Landing System sites, radio astronomy sites, adjacent licensees, etc.; (3 ) 
DAA- related transmissions; (4) video transmissions from the UA relied upon for flight guidance or other 
flight safety -related purposes; (5) Air Traffic Control communications relayed via the UA; and (6) remote 
identification transmissions.  We seek comme nt on whether any of these categories should be narrowed, 
broadened, eliminated, replaced, or supplemented with other categories.99  We seek comment on whether 
permissible communications should be restricted to communications between the control station and the 
UA station, i.e. , excluding broadcast from the UA or UA -to-UA communications.  We further seek 
comment on whether we should establish priorities among different categories of CNPC, or leave the 
rules flexible on this matter, with such prioritization potentially to be considered and developed through 
appropriate standards development by multi -stakeholder groups.100  Commenters should also consider the 
impact of these potentially covered communications on the capacity of the band, i.e., whether the addit ion 
of these categories of communications allows for sufficient spectrum to support the core purpose of the band, CNPC links.        
50. We note that the regulatory definition of AM(R)S limits the allocation to communications 
“relating to safety and regularity  of flight, primarily along national or international civil air routes .”
101  
As the allocation does not require that communications be exclusively for flights along such air routes, we 
propose not to restrict the scope of permissible CNPC services to such c ommunications.  We seek 
comment on this proposal and the extent to which operations outside civil air routes will need access to 
 
98 See Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 6 (stating that Wisk “does not support the use of the band for payloa d data 
except  as required for the safe operation of the payload, and in the case of UAM, safety related communications wi th 
the pa ssengers.”) (emphasis a dded).  
99 AURA, for example, asserts that categories that can be supported consistent with the AM(R)S al location include 
(1) UAS flight control and configuration messages; (2) high priority detect -and-avoid messages, (3) ATC 
communications; (4) flight safety telemetry messages; (5) other flight safety messages; (7) routine telemetry 
messages; and (7) air tra ffic services other than ATC communications.  See AURA Refresh PN Comments a t 6 ; cf. 
RTCA, Minimum Aviation System Perfor mance Standards for C2 Link Systems Supporting Operations of 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. Airspace, RTCA DO- 377A (2021) (RTCA DO- 377A),  Appx. E at E.3, Fig. E -2 
(describing the categories of non -payload internal a nd external information exchange between a control sta tion and a 
UA as (1) Aircraft Control telecommands; (2) Aircraft Control telemetry; (3) Navaids Setting Changes; (4 ) Na vaids 
Display Data; (5) ATC Voice Relay; (6) Target Data (DAA); (7) Weather Radar Data; (8) Non -Payload Video; a nd 
(9) C2 Link Management).  
100 AIA, for example, describes a prioritization of CNPC under the International Civil Avia tion Orga nization 
(ICAO) Annex 10 Volume VI Part I Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to be applied in both the 
Forward and Return directions of a “C2 Link System.”  See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 11 -12.  This scheme 
prioritizes data as follows: (1) UAS flight control a nd configuration messages; (2) high priority DAA messages; (3) 
ATC communications including distress calls and urgency messages; (4) flight safety telemetry messages including 
low priority DAA messages; (5) other flight safety messages; (6) routine telemet ry messages; (7) air traffic services 
other than ATC communications; and (8) other communications rela ted to sa fety a nd regula rity of flight.  See id.  
101 47 CFR § 2.1(c) (emphasis added).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
24 the 5030- 5091 MHz band for CNPC (as opposed to being able to rely on other spectrum solutions that 
may or may not provide the s ame level of reliability or air safety assurance).  Assuming some measure is 
necessary or appropriate to reflect the focus on flights primarily along national or international civil air 
routes, we seek comment on whether it would be sufficient to ensure that the applicable rules and technical standards provide the necessary reliability and safety to support the use of the band for such 
flights.  
51. We also seek comment on whether we should restrict NNA to CNPC but permit NSS 
licensees a broader scope such as a scope permitting UAS payload communications or permitting both 
UAS and non- UAS communications, provided that licensees ensure the safety and reliability of CNPC 
and ensure that communications associated with the safety of flight always have both priority a nd 
preemption over other communications.
102  We see at least two potential distinctions between NNA and 
NSS operations that may argue for a broader NSS scope of service.  First, NSS operations will require 
deployment of networks that will necessitate a very substantial investment, in contrast to NNA operations 
that can occur without any network deployment.  We seek comment on whether permitting a broader scope of services is necessary to provide adequate financial incentives to support network buildout in 
NSS spectrum.  Second, network technologies may be better positioned than direct -link systems to 
implement a successful prioritization of CNPC.  We seek comment on this possibility, and to what extent 
current or developing network technologies or architectur es are capable of ensuring the safety and priority 
of CNPC information over that associated with other traffic and whether these technologies or architectures will be compatible with other authorized operations in the band and/or with the TDD 
requirements of RTCA DO -362A.  We seek comment on whether such an expansion of scope would be 
permissible under section 303(y) of the Communications Act, which places certain limits on the 
Commission’s authority to “ allocate electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide fl exibility of use .”
103   
52. If we conclude that NSS licensees should be permitted a broader scope of permissible 
communications on an ancillary basis, we seek comment on adding an appropriate allocation if necessary, 
on what type of allocation should be adopted to support the broader scope, on whether to subject the 
allocation to secondary status under the AM(R)S allocation and to the limitations applicable to the 
AM(R)S allocation, and on any measures we should adopt to ensure that the primary use of the spectr um 
is for CNPC.  Should we rely on appropriate multi -stakeholder groups to develop the details of 
requirements to implement prioritization and preemption?  Should any mechanisms for implementing preemption and prioritization be subject to specific review a nd approval by the Commission, the FAA, 
and/or an appropriate third- party group?  
 
102 The sta ndard document RTCA DO -377A appears to endorse further consi der ation, to the extent permitted under 
the relevant spectrum allocation, of per mitting networks (as opposed to direct links) to provide both CNPC and 
payload if the relevant spectrum allocations support both, stating that “if a UAS designer selects . . . (a) a C2 Link 
System architecture that relies on external entities to provide the communication link, e.g., networked terrestrial 
radios or SATCOM and (b) there is sufficient bandwidth in the link, it may be beneficial to use a single link to 
transmit both  C2 and payload information; provided that the link is able to ensure the safety and priority of C2 
information over that associated with the payload(s).”  See RTCA, Minimum Avia tion System Performance 
Standards for C2 Link Systems Supporting Operations of  Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. Airspace, RTCA DO-
377A (2021) (RTCA DO -377A), Appx. A, at A.6.3; see also  RTCA DO- 377A, Appx. J (“Command and Control 
and Payload on Same Link”), at J.1 (providing “information related to using a common, or shared, link t o support 
both Command and Control (C2) and payload information exchanges.”) (emphasis in origina l).  
103 See 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).  Specifically, the provision provides that the Commission has authority to “allocate 
electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide fl exibility of use” if (1) such use is consistent with international 
agreements to which the United States is a party; (2) such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (3) such use would not resul t in harmful interference among 
users.  Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
25 5. Eligibility Restrictions  
53. We propose that any entity be eligible to obtain a 5030- 5091 MHz NSS license other than 
those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act  and those that are barred under 47 U.S.C. § 
1404 from participating in auctions.104  We seek comment on this proposal and whether eligibility should 
be more restricted.  We further seek comment on how, in this context, we interpret sectio n 310(b), which 
imposes restrictions on who can hold or be granted a “ broadcast or common carrier  or aeronautical en 
route or aeronautical fixed radio station license .”105  Under the various authorization proposals discussed 
herein, would a licensee be cons idered as holding a “common carrier[,] aeronautical en route or 
aeronautical fixed radio station license”?106  If so, how should we evaluate any foreign- ownership 
holdings?  
54. We also seek comment on whether to provide that any entity is eligible to operate NN A 
stations using assignments from a DFMS other than those precluded by section 310 from holding station 
licenses.  Given our proposal elsewhere to license NNA stations by rule, we seek comment on whether section 310 ownership restrictions, which apply to “ station licenses,” apply to operators of stations 
licensed by rule.  We further seek comment, if section 310 does not apply to operators of licensed- by-rule 
stations, on whether NNA station operators, or the parties receiving assignments from a DFMS for such 
operation, should be subject to eligibility restrictions comparable to those imposed by section 310 on 
station licensees.  
55. NTIA recommends that, to be eligible for a license for 5030- 5091 MHz UAS operations, 
an applicant be required to certify that it ha s the requisite FAA remote pilot certification or, in the case of 
an organization, to certify that it will only utilize individuals with this qualification for its UAS operations in the band.
107  Compliance by 5030- 5091 MHz operators with applicable FAA rem ote pilot regulations 
will be critical to the safe operation of UAS in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, and we seek comment on the 
best approach to achieve this goal, and on NTIA’s proposal as one option.  To the extent that we adopt a 
licensed -by-rule model for NN A as proposed, however, UAS operators will not be required to submit 
individual license applications, and accordingly, there will be no individual license applications in which 
UAS operators could make the proposed certifications.108  Further, provision of network- based NSS 
would likely involve a network provider’s provision of CNPC services to other entities, and thus, it is likely the relevant UAS operator will be neither a licensee nor an employee of a licensee.  Accordingly, 
we seek comment on whether re quiring license applicants to certify that they have the requisite FAA 
remote pilot certification or will utilize operators with such qualifications is a practical option in either the 
NNA or NSS context.  
56. We further seek comment on the costs and benefits of conditioning either NNA or NSS 
eligibility on a certification that the party has the necessary FAA remote pilot certification or compliance 
 
104 See 47 U.S.C. § 310 ; id. § 1404 ; see also 47 CFR § 96.5 (applying similar restrictions to Priority Access 
Licensees in the 3.5 GHz band).  
105 See 47 U.S.C. § 310(b).  Section 310(b) provides that these types of l icenses may not be granted to or held by  
aliens, representatives of aliens, foreign corporations or corporations with specified levels of foreign ownership.  Id. 
106 47 U.S.C. §  310(b).   
107 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 3; see also , e.g., EEI Refresh PN Comments a t 5 -6 (a rguing that, to a ddress 
public safety and security issues, the licensing framework should ensure that individual operators of CNPC links are 
properly qualified); Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 3 (arguing that license eligibility should be conditioned on operator’s ability to meet FAA safety and performance requirements).  
108 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 6 (a rguing a gainst license eligibility requirements if sta tions will be licensed  
by rule); see also Boeing Refresh PN Comments at 5 (arguin g that a license applicant certification that they have the 
requisite FAA remote pilot certification would be a helpful precaution only “to the extent the Commission proposes a licensing model that includes individual licensing of UAS operators”).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
26 with other FAA requirements.  We seek comment on whether it provides a significant regulatory benefit 
to specifically limit eligibility in this manner, given that UAS operators using 5030 -5091 MHz spectrum 
will in any case be subject directly to FAA rules and enforcement and would not be able to lawfully 
operate unless they comply with all applicable FAA requirements.   We also seek comment on any 
administrative concerns from having the Commission potentially be required to interpret and enforce the 
regulatory regime of another agency.  Although Boeing supports such incorporation, it notes that “the 
FAA is still working  to develop a remote pilot certification program for operators of large UAS.”109  
CTIA similarly notes that “FAA rules and regulations are evolving and it is unclear at this juncture what 
kind of certification, if any, the FAA will require for different types of UAS users.”110  Does the varied 
and evolving nature of these requirements further argue against importing them into the Commission’s 
licensing regime?  
57. To the extent that there should be some mechanism in addition to the FAA’s enforcement 
authority to adequately ensure that use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band will be consistent with FA A 
requirements, we seek comment on whether we can instead rely on the DFMS and NSS licensees to ensure that UAS operators have the necessary FAA approvals.  For example, to address NNA users, users 
registering with a DFMS could be required to make the requisite certification as a condition of registration.  Alternatively, we might impose a more general requirement on a DFMS to adopt measures 
that reasonably ensure that operators have the requisite FAA remote pilot authority, and defer to the 
DFMS administra tor (or a multi- stakeholder group) on specific mechanisms to implement this 
requirement.  We seek comment on these and other alternatives.  
6. Non-Networked Access (NNA) Service Rules  
58. Licensing rules.   We seek comment on the licensing regime or mechanism we sh ould 
adopt to enable authorization of NNA operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band and the costs and benefits 
of any proposed approach.  Because we anticipate a large number of operators seeking temporary use of the band, with an even greater number of ground and aircraft stations, we propose to reduce the 
administrative burdens on such operators and the Commission by adopting a licensing approach that 
would not require individual licensing of these numerous operators and/or stations.  Specifically, we propose to implement a licensed -by-rule authorization for aircraft and ground stations in the band, as 
recommended by AIA and others.
111  Under this framework, operators would not be required to apply for 
individual spectrum licenses for themselves or their mobile or ground stations in order to conduct NNA operations in the band.  Instead, parties using rule -compliant stations and operating in compliance with 
the rules would only need to obtain the requisite temporary frequency assignment from the DFMS in order to t ransmit in the band in the requested location, frequency, and timeframe.   We further propose to 
permit the stations used by the operator on the ground to send and receive signals to the UA to be either 
fixed stations or mobile stations (such as hand- held c ontrollers).
112  We seek comment, however, on 
whether to require all NNA ground stations in the band to be fixed stations, and on the costs and benefits 
of permitting the use of mobile ground stations.  To what extent would prohibiting such stations facilit ate 
coordination in the NNA portion of the band, or reduce the likelihood of harmful interference, failures to 
 
109 Boeing  Refresh PN Comments a t 5.   
110 CTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 8.  
111 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 5 -6 (proposing a framework under which the “pilot/operator would not be the 
spectrum license holder” and stations would be licensed  by rule to use channels assig ned on a flight -by-flight basis); 
id. at 13; Qualcomm Refresh PN Comments at 8; Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 3.  
112 As used in this NPRM, the term “mobile station” refers to a station “intended to be used while in motion or 
during halts at unspecified points. ”  47 CFR § 87.5 (mobile service); accord  47 CFR §  2.1 (defining “mobile 
station ” a s “[a] station in the mobile service intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified 
points ”); see 47 U.S.C. § 153(34) (“ The term ‘ mobile sta tion ’ m eans a  ra dio -communication station capable of being 
moved and which ordinarily does move. ”).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
27 comply with assignments, or challenges with administering or policing the system?  If we do not permit 
mobile ground stations, should we differentiate “portable” stations, i.e., stations that can be moved but are 
not intended to be used while in motion?  
59. Section 307(e) of the Act authorizes the Commission to adopt a licensed- by-rule 
approach for certain specific categories of services, including the “citizens band radio service,” and also 
expressly delegates to the Commission the discretion to define the scope of the term “citizens band radio 
service.”113  In the Commission’s rules, the citizens band radio service is defined as “any radio service or 
other specific classification of radio stations used primarily for wireless telecommunications for which the 
FCC has determined that it serves the public interest, convenience and necessity to authorize by rule the 
operation of radio stations in that servic e or class, without individual licenses, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
307(e)(1).”114  Pursuant to this authority, the Commission has provided for licensing by rule of an array of 
services through inclusion in the c itizens band radio service, including the Family R adio Service, the Low 
Power Radio Service, the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service, the Wireless Medical Telemetry 
Service, the Dedicated Short -Range Communications Service On- Board Unit s, and the Part 96 General 
Authorized Access tier of the 3.5 GHz  band.115  We tentatively find that licensing by rule of NNA stations 
would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and accordingly, we propose to implement 
licensing by rule by including NNA within the scope of the citizens band radio servic e.116  We seek 
comment on our tentative conclusion and proposal, on the scope of our authority under Section 307(e) to 
adopt a licensed -by-rule approach to UAS operations, and on alternative licensing approaches we might 
adopt that would not require individual licensing of operators or stations in the band.  
60. Section 307(e)(1) also expressly authorizes licensing by rule in “the aviation radio service 
for aircraft stations ” but does not provide an equivalent grant of authority to adopt licensing by rule for 
aviation service ground stations.117  We seek comment on whether we nevertheless have authority in this 
case to adopt licensing by rule for both aircraft and ground stations in the aviation service.  Section 
307(e)(3) provides the Commission authority to define “aircraft station” for purposes of section 307(e).  We seek comment on whether this provision provides us the authority to define “aircraft station” to 
include UAS ground stations and whether such an action would serve the public interest.  
61. Technical requ irements .  We seek comment on appropriate technical requirements to 
govern 5030- 5091 MHz NNA equipment and operations.  In the current record, NTIA, AIA, and many 
other parties support adoption of the technical requirements in the RTCA DO -362A standard for  this 
purpose.
118  RTCA DO -362A contains Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for 
terrestrial -based ( i.e., non- satellite)  CNPC point -to-point or point -to-multipoint links in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band, including power limits, emission limits, and fr equency accuracy requirements.119  The FAA 
 
113 47 U.S.C. § 307(e)(1), (e)(3).  The authority provides an exception to the statutory requirement under section 308 
of the Act that, aside from cases of emergencies, th e Commission may grant station licenses “only upon written 
application . . . .”  Id. § 308(a).  
114 47 CFR § 95.303.  
115 See 3.5 GHz R&O , 30 FCC Rcd at 4011, paras. 159 -61. 
116 We note that, while most services that fall under the citizens band radio service category are included in part 95 
of the Commission’s rules, the rules for 3.5 GHz General Authorized Access (GAA) stations, which are licensed  by 
rule, a re loca ted in pa rt 9 6.  See 47 CFR § 96.1(b).    
117 47 U.S.C. § 307(e)(1).  
118 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 2; see also AIA Refresh PN Comments a t 10 -11; ASRI Refresh PN 
Comments a t 5 -6; Boeing Refresh PN Comments at 2, 6; NUAIR Refresh PN Comments at 1; Wisk Refresh PN 
Comme nts a t 2.  
119 See RTCA DO- 362A §§ 1.1, 1.1.2,  1.4; see also id.  at Executive Summary .  Formally, RTCA DO -362A provides 
the standards for “CNPC Link Systems,” which are defined as “[t]he combination of airborne and ground UAS 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
28 recently issued a Technical Standard Order (TSO) establishing minimum performance standards in the 
5030- 5091 MHz band based on requirements in RTCA DO -362A.120  Accordingly, and in consideration 
of the current recor d, we propose to adopt the RTCA DO -362A standard or technical requirements based 
on that standard to govern NNA equipment and operations and seek comment on this proposal.121  We 
seek comment on the adequacy of the RTCA DO -362A specified equipment and opera tional performance 
requirements, including both transmitter power and receiver input power, and required minimum coupling loss (separation distance) between ground and airborne CNPC radios and emissions from other licensed radio services.
122  
62. We seek comment on an appropriate measure of CNPC link reliability to assess RTCA 
DO-362A and other standards, on the specific anticipated level of CNPC link reliability through radios 
compliant with the RTCA DO -362A standard, and on any available data that confir ms that reliability.  We 
note that some parties have already constructed 5030- 5091 MHz UAS radios compliant with RTCA DO -
362 and some have also obtained experimental license authorization from the Commission for their 
operation in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.123  We seek comment on any current or past operation of 
equipment compliant with RTCA DO -362 or RTCA DO -362A, on the results of any such operations, and 
on the extent to which they support or raise issues or concerns about incorporation of the standard as the 
governing technical framework for the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  We also seek comment on whether parties 
have deployed experimental UAS equipment in the 5030- 5091 MHz band in reliance on any other 
technical standard.  Is there any benefit to requiring formal experimental trials or testing for 5030-5091 MHz band equipment?      
63. We also seek comment on any costs or disadvantages in imposing the  RTCA DO -362A 
standard.  For example, we seek comment on whether and to what extent imposition of this standard may limit the scope of UAS operations that can make use of links in the band.  We also seek comment on 
whether any such limitations are a result of hard constraints codified in the standard on the scope of UAS operations that may occur consistent with the standard specifications, or instead are a consequence of practical constraints, such as if the standard requires the development and installation of radio equipment 
that may be too heavy for some UA to carry.  For example, the standard provides the standards for CN PC 
(Continued from previous page)   
radios, antennas, and cabling bet ween them that support the data and information exchanges between the UA a nd the 
[control station] for the purposes of managing and controlling the flight and operation of a UA.”  Id. §§ 1.4, 1.9.  
120 See TSO-C213a; see also supra n.19; Boeing Refresh PN Com ments at 6 (stating that “radios that comply with 
FAA Technical Standard Order . . . requirements, likely based on RTCA DO -362, will be necessary to ensure 
aviation safety under the AM(R)S service.”).        
121 See RTCA DO- 362A.  We note that RTCA SC -228 ha s been working on a revision of the standard, to be 
designa ted DO -362B.  See RTCA Special Committee 228, Terms of Reference, Minimum Performance Standards 
for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 5 ( June 23, 2022 ), https://www.rtca.org/wp -content/uploads/2022/06/SC -228-TOR-
Rev-15-Approved -2022- 06-23.pdf  (S C-228 June 2022 Terms of Reference).  Below, we seek comment on 
streamlining the process by which the Commission’s rules can be updated to reflect such a revision.  See infra  para.  
74.  
122 We note that the Commission has recently issued a Notice of Inquiry regarding potential measures that may 
promote improvements in receiver performance.  See Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum through Improved 
Receiver Interference Immunity Performance , ET Docket No. 22 -137, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 22 -29 (Apr. 21, 
2022).  Comments regarding UAS -related receiver performance may also be submitted in that docket.   
123 See, e.g., L3H Refresh PN Comments at 7 (stating that certain requirements of the standard wer e “successfully 
demonstrated in prototype CNPC C Band radios”); uAvionix Refresh PN Comments at 1 (stating that uAvionix has 
obtained experimental licenses for 5030 -5091 MHz band ra dio development in two locations, Bigfork, Montana, and 
Grand Forks, North Da kota, a nd that (as of October 12, 2021) flight tests had a lready begun at Bigfork using ra dios 
designed to comply with RTCA DO -362A).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
29 Link Systems, which are limited to communications between a UA and a control station.124  We seek 
comment on whether application of the standard to the band would preclude use of the band for UA -to-
UA or broadcast transmissions for purposes such as DAA or Remote ID.  Or would transmissions such as 
Remote ID broadcasts be compatible with commu nications between ground stations and aircraft so long 
as the broadcast transmissions complied with the requirements of section 2.2.1 of RTCA DO -362A that 
are applicable to aircraft stations?125  Some have also asserted that application of the standard may restrict 
permissible operations to flights transitioning in and out of Class A airspace.126  We seek comment on the 
extent to which requiring compliance with RTCA DO -362A would strictly or effectively limit operations 
in this manner.  
64. Canada states that som e technical incompatibilities have been identified between RTCA 
DO-362A and a proposed standard by the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment 
(EUROCAE) for satellite -based CNPC in the same band, designated draft ED -265, and asserts that 
adoption of the RTCA DO -362A standard without addressing the incompatibilities may create difficulties 
in managing the operation of CNPC links in support of international UAS operations.127  We seek 
comment on these concerns, the nature of the incompatibilities, and what, if any, measures, requirements, or restrictions are necessary to address them.
128  We note that RTCA has been considering the “ED -
265/DO- 362 interference issue.”129  We seek comment on any determinations that have been made 
regarding these incompatibilities and whether the issue is adequately addressed in the current RTCA DO -
362A version of the standard or will be addressed in a future version.  If revisions to RTCA DO -362A are 
necessary or appropriate to address these issues, we seek comment on whet her the next version of the 
standard is anticipated to be backwardly compatible with RTCA DO -362A, and if not, whether adoption 
of final rules should be deferred until these issues are resolved in a new version of the standard.  We seek comment on whether any coordination or other requirements are necessary to ensure adequate protection of foreign satellite -based CNPC services in the band, particularly insofar as they may operate near United 
States jurisdictional boundaries.  We also note that footnote 5.443C of the Table of Frequency Allocations limits the use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band to “internationally standardized aeronautical systems.”
130  We 
seek comment on whether this provision requires the Commission to adopt a standard that is compatible 
 
124 See RTCA DO- 362A, § 1.2 (“[T]his CNPC Link System MOPS document addresses only the CNPC Link 
System, which is part of a  la rger system that seeks to exchange information between a  UA a nd its Control Station”).  
125 See RTCA DO- 362A, § 2.2.1.  
126 See CTIA AIA Petition Comments at 9.  Class A airspace is the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) 
up to and including flight level (FL) 600.  See FAA, Airspace Classification , 
https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/Airspace_Classification.html  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
127 See Ca nada Refresh PN Comments at 1; see also EUROCAE Open Consultation, ED -265, 
https://www.eurocae.net/news/posts/2019/may/eurocae -open- consultation -ed-265/ (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
128 While Canada does not describe the nature of the incompatibility to which it refers, and no other commenter 
discusses incompatibilities between the RTCA DO -362A standard and the EUROCAE standard, discussions before 
ICAO have focused on the difference in TDD time frames betwee n the two standards; RTCA DO -362A terrestrial 
links relies on a  50 ms time frame to minimize la tency, while the sa tellite -based links under ED -265 would use a 
300 ms time frame.  See, e.g., ICAO, C2 Link 5 GHz Band Pla nning – Sta tus Update – RPAS Panel WG2 , at 3 -4 
(Oct. 2021), https://www.icao.int/safety/FSMP/MeetingDocs/FSMP%20WG12/IP/FSMP -WG12 -
IP01_C%20Band%20Planning_20210924.pptx  ( last visited Sept. 6, 2022); see also id. a t 5 (“[G]iven the different 
TDD time fra mes, the potential for Air -to-Air and Ground -to-Ground interference between the terrestrial a nd 
satellite equipped UA and ground systems e xists.”) . 
129 RTCA -228, Summary of Plenary #30 RTCA Paper No. 183 -21/SC228 -089, 2 (July 16, 2021),  
https://www.rtca.org/wp -content/uploads/2021/08/228sum30.pdf  (summary of the thirtieth plenary meeting of 
RTCA SC- 228); see also  SC-228 June 2022  Terms of Reference  at 2 (sta ting that in the Phase Three update of 
RTCA DO- 362A, the standard will be “ha rmonized with C -band satcom usage internationally, if required”) .  
130 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.443C.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
30 with the E UROCAE standard, and whether RTCA DO -362A would meet our obligations under footnote 
5.443C.   
65. If we incorporate the RTCA DO -362A standard into our rules, we seek comment on 
whether to do so through adoption of a general requirement that, to be certified fo r use under or operated 
under the NNA rules, all radio equipment must comply with the requirements of RTCA DO -362A, rather 
than to separately incorporate the various technical requirements of RTCA DO -362A ( e.g., power, 
frequency stability, and emission lim itations ) into the service rules.131  If we adopt a general requirement 
to comply with RTCA DO -362A, w e propose to also separately codify requirements for power and 
emission bandwidth based on the RTCA DO -362A standard, to provide clarity and ease of reference in 
the rules.132  If, alternatively, we do not have a requirement of general compliance with RTCA DO -362A, 
but require compliance with only selected provisions of the standard, which provisions or requirements 
from RTCA DO -362A should we impose?  Which specific provisions of RTCA DO -362A are necessary 
for compatible use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band?  Should the Commission’s technical framework require 
compliance more broadly with section 2, the Equipment Performance Requirements and Test Procedures 
applicab le to the link system radios, or both sections 2 and 3, the latter of which includes performance 
standards for the link system when installed in a UA and ground location?133  Alternatively, is it 
sufficient, for purposes of establishing the baseline technic al framework, to require compliance with the 
specific frequency capture range (which includes a frequency accuracy standard), power limits, and emission limits stipulated by the standard?
134   
66. RTCA states that emission limit requirements should also require  equipment compliance 
with the 50 ms Time Division Duplex (TDD) requirements specified under section 2.2.1.3 of the 
standard.135  It asserts that use of non- TDD systems or TDD systems with different time length frames 
operating in the 5030- 5091 MHz band wit hin the same radio horizon as RTCA DO -362A compliant 
equipment will cause unacceptable levels of interference.136  We seek comment on RTCA’s assertion and 
recommendation, and whether adoption of the standard for NNA will necessarily require all equipment in 
the band, including equipment in neighboring NSS blocks, to use RTCA DO -362A compliant TDD 
equipment to avoid harmful interference to NNA operations.   
67. We seek comment on whether any of the general technical requirements in subpart D of 
part 87 should apply to NNA equipment.  NTIA proposes, for example, that in addition to meeting the 
out-of-band emissions limits in RTCA DO -362A, we should also require equipment to meet the out -of-
band emissions limit specified in section 87.139(c).137  RTCA argues, however , that the current 
 
131 See Appendix A (Proposed Rules).  
132 See Appx. A, §§ 88.101, 88.103; see also RTCA DO- 362A, §§ 2.2.1.6.1.1.1 (C Ba nd ARS Ra dio Transmitter 
Output Power (High -Power Mode)), 2.2.1.6.1.1.2 (C  Band ARS Radio Transmitter Output Power (Low -Power 
Mode)), 2.2.1.5.2 (Channel Width), 2.2.1.5.5 (Video Channels), § 2.2.1.5.6 (Non -Video Channels).  
133 See RTCA DO- 362A, §§ 2, 3.  Section 3 requirements are imposed out of recognition that “[s]ome CNPC Link 
System attributes and performance may be affected by factors resulting from integration into the UAS.”  RTCA DO-
362A, § 3.   
134 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments at 2; RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 6; see also RTCA DO- 362A §§ 2.2.1.4 
(frequency capture range), 2.2 .1.6.1 (power limits), 2.2.1.6.2 (emission/output power spectr al density limits).  RTCA 
flags the section 2.2.1.6 power and emission limits (stating that these requirements have been made “more stringent” 
than in the original RTCA DO -362 standard) but reco mmends we require complia nce with tra nsmitter EIRP a nd 
EIRP spectral density emissions requirements under section 3.2.1.42.  See RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 6.    
135 See RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 6.  See also AIA Refresh PN Comments a t 11 (supporting a  requirement that 
transmitters comply with the 50 ms TDD requirements of RTCA DO -362A § 2.2.1.3).  
136 See RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 6.  
137 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments at 2.  Section 87.139(c) of the Commission’s rules provides th at “[f]or aircraft 
sta tion tra nsmitters first installed a fter February 1, 1983, a nd for a eronautical station transmitters in use a fter 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
31 requirements of section 87.139(c) are less stringent than those in RTCA DO -362A, and that the 
Commission should just require compliance with the latter.138  L3H asserts that it is not clear whether 
section 87.139 is applicable, as it appl ies only to communications using certain specific Emissions 
Designators and the RTCA DO -362A mandatory modulation makes no reference to these designators.139  
We seek comment on NTIA’s proposal, on whether section 87.139(c) may, under its existing terms, apply 
to UAS communications anticipated in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, and whether such application is in the 
public interest.  We further seek comment on whether we need to specify authorized emission classes and 
designators for this service, such as has been done with aviation services.140  If so, we seek comment on 
what classes and designators are appropriate, and whether we should use one of the types of assignable 
emissions already defined in, for example, section 87.137 of the rules.141  We propose emission 
designators of G8D for data and G8F for video and seek comment on their appropriateness for operations subject to RTCA DO -362A.
142   
68. We seek comment on any other requirements we should impose on NNA equipment.  For 
example, what requirements should we adopt to facilitate a DFMS’s ability to communicate with or 
otherwise control such equipment in the execution of the DFMS’s responsibilities?  Should equipment be 
required to enable the DFMS to make direct (machine- to-machine) frequency assignments to the UAS 
equipment, in order to ensure that assignments are accurately programmed?  Should this capability be 
available at all times, or only pre -flight?  To the extent DFMS communications or control signals are 
intended to affect operating parameters of the UA , should such communications or control signals be 
required to occur exclusively through communications between the DFMS and the relevant ground 
control station or stations, rather than through direct communications with a UA station?  In the 3.5 GHz 
band,  fixed stations must respond automatically to SAS directions to modify certain operational 
parameters such as frequency or power limit.143  Should requirements be adopted for NNA equipment to 
provide the DFMS with similar control?  We further seek comment on whether to impose requirements to 
ensure interoperability between NNA and NSS network services.  Potentially, UA flights that initially  
rely on a network service may extend into areas where no network has been deployed.  What 
requirements, if any, should we adopt to facilitate operations that can seamlessly switch between network service for CNPC and NNA assignments for that purpose?   
69. We note that RTCA has also adopted another standard applicable to CNPC in the 5030-
5091 MHz band, designated RTCA DO -377A, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards for C2 
(Continued from previous page)   
February 1, 1983, and using H2B, H3E, J3E, J7B or J9W, the peak envelope power of any emissions must be 
a ttenuated below the peak envelope power of the transmitter (pX) as follows: (1) When the frequency is removed 
from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to a nd including 150 percent of the a uthorized bandwidth 
of 3.0 kHz, the attenuation must be at least 30 dB .  (2) When the frequency is removed from the assigned frequency 
by more than 150 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth of 3.0 kHz, the attenuation 
must be at least 38 dB.  (3) When the frequency is removed from the assigned f requency by more than 250 percent 
of the authorized bandwidth of 3.0 kHz for aircraft transmitters the attenuation must be at least 43 dB.  For aeronautical station transmitters with transmitter power up to and including 50 watts the attenuation must be at  lea st 
43 + 10log
10 pX dB and with transmitter power more than 50 watts the attenuation must be at least 60 dB.”  47 CFR 
§ 87.139(c).  
138 See RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 6.  
139 See L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 9.  
140 See 47 CFR § 87.131.  
141 See 47 CFR § 87.137 (pro viding the a ssignable emissions for part 87 services a nd corresponding emission 
designa tors a nd a uthorized bandwidths).  
142 See 47 CFR § 2.201; see also  Appx. A, § 88.105.   
143 See 47 CFR § 96.39(c)(2).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
32 Link Systems Supporting Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. Airspace ( RTCA DO -
377A).144  Whereas RTCA DO -362A describes minimum performance standards for the ground and 
airborne radios used for a direct link, focusing on certain design characteristics of these radios such as 
power and emissions limits, RTCA DO -377A describes the minimum performance of an overall “C2 Link 
System,” defined as a system used to send information exchanges between a control station and an 
unmanned aircraft and to manage the connection between them, and which can be comprised of one or 
many Air/Ground links and Ground/Ground links.145  RTCA DO -377A can be applied to systems relying 
on a direct connection or systems relying on network functionality for the connection, and focuses on system requirements, including system performance, safety, and security requirements.
146  To the extent 
that RTCA DO -377A applies to NNA operations, we seek comment on whether we should adopt rules 
requiring compliance with the standard.147  Alternatively, should we limit our requirements, as AIA 
recommends, to technical requir ements based on RTCA DO -362A and leave system performance, safety, 
and security requirements, such as those in RTCA DO -377A, to be considered by a multi -stakeholder 
group or addressed by the FAA?148 
70. Application of Part 87 Aviation Service Rules and Part 1 W ireless Radio Service Rules.  
We seek comment on where to locate the new NNA services rules within the organization of the Commission’s rules.  Some parties argue that the new service should be located in part 87,
149 which 
“states the conditions under which radio stations may be licensed and used in the aviation services.”150  
We seek comment on this option.  We note, however, that the new services may not entirely fit within the 
scope of “aviation services,” which are defined as “[r]adio -communication servic es for the operation of 
aircraft.”151  For example, we seek comment above on whether to permit non- CNPC traffic, such as 
payload communications, which would be communications to achieve mission objectives and not for the 
“operation of aircraft.”  In additio n, it may be appropriate to locate the new NNA and NSS service rules 
 
144 See RTCA DO- 377A.  Like RTCA DO -362A, RTCA DO- 377A is a  revision of the original version of the 
sta ndard, RTCA DO -377. 
145 See RTCA DO- 377A, §§  1.2, 3.2.1.   
146 See, e.g., RTCA DO- 377A at 1.1.2.  Although it appears that RTCA DO -377A’s performance standards can be 
applied to any C2 Link System, we note that comm enters in this proceeding have generally described the 
requirements of RTCA DO -377A in the context of network -based CNPC.  See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments at 6 
(asserting that network providers of CNPC must “meet[] aviation performance levels and the sa fety requirements (in 
DO-377A) that govern a proposed network of [ground stations] and services”); id. a t 8 (sta ting that RTCA DO -377A 
“guides the implementation of ground networks”); uAvionix Refresh PN Comments at 1; Wisk Refresh PN 
Comments at 2 n.5 (“D O-377A provides a basis for the sa fety, performance, a nd security standards that a  CNPC 
network should meet . . . .”).  
147 While we do not anticipate that wide -area networks will be deployed in reliance on NNA assignments because of 
the highly transient natu re of the relevant spectrum rights, we do not propose to prohibit oper ators from using their 
temporary a ssignments with fixed network infrastructure.  Potentially, parties might use these tra nsient spectrum 
rights in connection with limited infrastructure deployment, such as a string of ground stations deployed over a 
particular and frequently used flight path.  We invite commenters to discuss whether and to what extent the 
minimum performance standards of RTCA DO -377A would apply in such cases.  
148 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 8, 13 -14 (advocating that “the basis of initia l service rules” should be “found 
in RTCA DO- 362A” and “aviation -specific requirements based on DO -377A should be developed “by members of 
the UAS standards -making community”); WInnFo rum Refresh PN Comments a t 3 (a dvocating that the Commission 
establish rules with “the minimum necessary technical restrictions to provide adequate protection against harmful 
interference”).   Above, we address in further detail the potential reliance on a multi- stakeholder group to further 
develop recommendations or standards for DFMS and CNPC operation in the 5030 -5091 MHz band.  
149 See, e.g., AIA Petition a t ii.  
150 47 CFR § 87.1(b).  
151 47 CFR § 87.5.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
33 together, and we anticipate that NSS licenses will differ from traditional aviation services in a number of 
other ways.  For example, unlike licenses in traditional aviation services, we anticipate that NSS licenses will provide exclusive rights to spectrum.
152  Further, we expect that NSS licenses will be used for the 
provision of commercial wireless network services and will therefore raise a number of issues more comparable to those involved in the regulation of commercial network services than the regulation of 
traditional aviation services, such as considerations of promoting service competition and network build-
out, as well as possible license auction issues.  In addition, the current  part 87 rules were not adopted with 
UAS in mind, and many of the rules in part 87, even in sections otherwise generally applicable to part 87 services, may be unnecessary or inappropriate to apply to UAS communications or to the 5030- 5091 MHz 
services spe cifically.
153  Locating the rules in a new rule part may therefore provide greater clarity and 
ease of reference in determining the rules applicable to the band.  Finally, locating the rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band in a new rule part would not be inconsi stent with its allocation for AM(R)S.  Whether or 
not the rules are in part 87, the band will remain protected aviation spectrum allocated for AM(R)S and rules under this allocation can be adopted to achieve the safety and reliability appropriate for commu nications “relating to the safety and regularity of flight,” regardless of where the rules are 
located.
154  Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should locate the new UAS rules in a new rule 
part rather than in part 87, as reflected in Appendix A.155  We further seek comment on alternative options 
for the appropriate home for the new rules.    
71. Whether we locate the rules for the 5030 -5091 MHz band in part 87, a new rule part, or 
elsewhere, we seek comment on whether and to what extent the generally appl icable rules in subparts B 
through F of part 87 should apply to or be incorporated into the new NNA service, either in their current form or with modifications.
156  We ask commenters that argue for application of these general part 87 
rules to be specific as to which provisions they recommend should be applied, and what, if any, modifications they propose.  We anticipate that many of these provisions will be unnecessary, superseded, 
or otherwise inappropriate as a result of the specific requirements we adopt  for the new service.  For 
example, section 87.41 (Frequencies) in subpart B provides rules for the request and coordination of 
specific frequencies.  Given the proposal for frequency management by a DFMS, is this provision entirely superseded, or is there  an aspect of this provision that should apply to NNA assignments?   
72. As another example, section 87.89 requires that, with certain exceptions, operators of 
licensed aviation service stations “must hold a commercial radio operator license or permit.”
157  The  
 
152 See 47 CFR § 87.41(b) (providing that frequencies are available for part 87 aviation services “on a shared basis 
only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee”).  
153 See, e.g., CTIA AIA Petition Comments at 15 (arguing that part 87 rules were “designed for manned aircraft,”  
that “there are critical differences among manned  aircraft and unmanned  aircraft,” including different risk 
considerations, that “regulations for each should be appropriate,” and that a new rule part for UAS would be “more 
worka ble than a ttempting to retr ofit rules intended for manned aviation to accommodate UAS.”) (emphasis in 
original).  We seek comment below on the extent to which the substance of specific part 87 requirements should be applied to NNA operations.   
154 See 47 CFR § 2.1 (definition of AM(R )S). 
155 See supra Appx. A.  
156 See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpts. B (Applications and Licenses), C (Operating Requirements and Procedures), D 
(Technical Requirements), E (Frequencies), F (Aircraft Stations).  Above, we discuss in greater detail possible 
technical req uirements, including possible application of the general part 87 technical provisions in subpart D.  
157 47 CFR § 87.89(a); see  also FCC, Commercial Radio Operator License Program , 
https://www.fcc.gov/commercial -radio -operator -license -program  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022) (“FCC rules require that 
licensees of [aviation service] stations permit only persons holding the appropriate FCC -issued commerci al operator 
license to perform specified transmitter operation, maintenance and repair duties.”).  We note that this part 87 
requirement is subject to the general waiver of the operator license requirement for subscribers of a Wireless Radio 
Service.  See 47 CFR § 1.903(c); see also id.  § 1.907 (providing that part 1 Wireless Radio Services include, inter 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
34 operator license requirement is distinct from and wholly independent of the requirement that each station 
be licensed and requires individuals seeking an operator license to demonstrate, by passing a formal examination, sufficient knowledge of the relevant radio technologies.
158  The operator license requirement 
stems from section 318 of the Act, which requires operators of transmitting equipment of licensed stations to hold an operator’s license, except where the Commission finds that the public interest, convenience, or 
necessity will be served by waiving such requirement.
159  Some parties in the record have suggested that 
the Commission adopt operator license requirements for all UAS operators that use 5030- 5091 MHz radio 
equipment, or at least impose the equivalent knowledge requirements on such operators.160  Others have 
argued against such a requirement.  For example, some assert that the Commission should defer to the 
FAA as the expert agency over aircraft pilot qualifications and rely on the FAA’s regulations establishing 
the testing and certification of UAS operators instead of establishing its own UAS operator licensing or 
permit requirement.161  Some also suggest that requiring all operations to be performed by licensed UAS 
operators might unintentionally prohibit autonomous UAS operations that do not require human operators.
162  We seek comment on whether, in addition to the station license (which, as discussed, we 
propose to provide through licensing by rule), we should require UAS operators using a NNA assignment in the 5030- 5091 MHz band to have an individual operator license.  Conversely, would it be in the public 
interest to forgo any such operator licensing or permitting requirements as unnecessary or inappropriate in light of FAA regulation of and authority over UAS remote pilot qualifications, or for other reasons?  
73. We also seek comment on whether the new service should be subject to rules under part 
1, subpart F governing “Wireless Radio Service” applications and proceedings.
163  The “Wireless Radi o 
Services” are already defined to include licensed -by-rule services such as those under parts 95 and 96, as 
well as public and private part 87 aviation services, although not all of these subpart F provisions apply to licensed -by-rule services, such as th ose requirements governing license applications.
164  Accordingly, we 
seek comment on whether NNA services, even if licensed by rule, should be included in and subject to the subpart F rules for Wireless Radio Services to the same extent as other licensed -by-rule services.      
74. Streamlined procedures to update incorporated standards.   We anticipate that any 
technical standard developed by a standards organization that we incorporate by reference into our rules will be subject to ongoing revisions as parties gain more experience and the UAS industry continues to rapidly evolve.  For example, RTCA DO -362A, which we consider above, is a 2020 revision of the 
(Continued from previous page)   
alia, part 87 services).  Given that NNA assignments are intended to provide operators with direct access to 
spectrum, however, it appears unlikely that many UAS oper ators that rely on NNA assignments will be doing so as 
subscribers of a Wireless Radio Service.  
158 See FCC, Examinations , https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau -divisions/mobility -division/commercial- radio -
operator -license -program/examinations  ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
159 47 U.S.C. § 318.  
160 See, e.g., AIA Petition at 9.  AIA propos es that operators be required to pass a test incorporating “Element 3” of 
the Commission’s operator license examination.  See AIA Petition at 9.  Element 3 covers knowledge of the 
electronic fundamentals and techniques required to adjust, repair, and maintain radio transmitters and receivers.  See 
FCC, Examinations , https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau -divisions/mobility -division/commercial- ra dio -operator -
license -program/examinations#block- menu- block -4 ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
161 See CTIA AIA Petition Comments a t 19 -20; Small UAV Coa lition AIA Petition Comments a t 7.  
162 See Sma ll UAV Coa lition AIA Petition Comments a t 6.  
163 See 47 CFR pt. 1, subpt. F (Wireless Radio Services Applications and Proceedings).  The term “Wireless Radio 
Services” or WRS is defined as “[a]ll  radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 
96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.”  47 CFR § 1.907.  Thus, WRS  is a n 
umbrella designation covering a  wide ra nge of terrestrially -based licensed wireless services.  
164 See 47 CFR § 1.907 (definition of “Wireless Radio Services”).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
35 RTCA DO -362 standard issued by RTCA in 2016, and RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC -228) is 
already working on a second revision.165  Accordingly, we anticipate that the rules will need to be 
revisited in the future to reflect important and beneficial standard updates.  In the past, the Commission 
has found it in the public interest to streamline the process for incorporating updates t o a previously 
adopted standard, by delegating rulemaking authority to one or more Bureaus for this purpose.166  To help 
ensure that the rules for 5030- 5091 MHz UAS operations continue to reflect the most current version of 
any incorporated standard for 5030- 5091 MHz UAS operations, we invite comment on whether we 
should adopt a comparable delegation of rulemaking authority in this case.  Specifically, we seek 
comment on whether to delegate joint rulemaking authority to WTB and OET to incorporate into the 
Commission’s rules, after consultation with the FAA and NTIA, and notice and an opportunity for public 
comment, any updated version of a previously incorporated technical standard applicable to UAS operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.
167  Similar to limitations the Commission has placed in some 
earlier delegations of rulemaking authority to update standards, should we limit this delegated authority to 
the incorporation of standard updates that do not raise major compliance issues?168     
7. Network Supported Serv ice (NSS) Service Rules  
75. We seek comment on the license terms and service rules we should adopt for NSS 
licenses.  We seek comment in particular on issuing exclusive use, geographic area defined licenses for a 
specific term of years, with rights of renewal,  subject to specific performance (network coverage) 
obligations.  We seek comment on appropriate technical and operational requirements and on the assignment process rules.    
76. Geographic area licenses.  Consistent with our approach in several other bands that has 
promoted the deployment of wide area networks for a variety of fixed and mobile services,
169 we propose 
to license NSS spectrum blocks in the 5030- 5091 MHz band for exclusive use on a geographic  area basis.  
Geographic  area licensing provides  certainty to licensees and promotes efficient spectrum use, among 
other things, and will give licensees siting flexibility that will promote the deployment of wide area networks in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  Geographic area licensing will also help to facil itate rapid 
assignment of licenses, utilizing competitive bidding when mutually exclusive applications are received.
170  We seek comment on this approach, on its costs and benefits, and on alternative licensing 
approaches.  If a party opposes using geographic licensing, it should explain its position, describe the 
 
165 See, e.g. , SC-228 June 2022 Terms of Reference at 5  (indicating that DO -362B has a due date of October 2023).  
166 See, e.g., Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s R ules Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Telephones , WT Docket 
01-309, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16779, para. 63 (2003); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules 
Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT Docket No. 07 -250, First Report and Ord er, 23 FCC Rcd 
3406, 3441, para. 87 (2008); Access to Telecommunication Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities; 
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Handsets , CG Docket No. 13 -46, WT 
Docket Nos. 07 -250, 10 -254, Report and Order and Order on Reconsider ation, 32 FCC Rcd 9063, 9092, Appx. B 
(2017) (expanding rulemaking delegation codified a t section 20.19(k)); see also Structure and Practices of the Video 
Relay Service Program , Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech -to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities , GC Docket Nos. 10 -51, 03 -123, Report a nd Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 8618, 8643, para. 49 (2013).  
167 While we invite comment on this issue, we n ote that it involves potential rules rega rding a gency orga nization, 
procedure, or practice, which are not subject to notice -and-comment rulemaking requirements under section 553 of 
the Administrative Procedure Act.  See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A).   
168 Cf. 47 CFR  §§ 0.241(a)(1)(ii), 20.19(k)(2).  
169 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 27.6(h), (i), and (m) (AWS -1, AWS -4, and 3.7 GHz Service bands, respectively).  
170 See, e.g., Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100 -3550 MHz Band , WT Docket No. 19 -348, Report a nd Order a nd 
Further Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 11078, 11098, para. 56 (2020).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
36 licensing scheme it supports, and identify the costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing 
proposal.    
77. We further seek comment on the appropriate geographic license area or areas for NSS 
licenses to support NSS UAS operations and facilitate investment, including investment by small entities, and robust spectrum use.  We seek comment on whether we should adopt larger license areas such as Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAG) or nationwide markets to facilitate NSS uses that may often involve flight over long distances, adopt a more granular scheme such as Partial Economic Areas (PEA), which would provide more flexibility to serve a smaller area but still permit parties to achieve a larger 
area through aggregation, or adopt a mix of large and small license areas for different spectrum blocks.
171  
While NTIA supports licensing by REAG, AIA argues in its Refresh PN comments that license areas 
corresponding to the Air Route Traffic Cont rol Center (ARTCC) areas or other areas “that make sense in 
an aviation system context” would be appropriate, and Wisk similarly recommends use of the ARTCC 
areas to provide “alignment with a general air traffic density basis.”172  We seek comment on whether to 
adopt license areas based on a geographic area division of the country that has been developed specifically for aviation purposes,  such as the ARTCC areas.  
78. License term.   We propose to issue NSS licenses for an initial 15- year term.  AIA and 
Wisk both support a license term “longer than 10 years,”
173 and we believe that circumstances in the band, 
including the need to set up a DFMS in the band and integrate its functions with operations in NSS spectrum, as well as the nascent stage of standards developm ent and other technical work regarding NSS 
networks generally, favor the use of a longer initial license term.  We propose to limit subsequent terms to 10 years.  We seek comment on these proposals.  
79. Performance (network build- out or coverage) requirements .  The Commission also 
generally establishes  build- out or coverage requirements for licenses, referred to as performance 
requirements , to ensure that spectrum is intensely and efficiently us ed and as mandated by the Act for 
auctioned spectrum.
174  We seek c omment on performance requirements that are appropriate for NSS 
licensees and UAS operation.  We seek comment in particular on whether to adopt a population- based 
performance metric, such as a requirement to cover at least 80 percent of the population in t he license 
area within 12 years of the grant of the license, as the Commission recently adopted for geographic 
 
171 REAGs divide the nation, including its territories, into 12 areas, while PEAs divide it into 416 areas.  See 
Regional Economic Area Groupings , https://www.fcc.gov/file/13212/download  (REAG map) (la st visited Sept. 6 , 
2022); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas , GN Docket No. 12 -
268, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 6491, 6491 (WTB 2014).   
172 Compare NTIA Refresh PN Comments at 5 (asserting that REAGs “would likely best support such UAS use”), 
with AIA Refresh PN Comments at 14 (supporting ARTCCs or “other geographical areas that make sense in an 
a via tion system context”); Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 2 n.6 (supporting ARTCCs “[f]or simplicity and 
a lignment with a  general a ir tra ffic density basis”).  But see AIA Feb. 1, 2022  Ex Parte , Attach. at 7 (suggesting that 
geographic area licenses could also be issued for so me blocks on a state -wide or nationwide basis).  Each Air Route 
Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) provides, within a defined region of the country, air traffic services to aircr aft 
operating on an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) Flight Plan in controlled airspace, principally during the “en route” 
phase of the flight.  See Air Route Traffic Control Center , https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/air -traffic -
contro l/air-route -t raff ic -control -center  ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  There are 22 ARTCC regions covering the Uni ted 
States.  See FAA, ARTCC , 
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/artcc  (la st visited 
Sept. 6 , 2022); AVweb, Air Route Traffic Control , https://www.avweb.com/flight -s afety/faa -regs/air -route -traffic -
control/  ( la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022) (displaying a map of the 20 ARTCC areas covering CONU S). 
173 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 14 (stating that the initial term “should be “longer than 10 years to begin with, 
while the ma rket is in its infa ncy, to encourage ea rly investment”); Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 6.  
174 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
37 licenses in other bands.175  We also seek comment on whether to adopt an appropriate interim 
performance requirement, such as a requirement to cov er at least 45 percent of the population in the 
license area within six years of license grant.176 
80. While some parties support population- based coverage requirements for NSS licensees,177 
AIA argues that population is not an appropriate benchmark in this cont ext, because “the spectrum will be 
used by aircraft rather than people on the ground,” including for “crop examination, border surveillance, 
and travel over sparsely populated areas[.]”178  AIA argues that such uses require reliable control links for 
all ge ographic areas of flight regardless of proximity to population centers, and suggests that a build- out 
requirement based on “user demand, special diversity and signal strength” would better meet the needs of 
beyond- radio -line-of-sight UAS operations.179  We seek comment on AIA’s arguments, and on whether 
we should either require licensees to meet some criteria other than population, such as geographic area 
coverage of 25% of the license area at year six and 50% of the license area at year 12.180  Alternatively , 
should we provide licensees with the option of meeting either a population- based requirement or some 
alternative?  To the extent commenters recommend alternative build -out requirements, we ask them to 
propose either specific numerical benchmarks or other  specific and objectively verifiable buildout criteria.   
81. We seek comment on appropriate rules for compliance demonstration and enforcement.  
As for compliance demonstration, we propose to adopt a process similar to compliance rules applicable to part 27 l icensees, requiring a demonstration of compliance with the performance requirements by filing a 
construction notification with the Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable benchmark, including electronic coverage maps accurately depict ing the boundaries of the licensed area 
and the boundaries of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service.
181  If a coverage map is used 
to demonstrate compliance, we seek comment on the appropriate standardized parameters for the propagation model.  For example, should there be standardized values for inputs such as cell edge probability, cell loading, and clutter?  As for enforcement, we propose that if a licensee fails to meet the 
final performance requirement, the license authorization will terminate automatically without specific 
Commission action.
182  If we adopt an interim requirement, we propose that failure to meet the 
requirement would result in the reduction by two years of both the due date for the final performance 
requirement and the license term (resulting in a final performance requirement at year 10 and a license 
term of 13 years).183 
 
175 See Expanding Flexible Use o f the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band , GN Docket No. 18 -122, Report and Order a nd Order of 
Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2385, para. 93 (2020) ( 3.7 GHz R&O); Review of the Commission’s 
Rules Governing the 896 -901/935 -940 MHz Band , WT Docket No. 17 -200, Repor t and Order, Order of Proposed 
Modification, and Orders, 35 FCC Rcd 5183, 5235, para. 129 (2020) ( 900 MHz Service Rules R&O ).  We note that 
some parties within the aviation community use the term “performance requirements” to refer to a particular 
minimum technical or operational standard of performance.  See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments a t 14.   We do not 
seek comment on such requirements here; rather, we use “performance requirements” as the Commission has 
customarily used it, to refer to deadlines on li censees for meeting certain deployment or coverage milestones.  
176 See 3.7 GHz R&O , 35 FCC Rcd at 2385, para. 93; 900 MHz Service Rules R&O , 35 FCC Rcd at 5235, para. 129.  
177 See L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 16; see also id.  at 18 (asserting that “[s]imilar to cellular phone service, 
commercial UAS rollout of terrestria l services is likely to follow population density”).  
178 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 15.  
179 See id.  
180 See, e.g., 900 MHz Service Rules R&O , 35 FCC Rcd at 5235, par a. 130.  
181 See 47 CFR §§ 1.946(d), 27.14(k).  
182 See 47 CFR § 1.946(c).  
183 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 27.14(g)(1), (h)(1), (r)(3).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
38 82. License Renewal.  We seek comment on the appropriate standard for license renewal.  In 
the WRS Second R&O , the Commission adopted a unified regulatory framework for the Wireless Radio 
Services (WRS) that replaced the existing patchwork of service -specific rules regarding renewal with a 
single unified standard, and safe harbors for meeting that standard for different service categories, 
including a safe harbor for geographic licensees providing commercial service.184  We seek comment on 
whether the regulatory renewal framework  for WRS commercial geographic licensees is appropriate for 
NSS licensees.  If we apply this framework, are there any special factors we need to account for or incorporate in the context of networks for support of UAS operations?    
83. Competitive bidding or other assignment procedures.  In the event that mutually 
exclusive license applications are received, we propose to  assign the se exclusive- use licenses through a 
system of competitive bidding.
185  Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the Commi ssion 
has used in previous  auctions, we propose to conduct any auction for geographic area licenses for 
spectrum in the band in conformity with the part 1 , subpart Q  general competitive bidding rules, subject 
to any modification of the part 1 rules that th e Commission may adopt in the future.186  We seek comment 
on whether any of these rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in this band.
187  Our proposal to assign these licenses through competitive bidding assumes that C ongress 
amends section 309(j)(1) of the Communications Act to extend the Commission’s authority to award licenses by competitive bidding.
188  We seek comment on alternate assignment procedures in the event 
that the Commission’s statutory authority to auctio n licenses is not extended.  
84. If we provide for the assignment of these licenses through a system of competitive 
bidding, we also propose  to make bidding credits for designated entities available for this band and seek 
comment on this proposal .  If we decid e to offer small business bidding credits , we seek comment on how 
to define a small business .  In recent years, for other flexible -use licenses , we have adopted bidding 
credits for the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the Commission’s part 1 
standardized schedule of bidding credits.189  We propose to use the same definitions here.190  Accordingly, 
 
184 See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for 
Certain Wireless Radio Services , Second Report a nd Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC 
Rcd 8874, 8883 -85, paras. 20 -23 (2017) ( WRS Second R&O ); see also 47 CFR §  1.949.  The renewal standard 
requires that “[a]n applicant for renewal . . . demonstrate that over the course of the license term, the licensee[] provided and continue[s] to provide service to the public, or operated and continue[s] to oper ate the license e to m eet 
[its] private, internal communications needs.  See 47 CFR § 1.949(d).  The safe harbor for geographic licensees 
providing commercial service requires an applicant for renewal to demonstrate, in part, that it met its performance requirements a nd c ontinues to provide service at least at the level required by its performance requirements.  See 47 
CFR § 1.949(e)(2), (3).     
185 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).   
186 See 47 CFR §§ 1.2101 -1.2114.  
187 Consistent with the statutory requirement and our longstanding a pproach, we propose to use a public notice 
process to solicit public input on certain details of auction design and the auction procedures.  See 47 U.S.C. § 
309(j)(3)(E)(i); 3.5 GHz R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 4009, par a. 153; Auction of Priority Access Licenses fo r the 3550 -
3650 MHz Band; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 105; Bidding in Auction 105 
Scheduled to Begin June 25, 2020 , AU Docket No. 19 -244, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 9215 (2019) . 
188 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).  
189 See, e.g., 3.7 GHz R&O, 35 FCC Rcd at 2374 -76, paras. 65 -68.  While the Commission is not required to adopt 
bidding credits for a particular service, the part 1 rules provide that the Commission may do so by adopting small 
business or rural service provider bidding credi ts in the service -specific rules for a band.  See 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)( 1) .  
Any caps with respect to available bidding credits are adopted on an auction -by-auction basis.  Id. §§ 
1.2110(f)(2)(ii) (cap on designated entity bidding discount), 1.2110(f)(4)(ii) (cap on rural service provider discount).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
39 we propose to define  a small business as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five 
years not exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with average gross revenues for 
the preceding five years not exceeding $20 million.191  A qualifying “small busi ness” would be eligible 
for a bidding credit of 15 percent  and a qualifying “very small business” would be eligible for a bidding 
credit of 25 percent .192  We also seek comment on whether the aviation -safety purpose of the band, the 
characteristics of these frequencies , or any other factor suggest that  we should not make available one or 
either of these designated entity bidding credits, or that we should adopt different small business size 
standards and associated bidding credits than we have in the past.   Finally, we s eek comment on whether 
we should offer rural service providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in this band.  
Commenters addressing these proposals or advocating for any alternatives should consider what specific 
details  of the licenses or operations in the band may affect whether designated entities will apply for them 
and whether designated entities should be supported by bidding credits.  
85. AIA proposes that the Commission directly select NSS licensees from the submitted 
license applications based on criteria to be established by the FAA or by a multi -stakeholder group to 
ensure that applicants meet aviation performance levels and minimum performance standards established 
in RTCA DO -377A.193  We seek comment on AIA’s propos al or alternative approaches for selecting the 
NSS licensees and whether such approaches would be consistent with our statutory obligation under 
section 309(j) of the Act to use competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive applications, and with 
our general responsibility for licensing of spectrum uses under Title III of the Communications Act.194   
86. Regardless of the assignment mechanism, we seek comment on whether NSS licensees 
should be subject to a particular limit on the amount of NSS spectrum they can aggregate in the 5030-
5091 MHz band, such as a limit of 20 megahertz.  To the extent that NSS spectrum is assigned on 
geographic market basis, are limits on 5030- 5091 MHz spectrum aggregation necessary to ensure 
competition for network- based CNPC servi ces? 
87. Technical requirements.   We seek comment on appropriate technical requirements and 
parameters for NSS licenses.  As an initial matter, the appropriate technical requirements may depend in part on the types of operations likely to be carried out in the  band and the network architectures necessary 
to support such operations.  Accordingly, we seek comment on what operations commenters anticipate the NSS licensees will be used to support.  Will they include Advanced Air Mobility, package delivery 
services,  or infrastructure inspection?  Are they likely to be predominantly operations above, or below, a 
certain altitude, or to involve predominantly large or predominantly small UA?  Will they involve 
autonomous operations, and if so, to what extent and for wha t purposes will such autonomous operations 
likely require network- based CNPC?  For those anticipated operations, we seek comment on what type of 
network architectures will likely be needed in the band to support such uses.  Will they necessarily be like 
(Continued from previous page)   
190 The standardized schedule of bidding credits provided in section 1.2110(f)(2)(i) of the rules defines small 
businesses based on average gross revenues for the preceding three years.  In December 2018, Congress re vised the 
standard set out in the Small Business Act for categorizing a business concern as a “small business concern,” by 
cha nging the a nnual a verage gross receipts benchmark from a  three -year period to a five -year period.  Thus, as a 
general matter, a fe deral agency cannot propose to categorize a business concern as a “small business concern” for 
Small Business Act purposes unless the size of the concern is based on its annual average gross receipts “over a 
period of not less than 5 years.”  15 U.S.C. § 6 32(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), as amended by Small Business Runw ay Extension 
Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115 -324 (Dec. 17, 2018); see  13 CFR § 121.903(a)(1)(ii).  For consistency with the statutory 
requirements, we therefore propose to adopt the Small Business Act’s revised five -year average gross receipts 
benchmark for purposes of determining which entities qualify for small business b idding credits.  
191  See 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B), (C).  
192 See id.  
193 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 6; AIA Feb. 1, 2022  Ex Parte , Attach. at 6. 
194 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1).    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
40 the terrestrial cellular networks, or will there be other architectures, and if so, of what nature?  To the 
extent that parties have already developed or plan to deploy network infrastructure to support UAS NSS 
operations, we seek comment on what type of net work architectures they have developed or plan to 
deploy for this purpose.   
88. We seek to adopt technical rules that will promote efficient use of spectrum and provide 
licensees as much flexibility as possible in terms of the services they wish to provide, w hile also 
providing adequate protection of licensees in the band or adjacent bands .  We seek comment on 
requirements that will achieve these goals in the context of spectrum intended to support network- based 
UAS CNPC with the level of reliability needed fo r safety -critical aviation purposes .  In particular, w e 
seek comment on whether the RTCA DO -362A standard or equivalent technical parameters, which we 
propose above for NNA operations, should also apply to NSS  licenses.   Would adopting similar 
requirements  for NSS help to ensure compatibility between NNA and NSS operations?  We ask that 
commenters  discuss the adequacy of the RTCA DO -362A specified equipment and operational 
performance requirements for NSS operations, including both transmitter power and rec eiver input power, 
and required minimum coupling loss (separation distance) between ground and airborne CNPC radios and emissions from other licensed radio services.  We also seek comment on whether to require NSS  licensees 
to comply with RTCA DO -377A, whi ch addresses the minimum performance, safety, and security 
standards for a CNPC link system overall, whether that system relies on a network or a direct link.
195  As 
noted above, AIA recommends that we require UAS equipment to comply with RTCA DO -362A, but 
leave the requirements in RTCA DO -377A to be considered by the FAA or an appropriate group of 
stakeholders.196  We seek comment on whether to take this approach for NSS licensees.   To the extent that 
NSS licensees are permitted to support communications other than CNPC, we seek comment on whether those services should be subject to the same technical requirements as apply to CNPC.   
89. Because the RTCA DO -362A standard is focused on point -to-point or point -to-multipoint 
(i.e., non -networked) link performance ra ther than network services, and RTCA DO -377A on establishing 
the minimum performance, security, and safety standards of a system rather than mitigating interference 
impacts on other systems, we seek comment on whether application of either of these standar ds 
sufficiently address the impact of wide area network operations, including cellular networks, on other 
services in -band or in adjacent bands.  We further seek comment on whether applying these standards, or 
specific parameters drawn from these standards , to network- based services in the band may unnecessarily 
restrict the range of services or operations in the band.  We seek comment on whether there are any additional or alternative technical requirements that we should consider for NSS licenses and on t he 
extent to which communications under these technical requirements would have sufficient reliability for safety -critical aviation purposes.  To the extent that parties argue for alternative technical requirements, 
we ask that they be specific as to what requirements they propose be adopted in the rules.  
90. We note that work is ongoing to develop technical standards for reliable UAS 
communications over mobile networks.  For example, RTCA SC -228 is currently working on a joint 
standard with EUROCAE Working Group 105 “for use of Cellular commercial networks for [command-
 
195 See supra para. 6 9; see also , e.g., Wisk Refresh PN Comments at 2 n.5 (“DO -377A  provides a basis for the 
safety, performance, and security standards that a CNPC network should meet . . . .”).  
196 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 8, 13 -14; see also RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 7 (recommending that the 
Commission impose no a ltitude limits on usage in the 5030 -5091 MHz band, but indicating that “[t]he FAA may 
wish to impose limitations based on the types of UA flight operations” (citing DO -362A, Appx. H and DO -377A, 
Appx. A)); WInnForum Refresh PN Comments at 3 (advocating that the Commissio n establish rules with “the 
minimum necessary technical restrictions to provide adequate protection against harmful interference”).   Above, we 
a ddress in grea ter detail the potential relia nce on a multi- stakeholder group to further develop recommendations or 
standards for UAS or DFMS operations in the 5030 -5091 MHz band.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
41 and-control] Links used for type certificated UAS.”197  CTIA states that the 3rd Generation Partnership 
Project (3GPP) “is addressing how commercial wireless [Long Term Evolution (LTE)] technologi es can 
satisfy key performance indicators . . . for UAS, and support various UAS use cases.”198  We seek 
comment on these efforts, on the scope, status, and anticipated completion date of any other current or 
planned studies or standards development work regarding the reliability of UAS communications over 
LTE or other mobile network technologies, and on whether these studies or standards will address or 
apply to UAS network- based communications in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  If not, we seek comment on 
whether the development of these studies or standards may nevertheless be helpful in determining the 
appropriate requirements for networks in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  We further seek comment on the 
extent to which any of these studies or standards are being or will be coordinated with the aviation 
community or the FAA to ensure that they provide sufficient reliability for all UAS use cases, including 
aviation flights where communications is safety -critical.  We also seek comment on the extent to which 
mobile networks using LTE or other mobile network technologies can be implemented in the 5030-5091 
MHz band consistent with the RTCA DO -362A standard.  
91. As an alternative to requiring NSS  compliance with the RTCA DO -362A standard 
generally, are there certain specific req uirements of RTCA DO -362A that we should minimally impose, 
to ensure compatibility with NNA operations or for other purposes?  For example, as we noted earlier, 
RTCA asserts that all equipment in the band must comply with the 50 ms Time Division Duplex (TDD) 
requirements specified under section 2.2.1.3 of the RTCA DO -362A standard to ensure that UAS 
operations in the band are compatible with each other.199  We seek  comment on whether, even if we do 
not require general compliance with RTCA DO -362A, we should mandate compliance with the TDD 
requirements under section 2.2.1.3.  Further, we seek comment on whether we should, at a minimum, 
require NSS equipment to comply with the power limits and out -of-band emission limits established in 
the standard to ensure that such equipment is compatible with AeroMACS.200   
92. We seek comment on any other technical issues that need to be addressed to enable the 
deployment of NSS networks.  For example, in order to prevent harmful interference between geographic 
area licensees, such licensees are typically subject to market boundary  power strength limitations.201  
Because the networks deployed by geographic area licensees are terres trial in nature, these limitations 
were developed using certain technical assumptions —i.e. , that natural and manmade terrestrial obstacles 
attenuate signals, reducing the potential of harmful interference between users in adjacent license service 
 
197 SC-228 June 2022 Terms of Reference at 5  (indicating a targeted completion date of January 2023); see also id.  
at 2 (indicating that Phase Three of standards development will “[c]onsider new licensed bands that are made 
available for use for [command -and-control] Links,” including but not limited to “Cellular Networks”), 8 (indica ting 
that the new document will “enable a common standard for avionics using standardized cellular serv ices offered 
worldwide”).  
198 CTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 11; see also id.  a t 13 (“Allowing the commercial mobile industry to continue 
working with standards -setting bodies such as 3GPP to develop standards to support UAS will be an effective and 
efficient approach to the expeditious development of UAS wireless standards that can be deployed, nationwide and 
worldwide.”).  The 3rd Generation Pa rtnership Project (3GPP) is a n umbrella organization consisting of standards 
organizations that develop protocols for cellula r telecommunications, including the Long -Term Evolution standard 
(LTE).  See 3GPP, About 3GPP , https://www.3gpp.org/about -3gpp  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
199 See RTC A Refresh PN Comments at 6; see also AIA Refresh PN Comments at 11 (supporting a  requirement that 
transmitters comply with the 50 ms TDD requirements of RTCA DO -362A § 2.2.1.3).  
200 See, e.g., L3H Refresh PN Comments at 10 (“The Output Power restrictions ide ntified RTCA DO -362A § 
2.2.1.6.1.1 & 2.2.1.6.1.2 in addition to the C Band Airborne Radio Transmitter PSD Limits specified in RTCA DO -
362A § 2.2.1.6.2 should protect AeroMACS from potentially harmful interference from UAS.”); see also RTCA DO-377A at § 3.3.1.2 (“Based on the analysis in DO -362A . . . , the use of C -Band CNPC LOS radios of the C2 
Link for surface oper ations will be compatible with AeroMACS in airports where AeroMACS is available.”).  
201 See 47 CFR § 27.55.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
42 areas.202  Obstacles such as hills, trees, buildings, and other natural and manmade structures attenuate 
emissions, lessening the interference impact between licensees.  UAS operations typically fly above many 
of these obstacles and, depending on the UA altitude and its distance to the service area boundary border, 
a UA may be in direct line -of-sight with adjacent license areas and users, greatly increasing the potential 
for harmful interference.  As we anticipate adopting geographic area -based licenses for NSS  spect rum, we 
request comment on an appropriate field strength limit to protect NSS  licensees given this increased 
potential for harmful interference.   We seek comment on other necessary technical specifications, such as 
out-of-band emission limits, and ask that  any proposals include technical justifications and analysis, such 
as UA altitude assumptions, power levels, antenna assumptions, the increasing interference effects 
resulting from the increasing number  of transmitting UA (aggregate effects), and the victi m receiver 
characteristics such as receiver sensitivity, and adjacent and non- adjacent channel rejection .   
93. Application of requirements from aviation service and wireless radio service rules.   As 
with NNA service rules above, we seek comment on whether and  to what extent the NSS service rules 
should incorporate or be subject to the rules generally applicable to aviation services under subparts B 
through F of part 87 of the Commission’s rules, either in their current form or with modifications.203  We 
also se ek comment on whether the NSS service should be subject to rules under part 1, subpart F 
governing Wireless Radio Service applications and proceedings.204  In particular, we seek comment on 
whether to allow partitioning and disaggregation of NSS licenses in secondary market transactions as well 
as spectrum leasing, including whether we should consider any competitive impacts associated with such 
transactions.205  Allowing these secondary market transactions would be consistent with the licensing 
paradigm gove rning most geographic area licenses and are potentially an effective way to improve 
spectral efficiency and facilitate targeted network deployments, particularly if the Commission adopts a 
long license term or large license area.   We seek comment on whether these factors support application of 
the full range of secondary market options to 5030- 5091 MHz NSS licensees, or if secondary market rules 
should either be more restrictive or completely inapplicable due to special considerations of the 5030-
5091 MHz band.    
94. We anticipate that NSS licenses will be used to provide mobile network services to UAS 
operators on a commercial basis.  Accordingly, we also seek comment on whether and to what extent we should incorporate regulations that regulate commercial mobil e networks in other bands, such as the 
requirements generally applicable to part 27 flexible -use licensees.  For example, should we incorporate 
or apply the requirements of sections 27.52 (RF safety), 27.56 (antenna structure height for the protection of air safety), or 27.64 (protection from interference)?
206   
95. Other requirements.   We seek comment on any other service rules we should adopt for 
NSS licensees.  For example, to ensure that UA flights are supported in the event they need to cross 
license area b oundaries, should we adopt a roaming requirement?  If anything more than market forces is 
necessary to address this issue, should the current roaming requirements under section 20.12(e) of the 
Commission’s rules, requiring commercial mobile data service pr oviders to offer roaming arrangements 
to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions,  be extended to NSS licensees 
 
202 For example, g eographic area lice nsees’ service area power limits in sections 22.913(b) and 27.55(d) and (e) of 
the Commission’s rules are measured at a height 1.6 meters above ground level to estimate the height of a mobile 
(UE) taking into account terrain obstacles.  See 47 CFR §§ 22.913(b), 27.55(d), (e).  
203 See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpts. B (Applications and Licenses), C (Operating Requirements and Procedures), D 
(Technical Requirements), E (Frequencies), F (Aircraft Stations).   
204 See 47 CFR pt. 1, subpt. F (Wireless Radio Services App lications and Proceedings).  The term “Wireless Radio 
Services” is currently defined as “[a]ll radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 
96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.”  47 CFR § 1.907.  
205 See 47 CFR pt. 1, subpt. X (spectrum leasing), § 1.950 (partitioning and disaggregation).  
206 See 47 CFR §§ 27.52, 27.56, 27.64.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
43 for this purpose?207  If these requirements are sufficient, how and where should we integrate them in the 
context of NSS service rules?  If they are insufficient, what additional rules are needed to ensure that 
UAS operate continually and safely across licensing areas?  We also seek comment on whether to adopt 
an interoperability requirement, for example, requiring NSS e quipment to be capable of operating over 
any part of the 5030- 5091 MHz band dedicated to NSS operations, or requiring support for the entire 
band.  We further seek comment on whether to impose requirements to enable seamless switching between NNA and NSS s ervices to support flights that may need to rely on both modes of spectrum 
access.  Should we require NSS licensees to provide any other information, including the manufacturer, model, or other details regarding the UAs that will be flown?  We seek comment  on any requirements or 
other measures that would promote intensive use of the band.  For example, we seek comment on how we 
might facilitate use of NSS for both low and high altitude uses, and whether we should require NSS 
licensees to support both low and high altitude uses or should take other steps to ensure that both low and 
high uses are supported.   
96. Satellite -based networks.  As discussed above, the 5030- 5091 MHz band is allocated 
internationally and domestically for AMS(R)S, which would support the provision of CNPC services over satellite.  AIA’s petition for rulemaking, however, did not request or propose that any provision be made 
for satellite services in the band, and no party in the current record has proposed such an option.
208  It also 
appears that RTCA’s work on CNPC MOPS in the 5030- 5091 MHz band has, up to now, largely focused 
on terrestrial rather than satellite services in the band.209  We nevertheless seek comment on whether to 
authorize NSS licensees, at their discretion, to p rovide network- supported service for UAS CNPC through 
either a s atellite or terrestrial network, or alternatively, whether the Commission should provide that 
certain NSS licenses are dedicated exclusively to satellite -based service.210  We seek comment on w hether 
and to what extent there is interest in the United States in providing a satellite service for CNPC in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, on the costs and benefits of permitting NSS licensees to deploy satellite services 
for network- supported CNPC, and on the  advantages and disadvantages of a satellite option over 
terrestrial networks in this context.  For example, would satellite be a  feasible and desirable means of 
deploying a CNPC -focused network with the ubiquitous coverage needed to support long- range 
operations, particularly those operations that may occur in remote areas and over oceanic regions or other 
large bodies of water?   
97. Assuming we permit NSS licensees to deploy satellite -based service, we seek comment 
on how to permit and integrate the provision of such services and on the appropriate service rules.  We 
seek comment on the application of the Commission’s part 25 rules, which govern satellite 
communications, to such services, and the extent to which the rules applicable to terrestrial NSS networks  
 
207 See 47 CFR § 20.12(e).  
208 See, e.g., AIA Refresh PN Comments at 13 (stating the licensees in spectrum for network  service will be 
“[t]errestrial station owners”); see also id. at 5 (distinguishing between beyond -line-of-sight operations in the past, 
which were ba sed on sa tellite -support, and “the future of terrestrial CNPC links” that would involve “multiple, 
remote [Ground Radio Stations] on a network providing long -range, continuous C2 link coverage and remote 
operation, without reliance on or the disadvantages of satellite communications links.”); RTCA Refresh PN 
Comments at 8 (asserting that the Ku and Ka fixed sa tellite services bands are already being considered for CNPC 
links and have significant capacity).   
209 While the RTCA DO -362A MOPS focuses on “a ‘terrestrial’ based (i.e., not satellite -based) CNPC Link System” 
in the 5030 -5091 MHz band, see RTCA DO- 362A, § 1.1, it also includes discussion of a satellite system design 
compatible with the terrestrial system  in an Appendix.  See RTCA DO- 362A, Appx. G (C Band Satellite Link 
Compatibility).  In a ddition, the Terms of Reference for SC -228 (Rev 15) dated June 23, 2022, indicates that a 
planned update of RTCA DO -362A, to be designated DO -362B, will “[i]ncorporate changes required to harmonize 
SATCOM compatibility with EUROCAE Standard.”  See SC-228 June 2022 Terms of Reference at 5.    
210 See also supra section B.1  (Band Pla n) (seeking comment on preserving a  portion of the band for sa tellite 
CNPC).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
44 should also apply to satellite -based NSS networks.  We further seek comment on how the DFMS and 
other proposals discussed above would work for satellite communications.  For example, how would a  
DFMS implement opportunistic access to spectrum in which sat ellite operations might be deployed?   We 
also seek comment on how to ensure that any such satellite services are compatible with both terrestrial 
NSS and NNA operations in the band and other in- band and adjacent -band services, and on the 
circumstances, req uirements, coordination processes, and/or restrictions necessary to ensure compatibility 
and to provide the reliability intended for CNPC in this band.  For example, should we permit an NSS licensee to deploy a satellite service only if the NSS license is nationwide or the licensee in question has 
aggregated all geographic area licenses in a particular block throughout the nation?  Are guard bands necessary between blocks with satellite deployments and blocks used for terrestrial networks or 
operations?  Footnote 5.443D of the Table of Frequency Allocations provides that services under the 
satellite  allocation in the 5030- 5091 MHz band are subject to coordination under ITU Radio Regulations 
(R.R.)  No. 9.11A, and that the use of this frequency band by the AMS (R)S is limited to internationally 
standardized aeronautical systems.
211  We seek comment on what rules, if any, we should adopt to 
implement the  requirements  under footnote 5.443D . 
98. High -Altitude Platform Stations.   We seek comment on whether to permit NSS licensees 
to deploy High- altitude Platform Stations (HAPS).  The Commission’s rules define a “High Altitude 
Platform Station” as “[a] station located on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 km and at a specified, 
nominal, fixed point relative to the Earth. ”212  Potentially, these stations could be used by NSS licensees 
as a long -range relay of CNPC between two or more stations, and RTCA DO -362A includes extensive 
analysis of such an option, which it refers to as a “High- altitude Relay System.”213  We seek com ment on 
whether and to what extent there is current interest in deploying HAPS as all or part of a network solution 
for CNPC, on the technical feasibility and commercial viability of the use of HAPS to provide all or part of a network service in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, and on the costs and benefits of permitting HAPS for 
this purpose.
214  To the extent it is feasible and economic, are there limitations on the circumstances or 
uses to which it can be applied?  For example, would it be available only to provide relay between two or more UA, or could it also provide relay between UA and stations on the ground?  We also seek comment 
on what technical or other requirements or restrictions are needed either to ensure that NSS use of HAPS 
to provide network service would be compatible with other operations and services or for other reasons.  
For example, we seek comment on whether, consistent with the definition of HAPS in the Commission’s 
 
211 See 47 CFR §  2.106, footnote 5.443D.  ITU R.R. No. 9.11A provides that “for a station for which the 
requirements to coordinate is included in a footnote to the Table of Frequency Allocations referring to this 
provision, the provisions of Nos. 9.12 to 9.16 are applicab le.”  ITU R.R. No. 9.11A.  ITU R.R. No. 9.6 in turn 
provides that “[b]efore an administration notifies to the Bureau or brings into use a frequency assignment in any of the cases listed below [including the cases covered by 9.11A], it shall effect coordina tion, as required, with other 
administrations identified under No. 9.27.”  ITU R.R. No. 9.6.    
212 47 CFR § 2.1(c); see also ITU R.R. No. 1.66A. 
213 See, e.g., RTCA DO- 362A, Appx. U (C Band High Altitude Relay System).  In its comment, RTCA refers to this 
option a s a “High -Altitude Pla tform/Relay System.”  RTCA Refresh PN Comments a t 5.  
214 The record does not reflect any current interest in using HAPS for the provision of network -based CNPC in the 
band.  In comments submitted in 2018 in response to the AIA Peti tion, the Elefante Group did indicate that it 
planned to deploy what it described as “persistent, unmanned stratospheric airborne platfor ms (‘STRAPS’) . . . to 
provide stratospheric -based communications service,” and that it was interested in using direct links in the 5030 -
5091 MHz band for command -and-control “[d]uring ascent and descent” of the stations.  Elefante Group AIA 
Petition Comments a t 1 -2.  Once in place, however, the stations were intended to provide “5G solutions in ur ban and 
rural markets” ra ther than CNPC services in the 5030 -5091 MHz band.  Id.  In a subsequent filing in another 
proceeding, the Elefante Group further indicated, in regard to its plans to deploy STRAPS, that due to “unforeseen developments,” it was “unable to state with certai nty its ability at this time to” deploy these platforms.  See Elefante 
Group Comments, WT Docket No. 20 -133, at 2 (filed Aug. 5, 2020).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
45 rules, we should specify an altitude floor and/or ceiling on the use of such s tations.215  Given the potential 
footprint of a HAPS -based service, should we permit an NSS licensee to deploy HAPS only if the NSS 
licensee holds a nationwide market or holds all geographic area licenses on a particular block nationwide?  
We further seek comment on whether permitting such systems warrants any revisions to the proposals or options for the NSS rules.  In addition, because the HAPS acting as network relays for UA 
communications would also themselves be UA, we seek comment on whether an NSS lic ensee’s 
operation of such stations may require CNPC (during ascent, descent, or otherwise), whether and to what 
extent such stations should be permitted to use NNA assignments for CNPC, and if so, what changes to 
our NNA proposals or other rules are needed.
216  We note that No. 4.23 of the ITU Radio Regulations 
provides that “[t]ransmissions to or from high altitude platform stations shall be limited to bands 
specifically identified in Article 5 (WRC -12).”217  At present, Article 5 does not specifically ident ify the 
5030- 5091 MHz band for this purpose.218  We seek comment on whether, if we restricted such stations to 
deployments below the 20 km floor for HAPS as defined in the ITU Radio Regulations, permitting HAPS 
in the band could nonetheless be consistent wi th No. 4.23 or if, to permit such use, we would need to seek 
a revision to the bands in which HAPS is permitted under ITU R.R., Article V.  We seek comment on 
whether there is any other legal constraint or consideration to address in permitting such use.  
8. Equipment Authorization 
99. To ensure that equipment in the new band has the level of reliability and safety required 
of aviation equipment, we propose to impose equipment authorization requirements similar to those under 
sections 87.145 and 87.147 of the Comm ission’s rules to all equipment intended for use in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band.  Section 87.145 requires that each transmitter must be certificated for use in the relevant 
service, and section 87.147 establishes a specific equipment authorization process for part 87 equipment, 
which, for the frequencies in the 5030- 5091 MHz band among others, requires coordination with the 
FAA.219  We note that 5030- 5091 MHz UAS radio equipment must independently satisfy any applicable 
FAA requirements,220 and we anticipate that this coordination process will ensure that the 5030- 5091 
MHz equipment authorizations by the Commission and the FAA are consistent and that all equipment approved for use in the band will meet both agencies’ requirements.  We seek c omment on our proposals.   
 
215 47 CFR § 2.1(c).  
216 RTCA asserts that the necessary dur ation of an assignment to support such HAPS relays may be signif icantly 
longer than assignments for other types of UA flights.  See RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 5 (asserting that 
because the HAPS relay scenario will involve a UA that “loiters for months at altitude > 60Kft., the ‘end of flight’ 
would be much longer afte r the beginning of the flight than for non -[HAPS] flights” a nd that “[c]ontinuous usage of 
the spectrum would be needed throughout the flight to support internal control messages being sent to/from the 
[HAPS] UA”).  
217 ITU R.R. No. 4.23. 
218 Article V of the I TU Ra dio Regulations reflects the frequency a llocation decisions made by the World Radio 
Councils (WRC) to date.  See ITU R.R., Article V; see also 47 CFR § 2.106.  At three WRCs collectively (WRC -97, 
WRC -200, and WRC -12), s pectrum for HAPS was designated in the 47/48 GHz, 2 GHz, 27/31 GHz and 6 GHz 
ba nds, a nd after study for WRC -19, additional spectrum wa s identified: 31 -31.3 GHz a nd 38- 39.5 GHz globally, and 
in Region 2 (including US), 21.4 -22 GHz and 24.25 -27.5 GHz.  See Wireless Telecommunications Burea u Seeks to 
Supplement the Record on 70/80/90 GHz Bands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , WT Docket No. 20 -133, Public 
Notice, DA 21 -1263, n.15 (WTB Oct. 8, 2021).  
219 See 47 CFR §§ 87.145(a), 87.147(d).  
220 See, e.g., TSO -C213 a.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
46 9. Protection of Other Services  
a. Microwave Landing Systems  
100. The Microwave Landing System (MLS) is a radio guidance system that was intended to 
be installed at airports to aid aircraft in landing when, e.g. , the airports are visually obscured by bad 
weather, and that provided certain technical improvements over the original Instrument Landing 
System.221  Footnote 5.444 of the Table of Frequency Allocations provides that in the band 5030-5150 
MHz, the requirements of MLS have priority over other uses of this frequency band.222   
101. These systems were rendered obsolete by more recent instrument -landing solutions, 
including GPS -based solutions like the Wide Area Augmentation System, and a search of ULS reveals no 
active MLS in use by non- federal  licensees.223  Further, according to NTIA’s most recent summary of 
federal use of the 5030- 5250 MHz band, “[t]he FAA does not anticipate utilizing MLS installations at 
airports.”224  NTIA also notes, however, that “[t]he Air Force has a number of assignments in the 5030-
5091 MHz band for a transportable version of the MLS, an all -weather precision landing system for 
tactical purposes and has installed these systems at several Air Force bases.”225  It states that “the Air 
Force will continue to use MLS into the foreseeable future in order to provide landing guidance to 
military aircraft.”226 
102. We seek comment on what measures we should adopt to protect federal MLS services 
from harmful interference by UAS communications in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  Should we establ ish 
exclusion zones around the Air Force bases with MLS deployments, with a process to add or eliminate exclusion zones to the extent federal MLS stations are deployed or deactivated?  AIA proposes that the Commission codify the locations at which MLS operations are conducted and establish a coordination 
mechanism to enable UAS CNPC operations near those MLS stations.
227  We seek comment on this 
option, the specifics of any such coordination mechanism, and how this or any option would address the 
deployment of new federal MLS stations, particularly in the case of NSS licensees that may have already 
deployed networks in the area of the new deployment.    
103. Because we find no current licensed non- federal MLS systems in operation, and given 
that the FAA does not a nticipate the future use of these systems at airports, we seek comment on whether 
any measures are necessary to protect non -federal MLS.  We also seek comment on whether to provide 
that no future non- federal MLS licenses (including MLS radionavigation land test licenses at 5031 MHz) 
will be granted in the 5030- 5091 MHz band by amending sections 87.173(b) and 87.475 of our part 87 
 
221 See Section 374 Report at 5.  
222 See 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.444; see also 47 CFR § 87.173(b) (a uthorizing MLS over the frequencies 5030 -
5150 MHz).  The rules also permit deployment of “radionavigation land test” stations at 5031 MHz but only for the 
testing of MLS airborne receiving equipment.  See 47 CFR § 87.475(c)(2).  
223 See Section 374 Report at 5 (stating the systems are obsolete and “no longer in use”);  FCC, Advanced License 
Search , https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp  (search restricted to frequency range of 
5030 and 5091 MHz); see also NTIA Spectrum Compendium, 5030- 5250 MHz, Feb. 2021, a t 11, 
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/5030.00 -5250.00 -02092021.pdf  (NTIA Spectrum 
Compendium (5030 -5025 MHz)).  
224 NTIA Spectrum Compendium (5030 -5025) at 11.  
225 Id. at 9.  
226 Id. at 11.  
227 See AIA Petition at 18; see also AURA AIA Petition Comments a t 6; Boeing AIA Petition Comments a t 11; 
Lockheed Martin AIA Petition Comments a t 4 -5.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
47 rules to remove the 5030- 5091 MHz band as a band that can be used for non- federal MLS.228  We seek 
comment on the costs and benefits of this option.  Would eliminating the potential for future non- federal 
MLS in the 5030- 5091 MHz band help to ensure a stable spectral environment that may facilitate the use 
of the band for UAS CNPC?  Would it facilitate the use of the band for other communications, to the 
extent such communications may be permitted?  Given the development and widespread adoption of 
alternative solutions for instrument -based landing and the apparent abandonment of MLS, is there any 
need to preserve the option in our rules for licensing of non- federal MLS in this band?   
b. Out-of-band Services  
104. Radioastronomy.  Footnote US211 of the Table of Frequency Allocations currently 
provides that in a number of frequency bands that includes the 5000- 5250 MHz band, “applicants for 
airborne or space station assignments are urged to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy 
observations in the adjacent bands from harmful interference[.]”229  To address the potential impact on 
radio astronomy observations from UAS transmissions in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, NTIA requests that 
Footnote US211 continue to apply to any services authorized in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.230  NTIA also 
recommends that the Commission require coordination of UAS operations within the National Radio 
Quiet Zone (NR QZ).231  NTIA further recommends that “additional criteria” be developed to minimize 
UAS impact to particular radio astronomy sites, particularly from low -altitude operations, but does not 
elaborate or propose particular criteria.232  As a further measure, NTIA recommends that the requirements 
for licensees in the band include passing a test or similar effort to promote awareness of radio astronomy sites.
233  
105. We seek comment on whether additional measures are necessary to protect radio 
astronomy and on NTIA’s recommendations in this regard.  We propose, consistent with NTIA’s recommendations, to continue to apply the requirements of Footnote US211 in the 5030- 5091 MHz band, 
to prohibit UAS operations within the NRQZ without prior coordination with the NRQZ admi nistrator 
and, in the case of NNA operations relying on DFMS assignments, to require the submission of a concurrence from the NRQZ administrator with any request to a DFMS for frequency assignment within the NRQZ.  We seek comment on these proposals.  We n ote that section 1.924(a) of the Commission’s 
rules establishes required procedures for licensees and applicants that seek to construct or operate new or modified fixed stations to coordinate their deployments in the NRQZ.
234  Should we apply these 
 
228 We note that removing the frequencies for non -federal MLS oper ations from our service rules would not affect 
federal authority to utilize the band for MLS, or the need to protect such services.  
229 See 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote US211.  For certain of these bands, the obligation is limited by Footnote US74, 
which provides that in the specified bands, the radio astronomy service shall be protected from unwanted emissions 
only to the extent that such radiation exceeds the level which would be present if the offe nding station were 
operating in compliance with the technical standards or criteria applicable to the service in which it operates.  See 47 
CFR § 2.106, footnote US74.  The 5030 -5091 MHz band, however, is not one of the bands to which Footnote US74 
a pplies .  Id. 
230 See NTIA Refresh PN Reply a t 1.  
231 See NTIA Refresh PN Comments a t 2.   The Na tional  Ra dio  Quiet  Zone  (NRQZ) is a fixed 13,000 square mile 
recta ngular a rea that covers portions of Virginia , West Virginia , a nd Maryland a nd that provides interference 
protection to radio a stronomy operations of the Na tional Ra dio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank, West 
Virginia, and the Naval Radio Research Observatory at Sugar Grove, West Virginia.  See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 1.924(a), 
97.3(a)(33); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands , WT Docket 02 -353, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162, 25175, para. 34 (2003).  
232 See NTIA Refresh PN Reply a t 2.  
233 See id.  
234 See 47 CFR § 1.924(a) (establishing procedures for the NRQZ).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
48 licensee/applicant procedures for the NRQZ to all UAS operations relying on the 5030- 5091 MHz band in 
the NRQZ?  To the extent we require NRQZ administrator concurrence for licensed -by-rule operations, 
we seek comment on the appropriate procedures to apply.  To the extent measures beyond coordination 
and concurrence requirements for UAS operations are warranted, we seek comment on what other measures are practicable.   
106. AeroMACS.  AeroMACS is a broadband aeronautical mobile (route) service system  that 
will enable communications for surface operations at airports between aircraft and other vehicles  and 
between other critical fixed assets .
235  The Commission has allocated both the 5000- 5030 MHz and 5091-
5150 MHz bands for such use but has not yet established service rules in either band.236   
107. We seek comment on whether any special measures are necessary to ensure compatibility 
between UAS operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band and AeroMACS.  AIA indicates that RTCA is 
currently working on a revision to the AeroMACS technical standard, RTCA DO -346, that will ensure 
that future AeroMACS deployments will be compatible with CNPC links that are in compliance with RTCA DO -362A, and that no other special limitations on 5030- 5091 MHz operations beyond compliance 
with RTCA DO- 362A are necessary.
237  More recently, RTCA’s Program Management Committee 
(PMC) held its June 2022 meeting approving RTCA DO -346A with these revisions.238  We seek comment 
on whether the revised AeroMACS standard and compliance with the power and out -of-band emission 
limits of RTCA DO -362A are adequate measures to protect AeroMACS operations from harmful 
interference from 5030- 5091 MHz UAS operations, and whether the revisions to the AeroMACS standard 
require specific service rules for the 5030 -5091 MHz band.  Should we adopt exclusion zones around 
airports with AeroMACS deployments, or prohibit use of a certain amount of spectrum at the edge of the 5030- 5091 MHz band in the vicinity of such airports?   
108. Radionavigation- satellite service.  The 5010- 5030 MHz band also includes an allocation 
for the radionavigation- satellite service (RNSS) (space- to-Earth) for potential future use.
239  Footnot e 
5.443C of the Table of Frequency Allocations addresses requirements in the 5030- 5091 MHz band for the 
protection of RNSS downlinks.240  Specifically, it provides that “[u] nwanted emissions from the 
 
235 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Promote Aviation Safety et al. , WT Docket No. 19 -140 et a l., 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 4984, 4997, para. 34 (2019) ( Aviation NPRM ). 
236 See id. at  4997, par a. 35.  
237 See AIA Refresh PN Comments at 11 (stating that RTCA is a cting on a djacent channel protections and 
recommends that no special limitation on 5030 -5091 MHz operations are necessary to protect future AeroMACS 
deployments); see also L3H Refresh PN Comments a t 10 (a sserting that 5030 -5091 MHz service complia nce with 
the power restrictions and power spectr al density limits in RTCA DO -362A should protect AeroMACS from 
harmful interference from UAS); RTCA Refresh PN Comments at 7 (stating  that agreements are in the final 
implementation stages among RTCA special committees to modify the AeroMACS MOPS so that AeroMACS 
systems “are compatible with DO -362A compliant CNPC radios that operate in the 5030 -5091 MHz band”); Wisk 
Refresh PN Comments  at 5 (asserting that AeroMACS standard revision “will address the adjacent band 
compatibility requirements and FCC service rules can be based on or refer to this standard for adjacent band interference limits”); RTCA DO -377A, § 3.3.1.2 (“Based on the anal ysis in DO -362A . . . , the use of C -Band 
CNPC LOS radios for the C2 Link for surface oper ations will be compatible with AeroMACS in airports where 
AeroMACS service is available.  It is understood that there will be an update to the AeroMACS radios, which will 
ensure that all AeroMACS airborne and ground radios emissions will not degrade the C Band C2 Link.”) ; see also 
RTCA DO- 362A , Appx.  T a t T.3 (specifying spatial separation, a ntenna orientations, and filtering criteria  to protect 
AeroMACS oper ations).  
238 See https://www.rtca.org/news/standards -oversight -committee -acts-on-emerging -technologies -and-safety -
oversight -2/.  
239 See 47 CFR § 2.106.  
240 See 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.443C.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
49 aeronautical mobile (R) service in the frequency band 5030- 5091 MHz shall be limited to protect RNSS 
system downlinks in the adjacent 5010- 5030 MHz band” and that “[u] ntil such time that an appropriate 
value is established in a relevant ITU -R Recommendation, the e.i.r.p. density limit of - 75 dBW/MHz in 
the frequ ency band 5010- 5030 MHz for any AM(R)S station unwanted emission should be used. ”241  As 
CNPC services would be part of the AM(R)S allocation, this requirement applies to such services in the 
5030- 5091 MHz band.   We propose to require 5030- 5091 MHz operations to comply with the specific 
EIRP spectral density limit specified in Footnote 5.443C and seek comment on that proposal.  Footnote 
5.443C further limits AM(R)S use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band to “internationally standardized 
aeronautical systems.”242  We se ek comment on codifying this requirement as a service rule and on 
whether any other measure is necessary to implement the restriction.  We further seek comment on 
whether any other special measures applicable to the 5030- 5091 MHz band, such as a guard band at the 
bottom edge of the 5030- 5091 MHz band, should be adopted to protect RNSS system downlinks.243  
109. Flight testing.   The 5091- 5150 MHz band is also allocated for aeronautical mobile 
telemetry communications from aircraft stations , subject to the technica l parameters in ITU Resolution 
418 (WRC -12) intended to ensure compatibility with other services.244  According to NTIA, federal 
agencies currently use this allocation in the 5091- 5150 MHz band to support flight testing.245  We seek 
comment on whether measures beyond generally applicable out -of-band emissions limits are necessary to 
ensure that 5030- 5091 MHz operations are compatible with such services.  
c. Canadian and Mexican Coordination  
110. International agreements with Mexico and Canada do not address the use of the 5030-
5091 MHz band for UAS communications.246  In the event of any adjustments made to the agreements 
with Mexico or Canada regarding use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band, we note that our proposed rules, and 
any rules that may ultimately become effective pu rsuant to this proceeding, may need to be modified to 
comply with those agreements.  We seek comment on whether we should adopt an interim measure to address UAS communications in the 5030- 5091 MHz band that may cause harmful interference to 
operations in Mexico or Canada during the period prior to any adjustments made to the agreements 
between the United States, Mexico, and/or Canada regarding use of the band.  If so, what should this interim measure provide?  
III. AIRBORNE USE OF FLEXIBLE- USE SPECTRUM  
111. Beyond the development of the 5030- 5091 MHz band for UAS operations, the use of 
flexible -use spectrum
247 and existing networks as platforms for UAS offers promise because these 
 
241 See id.  Section 3 of the RTCA DO -362A standard requires the use of the EIRP density limit of - 75 dBW/MHz as 
specified in Footnote 5.443C.  See RTCA DO- 362A § 3.2.1.4.6; see also id. , Appx. T: Protecting Adjacent Band 
Systems Against Interference From Terrestrial C  Band CNPC Links, at T.4.  
242 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.443C.   
243 See also supra para 18.  We note that Appendix T of RTCA DO -362A includes an analysis of the maximum 
allowable power spectr al density (PSD) for UAS ground radio stations (GRS) and airborne rad io stations (ARS) 
required to protect RNSS systems.  See RTCA DO- 362A, Appx. T.    
244 47 CFR § 2.106, footnote US444B (referencing ITU R .R., Resolution  418 (Rev.WRC -12), titled “Use of the 
band 5091 -5250 MHz by the aeronautical mobile service for telemetry a pplications”).  
245 See NTIA Spectrum Compendium (5030 -5025 MHz) a t 1, 9.  
246 See FCC, Canadian Agreements by Frequency , https://www.fcc.gov/canadian -agreements -frequency ; (la st visited 
Sept. 6 , 2022); FCC, Mexican Agreements by Frequency , https://www.fcc.gov/mexican -agreements -frequency . (la st 
Sept. 6 , 2022).  
247 The t erm “flexible -use spectrum” or “flexible -use bands,” refers to services or spectrum bands for which the 
Commission’s rules do not prescribe specific uses or applications.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
50 existing networks provide significant coverage with low latency, high throughput, and dedicated and 
secure communications.  The use of such existing infrastructure may provide the added benefit of a near -
term, low -cost option in comparison to building a dedicated network for UAS operations.  
112. There is considerable interest in using existing terrestrial mobile networks for UAS 
communications, including command and control, telemetry, and payload communications.  Because these networks were not designed for UAS use, however, the integration of UAS into terrestrial mobile networks may not be a seamless transition.  The Commission’s terrestrial mobile service rules generally 
do not consider airborne use, and whether within a network or across adjacent networks, the potential for increased interference is probable when UAS are introd uced.  
113. While the Commission remains committed to allowing flexibility in the use of existing 
spectrum and networks, we are uncertain about the potential interference impacts of UAS use.  Therefore, we seek comment on the adequacy of current rules to ensure  co-existence of existing terrestrial wireless 
networks and UAS and on the regulatory solutions that may be necessary to facilitate and encourage such use.  Our action is consistent with WTB and OET’s recommendation in the Section 374 Report  to conduct 
further review of the flexible -use bands for UAS.
248 
A. Background 
114. Federal agencies, industry stakeholders, and standards bodies have undertaken significant 
work to facilitate use of UAS, including development of flexible -use spectrum as a platform.  As interest 
in and demand for UAS services grows, this initial work will form the foundation for the additional research and testing that is necessary to evaluate the need for further regulatory action by the Commission, where appropriate.  
115. FAA Programs .  As n oted, the FAA has engaged in a variety of initiatives to safely 
integrate UAS into the National Airspace System , some of which considered the use of various spectrum 
bands as platforms for UAS.  Among these initiatives, in 2017, the FAA established the UAS  Integration 
Pilot Program (IPP) to permit state, local, and Tribal governments to partner with private sector entities, such as UAS operators or manufacturers, to accelerate safe UAS integration.
249  IPP participants evaluat ed 
several operational concepts,  including night -time operations, flights over people and beyond-visual- line-
of-sight operations , package delivery, detect -and-avoid technologies , and link reliability.250  The IPP 
program concluded in October 2020 after which the FAA launched a new program  called BEYOND, 
which is intended to continue the work of UAS integration.251  The FAA also chartered the Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line -of-Sight Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (BVLOS 
ARC) in June 2021 to review insights gained from these and other activities and to provide recommendations regarding performance -based regulatory requirements that will enable the integration of 
beyond-visual- line-of-sight operations in the National Airspace System .
252  In March 2022, the BVLOS 
ARC issued  a Final Report, making over 70 recommendations regarding regulatory changes to facilitate 
such operations.253  The BVLOS ARC Final Report noted that “[r]eliable and continuous access to 
 
248 Section 374 Report , a t 1.  
249 See FAA, UAS Integration Pilot Program, 
https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/completed/integration_pilot_program/  (la st visited Sept. 6, 2022) . 
250 Id. 
251 See FAA, BEYOND, https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/beyond/  (last visited Sept. 6, 2022) .  As 
part of the BEYOND program, the FAA is continuing its partnerships with eight of the nine IPP participants, which 
continue to test and refine varying UAS operational concepts.  Id. 
252 U.S. Depa rtment of Transportation, Federal Avia tion Administration, Avia tion Rulemaking  Committee Charter, 
UAS Beyond Visual Line -of-Sight Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (June 8, 2021).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
51 spectrum is essential to the continued growth of the UAS industry” and that it is critical for all available 
communications technology to be enabled.254 
116. Stakeholder Interest in UAS on Flexible -Use Spectrum .  Manufacturers, service 
providers, and public and private UAS operators support using a wide range of bands for UAS oper ations 
in addition to spectrum bands dedicated to aeronautical use,255 and research is underway to study the 
potential of flexible -use spectrum for UAS uses.  For example, in accordance with its Part 5 Program 
Experimental Radio License rules, the Commission  in August 2021 approved the North Carolina State 
University Innovation Zone256 for use by the Aerial Experimentation and Research Platform for Advanced 
Wireless (AERPAW).257  The AERPAW testbed is the first research platform to study the use of 5G  
wireless technology as a platform for UAS .258  Several mobile service providers  and other stakeholders 
currently are developing network- based UAS applications that would operate over commercial networks 
using flexible -use spectrum259 and are testing UAS operations on their networks for interference and other 
performance issues .260  Verizon, for example, has stated that it is “actively testing  how the use of its 
commercial mobile network to support drone deployments affects its own networks, neighboring 
licens ees in adjacent geographies, and neighboring licensees in adjacent bands to ensure the avoidance of 
harmful interference.”261  To this end, Verizon—through its subsidiary Skyward—and the FAA have 
(Continued from previous page)   
253 See generally Unmanned Aircra ft Systems Beyond Visua l Line of Sight Avia tion Rulemaking Committee, Final 
Report  (March 10, 2022) ( BVLOS ARC Final  Report ) 
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS_BVLOS_ARC_FINAL_R
EPORT_03102022.pdf . 
254 Id. at 61.  
255 See Airbus UM Section 374 Report  Comments a t 3 -4; Boeing Section 374 Report  Comments a t 8 -9; CTA Section 
374 Report  Comments a t 3; CTIA Section 374 Report  Comments at 10 -13; Florida Power & Light Sect ion 374 
Report  Comments a t 1; Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola Solutions) Section 374 Report  Comments a t 4 
(“Provided that aeronautical mobile service is not specifically prohibited under the FCC’s rules or in the table of 
a lloca tions, UAS control links should be permitted in existing mobile allocations available for both private radi o and 
commercial operations.”); Phirst Section 374 Report  Comments a t 3 -4; Small UAV Coa lition Section 374 Report  
Comments a t 5 -6; T-Mobile Section 374 Report  Comments a t 4 -6; Verizon Section 374 Report  Comments a t 2 -5; 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Section 374 Report  Reply a t 3 (sta ting that the “leveraging of 
cellula r spectrum and infrastructure is a  potential solution that the FCC should furt her explore”); Spectrum Financi al 
Partners, LLC (SFP) Section 374 Report  Reply a t 3 -6.      
256 47 CFR § 5.313.  Innovation Zones are intended to provide opportunities for qualified participants to test new 
technologies a nd prototype networks – such as those  that can support 5G technologies – in a specified geographic 
area.   
257 “FCC Announces Two New Innovation Zones and Amends One Existing Innovation Zone for Program 
Experimental Licenses ,” Public Notice, FCC 21 -92, at 1 (Aug. 6, 2021).  The North Carolina S tate Innovation Zones 
are managed by the National Science Foundation -funded Platforms for Advanced Wireless Research (PAWR) 
Project Office.  Platforms for Advanced Wireless Research, https://advancedwireless.org  (la st visited Sept 6 , 2022). 
258 See Platforms for Advanced Wireless Research, https://advancedwireless.org/nsf -names -third-pawr -wireless -
research -platform -in-north- carolinas -research -triangle/  ( Sept., 18, 2019); AERPAW : Aerial Experimentation and 
Research Platform for Advanced Wireless, https://aerpaw.org/  (la st visited Sept. 6 , 2022).  
259 See, e.g., CTA Section 374 Report  Comments a t 7 -8; T-Mobile Section 374 Report  Comments a t 2; Verizon 
Section 374 Report  Comments a t 3 -4, 7; CTIA Section 374 Report  Reply a t 5 -6; UPS Section 374 Report  Reply at 3 -
4. 
260 See Verizon Section 374 Report  Comments a t 7.  
261 Id.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
52 entered into a three- year Memorandum of Agreement to research  the use of Verizon’s network for 
command -and-control (C2) purposes and beyond-visual- line-of-sight operations.262 
117. UAS Standards .  Standards bodies , such as 3GPP,263 are conducting ongoing studies  to 
determine the extent of interference that may be caused by UAS operations within a  terrestrial network, 
and to develop, as necessary, techniques to manage and mitigate the increased risk of harmful interference 
posed by UAS.264  As noted, 3GPP  is developing updates to its standards to enable LTE wireless networks 
in flexible -use bands to support UAS applications.265  To this end, as part of Release 15 of the technical 
standard for Long Term Evolution (LTE), 3GPP concluded a study item on the use of LTE for  UAS, in 
which it propose d various interference mitigation strategies.266   
118. The Commission’s Technological Advisory Council’s (TAC)267 Communication 
Strategies for Unmanned Aircraft working group was tasked with studying spectrum issues for UAS.268  
Areas of review included the availability and sufficiency of spectrum for uses such as command- and-
control, payload, identification, and collision avoidance.269  The working group issued a series of reports 
in 2019, which concluded that flexible -use mobile networks using 3GPP technologies can satisfy 
communications requirements for low -altitude UA, but noted that interference remains a concern and an 
area for further study.270  The ITU has also studied spectrum issues for UAS,271 and IEEE  has formed a 
technical committee related to aerial robotics and UAS.272  
 
262 Verizon, Skyward and Federal Aviation Administration to test cellular -connected drones  (June 24, 2021) , 
https://www.verizon.com/about/news/skyward -federal -aviation -administration -test-drones .  
263 The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is an umbrella organization consisting of standards organizations 
that develop protocols for mobile telecommunications, including the Long -Term Evolution standard (LTE).  See 
https://www.3gpp.org/about -3gpp/about -3gpp  (last visited Sept. 6, 2022) . 
264 In addition, in 2017, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) established the Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems Standardization Collaborative (UASSC)  as a coordinating body to accelerate the development of the 
standards and conformity assessment programs needed to facilitate the safe integration of UAS into the U.S. nati onal 
a irspa ce.  Most recently, in June 2022 , ANSI released a n update to its  Gaps Pr ogress Report, which tracks efforts by 
sta ndards developing organizations a nd others to a ddress identified ga ps where a dditional standardization work is 
needed.  See ANSI, Gaps Progress Report Available: ANSI UASSC Standardization Roadmap for Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems  (June 14, 2022 ), https://www.ansi.org/news/standards -news/all- news/2022/06/6 -14-22-gaps-
progress -report -available -ansi-uassc -standardization -roadmap -for-uas.  
265 See supra para.  90.  See, e.g., 3GPP, UAS -UAV , (Nov. 18, 2019), https://www.3gpp.org/uas -uav. 
266 See 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on 
Enhanced LTE Support for Aerial Vehicles (Release 15) 3GPP TR 36.777 V15.0.0 (2017 -12). 
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3231  
267 The FCC’s Technological Advisory Council (TAC) provides technical advice to the FCC. The TAC is organized 
under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  The current TAC, which is the FCC’s 5th Technological Advisory Council, was formed on October 21, 2010.  The TAC is comprised of a diverse array of 
lea ding experts that helps the FCC identify important a reas of innovation a nd develop informed technology policies 
supporting America’s competitiveness and job creation in the global economy.  
https://www.fcc.gov/general/technological -advisory- council
. 
268 See Technological Advisory Council – 2019, Documents and White Paper Releases, 2019 TAC Working Groups 
and Charter , https://www.fcc.gov/technological -advisory -council -2019 . 
269 See Technological Advisory Council – 2019, June 21, 2019 - Meetin g of the Technological Advisory Council 
(TAC), (June 21, 2019),  https://www.fcc.gov/technological -advisory -council -2019 . 
270 See Technology Advisory Council, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group presentations , (Mar. 26, 2019), 
https://tran sition.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting32619/TAC -Presentations -3-26-19.pdf ; (June 21, 2019),  
https://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/m eeting62119/TACPresentations6 -21-19.pdf ; (Dec. 4, 2019), 
https://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting12419/TAC -Presentations -12-4-19.pdf .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
53 119. As discussed above, the RTCA is working with the FAA to develop industry-endorsed 
standards to enable UAS.  In addition to developing MOPS for line -of-sight C2 transmissions for the 
5030- 5091 MHz band, RTCA Special Committee 228 is currently conducting work regarding cellular 
network standards for UAS.273   
B. Applicable Spectrum Bands  
120. The flexible -use spectrum lan dscape for potential UAS use is varied, consisting of bands 
that prohibit airborne use (in the Table of Frequency Allocations or by rule) and bands that are silent on 
airborne operation.  For example, Parts 22 and 96 explicitly prohibit the airborne use of  Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service and CBRS spectrum.274  Likewise, the Table of Frequency Allocations precludes 
aeronautical mobile use for several other spectrum bands, including all or portions of the 1670-1675 
MHz, 1.4 GHz, 2.3 GHz (Wireless Communication s Service), and 3.7 GHz bands.275  Other flexible -use 
bands, however, are silent regarding airborne operations.276  We seek comment on the spectrum bands that 
might be utilized for UAS, as well as the spectrum bands that would not be suitable for such operat ion 
(e.g., frequency bands with co- channel or adjacent channel services that require protection).  
121. To inform our review, commenters should indicate the flexible -use bands in which they 
are currently operating or testing UAS.  In addition, we ask commenters to detail the flexible -use band(s) 
that they may be interested in using for UAS in the future, including bands with and without explicit rules 
or allocations prohibiting airborne use.  We also ask commenters to identify the type of communication 
contemplat ed, e.g., command and control, telemetry, or payload (video, etc.) for the desired band, as well 
as the type of technology or infrastructure needed to support such use.   
C. Sufficiency of Existing Rules  
122. Certain entities maintain that our existing service and  technical rules for the various 
flexible -use bands are sufficient to address the potential for harmful interference from UAS operations.277  
While our existing rules promote optimal flexibility for licensees, these rules are largely focused on terrestrial operations and were not designed with airborne operations in mind.  Although studies are 
(Continued from previous page)   
271 The ITU developed Report ITU -R M.2171 (12/2009), titled, “Characteristics of unmanned a ircraft systems a nd 
spectrum requirements to support their safe operation in non -segreg ated airspace.”  The report addres ses the 
anticipated needs of both terrestrial and satellite spectrum requirements for UAS.  
272 According to the IEEE Aerial Robotics and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Committee’s website, “The technical 
committee will promote exchanges among researchers from acad emia, industry and government.  The purpose is to 
identify the technologies a nd technical a pproaches to a dvance a nd mature the field of a eria l robotics.  Exchanges 
include conferences, workshops, special sessions in conferences and publications to promote discussion on technical 
a nd a pplicative problems.  Envisioned will be on -line and printed resources to disseminate knowledge including 
cross -disciplinary information like aerodynamics, propulsion, communications, controls and sensors.”  See 
https://ieee -aerialrobotics -uavs.org/ .  
273 See supra  para. 90 & n.195. 
274 47 CFR§ 22.925 (prohibiting on airborne oper ation on 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service (Cellular) 
frequencies); 47 CFR § 96.39(h) (Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) general requirements).  
275 47 CFR § 2.106.  
276 See, e.g. , 47 CFR pt. 24, Personal Communication Services, subpt . E, Broadband PCS; 47 CFR pt. 27 
Miscella neous Wireless Communications Services, 698 -746 MHz band, 1695 -1710 MHz, 1710 -1755 MHz, 1755-
1780 MHz, 1915 -1920 MHz, 1995- 2000 MHz, 2000 -2020 MHz, 2110 -2155 MHz, 2155 -2180 MHz a nd 2180- 2200 
MHz ba nds.   
277 See, e.g., CTIA Section 374 Report  Comments at 14 -17; Verizon Section 374 Report  Reply Comments a t 3 -4; 
Letter from Jackie McCarthy, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC  at 2 -3 (Dec. 20, 2019).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
54 underway to develop techniques to manage and mitigate the increased risk of harmful interference posed 
by UAS, at this time it is unclear whether these mitigation tech niques and standards enhancements would 
be sufficient to protect existing wireless users and adjacent service area/band licensees from harmful 
interference caused by UA S use.  Further, the functionality  exhibited by UAs may necessitate revising our 
rules t o enable UAS operation on existing flexible -use networks.  In light of these interference concerns, 
we seek comment on whether modifications to our rules to protect existing terrestrial and other airborne operations are warranted.   
123. Interference mitigation .  Use of flexible -use spectrum by UAS can raise interference 
problems for co- channel and potentially adjacent -channel operations —particularly the high- density use 
that is expected to occur in the future.  The impact of UAs on mobile networks is different than 
conventional mobile devices due to the high altitude and high mobility of UAs.  The higher altitude of 
UAs means that they (1) can see and be seen by more base stations than a conventional mobile device; 
and (2) have more favorable propagation conditi ons than propagation experienced by terrestrial 
operations.  In addition, this high mobility, coupled with moving velocities up to 100 miles per hour 
under current FAA restrictions, can result in base station handoff issues and other network issues as described in detail below.
278  These factors underlie two scenarios in which harmful interference can 
occur in the presence of UAS operating on flexible -use spectrum —downlink interference and uplink 
interference.   
124. In the downlink—communications from the base s tation to UAs —the UAs may operate 
at an altitude that is within line of sight of multiple base stations and, as a result, the UAs can receive downlink interference from those base stations.  Accordingly, UAs may experience more downlink 
interference than t errestrial user equipment because the enhanced propagation conditions and greater line -
of-sight cause downlink interference resulting from the multiple base stations visible to, and attempting to 
connect to, the UA.  The increased downlink interference lea ds to increased resource utilization levels in 
the network and eventually degrades the downlink performance of both airborne and terrestrial 
equipment.
279 
125. At the same time, in the uplink —communications from the UA to the base station —the 
same UA can also cause interference to these multiple line -of-sight base stations.  Uplink interference 
could increase as more UAs are introduced into the network.  This interference may also increase 
depending on the UA’s intended uses.  For example, UAs may generate more uplink traffic than is typical 
of conventional mobile devices due to the use of data rate -intensive applications, such as video streaming 
and data streaming; such applications increase spectrum demand and present an increased risk of uplink interference.  T he increased uplink interference from UAs affects the throughput performance of 
terrestrial user equipment:  as the number of UAs operating in a network increases, uplink resource 
utilization in the network also increases and at a greater rate than terrest rial-only operation.  Eventually, 
the uplink performance of both UA and terrestrial equipment in the network is degraded.  
126. To support use of UAS in terrestrial mobile networks, in 2017, 3GPP published a 
technical report (TR36.777) investigating the ability for UAs to be served using terrestrial LTE 
networks.
280  The report’s findings —which were based on the analysis of field trials performed by various 
 
278 See 14 CFR §  107.51( a) (noting that the groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots 
(100 miles per hour)).  
279 See, e.g., Xingqin Lin et al., “The Sky is Not the Limit:  LTE for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” IEEE 
Communications Magazine , Vol. 56, No. 4,  205 (April 2018) (The Sky is Not the Limit:  LTE for Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicles); Siva D. Muruganathan et al., “An Overview of 3GPP Release- 15 Study on Enhanced LTE Support for 
Connected Drones,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine , Vol. 5, No. 4, 140 (D ecember 2021).  
280 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on Enhanced 
LTE Support for Aerial Vehicles (Release 15) 3GPP TR 36.777 V15.0.0 (2017 -12) (TR36.777 Report).  While the 
TR36.777 Report uses the term “aerial user equipment” or “aerial vehicles,” for purposes of uniformity, we refer to 
aerial user equipment or vehicles as unmanned aircraft or UA.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
55 companies analyzing LTE commercial network performance with the introduction of UAs —validated that 
downlink and uplink interference may result from UAS operation .281  The report propose d various 
network and UA enhancements to minimize LTE throughput degradation and interference to the network 
and to UAs and terrestrial devices.282     
127. TR36.777 confirmed the effect that UAS operations may have on downlink operations.  
The report observed that UAs uniformly distri buted between 1.5 meters and 300 meters above ground 
level experienced downlink interference as a direct result of the UAs operating in the direct line -of-sight 
of more cells than terrestrial user equipment.283  This causes the UAs to receive downlink inter cell 
interference from multiple cells.284  The resulting increase in resource utilization to provide for the 
introduction of UAs further decreases the spectral efficiency in the network and degrades downlink 
throughput performance of both UAs and terrestria l user equipment.285 
128. The report similarly validated impacts on uplink interference.  To this end, it also was 
observed that since the UAs experience line- of-sight propagation conditions to more cells than terrestrial 
devices, the UAs would cause interferenc e to more cells in the uplink than a typical terrestrial device.286  
The uplink interference caused by UAs degrades the throughput performance of terrestrial devices.287  
The increase in resource utilization level further increases interference in the networ k, which in turn 
degrades the uplink throughput performance of both UAs and terrestrial user equipment.288 
129. The report suggested several potential solutions to mitigate both uplink and downlink 
interference.  Many of the solutions can be implemented by network providers independently and do not 
require an update to the 3GPP standard.  To mitigate downlink interference, the report proposed the following solutions:   
• Full-Dimensional MIMO (FD -MIMO)  – This solution would use multiple antennas at the 
eNodeB (base station) transmitter to mitigate the interference in the downlink to UAs.
289  FD-
MIMO can also limit the mean terrestrial user equipment (UE) packet throughput loss.290 
• Directional Antenna at UA s – Interference in the downlink can be mitigated by equipping 
UAs with a directional antenna instead of an omnidirectional antenna.291  A directional 
antenna can be used to mitigate the interference in the downlink to UAs by decreasing the interference power coming from a broad range of angles.
292 
• Receive Beamforming at UAs – The UAs are assumed to be equipped with more than two 
receive antennas to mitigate the interference in the downlink to UAs.293  Downlink 
 
281 See generally TR36.777 Report.   
282 See generally TR36.777 Report.  
283 TR36.777 Report at 12.  
284 Id. 
285 Id. at 13.  
286 Id. 
287 Id. 
288 Id. 
289 See TR36.777 Report at 15.  
290 Id.  
291 Id.  
292 Id. 
293 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
56 interference mitigation can be achieved in this case by using receive beamforming at UAs.294  
In this solution, m ultiple cells belonging to the same site are coordinated and data is jointly 
transmitted to the UAs.295    
• Intra -site Joint Transmission Coordinated Multi -point Operation (JT CoMP)  – In this 
solution, multiple cells are coordinated and data is jointly transmitted to the UAs.296   
• Coverage Extension  – In this solution, coverage extension techniques via downlink 
shared channel s, physical broadcast channel s, and physical downlink shared channel s are 
used to enhance synchronization and initial access for UAs.297  Because the UA is 
synchronized with the net work , downlink interference is mitigated .298   
• Coordinated Data and Control Transmission – In this solution, multiple cells belonging 
to the same or different sites are coordinated.299  Data, common signal/channels (e.g., 
synchronization signal and Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH )), and control channels can 
be jointly transmitted to the UAs.300 The coordinated cells could construct a larger cell for 
UAs, and terrestrial user equipment is  served by physical cells without coordination, 
simultaneously.301  A dedi cated downlink resource within the Physical Downlink Shared 
Channel  (PDSCH ) region of the coordinated cells can be reserved for these coordinated 
transmissions.302     
 
294 Id. 
295 Id. 
296 The TR36.777 Report details how this solution helps to mitigate downlink interference.  From the results of the 
UAS testing done to support the study, it was observed that when the UA UE ratio is increased from 0% to 50% and 
when intra -site JT CoMP is emp loyed in the case with 50% UA UE ratio, the mean packet throughput of all user 
equipment can be improved by 33.4% at low offered traffic load in a UMa -AV (Urba n Macro base stations mounted 
above buildings with UAs) scenario.  TR36.777 Report at 15.  When t he UA UE ratio remained fixed at 50% in 
UMa -AV scenario, employing intra -site JT CoMP ca n improve the mean packet throughput for a ll user equipment 
by 58.5% at low offered traffic load compared to the case where intr a -site JT CoMP is not employed.  TR36.77 7 
Report at 15.  
297 The TR36.777 Report explains how this solution helps to mitigate downlink interference.  From the results of the 
UAS testing done to support the study, it was observed that  a noticeable fraction of the UA UE in RMa -AV (Rural 
Macro base st ations located on top of towers with UAs) and UMa -AV (Urban Macro base stations mounted above 
buildings with UAs) are not in coverage for synchronization and initial access.  TR36.777 Report at 16.  With LTE 
Rel-13 coverage extension techniques, the UAs in  RMa -AV and UMa -AV can a chieve synchronization and initia l 
access with 100% coverage probability.  TR36.777 Report  at 16.  
298 Id.  
299 According to the TR36.777 Report, this solution helps to mitigate downlink interference as it was observed that 
the coordinat ed cells could construct a larger cell for UAs, and at the same time, terrestrial user equipment are 
served by physical cells without coordination.  TR36.777 Report at 16.  For the case of high resource utilization for 
PDSCH ( Physical Downlink Shared Chann el), throughput for UAs is improved  a nd the impact on terrestrial devices 
is reduced. TR36.777 Report  at 16.  
300 Id. 
301 Id. 
302 Id.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
57 130. The report proposed the following techniques to mitigate uplink interference:  
• User Equipment Specific Fractional Pathloss Compensation Factor  – In this solution, an 
enhancement to the existing open loop power control mechanism is considered where a 
device -specific fractional pathloss compensation factor is introduced.303   
• User Equipment Specific Power Output P arameter  – Configuring a lower power output 
for UAs compared to terrestrial devices improves  terrestrial uplink user equipment  
throughput performance .304  Such a configuration, however,  reduces UA uplink throughput.305 
• Closed Loop Power Control  – In this solution, the target received powers for the UAs  are 
adjusted.306  By applying closed loop power control , mean terrestrial user equipment  uplink 
throughput improvement  can be improved.307 
• Full- Dimensional MIMO (FD -MIMO)  – By using FD-MIMO with multiple antennas at 
the eNB  receiver interference in the uplink  can be mitigated .308  In addition, FD -MIMO can 
limit the mean terrestrial user equipment  packet throughput loss.309 
131.  In addition to TR 36.777, 3GPP made changes  to Tech nical Standard  TS36.331 to help 
address  UA interference to the base station.  In LTE networks, measurement reports are messages sent 
from a UA to a base station that help  the base station make network decisions.310  The changes to 
TS36.331 included measurement report triggers for  two reporting events:  H1 (above) and H2 (below) UA  
height thresholds sent from the UA to the base station to help the base station  see the UA and to deal with 
potential interference.311  3GPP is also making additional enhancements to integrate UAS into LTE 
networks that do not relate to interference.312 
 
303 From the results of the UAS testing done to support the study, it was observed that  with the introduction of a user 
equipment  specific fractional pa thloss compensation factor, it is possible to configure UAs with a  different factor 
compared to the fractional pathloss compensation factor configured to the terrestrial devices.  TR36.77 Report a t 16 -
17.  It was observed that with the UA ratio fixed at 50% in UMa -AV scenario, a pplying different fractional pa th loss 
compensation factors for UAs and terrestrial devices can result in significant user equipment packet throughput 
gains for terrestrial devices and significant user equipmen t packet throughput losses for UAs.  TR36.777 Report a t 
16-17.  Applying height dependent fractional pa thloss compensation factors for UAs ca n result in significa nt user 
equipment packet throughput gains for terrestrial devices a nd notable UE pa cket throughput ga ins for UAs.  
TR36.777 Report  at 16 -17. 
304 TR36.777 Report at 17.  
305 Id. 
306 Id. 
307 Id. 
308 Id. 
309 Id. 
310See Ha otian Deng et al ., Mobility Support in Cellular Networks: A Measurement Study on Its Configurations and 
Implications. 2018 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC ’18), Boston, MA, ACM, (Oct. 31, 2018) 
https://dl.a cm.org/doi/10.1145/3278532.3278546 . 
311 See 3GPP TS 36.331 V16.7.0 (2021 -12) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 
Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E -UTRA); Radio  Resource Control (RRC); 
Protocol specification (Release 16) (Section 5.5.4 - Mea surement report triggering).  
312 In Release 16, 3GPP completed a study into the potential requirements and use cases for Remote Identification of 
Unma nned Aeria l Systems.  See https://www.3gpp.org/uas -uav.  The study a lso looked a t the extent to which the 
3GPP system can enable UAS components to establish the connectivity between each other and UAS Traf fic 
Management (UTM) for both line -of-sight connectivity a nd non -line-of-sight connectivity, and on the detection and 
reporting of unauthorized UAs towards the UTM.  See https://www.3gpp.org/uas -uav.  In Release 17, 3GPP 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
58 132. While the 3GPP TR 36.777 report conclude d that  it is feasible to use existing LTE 
networks to provide UA connectivity, the report and its findings have their limitations.  The 3GPP 
quantitative analyses for Release 15 evaluated only the self -network performance impact of various 
potential solutions to interference detection and mitigation.313  Moreover, the technical solutions identified 
do not eliminate the interference from UAs, they merely reduce the levels of interference.314  The report 
also noted that interference challenges become more visible when the density of UAs increases .315  
Beyond these limitations, the report did not evaluate the interference potential and impact on neighboring 
wireless networks or other radio services in the vicinity of UAS operation, nor did it evaluate the costs 
associated with the proposed technical sol utions.  As a result, there are open questions about the level of 
interference that licensees may experience and deem acceptable from neighboring licensees deploying 
UAS, the mitigation measures that may be necessary, and the costs licensees are willing to  absorb to 
protect themselves from interference.  Thus, the current 3GPP studies, while a valuable start, point to the 
need to address additional UAS interference issues.   
133. Given that it appears that UAS operations within a single terrestrial mobile networ k will 
likely result in an increased level of intra -network interference and decreased network efficiency, it is also 
likely that adjacent markets and networks will be affected by UAS operations.  While we seek to provide licensees with as much flexibility  as possible to deploy a wide range of services and applications, 
including UAS, the increased risk of harmful interference from such operations is a concern.  
Neighboring licensees, whether they deploy or decide not to deploy UAS/airborne technologies, wi ll be 
impacted and may be required to implement protections for their own networks.  A difficult situation may 
arise for all parties when adjacent licensees —both of which are operating within the Commission’s 
rules —reach an impasse regarding interference, and the failure to reach a resolution may detrimentally 
affect operations for one or both licensees.  
134.  We seek comment on how licensees deploying UAS technologies could protect licensees 
in neighboring markets and neighboring spectrum bands from interferenc e.  Some flexible -use licensees 
planning to deploy airborne technology (e.g., UAS) may believe that such use is not problematic from an 
interference standpoint because they may assume that (1) all licensees will deploy the same technology, 
(2) all terrestr ial networks are equally prepared to protect themselves, and (3) other potentially 
incompatible airborne technologies will not also be deployed.  While this best -case scenario may turn out 
to be true as the market for airborne services develops, our rules must be expansive enough to account for the increased potential for harmful interference.  Our rules should, at a minimum, set out a framework for UAS operations that is broad enough to account for varying interference scenarios.  For these reasons, we 
seek comment on whether our rules can accommodate UAS operations while also protecting co- channel 
and adjacent band operations, including satellite operations, where permitted.  In addition, we seek 
comment on changes to our rules that may be necessary to acc ommodate these scenarios.  
135. For example, t he power limitations for mobile  device s vary depending on the service.  
For the PCS band, the limit is 2 Watts EIRP.
316  Hand-held stations operating in the 698- 757 MHz, 776-
(Continued from previous page)   
specifies a dditional ca pabilities which support UAS a pplica tions a nd requirements such as UA user a uthentication, 
UA tra cking, a nd UA remote identification, a mong others.  See 3rd Generation Partner ship Project; Technical 
Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) Support in 3GPP; Stage 1 
(Release 17) 3GPP TS 22.125 V17.6.0 (2022 -03) (Section 5 –  Requirements for Remote Identification of UAS 
(includes tracking), and  Section 7.3 -  Positioning perfor mance requirements).  
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3545 ..   
313 See generally TR36.777 Report .  
314 See generally id. 
315 See id. at 20.  
316 47 CFR §  24.232(c).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
59 788 MHz, 805- 806 MHz, and 600 MHz uplink ba nd are limited to 3  Watts ERP.317  Are these and other 
power limitations for mobile devices in the flexible -use bands appropriate  for UAS operation?  
Considering the increased interference potential of UAS, should the power limitations for UAs be lower 
than for terrestrial devices?   
136. Additionally, f or many services, a licensee ’s predicted or measured median field strength 
limit must be calculated and may not be exceeded at any given point along its service area boundary.318  
These limits were developed consid ering only terrestrial devices.319  With  the introduction of UAS, how 
will licensees ensure these boundary limits are not exceeded?  Are the current limits320 sufficient to 
protect the boundary of a neighboring licensee on the same or adjacent channel block?   Can a UAS report 
and store power control and location metrics to ensure boundary limits are not exceeded?321 
137. As noted, the higher the altitude at which UAs are operating, the greater the number of 
line of sight paths between a UA and surrounding base stat ions, and thus the greater the potential impact 
on adjacent networks.  We seek comment on the altitudes that are being considered for UA operations involving flexible -use spectrum.  Will operations on these bands likely be limited to low altitudes such as 
400 feet AGL, or is it anticipated that UAS use on flexible -use bands will include operations at higher 
altitudes such as 10,000 feet AGL or greater?  Given the increased potential for interference at high 
altitudes, should the Commission impose altitude r estrictions on UAS operations using flexible -use 
spectrum?  
138. Further, it is not clear whether existing out -of-band emissions rules adequately account 
for the favorable line -of-sight propagation conditions associated with UAS.  Should such rules be 
modified t o account for UAS operations in flexible -use spectrum, and if so, how?  We seek comment on 
these and other technical rules that should be evaluated and perhaps revised to facilitate the use of 
flexible -use bands for UAS.   
139. To inform our analysis regarding whether rule revisions may be necessary, we seek 
technical studies and analyses regarding the potential for UAS operations to cause interference to adjacent channel, adjacent band, or adjacent market operations.  Among other issues, these studies and analyses 
should address how licensees deploying UAS technologies plan to protect terrestrial or satellite licensees 
in neighboring markets or spectrum bands from harmful interference.  We request comment on the 
challenges  and issues that carriers have experienc ed when testing or deploying UAS operations relative to 
the carrier’s own terrestrial wireless network.  What solutions have carriers developed or are carriers  
developing to address those challenges, specifically, the hardware, software, processes required , as well 
as the costs entailed in deploying such solutions?   What UAS altitude and UA density assumptions have 
been used to analyze deployment challenges and protection of neighbors?  Are these solutions  to be 
implemented applicable to the UA, or are they  network- based?  For licensees employing LTE, can  the 
solutions identified  in the 3GPP TR 36.777 Report be applied  to resolve interference issues  within the 
network and to adjacent networks?   Give n that flexible -use spectrum  licensees may deploy networks other 
than LTE, what additional interference issues may be encountered and what are the technical solutions 
that could be applied,  given that there may be varying levels of compatibility with airborne technologies ?  
 
317 47 CFR §  27.50(b)(10) , (c)(10).  
318 See, e.g. , 47 CFR §§ 24.236, 27.55( a).  
319 In general, the geographic area licensees’ service area power limits in sections 22.913(b) and 27.55(d) and (e) of 
the Commission’s rules that are measured at a height 1.6 meters above ground level to estimate the height of a 
mobile (UE) taking into accoun t terrain obstacles.  See 47 CFR §§ 22.913(b), 27.55(d), (e).  
320 See 47 CFR §§ 24.236, 27.55(a).  
321 See 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on 
Enhanced LTE Support for Aerial Vehicles (Release 15) 3G PP TR 36.777 V15.0.0 (2017 -12). Section 7.1 Potential 
enhancements for interference  detection.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
60 We note t hat some areas, such as Quiet Zones require the application of more stringent measures to 
reduce the potential for interference;322 how will licensees continue to protect such areas when operating 
at higher altitudes?323  Are there network -based solutions being developed that could prevent individual 
UAs from approaching or entering such noise -sensitive locations or other restricted areas that would 
mitigate the potential for UAs to cause interference or endanger safety of life and property in such areas?  
We also seek comment on any other regulatory matters that may be affected by UAS operations.  For 
example, w ill UAS/ airborne technologies affect other regulatory requirements like 911 location accuracy?   
140. Different Use Cases .  Our regulatory approach with re spect to flexible -use bands is to 
provide licensees with sufficient flexibility to choose the services that they wish to provide.  Licensees 
could offer a wide range of services and applications, ranging from “conventional” C2 and payload offerings to UTM management services.  This ability of licensees to engage in a wide range of use cases creates additional technical uncertainty when deploying UAS operations.  We seek comment on the airborne use cases that commenters are considering for flexible -use spectrum.  Is there a need for specific 
rules to permit different applications?  Further, should licensees that incorporate UAS operations be required to meet different limitations than what currently exist?   
141. One application being explored is the use of UAs as  airborne base stations.
324  HAPS 
systems can potentially be used to provide both fixed broadband connectivity for end users and transmission links between the mobile and core networks for backhauling traffic.  As noted, the Commission’s rules —as well as I TU Radio Regulations — define HAPS as radio stations located on an 
object at an altitude of 12- 31 miles (20- 50 kilometers) and at a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to 
the Earth.
325   
142. We note that the Commission is currently considering whether HAPS or other 
stratospheric- based services could be used in any portion of the 71- 76 GHz, 81- 86 GHz, 92- 94 GHz, and 
94.1- 95 GHz (70/80/90 GHz) bands to provide or support broadband Internet acces s.326  Are there 
flexible -use bands that could potentially accommodate such use?327  Would such use be compatible with 
“conventional” UAS and terrestrial, flexible- use operations given the potential impact that such high 
altitude use could have on other operations in the band?  If so, what rule changes or regulatory considerations would be necessary to permit such uses?   
 
322 Section 1.924 of the Commission’s rules identifies areas in which it is necessary to restrict transmissions to 
minimize impact on radio astronomy or other faci lities that are highly sensitive to interference.  47 CFR § 1.924 ; see 
also supra  para.  105. 
323 See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 27.1134 (Protection of Federal Government operations).  
324 See, e.g. , Steve McCaskill, Aerial base station delivers 4G coverage from the Earth's stratosphere  (Oct. 20, 
2020), https://www.techradar.com/news/aerial -base-station -delivers -4g-coverage -from -the-earths -stratosphere ; 
Miria m McNabb, AeroVironment to Develop High Altitude Solar Drones (Jan. 3, 2018),  
https://dronelife.com/2018/01/03/aerovironment -develop -high-altitude -solar-drones . 
325 47 CFR § 2.1; accord ITU R.R., Article 1.66A (2020) ; see supra  para. 98.   
326 See “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks To Supplement the Record on 70/80/90 GHz Bands Notice Of 
Proposed Rulemaking,” Public Notice, DA 21 -1263 (WTB Oct. 8, 2021).  This public notice was issued t o 
supplement the record in the rulemaking on Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands .  
Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands , WT Docket No. 20 -133, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020) (seeking comment on, among other things, potential rule changes for non -
Federal users to facilitate the provision of wireless backhaul for 5G, as well as the deployment of broadband servi ces 
to aircraft and ships).  
327 We observe that the Commission has previously grante d experimental a uthorizations for high -altitude testing 
using flexible -use spectrum.  See, e.g., Physical Science Laboratory/New Mexico State University, Special 
Temporary Authorization, OET Experimental Licensing System File No.:  0020 -EX-CM-2022; Loon, L LC, Special 
Temporary Authorization, OET Experimental Licensing System File No.:  0609 -EX-CN-2020.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
61 143. Other examples of airborne base station platforms include the use of tethered UAS, which 
typically are UAs physically connected to the ground via cables that provide power and data links to the 
UAs.328  We are aware that there has been  research and development in the use of tethered UAS as 
temporary base stations , particularly as part of disaster recovery efforts .329  What issues are raised by the 
use of tethered UAS temporary base stations?  If the station is essentially functioning as a conventional 
base station, should the existing rules applicable to the particular band be applied?  Or is it necessary to 
apply other service and technical par ameters, e.g., antenna height and power output?  What additional 
concerns are raised where tethered UAS base stations as well as HAPS are deployed?  Further, what would be the impact of a mobile airborne base station on airborne user equipment (i.e., UAS)?  What changes or additions to our rules are necessary to address such concerns?  
144. Elimination of Rules Which Impede UAS.  In its Final Report, the BVLOS ARC 
recommended that t he Commission re consider the restrictions on airborne use that apply to certain 
spectrum bands.
330  The BVLOS ARC Final Report  noted that beyond-visual- line-of-sight operations 
require that spectrum bands with appropriate characteristics are sufficiently available to meet the needs of numerous users operating in a variety of operating environments.
331  Similarly, the TAC has noted that the 
Commission should reassess  the technical basis for prohibiting use of certain terrestrial mobile bands 
above ground level.332  To the extent that measures can be identified that resolve or mitigate the impact of 
UAS use on adjacent operations, we seek comment on whether current prohibitions on airborne 
operations should be removed.  For example, the Cellular Radiotelephone Service airborne use 
prohibition in section 22.925 was put in place specifically because of the heightened risk of interference by airborne mobiles to cellular networks.  Can such operations be protected in the presence of UAS use?  If solutions are developed that effectively mitigate the increased potential for harmful interference posed by UAS use, should UAS operations be permitted in Cellular Radiotelephone Service or other bands?  Are there certain noise -restricted bands that must retain the prohibition regardless of any UAS 
interference mitigation measures?
333  If a commenter seeks to eliminate or modify an existing prohibition, 
the commenter should specifically  explain why the airborne use would not cause harmful interference to a 
co-channel or adjacent channel licensee’s operations.   
145. Canadian and Mexican Coordination.  The use of UAS will likely have an impact in 
areas beyond United States borders.  There are several agreements that address use of the flexible -use 
 
328 See Mustafa A. Kishk et al., On the 3 -D Placement of Airborne Base Stations Using Tethered UAVs , IEEE 
Tra nsactions on Communications (Aug. 2020), https://ieeexplore -ieee-
org.fcc.idm.oclc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9091128 .   
329 See, e.g. , Take a look at AT&T's 'Flying COWs' — drones that returned cell service to Hurricane Ida -hit 
Louisiana, Business Insider (Sept. 4, 2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/flying -cows -bring -cell-service -to-
areas -impacted -natural -disasters -2021-8 ; C OMSovereign Delivers First Tethered Drone -Based LTE Network  (Dec. 
21, 2020), https://www.prnewswire.com/news -r eleases/comsovereign -delivers -first-tethered -drone -based -lte-
network- 301196568.html ; Monica Alleven, “ T-M obile applies f or extension to test UAS in Washington ,” 
FierceWireless (Feb. 12, 2019), https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t -m obile-applies -for-extensio n-to-test-uas-
bellevue -redmond .  
330 BVLOS ARC Final Report  at 61.  
331 Id. 
332 Technical Advisory Council, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group March 26, 2019 Presentation at 25 -35, 
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting32619/TAC -Presentations -3-26-19.pdf . 
333 There are restrictions on aeronautical or airborne mobile use in or adjacent to noise -restricted bands.  For 
example, in the 1670 -1675 MHz band, a eronautical mobile is prohibited to protect ra dio a stronomy operations.  See 
47 CFR § 2.106, footnotes US211, US342.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
62 bands in the border regions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.334  These agreements do not 
contemplate UAS use.  Because UAS operation in these bands would increase the interference potenti al in 
the border regions, commenters should be aware that UAS use may not be permitted in border areas until 
such time as the agreements are updated to accommodate such use, or agreement s on such use  are reached  
with both countries.  We seek comment on how  to address issues arising from UAS use in the border 
regions pending any changes to existing agreements.  
D. UAS Impact on Spectrum Rights  
146. The Commission’s rules largely presume that wireless networks are terrestrial in nature, 
which raises questions  regardi ng the extent of spectrum rights granted as part of existing commercial 
authorizations.   Pursuant to the Communications  Act and the Commission’s rules, the Commission grants 
licensees  the right to operate radio systems on a particular radio freque ncy.335  In some services, such as 
those with allocations prohibiting aeronautical mobile use, it can be presumed that a licensee only has rights with respect to ground- based operations.
336  Likewise, other services have technical rules which 
suggest that only terres trial networks were contemplated for those services .337  By contrast, r ules for 
geographic market -based licenses define market areas according to geographic boundaries, but they are 
silent as to the vertical scope of such markets.338  The Commission has neve r explicitly stated what it 
believes to be the vertical limit of a licensee’s spectrum  right s, leaving a question as to the “ ceiling ” of 
license areas  and the attendant protections associated with these geographic markets .  As the interference 
discussion a bove highlights, however, market boundaries become crucial at higher altitudes.  
147. The ability of a licensee to exercise or protect its spectrum rights  with respect to adjacent 
licensees becomes relevant  in the context of UAS use,  given that  the operation of UAs well within the 
boundaries of one license area  can affect and be affected  by base stations located inside the boundaries of 
another license area—more so than for conventional mobile operation.  UAs will have line -of-sight 
connectivity to base stations both within the geographic market area where the UA is flying, as well as 
base stations in other adjacent geographic areas.  The potential for a UA to establish a network connection 
with a base station in an adjacent market causes a tension between Com mission policies:  (1) a licensee’s 
authorization generally provides the licensee exclusive use of the spectrum within its licensed market area; and (2) historically, our rules consider mobile devices to be operating under the authority of the licensee who se transmitter is providing service.  UA operation creates a tension between these two 
 
334 See, e.g., Canada Agreements By Frequency, https://www.fcc.gov/canadian -agreements -frequency , (700 MHz 
Commercial La nd Mobile Agreement with Canada, Understanding Co ncerning Cellular Radio Systems in the bands 
824-825 MHz, 845 -849 MHz, 869 -870 MHz, a nd 890- 894 MHz, Personal Communications Service (PCS) -
Broa dband); Mexico Agreements By Frequency, https://ww w.fcc.gov/mexican -agreements -frequency , (Cellula r 
(Protocol 4), Personal Communication Service (PCS) -Broadband 8).   
335 47 U.S.C. § 303; 47 CFR § 1.903.  
336 Severa l a llocations in the Table of Frequency Alloca tions, includin g 1670 -1675 MHz, 2305 -2310 MHz, 2495 -
2690 MHz and 3550 -3700 MHz bands, permit primary non -Federal mobile, except a eronautical mobile, operations.  
47 CFR § 2.106.  
337 For example, PCS service rules specify maximum antenna height and output power of base stations. 47 CFR § 
24.232.  In the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, license areas are determined by a licensee’s Cellular Service Area 
Boundary (SAB), which is the area around a base station transmitter within which a subscriber can receive a specifi c 
signa l level.  See  47 CFR § 22.911.  The license area defined by this service contour is, in essence, a dome around 
the transmitter.  Id. 
338 See, e.g. , 47 CFR §§ 24.202, 27.6.  A geographic market licensee gener ally may construct a transmitter tower 
anywhere within  a particular geographic area’s boundary (subject to certain interference protection and other 
technical requirements) and does not need to apply for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter locations.  
See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 27.11( a) (“Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be accepted, except 
where required for environmental assessments, in accordance with §§ 1.1301  through 1.1319 of this chapter.”); 47 
CFR § 90.663.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
63 policies because a UA can be served by a transmitter that is well outside of the licensee’s market 
boundary.339  The greater line-of- sight of UAs could extend the reach of a transmitter further into an 
adjacent market, thus muddling the concept of license exclusivity.   
148. This aspect of UAS use raises questions regarding how and under what circumstances a 
licensee is able to enforce rights under its license.340  For example, it may be difficult to determine UAS 
operation as a cause of interference to a network because such operation is intermittent and because the effect may vary depending on the position and movement of the UA.  Moreover, even if UAS operation is determined t o be a cause of interference, the offending licensee is likely to be operating within the 
Commission’s rules regarding conventional mobile operations.  This poses questions regarding the circumstances under which the “victim” licensee, i.e., the licensee experiencing harmful interference, may seek relief from the Commission where both entities are compliant with service rules.   
149. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the Commission should identify a vertical 
limit at which flexible -use licenses may be used  to support UAS on an exclusive or primary basis.  Use 
beyond this limit would be on a non- primary basis.  “Non- primary” in this context would mean that a 
licensee would be required to cure harmful interference to an adjacent licensee caused by its UAS operation even if it is operating within the rules.
341  First, is it appropriate to establish a vertical limit for 
primary UAS operations in our rules?  If we adopt a limit, what should that limit be?  What factors should the Commission consider regarding a vertical limit for licensed UAS operations?   
150. Second , we seek comment on how to determine whether a licensee should be required to 
cure harmful interference caused by its non -primary operations to adjacent licensees even if it is operating 
within the service rules for the license.  How should we determine whether an entity should be obligated to take corrective measures, as there may be scenarios in which it could be difficult to determine fault?  We request comment on how licensees should be able to enforce their license rights.  What interference resolutio n mechanism would be appropriate?  
IV. LICENSING UAS OPERATORS FOR VHF COMMUNICATIONS  
151. The aeronautical VHF band (117.975 MHz - 137 MHz) is used by aviation for air traffic 
control and advisory communications among other aviation- safety purposes.
342  In some insta nces, to 
ensure the safety of the National Airspace System, the FAA requires operators of UAS to communicate with air traffic control (ATC) facilities  when operating on or in the vicinity of an airport or operating in 
controlled airspace over the VHF traff ic control and advisory frequencies.
343  To meet this requirement, 
 
339 In the current mobile environment this happens to a limi ted extent at a market boundary.  Currently, base stations 
situated along a market boundary can serve a conventional mobile located close to the boundary in the adjacent 
market; this is beneficial to both licensees as it permits continued service and seaml ess handoff across boundaries.  
UA, however, could be served by base stations well within the adjacent market boundary due to a greater line -of-
sight.  
340 See Technological Advisory Committee, UAS Working Group March 26, 2019 Presentation,  
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting32619/TAC -Presentations -3-26-19.pdf  (la st visited June 14 , 2022).  
341 “Non -primary” status would not mean that a licensee would not have interference protection for its own 
operation.  The non -primary status would only convey responsibility for curing interference even if that licensee is 
operating within rules.  
342 See 47 CFR § 87.173(b); Review of Part 87 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning the Aviation Radio Service , 
WT Docket No. 01 -289, Third Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7610, 7612, par a. 3 (2010).  
343 See 14 CFR §§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an a irport in C lass G airspace, 91.183 IFR 
communications ; see also , e.g., Supplemental Statement of BNSF Railway Co., FCC File No. 0008476737, at 1 
(filed Dec. 20, 2018), available at   (la st visited June 14 , 2022) (stating that “[t]he ability for BNSF to have active 
participation on the proposed aviation channels is of major importance to the FAA” and that “the FAA has requested 
BNSF obtain an aircraft stations license from the FCC” that will be “used to communicate directly to ATC”); see 
also FAA Order JO 7210.3CC – Facility Operation a nd Administration, a t 5 -5-3(b), 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
64 operators may use a VHF station integrated into the UA itself whereby the UAS operator’s control station 
connects with the UA using a non- VHF channel and the UA completes the connection to ATC over the 
normal VHF channels.  This approach is commonly referred to as ATC relay.344  Implementation of ATC 
relay in UA technology is still nascent and UAS operators have, therefore, continued to rely on ground-based VHF stations.  The part 87 aviation service rules governing the use of the aeronautical VHF band 
do not, however, provide a licensing mechanism for the operator of a UAS to obtain a ground- based 
station license.
345  Accordingly, UAS operator requests for such authorization are currently handled by 
special temporary authority on a case -by-case basis.  We propose to establish a mechanism by which 
UAS operators may apply for a regular license for this purpose, with appropriate requirements, 
restrictions, and conditions to maintain the integrity o f the band and service legitimate needs for flight 
coordination.    
152. Although aeronautical VHF stations are generally licensed by rule under part 87 if the 
aircraft does not make international flights or communications,346 we do not propose to authorize ground-
based VHF stations under a licensed -by-rule approach.  Rather, under our proposal, we would require 
operators to file a license application with the Commission for an individual license covering their VHF station.  According to the FAA, there were over 200,000 private aircraft registered in the United States as of 2020 and were over 7,000 commercial aircraft as of 2019, numbers which are expected to remain relatively stable to the year 2040.
347  In contrast, the recreational UAS fleet is expected to grow from the 
current 1.32 million units to approximately 1.48 million units by 2024.348  The FAA also forecasts that, by 
the year 2024, the commercial UAS fleet will likely be twice as large as the current fleet of approximately 385,000 UAS.
349  Given the potent ial number of UAS operators, we have concerns that a licensed -by-rule 
approach applied to these operators’ stations in the VHF band could endanger this critical and limited amount of aeronautical spectrum and the safety of the National Airspace System.   
153. In addition, given the wide availability of inexpensive, off -the-shelf VHF hand-held 
radios that can be easily operated without training, we are concerned about the greater potential for parties to obtain and use ground stations on a licensed-by- rule basis to contact ATC, because they may not have 
adequate training for such communications.  We are further concerned that licensed -by-rule operators 
would be difficult to identify during communications with ATC or afterwards in the event of problems.  
(Continued from previous page)   
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html/chap5_section_5.html  (la st visited June 14, 2022) 
(providing that the “Oper ations Supervisor/Controller -in-Charge (OS/CIC) should ensure . . . if known, that the 
controller has a method of contacting the appropriate UAS [pilot -in-command]”).  
344 For example, the technical standard RTCA DO -362A would potentially provide for the use of CNPC links in the 
5030- 5091 MHz band to support the link between oper ator and UA for purposes of ATC relay.  See RTCA DO-
362A, § 1.1. and B.3.1.2.   
345 This issue does  not arise for p ilots a board manned aircraft , who  use stations for VHF communications under 
subpart F of part 87 of the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. F.  Subpart F authorizes aircraft stations, 
which , as mentioned earlier, are defined as stations “located on board an aircraft.”  47 CFR § § 87.5, 87.185( a).  
Because ground stations are not “located on board an aircraft,” they are not covered by subpart F.  
346 See 47 CFR § 87.18(b).  
347 See FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast:  Fiscal Years 2020 -2040  at 26, 32, 
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020 -40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf   
(last visited June 14 , 2022) ( FAA Aerospace Forecast ).  While the private a ircraft fleet is expected to slightly 
decrease, the number of flight hours is expected to increase.  Id. at 26, 27.  The commercial fleet is expected to grow 
by approximately 1% per year.  Id. at 32.  
348 Id. at 49.  
349 Id. at 52.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
65 We tentati vely conclude that ground stations for VHF communications should not be licensed by rule, 
and seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusion.350   
154. While  we typically do not individually license aircraft stations operating on VHF for 
domestic flights and communications, w e seek comment on licensing ATC  relay operations.  As 
discussed above,  ATC  relay implementation is currently in its nascent stage, however we  expect relay 
operations to increase with a corresponding increase in UA operations near airports  and in controlled 
airspace.   Given that ATC relay and ground- based VHF stations will both be used to communicate with 
ATC, a re there inher ent differences between ground radio operators and relay operators  for the purpose of 
the communications?  Is there a reason to expect operators using ATC  relay stations are better trained for 
such communications?  Are there other licensing related issues  that we should consider that make relay 
systems unique?  
155. We seek to adop t a licensing mechanism that addresses these concerns and maintains the 
integrity of the band while also meeting the legitimate needs of certain UAS operators for 
communications in the VHF band.  To achieve these goals, we propose several measures below.  We seek 
comment on these measures, and on any alternative approaches that would provide a regular licensing mechanism that meets the Commission’s goals.   
156. First, we propose to individually license ground stations for UAS operator 
communication with control  towers and other aircraft pilots under a new category of licensed station, an 
Unmanned Aircraft  Operator VHF Ground Station, and to define the new station as “a station on the 
ground providing unmanned aircraft pilot radio communication relating to safety and regularity of flight 
on air traffic control, flight service station,   unicom, or multicom frequencies.”
351  Individual licensing 
will enable the Commission to identify authorized operators, identify unauthorized users, and aid in resolving instances of  harmful interference.  Accordingly, under this proposal, parties will be required to 
submit individual license applications.  We propose that parties use the FCC Form 605, which is used 
generally for, inter alia , authorizations for stations in the “aircra ft service,” and we seek comment on 
whether any modifications to the form are necessary or helpful to facilitate its use for this purpose.
352     
157. Second, we propose to provide that these stations may operate over all air traffic control, 
flight service station, aeronautical advisory station (unicom), and aeronautical multicom station 
(multicom) channels authorized for use by aircraft.353  We seek comment on which specific channels to 
cover for this purpose.354   
158. Third, we propose to permit mobile stations (stations intended to be used while in motion 
or during halts at unspecified points), and we further seek comment on whether to permit non- mobile 
stations as well.  To the extent parties support the inclusion of non- mobile stations, we seek comment on 
 
350 We also note that section 307(e) of the Act expressly limits licensing by rule in the aviation service to aircraft 
sta tions a nd, a s discussed, we seek to a dopt a  licensing mechanism for VHF ground stations.  See 47 U.S.C. § 
307(e).  
351 A flight  service  station is part of a network of stations providing weather briefings and information on flight 
fa cilities a nd monitoring the naviga tional ra dio net.   See Review of Part 87 of the Commission's Rules Concerning 
the Aviation Radio Service , WT Docket No. 01 -289, Report a nd Order a nd Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 
18 FCC Rcd 21432, 21459, para. 56, n.209 (2003).   A unicom station is a n a eronautical sta tion used for a dvisory 
a nd civil defense communications primarily with private a ircraft.   47 CFR § 87.5.    A multicom station is a n 
aeronautical station used to provide communications to conduct the activities being performed by, or directed from, 
private aircraft.   Id. 
352 FCC Form 605 provides a q uick-form application for a uthorization for, a mong others, stations in the “aircraft 
service” generally.  See FCC Form 605, https://www.fcc.gov/fcc -form -605.  
353 See 47 CFR § 87.173(b); see  also 47 CFR subpts. G, H.  
354 See 47 CFR §§ 87.173(b), 87.187(a), 87.187(y)(2) (flight service station frequencies) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
66 whether coverage of such stations for communications between two non- mobile sites ( i.e., the operator’s 
fixed VHF station and air traffic control) is consistent with the aeronautical mobile and aeronautical 
mobile (route) allocations applicable to the air traffic control frequencies.355 
159. Fourth, we propose to require that license applications include an endorsement from the 
FAA.  An endorsement must be included in a written document issued by the FAA, such as a Certificate of Approval (COA).  We propose to provide that a license will not be issued without an FAA endorsement.  We further propose that the approved license will be subject to any restrictions or conditions specified on the FAA endorsement.  While licenses under part 87 are normally issued for 10 
years, we seek comment on whether to provide that license terms for these stations will be the lesser of 10 
years or the duration of the FAA endorsement, if any is specified.  We further seek comment on whether a 
party seeking license renewal should be required to submit a new FAA written endorsement.   
160. Finally, we propose to adopt a clarification of section 87.18 that will make clear that 
licensing by rule continues to apply to UAS aircraft stations, such as the VHF stations used for ATC relay.  As discussed above, while we seek comment on whether the concerns that underlie our proposal that a UAS operator’s ground- based VHF stations should be individually licensed warrant the same 
approach for UAS aircraft stations, we are not proposing at this time  to require individual licensing for 
those UAS aircraft stations used for VHF communications.  To avoid any confusion as to the continued application of licensing by rule to such stations that might result from our proposal to license a UAS operator’s ground- based VHF station individually, we propose to clarify in section 87.18(b) that licensing 
by rule applies to aircraft stations, whether “manned or unmanned.”  
161. We believe these steps will help to promote the safe integration of UAS into the National 
Airspa ce System, while maintaining the integrity of the aeronautical VHF band.  We request comment on 
these proposals and alternatives.  We seek comment on whether a provision enabling UAS operators to license ground- based stations to communicate over the aerona utical VHF band is necessary or if instead 
we should continue to address requests for authorization for ground- based stations on a case -by-case 
basis.  If providing a mechanism for licensing of ground- based VHF stations is warranted, we seek 
comment on whether the proposed rules adequately address this need or unduly restrict the ability of UAS operators to communicate with ATC or with manned aircraft.  Conversely, we seek comment on whether the proposal is too broad, and whether we should further restrict the circumstances under which UAS 
operators may obtain licensed ground stations to use the aeronautical VHF band.  We also request 
comment on whether the FAA’s planned integration of the Next Gen Data Communications system into the 136- 137 MHz band or other innovations have any current or future effect on this need, including 
whether they may alter the frequencies that a future UAS operator needs to use to communicate with ATC  
or otherwise warrant modifications to our proposal.
356   
162. We further seek comment o n the appropriate technical and operational requirements for 
the new category of station, and whether we should generally require such stations to comply with the technical and operational requirements applicable to aircraft stations licensed in the same f requency, or if 
any additional or alternate requirements should be adopted.  In particular, we note that, under section 87.89 of the Commission’s rules, operators of aviation service stations are generally required to hold a commercial radio operator licen se or permit, and that the operator license or permit requires passing a 
requisite knowledge test.
357  The rule also specifies, however, that no operator license is required to 
 
355 See 47 CFR § 2.106.  For example, the aeronautical mobile service allocation covers “mobile service between 
aeronautical [i.e., ground] stations and aircraft stations, or between aircraft s tations,” and does not expressly 
encompass service between two fixed stations.  47 CFR § 2.1.  
356 See, e.g., Aviation NPRM , 34 FCC Rcd a t 4995 -96, paras. 31 -32. 
357 See 47 CFR § 87.89; FCC, Commercial Radio Operator License Program , https://www.fcc.gov/commercial-
ra dio -operator -license -program  ( la st visited  July 15 , 2022) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
67 “[o]perate a VHF telephony transmitter providing domestic service or used on dom estic flights.”358  We 
seek comment on whether a UAS operator’s VHF communications with ATC would constitute the 
operation of a VHF telephony transmitter providing domestic service or used on domestic flights, and if so, whether we should create an exceptio n to this provision and provide that UAS operators that operate a 
licensed Unmanned Aircraft Operator Ground VHF Station must have a commercial radio operator 
license.  Should we specify an alternative permit or training requirement for such operators?   
163. Digital Equity and Inclusion.   Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all,
359 including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in 
rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been hi storically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity- related considerations360 and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.  Specifical ly, we 
seek comment on how our proposals in this NPRM may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority .   
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  
164. Ex Parte  Presentations .  This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit -but-disclose” 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.361  Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation w ithin 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 attendin g 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 con sistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments th ereto, 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.  
 
358 47 CFR § 87.89(d)(4).  
359 Section 1 of the Communicati ons Act of 1934, as amended, provides that the FCC “regulat[es] interstate and 
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, to 
all the people of the United States, without discrimination on  the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or 
sex.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.  
360 The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, 
a nd impartial treatment of a ll individuals, including indiv iduals who belong to underserved communities that have 
been denied such treatment, such as Bla ck, La tino, a nd Indigenous a nd Native American persons, Asia n Americans 
and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian , ga y, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons 
otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.  See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009, 
Executive Ord er on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 
Government (Jan. 20, 2021).  
361 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
68 165. Comment Period and Filing Procedures .  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments 
on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Parties may file by any of the following methods:  
• Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System ( ECFS ):  https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
.  See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings , 63 FR 24121 (1998).   
• Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.   
o Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first -class or overnight 
U.S. Postal Service mail .  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.  
o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.  
o U.S. Postal Service first -class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L 
Street NE Washington, DC  20554. 
o Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID- 19.  See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and 
Change in Hand- Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788- 89 (OS 
2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc- closes -headquarters -open-window- and-
changes -hand- delivery -policy.  
166. People with Disabilities .  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large  print, electronic files, audio format), send an e -mail to fcc504@fcc.gov  or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418- 0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (TTY).  
167. Regulatory F lexibility Act.  T he Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),362 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a s ignificant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”363  Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact the rule  and 
policy change s addressed in this NPRM .  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.    
168. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis .  This document contains proposed new or modified 
information collection requirements.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104- 13.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.  
169. Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, contact Peter 
Trachtenberg, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418- 7369, or by email at 
Peter.Trachtenberg@fcc.gov.  
 
362 5 U.S.C. § 603.  
363 Id. § 605(b).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
69 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES  
170. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4,  301, 303, 307- 310, 316, 318, 
and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 301, 303, 307- 310, 
316, 318, and 332, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY ADOPTED . 
171. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that the Petition for Rulemak ing filed by the Aerospace 
Industries Association in the Commission’s rulemaking proceeding RM-11798 IS GRANTED to the 
extent specified herein, that RM -11798 is incorporated into this proceeding, WT Docket No. 22- XX, and 
that RM -11798 is TERMINATED . 
172. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.  
 
      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
   
      Marlene H. Dortch  
      Secretary   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
70 APPENDIX A 
 
Proposed Rules   
 
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend  Parts 1 and 87 of Title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR)  and to add a new Part 88 to Title  47 of the CFR,  as follows : 
PART 1 – WIRELESS RADIO SERVICES  
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:  
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.  
2. Section 1.901 is revised  to read as follows:  
§ 1.901  Basis and Purpose  
The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151 et seq.  The purpose of the rules in this subpart is to establish the requirements and conditions under 
which entities may be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter.  
3. Section 1.907 is amended to revise the definitions of “Private Wireless Services” and 
“Wireless Radio Services” to read as follows:  
§ 1.907 Wireless Radio Services  
***** 
Private Wireless Services .  Wireless Radio Services authorized b y parts 80, 87, 88, 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, 30, 74, 80, 87, 88, 
90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.  
***** 
PART 87 – AVIATION SERVICES  
 
4. The authority citation for Part 87 continues to read as follows:  
A
UTHORITY : 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e), unless otherwise noted.  
5. Section 87.3 is amended by adding subsection (g) to read as follows:  
§ 87.3 Other applicable rule parts.  
* * * * * 
(g) Part 88 contains rules governing the use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band by Unmanned Aircraft Systems . 
6. Section 87.5 is amended by adding in alphabetical sequence a definition of “unmanned 
aircraft operator VHF ground station” to read as follows:   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
71 § 87.5 Definitions.  
* * * * * 
Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground Station.   A station on the ground providing unmanned aircraft 
pilot radio communication relating to safety and regularity of flight on air traffic control, flight service 
station, unicom, or multicom frequencies.  
* * * * * 
7. Section 87.18 is amended by adding the words “(manned or unmanned)” after “An 
aircraft station” in the first sentence of paragraph (b), and by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:  
§ 87.18 Station license required.  
 
* * * * * 
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, unmanned aircraft  operator VHF ground stations  are not 
licensed by rule and must be licensed by the FCC either individually or by fleet for communications on 
air traffic control , flight service station, unicom , or multicom frequencies in accordance with § 87.49 of 
this par t.  
  
8. Section 87.49 is added to read as follows:  
§ 87.49 Application for an Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Station license.  
 
A person may apply for an Unmanned Aircraft Operator VHF Ground  Station license to communicate on 
air traffic control , flight servi ce station, unicom , or multicom frequencies if written approval is first 
obtained from the FAA.  The applicant must provide, with the license application, a copy of the written 
approval from the FAA, such as a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), approving the 
applicant’s use of the specific frequencies requested in connection with unmanned aircraft activity.  
License grant will be subject to any conditions, coordination, or restrictions imposed by the FAA in its 
written approval.   
 
9. A new part 88 is added to read as follows:  
PART 88 –UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CONTROL SERVICES  
 AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307.   
 Subpart A – GENERAL RULES  
§ 88.1  Scope . 
§ 88. 3  Application of Other Rule Parts.  
§ 88. 5  Definitions . 
Subpart B – NON- NETWORKED ACCESS  
§ 88.25  Scope . 
§ 88. 27  Authorization.  
§ 88. 29  Frequencies . 
§ 88.31  Non- Networked Access Use.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
72 Subpart C – (reserved)  
Subpart D – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS  
§ 88.101  Transmitter power.  
§ 88. 103  Bandwidth of emission.  
 
§ 88. 105  Types of emission.  
 
§ 88. 107  Acceptability of transmitters for licensing.  
 
§ 88. 109  Authorization of equipment.  
 
§ 88. 111  Performance standards.  
 
§ 88. 113  RF Safety.  
 
§ 88.115 Incorporation by Reference.  
 
Subpart E – DYNAMIC FREQUENCY MANAGE MENT SYSTEMS  
§ 88.135 DFMS Requirements.  
§ 88.137 DFMS Administrators.  
§ 88.139 DFMS Administrator Fees.   
Subpart A – GENERAL RULES  
§ 88.1  Scope . 
 This part sets forth the regulations governing the use of the 5030- 5091 MHz band by Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems.  The regulations in this part do not govern Unmanned Aircraft Systems communications services in any bands other than the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  
§ 88.3  Application of Other Rule Parts . 
(a)  Except as expressly provided under this part, part 87 of this chapter shall not apply to unmanned 
aircraft systems communications in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  
(b) Non-Networked Access ( NNA)  devices, as defined in this par t, are considered part of the Citizens 
Band Radio Service, as defined in § 95.303 of this chapter.  Except for § 95.303, the rules of part 
95 of this chapter shall not apply to such devices.  
§ 88. 5  Definitions . 
The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this part.  
Ground Station:   A land or mobile station not on board an unmanned aircraft (UA) that is part of an 
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and for communication with an unmanned aircraft station.  
Control and Non- payload Communications (CNPC).   Any UAS transmission that is sent to or from the 
UA component of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA’s flight.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
73 Dynamic Frequency Manage ment System  (DFM S).  An automated frequency coordination system 
operating in the 5030- 5091 MHz band that, in response to frequency assignment requests from UAS 
operators, assigns to the requesting operator, through an automated (non- manual) process, temporary use 
of certain frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period tai lored to the operator’s submitted 
flight plan . 
DFM S Administrator.  An entity authorized by the Commission to operate a DFM S in accordance with 
the rules and procedures set forth in subpart E  of this part . 
Non-Networked Access (NNA) .  Temporary, interferen ce-protected access to the 5030 -5091 MHz band 
pursuant to a frequency assignment from a DFMS  and consistent with subpart B of this part.  
NNA device.  A ground station or unmanned aircraft station authorized under this part and designed to 
communicate using NNA assignments consistent with subparts B and D.  
NNA user.  An authorized user of spectrum in the 5030- 5091 MHz band operating on an NNA basis, as 
set forth in subpart B.  
Unmanned Aircraft (UA) .  An aircraft operated without the possibility of direct hum an intervention from 
within or on the aircraft.  
Unmanned Aircraft Station.  A mobile station authorized under this part and located on board a UA.  
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) .  A UA and its associated elements (including an unmanned aircraft 
station, communication links, and the components not on board the UA that control the UA) that are 
required for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States.  
Subpart B – NON- NETWORKED ACCESS  
§ 88. 25  Scope . 
Transmissions over an NNA assignment may include any form of CNPC.  
§ 88. 27  Authorization . 
(a) Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, and otherwise meets the technical, financial, ch aracter, and citizenship 
qualifications that the Commission may require in accordance with such Act is eligible to be an 
NNA user and operate NNA devices under this part.  
(b) NNA devices, including Ground Stations and Unmanned Aircraft Stations, are licensed by rule 
and do not need an individual license issued by the Commission.  Even though an individual 
license is not required, an NNA device licensed by rule must comply with all applicable operating 
requirements, procedures, and technical requirements found i n this part.  
(c) NNA users must register with a DFMS  and comply with its instructions and the rules in this part.  
(d) NNA users may transmit in the 5030- 5091 MHz band only using NNA devices compliant with 
the rules of this part, and only pursuant to and consistent  with the terms of a frequency 
assignment from a Commission -approved DFMS . 
§ 88. 29  Frequencies . 
The 5030- 5035 MHz  and 5086- 5091 MHz bands  are allocated for CNPC use to NNA users .    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
74 § 88. 31  Non-Networked Access Use . 
(a) NNA users registered with a DFMS  may submit a request for temporary assignment of 
frequencies for CNPC limited to the duration and geographic coverage necessary to support a 
single submitted UAS flight plan.   Requests may also be made either prior to or during the 
relevant operation to m odify an assignment.  Such requests must be made to the same DFMS 
responsible for the original assignment.  
(b) If frequencies meeting the request are available, the DFMS shall assign them on an exclusive but temporary basis.   The scope of the assignment shall  be tailored in both duration and geographic 
coverage to ensure interference- free communications for the entire submitted UAS flight plan.  
(c) When registering with or using the services of a DFMS, a n NNA user shall comply with all 
instructions of the DFMS  Adm inistrator, including those  regarding registration, requests and 
other submissions to the DFMS , and operational use of NNA assignments.  
(d) An NNA user operating under a DFMS  assignment must provide indication to the DFMS , within 
5 minutes of the event, when a  flight has commenced and when it has terminated.  
(e) NNA users are prohibited from engaging in UAS operations using NNA assignments within the 
National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) without prior coordination with the NRQZ administrator.  Any request to a DFMS  for frequency assignment within the NRQZ must include submission of a 
Letter of Concurrence from the NRQZ administrator, and NNA users submitting such a request shall comply with all conditions enumerated in the Letter of Concurrence.  NNA users are urged to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the 5000- 5250 MHz  band.  
Subpart C – [Reserved]  
 
Subpart D  – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS  
 § 88. 101  Transmitter power.  
 The power of the transmitter is defined as the average envelope measured during the duration of the burst 
transmission bounded by the first preamble symbol to the last midamble symbol, measured at the transmitter’s RF output port with a 50 ohm load attached. The power must be determined by direct 
measurement at the transmitter output terminals.   The maximum power of a transmitter must not exceed 
the values listed below.  
 
(a) Airborne Radio Transmitter:   
(i) High Power Mode:  10 watts  
(ii) Low Power Mode:  100 mW 
 
(b) Ground Radio Transmitter:   10 watts  
§ 88. 103  Bandwidth of emission.  
 The authorized bandwidth is the maximum occupied bandwidth authorized to be used by a station.  Equipment must be tunable in 2.5 kHz steps within the range 5030- 5091 excluding center frequencies 
5030 MHz and 5091 MHz.  The authorized bandwidth is limited t o multiples of 5 kHz according to the 
following:  
 
(a) One In -flight Emergency Video Channel having a width of 500 kHz .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
75  
(b) Two takeoff and Landing Video Channels of 250 kHz width per channel.  
 
(c)  Non-Video Channels may operate on up to 250 kHz -wide  channels in mult iples of 5 kHz.  
§ 88. 105  Types of emission.  
 
The assignable Emission Designators in multiples of 5 kHz up to 500 kHz are as follows:  
G8D – for data  
G8F – for video 
 
§ 88. 107  Acceptability of transmitters for licensing.  
 
Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part and each transmitter marketed as set forth in § 2.803 
of this chapter must be certificated by the Commission following the procedures set forth in part 2, 
subpart J of this chapter .  
 
§ 88. 109  Authorization of equipment.  
 
An applicant for certification of equipment must notify the FAA of the filing of a certification application. The letter of notification must be mailed to: FAA, Office of Spectrum Policy and Management, ASR -1, 
800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591 prior to the filing of the application with the 
Commission.  
 
(a) The notification letter must describe the equipment, and give the manufacturer's identification, 
antenna characteristics, rated output power, emission type and cha racteristics, the frequency or 
frequencies of operation, and essential receiver characteristics if protection is required.  
(b) The certification application must include a copy of the notification letter to the FAA.  The 
Commission will not act until it receives the FAA ’s determination regarding whether it objects to 
the application for equipment authorization.  The FAA should mail its determination to: Office of 
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Authorization and Evaluation Division, 7435 Oakland 
Mills R d., Columbia, MD 21046.  The Commission will consider the FAA determination before 
taking final action on the application.  
§ 88. 111  Performance standards.  
 
Transmitters operating in the 5030- 5091 MHz band must comply with and operate in accordance with 
technical standard RTCA -DO-362A (incorporated by reference, see § 88. 115).  
 § 88. 113  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 devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming 
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions and 
technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.  
§ 88. 115  Incorporation by Reference.  
The standards listed in this section are incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.  The approved  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
76 material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commiss ion (FCC), 45 L Street NE, 
Reference Information Center, Room 1.150, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418- 0270, and is available 
from the sources indicated below.  It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA).  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@nara.gov  or go to w ww.archives.gov/federal -register/cfr/ibr -locations.html
.  Copies of 
RTCA  standards also may be obtained from RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 
20036, or by email to info@rtca.org or by going to http:// RTCA.org.  
(a) RTCA document titled “Command and Control (C2) Data Link Minimum Operational 
Performance Standards (MOPS) (Terrestrial),” Document No. RTCA -DO-362A, dated December 
17, 2020 ( RTCA -DO-362A ).   
(b) Reserved.  
Subpart  E – DYNAMIC FREQUENCY MANAGE MENT SYSTEMS  
§ 88. 135  DFMS  Requirements . 
(a) DFMS  must provide a process for NNA users to register with the system for the purpose of 
submitting frequency assignment requests, obtaining frequency assignments.  
(b) A DFMS  must be capabl e of processing frequency assignment requests nationwide and across the 
entire 5030- 5091 MHz band.  However, a DFMS  may only grant assignments for spectrum within 
those frequencies specified under § 88. 29. 
(c) In response to frequency assignment requests from a registered NNA user, a DFMS  shall 
determine and provide, through an automated (non- manual) process, an assignment of 
frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the NNA user’s submitted flight plan, to the extent that frequencies are available to meet the request and grant of the assignment is otherwise consistent with this rule part.  Assignments must provide protected access to frequencies over a duration and geographic area sufficient to cover the entire submitted flight pl an. 
(d) Assignments for operations in the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) must be accompanied by a Letter of Concurrence from the NRQZ Administrator and may only be granted within the terms and conditions, if any, specified in the Letter of Concurrence.  
(e) Assignments must account for the need to protect other authorized operations.  
§ 88.137  DFMS  Administrators.  
The Commission will approve one or more DFMS  Administrators to  manage access to the 5030 -5091 
MHz band on a nationwide basis as specified under § 88.135.  Each DFMS  Administrator is responsible 
for the functioning of a DFMS  and providing services to operators in the Unmanned Aircraft Control 
Service.  Each DFMS  Admin istrator approved by the Commission must:  
(a) Operate a DFMS  consistent with the rules of this part.  
(b) Establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure compliance with the rules set forth in this part.   
(c) Provide service for a ten -year term.  This term may  be renewed at the Commission's discretion.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
77 (d) Securely transfer all the information in the DFMS  to another approved entity in the event it does 
not continue as the DFMS  Administrator at the end of its term.  It may charge a reasonable price 
for such conveyance.  
(e) Cooperate to develop a standardized process for coordinating operations with other approved 
DFMS s, avoiding any conflicting assignments, and maximizing shared use of available 
frequencies.  
(f) Coordinate with other DFMS  Administrators including, to the ext ent possible, sharing assignment 
and other information, facilitating non- interference to and from operations relying on assignments 
from other DFMS s, and other functions ne cessary to ensure that use of available spectrum is safe 
and efficient and consisten t with this part.  
(g) Ensure that the DFMS  shall be available at all times to immediately respond to requests from 
authorized Commission personnel for any and all information stored or retained by the DFMS . 
(h) Establish and follow protocols to comply with enforce ment instructions from the Commission.  
§ 88.139  DFMS  Administrator Fees . 
(a) A DFMS  Administrator may charge users a reasonable fee for provision of its services, including 
usage -based fees for frequency assignments.  
(b) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can require changes in those fees if they 
are found to be excessive.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
78 APPENDIX B  
 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ).  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM .  The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM , including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) .
2  In addition, the NPRM  and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules  
2. The NPRM  in this proceeding acts, in par t, on a February, 2018 petition for rulemaking 
by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), which recommended that the Commission adopt licensing 
and service rules for control and non- payload communications (CNPC) links in the 5030- 5091 MHz band 
to support unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations in the United States.  In addition, on August 20, 
2021, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology jointly submitted to Congress a report on behalf of the Commission addressi ng the matters specified in Section 
374 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (FAA Reauthorization Act) .  The report included their 
finding that “[t] he 5030- 5091 MHz band appears to offer promise for intensive UAS use because it is 
unencumbered” and recom mended that  the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to develop 
service and licensing rules enabling UAS use of the band in collaboration with the FAA and NTIA.  
3. The NPRM  now proposes  and seeks comment on several rule amendments to address the 
growing need of the operators of UAS for access to licensed spectrum.  Together, the proposals and the measures upon which the NPRM seeks comment will help further the development and promote the 
growth and safety of UAS operations.   
4. First,  the NPRM  addresses the 5030- 5091 MHz band, which the Commission previously 
allocated to support terrestrial control links for UAS without adopting service rules.  Because technical 
work regarding UAS is still in a nascent stage, the Commission anticipates  that service rules sufficient to 
facilitate UAS operations will likely require development in phases.   It now takes the first step to develop 
such rules.  The NPRM seeks comment on service rules for the 5030- 5091 MHz band that will provide 
UAS operators w ith access to licensed spectrum with the reliability necessary to support safety -critical 
UAS communications links.  The Commission’s objective in this proceeding is  to provide UAS operators 
with access to an additional spectrum resource that may complemen t other spectrum resources that are 
currently available or in development.   Although existing networks operating in other bands such as 
flexible -use bands may provide sufficient reliability for many UAS use cases, authorization of the 5030-
5091 MHz band for UAS use offers an opportunity to apply standards and rules designed to meet the 
most safety -critical communications needs . 
5. Second, due to the increasing interest in operating UAS using existing terrestrial flexible -
use spectrum networks, the NPRM  seeks c omment on whether the Commission’s rules are adequate to 
ensure co -existence of terrestrial mobile operations and UAS use or whether changes to our rules are 
necessary.  To this end, it seeks comment on the sufficiency of the current flexible -use rules to prevent 
 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 -612, 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).  
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).  
3 See id .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
79 interference to and from UAS operations, and on whether the Commission can eliminate the current 
prohibitions on airborne operations applicable to certain of these flexible -use bands.   
6. Third, to further promote the safe integration of unmanned aircraft operations in 
controlled airspace and facilitate flight coordination, the NPRM proposes a process for UAS operators to 
obtain a VHF license to communicate with air traffic control and other aircraft.  In some instances, to ensure the safety of the National Airspace System, the FAA has required operators of UAS to 
communicate with air traffic control facilities  or nearby manned aircraft over the VHF traffic control and 
advisory frequencies  and to obtain a license from the FCC for this purpose.  The par t 87 aviation service 
rules do not, however, provide a mechanism for the operator of a UAS to obtain such a license.  UAS operator requests for such authorization are currently handled by special temporary authority on a case -
by-case basis.  The proposed rule will enable UAS operators to obtain a regular license for this purpose.   
B. Legal Basis  
7. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307- 310, 316, 318, 
and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332. 
C. Description  and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules  Will Apply  
8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules , if adopted.
4  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as  the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”5  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small -business concern” under the Small Business Act.6  A “small -business 
concern” is one  which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7 
9. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, 
at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.8  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration’s ( SBA ) Office of Advocacy, in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
9  These  types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 3 2.5 million  
businesses.10 
 
4 See id . § 603(b)(3).  
5 See id. § 601(6).  
6 See id. § 601(3) (incorpor ating by reference the definition of “small -business concern” in the Small Business Act, 
15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
a gency, a fter consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definitio n(s) in the Federal Register.” 
7 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.  
8 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) -(6). 
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, “What is a small business?,” 
https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp -content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small -Business- FAQ- 2021.pdf .  (Nov 2021).  
10 Id.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
80 10. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not -
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”11  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.12  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the United States reporting revenues of 
$50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the 
IRS.13  
11. Finally, the small entity d escribed as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
14  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
of Governments15 indicate that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.16  Of this number there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county,17 municipal, and town or township18) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments - independent school districts19 with enrollment 
 
11 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).  
12 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
sma ll orga nizations in this small entity description.  S ee Annual Electronic Filing Requireme nt for Small Exempt 
Orga niza tions — Form 990 -N (e-Postcard), https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/annual -electronic -filing -
requirement -for-small -exempt -organizations -form-990-n-e- postcard .  We note that the IRS data does not provide 
information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and oper ated or dominant in its field.  
13 See Exempt Orga nizations Business Master File Extra ct (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/exempt- org anizations -business -master -file-extract -eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Orga nization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extra ct provides information on a ll registered  tax-
exempt/non- profit organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000, for Region 1 -Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2 -Mid-Atlantic a nd Great La kes Area s (175,272), a nd Region 3 -Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) which includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data does not include information for Puerto Rico.    
14 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).  
15 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five years, compiling data for years 
ending with “2” and “7.”  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs -
surveys/cog/about.html .  
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2: Local Governments by Type and 
Sta te: 2017 [CG1700ORG02] ,https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/eco n/gus/2017 -governments.html .  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent schoo l districts).  See also Table 2.  
CG1700ORG02 Ta ble Notes Local Governments by Type and State_2017.   
17 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017  [CG1700ORG05] ,  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 5 0,000.  This ca tegory does not include subcounty (municipal a nd township) 
governments.   
18 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General -Purpose Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.  
19 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment -Size Group a nd State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also Table 4. Special -Purpose Local 
Governments by  State Census Yea rs 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
81 populations of less than 50,000.20  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”21 
12. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).   This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.22  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.
23  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees .24  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.25  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.26  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report , 
as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services.
27  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.28  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
13. Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications a nd 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”
29  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $35 million or less in annual receipts  as small .30  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.31  Of this number , 242 firms had revenue of less than 
 
20 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census  
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose gover nments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
ca tegory.  
21 This tota l is de rived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - 
independent school districts with enrollment populations  of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls. 5, 6, and 10.  
22 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers  (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312 . 
23 Id. 
24 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312.  
25 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse . 
26 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size s ta ndard.  
27 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/ pubId.lic /attachments/DOC -379181A1.pdf .  
28 Id. 
29 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details= 517410. 
30 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS C ode 517410.    
31 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 5 17410 , 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
82 $25 million.32  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report , 
as of December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications  services.33  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.34  Consequently using the SBA’s small business size 
standar d, a little more than  of these providers can be considered small entities.   
14. All Other Telecommunications . This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, comm unications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.35  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting  telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.
36  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial -up ISPs) or voice over Internet protocol 
(VoIP) services , via client -supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.37  
The SBA small business size standard for  this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small .38  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year.39  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.40  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “ All Other Telecommunications ” firms can be 
considered small.  
15. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.41  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and  receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
(Continued from previous page)   
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse . 
32 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see  https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices . 
33 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (202 1), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/ pubId. lic/attachments/DOC -379181A1.pdf .  
34 Id. 
35 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition , “517919 All Other Telecommunications, ” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919 . 
36 Id. 
37 Id. 
38 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 51 7919.  
39 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse .  
40 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices . 
41 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition , “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, ”https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220
.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
83 broadcasting equipment.42  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.43  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.44  Of this number , 624 firms  had fewer than 250 
employees.45  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small. 
16. Unmanned Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers .  Neither t he Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to unmanned aircraft radio 
equipment manufacturers.   Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.46  The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small.47  U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire 
year.48  Of this number , 624 firms  had fewer than 250 employees.49  In addition, the SBA provides a size 
standard for the Aircraft Manufacturing  industry which includes the manufacture of unmanned and 
robotic aircraft.50  The SBA smal l business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 
1,500 employees or less as small.51  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 254 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year.52  Of this number , 227 firms  had fewer than 250 
employees.53  Based on these data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are 
small.  
 
42 Id. 
43 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
44 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse .   
45 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.   
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing, ”https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220 .  
47 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
48 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse .   
49 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.   
50 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 NAICS Definition , “336411 Aircraft Manufacturing ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=336411&year=2022&details=336411 .  
51 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 336411.  
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 336411, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=336411&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=fa lse .  
53 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
84 17. Unmanned Aircraft System Operators.   Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to UAS operators.  The Commission 
lacks data on the number of operators in the United States that could be subject to the rule s therefore, it is 
not possible to determin e the number of a ffected small entity operators at this time.  We find, however, 
that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Remote ID rule is 
helpful.  In this analysis, the FAA assessed the impact of the rule on small entity non- recreational UAS 
operators based on an analysis that the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 
(AUVSI) performe d relating  to part 107 waivers.54  In the analysis, the AUVSI determined that 92 percent 
of the waivers were issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees.  Based on this data, the FAA 
determined that a majority of entities operating unmanned aircraft for other than recreational purposes are 
small.55  Accordingly, based on the FAA’s determination, we conclude that a majority of UAS operators 
are small entities.       
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements  
18. The NPRM proposes to adopt a band plan and service rules for the 5030- 5091 MHz band 
to enable small and other UAS operators, to acc ess interference -protected spectrum for control -and-non-
payload communications (CNPC) links, and seeks comment on various options.  We expect the proposals 
and service rules upon which we seek comment in the NPRM  will impose  new or additional reporting or 
recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small and other UA operators for access and use of 
the 5030- 5091 MHz band spectrum.  At this time however, the Commission cannot quantify the cost of 
compliance and cannot determine whether small entitie s will have to hire professional s to comply with 
the rule changes that may be adopted in this proceeding.  With our request for comments on the band plan and service rules, we have also requested that parties file costs analyses to assist with the Commissi on’s 
assessment of the rules that are under consideration.  Below we discuss proposals in the NPRM  and their 
potential compliance requirements for small and other entities  to operate in the 5030- 5091 MHz band .   
19. The Band Plan.  The NPRM  proposes to partition the 5030- 5091 MHz band to 
accommodate both non- networked radio- line-of-sight — or Non- Networked Access (NNA) — use cases, 
which can rely on direct communication links between an operator’s controller and the unmanned aircraft 
(UA), an d beyond- radio -line-of-sight — or Network -Supported Service (NSS) — use cases, which 
typically depend on network infrastructure to support communications between the operator and the UA.  The NPRM  proposes to dedicate a minimum of 10 megahertz of spectrum for NNA operations, and seeks 
comment on various options for the remaining 51 megahertz of spectrum, including dedicating 40 
megahertz of spectrum for network- based NSS operations by dividing the spectrum into 4 licensed blocks 
of 10 megahertz each, and pr oviding 11 megahertz for temporary additional spectrum available to either 
NNA- based operators or NSS licensees.  The NPRM  further proposes to permit only CNPC in the band, 
to define CNPC as any UAS transmission that is sent to or from the UA component of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA’s flight.  It further proposes to provide that any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act, will be eligible to obtain a 5030- 5091 
MHz NNA station or obtain a 5030- 5091 MHz NSS license, and seeks comment on similarly restricting 
the eligibility of entities to operate NNA stations using assignments from a DFMS.    
20. Dynamic Frequency Management System.  The NPRM  proposes that access to the band 
be managed by one or  more dynamic frequency management systems (DFMSs).  A DFMS would be a 
frequency coordination system that, in response to requests from registered NNA users, would determine and assign to the requesting user, through an automated (non- manual) process, temp orary use of certain 
frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the user’s submitted flight plan.  
 
54 See Federa l Avia tion Administration, Department of Transportation, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircra ft, 
86 Fed. Reg. 4390, 4494 (Jan. 15, 2021) ( Remote ID Rule ). 
55 See id.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
85 The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate regulatory framework to establish for a DFMS, including 
what requirements should be i mposed on UAS operators in the band to help ensure a DFMS’s ability to 
provide interference -free access.  Among other possible requirements, the NPRM seeks comment on what 
information the operator should be required to provide regarding ground stations and unmanned aircraft 
stations, including whether an active UAS in the band should be required to submit information required 
by FAA’s Remote ID rule, or some subset or variation of the information, and whether a UAS should be 
required to communicate to the D FMS, in real time or within a certain period of time of the relevant 
event, the initiation and termination of the flight or, alternatively, the initiation and termination of the operator’s use of the assigned frequencies.  Both of these potential rules would likely have reporting 
implications for small and other UAS operators, if adopted.  The NPRM  also seeks comment on whether 
to require  UAS operators  to register with a DFMS  as a pre- condition of receiving NNA assignments and 
to provide  certain information  with such registration, which could also impact recordkeeping and 
reporting obligations.  The NPRM proposes to authorize the administrator of a DFMS to charge UAS 
operators reasonable fees for its provision of services, including registration and channel assignment services, and to permit parties to petition the Commission to review fees and require changes if they are found to be excessive.       
21. NNA  Service Rules.  The NPRM  proposes to adopt service rules for NNA operations, 
including rules for licensing and technical requirements, and seeks comment broadly on the licensing 
regime or mechanism to enable authorization of NNA operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band and the 
costs and benefits of any proposed approach.  For the licensing of stations in NNA spect rum, the NPRM  
proposes to adopt a licensed- by-rule authorization for aircraft and ground stations in the band.  For 
technical requirements, the NPRM  proposes to adopt the technical standard RTCA DO -362A or technical 
requirements based on this standard, whi ch contains Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 
terrestrial -based ( i.e., non- satellite)  CNPC point -to-point or point -to-multipoint links in the 5030- 5091 
MHz band, including power limits, emission limits, and frequency accuracy requirements.  In both the licensing eligibility and technical standards requirement discussions, we inquire whether to impose certification requirements that would likely be filed with the Commission, thereby impacting reporting requirements for users of the 5030- 5091 MHz band.   
22. We also seek comment on whether any of the general technical requirements in subpart D 
of part 87 of the Commission’s rules should apply to NNA equipment, and whether to adopt any other requirements on NNA equipment to facilitate a DFMS’s ability to communicate with or otherwise control such equipment in the execution of the DFMS’s responsibilities.  In addition, the NPRM  seeks comment 
on the potential application of the generally applicable rules in subparts B through F of part 87, including whethe r to require each UAS operator using an NNA assignment in the 5030- 5091 MHz band to have an 
operator license or permit.  It further seeks comment on whether the new service should be subject to 
rules under part 1, subpart F governing “Wireless Radio Servic e” applications and proceedings.  The 
application and/or incorporation of existing rules under part 87 or any other part of the Commission’s 
rules would subject NNA users of the 5030- 5091 MHz band to any applicable reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements under those rules unless explicitly excluded in the final rules.  
23. NSS Service Rules.  The NPRM also seeks comment on service rules for NSS licenses, 
including rules addressing, in particular, whether to issue geographic area defined licenses for a specific 
term of years, with rights of renewal.  More specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on rules addressing 
(1) the geographic area scheme for licenses, (2) the appropriate initial and subsequent license terms, (3) 
performance requirements, (4) license renewal f ramework, and (5) technical and operational 
requirements.  
24. For the geographic area of licenses, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to adopt larger 
licenses areas such as Regional Economic Area Groupings, a more granular scheme such as Partial 
Economic Areas, or a geographic division of the country developed specifically for aviation purposes.  
The NPRM  propose s to issue NSS licenses for an initial 15 -year term, and to limit subsequent terms to 10 
years.  The NPRM  seeks comment on the appropriate standard for license renewal, and on whether the 
regulatory renewal framework for commercial geographic licensees of wireless radio services under part  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
86 1 of the Commission’s rules is appropriate for NSS licensees.  The NPRM  also seeks comment on 
performance requirements, such as a requirement to cover 80 percent of the population within 12 years of 
license grant, and 45 percent coverage of the population within six years of license grant.  For compliance demonstration, the NPRM  proposes to adopt a process similar to compliance rules applicable to part 27 
licensees, requiring licensees to file a construction notification w ith the Commission within 15 days of the 
expiration of the applicable benchmark, including submission of electronic coverage maps accurately 
depicting the boundaries of the licensed area and the boundaries of the actual areas to which the licensee 
provides  service.  For enforcement, the NPRM  proposes that if a licensee fails to meet the final 
performance requirement, the license authorization will terminate automatically without specific Commission action, and that failure to meet the interim requirement wo uld result in the reduction by two 
years of both the due date for the final performance requirement and the license term.  
25. In the event that the Commission receives mutually exclusive license applications for 
NSS licenses, the NPRM  proposes to assign the se exclusive use  licenses through a system of competitive 
bidding.  Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the Commission has used in previous  
auctions, the NPRM proposes to conduct any auction for geographic area licenses for spectrum in the 
band in conformity with the part 1 , subpart Q  general competitive bidding rules, subject to any 
modification of the part 1 rules that the Commission may adopt in the future.   For small entities, the 
NPRM seeks comment on whether to make bidding credits available for eligible small businesses and 
rural service providers.   
26. The NPRM also seeks comment on appropriate technical requirements for NSS licenses, 
and whether the technical standard RTCA DO -362A or equivalent technical parameters should also apply 
to NSS licenses.  As an alternative to requiring NSS licensee compliance with the RTCA DO -362A 
standard generally, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether there are certain specific requirements of 
RTCA DO -362A that the Commission should minimally impose on NSS li censees to ensure compatibility 
with NNA operations, or for other purposes, such as the Time Division Duplex requirements of the RTCA DO -362A standard.  In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on adoption of a field strength limit to 
prevent interference between adjacent geographic area licensees.  
27. As with NNA service rules, the NPRM seeks comment on whether and to what extent the 
NSS service rules should incorporate or be subject to the requirements generally applicable to aviation 
services under subparts B thr ough F of part 87 of the Commission’s rules, either in their current form or 
with modifications, and whether the NSS service should be subject to rules under part 1, subpart F 
governing wireless radio service applications and proceedings.  In particular, t he NPRM seeks comment 
on whether to allow partitioning and disaggregation of NSS licenses as well as spectrum leasing.  
Likewise as mentioned earlier in the NNA service rules discussion, NSS users would be subject to any 
applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements under existing Commission’s rules incorporated into 
the requirements for the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to authorize 
NSS licensees, at their discretion, to provide network- supported service for UAS CNPC thr ough either a 
satellite or terrestrial network, or alternatively, whether the Commission should provide that certain NSS 
licenses are dedicated exclusively to satellite -based service.  It further seeks comment on whether to 
permit NSS licensees to deploy H igh-altitude Platform Stations (HAPS).     
28. Equipment Authorization.  To ensure that equipment in the new band has the level of 
reliability and safety required of aviation equipment, the NPRM  proposes to impose equipment 
authorization requirements similar to those under sections 87.145 and 87.147 of the Commission’s rules to all equipment intended for use in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  Section 87.145 requires that each 
transmitter must be certificated for use in the relevant service, and section 87.147 establis hes a specific 
equipment authorization process.  Section 87.147 specifically requires an applicant for certification of 
equipment to notify the FAA of the filing of the application, and provides that the Commission will not 
act on the application until it receives the FAA’s determination regarding whether it objects to the 
application for equipment authorization.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
87 29. Protection of Other Services.   The NPRM  seeks comment on any measures the 
Commission should adopt to protect federal Microwave Landing System (MLS ) deployments in the 5030-
5091 MHz band, and on whether to provide that no future non- federal MLS licenses (including MLS 
radionavigation land test licenses at 5031 MHz) will be granted in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  To protect 
radio astronomy operations, the  NPRM  proposes, consistent with NTIA’s recommendations, to continue 
to apply to the 5030- 5091 MHz band the requirements of Footnote US211 of the Table of Frequency 
Allocations, and to prohibit UAS operations within the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) without prior 
coordination with the NRQZ administrator and submission of a concurrence from the NRQZ 
administrator with any request to a DFMS for frequency assignment within the NRQZ.  The NPRM also 
seeks comment on applying to all UAS operations relying on the 5030- 5091 MHz band in the NRQZ the 
licensee/applicant procedures for the NRQZ under section 1.924(a) of the Commission’s rules, which 
include written notification filing requirements.56  The NPRM  further seeks comment on any special 
measures necessary to ensure compatibility between UAS operations in the 5030- 5091 MHz band and 
AeroMACS and flight testing in adjacent bands.  To protect radionavigation- satellite service in the 5010 -
5030 MHz band, the  NPRM  proposes to require 5030- 5091 MHz operations to comply with the specific 
effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP) spectral density limit specified in Footnote 5.443C of the 
Table of Frequency Allocations.  With regard to Canadian and Mexican coordination, the NPRM  proposes 
to provide that all operations in the band are subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.  
30. Airborne Use of Flexible -Use S pectrum .  Regarding UAS operations in flexible -use 
spectrum, the Commission did not make s pecific proposals and seeks comment on the adequacy of its 
current rules to ensure co -existence of existing terrestrial wireless networks and UAS, and on the 
regulatory solutions that may be necessary to facilitate and encourage such use.  Thus, at this ti me the 
Commission is not in a position to determine what rule changes could result from the questions raised in 
the NPRM , and which of those changes, if any, will result in reporting and/or recordkeeping obligations 
for small entities.   
31. VHF Licenses for U AS Pilots.   The NPRM proposes that the Commission individually 
license stations for UA pilot communication with control towers and other aircraft pilots under a new category of licensed station, an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Ground VHF Station, and to defi ne the new 
station as “a station on the ground providing unmanned aircraft pilot radio communication relating to 
safety and regularity of flight on air traffic control, flight service station,   unicom, or multicom 
frequencies.”  The NPRM further proposes t o provide that these stations may operate over all air traffic 
control, flight service station, aeronautical advisory station (unicom) and aeronautical multicom channels 
authorized for use by aircraft.  In addition, the NPRM proposes to permit mobile stations (stations 
intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points), and seeks comment on whether to permit non- mobile stations as well.  Under this proposal, UAS operators would be required to file a 
license application with the Commission for an individual license covering their VHF station.         
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered  
32. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant , specifically smal l business,  
alternatives that it has considered  in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives ( among others ): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables that take into accou nt the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. ”
57 
 
56 See 47 CFR § 1.924.  
57 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -(4).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
88 33. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on options to license the 5030- 5091 
MHz band for UAS CNPC.  UAS operators have a growing need for the greater reliability of i nterference -
protected licensed spectrum for CNPC, and the licensing of the 5030- 5091 MHz band has the potential to 
provide UAS operators with access to interference- protected communications of sufficient reliability  for 
operations where those communications links are safety -critical.  As such access will support the growth 
of the UAS industry and help to realize its enormous potential economic and social benefits, the 
Commission anticipates that adoption of licensing rules for the band will have a significa nt positive 
economic impact on small and other UAS manufacturers, operators, and other stakeholders.   
34. The Commission believes that applying the licensing  rules equally to all entities  will 
generally be necessary to protect the safety of life and property in air navigation and promote the efficient 
and intensive use of spectrum .  However, to assist the Commission’s evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities and to better explore the alternatives  in consideration of their economic impact on small 
entities as well as other factors , the NPRM  has sought comment broadly on possible alternatives for a 
band plan and licensing rules, and requests information on the potential costs and benefits of such 
alternatives to small and other UAS operators.   In addition, the NPRM has proposed or sought comment 
on certain specific options that may facilitate small entity access to spectrum in the band.   
35. The NPRM  proposes a band plan to support both NNA and NSS operations.  We propose 
to partition the band, to dedicate different segments of spectrum in the 5030- 5091 MHz band for NNA 
and NSS, and to license each of these segments in a manner that is appropriate to support the relevant use cases in order to accommodate both NNA and NSS users.  We are also considering whether  to make 
available spectrum for multi- purpose uses, e.g., expansion bands for temporary NNA or NSS use , and 
seek comment  on this alternative.  We seek comment on whether we should use a portion of the 51 
megahertz for opportunistic use by both NNA or NSS licensees (multi -purpose use) or whether we should 
increase the amount of spectrum dedicated to NNA operations.   
36. To the extent we dedicate spectr um for NSS licenses, we also seek comment on making 
that spectrum available for NNA operations on an interim, opportunistic basis .  We seek comment on the 
costs and benefits of this approach, including its technical and economic feasibility, and on alterna tive 
approaches to ensuring productive usage of dedicated NSS spectrum prior to network deployment , which 
will help inform the Commission on the impact for small entities before adopting final rules.  Further, as 
alternative  approach to allocating spectrum  in the band, we seek comment on alternative  approaches to 
allocating the 5030- 5091 MHz band for the support of UAS , including whether we should (1) allocate 
only a portion of the band at this time and defer allocation of the remainder of the band or (2) preserve 
part of the band at this time for experimental use, or for potential future satellite -based CNPC that relies 
on the AMS(R)S allocation in the band.  
37. Ensuring the ability of the DFMS to provide interference -free access and promote robust 
and efficient use of the spectrum will most likely require the adoption of rules for NNA operators, including small operators.  We seek comment on such requirements, including: (1) whether to require 
operators to provide ground station geographic location, effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP), 
and/or antenna patterns ; (2) whether to require an active UAS relying on an NNA assignment in the band 
to provide a DFMS  with the UA information that must be broadcast under the Remote ID rule or some 
subset or variation of the information; (3) whether a UAS operator should be required to affirmatively 
communicate to the DFMS, in real time or within a certain period of time  of the relevant event, the 
initiation and termination of the flight or, alternatively, the initiation and termination of the operator’s use 
of the assigned frequencies; and (4) whether there are other circumstances or information (aside from the 
request) that a UAS operator should be required by rule to communicate to the DFMS.  
38. Interactions between the DFM S and UAS operators involving frequency assignment may 
require the Commission to adopt a registration process.  Rather than propose a mandatory registrat ion 
requirement before frequency assignments can be request ed, we seek comment  from small and other UAS 
operators on whether such a requirement is needed,  and if so, what requirements should be imposed 
regarding registration.  We seek comment on  whether th e Commission should simply require registration  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
89 and leave the details to be developed such as by the DFM Ss or a multi- stakeholder group.  We believe 
that allowing small UAS operators and other commenters  to address this issue, including with cost data 
analysis, is the better approach to inform the Commission on the economic and other impacts for these 
operators.  Similarly, regarding the submission of frequency requests , we consider what requirements, if 
any, should be imposed with respect to the submission of UAS operator requests  for NNA frequency 
assignments , and alternatively what, if any, details of the request process should be left to be developed 
by a multi -stakeholder group.  W e also consider in the NPRM  how to assist small and other operators if 
the need to revise their assignments arises after a flight has commenced by seeking comment on what , if 
any rules we should adopt to enable or facilitate the filing and timely processing of requests by the DFM S 
for revised assignments , or to otherwise addres s an operator’s mid- flight need for revised assignment.  
39. As part of the DFM S frequency coordination system, we have proposed and seek 
comment on allowing the DFM S administrator to charge reasonable fees for its provision of services, 
including registration and frequency assignment services , to UAS operators receiving the services .  The 
Commission has taken steps to minimize the economic impact on small and other UAS operators by 
proposing to authorize UAS operators to petition the Commission to review DFM S fees and require 
changes if they are found to be unreasonable or excessive.  Additionally, to encourage efficient use of the limited spectrum resource and discourage any attempt at warehousing which would likely disadvantage 
small UAS operators, we seek com ment  on specifically authorizing reasonable usage -based fees.   
40. We also seek comment on potential alternatives to the DFMS proposal to enable dynamic 
spectrum access to the 5030 -5091 MHz band, on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of alternative options 
as compared to the DFMS, and on whether such alternatives would be sufficiently reliable to support even 
the most safety -critical uses such as flights in controlled airspace.  
41. The NPRM  also proposes to implement licensing of NNA stations using licensed- by-rule 
authorization for both aircraft and ground stations in the band.  Licensing by rule would reduce the burden 
on small entities and other UAS operators of obtaining direct access to protected spectrum for CNPC, as 
they would not be required to obtain individual spectrum licenses for themselves or their aircraft or ground UAS stations in order to operate in the 5030- 5091 MHz band.  In addressing the license rules for 
NSS operations, the NPRM  seeks comment on issuing licenses on an exclusive geographic area  basis.  
The NPRM also seeks comment on several options that may help to reduce the burden to small entities of 
obtaining and using such licenses or otherwise facilitate small entity access to this spectrum.  First, while the NPRM  seeks comment on defining license areas using large geographic areas such as Regional 
Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) (which divide the nation into twelve regional areas), it also seeks comment on using a more granular scheme, such as Partial Economic Are as (PEA), which may be more 
affordable or better tailored for small entities.   
42. Second, the NPRM proposes certain measures to facilitate small entity participation in 
any competitive bidding process conducted for these licenses.  Specifically , the NPRM  proposes to 
conduct a  competitive bidding process in the event that it receives mutually exclusive license 
applications.  In order to promote and reduce the costs of participation for small service provider s, the 
NPRM  proposes  to make bidding credits availabl e for this band.  A  bidding credit of 15 percent for a 
qualifying “small business,” defined as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five years 
not exceeding $55 million, and a bidding credit of a 25 percent for a qualifying “very small business,” 
defined as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20 million 
have been proposed in the NPRM .
58  These proposed small business definitions and bidding credits are 
 
58 The standardized schedule of bidding credits provided in section 1.2110(f)(2)(i) of the rules defines small 
businesses based on averag e gross revenues for the preceding three years.  In December 2018, Congress revised the 
standard set out in the Small Business Act for categorizing a business concern as a “small business concern,” by 
cha nging the a nnual a verage gross receipts benchmark fr om a  three -year period to a five -year period.  Thus, as a 
general matter, a federal agency cannot propose to categorize a business concern as a “small business concern” for 
Small Business Act purposes unless the size of the concern is based on its annual a verage gross receipts “over a 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
90 consistent with recent competitive biddin g processes used by the Commission for assignment of licenses.  
The NPRM  also seeks comment on whether to offer rural service providers a bidding credit for licenses in 
this band which would provide another opportunity for small providers who would qualify as rural 
providers to reduce their the costs of participation. 
43. Third, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to allow partitioning and disaggregation of 
NSS licenses in secondary market transactions as well as spectrum leasing.  Allowing these secondary 
market transactions could provide small entities with additional options for access to this spectrum, and 
may be an effective way to facilitate targeted network deployments, including by small entities .     
44. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on UAS operations on flexible -use 
spectrum using existing networks as platforms , which may offer small and other UAS operators a near 
term, low -cost option rather than requiring them to build- out a dedicated network for UAS operations.  
However, because existing terrestrial networks were not designed for UAS use, the Commission’s terrestrial mobile service rules generally do not consider airborne use, and the introduction of UAS operations may result in increased interference.  In light of the considerable stakeholder interest in UAS 
on flexible -use spectrum, and the Commission’s commitment to allow flexibility in the use of existing 
spectrum and networks to the extent feasible, the Commission explores flexible -use as a potential option 
for UAS operations and seeks comment on the adequacy of its current rules to ensure co- existence of 
existing terrestrial wireless networks and UAS as well as on the regulatory solutions that may be 
necessary to facilitate and encourage such use.  T he Commission expects to more fully understand the 
feasibility of allowing UAS operations on flexible -use spectrum  and the economic impact on small 
entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM .  
45. We also discuss adding a provision to part 87 of the Commission’s rules to enable UAS  
operators to file an application with the Commission to obtain an individual VHF license under a new category of licensed station to address a need by some small and other UAS operators to communicate 
with ATC facilities in accordance with FAA rules.  As mentioned in the prior section, in some instances 
the FAA requires UAS operators to communicate with ATC or with nearby manned aircraft over the VHF 
traffic control and advisory frequencies  and to obtain a license from the Commission for this purpose.  In 
the absence of provisions in the Commission’s rules to provide such a license, the Commission handles such requests from UAS operators by granting special temporary authority on a case -by-case basis.  The 
addition of the proposed licensing provision to part 87 will provide certainty of process and a more permanent operating authorization for small entities as compared to the special temporary authority the Commission uses  for UAS operators to comply with the FAA’s requirements.  We anticipate that this 
proposal will help to facilitate the growth and safety of UAS operations by small and other entities.   
46. Finally, the Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small 
entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM , including costs and benefits 
information and alternative proposals.  The Commission’s evaluation of the comme nts filed in this 
proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and the actions it 
ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small 
entities as a result o f any final rules that are adopted . 
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules  
47. Proposed UAS service rules for the 5030- 5091 MHz band would, in part, overlap with 
and, depending on the UAS equipment requirements established in this proceeding, may be inconsistent 
(Continued from previous page)   
period of not less than 5 years.”  15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), as amended by Small Business Runw ay Extension 
Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115 -324 (Dec. 17, 2018); see  13 CFR § 121.903(a)(1)(ii).  For consistency with the statuto ry 
requirements, we therefore propose to adopt the Small Business Act’s revised five -year average gross receipts 
benchmark for purposes of determining which entities qualify for small business bidding credits.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
91 with the FAA’s Technical Standard Order (TSO) C213, which establishes minimum performance 
standards for UAS radios in the 5040- 5050 MHz band.    
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
92 
 APPENDIX C 
 
List of Commenters  
 
AIA PETITION  COMMENTS  AND REPLIES  
 
Comments  
 
CTIA  
Elefante Group  Integrity Communications Solutions Inc. (Integrity Communications)  
Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin)  
Raytheon Company (Raytheon)  
RTCA Special Committee SC -228 WG2 
Small UAV Coalition  
The Boe ing Company (Boeing)  
 
Replies  
 
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)  
AeroVironment, Inc. (AeroVironment)  
CTIA  
Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Rockwell Collins)  
 SECTION 374  COMMENTS  AND REPLIES  
 
Comments  
 
AIA Airbus Urban Mobility (AUM)  
Aireon LLC (Aireon)  
American Petroleum Institute (API)  
AURA Networks (AURA)  
Boeing Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA)  
Consumer Technology Association (CTA)  
CTIA  
Federated Wireless, Inc. (Federated Wireless)  
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL)  
General Atomics Aeronautical Syste ms, Inc. (GA -ASI)  
GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA)  
Iridium Communications Inc. (Iridium)  
Lockheed Martin  
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola)  
Phirst Technologies, LLC (Phirst)  
Small UAV Coalition  
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T -Mobile) 
uAvionix Corporation (uAvionix)  
WiMAX Forum    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
93 
 Replies  
 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)  
AUM  
AURA 
Aviation Spectrum Resources, Inc. (ASRI)  
Boeing 
Federated Wireless  
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)  
Raytheon 
Spectrum Financial Partners (SFP)  
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPI)  
Verizon  
 
REFRESH P UBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS  AND REPLIES  
 
Comments  
 AIA AeroVironment  AURA 
ASRI  
Boeing 
Canada’s Notification Authority and Enquiry Point, Technical Barriers and Regulations Division (Canada)  
Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA)  
CTIA  
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)  
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)  
Federated Wireless  
FPL 
L3Harris Technologies (L3H)  
MatrixSpace Inc. (MatrixSpace)  
National Telecommunications and information Administration (NTIA)  
Northea st UAS Airspace Integration Research (NUAIR)  
Northern Plains Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Site (NPUASTS)  
Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm)  
RTCA, Inc. (RTCA)  
Shared Spectrum Company (SSC)  
Small UAV Coalition  uAvionix Wireless Innovation Forum ( WInnForum) 
Wisk Aero LLC (Wisk)  
 
Replies  
 Federated Wireless  
NTIA  
Small UAV Coalition  
Xcel Energy Services Inc. (Xcel Energy)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 22 -101  
 
94 
 STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS  
 
Re:  Spectrum Rules and Policies for the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems ; Petition of AIA for 
Rulemaking to Adopt Service Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Command and Control in the 
5030- 5091 MHz Band,  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 22- 323, RM -11798 
(terminated)  
 
I’m pleased to see us move toward unleashing more spectrum for unmanned aircraft systems 
(UAS).  
As I’ve sai d before, this is an area where the United States can clearly lead with the right 
regulatory support.  U.S. companies and research universities continue to incubate drone technologies at 
FAA- designated testing sites across the country—including in Nevada, where I previously visited a 
testbed to learn about the industry’s vision and growing challenges.  In 2021, we helped drive drone development through the establishment of FCC “Innovation Zones.”  We followed it up by refreshing the record on a path forward for drones in the 5030- 5091 MHz band—which is the focus of our action today.  
As I said back then, “these systems cannot truly flourish without Commission action governing the operation of UAS in licensed spectrum,” and getting there “will require careful  work with our federal 
partners.”  Today, after close collaboration with NTIA and the FAA, we’re proposing service and 
licensing rules to support robust, reliable, and safe UAS deployments in the 5 GHz band.  That’s real 
progress.  
Of course, even as far as  the Commission’s role is concerned, securing a vibrant future for UAS 
isn’t about just one frequency band.  That’s why I’m pleased to see us incorporate other critical issues 
related to drone operations into this notice of proposed rulemaking.  Consistent  with industry and 
academic interest and ongoing standards -setting efforts, we’re exploring 5G as a UAS platform and the 
broader use of cellular bands for drone applications.  We’re also proposing a way to license drone 
communications with air traffic control.  
UAS technologies pose plenty of potential, and their promise goes well beyond just package 
deliveries.  They can aid disaster relief, protect critical infrastructure, enhance smart applications and 
precision agriculture, improve public safety, and even help us build more safely and efficiently.  We’re 
right to continue supporting their development, even as we also explore the unique policy challenges 
posed by their operation.  
I am grateful to the Commission staff who developed this item.  It has my fu ll support.