[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38048-38054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13440]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15, 20, 27, 80, 90, 95

[WT Docket No. 22-204; FCC 22-41; FR ID 92293]


Facilitating Access to Spectrum for Offshore Uses and Operations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document, a Notice of inquiry (Notice) adopted by the 
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether 
changes to Commission's rules or policies are needed to facilitate the 
development of commercial and private wireless networks offshore. 
Recognizing that U.S. commercial and scientific endeavors may benefit 
from increased access to spectrum offshore, the Notice aims to gather 
information on offshore operation use cases and their potential. It 
seeks comment on the type of offshore uses that require spectrum, the 
appropriate spectrum bands to support offshore uses, and potential 
assignment mechanisms.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 27, 2022; and reply comments on 
or before August 26, 2022.

[[Page 38049]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 22-204, 
by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> 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, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb9d9898cecbcfbb9d9898d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e383d3d6b6e6a1e383d3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2925.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 22-204, FCC 22-41 adopted on June 8, 2022, 
and released on June 9, 2022. The full text of this document, including 
all Appendices, is available for public inspection on the Commission's 
website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-input-offshore-spectrum-needs-and-uses-0.

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation.
    If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the 
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's 
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her 
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant 
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be 
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown 
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be 
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.  
1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. With this Notice of Inquiry, we take the first steps toward 
facilitating offshore operations through innovative spectrum management 
policy. Specifically, we seek input on whether changes in our rules and 
policies are needed to facilitate the development of offshore 
commercial and private networks. This Notice of Inquiry seeks to gather 
information on offshore operation use cases and their potential, 
including, but not limited to, the type of offshore uses that require 
spectrum, the appropriate spectrum bands for offshore uses, and 
potential assignment mechanisms. We take this action to support U.S. 
industrial and scientific endeavors that will benefit from offshore 
spectrum availability, and in return benefit the public, while also 
protecting existing operations such as maritime and aviation safety 
operations.
    2. We recognize that a variety of approaches may be appropriate as 
we consider potential paths forward, whether through industry-led 
voluntary sharing measures, Commission policy and guidance, or 
regulation where other approaches would be insufficient. With this 
Notice, we seek to compile a comprehensive record on the various issues 
that the Commission should consider, inviting broad comment from all 
stakeholders. We look forward to reviewing the record that develops 
from this Inquiry to inform us regarding next steps that the Commission 
may take.

II. Background

    3. A bedrock Commission obligation is to manage and oversee the 
nation's radio spectrum, ``maintain[ing] the control of the United 
States over all [] channels of radio transmission'' and ``provid[ing] 
for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons 
for limited periods of time.'' 47 U.S.C. 301. To fulfill this 
obligation, the Commission assigns spectrum rights where there is 
public need for spectrum. With respect to licenses on land, we continue 
to meet the ever increasing demands for spectrum, and generally have 
done so on a band-by-band or service-by-service basis as technology 
advances and spectrum needs evolve. We have utilized a wide array of 
models for assigning spectrum rights because of a wide diversity of 
land-based needs. With respect to access offshore for land-based 
spectrum, however, existing mechanisms may not be meeting current 
demand.
    4. The Commission's initial site-based, demand-driven, licensing 
paradigms that remain in effect in many bands continue to provide for 
narrowband spectrum access in support of industry, public safety, and 
backhaul. The Commission uses ongoing, demand-driven licensing in the 
Gulf of Mexico and in other U.S. territorial waters in the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans, including areas adjacent to the Continental United 
States (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Where 
applicable, such licensing (and deployments under those licenses) 
require coordination with Canada and

[[Page 38050]]

Mexico. The majority of such site-based offshore authorizations are for 
Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) services, part 90 radiolocation 
services, aviation-ground services, and maritime coast stations. As of 
the publication of this document, there are more than 1,400 active 
site-based licenses issued offshore across many different radio 
services. In addition, our part 15 rules for unlicensed operation and 
our part 5 rules for experimental radio use have provided parties with 
additional mechanisms for accessing radio spectrum offshore.
    5. When the Commission began to use geographic area licensing, it 
provided for spectrum access in the Gulf of Mexico only in certain 
spectrum bands, and our rules do not provide for geographic-based 
access in the remaining bands in the Gulf of Mexico and in all other 
offshore areas surrounding and within the United States and its 
territories. In the context of notice and comment rulemaking 
proceedings, the Commission adopted an area license for the Gulf of 
Mexico when there was demand demonstrated in the record and there were 
no technical, legal, or policy reasons prohibit it. With the exception 
of the Gulf of Mexico, there is not a geographic area license 
specifically designated for offshore use--e.g., there is no market area 
license for water off the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts, or within the 
Great Lakes. We recognize that there may be offshore operations in 
other areas that may need access to additional spectrum and could 
benefit from geographic-area licensing or other assignment mechanisms 
aside from site-based access.
    6. Offshore communications are also available or are authorized via 
satellite-based systems. For instance, mobile earth stations located at 
sea provide communications services both offshore and in international 
waters. These include Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) provided by such 
companies as Inmarsat and Iridium, as well as services provided via 
Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) by such companies as SES, Intelsat, 
Telesat, and ViaSat. ESIMs are increasingly used to deliver broadband 
to maritime vessels--including enterprise services and broadband to 
cruise ships. In addition, satellite-based communications currently 
play a significant role in providing communications to oil rigs and 
platforms offshore. In this inquiry, we are exploring the potential 
benefits of providing additional avenues for providing offshore access 
via terrestrial communications services. We also note that part 80 of 
the Commission's rules provides spectrum to vessels for maritime radio, 
such as Automatic Identification System (AIS) channels and other uses. 
This Notice does not seek comment on Maritime Radio, but rather on 
other offshore spectrum use cases, including additional needs of 
vessels.

III. Discussion

    7. This Notice of Inquiry first seeks comment on the actual demand 
for offshore spectrum and whether the Commission needs to facilitate 
spectrum usage for offshore operations. This Inquiry recognizes 
different spectrum rights models that could facilitate offshore 
operations and seeks comment on which model would best serve spectrum 
needs offshore. We do not intend to structure our analysis by specific 
offshore regions or zones. Instead, we seek more broadly to understand 
the extent of the demand to use offshore spectrum and more generally 
where that demand is concentrated. Next, we seek comment on assignment 
mechanisms that would best serve the Commission's goal of effective and 
efficient use of spectrum. We also seek comment on the potential for 
unlicensed use and spectrum leasing models to meet offshore spectrum 
needs, and on individual spectrum bands that may facilitate offshore 
operations. Finally, we seek comment on whether the approaches taken by 
other countries in making offshore spectrum available can inform our 
policy.

A. Demand for Offshore Spectrum

    8. To better guide any potential change to Commission rules or 
policies, we seek to understand how extensive the need is for offshore 
spectrum access. In light of this, we seek comment generally on the 
demand for offshore spectrum. We recognize that, in the past, demand 
was initially driven largely by the offshore oil drilling industry's 
need for spectrum access offshore, but we anticipate that demand may 
have grown among other industries as well. What kinds of offshore 
operations would benefit from greater access to spectrum, both now and 
in the future? What distance from land would those operations be 
conducted? Are the use cases that need offshore spectrum fixed or 
mobile in nature, or a combination of both? Are there commercial or 
private maritime or aeronautical uses in addition to those already 
provided for by our rules? What types of services might entities 
consider deploying offshore? Are there both commercial and private 
operations offshore that require spectrum access and, if so, how are 
private versus commercial operations' respective needs for offshore 
spectrum different? To what extent are current or anticipated 
satellite-based services responding to various types of demand for 
offshore spectrum-based services? What are the potential benefits of 
making spectrum available for terrestrial-based Wi-Fi or mobile 
networks in addition to the spectrum available as of the publication of 
this Notice?
    9. We recognize that the Commission has granted several 
experimental licenses operating at various frequencies to facilitate 
scientific experimentation and exploration offshore. Descriptions of 
these experiments include communications, data gathering, and command 
and control of offshore platforms, sensors, and unmanned aerial systems 
for purposes of oceanography and navigation. We seek comment on how 
these experimental licenses might inform future offshore radio 
services, and in particular whether the Commission should consider 
adopting new offshore radio service rules to provide service and 
technical rules for devices used to support any of these applications.
    10. Do commenters expect that spectrum demand will vary 
significantly by type of offshore operation or use case? How much 
spectrum do different types of offshore operations or uses need? How 
much contiguous spectrum do stakeholders anticipate needing? Are the 
needs localized or is the demand for communications or other services 
over long distances? What are the boundaries of offshore operation use 
cases? How far from the shore might demand for spectrum extend? Will 
the amount of spectrum needed for a given use or operation be static or 
will the amount of spectrum needed change over time? Is there a demand 
for wireless spectrum to provide backhaul from operations offshore? 
Commenters should specify the individual offshore operation, use case, 
or service discussed in their responses.
    11. One use case that we anticipate may have various offshore 
spectrum needs is the construction and operation of windfarms in the 
Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and potentially beyond. We anticipate that 
such needs may include: providing wireless services to the site during 
construction of the windfarm; testing, daily operation, and scheduled 
and emergency maintenance and replacement; communications to ships and 
entities on shore; and communication capability among offshore 
operators in adjacent areas and between those operators and first 
responders. Is this an accurate overview

[[Page 38051]]

of uses for spectrum at windfarms? Are there other uses? How do these 
needs differ from those on offshore oil platforms, which utilize both 
terrestrial-based and satellite-based communications services? How much 
spectrum would a windfarm need to support these kinds of operations, 
and would the amount of spectrum vary by stage of the project?
    12. Another potential use case is for communications services by 
vessels in coastal waters. Is there a need for additional offshore 
spectrum access models that would provide greater opportunities for 
vessels at sea to access mobile networks or connect onboard Wi-Fi 
networks to the internet? We recognize that there are satellite-based 
services currently being provided to vessels at sea. What are the 
potential benefits of making additional spectrum available from 
terrestrial-based Wi-Fi or mobile networks?
    13. What other use cases exist that require offshore spectrum 
access that is not being provided under the existing access models? Are 
there other industrial or scientific research demands for offshore 
spectrum? We seek comment generally on other industries that might have 
a need for offshore spectrum. Are there offshore operations that 
utilities may conduct? Is there a need for telephone service to 
subscribers working offshore, like there is in the Gulf of Mexico? 
Commenters should include specific examples for industries operating 
offshore and uses of offshore spectrum.
    14. We also seek comment on the degree to which terrestrial 
technologies using spectrum allocated for fixed or mobile wireless 
operations could supplement the demand for offshore spectrum access 
currently served by satellite technologies using spectrum allocated for 
satellite operations. Further, how does the Internet of Things (IoT) 
landscape affect demand for offshore spectrum? What sort of IoT 
technologies require additional offshore spectrum? What other relevant 
use cases should we consider? For example, space launch operations can 
involve the offshore retrieval of launch components. What are the 
spectrum needs for these activities and how well suited are the 
authorization mechanisms that are currently being used? Are there any 
potential impacts to satellite operations from increased offshore 
terrestrial operations?
    15. Additionally, we seek comment on the infrastructure needed to 
support offshore spectrum operations. Specifically, what infrastructure 
is needed to support base stations, end-user equipment, fixed 
transmitters, beacons, and other equipment offshore? Is the 
infrastructure likely to be fixed/stationary, drifting in the water, 
airborne, or deployed in another way? What are the needs--
infrastructure related or otherwise--of offshore operations that may 
sometimes be fixed but at other times are mobile or need to move 
locations over time, such as operations by the fishing industry, 
scientific researchers, and cruise ships?

B. Spectrum Rights Models

    16. To the extent that there is a need for increased access to 
spectrum offshore, we seek comment on what kinds of spectrum rights 
should be conveyed to meet the demand. Possible models include shared 
spectrum rights, authorizations for secondary operations, and 
authorizations with primary rights. We seek comment generally on these 
approaches, or combinations thereof, including the advantages and 
disadvantages of each and any associated cost and benefits.
    17. In advocating for or against particular spectrum rights models, 
we encourage commenters to consider not only the circumstances and 
needs of offshore operations (including incumbent operations requiring 
protection), but also the unique characteristics of radio transmissions 
over open water. For example, commenters should discuss the impact of 
the propagation of signals over open water on preventing harmful 
interference. Commenters should also discuss the use of directional 
antennas, including those with advanced beamforming capabilities, and 
the potential for these measures to increase opportunities for 
coexistence with incumbent operations. Similarly, commenters should 
consider whether the use of antenna gain patterns to reduce 
transmissions at high angles could reduce interference risk to 
incumbent aeronautical operations not otherwise protected by ground 
clutter or terrain.
    18. Shared Spectral Rights. We seek comment on whether a spectrum 
commons approach could serve the needs of offshore spectrum. Under a 
spectrum commons approach, all spectrum is shared and there is no 
expectation of interference protection. Could a spectrum commons model, 
or similar shared spectral rights model, offer enough spectrum for 
offshore operations and enough interference protection? Why or why not? 
Under such an approach, would individual offshore operators or users 
coordinate with each other for interference protection and resolution? 
How could this best be enabled? For example, would a band manager or 
spectrum manager be needed? Are there certain types of offshore 
operations that could utilize a shared model, while others need primary 
or secondary rights? Why or why not? Commenters should discuss in 
detail advantages and disadvantages of a spectrum commons or similar 
shared spectrum rights approach for offshore operations, including the 
effect on incumbent operations. What spectrum bands are good candidates 
for shared spectrum use? What bands should not be considered on a 
shared basis for offshore operations? What are the costs and benefits 
to this approach, as opposed to primary or secondary use 
authorizations?
    19. Secondary Authorization. Next, we seek comment on providing 
secondary spectrum rights to offshore operations. Under a secondary 
rights framework, the incumbent user would have primary use of the band 
at issue, consistent with the terms of its authorization, and the 
incumbent would have an expectation of protection of interference from 
any secondary users. Offshore operations could be granted authority to 
act as secondary users that cannot cause harmful interference to 
primary operations in the band (whether that primary user is on land 
or, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico or existing site-based 
authorizations, in the water). Would an individual authorization with 
secondary status model meet the needs of some offshore operations, but 
not others? Why or why not? How might the sufficiency of secondary use 
vary based on the specific use case or phase of the project at issue?
    20. If a secondary rights model is appropriate, should the primary 
license, if on land, be modified to allow secondary use offshore? How 
far offshore should the modification extend? Should the Commission 
allow secondary use offshore by both the primary licensee on land and 
another user? In either instance, what would be the best mechanism to 
do this? Are there any other secondary use models that the Commission 
should consider for offshore operations? Which spectrum bands should be 
considered for secondary use offshore? Commenters should discuss the 
advantages and disadvantages of any approach proposed, and the 
associated costs and benefits.
    21. Primary Authorization. Finally, we seek comment on the need for 
individual authorizations with primary rights for offshore operations, 
with the expectation of exclusive use and protection from interference 
from other users. Do certain offshore operations require primary 
spectrum rights? Why

[[Page 38052]]

or why not? If an operation requires primary rights, commenters should 
address not only why, but also whether that need will change over time. 
Would the spectrum supporting primary rights need to already be 
supporting LTE or other next-generation wireless services? Which 
spectrum bands would be possible candidates for primary rights 
authorized on an individual basis to offshore operations, and why? 
Commenters should discuss advantages and disadvantages to primary 
rights authorized to support offshore needs, and the costs and benefits 
of such an approach.

C. Assignment Mechanisms for Initial Licensing

    22. We seek comment generally on which assignment mechanisms might 
be best suited for the needs of offshore operations. We also seek 
comment on using more than one assignment mechanism for licensing 
spectrum offshore, as we recognize that operations seeking to use 
spectrum offshore may have a diversity of funding sources and budget 
cycles. Commenters should discuss how our choices of assignment 
mechanism could best ensure diversity in access. Commenters should also 
discuss the costs and benefits of the different mechanisms.
    23. License-by-Rule and ``Licensed Light'' Access Models. We seek 
comment generally on whether the Commission should provide additional 
offshore spectrum access through spectrum rights models that have 
minimal or no registration requirements. These can include a ``license 
light'' approach, where users submit a simplified registration form 
before using specific frequencies and sites, or a license-by-rule 
approach, where users are permitted to operate without registering or 
obtaining an individual license so long as they meet the qualifications 
to operate and their operations are consistent with the Commission's 
rules. Such models generally offer low barriers of entry but do not 
allow for exclusive spectrum use. They are premised on all entrants 
being able to share the available spectrum resource with little or no 
formal coordination and through operation under the framework provided 
by the applicable service rules. How well would these kinds of 
approaches serve offshore operations, and how do their benefits compare 
to those associated with other licensed assignment mechanisms? Should 
the Commission consider, for example, issuing nonexclusive, offshore-
area licenses with site or area registrations in the Universal 
Licensing System (ULS) or a third-party database to facilitate 
coordination among offshore operators? Why or why not? Are there 
existing registration-based access models that could work well here?
    24. Ongoing, Demand-Driven, Licensing On a Site-by-Site Basis. The 
Commission has significant experience implementing demand-driven, site-
based, licensing mechanisms. Under this approach, an applicant requests 
authorization to construct at a specific transmitter location (or 
multiple locations) and expands its service by applying for additional 
sites as needed. The prime examples of this model of licensing are in 
the context of Private Land Mobile Radio and microwave services. Could 
a site-based licensing approach meet the needs of offshore spectrum 
operations? And would it meet the Commission's goal of advancing 
innovative and efficient spectrum policy?
    25. The Commission has also relied on ongoing, demand-driven, 
licensing in the Cellular context and in its 700 MHz Relicensing 
regime. In the Cellular Service, after the initial licensing of 
geographic areas and buildout to establish service contours, applicants 
have applied for individual licenses only where there was a need for 
coverage, growing their network on a site-by-site basis. Is the 
Cellular Service licensing model something the Commission should 
consider for meeting the needs of offshore operations? Is it a good 
analogy for offshore licensing, or are there differences at sea versus 
land that would make that approach less desirable here? Assuming it is 
an appropriate model, could the Commission rely on the existing 
Cellular Service licensing rules for offshore licensing? Why or why 
not, and how would those rules need to be changed or updated if used as 
a starting point for potential offshore licensing rules?
    26. Should the Commission use something similar to its 700 MHz 
Relicensing regime as a model for demand-driven licensing to meet 
offshore needs? In the 700 MHz Relicensing regime, the Commission had a 
single Phase I process for applicants to file applications for 
authority to operate in unserved areas. Phase II is an ongoing process 
that allows eligible parties to apply for any unserved areas that may 
remain after the Phase I process is complete. Would this approach be 
appropriate to meet the needs of offshore operations? How would 
``unserved'' be defined in the offshore context? What are the 
advantages and disadvantages of this model if applied to offshore 
licensing? Could the Commission rely on this kind of model, regardless 
of which spectrum band is used?
    27. Negotiations-Based Licensing. In the 900 MHz band, the 
Commission established a transition mechanism based primarily on 
negotiations between prospective overlay licensees, whether in-market 
or an adjacent market, and incumbent licensees. Would a negotiations-
based authorization process meet offshore spectrum needs? Would an 
approach similar to the one used in the 900 MHz band facilitate more 
rapid offshore deployment? Why or why not?
    28. Geographic Area Licensing. In many services, including many of 
our more recently licensed flexible-use services, the Commission has 
issued geographic area licenses for exclusive use. With geographic area 
licensing, a licensee is authorized to construct anywhere within a 
particular geographic area's boundary (subject to certain technical and 
other requirements) and generally does not need to submit additional 
applications for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter 
locations. We seek comment on whether geographic area licensing is 
appropriate for offshore licensing. Are there advantages to geographic 
area licensing over site-based licensing in the offshore space? Why or 
why not? If so, should we assign geographic area licenses offshore for 
all 3GPP standardized bands? Should there be multiple geographic area 
markets to cover any given U.S. coastal area or shores of the Great 
Lakes in any given band, or just one in each?
    29. If we were to assign geographic area licenses offshore, should 
we then require offshore licensees to protect land-based licensees and 
adjacent-area, co-channel, offshore licensees using existing applicable 
signal strength limits, or would our rules need to be adjusted? What 
are the interference concerns we should consider, and would they vary 
by band? Would the ability to protect terrestrial licensees vary by 
band? Would existing bands' construction requirements or license terms 
need to be adjusted for offshore license areas depending on the use 
case? If so, how? Would a geographic area license be impractical if the 
offshore operation is mobile or on a structure such as a barge, and 
therefore could move between different geographic areas? Commenters 
should discuss all other advantages and disadvantages of geographic 
area licensing.
    30. Other Considerations. We note that in the Gulf of Mexico, the 
Commission has licensed spectrum

[[Page 38053]]

using various approaches. How should our experience in the Gulf inform 
our approach for other offshore areas? Is offshore spectrum too complex 
for one assignment mechanism? Would multiple assignment mechanisms 
better suit offshore operations' spectrum needs? In other words, should 
the Commission consider using a variety of mechanisms, depending on 
which offshore area is at issue and the level of demand for spectrum 
usage? For example, is there an immediate and competing demand for 
certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean where windfarms are already being 
built, but less demand in the Great Lakes or off the Pacific coast, and 
should there be different assignment mechanisms implemented to reflect 
these differences? What is the demand, if any, for additional spectrum 
access off the shore of Alaska into the Arctic Ocean?
    31. What would be the appropriate zones in which either an onshore 
or offshore licensee has exclusive authority to operate, subject to 
specific coordination and interference resolution mechanisms? Parties 
should discuss boundaries based on the Gulf of Mexico, state and county 
lines, or any other relevant consideration. Commenters should also 
discuss how far seaward the Commission could extend existing land-based 
service areas in a proposed band.
    32. We also note that Sec.  309 of the Communications Act requires 
assignment via competitive bidding for acceptance of mutually exclusive 
applications, with an exemption for public safety radio services. If 
demand were such that mutually exclusive applications were filed for a 
license offshore, an auction could be required to assign that license, 
unless an exemption applied. To what extent might the public safety 
exemption apply to assigning offshore spectrum? Are there other issues 
we should keep in mind regarding licenses assigned via competitive 
bidding for offshore purposes?
    33. Are there any U.S. treaty obligations that may be relevant in 
assigning spectrum for offshore operations depending on which body of 
water is implicated? If yes, what are they and how should we take them 
into account? We note also that there are maritime and other 
definitions of what constitutes offshore areas. To what extent are 
these definitions relevant for our purposes here?

D. Unlicensed Spectrum Use

    34. We also seek comment on how unlicensed spectrum access under 
our part 15 rules can support the needs of offshore operations. These 
rules allow operation without a license and provide low barriers for 
entry and wide flexibility in how the spectrum can be used. However, 
unlicensed operations must be conducted at low power levels that might 
limit the distance at which the signals could practically be used for 
offshore applications (such as in long-distance vessel-to-vessel or 
shore-to-offshore communication scenarios). Furthermore, unlicensed 
operations must not cause harmful interference to licensed services and 
must accept any harmful interference received.
    35. Our existing rules generally permit unlicensed operation in 
offshore locations, although there are limitations that preclude such 
use in certain bands. Here, we seek to better understand how unlicensed 
operations are being used and how unlicensed use can be expanded in the 
offshore environment. What specific types of offshore operations are 
well-suited for deployment under our unlicensed rules and what 
applications might be better realized through licensed access models, 
and why? Do commenters anticipate that an expansion of licensed access 
models in offshore locations would affect existing unlicensed 
operations or future deployments, and if so how? What are the bandwidth 
requirements of those applications that can be realized through 
unlicensed use, and is there sufficient capacity and equipment 
presently available for deployment? Are there particular bands that 
would be especially well suited for unlicensed operations in offshore 
locations? Finally, are there changes to our existing rules that could 
facilitate the use of spectrum on an unlicensed basis in offshore 
locations?

E. Access via Spectrum Leasing

    36. Another potential vehicle for accessing offshore spectrum, in 
addition to the assignment mechanisms discussed above, could be a 
spectrum lease arrangement. The Commission's spectrum leasing rules 
apply to all ``included services,'' and include Wireless Radio Services 
in which commercial or private licensees hold exclusive use rights. We 
seek comment on whether spectrum leasing might meet some (or all) of 
offshore operational needs, and whether this would vary by use case. 
Are there incumbent licensees with spectrum available for leasing? Are 
there existing terrestrial or offshore licensees interested in leasing 
spectrum for offshore operations? Would the Commission need to modify 
the authorizations of coastal land-based licensees to first provide 
them with rights that extend to offshore areas, as a threshold to 
enabling leasing of those rights? Why or why not? Should the Commission 
provide incentives for license holders to lease spectrum, and if so, 
what would those incentives look like? Would leased spectrum provide 
enough bandwidth for offshore operations? Should the Commission update 
the list of services to which our spectrum leasing rules apply to 
include offshore spectrum operations to facilitate the possibility of 
leasing? Should the Commission consider leasing combined with other 
approaches? Are there other rule or policy changes the Commission would 
need to take to enable a leasing marketplace for offshore spectrum?

F. Spectrum Bands for Offshore Operations

    37. Different spectrum bands provide different spectral properties 
and utility that can meet different needs. Given the potential use 
cases for offshore spectrum discussed above, we seek comment generally 
on which individual bands, or a combination thereof, could best support 
the various needs of offshore operations.
    38. What type of spectrum would best support offshore use? What 
characteristics are needed, such as high bandwidth, low latency, 
particular propagation characteristics, or other properties? Would a 
band used to support offshore operations need to already have certain 
equipment standards, such as 3GPP? Which specific bands, or combination 
of bands, would best support offshore use? Possibilities could include 
600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz, or AWS bands. Are any of these 
bands appropriate for offshore use? Why or why not? Would AWS-1 or 
other low-band frequencies accommodate offshore operations' spectrum 
needs? Would the interference protections in the aforementioned bands 
be enough to accommodate offshore spectrum and incumbent users?
    39. Are there other bands currently used for commercial or private 
wireless networks that we should consider? For each band proposed, 
commenters should address whether there any issues regarding existing 
operators, whether large enough blocks or sufficient bandwidth would be 
available for offshore operations, and what modifications, if any, 
would be needed to service rules to accommodate offshore use. Are there 
advantages and disadvantages of any spectrum band considered?
    40. We recognize that Commission rules contain performance 
requirements in certain bands. Would offshore

[[Page 38054]]

operations be able to meet the existing performance requirements in the 
band(s) commenters propose and should they be required to meet them? 
How might those performance requirements need to be adjusted given the 
difference of use cases and operations offshore versus on land? How 
might this vary based on whether the operations are private or 
commercial, and how localized the service offering is? Would license 
terms need to be adjusted given potential differences between deploying 
on land versus at sea?
    41. Are there spectrum bands that we should not consider in order 
to protect incumbents in the band, or for other reasons? If so, which 
bands and why? Commenters should take into consideration the existing 
operations of both federal and non-federal users, particularly those 
uses related to public safety and other critical national purposes, 
including maritime and aeronautical endeavors. We seek comment on how 
to ensure protection of such operations as appropriate. Commenters 
should discuss interference protections for both incumbents and new 
offshore operations in any proposed band(s). We seek comment generally 
on what additional interference protections, for any band considered, 
offshore operations would need.
    42. We note that offshore incumbent uses may differ from operations 
being protected by commercial or private wireless operations onshore, 
and thus protection requirements for a given band's use offshore may be 
different from those required for a band's onshore use. In other words, 
commenters should not assume that a band's use for a particular purpose 
onshore necessarily means it is well-suited for that purpose offshore.

G. Offshore Spectrum Access in Other Countries

    43. We note that other countries authorize use of offshore 
spectrum. We seek comment generally on the extent to which frameworks 
used abroad provide any insight for how the Commission might move 
forward in facilitating offshore licensing here. In the Netherlands, 
for example, Agentschap Telecom, part of the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs and Climate, has issued Tampnet and T-Mobile offshore 700 MHz 
licenses in the North Sea, using what it termed a ``distribution by 
demand'' model that was implemented by means of an auction. Ofcom, the 
United Kingdom telecommunications regulator, issues unified Spectrum 
Access Offshore Mobile licenses that cover all of the United Kingdom 
``mobile bands'' (800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2.3 GHz and 3.4 
GHz), but only for areas not covered by the rights granted to existing 
mobile network operators. The Spectrum Access Offshore Mobile license 
authorizes use of spectrum on a non-protection and non-interference 
basis, leaving coordination up to the licensees.
    44. Do the Ofcom or North Sea models provide useful lessons for 
spectrum use by U.S. offshore operations? Why or why not? Do 
differences in geography and regulatory frameworks in the United 
Kingdom and the Netherlands warrant different approaches offshore in 
the United States? Are there other models for offshore spectrum access 
used by other countries that could provide guidance for our approach 
here, while still furthering our goals of innovative spectrum 
management and efficient spectrum use?

H. Additional Issues

    45. We invite comment on other possible approaches for the 
Commission's consideration. For instance, would convening Commission-
led workshops comprised of a diverse array of experts from industry and 
government be helpful? Would any pilot project be appropriate, and if 
so, which particular frequency band(s) should be considered? Are there 
further studies that could help inform the Commission on important 
considerations with regard to offshore operations? Are there other 
studies, efforts, or analyses that we should consider in this 
proceeding? If so, we ask that commenters identify them and explain why 
they should be considered. We also seek comment on whether there are 
any security or other concerns to any of the approaches discussed 
herein. What international coordination issues may arise if we provide 
spectrum for offshore operations such as IoT?
    46. In addition, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort 
to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons 
with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and 
others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or 
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment 
on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the various approaches and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how the various approaches that the 
Commission may consider may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    47. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 301, 302, 303, 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 332 and 403 this 
Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
    48. Authority for this Notice may be found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
301, 302, 303, 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 332 and 403.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13440 Filed 6-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>