38048 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.11198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.11198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.11199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. As such, EPA’s proposed 

approval of Virginia’s SIP revision 

certifying the negative declaration for 

the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Adam Ortiz, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13660 Filed 6–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 38049 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 22–204, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

• Filings can be sent by 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. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• 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/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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/fccseeks-input-offshore-spectrum-needsand-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 § 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. In proceedings 

governed by § 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 landbased spectrum, however, existing 

mechanisms may not be meeting current 

demand. 

4. The Commission’s initial sitebased, 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, demanddriven 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
38050 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Mexico. The majority of such site-based 

offshore authorizations are for Private 

Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) services, 

part 90 radiolocation services, aviationground 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 satellitebased 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 terrestrialbased 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, enduser 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
38052 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, sitebased, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 landbased service areas in a proposed band. 

32. We also note that § 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 longdistance vessel-to-vessel or shore-tooffshore 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 lowband 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
38054 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonprotection 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1