[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1802-1849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31852]



[[Page 1801]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 8

January 13, 2016

Part IV





Federal Communication Commission





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











47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, et al.





Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Proposed 
Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1802]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30, and 101

[GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT 
Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138]


Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) have identified specific spectrum bands above 24 
GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek comment 
on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other 
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile 
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our 
efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-
called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 26, 2016; reply comments 
are due on or before February 23, 2016. Written comments on the 
proposed information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, should be submitted on or 
before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FCC 15-138, by any of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow 
the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments and 
transmit one electronic copy of the filing to FCC 15-138. For ECFS 
filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include 
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket number.
     Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet 
email. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to 
[email protected], and include the following words in the body of the 
message, ``get form ''. A sample form and 
instructions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
     Envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 E. Hampton Dr., 
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington DC 20554.
    In addition, document FCC 15-138 contains proposed information 
collection requirement subject to the PRA. OMB, the general public, and 
other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed 
information collection requirements contained in this document. PRA 
comments should be submitted to Cathy Williams via email at [email protected] 
and/or [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or 
[email protected], Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and 
Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or 
[email protected], or Howard Griboff of the International Bureau, 
Policy Division, at 202-418-0657 or [email protected]. For 
information regarding the PRA information collection requirements 
contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing 
Director, at (202) 418-2918, or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos 15-
256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138, adopted and 
released on October 22, 2015. The complete text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 
a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th 
Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 200554. The complete text is 
available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or 
by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an email to [email protected] or telephone the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 18-0432 
(TTY). To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) 
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; (2) find the section of the Web page called ``Currently 
Under Review''; (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the 
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading; (4) 
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box; (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box; and (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Use of Spectrum Bands 
Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services and then click on the ICR 
Reference Number.

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this NPRM 
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

[[Page 1803]]

during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte 
presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In 
proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) 
Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The Commission has 
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of 
the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified 
in the NPRM for comments.

Report to Small Business Administration

    The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency comments are due 
March 14, 2016. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection 
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it may ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio 
Services.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-
profit Institutions; State, local or tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 35 respondents and 130 
responses.
    Estimated Time Per Response: .5-10 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Record 
keeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. 
Statutory authority for this collection are contained in sections 1, 2, 
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 
316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336, Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
    Total Annual Burden: 5,015 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: None.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection does not 
affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the 
Privacy Act.
    Need for, and Objectives of, the NPRM: In the Use of Spectrum Bands 
Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services NPRM, the Commission promotes a 
flexible regulatory environment for the next generation of wireless 
services. In this NPRM, the Commission identify specific spectrum bands 
above 24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek 
comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other 
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile 
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands will help facilitate so-called 
Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services.

I. Introduction

    1. Today we take further steps to promote a flexible regulatory 
environment for the next generation of wireless services. In this NPRM, 
we continue our examination of higher frequency bands for mobile and 
other uses. In that regard, we identify specific spectrum bands above 
24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek 
comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other 
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile 
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our 
efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-
called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services. We note that we do not 
intend to define what qualifies as ``5G''. Standard bodies like 3GPP 
and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) plan to develop 
the requirements by early 2017.
    2. The framework we propose is built off of two decades of 
successful policies that stimulate and promote innovation and 
investment in wireless technologies and services. We propose rules that 
will enable flexibility in the uses and technologies that might be 
deployed in these bands in a way that also promotes coexistence between 
these different uses and technologies. We recognize that several of the 
bands we are examining are shared with satellite services, the Federal 
government, and fixed users. We believe it is possible to adopt a 
flexible and modern set of rules that can facilitate sharing among a 
wide variety of users and platforms. We propose to require flexible use 
commercial licensees to protect incumbent Federal operations consistent 
with Federal allocations in these bands, and expect that detailed 
sharing studies will be conducted as we consider development of the 
service rules for these bands to ensure that our proposed rules 
adequately protect Federal users.
    3. In developing service rules for the mmW bands, we aim to 
facilitate access to spectrum, develop a flexible spectrum policy, and 
encourage wireless innovation. In order to ensure wide access to 
spectrum, we propose to use a variety of licensing mechanisms, 
including geographic area licenses, unlicensed operation under Part 15 
of our rules, and authorizing indoor operating rights to property 
owners. In developing our technical rules, our goal is to develop 
flexible rules that will accommodate a wide variety of current and 
future technologies. Flexibility will

[[Page 1804]]

also encourage innovation in the development of advanced wireless 
services using the mmW bands.

II. Solicitation of Comments

    4. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the 
following proposals:
     28 GHz and 39 GHz bands: We propose to authorize mobile 
operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band) and the 38.6-40 GHz 
band (39 GHz band) with county-sized geographic area licenses. These 
bands could be suitable for deployment of high-capacity, high-
throughput small cells as part of mobile broadband deployments. At the 
same time, we propose rules that would provide licensees with the 
flexibility to conduct fixed and/or mobile operations.
     64-71 GHz band: We propose to authorize operations in the 
64-71 GHz band under Part 15 of our rules based on the rules we 
recently adopted for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band. This action will 
provide more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi-like ``WiGig'' 
operations.
     37 GHz band: In the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band), we 
propose a hybrid licensing scheme that would grant operating rights by 
rule to property owners, while establishing geographic area licenses 
based on counties for outdoor use. This licensing mechanism would 
facilitate the deployment of advanced enterprise and industrial 
applications not suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network 
services, while also providing additional spectrum for more traditional 
cellular deployments.
     Other Rules
     We propose to grant mobile operating rights to existing 
fixed Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 39 GHz band 
licensees, and seek comment on utilizing an overlay auction as an 
alternative.
     We propose to consider market-based rules that could 
facilitate greater satellite use of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz 
bands without unduly limiting terrestrial use of those bands.
     We seek comment on potential licensing approaches for the 
28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. In particular, we seek comment on 
revising the performance requirements applicable to those bands.
     We seek comment on technical rules needed to facilitate 
licensed operation and mitigation methods to ensure protection of 
incumbent operations in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands.
     We propose to require mobile licensees to protect 
incumbent Federal operations, consistent with the Federal allocations 
in these bands. We seek detailed comment and analysis on ensuring 
compatibility between Federal uses and new mobile use of these bands, 
including comment on any rules that would be necessary to facilitate 
coexistence with Federal systems.
     We seek comment on how to ensure that effective security 
features are built into key design principles for communications 
devices and networks that will use these bands.

III. Background

A. The Millimeter-Wave Mobile Opportunity

    5. Millimeter-wave frequencies have historically been considered 
unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at 
such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate 
around obstacles. Short transmission paths and high propagation losses 
can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting 
the amount of interference between adjacent cells. In addition, where 
longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW 
signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals 
into highly focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation 
losses. The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to 
build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small 
enough to fit into handsets.
    6. While the discussion concerning a possible fifth generation of 
mobile wireless technology includes a wide variety of ideas and 
technological developments, the possible use of mmW bands for mobile 
use is a key concept within that discussion. Many commenters point to 
the increasing demand for data from consumers using an ever wider 
variety of devices. The mmW bands could be particularly useful in 
supporting very high capacity networks in areas that require such 
capacity. Several commenters also see the mmW bands being used for 
backhaul and machine-to-machine communication. Several commenters also 
highlighted that the low latency of 5G technology will enable various 
Internet of Things (IoT) applications including wearables, fitness and 
healthcare devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office 
automation. In addition to the advanced antenna system, other enabling 
technologies for 5G include distributed network architecture, adaptive 
coding and modulation, multi-radio access technology, and advanced 
small cell technology.

B. Notice of Inquiry

    7. In October 2014, acting on advice from the Commission's 
Technological Advisory Council, the Commission issued a Notice of 
Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on the prospects for provision of mobile 
radio services in the frequency bands above 24 GHz. The Commission 
foresaw ``a potential coalescence of technologies that could lead to 
the emergence of a new and radically more capable generation of 
wireless mobile service that can capitalize on use of the millimeter 
wave region of the spectrum around the year 2020.'' The Commission also 
noted that significant momentum was starting to build among diverse 
countries and regions around the idea of a fifth generation of mobile 
and fixed services, that some envision as accommodating an eventual 
1000-fold increase in traffic demand for mobile services; high-
bandwidth content with speeds in excess of 10 gigabits per second (GB/
s); end-to-end transmission delays (latency) of less than one-
thousandth of a second, and, in the same networks, sporadic, low-data-
rate transmissions among an ``Internet of things''--all of this to be 
accomplished with substantially improved spectral and energy 
efficiency. The Notice foresaw that achieving those objectives would 
likely require the development of new system architectures that, unlike 
current technologies, would necessarily include heterogeneous networks 
capable of delivering service through multiple, widely-spaced frequency 
bands and diverse types of radio access technologies, including 
macrocells, microcells, device-to-device communications, new component 
technologies, and unlicensed as well as licensed transceivers.
    8. The Notice sought comment on the technologies underlying the 
development of mmW mobile services using bands above 24 GHz, the 
frequency bands that would be suitable for advanced mobile services, 
and the best ways to manage interference among operators and other 
licensees operating in the same or adjacent bands. Finally, the 
Commission sought comment on licensing and authorization schemes for 
mobile operations above 24 GHz. In its discussion of frequency bands 
above 24 GHz that would be most suitable for advanced mobile services, 
the Notice sought comment on the relative importance of access to large 
blocks of contiguous spectrum for successful implementation of advanced 
mobile technologies. After reviewing the salient

[[Page 1805]]

characteristics of several candidate bands, the Notice invited comment 
on the suitability of the three Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS) bands between 27.5 and 31.3 GHz, the 38.6-40 GHz band, the 37-
38.6 and 42-42.5 GHz bands, the 57-64 and 64-71 GHz band, the 71-76 GHz 
and 81-86 GHz bands, and the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz bands 
for advanced mobile services. The Commission also invited comment on 
any other bands above 24 GHz that might be appropriate, including any 
bands above 95 GHz that could be suitable candidates for mobile 
services.
    9. Regarding licensing mechanisms, the Commission noted that, 
except for the 24 GHz band, all of the candidate bands mentioned above 
have existing mobile allocations, and that the Commission has already 
established geographic service areas and conducted spectrum auctions 
for three of the bands--LMDS, 39 GHz, and 24 GHz. The NOI inquired 
whether the Commission should upgrade the existing fixed service 
licenses for those bands to include authorization to provide mobile 
service.

C. Recent Technological Developments

    10. Since the release of the Commission's NOI in October 2014, 
there has been increased momentum behind the development of 5G 
technologies. Several manufacturers have showcased their prototype 5G 
equipment operating in centimeter and millimeter wave bands. In the 
United States, NYU Wireless Center has been leading the research in mmW 
technology, including the propagation measurements and models, 
radiation and biological health effects, mmW MAC layer design and other 
component technology development. In July 2015, the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the 5G Millimeter Wave 
Channel Model Alliance with companies, academia, and government 
organizations to support the development of more accurate, consistent, 
and predictive channel models. Intel has introduced several laptop 
models with the 60GHz WiGig technology and continues to develop the mmW 
mobile broadband system in 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands. This is but some of 
the current and ongoing work on 5G technologies across the world.

D. World Radio Conference

    11. The International Telecommunication Union's World 
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) 2015 (WRC-15) is scheduled to take 
place from November 2-27, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. One of the tasks 
of that conference is to set the agenda for the next WRC, which is 
expected to take place in 2019 (WRC-19). At WRC-15, the United States 
will support the study of spectrum requirements and potential 
identification of harmonized spectrum for mobile broadband below 6 GHz 
and will encourage the adoption of a plan for identifying spectrum for 
mobile technologies in higher frequency bands. At WRC-15, the United 
States is supporting the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission 
(CITEL) proposal to consider spectrum requirements and identification 
of bands for the terrestrial component of International Mobile 
Telecommunications (IMT) to facilitate mobile broadband applications, 
with the aim of reaching decisions regarding possible spectrum for 
mobile use at WRC-19. The proposals resolve to conduct sharing and 
compatibility studies, including adjacent band studies as appropriate, 
within the frequency ranges: 10-10.45 GHz, 23.15-23.6 GHz, 24.25-27.5 
GHz, 27.5-29.5 GHz, 31.8-33 GHz, 37-40.5 GHz, 45.5-47 GHz, 47.2-50.2 
GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz and 59.3-76 GHz.
    12. We recognize that other countries have proposed or will propose 
the identification of other bands for consideration for mobile 
broadband. We are committed to working with both domestic and 
international partners in examining additional spectrum and on 
conducting the necessary technical sharing and compatibility studies. 
To the extent it becomes appropriate to consider additional bands for 
mmW mobile use in light of international developments, we will work 
with relevant stakeholders to examine the suitability of those bands 
for mobile and other uses.

IV. Discussion

A. Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Use

1. Criteria for Examining Bands for Mobile and Other Uses
    13. Background. In the NOI, we specifically sought comment on the 
suitability of the following bands for mobile use: The Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS) band (27.5-28.35 GHz, 29.1-29.25 GHz, and 
31.0-31.3 GHz), the 39 GHz band, the 37 GHz band and 42-42.5 GHz, 57-64 
GHz and 64-71 GHz bands, the 70/80 GHz bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz), 
and the 24 GHz bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz). We also 
invited comment on any other band that might be appropriate for mobile 
services, including bands above 95 GHz.
    14. Commenters highlight several characteristics that they believe 
are important elements of defining a band as suitable for mobile use. 
Several commenters discuss the need for a substantial amount of 
contiguous bandwidth in order to enable 5G services.
    Equipment manufacturers and others also highlight the benefits of 
having internationally harmonized spectrum.
    15. In the NOI, we sought ``to advance our understanding of the 
means by which mobile services can avoid interfering with each other 
and with incumbent services and users that may share the same frequency 
bands as well as the impact on adjacent band radio services.'' 
Commenters agree that the Commission must consider existing incumbent 
uses in determining whether a particular band is a good candidate for 
mobile use.
    16. There were four categories of incumbents (or organizations 
representing incumbent interests) that commented in this proceeding. 
Many incumbent geographic area licensees with fixed operating rights 
expressed support for authorizing mobile use in their bands, especially 
if the incumbent licensees were given the mobile operating rights. 
Satellite interests highlighted their interest in protecting current 
and future use of the Ka-Band and V-Band. Commenters that use the mmW 
bands for fixed uses ask the Commission to prioritize, or, at a 
minimum, allow for continued fixed use of these bands. Finally, the 
Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) asked the Commission to keep 
protection of adjacent-channel operations in mind when selecting mmW 
bands for mobile use.
    17. Discussion. We believe there are four main criteria we should 
use in evaluating the suitability of mmW bands for mobile use in this 
NPRM. First, for purposes of this NPRM, we will focus on bands with at 
least 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum. While commenters have 
offered a variety of minimum bandwidths that will be needed to 
accommodate mmW mobile use, virtually all commenters agree that it will 
be easier to accommodate mobile use in wider bands. Given the nascent 
state of mmW mobile technology, we believe our initial efforts should 
be focused on the band where the most spectrum is potentially 
available. Specifically, we will consider the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 
GHz band), the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 
GHz band), and the 64-71 GHz band. We note that we may consider 
additional bands in the future, and the fact that a particular band or 
bands are not considered in this NPRM does not foreclose future

[[Page 1806]]

Commission action on the band or bands.
    18. Second, to the extent practical, we propose bands that are 
being considered internationally for mmW mobile service. While uniform 
international harmonization will not be possible because different 
countries have different spectrum frameworks and needs, substantial 
international harmonization would help promote development of mmW 
mobile service by reducing development and equipment costs and 
promoting a unified world market. For purposes of this NPRM, we will 
focus on those bands that have existing mobile allocations. We will 
also work with other countries through the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU), in particular the World Radio 
Conference (WRC), and other processes to promote harmonized spectrum 
assignments for mmW mobile use.
    19. Third, mobile use in mmW bands should be compatible with 
existing incumbent license assignments and uses. Current licensees that 
choose to continue their existing, authorized services should be able 
to do so. In applying that criterion, we do not mean to suggest that 
incumbents are entitled to maintain the status quo indefinitely. 
Specifically, many of the bands under discussion have shared 
allocations with satellite. As part of this NPRM, we will examine 
possible means of allowing enhanced satellite use of shared bands. We 
must also take into account the use of these bands for backhaul and 
other point-to-point purposes. These frequencies are well suited for 
backhaul and other fixed point-to-point uses because it is possible to 
have small, highly directional antennas in these bands which, together 
with the shorter propagation ranges, facilitate extensive reuse 
microwave frequencies in the same geographic area. The Commission has 
noted that ``[i]n certain rural and remote locations, microwave is the 
only practical high-capacity backhaul solution available.''
    20. Finally, it is important to establish a flexible regulatory 
framework that accommodates as wide a variety of services as possible. 
We recognize that there is much that is unknown about all future uses 
of the mmW bands. Equipment manufacturers, including Ericsson, Alcatel-
Lucent and Huawei all claim that substantial further research and 
development is required, and that the mmW bands may always present 
substantial challenges to the provision of mobile service. Thus, even 
among telecommunications equipment manufacturers, there is not an 
overwhelming consensus on the record that terrestrial mobile services 
will rapidly proliferate in the mmW bands in the near future. 
Similarly, particularly with respect to V-Band, satellite interests do 
not point to any firm commitments or plans to use that band.
    21. We believe the appropriate response to the uncertainties is to 
establish a regulatory framework that maximizes flexibility and enables 
the widest possible variety of services, consistent with the state of 
technology and the characteristics of the mmW bands. A variety of 
commenters support expeditious issuance of an NPRM to help advance 
consideration of mobile technologies as part of the WRC process. We 
observe that certain satellite and terrestrial interests argue that we 
should not consider steps to facilitate the other type of service 
because it is speculative whether the other service will develop or 
premature to know how or when the other service will develop. We reject 
that approach. Waiting to develop a regulatory framework would have 
several disadvantages. First, given the rapid pace of technological 
development in these bands, waiting to develop service rules could 
result in delays in service if we are unable to finalize rules in a 
timely fashion. Such delays could affect the United States' leadership 
in mobile communications and hurt consumers. Second, establishing a 
regulatory framework now will provide equipment manufacturers and 
service providers with specific guidance as they design equipment and 
service offerings. In contrast, doing nothing will make it more 
difficult to plan for any type of service in the mmW bands. Third, 
creating a flexible regulatory framework would be consistent with the 
Commission's general policy of technological neutrality, which has wide 
support among commenters. Accordingly, we are attempting to develop 
rules that will accommodate the widest possible variety of services. In 
choosing bands for mmW mobile use, we will prioritize bands where it is 
possible to develop a flexible framework that accommodates the widest 
possible variety of services. The graphic below summarizes our 
consideration of various bands in this item:
2. Bands Proposed for Mobile Use
a. 27.5-28.35 GHz Band
    22. Background. In 1997, the Commission developed a band plan 
making 1,300 megahertz of LMDS spectrum in each basic trading area 
(BTA) across the United States. Specifically, the Commission allocated 
two LMDS licenses per BTA--an ``A Block'' and a ``B Block'' in each. 
The A Block license is comprised of 1,150 megahertz of total bandwidth, 
and the B Block license is comprised of 150 megahertz of total 
bandwidth. The A Block consists of the sub bands 27.50-28.35 GHz (the 
A1 Band); 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band); and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3 
Band). The B Block consists of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1 Band) 
and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band). Of the 986 designated license areas 
(493 BTAs times two licenses per BTA), 416 areas have active licenses, 
which cover about 75 percent of the U.S. population.
    23. LMDS occupies portions of two spectrum bands that the 
Commission has allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed and Mobile 
services, as reflected in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. 
While the Commission has not, to date, authorized any specific service 
(including LMDS) to provide mobile service in those bands, it 
previously expressed an expectation that it would expand the LMDS 
authorization for Fixed Service to include Mobile Service if proposed 
and supported by the resulting record. In the Second LMDS Report & 
Order, the Commission stated:
    To ensure the flexibility in LMDS service offerings that commenters 
seek and we proposed, we will permit any fixed terrestrial uses that 
can be provided within the technical parameters for LMDS. We conclude 
that, for now, our significant allocation of spectrum under such a 
broad and flexible service definition should permit licensees to 
satisfy a broad array of their customers' communications needs, whether 
through one or multiple service offerings. Although LMDS is allocated 
as a fixed service, we know of no reason why we would not allow mobile 
operations if they are proposed and we obtain a record in support of 
such an allocation. We believe this would be consistent with our goal 
of providing LMDS licensees with maximum flexibility in designing their 
systems. We have authorized other wireless services to include mobile 
and fixed services, depending on whether developments in the service 
and related equipment demonstrate a need for changing the rules and a 
capability for mobile and fixed services to coexist in these bands.
    24. There are no primary Federal allocations in the 28 GHz band. 
For the 28 GHz band, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes a 
co-primary Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth-to-space allocation, but 
section 25.202 of the Commission's rules provides that FSS is secondary 
to LMDS

[[Page 1807]]

in that band. Twenty stations are licensed for Earth-to-space 
transmissions on a secondary basis in the 28 GHz band, and there are 
nineteen pending applications for operation in this band.
    25. Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support 
allowing mobile use in the LMDS bands. Most satellite interests, 
including Avanti, ESOA, the FSS Operators, Inmarsat, and O3b argue that 
mobile use of the 28 GHz band is incompatible with existing use of the 
Ka-Band by satellite systems. They argue that satellite operators need 
regulatory certainty that they will have spectrum available in order to 
make the large investments needed to construct and deploy satellites. 
SES, Intelsat, O3b, and Inmarsat argue that the operation of certain 
types of FSS earth stations, such as gateway earth stations, in the 28 
GHz band (Earth-to-space) should have primary status. EchoStar, Hughes 
Network Systems and Alta Wireless also suggest that consideration be 
given to granting co-primary status to the operation of gateway earth 
stations in the 28 GHz band. Some parties argue that the 28 GHz band is 
not a good candidate for mobile use because the U.S. LMDS band plan 
does not align with international use of the band. Inmarsat states that 
it lacks sufficient information to determine whether contemplated 
mobile systems would be compatible with existing satellite use.
    26. Not all satellite operators oppose consideration of the 28 GHz 
bands for mobile use. EchoStar supports giving existing LMDS licensees 
the flexibility to provide mobile services along with upgrading the 
status of gateway earth stations in the band to co-primary. ViaSat 
``urges the Commission to refrain from defaulting to outdated paradigms 
for sharing between satellite and terrestrial systems'' and urges the 
Commission to expand the ability of satellite operators to make 
``opportunistic'' use of bands such as the 28 GHz band.
    27. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 28 
GHz band. The research conducted by Samsung, NYU Wireless, and others 
demonstrates that mobile technologies can theoretically work in this 
band. Furthermore, the availability of 850 megahertz of contiguous 
spectrum makes this band particularly attractive for potential mobile 
use. Mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed uses in this 
band. Indeed, XO and Straight Path, which are LMDS licensees, support 
authorizing mobile use in this band.
    28. We have carefully considered the opposition from certain 
satellite interests to allowing mobile use in this band, but 
tentatively conclude that those parties have not presented a valid 
basis for rejecting mobile use in this band. While those parties argue 
that they need regulatory certainty in order to invest in their 
systems, authorizing mobile use would not deprive FSS operators of any 
reasonable expectations they had of access to spectrum. Under our 
current rules, FSS use of this band is secondary to LMDS. Furthermore, 
this band has a co-primary mobile allocation throughout the world. The 
investments satellite operators have made in Ka-band operations were 
made with knowledge of their secondary status. The primary reason there 
has been little discussion of mobile use in this band is that there has 
not been any technology that would allow for mobile use of the 
millimeter wave bands such as this one. As that technology develops, it 
is unreasonable for us to preclude mobile use of this band solely 
because of pre-existing secondary use. Finally, we note that the 
satellite operators that oppose use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz band do not 
propose a comparable alternative band for mobile use.
    29. We also reject the argument that the 28 GHz band should not be 
considered for mobile use because the U.S. band plan has not been 
replicated in other countries. While we recognize the benefits of 
international harmonization, we also understand that not every country 
will be able to designate exactly the same bands for similar uses 
because they will have a different needs and incumbent uses. We note 
that international equipment vendors such as Samsung, Huawei, and 
Alcatel-Lucent are looking at this frequency range for mobile use. 
Furthermore, the worldwide co-primary mobile allocation for this band 
is also an important factor that supports mobile use of this band.
    30. Most importantly, we do not view mobile use of this band as 
necessarily being inconsistent with continued satellite use of the 
band. Our goal in this proceeding is to establish a flexible regulatory 
framework that accommodates as wide a variety of uses as possible. The 
Commission has recognized that satellite technology ``is particularly 
important for communication in remote areas that are unserved or 
underserved by terrestrial communication facilities'' and can provide 
vital connectivity for first responders in emergencies and natural 
disasters. Satellites are being used to provide communications services 
such as satellite television to homes and two-way voice and data 
networks (including broadband services). In light of these important 
services, we agree with ViaSat that it is time to reexamine ``outdated 
paradigms'' and closely examine potential opportunities for sharing. 
Satellite operators agree that they have been able to coordinate use 
with existing fixed LMDS licensees. While mobile use presents 
additional challenges in terms of coexistence, we offer proposals and 
ask questions about our ability to expand non-federal, secondary 
satellite use of this band by granting them, through a market-based 
mechanism, the right to greater flexibility in their use of the band. 
As discussed below, this proposed market-based mechanism would enable 
non-Federal satellite users to obtain the terrestrial licenses in the 
band, by either participating in a Commission auction or through the 
secondary market, in order to achieve co-primary status and thereby 
obtaining greater flexibility in their use of the band.
    31. At a minimum, we anticipate that satellite operators will 
continue to be able to place gateway earth stations in the band. Under 
those circumstances, we believe the existence of FSS earth stations 
should not preclude our consideration of this band for mobile use.
b. 38.6-40 GHz Band
    32. Background. The band is licensed by Economic Area (EAs). There 
are 176 EAs. There are fourteen paired blocks of 50 by 50 megahertz 
channels. The populations in areas covered by active licenses (both EA 
and Rectangular Service Area (RSA) licenses) vary by channel, but in 
aggregate they cover about 49 percent of the U.S. population. Out of 
2,464 possible EA licenses (14 channel pairs for each of 176 EAs), 859 
are currently licensed. Other licenses previously issued were 
voluntarily cancelled or terminated for failure to meet substantial 
service requirements. In addition, there are currently 229 active RSA 
licenses that predate the creation of the EA licenses and where the 
licensees self-defined their service area. Those RSA licensees retain 
the exclusive right to operate within their RSAs.
    33. This band has a co-primary allocation for Fixed and Mobile 
services. The Commission provided licensees the flexibility to provide 
mobile services and stated the belief that ``the issue of technical 
compatibility of fixed and mobile operations within a service area is 
one that can and should be resolved by the licensee.'' The Commission 
declined to permit mobile operations, however, until it conducted a 
separate proceeding

[[Page 1808]]

to resolve inter-licensee and inter-service interference issues.
    34. There are no Federal allocations in the 38.6-39.5 GHz band. 
There is an adjacent Federal allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) and 
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) (space-to-Earth) in the 39.5-40 GHz 
band. Federal government earth stations in the MSS in the 39.5-40 GHz 
band are prohibited from claiming protection from non-Federal stations 
in the fixed and mobile services in this band, but are not required to 
protect non-Federal fixed and mobile services in the band (i.e., 5.43A 
of the ITU Radio regulations does not apply). This prohibition does not 
apply to Federal government earth stations in the FSS. When the 39 GHz 
Order was adopted, Federal government use of the band was limited to 
military systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, but the Department of 
Defense stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at 
39.5-40 GHz in the future, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-40 GHz as a possible space 
research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data 
requirements. The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such 
plans would not affect the continued development of the 39 GHz band for 
non-government use, but the Commission said that it intended to address 
those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would 
focus on developing inter-licensee and inter-service standards and 
criteria. At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides 
that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to 
military systems.
    35. Non-Federal government FSS (space-to-Earth) is co-primary 
throughout the entire 39 GHz band, but under a ``soft segmentation'' 
band plan adopted by the Commission in 2003, FSS is subject to lower 
power flux density limits in the 37.5-40 GHz band to accommodate high-
density fixed terrestrial systems. Those power limits act to favor 
implementation of fixed systems over FSS systems. There are currently 
no non-Federal FSS authorizations or pending applications in this band.
    36. Akbar Sayeed, FiberTower, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, NYU 
Wireless, Qualcomm, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support allowing 
mobile use in the 39 GHz band. EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat 
argue that the Commission should take into account their interest in 
using both the 39 GHz band and the 37.5-38.6 GHz band for satellite 
broadband services as demand for those services increases. O3b asks the 
Commission to consider the open V-Band Third FNPRM in parallel with 
this proceeding. In contrast, Straight Path argues that the Commission 
should delete the FSS allocation from this band and terminate action on 
the V-Band Third FNPRM because it believes FSS use of the band would be 
inconsistent with terrestrial use. Straight Path also requested a 
freeze on V-Band satellite licensing pending resolution of this 
proceeding.
    37. Bluwan S.A. believes that the 39 GHz band is best suited for 
non-mobile uses, such as backhaul or fixed wireless access. Vivint 
Wireless, a fixed wireless broadband provider that relies on the 39 GHz 
band for backhaul, argues that mobile operating rights should be 
secondary to existing fixed operations in order to protect existing 
fixed operations. It asks the Commission to avoid awarding mobile 
operating rights separately from the existing fixed rights.
    38. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 39 
GHz band. The availability of up to 1.4 gigahertz of spectrum could 
support ultra-high data rates. Equipment manufacturers and licensees 
agree that the band is suitable for mobile use, and no commenter 
identified any reason why this band would be technically unsuitable for 
mobile use. Furthermore, this band has a worldwide mobile allocation. 
We seek detailed comment and analysis on the compatibility of mobile 
use with current and future Federal operations, including any technical 
rules necessary to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal 
operations in this band.
    39. We believe mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed 
uses in this band. Indeed, Straight Path, FiberTower, and XO, which are 
39 GHz licensees, support authorizing mobile use in this band. As we 
will discuss in further detail below, we propose to grant existing 39 
GHz licensees mobile rights and to issue new licenses containing both 
fixed and mobile operating rights. We believe this action will 
alleviate Vivint Wireless' concerns about compatibility between fixed 
and mobile uses because a single licensee will be able to coordinate 
fixed and mobile operations while avoiding interference.
    40. The concerns raised by certain satellite operators do not 
provide a valid basis for rejecting the possibility of mobile service 
in the 39 GHz band. Unlike in 28 GHz, there are no current commercial 
satellite operations in the 39 GHz band, but there are federal 
operations. Furthermore, while several commenters express interest in 
using V-band to provide satellite service, no commenter expresses any 
concrete intention to provide such service. Declining to consider 
mobile use in this band because of possible future satellite use would 
be inconsistent with our duty to make available ``[n]ationwide, and 
world-wide . . . radio communication service.'' Our intent is not to 
favor mobile service over fixed or satellite service. Instead, our goal 
is to develop a flexible regulatory framework that will accommodate the 
widest possible variety of compatible services and will allow the 
market to determine the best possible uses of the mmW bands.
    41. We deny Straight Path's request that we consider deleting the 
satellite allocation in this band. We can readily envision that the mmW 
bands will be used for a variety of both satellite and terrestrial 
services. It appears that terrestrial mobile use of the mmW bands may 
initially be concentrated in large urban areas. Foreclosing use of the 
39 GHz band for satellite could result in underutilization of the band.
    42. We recognize that the 39.5-40 GHz portion of the band is 
allocated for Federal military satellite systems. Commenters that 
address this issue believe that mobile use would be compatible with 
those systems. We seek comment below on whether any limitations or 
special rules on mobile use would be necessary in order to protect 
Federal military FSS use of the 39.5-40 GHz band. We also seek comment 
on the technical characteristics for the mobile applications envisioned 
for the band in order to enable federal agencies to conduct the 
necessary compatibility analysis.
c. 37-38.6 GHz Band
    43. Background. The Commission has not adopted terrestrial service 
rules for non-Federal operations in this band. In 2004, the Commission 
sought comment on establishing fixed and point-to-point multipoint 
service rules in the 37 GHz and 42 GHz bands, as well as allowing 
``mobile use in the future, if and when the technology develops.'' 
There are co-primary allocations for terrestrial mobile service in 
these bands, but the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to 
authorize such services.
    44. In 2004, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) sent a letter to the Commission identifying the 
following NASA receiving earth stations in the Space Research Service 
(SRS) in the 37-38 GHz band: Goldstone, California; Guam, Pacific 
Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops Island, Virginia; and White 
Sands, New Mexico. NTIA has subsequently

[[Page 1809]]

identified the NASA receiving earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland. 
NTIA also identified Green Bank, Virginia; and Socorro, New Mexico 
National Science Foundation (NSF), which NSF cites as supporting their 
Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth station operations. NTIA 
noted the importance of the band 37-38 GHz to support U.S. goals to 
provide a permanent manned presence in earth orbit (on or near the 
moon) and to initiate manned exploration of the planet Mars, and to 
support VLBI by satellite. There is also a co-primary allocation for 
Federal space research, fixed, and mobile service operations in the 37-
38.6 GHz band. NTIA identified 14 military sites in the 37-38.6 GHz 
band that required protection. In the 2004 letter NTIA recommended that 
coordination with the Federal operations be performed within the 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) process. In 2006, NTIA 
sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming the need to protect 
NASA, NSF, and military operations from non-Federal terrestrial and FSS 
operations in the 37-38 GHz band. NTIA requested that the protection of 
Federal operations be accomplished by establishing a footnote to the 
U.S. table of Frequency Allocations specifying the Federal sites and 
the coordination areas. NTIA also recommended that because of the 
potential for interference from airborne systems, the aeronautical 
mobile service allocation should be deleted from the 37-38 GHz band. In 
the NOI, we terminated action on the 2004 proceeding and stated we 
would resume consideration of potential uses of the 37 GHz band in this 
proceeding.
    45. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there is a co-
primary non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation. As described 
above, the soft segmentation plan adopted in the V-Band Second Report 
and Order favors terrestrial services in the 37 GHz band. Akbar Sayeed, 
Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung support considering 
mobile use of this band. Straight Path believes that this band may be 
appropriate for examining novel sharing techniques.
    46. As with the 39 GHz band, EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat 
oppose mobile use of this band, or ask the Commission to take into 
account their interest in using this band for satellite broadband 
services as demand for those services increases.
    47. Discussion. We propose to develop service rules for mobile 
operation in the 37 GHz band. The band consists of 1.6 GHz of 
contiguous spectrum that could potentially support high data-rate 
transmissions. Furthermore, it is contiguous to the 39 GHz band, so 
there could be opportunities to aggregate up to 3 gigahertz of 
spectrum. The 37 GHz band also has a worldwide co-primary mobile 
allocation.
    48. As with the 39 GHz band, we do not believe the concerns of the 
satellite operators should preclude consideration of mobile use of this 
band. There are no non-Federal incumbent satellite operations in this 
band and no concrete announced plans to use this band for satellite 
use. Our intent is to establish a flexible rules framework that enables 
as wide a range of services as possible. Our proposals and questions 
concerning facilitating satellite use--through a market-based 
mechanism--that is compatible with terrestrial use will include the 37 
GHz band.
    49. We recognize that this band is a shared Federal-non-Federal 
band. We will work together with NTIA to ensure that Federal operations 
are protected while maximizing the use of the 37 GHz band for 
commercial operations. In particular, we recognize that we will need to 
work with NTIA to develop appropriate protections for SRS facilities in 
the 37-38 GHz band. Another issue we will need to address is ensuring 
protection of Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) passive 
observations below 37 GHz. We seek comment on these issues below.
d. 64-71 GHz Band
    50. Background. There are no authorized non-Federal operations in 
this band. Unlicensed operations within the adjacent 57-64 GHz band are 
permitted under Part 15 of our rules. Non-Federal government operators 
of outdoor radio equipment in the 57-64 GHz band segment are not 
required to obtain individual licenses or seek coordination with the 
NTIA if they limit average EIRP to 82 dBm minus 2 dB for every dB that 
their antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. In 2013, the Commission allowed 
longer communication distances for outdoor point-to-point systems in 
the 57-64 GHz band by allowing higher powers, specified emission limits 
as an EIRP power level to provide uniformity and consistency in the 
rules, and eliminated the requirement for certain devices in the 57-64 
GHz band to transmit identification information. Frequencies from 64-71 
GHz are not among those listed in our rules as available for licenses 
issued in the terrestrial Fixed Service or for any satellite services 
except for Inter-Satellite service (ISS). Our rules list 65-71 GHz as 
available for ISS licenses, but there are no current ISS licenses.
    51. The 64-71 GHz band has a co-primary mobile allocation. In the 
64-66 GHz band, aeronautical mobile operation is prohibited. The 65-71 
GHz band is authorized for ISS links. There are currently no active 
satellite licenses in that band. There are also a series of co-primary 
allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, Radiolocation, 
Radionavigation-Satellite, EESS, and ISS operations throughout these 
bands. International and domestic rules also indicate that any use of 
the 66-71 GHz band by the land mobile service is subject to not causing 
interference to, and accepting interference from, the space 
radiocommunication services in this band.
    52. Ericsson, IEEE 802, InterDigital, Qualcomm, SiBeam, and Wi-Fi 
Alliance support authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band under 
Part 15 of the Commission's rules. Samsung believes that this band 
could be used in connection with the adjacent 57-64 GHz band to 
increase flexibility for users, lower the potential for interference, 
and support higher data rates for a number of applications, including 
wireless backhaul. Samsung supports licensing the 64-71 GHz band and 
provides a recommended band plan. SiBeam believes authorizing use of 
the 64-71 GHz band could facilitate ``multigigabit, large scale, 
dynamically switches wireless network equivalent to current fiber metro 
networks.'' Interdigital believes there will be no interference to any 
future ISS licensees because the primary network architecture will be a 
low height above ground terrestrial network for both small cells and 
backhaul.
    53. SIA noted the allocation for ISS links and ``urge the 
Commission to preserve flexibility for future satellite access.'' Nokia 
supports authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band on a licensed, 
geographic area basis because there are no current licensed operations 
in that band.
    54. Discussion. We note Nokia's preference for geographic area 
licensing and Samsung's interest in licensing the 64-71 GHz band, but 
tentatively conclude that authorizing operation under Part 15 of the 
Commission's rules is the better approach in this band. As discussed 
elsewhere, we propose geographic area licensing in other bands. We 
believe that a balanced approach utilizing licensed, unlicensed, and 
hybrid mechanisms for authorizing service in the mmW bands will best 
accommodate a wide variety of services, providing multiple 
opportunities to put the spectrum to use, and encourage the

[[Page 1810]]

development of different technologies and business models in these 
bands. We agree with commenters that authorizing Part 15 operations in 
the 64-71 GHz band will allow this band to be used in conjunction with 
the existing 57-64 GHz band to double the spectrum available for the 
next generation of unlicensed wireless broadband technologies such as 
ultra-high-speed audiovisual content streaming and WiGig connectivity 
that will offer low latency and security-protected connectivity between 
devices. This will help meet the demand for access for unlicensed 
spectrum for lower-power end-user applications that continues to grow 
along with the demand for licensed radio spectrum for greater-distance, 
higher-power operations.
    55. We believe authorizing Part 15 operation would be compatible 
with the allocation for ISS. Because of the high atmospheric absorption 
in this frequency range, it is highly unlikely that signals at the 
power levels contemplated would be able to reach satellites using ISS 
links. Are the technical considerations in the 57-64 GHz band fully 
applicable to deployment of unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band 
recognizing that unlicensed devices must protect allocated services 
including future systems? What additional technical and operational 
characteristics as well as interference mitigation techniques of the 
anticipated unlicensed use for this band need to be considered in 
assessing sharing with in-band and adjacent band incumbent services?
3. Other Bands
    56. In this section, we discuss bands raised by commenters where we 
are not proposing service rules at this time. As noted below, with 
respect to certain of these bands, we seek comment on our analysis of 
these bands and ask interested parties to provide additional 
information concerning possible mobile uses of these bands. As we 
develop a further record in this proceeding, as technology develops, 
and as we develop a further record on compatibility issues with other 
allocated Federal and non-Federal services, we reserve the right to 
give further consideration to some of these bands. Given the early 
stage of the development of technologies for mobile mmW band, and the 
complex sharing issues raised in these bands, we believe the best 
approach is to initially focus our efforts on the strongest candidate 
bands, discussed above, which we believe are better positioned for more 
immediate use in the marketplace.
a. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz)
    57. Background. There are two types of fixed licenses in this band. 
The 24 GHz Service has a total of 176 EA or EA-like service areas. In 
2004, the Commission held Auction 56, in which it made 890 24 GHz 
licenses available. Only seven of the 890 licenses were sold. In 
addition, FiberTower and Puerto Rico Telephone Company hold a total of 
49 pre-auction Digital Electronic Messaging Service licenses in this 
band.
    58. The 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for 
non-Federal government Fixed Service and FSS (Earth-to-space) services, 
and a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that 
the use of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band by the FSS (Earth-to-space) is 
limited to feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS). 
Section 25.203(l) of the Commission's rules provides that applicants 
for feeder link earth station facilities operating in the 25.05-25.25 
GHz band may be licensed only in EAs where no existing Fixed Service 
licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate their operations 
with 24 GHz Fixed Service operations if the power flux density of their 
transmitted signal at the boundary of the Fixed Service license area is 
equal to or greater than -114 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz. The 17/24 GHz 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service Report and Order determined that future 
Fixed Service systems locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder 
link earth station may not claim protection from interference from the 
feeder link earth station's transmissions, provided that those 
transmissions are compliant with the Commission's rules, and that 
future 24 GHz Fixed Service applicants would be required to take into 
account the transmissions from the previously authorized earth station 
when considering system designs, including their choices of locations 
for their license areas. There are three active licenses for feeder 
link earth stations in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment, all of them 
held by DIRECTV.
    59. There is no mobile allocation in either of the 24 GHz band 
segments. In the 24 GHz Report & Order, the Commission found that it 
would be premature to allow mobile operations in the 24 GHz bands but 
reserved the discretion to revisit that issue if it is presented with 
technical information demonstrating that such operations would be 
technically feasible without generating interference to fixed 
operations and BSS feeder links in 24 GHz band segments.
    60. FiberTower and Nokia support authorizing mobile use in the 24 
GHz bands. Ericsson states that the 24 GHz bands may be suitable for 
backhaul use if sufficient spectrum can be aggregated. The FSS 
Operators ask for FSS access to 25.05-25.25 GHz.
    61. Discussion. Commenters expressed a lower level of interest in 
the 24 GHz band than in other bands. We note that this band presents 
several challenges with respect to possible mobile use. Significantly, 
the amount of contiguous spectrum (two 200 megahertz blocks) available 
in these bands is less than many commenters currently recommend as the 
minimum amount of spectrum available for mobile use. This band also 
lacks an international mobile allocation; although we recognize that 
this could change in the future. We note that BSS feeder links in the 
upper part of the band are entitled to interference protection, and 
while not necessarily an insurmountable problem this would likely 
require complex analyses of the potential for aggregate interference 
from terrestrial wireless systems.
    62. We do not wish, however, to preclude consideration of this 
band. We invite parties who are interested in mobile use of the 24 GHz 
band to comment on our analysis. Are there circumstances under which 
this band could be successfully used for the type of mobile systems, or 
other systems, contemplated for the mmW bands? Are there ways of 
allowing widespread deployments while protecting BSS feeder links? We 
ask commenters who support further consideration of this band to 
provide specific suggestions for addressing the issues we have 
identified above. Interested parties should also comment on the 
services that would likely be deployed in this band given the issues 
implicated and the possible viable business models. In those areas 
where there are incumbent fixed licenses, should we grant mobile rights 
to the incumbent fixed licensees? Would licensed or unlicensed rights 
be best for making this spectrum available and for facilitating 
coexistence? Are there rule changes that can be made to promote 
backhaul or other fixed uses?
b. 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz
    63. Background. These bands are part of the LMDS. For the 29.1-
29.25 GHz band segment, section 25.202 of the Commission's rules 
provides that 29.1-29.25 GHz is co-primary for MSS feeder links and 
LMDS, and section 101.1001 of the Commission's rules limits LMDS to 
hub-to-subscriber transmissions in this band segment. Section 25.257 of 
the Commission's rules allows as many as

[[Page 1811]]

ten MSS feeder link earth station complexes to be deployed in the 29.1-
29.25 GHz band segment, but there are currently only five active 
licenses for feeder link and telemetry, tracking, and command earth 
stations in those frequencies. The 31-31.3 GHz band segment has co-
primary allocations for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile services, with a 
secondary Federal and non-Federal allocation for space-to-Earth 
standard frequency and time signal operations.
    64. Iridium, which operates feeder links in the 29.1-29.25 GHz 
band, notes that its feeder links are co-primary and asks the 
Commission to ``keep the Iridium system and the critical services it 
provides in mind even in the early stages of research into emerging 
terrestrial broadband technologies.'' While Straight Path generally 
favors making the LMDS band available for mobile use, it states that 
the presence of co-primary feeder links ``may make mobile wireless use 
of the band more complicated and require further analysis.'' NCTA 
identifies the 29.1-29.25 GHz band as a band that may be suitable for 
unlicensed use and argues that unlicensed operation could facilitate 
sharing with incumbent users.
    65. We received little comment specifically directed to the 31-31.3 
GHz band. Straight Path notes that Federal satellite uses in this band 
are secondary and do not require protection. CORF notes that the 31-
31.3 GHz band is immediately adjacent to a passive EESS sensing band in 
which all transmissions are prohibited, and it urges that the 
Commission protect EESS through guard bands.
    66. Discussion. We decline to propose authorizing mobile operation 
at this time, primarily because the bands offer considerably less than 
500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum as commenters have suggested is 
necessary for mobile operations. Unlike in 27.5-28.35 GHz, the 
satellite facilities in 29.1-29.25 GHz have co-primary status. While it 
could be possible to develop a sharing regime between the feeder links 
and mobile operations, given the relatively small amount of spectrum at 
issue, we believe our efforts are better directed towards bands that 
offer more contiguous spectrum, such as 27.5-28.35 GHz. We also note 
that 31-31.3 GHz is shared between the A and B block licensees, so 
there may be instances where it may be difficult to aggregate even 300 
megahertz of spectrum.
c. 31.8-33 GHz
    67. Background. There are international allocations for Fixed and 
Radionavigation services throughout this entire band, although 
administrations should take practical measures to minimize potential 
interference between those services, taking into account the 
operational needs of airborne radar systems. The Radionavigation 
allocation is Federal throughout the entire band and non-Federal in the 
32.3-33.4 GHz band. In the United States, ground-based radionavigation 
aids are not permitted except when they operate in cooperation with 
airborne or shipborne radionavigation devices. There is also a co-
primary Space Research (deep space) (space-to-earth) allocation in the 
31.8-32.3 GHz band, and an ISS allocation in the 32.3-33 GHz band. In 
addition, this band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz bands, where no 
transmissions are authorized in order to protect radio astronomy 
observations.
    68. Samsung supports adding this band to the Commission's 
consideration of mmW bands for mobile service in light of European and 
Asian regional support for consideration of this band. ESOA generally 
supports examination of bands above 31 GHz.
    69. Discussion. This band presents particularly difficult 
challenges for mobile use. The need to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz 
passive band, existing Federal systems, and deep-space research appears 
to severely limit the availability of useable spectrum in this band. 
Furthermore, there currently is no mobile allocation in this band, 
whereas there are existing mobile allocations for other bands under 
consideration.
    70. In the interests of developing a complete record, we invite 
commenters who support further consideration of this band to comment on 
our analysis. In particular, we seek a detailed technical analysis of 
the out-of-band emission limits required to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz 
band to help determine how much of this band could potentially be 
available for mobile use. We also seek comment on the compatibility of 
mobile use with the existing aeronautical and shipborne radar use of 
this band, future radionavigation and other federal services, as well 
as the deep space research in the 31.8-32.3 GHz band. Given the 
important incumbent uses of this band and the adjacent band, interested 
parties should comment on how sharing would work between mobile and 
existing incumbent uses.
d. 42-42.5 GHz
    71. Background. There are currently no terrestrial service rules in 
place for this band. On May 9, 2012, FWCC filed a petition for 
rulemaking seeking the establishment of service rules for fixed point-
to-point use of the 42-43.5 GHz band under Part 101 of the Commission's 
rules. There are Federal and non-Federal co-primary allocations for 
terrestrial mobile service in different segments of these bands, but 
the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to authorize such 
services. A footnote in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations urges 
all operations in the 42-42.5 GHz band to take all practicable steps to 
protect radio astronomy observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from 
interference.
    72. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there are 
Broadcasting and BSS allocations in this band. The Commission has 
proposed eliminating those BSS allocations and adding an FSS (space-to-
Earth) allocation in order to protect adjacent channel radio astronomy 
in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
    73. Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung include this 
band in the list of bands that should be examined for possible mobile 
use. On the other hand, Ericsson describes this band as being of ``no 
current interest'' because it is only a single 500 megahertz block.
    74. CORF describes the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band as being one of 
the most important bands for radio astronomy because it is used to 
observe silicon monoxide, which yields important information on stellar 
temperatures, density, and wind velocities. Under our current rules, 
all practicable steps must be taken to protect the radio astronomy 
service from interference in the 42.5-43.5 GHz service. FWCC contends 
that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more suitable for fixed point-to-point 
service.
    75. Discussion. While this band could possibly be used for mobile, 
it is not as desirable as the bands for which we are proposing service 
rules at this time. The band has 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum, 
but the need to protect the adjacent radio astronomy band at 42.5-43.5 
GHz may require limits on the use of the band. Interest in this band 
among commenters was somewhat lower than in bands where we are 
proposing rules authorizing mobile service. The band also is not part 
of the United States or CITEL proposals for bands to be considered for 
further study for mobile use. Finally, we note that there are competing 
proposals to make this band available for FSS or fixed use. While it 
may be possible to work through those issues, authorizing mobile 
service in this band would be more complicated than in bands such as 28 
GHz and 39 GHz.
    76. In light of the competing proposals for use of this band, we 
seek comment on the relative merits of using

[[Page 1812]]

this band for FSS, fixed, or mobile use, or the ability to share among 
these different uses. What sort of services would be offered using this 
band? We also ask commenters to analyze how the need to protect radio 
astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band affects the viability of this band 
for the services they support. We also seek comment on the extent to 
which different services could share in this band, and what sharing 
mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate.
e. 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz
    77. Background. In 2003, the Commission established service rules 
to promote non-Federal fixed development and use of spectrum in the 71-
76 GHz, 81 86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands. Based on its determination that 
systems in these bands can readily be engineered to produce highly 
directional, ``pencil-beam'' signals that can co-exist in the same 
vicinity without causing interference to one another, the Commission 
adopted a flexible and innovative regulatory framework for the bands. 
Specifically, the framework permits the issuance of an unlimited number 
of non-exclusive, nationwide licenses to non-Federal government 
entities for all of these bands. Under this licensing scheme, a license 
serves as a prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point 
links; licensees may operate a link only after the link is registered 
with a third-party database.
    78. As of September 22, 2015, there were 408 active non-exclusive 
nationwide licenses covering the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands. 
Based upon information available from the third-party database managers 
that are responsible for registering links in those bands, as of 
September 22, 2015 there were approximately 12,687 registered fixed 
links in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands.
    79. Non-Federal operations may not cause harmful interference to, 
nor claim protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations 
located at 28 military bases. In addition, in the 80 GHz band, 
licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy 
observatories must coordinate their proposed links with those 
observatories. Third-party database managers are responsible for 
recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database 
link system and coordinating with NTIA's automated ``green light/yellow 
light'' mechanism to determine the potential for harmful interference 
to Federal operations and radio observatories.
    80. The 71-74 GHz band segment also has co-primary allocations for 
Federal and non-Federal Fixed, FSS, Mobile, and MSS (space-to-Earth) 
operations. The 74-76 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for 
Federal and non-Federal government Fixed, FSS (space-to-Earth), Mobile, 
and SRS operations. In addition, there are non-Federal allocations in 
that band segment for Broadcasting and BSS operations. The 81-86 GHz 
band has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal government 
Fixed, FSS (Earth-to-space), and Mobile, and within that band the 81-84 
GHz band segment also has a Federal and non-Federal government 
allocation for MSS (Earth-to-space). The 76-77 GHz band is currently 
used for unlicensed vehicular radars under Part 15 of the rules. The 
Commission has proposed to authorize non-Federal radar applications in 
the 76-81 GHz band on a licensed basis under Part 95. This proposal 
would shift vehicular radars away from the existing Part 15 unlicensed 
model.
    81. Akbar Sayeed and Nokia identify these bands as appropriate 
candidates for mobile use. Nokia believes these bands would be 
particularly appropriate because the wide amount of bandwidth available 
would support 10 Gbps peak rate with relatively simple equipment. 
Ericsson argues that these bands might support mobile service ``but 
would not be the industry's primary choice.'' IEEE802, NCTA, and Wi-Fi 
Alliance ask that a Part 15 authorizations be added to these bands. 
FWCC and McKay Brothers highlight the existing uses of these bands for 
fixed backhaul and specialized telecommunications services, and urge 
that these existing services be protected. FWCC, McKay Brothers, and 
SiBeam also note or propose changes to the existing fixed rules for 70 
GHz and 80 GHz.
    82. Discussion. The interest among commenters in using this band 
for mobile operations is rather limited. Furthermore, the coordination 
process between fixed and mobile operations would be considerably more 
complicated in these bands because there are multiple fixed licensees 
in a given area (as opposed to 28 GHz or 39 GHz, where there is one 
licensee in a given area and band). The need to protect Federal earth 
stations and radio astronomy locations would also require limits on 
mobile operations in these bands.
    83. We do not offer a specific proposal at this time to amend our 
rules relating to the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. Based on the current 
record, it is not clear how mobile units would be controlled to avoid 
interference to fixed links. None of the proponents of unlicensed use 
in these bands has made a detailed showing that unlicensed devices 
would be compatible with the fixed equipment being deployed in these 
bands. Furthermore, we are proposing to make seven gigahertz of 
additional spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band. 
We seek comment, however, on whether the Commission should revisit its 
2003 decision not to allow Part 15 operations in these bands, and if 
so, what specific bands we should consider for Part 15 operations (or 
for licensed use) and how such operations in those bands would be 
compatible with existing fixed operations, as well as Federal earth 
stations and radio astronomy operations. If we authorized sharing 
between fixed and mobile systems, what would the sharing mechanism look 
like and how should it be administered? What type of mechanisms would 
we need to establish to ensure there is no harmful interference?
    84. With respect to the proposals to change the current Part 101 
rules governing fixed operations in these bands, we believe these 
proposals are better addressed in our Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT 
Docket No. 10-153. In that proceeding, we have under consideration a 
variety of proposed rule changes to our Part 101 Fixed Service rules. 
We note that FWCC originally filed its proposal for changes to the 
antenna standards in that proceeding.
f. Above 86 GHz
    85. Background. IEEE802, Marcus Spectrum, NYU Wireless, Wi-Fi 
Alliance, and Wireless Innovation Forum expressed support for 
consideration of some combination of bands above 86 GHz for use. Marcus 
Spectrum pointed to a petition for rulemaking filed by Battelle 
Memorial Corporation seeking service rules for licensed use of the 102-
109.5 GHz band. NYU Wireless described the frequencies above 100 GHz as 
a ``technical playground'' that could lead to new technical 
innovations. Marcus Spectrum urges that the presence of co-primary 
passive allocations should not preclude use of the frequencies above 95 
GHz.
    86. In the 92-95 GHz band, unlicensed operation is allowed only for 
devices that are capable of operating only indoors. In 2003, there was 
considerable interest in using the band more generally for unlicensed 
use, but the Commission declined to authorize outdoor or airborne use 
because of possible harmful interference to radio astronomy from 
unlicensed outdoor devices.
    87. Discussion. We are encouraged by commenters' expressions of 
interest in

[[Page 1813]]

frequencies above 86 GHz. At the same time, as Marcus Spectrum points 
out, there are a wide variety of combinations of allocations in the 
frequencies above 86 GHz. We believe the most appropriate means of 
proceeding is to consider proposals for use of specific frequency 
bands. The specific proposal we have before us is Battelle's proposal 
to establish licensed service rules for the 102-109.5 GHz band. We will 
consider that proposal in the Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket 
No. 10-153. We invite other interested parties to submit other 
proposals, including proposals for authorizing use under our Part 15 
rules. We also note that, unlike in 2003, there has been no advocacy 
for further unlicensed use in the 92-95 GHz band.

B. Rules for Licensed Operations in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz 
Bands--Creation of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service

    88. In this section, we set forth our proposal for licensing rules 
for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. These proposals are built off 
of the Commission's significant experience crafting licensing rules 
that promote the widespread deployment of spectrum. These proposals 
strike a balance between more traditional geographic-area licensing and 
innovative licensing schemes aimed at meeting needs of different users 
for different uses. In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band, we propose a 
traditional geographic area licensing scheme that is flexible to 
provide access and protection for fixed, mobile, and FSS uses. In the 
37 GHz band, we propose a licensing model that attempts to maximize the 
use of spectrum by creating rights for both local area networks and 
wide area networks. We seek comment on these proposed licensing 
mechanisms, and alternatives.
1. 28 GHz and 39 GHz Bands--Geographic Area Licensing
    89. We propose to create a new service for the 28 GHz and 39 GHz 
bands--the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service--and propose to 
establish rules to allow an Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
licensee to provide any form of fixed or mobile service (including 
aeronautical mobile, where consistent with the allocation). For current 
28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees, we propose to grant new licenses that 
provide new flexible rights to operate in the licensed geographic area 
and include the same spectrum, with authorization for both fixed and 
mobile operations. For geographic license areas with no existing LMDS 
or 39 GHz licensees, we would assign these new Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service licenses via competitive bidding. Finally, as described in 
further detail below, we propose to allow FSS providers to acquire 
these licenses through auction or the secondary market, thereby 
allowing them to continue to operate or expand in these bands.
    90. We believe there are several advantages to using a geographic 
area licensing approach in these bands. Issuing a single license 
including both fixed and mobile service rights would allow the licensee 
to coordinate fixed and mobile uses within its geographic area. Such an 
approach would be consistent with the Commission's prior decision to 
use geographic area licensing for fixed and point-to-multipoint service 
in these bands. In addition, geographic licensing is consistent with 
the Commission's licensing approach for flexible use bands, such as 
bands licensed under Part 27 of the Commission's rules. We also note 
that a wide variety of commenters supported geographic area licensing 
in these bands. We seek comment on this proposal.
    91. We propose to permit existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees to 
exercise the full extent of these rights--including mobile rights--for 
geographic areas and bands in which they currently hold licenses. There 
are several likely advantages to this proposal. First, this approach 
will minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to 
expanded use of the band, which would be to the benefit of consumers. 
Second, traditional fixed operation in these bands consists of tightly 
focused beams between two points. Third, and related to the difficulty 
in distinguishing between fixed and mobile services in this band, the 
existence of separate licenses for fixed and mobile operation might 
create unusually large challenges related to interference.
    92. Further, the Commission previously contemplated that LMDS and 
39 GHz licensees would have the opportunity to engage in mobile 
operations if the associated technical issues could be resolved. Such a 
policy also would be consistent with the Commission's decision to grant 
existing MDS and ITFS licensees blanket authority to engage in mobile 
operations when the Commission instituted geographic area licensing for 
those services in the 2.5 GHz band. A variety of commenters support 
this approach. We accordingly seek comment on the proposal to award 
mobile operating rights to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, and the 
costs and benefits of so doing.
    93. We recognize, however, that alternative approaches exist to 
assign flexible use rights in geographic areas and bands with existing 
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. In particular, we seek comment on the costs 
and benefits of establishing an overlay right that would allow new 
licensees flexibility in use, subject to noninterference with the 
incumbent licensees. While our principal proposal is to directly assign 
flexible use rights to existing licensees in lieu of establishing an 
overlay right, we acknowledge certain benefits to assigning such rights 
using competitive bidding and seek comment on whether to award overlay 
rights for these bands through auction. First, an auction would assign 
these rights to the user that values the set of rights most highly, 
whether it be an incumbent licensee or a new potential user. Second, 
the use of an auction, rather than a direct grant of additional rights 
to existing licensees, ensures that a portion of the value associated 
with these additional rights will accrue to the United States Treasury. 
Third, the Commission has relevant experience in the application of 
overlay rights in other bands.
    94. We invite commenters to address these and related other issues 
that will help us identify the most efficient means for assigning these 
new, flexible use rights consistent with our obligations under Section 
309(j) of the Communications Act, especially in geographic areas and in 
spectrum that currently has incumbent licensees. We ask commenters to 
provide data on the costs and benefits associated with each approach.
2. 37 GHz--Hybrid Authorizations
    95. As we noted in the NOI, ``we aim to develop a framework that 
will accommodate as wide a variety of services and uses as possible.'' 
We also noted two primary models of wireless network deployments--
service provider models, and decentralized Wi-Fi--like deployment 
deployed by end users. Our proposed licensing model for the 28 GHz and 
39 GHz bands will ensure that extensive spectrum is available for 
service provider deployments of 5G small cells or other fixed or mobile 
technologies that service providers may deem appropriate. Similarly, 
our proposal for 64-71 GHz would extend the existing 57-64 MHz band, 
making 14 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum available for short-range 
unlicensed uses.
    96. We propose to establish service rules for the 37 GHz band that 
would enable flexibility to facilitate a third type of network 
deployment: privately deployed networks that can provide 5G

[[Page 1814]]

communications for advanced enterprise and industrial applications not 
suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services. These 
applications might require licensed spectrum rights tailored to 
physical facility boundaries. The inherent short-range characteristics 
of millimeter wave spectrum make it well-suited to serve this need, and 
might also facilitate natural coexistence between a private, local area 
network, and a more traditional commercial wide area network. Unlike in 
the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, there are no incumbent non-Federal 
terrestrial authorizations in the 37 GHz band. This lack of incumbents 
gives us additional flexibility in designing a licensing mechanism for 
this band. We therefore seek comment on a hybrid licensing scheme that 
would convey licensed ``local area'' operating rights to premises 
occupants by rule, and separately, geographic area licenses for wide 
area use. We also seek comment on variations on this proposal as 
discussed below. Because this mode of licensing would not exhaustively 
license all geography, we seek comment on ways to establish geographic 
area licenses for wide area use. We also seek comment on the proper 
regulatory relationship between the two categories of licenses.
    97. We believe several facts support making 37 GHz band spectrum 
available for licensed local area networks. First, radio signals in 
this band propagate over short distances (due to atmospheric 
absorption) and signals are heavily attenuated by exterior walls and 
windows. With those characteristics, it could be possible to separate 
local-area deployments from each other and also from wide-area 
deployments by simply leveraging the physical properties of the 
spectrum. Second, as a practical matter, local-area millimeter wave 
deployments will require permission of the property owner for siting, 
installation, backhaul, etc. Or alternatively, a property owner will 
need the permission of the licensee to use the spectrum within their 
own property, and the licensee may not have an incentive to bargain 
with the property owner even if the property owner has a strong need 
for the spectrum. Therefore, it may be highly efficient to convey the 
initial spectrum assignment for these environments directly to the 
owner or user of the local area rather than a third-party entity.
    98. We propose that local area operating rights in the 37 GHz band 
be awarded by rule, pursuant to Section 307(e) of the Communications 
Act. We seek comment on how to define ``local area'' for these 
purposes. If we limit operations to indoor only, what applications 
would be precluded by limiting devices to indoor use only? What 
consideration should be given to the tradeoffs between these factors? 
Should the rule convey rights to property owners? If so, should the 
rights apply equally to private and public property? Should we 
explicitly exclude outdoor ``public spaces'' (e.g., streets, parks)? 
Should we allow those rights to be conveyed through standard 
instrumentalities of state law (e.g., as part of a standard property 
lease) or should we establish special rules governing conveyance of 
these operating rights? Alternatively, should the usage rights 
automatically attach to the current lawful occupant of a property 
(i.e., tenants)? Should the rights be conveyed only for indoor uses or 
should outdoor uses (e.g., courtyards, campus environments) also be 
authorized? Should the rule relate to the deployment of network 
facilities (e.g., a right to deploy base stations or access points in 
the local area) or more broadly to RF protections (e.g., a right to 
quietude in the local area)? Should the local area operating rights 
only apply to facilities exceeding some minimum size? How do we ensure 
that equipment is used in a manner consistent with any restrictions we 
place on local area operations?
    99. We further propose that wide area rights in the 37 GHz band be 
defined as area licenses assigned through auction. Holders of these 
licenses would be entitled to deploy service in any and all areas not 
awarded through the rule-based licensing approach described above. For 
example, if we were to determine that the local area rights attach to 
indoor deployment of the 37 GHz band, the wide area rights would 
authorize outdoor deployment. We presume that those licenses would 
otherwise be similar in character to traditional geographic licenses. 
We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment below on the 
appropriate license area size.
    100. We seek comment on the RF coexistence of local area and wide 
area deployments, and how the coexistence should affect the definition 
of and relationship between the two classes of rights. Specifically, we 
seek technical comment on the propagation of this spectrum through 
typical building materials, and to what extent modern building 
materials used in energy-efficient construction affect attenuation 
outside of the building. We seek comment on whether, to distinguish the 
rights between the use cases and facilitate coexistence through 
licensing rights, one of the two categories of licensees should have 
the right to assert claims of harmful interference against the other? 
Or should it be presumed that any licensee operating within the rules 
will be on equal footing with any other and every user would have a 
duty to coordinate with its neighbors? Could relatively lower 
authorized power limits for local area users minimize the interference 
risks to wide area users? Conversely, could ``self-help'' remedies 
(e.g., RF shielding) protect local area users from higher power wide 
area network transmissions?
    101. Alternative Proposal. As an alternative to the foregoing 
proposal, we could divide the 37 GHz Band into several blocks and 
assign some of these blocks by rule for local area uses (as described 
above). For example, the 1600 MHz bandwidth could be divided into three 
533 megahertz or four 400 megahertz blocks. One or two of these blocks 
could be assigned by rule to local area uses and the others could be 
licensed on a geographical area basis and assigned through an auction 
process. A band-wide interoperability rule would ensure that equipment 
would be available for all users in the band. Dividing the band 
spectrally in this way may not be as efficient, from a local network 
standpoint, as dividing it geographically, as proposed above, because 
it may result in local area networks not being to access the full 
frequency range in the band. On the other hand, it may be easier to 
implement procedurally and would eliminate any concerns about co-
channel interference between local area and wide area networks sharing 
the same frequencies. We seek comment on this alternative proposal.
    102. A second alternative would be to use geographic area licensing 
of all rights, but use geographic areas small enough to accommodate 
local area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. This 
alternative will be discussed in further detail in the License Area 
Size section, supra.
3. License Area Size for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz Bands
    103. In the NOI, after noting that 28 GHz had already been licensed 
by BTA and 39 GHz had already been licensed by EA, we sought comment on 
ways in which geographic area licensing could be tailored to ensure 
greater utilization of spectrum for mobile services in the millimeter 
wave bands, including by selecting the optimal geographic area size. We 
also observed that, in determining the appropriate service area size, 
larger license sizes can make it difficult to generalize across 
different licenses in different areas, while smaller license sizes can 
raise the burden of

[[Page 1815]]

administering the licensing scheme, including verifying build out.
    104. Many commenters addressed the issue of license area size. Six 
commenters supported license areas that are consistent with the current 
fixed terrestrial regime at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, including four incumbent 
fixed licensees. Several commenters pointed out that the 
characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum suggest that large service 
areas would not be advisable. Finally, two commenters stated that 
development of millimeter wave technology is too nascent to make 
informed determinations about license area, and one criticized large 
license area sizes as being inappropriate for millimeter wave 
technology.
    105. Discussion. If we adopt a geographic area approach for 
licensing these bands as we proposed above, then we must determine the 
appropriate size(s) of service areas on which licenses should be based. 
We seek to adopt service areas for all bands that meets several 
statutory goals. These include facilitating access to spectrum by both 
small and large providers, providing for the efficient use of the 
spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to 
consumers, including those in rural areas and tribal lands, and 
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and 
services consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act. In order to accomplish these goals, we must take 
into account the unique characteristics and circumstances in each 
specific band. We agree with CEA that the characteristics of millimeter 
wave spectrum must be taken into account in determining ``both the 
geographic scope of licenses and performance requirements,'' including 
the fact that licensees may not initially want or need to serve an 
entire BTA to meet its or its customers' needs.
    106. We propose to use counties as the base geographic area unit 
for licenses in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. Counties are 
significantly smaller than traditional license areas, such as BTAs and 
EAs, but are generally larger than the other non-traditional license 
area the Commission has elsewhere adopted, including census tracts. 
There are currently 3,143 counties, in comparison to 176 EAs, 493 BTAs, 
and more than 74,000 census tracts.
    107. We believe there may be several advantages to county-based 
licenses. First, we believe county licenses best fit the localized 
types of services we expect to be offered in the mmW bands. Second, 
establishing smaller licenses could provide licensees with additional 
flexibility to target their deployments to those areas where they need 
the capacity. Third, smaller license areas reduce the potential for 
warehousing spectrum; again, licensees will be more likely to acquire 
and hold only the licenses they need to meet their customers' demand. 
Fourth, county based licenses could equally facilitate access by both 
small carriers and large carriers.
    108. We believe that, in accomplishing our statutory objectives, it 
is advantageous that counties greatly vary in size, population, and 
demographics. We expect that there will be prospective providers who 
wish to serve areas in more than one county, as well as prospective 
providers with more limited business plans seeking to serve a single, 
small county or a partitioned county. And finally, as discussed below, 
we propose to allow FSS operators to acquire licenses in these bands, 
which will confer on the FSS operator the right to exclude other users. 
We believe counties are an appropriate size to allow FSS operators to 
seek the protection they might desire through the license without over 
or under excluding other uses or users.
    109. We seek comment on alternative geographic area sizes that 
could be used as the basis for licensing spectrum in these bands. For 
28 GHz and 39 GHz, should we maintain the existing larger license areas 
of BTAs or EAs, respectively? Would maintaining the existing license 
areas provide any advantages in facilitating deployment of those bands? 
We also seek comment on license areas historically used by the 
Commission such as PEAs, census blocks, or block groups. If we do not 
license local area rights in the 37 GHz band by rule, using a 
geographic area approach might allow for a greater mix of local area 
and wide area licensed uses in the same band. In that case, we may wish 
to adopt geographic license areas small enough to accommodate local 
area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. For 
example, we could define license areas based on census blocks or block 
groups. This might allow for a greater mix of local area and wide area 
licensed uses in the same band compared to traditional license areas, 
which typically encompass an entire metropolitan region and its 
surrounding area. We also seek input from FSS operators on the 
appropriate license area size that would accommodate their 
participation in the market-based mechanism described below to 
accommodate potential further FSS use of these bands. Balancing the 
need for sufficient geographic separation and license areas that are 
not unnecessarily large, are counties an appropriate license size for 
potential FSS use, or would smaller or larger license areas be more 
appropriate? We ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, 
technical, and other public interest considerations of licensing these 
bands using the particular geographic area they advocate.
    110. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz Licenses. We recognize 
that there are existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses that are licensed on a 
BTA or EA basis, respectively. In 1997, the Commission initially 
determined that the 39 GHz band would be licensed on a BTA basis. This 
decision was based on our expectation at the time that the Commission 
would execute licensing agreements similar to those it had in other 
services. By 1999, subsequent developments led the Commission to 
conclude that adopting BTAs for 39 GHz could unnecessarily delay the 
licensing process. Thus, on its own motion, the Commission reconsidered 
its license area determination and, based on the record in the 
proceeding, decided to license all channel blocks in the 39 GHz band 
using Economic Areas.
    111. We propose to subdivide existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses on a 
county basis, consistent with our proposal to offer licenses on a 
county basis for spectrum currently held in inventory. This ensures 
that both the existing and future licenses are uniform in their size 
and rights, and will facilitate a multiplicity of uses and users. In 
addition, because counties nest into both BTAs and EAs, incumbent 
licensees retain the exact same coverage, and increase their 
flexibility to tailor the license holdings to meet their business 
needs. Under our proposal, if a licensee holds a BTA or EA license 
consisting of eight counties, it would receive a separate license for 
each county in the BTA or EA, for a total of eight licenses. Existing 
licensees will otherwise keep the full package of license rights they 
currently hold (with the addition of new mobile rights). While we could 
keep the existing BTA or EA licenses as is, subdividing the licenses 
would create a uniform nationwide license structure. We seek comment on 
this proposal. We do not believe that subdividing the existing LMDS and 
39 GHz licenses would constitute a modification of license within the 
meaning of Section 316 of the Communications Act because the change 
would not affect the substantive operating rights of the existing 
licensee. Moreover, to the extent the change modifies existing 
licenses, the Commission may effectuate

[[Page 1816]]

such a change on a licensee-wide basis pursuant its rulemaking 
authority, without triggering the procedural requirements of Section 
316.
4. Band Plan for the 28 GHz, 27 GHz, and 39 GHz Bands
    112. We seek comment on our proposed band plans for the 28 GHz, 37 
GHz, and 39 GHz bands. For the 28 GHz band, we propose to use the 
existing band plans in place for LMDS. Specifically, the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
band is currently licensed as a single block (LMDS Channel A1). We 
believe that continuing to license this band as a single block would be 
in the public interest because it would provide a wide band (850 
megahertz) of contiguous spectrum that could be used to provide high-
speed service. Samsung supports this proposal. In contrast, Straight 
Path supports subdividing the band into a 500 megahertz block and a 350 
megahertz block, although its proposal is dependent on the availability 
of the 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz bands. Should we consider 
subdividing this band into multiple channels, and if so, how? 
Proponents of subdividing the band should provide analyses showing that 
multiple operators could provide service in the band.
    113. We also propose to continue using the existing 39 GHz band 
plan. The 39 GHz band is subdivided into 14 channel pairs. Each channel 
pair has 50 megahertz by 50 megahertz of spectrum (totaling 1.4 
gigahertz). We recognize that Samsung and Straight Path recommend that 
the band be reconfigured for wider channels. On balance, we believe 
that keeping the existing band plan would promote expeditious 
deployment, consistent with our proposal to grant rights to current 
licensees, and provide a uniform nationwide band plan. We seek comment 
on this proposal, as well as proposals for larger channels. What is the 
cost of adopting a channel scheme that might vary between the current 
licenses and new initial licenses issued by competitive bidding (i.e., 
if the current licenses continue to follow the current band plan, but 
the newly created licenses subject to auction have a different band 
plan)? We also seek comment on Straight Path's proposal to allow 
incumbent licensees to exchange licenses within a market so that 
incumbents can obtain contiguous spectrum.
    114. We also seek comment on a band plan for the 37 GHz band. One 
possibility would be to subdivide the band into three equal blocks of 
approximately 533 megahertz each. Another possibility would be to have 
four blocks of 400 megahertz each. Those plans would potentially 
provide multiple channels, each capable of supporting high-rate 
communications. If we chose to have separate bands for local area uses 
and outdoor deployments, we could have separate band segments for each 
use. We seek comment on alternative band plans. Commenters should 
address how their preferred plans would support a wide variety of 
services while maximizing access to spectrum.
5. License Term
    115. Background. License terms generally vary based upon the type 
of service authorized and the purpose for which a service was created. 
Under existing rules, fixed licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands 
licensed under Part 101 will have a license term not to exceed 10 
years. When the Commission adopted its Part 101 Report and Order, it 
determined that both private and common carrier licenses granted on or 
after August 1, 1996, would have a license term not to exceed ten 
years. Finally, terrestrial service rules currently do not exist for 
the 37 GHz band, so no license term has been specified for that band.
    116. We did not seek comment specifically on the issue of license 
terms in the NOI. Only one commenter, Qualcomm, directly addressed this 
issue by stating that the FCC should adopt a 10-year license term in 
conjunction with reasonable performance requirements.
    117. Discussion. We propose to establish a 10-year term for all 
licenses in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. We believe this 
length of license term will help to maintain consistency within these 
bands. Many of the fixed licenses in these bands are already subject to 
10-year license terms, including fixed licensees in the LMDS band and 
fixed licensees in the 39 GHz band that were licensed after August 1, 
1996. As discussed above, we propose to grant mobile operating rights 
to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. If we adopt that proposal, we 
believe the most seamless, consistent, and expedient path for license 
terms would be to also adopt 10-year terms for all licensees in these 
bands.
    118. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt a 10-year license 
term, including any costs and benefits of the proposal. We also seek 
comment on whether licensees should receive a renewal expectancy for 
subsequent license terms if they continue to provide at least the level 
of service required at the end of their initial license terms through 
the end of any subsequent license terms. In addition, we invite 
commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate license 
term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs and 
benefits. For instance, we note that in the 3.5 GHz R&O the Commission 
adopted three year license terms on the theory that the band will be 
used in a flexible manner that supports myriad uses, providing spectrum 
to users where and when they need it. Would a five year term for these 
bands be appropriate under a similar rationale?
    119. Under our 10-year license term proposal, if a license in these 
bands is partitioned or disaggregated (as discussed in further detail 
below), we propose that any partitionee or disaggregatee would be 
authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's 
or disaggregator's original license term. This approach is similar to 
the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for other services. 
We emphasize that nothing in our proposal is intended to enable a 
licensee, by partitioning or disaggregating the license, to confer 
greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license 
grant. Similarly, nothing in our proposal is intended to enable any 
partitionee or disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those 
previously possessed by the underlying licensee.

C. Facilitating Satellite Use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz 
Bands

1. Background (Current Framework)
    120. Nineteen years ago, in the 28 GHz First Report and Order, the 
Commission found that co-frequency sharing between LMDS and 
ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations was not yet feasible, 
but said that it would consider revisiting that conclusion if future 
technology became available to facilitate that type of sharing. Among 
other band segments, the Commission designated 850 megahertz at 27.5-
28.35 GHz for LMDS on a primary basis, and permitted geostationary 
Fixed-Satellite Service (GSO/FSS) or non-geostationary Fixed-Satellite 
Service (NGSO/FSS) systems to provide links in that band segment on a 
non-interference basis to LMDS systems, but only for the purpose of 
providing limited Earth-to-space gateway-type services. The Commission 
rejected a proposal to offer limited protection to FSS gateways 
operating in the 27.5-28.35 band segment, concluding that, if 
proponents of FSS systems were to implement gateways in that part of 
the LMDS band, these gateway links would operate on a non-

[[Page 1817]]

interference-non-protected basis with respect to LMDS operators.
    121. With regard to the 37.5-40 GHz band, in 2003 the Commission 
preserved the co-primary status of FSS for space-to-Earth 
transmissions, but implemented a ``soft segmentation'' plan that 
favored terrestrial Fixed Service and terrestrial Mobile Service, which 
also have co-primary allocations in that band. The soft segmentation 
plan limited FSS to gateway-type earth station operations in the 37.5-
40 GHz band, and it prohibited the ubiquitous deployment of satellite 
earth stations designed to serve individual consumers. The plan also 
established clear-sky power flux density (PFD) limits for satellite 
transmissions in the 37.5-40 GHz band that are 12 dB lower than the 
level allowed for satellite transmissions in the 40-42.5 GHz band. 
However, in the subsequent V-Band Third FNPRM in 2010, the Commission 
proposed to allow satellite operators to increase their PFDs during 
heavy rain storms to overcome signal attenuation under those 
conditions.
    122. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that it is 
appropriate to review both sets of decisions in light of evolutions in 
technology, the introduction of mobile, and the possibility of 
leveraging market-based mechanisms to coordinate coexistence issues and 
future FSS expansion in these bands.
2. Ka-Band Gateway Earth Stations
a. Request for Upgraded Status in 28 GHz Band
    123. EchoStar and the FSS Operators ask the Commission to upgrade 
gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band from secondary status to co-
primary status. They argue that the secondary status has hindered 
satellite investment and that satellite operators ``must have 
regulatory certainty about their continued access to this spectrum for 
existing, as well as new, gateway earth stations.'' They also argue 
that experience has shown that gateway earth stations have been able to 
successfully co-exist with fixed LMDS licensees. XO, which holds 91 
LMDS licenses, argues that granting satellite operators' co-primary 
status in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band ``could encumber existing LMDS 
licensees' spectrum and potentially frustrate their efforts to build 
out fixed wireless and 5G systems.''
    124. ViaSat recommends a different approach: That the Commission 
review past decisions that constrained opportunities for spectrum 
sharing and evaluate them in the light of contemporary technologies and 
techniques. ViaSat acknowledges that the industry committee that was 
formed in 1996 to develop negotiated proposed rules for the LMDS in the 
Ka-band identified a number of techniques that could enable sharing of 
widely deployed FSS transmitters and LMDS receivers, including 
cognitive radio technologies and mitigation techniques, such as FSS 
monitoring of LMDS transmissions before transmitting and requiring that 
a database of LMDS subscribers be maintained, but did not come to an 
agreement about those techniques, in part because of concerns about the 
commercial viability of those approaches in 1996. Regardless of whether 
those types of sharing techniques were mature when plans for the Ka-
band and the V-band were adopted, says ViaSat, the fact remains that 
those techniques are readily available today, and in fact have been 
endorsed by the Commission in other proceedings as essential means of 
making more intensive use of spectrum.
    125. Discussion. We believe there should be a mechanism under which 
satellite earth stations could acquire co-primary status where their 
owners believe that such a level of protection is necessary. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on establishing a market-based mechanism 
for allowing proposed gateway earth stations to acquire co-primary 
status by acquiring flexible use terrestrial licenses. Specifically, we 
propose that a Part 25 FSS earth station would have co-primary status 
if its licensee also holds the corresponding terrestrial license for 
the location of that earth station.
    126. We believe it is not in the public interest to automatically 
grant co-primary status for FSS operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band 
at this time. The main disadvantage of designating FSS gateway earth 
stations as co-primary at this time is that it could be inconsistent 
with the development of terrestrial Mobile Service in the band. While 
there should be a mechanism for accommodating gateway earth stations in 
the 28 GHz band, that mechanism should also be consistent with 
terrestrial use of the band.
    127. At the same time, we agree with EchoStar, the FSS Operators, 
and ViaSat that there should be additional mechanisms for accommodating 
gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band. In particular, we agree with 
ViaSat that it might be feasible to allow satellite operators to make 
greater opportunistic use of the LMDS band for gateway earth stations. 
We note that FSS Operators, O3B, and ViaSat agree that they have been 
able to coexist with LMDS operations through planning and coordination. 
Recognizing the balance we are proposing to strike between incumbent 
operations and new flexibility in this band, we seek comment on the 
ability of mobile and FSS operations to coexist, and ways to facilitate 
coexistence that are mutually effective for both FSS and future mobile 
operators.
    128. One way to protect gateways from being superseded by 
subsequent terrestrial deployments would be for FSS operators to obtain 
the terrestrial licensees, either by participating in Commission 
auctions or by purchasing them from existing Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use licensees. Since there are no proposed eligibility restrictions on 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses that would specifically limit the 
ability of FSS providers to acquire these licenses, there is no legal 
impediment to FSS operators acquiring a terrestrial license. In this 
case, the license right that an FSS provider may benefit from and value 
the most is the right to exclude other users from the geographic area 
of the license. That right in effect allows them to achieve co-primary 
status and would provide the protection the FSS providers' seek.
    129. Allowing non-Federal FSS operators to acquire flexible use 
licenses to obtain co-primary status would have several advantages. 
First, it would establish a market-based mechanism for determining the 
highest and best use of the spectrum in a given area. On the other 
hand, this mechanism need not unduly burden the development of 
terrestrial mobile or fixed service, especially where FSS operators opt 
only to obtain partitioned portions of licenses, because FSS operators 
will have little incentive to buy territorial rights any larger than 
they will need to ensure the continued operation of their gateways. 
Since these are transmitting earth stations, the area needs only be 
large enough to ensure that no constraints are imposed on terrestrial 
operations outside that area. Second, this approach would allow 
licensees to use the 28 GHz band to provide a wide variety of services 
to consumers and businesses. Third, both satellite and terrestrial 
operators would obtain additional flexibility to adjust their 
operations to meet consumer demand. That flexibility would help ensure 
that spectrum ends up in the hands of someone who is willing and able 
to use the spectrum to provide service.
    130. By obtaining Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses--or 
portions thereof--FSS operators would be able to prevent incursions by 
terrestrial operators that might otherwise require them to shut down 
their FSS gateways. We emphasize, however, that an Upper

[[Page 1818]]

Microwave Flexible Use license would not authorize operations of the 
FSS earth stations. The licensing of earth stations would continue to 
be governed by our Part 25 licensing rules. We further emphasize that, 
by auctioning Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses or allowing the 
transfer of partitioned portions of those licenses to companies that 
operate FSS systems, we would not be auctioning orbital slots or the 
right to operate a satellite system. Any such authorization would 
require a separate license issued pursuant to Part 25 of the 
Commission's Rules. Accordingly, the fact that the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use licenses would be subject to auction would not be contrary 
to Section 647 of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of 
International Telecommunications Act.
    131. In proposing the alternative discussed above, we do not intend 
to limit the ability of FSS operators to continue availing themselves 
of other, existing alternatives. We also emphasize that we would not 
require FSS operators to acquire an Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
authorization to operate in this band. In particular, FSS operators 
would continue to have the option of applying for earth station 
authorizations on a secondary basis under our existing rules. They 
would also remain free to negotiate private interference agreements 
with Upper Microwave Flexible Use licensees.
    132. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz FSS Earth Stations. There are 
currently 21 FSS earth stations licensed in the 28 GHz band on a 
secondary basis, and 17 pending applications. About half of those earth 
stations (or proposed earth stations) are located within the service 
area of an active LMDS license authorized to operate in the 28 GHz 
band. The other half are located in areas where there is no active LMDS 
license in the 28 GHz band. We seek comment on the proposals described 
below for future treatment of those earth stations, as well as 
alternatives.
    133. We propose that earth stations located within the service area 
of an active LMDS license maintain their secondary status. Those FSS 
operators constructed their facilities knowing that their operations 
would be on a secondary basis. LMDS licensees purchased their licenses 
at auction with the understanding that their fixed and point-to-
multipoint operations would have priority over FSS operations. These 
LMDS licensees have also successfully demonstrated substantial service. 
Under those circumstances, we propose not to upgrade FSS operations at 
the expense of LMDS licensees. To the extent that FSS operators and 
LMDS licensees have private agreements concerning protection of their 
facilities, those agreements would continue in force and effect. We 
also note that depending on the terms of those agreements, the FSS 
operator may obtain protection which is based on the terms of the 
agreement and the primary nature of the LMDS license.
    134. We have attempted to balance the introduction of mobile on a 
primary basis, with the investment and expectation of continued 
operation by FSS providers. Recognizing the services' status in the 
U.S. Table of Allocations, what is the extent to which mobile and FSS 
can coexist in a shared environment? Technically, to what extent do FSS 
providers anticipate that their operations may cause interference to 
mobile services? In the event that parties believe there are issues of 
coexistence that cannot be resolved through direct discussions between 
the mobile and FSS operations, are there regulatory approaches that 
could facilitate coexistence between the two services without having a 
negative impact on future mobile deployment?
    135. With respect to FSS earth stations located outside the license 
area of an LMDS licensee, we believe it could be in the public interest 
to provide a mechanism for those earth stations to upgrade to co-
primary status. In those areas, the most common reason for cancellation 
of the LMDS license was failure to demonstrate substantial service. 
Demand for fixed LMDS service in those areas was therefore apparently 
limited. To the extent an FSS earth station is operating and providing 
service, it could be appropriate to upgrade the earth station to co-
primary status in those areas where the former LMDS licensee did not 
construct. Upgrading the status of those earth stations could give the 
FSS operator an incentive to make additional investment in those 
facilities because it would have certainty that the earth station would 
not have to shut down in order to protect primary users of the 
spectrum. In addition, there is no LMDS licensee who can claim 
prejudice from that action. As with the proposal in the previous 
paragraph, this proposal attempts to balance the introduction of mobile 
on a primary basis, with the investment and expectation of continued 
operation by FSS providers. We therefore seek comment on the same 
issues of interference and facilitating co-existence for this proposal 
as we did for that other proposal.
    136. We seek comment on the following mechanism for upgrading 
existing FSS earth stations located outside the service area of an 
active LMDS license. Prior to holding an auction, the Commission would 
open a closed filing window for Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses. 
The filing window would be restricted to FSS licensees with an earth 
station within the census tract (or other area we may adopt) of the 
proposed license. The FSS earth station licensee would have the 
opportunity to apply for a license including the license area where the 
earth station was located. Because the filing window would be 
restricted to the FSS operator, there would be no mutual exclusivity. 
Once the FSS operator was issued the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
license, it would have co-primary status. Adopting this approach would 
give FSS operators certainty that they could obtain co-primary status 
covering a significant number of the existing sites. This mechanism 
would also integrate existing earth stations into the flexible, market-
based framework we are adopting for the 28 GHz band. In the subsequent 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use license auction, initial licenses for any 
geographic area awarded pursuant to the closed filing window would not 
be offered.
    137. In commenting on this mechanism, we ask parties to address the 
following issues. First, what criteria should we use for determining 
that an earth station is in operation and providing service? Second, 
what license area should we use for licenses offered to the FSS 
licensees in a potential closed filing window? Third, would it serve 
the public interest to set up a process to allow, through a market-
based approach or otherwise, future earth stations in the same license 
area?
    138. We also seek comment on alternative mechanisms of upgrading 
FSS earth stations that are not within the service area of an LMDS 
licensee to co-primary status. Commenters should keep in mind that 
there appear to be advantages to adopting a flexible licensing 
framework that results in FSS operators holding Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use licenses.
    139. Future 28 GHz Earth Stations. We propose that future FSS 
operators can obtain Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses at auction 
to eliminate potential interference concerns with terrestrial 
operations in their areas. We recognize that FSS operators may wish to 
apply for earth stations in the 28 GHz band during the period of time 
that precedes the auction for Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses. 
Until we issue new rules, such licenses will continue to be issued on a 
secondary basis. If the earth station is within the service area of an 
existing LMDS licensee, the FSS operator may enter

[[Page 1819]]

into an agreement with the primary licensee or acquire the LMDS or 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use license in the secondary market in order 
to upgrade its status.
    140. If the proposed earth station is sought before the auction for 
licenses outside the service area of an LMDS licensee, we must balance 
several competing interests. The FSS operator has an interest in 
obtaining protection for its earth station. On the other hand, 
depending on the location of the earth station, granting co-primary 
status could hinder future terrestrial deployment in the 28 GHz band.
    141. We propose to use a waiver process to address this situation. 
Under our proposal, 28 GHz earth station applicants may seek a waiver 
of their secondary status and request co-primary status if they can 
demonstrate that their presence would be unlikely to have a negative 
impact on future terrestrial service. A primary factor we propose to 
consider in evaluating the waiver request would be the location of the 
proposed earth station. For instance, we would be more likely to 
favorably act on a request if an earth station applicant proposes to 
locate in a remote area where terrestrial service is unlikely to be 
deployed shortly after the auction. On the other hand, earth stations 
located in populated areas where there is likely to be demand for 
terrestrial service would bear a heavy burden of justifying a waiver. 
We could also consider steps the earth station applicant proposes to 
minimize its impact on terrestrial operations, such as natural or 
artificial shielding of the earth station site, or limiting its 
emissions towards low elevation angles. If the earth station applicant 
receives a waiver, and the earth station is operating and providing 
service at the time of the closed filing window, we propose that it 
would be eligible to apply for an Upper Microwave Flexible Use license 
during the closed filing window as discussed above.
    142. We seek comment on using a waiver process to evaluate requests 
for co-primary status, as well as alternative ways of addressing this 
issue. Are there additional criteria we should consider in evaluating 
waiver requests? Are there other ways of evaluating such requests?
3. Repealing Restriction on FSS Fixed User Equipment in 28 GHz Band
    143. As noted above, FSS use of the 28 GHz band is limited to 
gateway earth stations. While we anticipate that terrestrial service 
will remain primary in this band, we seek comment on whether it is 
possible to allow deployment of fixed FSS user equipment on a secondary 
basis, subject to the condition that the user equipment not cause 
interference to fixed or mobile operations. In that regard, we propose 
that Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees be required to 
provide information on their fixed and mobile deployments in order to 
facilitate sharing. We also seek comment on several possible technical 
mechanisms by which sharing could be implemented.
    144. While some commenters take the position that sharing between 
terrestrial and widespread satellite operations in the mmW bands will 
be difficult or impossible, the overwhelming majority of commenters who 
address the issue say that the propagation characteristics of mmW 
signals will make it much easier to manage spectrum sharing, compared 
with lower bands of spectrum where signals propagate around obstacles 
or beyond horizons.
    145. In this section, we seek comment on several possible ideas for 
facilitating the deployment of FSS user equipment on a secondary basis. 
We seek comment on these ideas, as well as alternative ideas commenters 
wish to present. To the extent commenters believe a proposal will 
impose undue burdens, we encourage those commenters to describe the 
burden in detail and to provide detailed information on the costs 
involved. We also encourage commenters to discuss how these proposals 
would affect a variety of use cases for the mmW bands, including fixed, 
mobile, and satellite uses. We also seek comment on the extent to which 
private agreements between FSS operators and terrestrial licensees 
could facilitate sharing. Should we allow private agreements to 
supplement or replace any regulatory mechanisms we might establish to 
facilitate sharing? Could private agreements render rules unnecessary 
in this area? We seek comment on these issues.
a. Spectrum Access System
    146. One possible sharing mechanism would be to develop a spectrum 
access system (SAS) similar to the system required for the 3.5 GHz 
band. In that band, the Commission established a roadmap for providing 
tiered access to shared spectrum on a user-priority basis, and made 
clear its intention to apply the same kinds of techniques to other 
bands.
    147. ViaSat, T-Mobile, Wireless Innovation Forum and Google support 
the SAS concept in various scenarios. In particular, ViaSat says it is 
no longer necessary to impose limitations on satellite user terminals 
in light of the sharing technologies and techniques that have been 
proven to facilitate successful non-interfering operations in other 
bands.
    148. Under the SAS option, we propose to require terrestrial 
licensees to provide satellite operators with essential information 
that the satellite operators will need in order to avoid causing 
interference to terrestrial operations. We propose to require licensees 
to provide a SAS provider with the geographic coordinates and other 
pertinent technical information for their links. We seek comment on 
what information, under this scenario, should be provided to the SAS 
operator. For stationary operations, we anticipate that the technical 
parameters that will be useful to FSS operators seeking to avoid 
causing interference will resemble, or perhaps be a subset of, the 
technical parameters that we require Fixed Service point-to-point 
license applicants to submit on Form 601, Exhibits D, H, and I, or 
their electronic equivalents. It is not yet possible to delineate a 
similarly specific set of parameters for mmW mobile base stations and 
user equipment because the design features of such equipment are still 
under development. Since Form 601 has been designed in part to 
accommodate applications for point-to-multipoint licenses, however, 
many of the parameters required by that form could also be pertinent to 
mmW mobile base stations, most of which will likely provide 
omnidirectional service over limited areas.
    149. We recognize that, under most circumstances, the Commission's 
existing rules do not require the licensees of geographic service areas 
to file or otherwise publish the locations and technical 
characteristics of their individual transmitters and receivers. In this 
case, the benefits of enhanced sharing of the spectrum may outweigh any 
burden on the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee. We also 
note that existing licensees would obtain substantial benefits as a 
result of our proposed actions, including mobile operating rights. To 
avoid burdening terrestrial licensees prematurely or unnecessarily with 
this reporting requirement, we propose to defer implementing it until 
an FSS operator notifies the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
licensee that it will soon begin deploying user equipment in the 
licensee's geographic service area or other area of operation. We also 
propose to require satellite operators to bear the cost of operating 
the SAS, for two reasons. First, the user equipment transmissions of 
satellite operators would be secondary to terrestrial operations in the 
27.5-28.35 GHz band,

[[Page 1820]]

and it is their responsibility to avoid causing interference to primary 
users. Second, we assume that the SAS operators have the ability to 
pass along their costs of operation to their subscribers, with a 
reasonable profit margin, and that the SASs' internal costs will depend 
upon the complexity of coordination requested by the satellite 
operators. We seek comment on these proposals.
b. Beacon Signaling
    150. Another option for facilitating FSS deployment of fixed user 
equipment on a secondary basis is to require Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service base stations to transmit beacon signals to assist 
satellite earth stations in determining the presence of nearby Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service links or base stations and the likely 
presence of user terminals communicating with those base stations. The 
beacon signals could either be separate signals or components of the 
forward-link signals that fixed links or base stations transmit to the 
user terminals with which they are communicating, similar to the pilot 
signals transmitted by CDMA and LTE base stations. Such beacon signals 
could be particularly helpful if they were modulated with messages 
containing some parameters describing the base stations' 
characteristics, e.g., geographic location, coverage radius, height 
above average terrain, and antenna characteristics. Satellite earth 
stations would be required to monitor those beacon signals and have 
geolocation capability to determine keep-quiet areas, based on 
knowledge of their own signal characteristics and information about 
nearby Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service stations provided by their 
beacon signals.
    151. We seek comment on the feasibility and desirability of this 
alternative approach. Would it be technically and economically feasible 
for 28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees to provide, 
and for FSS operators to use, the information provided by a beacon 
signal? Would this approach be more or less burdensome for Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees than establishing an SAS? Is 
there a risk that transmitting a beacon signal could cause interference 
in its own right? Finally, how burdensome to require 28 GHz terrestrial 
licensees to provide technical information on their stations' 
characteristics concurrently via an SAS and by signal beacons, and 
would such requirements provide any added assurance that FSS stations 
would not interfere with terrestrial operations?
c. Limiting Satellite or Terrestrial Operations
    152. Another possible means of facilitating sharing would be to 
modify existing limits on FSS transmissions toward the horizon below a 
specified elevation angle, but require Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service licensees to be capable of screening out incoming signals above 
the same elevation angle or another complementary angle. Last year, the 
Commission was able to facilitate spectrum sharing between satellite 
and Wi-Fi operations in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band by limiting the output 
power of Wi-Fi transmissions at elevations above 30 degrees, even 
though, in the same order, it authorized increased power for Wi-Fi 
transmitters at lower elevation angles and allowed them to be operated 
outdoors in a band where they had previously been restricted to indoor-
only operation. In the 28 GHz band, the predominant source of 
interference would be Earth-to-space transmissions by FSS earth 
stations, but a similar kind of angular separation could potentially be 
applied by limiting the power of their transmissions below a specified 
angle. By one account, most industry evaluations of potential mmW 
mobile station deployments assume that such stations' antennas will be 
tilted downward by 6 to 15 degrees, a configuration that would 
presumably limit base stations' vulnerability to incoming interference. 
To what extent could angular separation protect the mobile user 
equipment that communicates with those base stations? To what extent 
could angular separation protect fixed backhaul, since point-to-point 
links may require a variety of elevation angles?
d. Active Signal Cancelling
    153. Satellite operators already make use of signal cancelling 
technology to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same channels, 
and intensive research and development is underway to apply similar 
techniques to terrestrial communications. We seek comment on the 
possibility that active signal cancellation could be used to limit the 
extent of interference between satellite and terrestrial operations.
    154. Is such a concept feasible and workable? Since FSS user 
equipment transmissions would be secondary in the band, would it be 
reasonable to require Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees to 
generate countervailing suppression signals? How would those burdens 
compare to the other benefits they would be receiving if the Commission 
upgrades their licenses to allow mobile operations?
e. Movable FSS User Equipment
    155. The initial phase of this docket will focus on opportunities 
for secondary use of FSS user equipment at fixed locations. We also 
note, however, that the Commission has previously adopted regulations 
authorizing the provision of FSS to moving platforms in other bands, 
with respect to vehicle-mounted earth stations (VMESs), earth stations 
on vessels (ESVs), and earth stations aboard aircraft (ESAAs). We do 
not presume that satellite operators will choose to deploy user 
equipment on moving platforms in the 28 GHz band, but we also believe 
that evolving technology and market conditions should be the gating 
mechanisms for any such initiatives, not regulatory proceedings. We 
propose to adapt our existing rules for FSS to moving platforms and 
apply them to the 28 GHz band. All of those rules require satellite 
user equipment to mute their signals instantaneously whenever they lose 
location awareness or signal lock with their serving satellites, in 
part to avoid causing interference to other satellites. Because those 
satellites are typically spaced at two degree intervals along the 
geostationary arc or, in the case of NGSO satellites, are moving 
rapidly overhead from one horizon to another, the rules for FSS on 
moving platforms require extreme precision and reliability. We expect 
to initiate further proceedings to address satellite operations on 
movable platforms, either in another phase of this proceeding or in a 
separate docket that addresses movable FSS satellite equipment in 
multiple bands. We invite comments to guide our deliberations in 
developing those provisions.
4. 37.5-40 GHz Band Sharing Issues
    156. We seek comment on three issues relating to FSS use of the 
37.5-40 GHz band. First, we seek comment on whether we should make any 
changes to our treatment of gateway earth station applications in this 
band. Second, we seek comment on whether it would be reasonable to 
eliminate the prohibition against ubiquitous deployment of space-to-
Earth user equipment in that band. Third, we seek further comment on 
allowing satellite operators in this band to increase the intensity of 
their PFDs above existing limits during heavy rain storms, subject to 
the provisions discussed below.
    157. Unlike in the 28 GHz band, FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40 
GHz band are primary in the Table of Allocations. Under our rules, 
however, gateway earth

[[Page 1821]]

stations may only be deployed if the FSS licensee obtains a 39 GHz 
license in the area where the earth station will be located, or if it 
enters into an agreement with the corresponding 39 GHz licensee. We 
seek comment on whether we need to update this rule to reflect the 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service we are proposing today. Are there 
any other changes we should consider to this rule?
    158. In the 28 GHz band, we are seeking comment on establishing a 
waiver process by which non-Federal FSS earth stations could acquire 
co-primary status in those areas where there is no LMDS licensee if 
they can demonstrate that they would not have a negative impact on 
future terrestrial service. We seek comment on establishing a similar 
waiver process for non-Federal FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz 
band. Does the fact that this band is space-to-Earth require any 
changes to the proposed waiver process?
    159. With regard to reception of space-to-Earth signals by user 
equipment in this band, ViaSat argues that opportunistic access to this 
spectrum would be useful and appropriate for satellite operators, 
provided that they also have reliable access to a base of spectrum in 
other bands that are dedicated to satellite operations on a primary 
basis, where satellites will always be able to operate on an unimpeded 
basis. Do other parties see potential value in this possible 
opportunistic use? We seek comment on whether the concepts that we have 
discussed with respect to fixed satellite user equipment in the 28 GHz 
band could be applied to the 37.5-40 GHz band with respect to non-
Federal FSS users.
    160. As in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, we seek comment on authorizing 
the provision of stationary non-Federal FSS user equipment in the 37.5-
40 GHz band, as we propose to adopt service rules authorizing 
terrestrial mmW mobile operations in this band. While satellite user 
equipment will not be transmitting Earth-to-space signals in this band 
and, thus, will not cause interference to terrestrial operations, we 
believe providing their operators with information about terrestrial 
stations is required in order for those operators to adapt their user 
equipment deployment plans to take into consideration the presence of 
interference generated by terrestrial stations. We invite comments on 
our proposal and alternatives with respect to this band.
    161. Finally, we invite comments on the terms and conditions under 
which satellite operators should be allowed to increase their PFDs in 
the 37.5-40 GHz band to overcome rain-fade conditions, as the 
Commission proposed earlier in the V-Band Third FNPRM. Specifically, we 
seek to refresh the record to reflect advances in signal processing and 
information processing systems that have occurred during the five years 
since the V-Band Third FNPRM was issued.

D. Federal Sharing Issues

    162. Portions of the 39 GHz and 37 GHz bands are shared with the 
Federal government. In addition, there are passive Federal and non-
Federal allocations below 37 GHz that need to be considered when 
developing service rules for the 37 GHz band. Through the inter-agency 
process, we will continue work with NTIA and the Federal agencies to 
update the information on current and future Federal use of the 37 GHz 
band, provide the appropriate technical parameters for envisioned fixed 
and mobile applications, assess sharing compatibility, and establish 
sharing arrangements to enable the development of service rules for 
innovative commercial wireless services. Below, we describe the 
relevant Federal allocations, provide the available information we 
have, and raise pertinent questions concerning sharing between Federal 
and non-Federal operations where appropriate.
    163. In addition, we seek comment on whether the future mmW 
technologies might be able to support a platform that could enable 
expanded sharing, including two-way shared use between Federal and non-
Federal users in these bands and sharing among different types of 
service platforms. For instance, could the future mmW technology be 
used to support convergence of historically different network 
topologies beyond just mobile, fixed, and satellite, to include air-to-
ground or ground-to-air, high altitude uses, or others uses? Could the 
same benefits of mmW technology that help facilitate different users 
and use cases also support increased sharing between Federal and non-
Federal uses in the non-Federal portions of these bands?
1. 39.5-40 GHz
    164. There is a Federal allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) and MSS 
(space-to-Earth) in the 39.5-40 GHz band. Federal government earth 
stations in the MSS in the 39.5-40 GHz band are prohibited from 
claiming protection from non-Federal stations in the Fixed and Mobile 
Services in this band, but are not required to protect non-federal 
Fixed and Mobile Services in the band (i.e., 5.43A of the ITU Radio 
regulations does not apply). This prohibition does not apply to Federal 
government earth stations in the FSS. When the 39 GHz Report and Order 
was adopted, Federal government use of the band was limited to military 
systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, but the Department of Defense 
stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at 39.5-40 
GHz in the future, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-40 GHz as a possible space 
research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data 
requirements. The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such 
plans would not affect the continued development of the 39 GHz band for 
non-Government use, but the Commission said that it intended to address 
those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would 
focus on developing inter-licensee and inter-service standards and 
criteria. At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides 
that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to 
military systems.
    165. We seek comment on whether the existing allocation provisions 
are sufficient to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal 
operations. We seek comment on appropriate protections for Federal 
operations in the 39.5-40 GHz band. What considerations should we keep 
in mind as we develop service rules for the 37.5-40 GHz band? What are 
the appropriate principles and mechanisms we should use to ensure 
protection of Federal operations and coexistence with commercial 
operations? Are any limitations or special rules on mobile use 
necessary in order to protect Federal military FSS use of the 39.5-40 
GHz band? Are there any additional measures needed in terms of Out-of-
Band (OOBE) limits that are needed to protect federal MSS and FSS 
downlink operations in the adjacent 40-40.5 GHz band?
2. 37-38.6 GHz
    166. There is also an allocation for federal space research, fixed, 
and mobile service operations in the 37-38 GHz band. There are also 
federal fixed and mobile allocations in the 38-38.6 GHz band. In 2004, 
NTIA sent a letter to the Commission identifying the following NASA 
receiving earth stations in the SRS in the 37-38 GHz band: Goldstone, 
California; Guam, Pacific Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops 
Island, Virginia; and White Sands, New Mexico. NTIA has subsequently 
identified the NASA receiving earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland. 
NTIA also identified Green Bank, Virginia; and Socorro, New Mexico NSF

[[Page 1822]]

sites to support their Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth 
station operations. NTIA noted the importance of the 37-38 GHz band to 
support U. S. goals to provide a permanent manned presence in Earth 
orbit (on or near the moon), to initiate manned exploration of the 
planet Mars, and to support VLBI by satellite.
    167. In their 2004 letter, NTIA also identified 14 military sites 
in the 37-38.6 GHz band that required protection. NTIA recommended that 
coordination with the federal operations be performed within the IRAC 
process. In 2006, NTIA sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming 
the need to protect NASA, NSF, and military operations from non-federal 
terrestrial and FSS operations in the 37-38 GHz band. NTIA requested 
that the protection of federal operations be accomplished by 
establishing a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency allocations 
specifying the federal sites and the coordination areas. NTIA also 
recommended that because of the potential interference from airborne 
systems, the aeronautical Mobile Service allocation should be deleted 
from the band 37-38 GHz.
    168. We seek comment on appropriate protections for Federal 
operations in the 37 GHz band. What considerations should we keep in 
mind as we develop service rules for the 37 GHz band? What are the 
appropriate principles and mechanisms we should use to ensure 
protection of Federal operations and coexistence with commercial 
operations?
3. Passive Services Below 37 GHz
    169. There are Federal and non-Federal allocations for the EESS 
(passive) and SRS (passive) in the 36-37 GHz band. Those services shall 
not receive protection from fixed and mobile allocations operating in 
accordance with the U.S. Table of Allocations. The 36.43-36.5 GHz band 
is used for radio astronomy spectral line emissions, and as specified 
in footnote US342 all practicable steps must be taken to protect radio 
astronomy in that band from interference. There are several allocations 
around 40 GHz to the radio astronomy service for both continuum and 
spectral line observations, some through footnote protections. Some of 
these allocations are shared with different types of active services. 
Pertinent to the bands under consideration and bands near 40 GHz 
covered under US342, there are Very Large Array receivers in current 
operation that observe the cosmos over the nominal frequency ranges of 
26.5-40 GHz (Ka-band), and 40-50 GHz (Q-band). VLBA receivers cover 
21.7-24.1 GHz and 41.0-45.0 GHz. Similarly, the Green Bank Telescope 
has a sensitive receiver and specialized wideband (continuum as well as 
spectrometric) back-ends for observations over the 26-40 GHz range.
    170. CORF reports that the 36-37 GHz band is used by a series of 
instruments that provide data on ocean winds, cloud liquid water, 
precipitation, terrestrial snow, sea ice cover, and sea surface 
temperature. Those instruments include the NASA Global Precipitation 
Measurement Mission's Microwave lmager, NASA Tropical Rainfall 
Measuring Mission's Microwave lmager, DoD Special Sensor Microwave/
lmager and WindSat instruments, and the JAXA Global Change Observation 
Mission-Water 1's Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2. CORF 
explains that most of these instruments operate in a direct detection 
mode, which means that their ability to reject out-of-band emissions is 
limited. CORF states that these instruments are particularly 
susceptible to interference because they operate in lower orbits and 
have larger receiver antennas. CORF asks for unspecified guard bands to 
protect EESS operations.
    171. Whenever possible, the radio astronomy community takes a 
number of measures to mitigate the impacts of interference, including 
locating radio observatories in remote areas and by using bands 
allocated or footnote-protected for radio astronomy services. Spectrum 
management and regulatory processes are, therefore, critical for 
interference-free radio astronomical operations. The provisions of 
US342 and ITU-R No. 5.149, for instance, have provided local protection 
for radio observatories. The FCC will continue to work closely with 
NTIA and NSF to help facilitate mobile applications in the mmW bands, 
while mitigating the impacts on existing radio astronomy facilities.
    172. We seek comment whether any special protections are necessary 
or appropriate for passive services below 37 GHz. As noted, EESS and 
space research operations are not entitled to interference protection 
from duly authorized Fixed and Mobile Services. Nonetheless, we seek 
comment on whether there are steps we could take to protect those 
operations without unduly limiting fixed and mobile operations in the 
37 GHz band.

E. Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues

1. Creation of New Rule Service and Part
    173. LMDS and the 39 GHz service are currently regulated under Part 
101 of the Commission's rules, which governs fixed microwave services. 
In light of the additional flexibility we are providing to LMDS and 39 
GHz licensees, including mobile operating rights, we propose to create 
a new radio service, the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, and 
regulate that new service under a new Part 30 of the Commission's 
rules. We also propose to include the contemplated new 37 GHz band as 
part of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. We seek comment on 
these proposals.
    174. We believe establishing a new rule part for these services 
would allow us to have one unified set of rules governing the various 
types of operations we contemplate licensees will offer. While there 
may be administrative advantages to keeping LMDS and the 39 GHz service 
in Part 101, we believe establishing a new rule part would provide more 
clarity and more accurately reflect the nature of these licenses. We 
ask commenters to offer their views.
2. Regulatory Status
    175. Background. For LMDS, the Commission has previously determined 
that applicants could provide common-carrier service, non-common 
carrier service, or both, and also enabled licensees to later amend 
their applications or modify that status. Similarly, in the 39 GHz 
band, the Commission concluded that licensees should be permitted to 
serve as a common carrier or as a private licensee. It determined that, 
for those licensees who select common-carrier regulatory status, they 
would be able to provide private service, and those licensees who 
select private service provider regulatory status could share the use 
of their facilities on a non-profit basis or could offer service on a 
for-profit, private carrier basis, subject to section 101.135 of the 
Commission's rules. Under this approach, licensees would elect the 
status of the services they wish to offer and be governed by the rules 
applicable to their status.
    176. The open and flexible approach the Commission took to 
regulatory status in Part 101 is also consistent with the Commission's 
approach to other wireless services, such as the Part 27 rules for 
terrestrial wireless service.
    177. Discussion. We propose to maintain the open and flexible

[[Page 1823]]

regulatory framework for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. 
Specifically, we propose to permit the full array of Fixed and Mobile 
Service offerings without undue regulatory restraint. In doing so, our 
goal is to maintain an open and flexible approach that will allow the 
business judgments of individual applicants and licensees in these 
bands to shape the nature of the services offered pursuant to their 
licenses.
    178. We propose to permit applicants and licensees to request 
common carrier status, non-common carrier status, private internal 
communications status, or a combination of these options, for 
authorization in a single license (or to switch between them). 
Applicants in these bands therefore would be able to, but would not be 
required to, choose between providing common carrier and non-common 
carrier services. If an applicant requested both common carrier and 
non-common carrier status in the same application, it would result in 
the issuance of both authorizations in a single license. Alternatively, 
the applicant may wish to limit its operations to common carrier or 
non-common services, in which case it would apply only for 
authorization on a common carrier or a non-common carrier basis, and 
the license would be issued for the status specified. The licensee 
would be able to provide all Fixed and Mobile Services anywhere within 
its licensed area at any time (except for indoor operating rights in 
the 37 GHz service), consistent with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements that are imposed on its respective operations. We note 
that it would be the licensee's obligation to maintain the various 
operations in compliance with all those requirements.
    179. We observe that an applicant is to rely on the realities of 
the services to be provided in electing the appropriate regulatory 
status. An election to provide service on a common carrier basis 
requires that the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise, 
the service is non-common carriage. Consistent with this approach, we 
propose to rely on the designation by an applicant of its status as a 
common carrier or non-common carrier, consistent with the Commission's 
decisions regarding the regulatory classification of mobile services, 
to enable us to fulfill our obligations to enforce the common carrier 
requirements contained in statutes and our regulations. We seek comment 
on this proposal.
3. Foreign Ownership Reporting
    180. Background. Certain foreign ownership and citizenship 
requirements are imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 310 of 
the Act, as modified by the 1996 Act. These provisions prohibit the 
issuance of licenses to certain applicants. For current LMDS, 37 GHz, 
and 39 GHz licensees, these statutory provisions are adopted in Part 
101 of the Commission's rules at section 101.7 of the Commission's 
rules. Specifically, section 101.7(a) prohibits the granting of any 
license to be held by a foreign government or its representative. 
Section 101.7(b) prohibits the granting of any common carrier license 
to be held by individuals that fail any of the four citizenship 
requirements listed.
    181. Discussion. We tentatively conclude that these Section 310 
requirements would apply to any applicants in the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service. An applicant requesting authorization only for 
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en-route, or aeronautical Fixed 
Services would be prohibited from holding a license if it met any of 
the criteria in paragraph (b). If the applicant requested authorization 
for services other than for broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en 
route, or aeronautical Fixed Services, it could hold a license if it 
met the single alien ownership requirement in Section 310(a), 
regardless of whether it would otherwise be disqualified for a common 
carrier authorization. And if the applicant requested authorization for 
both non-common carrier and common carrier services, it would be 
disqualified from a license if it met any of the criteria in Section 
310(b). Whether the applicant is seeking only common carrier 
authorization in a license or in combination with a non-common carrier 
authorization, the provisions of Section 310(b) would apply in either 
situation and would prevent any common carrier authorization from being 
issued to an ineligible applicant.
    182. We propose that applicants for this band should not be subject 
to different obligations in reporting their foreign ownership based on 
the type of service authorization requested in the application. 
Consequently, we propose to require all applicants to provide the same 
foreign ownership information, which covers both paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of Section 310, regardless of which service they propose to provide in 
the band. We also note that, if any such licensee later desires to 
provide any services that are subject to the restrictions in Section 
310(b), we would require the licensee to apply to the Commission for an 
amended license, and we would consider issues related to foreign 
ownership at that time.
    183. Based on the foregoing interpretation of the requirements in 
Section 310, we propose to apply a new provision in Part 30 that 
mirrors current section 101.7 of our rules. This approach is also 
consistent with our treatment of flexible use services regulated under 
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. We believe that such a provision 
would properly implement the restrictions contained in Section 310(a) 
and (b). We request comment on this proposal, including any costs and 
benefits.
4. Eligibility
    184. For the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, we propose to 
adopt an open eligibility standard and seek comment on this approach, 
including its costs and benefits. In particular, we seek comment on 
whether adopting an open eligibility standard for the licensing of 
these bands would encourage efforts to develop new technologies, 
products, and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of this 
spectrum. We note that an open eligibility approach would not affect 
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications 
that may apply under our rules.
5. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
    185. Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile 
wireless services, and ensuring access to and the availability of 
sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives 
innovation and investment. The Commission has held that the 
Communications Act requires a close examination of the impact of 
spectrum aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use 
of spectrum to ensure that spectrum is allocated and assigned in a 
manner that serves the public interest, convenience and necessity, and 
avoids the excessive concentration of licenses. In May 2014, the 
Commission adopted the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O, which revised its 
mobile spectrum holding policies. The Commission determined, among 
other things, to replace its post-auction case-by-case analysis of the 
licensing of spectrum bands through competitive bidding with a 
determination of whether a band-specific mobile spectrum holding limit 
is necessary and, if so, to establish that limit ex ante. The 
Commission further determined to continue to use its initial spectrum 
screen and case-by-case review for proposed secondary market 
transactions.

[[Page 1824]]

    186. We seek comment generally on how to address any mobile 
spectrum holdings issues involving the bands proposed for the new radio 
service in order to meet our statutory requirements and our goals for 
these bands. As discussed below, we are proposing to resolve all 
applications and license assignments in areas where there is currently 
no fixed licensee through competitive bidding. In considering whether 
to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for the licensing of a 
particular band through competitive bidding, as well as what type of 
limit to apply, the Commission concluded in the Mobile Spectrum 
Holdings R&O that it will assess whether the acquisition at auction of 
licenses to use a significant portion of spectrum by one or more 
providers could potentially harm the public interest by reducing the 
likelihood that multiple service providers would have access to 
sufficient spectrum to compete robustly. The Commission indicated that 
this determination will be based on several factors, including total 
amount of spectrum to be assigned, characteristics of the spectrum to 
be assigned, timing of when the spectrum could be used, and the 
specific rights being granted to licensees of the spectrum. The 
Commission indicated that the determination also will be based on the 
extent to which competitors have opportunities to gain access to 
alternative bands that would serve the same purpose as the spectrum 
licenses at issue. We seek comment on whether to adopt a band-specific 
spectrum holding limit in the licensing of these spectrum bands through 
competitive bidding, either for individual bands or a combination of 
these bands, and ask commenters to consider the costs and benefits of 
any such limits.
    187. In addition to considering whether to adopt a band-specific 
limit on the aggregation of these spectrum bands, we also will consider 
whether these bands are suitable and available for the provision of 
mobile telephony/broadband services in the same manner as other 
spectrum bands that currently are included in the Commission's spectrum 
screen as applied to secondary market transactions. Spectrum bands 
currently included in the spectrum screen are: 700 MHz; cellular; SMR; 
broadband PCS; H Block at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz; Advanced 
Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-
1, on a market-by-market basis), the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 
2155-2180 MHz bands (AWS-3, on a market-by-market basis), and the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands (AWS-4); Wireless 
Communications Service (WCS); Broadband Radio Service (BRS, on a 
market-by-market basis), and Educational Broadband Service (EBS, on a 
market-by-market basis), as well as 600 MHz at the conclusion of the 
Incentive Auction). We seek comment on our proposed approach not to 
include these bands in the spectrum screen. Similar to the 
determination of whether to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for 
the licensing of a particular band through competitive bidding, the 
determination of ``suitability'' and ``availability'' in the context of 
secondary market transactions review involves the evaluation of a 
number of factors related to the spectrum bands to be held by the 
acquiring entity. In that regard, we recognize that mmW bands could be 
particularly useful in supporting very high capacity networks in areas 
that require such capacity but are likely, given these bands' current 
technical characteristics, to be used to complement existing lower-band 
spectrum up through the BRS/EBS band that is currently considered 
suitable and available for the provision of mobile wireless services. 
We also recognize the nascent state of mmW technology, as well the 
early stage of the development of the accompanying standards. In light 
of these circumstances, it is not clear that, for purposes of including 
these bands in the spectrum screen applied to secondary market 
transactions, the bands we propose to license will be ``suitable'' and 
``available'' spectrum for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband 
services in the near term. We therefore are disinclined to include 
these spectrum bands in the spectrum screen and seek comment on this 
proposed approach.
6. Performance Requirements
a. Introduction
    188. The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote 
the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide 
service to customers in a timely manner, and to promote the provision 
of innovative services in unserved areas, particularly rural ones. Our 
overriding purpose in establishing performance requirements is to 
provide ``a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by 
licensees to ensure that service is indeed being provided to the 
public.''
    189. In the case of Part 101 services, such as 24 GHz, LMDS, and 39 
GHz, licensees are required to demonstrate that they are providing 
``substantial service'' at the end of their first license period in 
order to obtain renewal. The Commission has generally defined 
substantial service as ``service which is sound, favorable, and 
substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally 
warrant renewal.''
    190. For Part 101 Fixed Services, including the LMDS and 39 GHz 
services, the Commission has generally specified safe harbors that will 
satisfy the substantial service requirement. It has also emphasized 
that safe harbors are merely one means of demonstrating substantial 
service, and that given an appropriate showing, a level of service that 
does not meet a safe harbor may still constitute substantial service. 
It has also determined that all substantial service showings that do 
not meet an established safe harbor would be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
    In connection with its Wireless Backhaul proceeding, the Commission 
rejected an argument from the National Spectrum Managers Association 
(NSMA) that the Commission should credit antecedent activities such as 
developing equipment, offering spectrum leases, and submitting 
proposals to potential customers towards a finding of substantial 
service.
    191. In the NOI, we discussed performance requirements in the 
context of the four mechanisms for licensing vacant spectrum on which 
we sought comment: (1) Licensing exclusive rights to geographic areas, 
(2) nonexclusive licensing rules using automated frequency 
coordination, (3) an unlicensed regime under Part 15 of our rules, and 
(4) a hybrid, spectrum-sharing model. With respect to the first 
licensing mechanism, we noted that one potential concern with it is 
that ``portions of license areas outside of high-traffic areas could 
end up lying fallow.'' We proposed three different ways we might deal 
with that concern: (1) Relying on secondary market leasing, (2) 
establishing smaller licensing areas, and (3) adjusting performance 
requirements to ensure the spectrum is maximally utilized. We noted 
that there were several ways to pursue this last option, including more 
objective buildout requirements and an alternative remedy for failure 
to build out (e.g., keep-what-you-use, which we noted could take 
several different forms).
    192. Several commenters addressed the issue of applying performance 
requirements in licensing the millimeter wave bands. Qualcomm and 
Straight Path expressed support for imposing reasonable performance 
requirements. Other commenters suggested that adjusted performance 
requirements

[[Page 1825]]

were potential or promising solutions, but stopped short of endorsing 
them. Other commenters were more skeptical of performance requirements 
as a tool for ensuring spectrum utilization in these bands, arguing 
either that traditional performance requirements are: (1) Unnecessary 
if the Commission adopts proper secondary-market policies; or (2) 
insufficient to ensure spectrum utilization in an exclusive licensing 
regime based on geographic area. Finally, we note that some of the 
fixed incumbent licensees argued that buildout requirements for Mobile 
Services and Fixed Services should be separate so that a failure to 
meet the mobile requirement would not result in cancellation of the 
fixed license.
b. Geographic Performance Requirements at the County Level
    193. As discussed elsewhere in this NPRM, for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, 
and 37 GHz bands, we propose to license each band using county-based 
licenses. In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, we also propose to assign 
exclusive rights to geographic areas to existing licensees. In order to 
make this approach work, we would subdivide existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz 
licenses on a county basis, where an LMDS or 39 GHz fixed incumbent 
licensee would give up its existing license and receive new 
license(s)--containing both fixed and mobile rights--for every county 
that lay within one of its existing license areas.
    194. We propose to apply performance requirements for the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service at the county level. By proposing to 
license service areas by county and to measure performance requirements 
on a county basis, we are providing licensees with flexibility to offer 
service in counties where the licensee determines it is technologically 
and economically feasible to do so. A licensee that decides to offer 
service in such a county would be able to meet the performance 
requirement and keep its license at the end of its first license term, 
without needing to provide service in any adjacent counties. Thus, if a 
licensee held licenses for nearby counties--either because it had 
obtained them at auction or because it was an existing fixed licensee 
whose service area had included other counties--and it determined it 
could not meet the performance requirement in those other counties, 
those licenses would terminate and go back to the Commission without 
jeopardizing the licenses in the county where the licensee had built 
out. Moreover, for licenses in counties where the performance 
requirement was not met, the Commission would be able to make those 
licenses available for use by others through re-auction, ensuring that 
other operators could use the spectrum in those areas.
    195. We propose this approach in an effort to foster expeditious 
deployment by licensees in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands for the 
provision of wireless, terrestrial broadband service, and to enable 
others to have a chance to use the spectrum in areas where such 
deployment has failed to occur during that time. Because licensees 
could keep any counties in which they satisfy the performance 
requirement, and because we are proposing a relatively low population-
based benchmark (in comparison to buildout benchmarks we have imposed 
recently), licensees in these bands would be more likely to build out 
to actually provide services in areas where it is feasible and less 
likely to build for the sake of keeping their licensees. At the same 
time, we believe this scheme still fulfills the basic function of 
performance requirements in ensuring that spectrum is utilized and 
spectrum gatekeeping and warehousing is avoided.
    196. We observe that several commenters supported the adoption of 
reasonable performance requirements in these bands, though they did not 
propose or endorse any specific benchmarks. Other commenters, though 
they did not explicitly endorse performance requirements, suggested 
that adjusted performance requirements were options that should be 
considered. We encourage comment on whether our proposal strikes the 
appropriate balance between requirements that are too low as to not 
result in meaningful buildout and those that would be so high as to be 
unattainable. We also seek comment on whether other benchmarks 
represent more appropriate requirements. Commenters should discuss and 
quantify how any supported buildout requirements will affect investment 
and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other costs and 
benefits associated with their proposals. We continue to believe that 
performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed 
spectrum does not lie fallow. At the same time, however, we recognize 
that the unique characteristics of frequencies above 24 GHz may require 
us to adopt a thoughtfully calibrated approach to performance 
requirements. We recognize that these unique characteristics are likely 
to cause prospective licensees in these bands to be interested in 
serving relatively small geographic areas (e.g., urban areas), at least 
in the short-to-medium term. Accordingly, we are proposing a smaller 
coverage requirement than we have recently applied in other lower 
frequency bands. We seek comment on applying performance requirements 
at the county level. Is there another more appropriate geographic unit 
we should use for evaluating compliance with performance requirements?
c. Performance Metrics
    197. Under the Communication's Act, we have an obligation to adopt 
rules that prevent the warehousing of spectrum, and we have an interest 
in doing so--it is our goal to create a regulatory scheme that promotes 
the rapid and widespread deployment of wireless broadband, to 
consumers' benefit. The Commission commonly measures performance on the 
basis of population covered by a licensee in a license area. This 
approach can be readily adopted to wide-area coverage based fixed 
systems (point-to-multipoint systems). For licensees providing fixed, 
point-to-point links, the Commission has generally evaluated buildout 
using a different metric--it compares the number of links in operation 
to the population of the license area. The Commission has also 
evaluated buildout, including in rural areas, by the percentage of land 
area served by a licensee.
    198. We believe, given that technologies under development for 
these bands could be used for ``fixed'' or ``mobile'' uses, as 
described below, that it would be highly desirable to have a universal 
performance metric that could work across various types of services. 
Otherwise, we open the possibility of gaming the performance 
requirements, which would be counter to our statutory obligation and 
our policy prerogative. For example, if we adopted different buildout 
requirements for different services under the same license, a licensee 
might choose the lowest-common-denominator metric in order to provide a 
safe harbor for performance, even if this metric does not match the 
licensee's actual plans to build out a network. We believe, in general, 
it would be better to have a single metric covering different varieties 
of network deployment in these bands.
    199. With this in mind, we seek comment on the appropriate type of 
metric to be used in evaluating buildout in the mmW bands. Is it 
feasible and appropriate to develop a unified metric combining fixed, 
mobile, and satellite service? If so, what is the best way to define 
that metric?
    200. Of the three traditional performance metrics, it appears that 
population coverage is the one most

[[Page 1826]]

naturally suited to encompass both mobile and fixed network topologies. 
For each of these uses, it should be possible to develop a service 
contour and calculate its coverage in terms of the population within 
the coverage area. For a short-range mobile networks, we might expect 
this coverage area to be a ring concentrated around each base station. 
For longer-range fixed links, a narrow ``keyhole'' contour may be 
applicable. Regardless, both could be determined in terms of a common 
unit of measurement, i.e., a measure of population that is served by 
the station. We seek comment on whether such a population-based 
approach would be appropriate for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
service. We also seek comment on the alternative of using an area-based 
metric.
    201. If we use a population-based metric, we proposed to require 
that the applicant demonstrate that it is providing reliable signal 
coverage and that the applicant demonstrate that it is using the 
facilities to provide service, either to customers or for internal use. 
In terms of providing reliable signal coverage, we propose to measure 
coverage at the census block level, and that a census block will be 
considered ``covered'' if a reliable signal level is placed over the 
centroid of the census block. Under this methodology if a licensee 
provides coverage to a census block or multiple census blocks that have 
a total population equal to 40% of the population of the county the 
licensee would be deemed to meet the performance requirement and would 
retain the license for the entire county. We seek comment on this 
methodology or whether, alternatively, we should use some other 
methodology for determining coverage. In terms of defining service, we 
propose to require that a licensee demonstrate that all of the 
requisite infrastructure elements are in place and operational 
(including certified radio equipment, power, backhaul, etc.) and that 
the radio facilities are part of a network that provides ongoing 
service to unaffiliated paying subscribers or for bona fide private 
uses. We also seek comment on what engineering methodology would be 
appropriate to ensure consistent measurement of service area across 
different network topologies and technologies.
    202. We also seek comment on alternative ways to measure population 
if we use a population-based metric. To the extent systems are used 
primarily at businesses, is there any way to reliably measure the 
daytime population within an area? If a system is used to serve an area 
with a heavy tourist or transient population, is it possible and 
appropriate to measure those types of populations?
    203. Alternatively, is there some other method to normalize 
performance measurement so that it applies consistently to both fixed 
and mobile network deployments? For example, is it possible to assign 
some sort of population-based metric or area-based metric to a fixed-
point-to-point link? What factors would be appropriate to consider in 
assigning a population or area to a fixed link (e.g., population in or 
near the location of the link, interference contour around the link)? 
Are there other non-population based technical metrics that should be 
considered in measuring performance (e.g., use of services associated 
with the link, capacity of the link)? Is there some metric other than 
population, land area, or number of links that we should consider?
    204. We also seek comment on the possible alternative of having a 
separate performance requirement for fixed services. In LMDS, the 
Commission required licensees to provide substantial service. The 
Commission elaborated on what may constitute substantial service by 
offering some specific examples, which are sometimes referred to as 
safe harbors, to provide LMDS licensees with a degree of certainty as 
to how to comply with the substantial service requirement by the end of 
the initial license term. The Commission explained that an LMDS 
licensee that chooses to offer fixed, point-to-point services may fall 
within a safe harbor by constructing four permanent links per one 
million people in its licensed service area. We seek comment on the 
advantages and disadvantages of adopting a performance benchmark for 
fixed services based on the number of links compared to the population 
in a licensee's service area. We also seek comment on how we would 
reconcile performance requirements that vary depending on the type of 
service provided to ensure the spectrum is being put to use.
    205. As noted above, we are seeking comment on means of 
facilitating sharing between terrestrial licensees in the 28 GHz, 37 
GHz, and 39 GHz bands and FSS operators. We seek comment on whether it 
would be possible to incorporate satellite operations into a unified 
engineering metric. If we do not develop a unified metric, we propose 
that a FSS operator holding an Upper Microwave Flexible Use license 
used in association with an earth station be required to demonstrate 
that the earth station is in operation and providing service. We seek 
comment on what factors we should consider in determining whether the 
earth station is providing service. Should we use the same criteria we 
listed above?
d. Performance Milestones
    206. The mmW bands have propagation characteristics that are well-
suited for high bandwidth applications and intensive spectral reuse. 
However, because of the relatively small coverage area of a site 
operating on mmW spectrum, deploying a wide-area network may not be 
ideal, or it may not be necessary given the potential that these bands 
will provide primarily capacity, at least in cellular-type 
applications. In addition, given the nascent state of technology in 
these bands, we anticipate that it will take substantially longer to 
deploy these systems than in lower frequency bands. We also anticipate 
that initial deployments in these bands will take place in highly 
localized areas where there is demand for the speed and other 
characteristics these systems will provide.
    207. Therefore, we propose that an Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
licensee providing mobile or point-to-multipoint service provide 
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40 percent of 
the population in each of its county-based license areas at the end of 
the initial license term. We also propose to incorporate point-to-point 
operations into a population-based metric using the ``keyhole'' contour 
and include the population in that area within the keyhole contour in 
determining the population served by a station. We seek comment on this 
proposal. If, instead, we adopt the area-based metric described above, 
we would require an area coverage milestone that would be calibrated to 
be equivalent to 40 percent of the population. We seek comment on 
whether this calibration should represent the land area encompassing 
approximately 40 percent of population for the average U.S. county or 
whether it should be calibrated separately for each county in the 
United States. If we adopt separate benchmarks for fixed operations, we 
seek comment on what those benchmarks should be. We also seek comment 
on adopting a special rule that FSS licensees using Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use licenses in connection with FSS earth stations would be 
required to show that the associated earth station was in operation and 
providing service. We seek comment on these proposals, as well as 
alternatives.

[[Page 1827]]

e. Penalty
    208. We propose that if a licensee fails to meet the buildout 
requirement in any county, its authorization for each county in which 
it fails to meet the requirement would terminate automatically without 
Commission action. This penalty is widely applied in many wireless 
services. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there any alternative 
penalties that may be appropriate?
f. Use-or-Share Obligation
    209. One of the most important characteristics of bands above 24 
GHz is that the propagation and atmospheric absorption characteristics 
result in shorter range communications. While those characteristics 
provide challenges, they also provide greater opportunity for frequency 
reuse without interference. Accordingly, we believe these bands are 
particularly good candidates for sharing. At the same time, a sharing 
mechanism can discourage warehousing and other improper behavior that 
result in spectrum not being used. We believe a ``use-or-share'' rule 
would provide another mechanism for ensuring that spectrum is put to 
productive use.
    210. We propose that portions of a license area that remain unused 
after 5 years after the initial license is issued, or, for incumbent 
licensees, five years after the effective date of the new rules, be 
made available for shared use by other users. This shared use would be 
on a non-interfering basis to the licensees' use. We propose that after 
the first five years, the extent of unused spectrum could continue to 
change. In other words, a licensee would be free to expand its 
operations (with the requirement that other users retract service from 
the expanded area) or a licensee could reduce its operations (making 
more portions of the license area available for shared access). We seek 
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits.
    211. We also seek comment on establishing a specific framework for 
sharing. How should we define ``unused spectrum'' for these purposes 
(or conversely, how would we define ``use'' for these purposes)? We 
have previously proposed that licensees be required to make available 
information on their proposed facilities. Would that information be 
sufficient to provide information on what constituted ``unused 
spectrum?'' What would be the best way to define and determine what 
areas were unused? Should we adopt technical criteria for determining 
when spectrum is used? If so, what are the appropriate criteria? Should 
shared use be authorized on a licensed basis or under Part 15 of the 
Commission's rules? What mechanism should be used to maintain sharing 
boundaries and prevent harmful interference? Would an SAS be the best 
means of administering a sharing mechanism, or should the Commission 
adopt some other coordination mechanism? We seek comment on these and 
all other issues associated with establishing a sharing framework.
g. Service After the Initial License Term
    212. We seek comment on what requirements we should apply in the 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service after a licensee makes a 
performance showing after its initial license term. We intend to create 
a mechanism to require that this spectrum is continually used, 
including ensuring that licensees that have met their performance 
requirements continue to provide service and expand their networks. As 
technology develops for these bands, should we require licensees to 
make more stringent construction showings after the initial license 
term? If so, what should those additional requirements be, and when 
should they apply? If a licensee substantially reduces service after 
making its initial buildout showing, should it be subject to penalties 
over and above the obligation to share spectrum? Are there other 
requirements we should impose in order to ensure that spectrum 
continues to be put in use? For instance, should we require a 
performance showing, even using the exact same metric, at some regular 
interval after the initial performance deadline?
h. Treatment of Incumbent Licenses
    213. We recognize that current LMDS and 39 GHz licensees may be 
planning to meet current requirements concerning substantial service 
and renewal expectancy. In order to provide a smooth transition, we 
propose to apply the existing performance requirement to incumbent LMDS 
and 39 GHz licensees at the end of their current license terms, so long 
as the license term expires prior to March 1, 2021. We recognize that 
current licensees will have a difficult choice--to try to acquire new 
equipment and deploy right at the potential launch of mobile mmW 
services (expected around 2020), or provide innovative fixed services. 
We seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, we seek comment on 
allowing current licensee to meet their performance requirements under 
the current rules at some earlier date, for example 2018.
i. Alternatives to Construction-Based Performance Requirements
    214. We acknowledge that some commenters question whether 
traditional performance requirements are necessary or appropriate in 
these bands, based on observations about market incentives to use 
spectrum and the unique characteristics of millimeter frequencies. We 
believe, for the reasons described above, that performance requirements 
are an important tool to ensure that spectrum is utilized. However, we 
also recognize that traditional performance requirements in these bands 
would create certain challenges. These challenges include taking into 
account the unique difficulties for licensees that try to deploy 
networks using these bands, as well as the difficulties the Commission 
would have in enforcing performance requirements in 3,143 counties 
nationwide. Therefore, we also seek comment on alternative approaches 
we might take to ensuring deployment and spectrum utilization, as well 
as the costs and benefits of adopting any of those approaches.
    215. First, we seek comment on whether the consecutive license 
concept discussed below would provide strong incentives to productive 
use that might obviate the need for construction-based performance 
milestones. Under that proposal, prospective millimeter wave licensees 
could bid for a license in a given county in a single, one-time 
auction, and the winning bidder in that auction would be required to 
pay the auction price, adjusted for inflation, before the start of each 
five-year license term; once the winning bidding made this payment 
before a five-year license term, a new license would be issued to the 
licensee for that five-year term. Such an approach would be one way to 
incentivize construction of network facilities and spectrum use, given 
that a licensee would be unlikely to pay the auction price in 
successive license terms unless it could come up with a viable long-
term plan for using the spectrum. That approach could also make 
traditional performance requirements unnecessary because a licensee 
would be unlikely to make future payments for spectrum it does not 
intend to use. We seek comment on these approaches, and other 
alternative approaches we might take, as well as the costs and benefits 
of adopting any of these approaches.
    216. Second, we also seek comment on separating interference and 
exclusion rights using an ``option'' concept to accomplish the goals of 
performance requirements. In the 3.5 GHz

[[Page 1828]]

proceeding, we recently sought comment on a proposal to define ``use'' 
of priority access licenses in such a way as to separate the right to 
operate without interference from the right to exclude other users. 
Under that proposal, the priority access licensee would have the right, 
but not the obligation, to exclude other users by making an additional 
``option'' payment. If this concept has merit, how should the idea be 
adapted to comport with the other proposals contained in this 
proceeding?
    217. We also seek comment on any other alternatives to 
construction-based performance requirements that may be appropriate in 
the context of the other rules we propose herein.
j. Performance Requirements and Part 25 Operations
    218. As noted above, we are seeking comment on means of 
facilitating sharing between terrestrial licensees in the 28 GHz, 37 
GHz, and 39 GHz bands and FSS operators. We seek comment on whether it 
would be appropriate to make any adjustments to our performance 
requirements to facilitate such sharing. As noted above, we seek 
comment on what FSS licensees using Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
licenses in connection with FSS earth stations would be required to 
show to demonstrate that the associated earth station was in operation 
and providing service. We seek comment on these issues, as well as 
other issues relating to the intersection between performance 
requirements and sharing with satellite operators.
7. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
    219. For Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees, for 
providers that identify their regulatory status as common carrier or 
non-common carrier, we propose to define ``permanently discontinued'' 
as a period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not 
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, 
controlled by, or related to, the provider in the service area of its 
license (or smaller service area in the case of a partitioned license). 
Under section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, an authorization 
will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if 
service is ``permanently discontinued.'' The permanent discontinuance 
rule is intended to provide operational flexibility while ensuring that 
spectrum does not lie idle for extended periods.
    219. We propose a different approach, however, for licensees that 
use their licenses for private, internal communications, because such 
licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers. 
For such private, internal communications, we propose to define 
``permanent discontinuance'' as a period of 180 consecutive days during 
which the licensee does not operate. Licensees would not be subject to 
this requirement until 1 year after their initial license period ends, 
so they will have adequate time to construct their network. Allowing 
such licensees one year before they are subject to permanent 
discontinuance is also consistent with the current Part 101 permanent 
discontinuance rules.
    220. In addition, consistent with section 1.955(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules, we propose that, if a 28 GHz, 37 GHz, or 39 GHz 
licensee permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the 
Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 
and requesting license cancellation. An authorization will 
automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service 
is permanently discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the 
required form. We seek comment on these proposals, including the 
associated costs and benefits.
    221. The approach to permanent discontinuance described above is 
consistent with the definition that the Commission has adopted for 
other spectrum bands that are licensed for mobile use, including the H 
Block, AWS-3, and AWS-4 bands. We note that the discontinuance periods 
in the Part 101 rules are different, but we tentatively conclude that 
those requirements are more applicable to site-licensed microwave 
licenses. We seek comment on our proposal.
8. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
    222. Background. The Commission's Part 101 rules generally allow 
for geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation in the LMDS and 
39 GHz service. Geographic partitioning refers to the assignment of 
geographic portions of a license to another licensee along geopolitical 
or other boundaries. Spectrum disaggregation refers to the assignment 
of discrete amounts of spectrum under the license to another entity. 
Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic 
area operated by different companies on adjacent frequencies in the 
same band.
    223. In 1997, the Commission determined that all LMDS licensees 
would generally be permitted to disaggregate and partition their 
licensees. The Commission later adopted specific procedural, 
administrative, and operational rules to govern the disaggregation and 
partitioning of LMDS licenses. Similarly, in the same year, the 
Commission concluded that partitioning and disaggregation would be 
permitted in the 39 GHz band; and it adopted rules to govern 
partitioning and disaggregation in that band as well.
    224. We did not address the issue of secondary market transactions, 
including partitioning and disaggregation, in the NOI. Nonetheless, 
several commenters addressed this area, and those that did were 
universally supportive of allowing secondary market transactions in 
general and of allowing partitioning and disaggregation in particular.
    225. Discussion. We propose to continue permitting partitioning and 
disaggregation by 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees and to allow 37 GHz 
licensees to partition or disaggregate their licenses. As the 
Commission noted when first establishing partitioning and 
disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate the 
efficient use of spectrum by enabling licensees to make offerings 
directly responsive to market demands for particular types of services, 
increasing competition by allowing new entrants to enter markets, and 
expediting provision of services that might not otherwise be provided 
in the near term. This policy would leave the decision of determining 
the correct size of licenses to the licensees and the marketplace, 
which is consistent with the flexible approach to licensing these bands 
that we have proposed in this NPRM.
    226. To ensure that the public interest would be served if 
partitioning or disaggregation is allowed, we propose requiring each 
licensee in these bands that is a party to a partitioning, 
disaggregation, or combination of both, to independently meet the 
applicable performance and renewal requirements. We believe this 
approach would facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling 
service providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum 
blocks to meet their operational needs. We seek comment on these 
proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and 
benefits of these proposals with respect to competition, innovation, 
and investment.
    227. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt 
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or 
disaggregation of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and

[[Page 1829]]

39 GHz spectrum, and the extent to which such policies ultimately may 
promote more service. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs 
and benefits of promoting more service using mechanisms to encourage 
partitioning and disaggregation of spectrum in these bands, including 
the effects of any proposals.
b. Spectrum Leasing
    228. Background. In 2003, in order to promote more efficient use of 
terrestrial wireless spectrum through secondary market transactions and 
in order to eliminate regulatory uncertainty, the Commission adopted 
the Secondary Markets First Report and Order, which contained a 
comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern spectrum leasing 
arrangements between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees. These 
policies and rules enabled terrestrially based Wireless Radio Service 
licensees holding ``exclusive use'' spectrum rights to lease some or 
all of the spectrum usage rights associated with their licenses to 
third party spectrum lessees. Those third party lessees were then are 
permitted to provide wireless services consistent with the underlying 
license authorization.
    229. In the 2003 Secondary Markets First Report and Order, the 
Commission excluded a number of wireless radio services from the rules 
and policies, including Part 101 services. In 2004, however, the 
Commission extended the 2003 spectrum leasing policies to a number of 
additional wireless services, including Part 101 services. At that 
time, the Commission also built upon the 2003 spectrum leasing 
framework by establishing immediate approval procedures for certain 
categories of terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements.
    230. As mentioned, we did not address secondary market transactions 
at all in the NOI. Regardless, in addition to voicing support for 
allowing secondary market transactions, several commenters also 
specifically supported allowing spectrum leasing arrangements.
    231. Discussion. We propose that the spectrum leasing policies and 
rules established in those proceedings be applied to the new Part 30 
radio service governing Upper Microwave Flexible Use Services, 
including all 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz terrestrial licensees. We 
propose to apply these rules and policies in the same manner that those 
policies apply to Part 101 services. Our secondary markets policies are 
designed to promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the 
spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services and devices, 
enhance economic opportunities for accessing spectrum, and promote 
competition among providers. Likewise, allowing spectrum leasing in 
these bands will serve these same purposes. We also observe that 
``[f]or a particular spectrum band, spectrum leasing policies generally 
follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation 
policies for the band.'' Thus, our proposal to permit spectrum leasing 
in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz services is consistent with our 
determination above to permit partitioning and disaggregation in these 
spectrum bands.
    232. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss 
the effects on competition, innovation and investment, and on extending 
our secondary spectrum leasing policies and rules to these bands.
9. Other Operating Requirements
    233. Regardless of which radio service or rule part the licenses in 
the these bands are issued pursuant to, licensees may be required to 
comply with rules contained in other parts of the Commission's rules 
depending on the particular services they provide. For example:
     Applicants and licensees will be subject to the 
application filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set 
forth in Part 1 of our rules.
     To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service (CMRS), such service would be subject to the provisions 
of Part 20 of the Commission's rules, along with the provisions in the 
rule part under which the license was issued. Part 20 applies to all 
CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed under other 
parts of our rules.
     The application of general provisions of Parts 22, 24, 27, 
or 101 would include rules related to equal employment opportunity, 911 
service, etc.
    234. We seek comment generally on any provisions in existing, 
service-specific rules that may require specific recognition or 
adjustment to comport with the supervening application of another rule 
part, as well as any provisions that may be necessary in this other 
rule part to fully describe the scope of covered services and 
technologies. We seek comment on applying these rules to the spectrum 
that is the subject of this NPRM, and specifically on any rules that 
would be affected by our proposal to apply elements of the framework of 
these parts, whether separately or in conjunction with other 
requirements.
    235. We propose, therefore, to also require Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service licensees to comply with certain other rule parts 
that pertain generally to wireless communications services. This 
approach will maintain general consistency among various wireless 
communications services. Further, we seek comment on whether we need to 
add any rules in order to ensure that we cover licensees in these bands 
under the necessary Commission rules. Finally, we seek comment on any 
rules that would be affected by the proposal to apply elements of the 
framework of these rule parts, whether separately or in conjunction 
with other requirements.
10. Competitive Bidding Procedures
    236. As discussed above, we propose to re-designate the existing 
LMDS and 39 GHz licenses as a new radio service combining mobile and 
fixed rights, in which case the existing fixed licensees would be 
assigned new licenses. We note that, of the 986 designated LMDS license 
areas, 416 have active licenses at this time, and of the 2,464 
designated 39 GHz license areas, 859 have active licenses at this time. 
Further, because we have never licensed 37 GHz for fixed or mobile use, 
there are currently no active terrestrial licenses in that spectrum.
    237. We have a statutory obligation to use competitive bidding to 
resolve mutually exclusive applications for licenses. Section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act requires that the Commission assign initial 
licenses through the use of competitive bidding when mutually exclusive 
applications for such licenses are accepted for filing, except in the 
case of certain specific statutory exemptions. This statutory mandate 
applies to the mmW bands. Consistent with the Commission's policy that 
competitive bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value 
the spectrum most highly, we believe that it would be in the public 
interest to adopt a licensing scheme for the Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service which allows the filing of mutually exclusive applications 
that, if accepted, would be resolved through competitive bidding.
    238. Under the proposed licensing scheme, we propose to resolve all 
applications and license assignments in areas where there is currently 
no active licensee through competitive bidding, consistent with our 
statutory mandate under Section 309(j). We seek comment on this 
proposal. Additionally, we seek comment on a number of proposals 
relating to competitive bidding procedures discussed below, including 
the costs and benefits of those proposals.

[[Page 1830]]

a. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
    239. We propose that the Commission would conduct any auction for 
licenses of spectrum in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in 
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 
1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and generally consistent with 
the competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in previous 
auctions. In July 2015, the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order 
amended the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules by, among 
other things, updating the standardized schedule of small business size 
standards, instituting a rural service provider bidding credit, and 
adopting a process by which we may establish a reasonable monetary 
limit or cap on the total amount of bidding credits that an eligible 
small business or rural service provider may be awarded in any 
particular auction. Specifically, we propose to employ the Part 1 rules 
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, 
unjust enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting 
requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between 
auction applicants. Under this proposal, such rules would be subject to 
any further modifications that the Commission may adopt for its Part 1 
general competitive bidding rules in the future. We seek comment on 
whether any of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be 
modified for an auction of licenses in these frequency bands.
b. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
    240. Background. In authorizing the Commission to use competitive 
bidding, Congress mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small 
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members 
of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate 
in the provision of spectrum-based services.'' In addition, Section 
309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that, in establishing eligibility 
criteria and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall seek to 
promote a number of objectives, including ``economic opportunity and 
competition . . . by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and 
by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including 
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women.'' One of the principal means by 
which the Commission fulfills this mandate is through the award of 
bidding credits to small businesses.
    241. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility 
requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking 
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each 
particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. As noted 
above, we recently updated our standardized schedule of small business 
size standards and associated bidding credits. Under the new 
standardized schedule, businesses with average annual gross revenues 
for the preceding three years not exceeding $4 million would be 
eligible for a 35 percent bidding credit, businesses with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20 
million would be eligible for a 25 percent bidding credit, and 
businesses with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three 
years not exceeding $55 million would be eligible for a 15 percent 
bidding credit.
    242. Discussion. We propose to use for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 
GHz bands the standardized schedule of small business size standards we 
adopted in the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order. We also 
propose to provide qualifying ``small businesses'' with a bidding 
credit of 15 percent and qualifying ``very small businesses'' with a 
bidding credit of 25 percent in future auctions of licenses in these 
services. We have used these bidding credits in a range of other 
services and in instances where ``[w]e do not know the precise type of 
service that new licensees may attempt to provide in this band.'' In 
the absence of any information in the record at this point about the 
capital requirements to allow us to tentatively conclude otherwise, we 
propose to use the two small business definitions with higher gross 
revenues thresholds. Thus, we propose to define a small business as an 
entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with 
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20 
million. Consistent with the decision in the Competitive Bidding Update 
Report & Order, we also seek comment on whether the unique 
characteristics of these frequencies and our proposed licensing model 
suggest that we should adopt different small business size standards 
and associated bidding credits than we have in the past. We seek 
comment on these issues, including the costs and benefits associated 
with different approaches we might take.
    243. Commenters should focus on the appropriate definitions of 
small businesses and very small businesses as they may relate to the 
size of the geographic area to be served and the spectrum allocated to 
each license. Further, commenters should discuss and quantify any costs 
or benefits associated with these standards and associated bidding 
credits as they relate to the proposed geographic areas. In discussing 
these issues, commenters are requested to address and quantify the 
expected capital requirements for services in these bands and other 
characteristics of the service. Commenters are also invited to use 
comparisons with other frequency bands for which the Commission has 
already established service rules as a basis for their comments and any 
quantification of costs and benefits regarding the appropriate small 
business size standards.
    244. In establishing the criteria for small business bidding 
credits, we acknowledge the difficulty in accurately predicting the 
technology and market conditions that will exist at the time these 
frequencies are licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of services that 
will be offered over these bands may require adjustment depending upon 
ongoing technological developments and changes in market conditions.
c. Rural Service Provider Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
    245. Background. In the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order, 
the Commission adopted a 15 percent bidding credit for eligible rural 
service providers. The new rural service bidding credit allows an 
eligible rural service provider that provides commercial communications 
services to a customer base of fewer than 250,000 combined wireless, 
wireline, broadband, and cable subscribers and serves primarily rural 
areas a 15 percent bidding credit. An applicant is permitted to claim a 
rural service provider bidding credit or a small business bidding 
credit, but not both. The rural service provider bidding credit is 
designed to better enable rural service providers to compete for 
spectrum licenses, thereby speeding the availability of wireless voice 
and broadband services in rural areas, in furtherance of statutory 
objectives.
    246. Discussion. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to 
apply the rural service provider bidding credit to auction of the 28 
GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz. While the rural service provider bidding 
credit is new, we have used

[[Page 1831]]

other types of bidding credits in the past to facilitate competition 
for spectrum at auction. Given the nature of the services being 
contemplated for the mmW bands, is use of the rural service provider 
bidding credit appropriate? Commenters are requested to address and 
quantify the expected capital requirements for service in rural areas 
and other characteristics of the service when provided in rural areas.
    247. We note that under our Part 1 rules, a winning bidder for a 
market will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for serving a 
qualifying Tribal land within that market, provided that it complies 
with the applicable competitive bidding rules.
d. Bidding Process Options
    248. We seek comment on whether we should revise any of our bidding 
process and payment rules to take into consideration the administrative 
difficulties for the Commission in enforcing construction requirements 
in the 3,143 counties nationwide. One alternative means of encouraging 
deployment of network facilities and spectrum utilization (in place of 
traditional construction requirements), as discussed above, would be to 
allow potential licensees to bid, in a single auction, on licenses that 
have consecutive terms of license rights in a given geographic area. 
Under this concept, at an auction the licensee would be bidding for the 
right to obtain the license not only for the first license term, but at 
each consecutive license term, for a fixed price (which could be 
adjusted for inflation in successive license terms). We note that, if 
we were to adopt such a proposal, we would likely adopt a shorter 
license term than ten years, such as five years because a shorter 
license term would enable us to ensure that the licensee evaluates its 
need for the spectrum on a regular basis. For example, prospective 
millimeter wave licensees could bid for a license in a given county in 
a single, one-time auction, and the winning bidder in that auction 
would be required to pay the auction price, adjusted for inflation, 
before the start of each five-year license term; once the winning 
bidding made this payment before a five-year license term, a new 
license would be issued to the licensee for that five-year term. 
Additionally, licensees could be permitted to trade future license 
rights via secondary market transactions.
    249. This concept could be one way to incentivize deployment for a 
diverse range of uses in the public interest and discourage spectrum 
warehousing, without imposing traditional performance requirements. We 
do not believe the consecutive payments would not be installment 
payments because the license for a term would not issue until after 
each payment--which had been determined in the auction--had been made 
for that term. Thus, the license would terminate automatically if the 
payment was not made. We seek comment on this concept, including its 
costs and benefits. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we 
should accomplish the same goal by levying license fees in consecutive 
intervals in lieu of performance requirements, which may not be well 
suited for the types of deployments contemplated in this band.
    250. We seek comment, with respect to this proposal, on whether we 
should revise any of our payment rules to take into consideration the 
potential for applicants to become winning bidders for licenses that do 
not become effective until five years or more after the auction has 
closed. For instance, under this proposal, should we revise our upfront 
payment requirement to better safeguard the Commission against defaults 
by a winning bidder on consecutive license terms? Should we require a 
winning bidder for consecutive license terms to make a larger down 
payment to better safeguard the Commission from defaults in subsequent 
terms? Currently, unless otherwise noted by public notice, the 
Commission's rules require that within 10 business days after being 
notified that it is a high bidder on a particular license the winning 
bidder must submit its down payment necessary to bring its total 
deposits up to twenty (20) percent of its winning bid(s) or it will be 
deemed to have defaulted. Should we increase the down payment 
percentage here to be forty percent of the winning bid(s)? Similarly, 
unless otherwise specified by public notice, auction winners are 
required to pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum within 
ten business days following the release of a public notice establishing 
the payment deadline. Here, we could collect the down payment required 
for each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license at the close of 
the auction, including consecutive term licenses, but final payment(s) 
would not be due until we are ready to grant the particular Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service license at the beginning of the 
subsequent license term. Will retaining down payments on deposit for 
consecutive Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license terms, 
particularly if the down payment obligation for such a license is 
increased, help the Commission safeguard against the potential of 
default in subsequent years?
    251. We also seek comment on whether we should revise our default 
rule to ensure that if a winning bidder wins a Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service license in a licensing area for consecutive terms and 
defaults on a payment obligation for a license in that area, it loses 
the right it acquired at the auction to be granted a Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service license in that area for any consecutive term? 
What incentives would be created by such a default provision, and would 
those incentives help to ensure that the spectrum was used 
productively? If we hold an auction that offers Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service licenses for consecutive terms, should we also 
change the default rule by holding a winning bidder for such licenses 
who defaults on its winning bids responsible for a larger default 
payment?
    252. Would such a default rule adequately safeguard the Commission 
should a winning bidder file bankruptcy between the close of an auction 
and the date of a future payment obligation? Commenters should address 
in particular the application of the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that 
an agency ``may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license 
. . . or other similar grant to,'' or ``discriminate with respect to 
such a grant against,'' a debtor or a bankrupt ``solely because'' it 
``has not paid a debt that is dischargeable'' in bankruptcy.
11. Examining Security To Maximize Effectiveness
    253. We seek comment on the best methods to ensure maximum 
effectiveness of the use of the mmW bands, cognizant of potential 
security vulnerabilities in light of the technology and systems that 
are anticipated to comprise new networks. There are high expectations 
that these networks will provide capabilities for a tremendous variety 
of new devices and applications, including traditional cellular 
services, M2M and Internet of Things (IoT) applications, and mission 
critical and public safety services, among many others. However, one of 
the key challenges facing the developers of new services is to support 
numerous distinctly different possible uses in a secure manner. The 
security aspect of services using the mmW bands is important to examine 
at this time for several reasons including: (1) Services using these 
bands can be used to facilitate very dense deployments of wireless 
communication links to connect a multitude of wireless devices, many of 
which might not be secured or sufficiently secured, (2) the core

[[Page 1832]]

network may be based on software-centric, highly programmable core 
network architectures that continue to face serious security questions 
that remain unanswered; (3) the ongoing transformation of advanced 
mobile communication devices into far more powerful devices of 
connectivity, thereby making them more alluring to hackers and more 
menacing not only to the devices' owners but also to the global 
Internet. The implications of these issues require us to better 
understand the security of future mmW band networks in order to promote 
public safety through communications networks.
    254. Generally, we seek comment on how to ensure that effective 
security features are built into key design principles for all mmW band 
communications devices and networks. The common network security triad 
of confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA triad) provides a 
convenient frame of reference for the Commission to gain insight into 
the security events targeting communications providers and the network 
infrastructure in general in order to guide our approach to the 
security of communications critical infrastructure. With security built 
into the design of mmW band devices and systems, the opportunity will 
exist for the creation of a new generation of networks and services 
that meet these three critical components of a secure system. To that 
end, our questions below are organized around these three critical 
security components.
    255. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from 
unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit. 
What existing or planned methods of authentication in mobile or fixed 
networks provide sufficient confidentiality under the conditions 
planned for mmW band networks? Are there any specific uses or 
characteristics of the spectrum discussed in this proceeding, alone or 
in conjunction with other bands, that would make it difficult to ensure 
the confidentiality of users, either in terms of the content or the 
circumstances (time, place, and manner) of their use? What implications 
do the proposed uses of these bands have for authentication of users? 
What, if any, action should the Commission take to ensure that an 
appropriate level of confidentiality is provided to the content of 
users communications (e.g., voice, video and data) and to the data 
generated as part of the communication (usage history, etc.)?
    256. Integrity refers to the protection against the unauthorized 
modification or destruction of information. Does the shorter range of 
communications in these bands and concomitant expected reliance on more 
access points increase, or decrease the ease of interception and 
potential compromise of integrity of the communication? What security 
or architectural methods might mitigate such issues, and are they under 
consideration by the appropriate standards bodies? What actions could 
the Commission take to assist industry in developing minimum security 
standards in order to ensure the integrity of devices that connect to 
or through other devices using these bands or any other network 
connection?
    257. Availability refers to the accessibility and usability of a 
network upon demand. What conditions should be considered in order to 
ensure the availability and security of networks utilizing the mmW 
bands? To what extent will planned capabilities be robust and secure 
enough to support communication all the time?
    258. We seek comment on the extent to which existing and previous 
wireless protocols do not inherently derive useful security services 
from the underlying transport layer and how such vulnerabilities could 
be prevented from propagation into mmW band networks. For example, 
would spectrum used in these bands to supply common carrier services 
have similar security requirements to similar services using lower 
bands, and if not, how do security requirements differ? Would security 
requirements vary based on the use of the service (i.e., voice or 
data), and if so, how? We seek comment on whether the protocols 
established for these bands might include elements specifically 
designed to provide security value for higher layers of the OSI Model. 
The OSI Model is a theoretical model of networks that organizes the 
network functions into various layers (physical, datalink, network, 
transport, session, presentation, and application layers) and specifies 
the communications interfaces between these layers and between network 
endpoints utilizing an OSI Model-based protocol suite. The 
International Standards Organization (ISO) developed this model of how 
networks should behave and how they are put together. The ISO OSI Model 
is used throughout the network, Internet and telecommunications 
industries today to describe various networking issues, and can be 
useful in explaining how various technologies interact, where they 
reside, what functions they perform, and how each protocol communicates 
with other protocols. Would some of these attributes be more meaningful 
for enterprise use, or for personal use?

F. Technical Rules

1. Introduction
    259. Our goal in establishing technical rules is to develop a 
flexible set of rules that will authorize as wide a variety of services 
as possible and avoid mandating specific technologies or deployment 
models. We recognize that the technology is still in early stages of 
development, and intend to create a set of technical rules that 
encourage, rather than inhibit that development. We also recognize that 
we may need to be nimble and flexible as the technology develops, and 
update our rules as appropriate.
    260. A common theme among the comments and replies that we received 
in response to the NOI was that the Commission should consider a 
``light'' regulatory approach in the development of technical rules so 
that new wireless technologies might flourish. In commenting on our 
proposed technical rules, we encourage commenters to keep that 
principle in mind. If commenters believe our proposed rules are 
inconsistent with the goal of technical flexibility, we ask them to 
explain their belief and suggest alternatives.
2. Flexible Duplexing Rules
    261. Many commenters responding to the NOI emphasize that mmW 
technology is in an early stage of development and request that the 
Commission consider a flexible regulatory regime in order to provide 
maximum flexibility. We agree with commenters that there is no need to 
mandate a duplexing option at this stage of mmW technology research and 
development. In addition, we would prefer to avoid adopting any rules 
that would preclude the development of new forms of duplexing that 
further technological advances might introduce. For those reasons, we 
propose to adopt flexible use in 27.5-28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band, 
and 38.6-40 GHz band by allowing TDD and FDD deployment subject to 
other relevant technical rules to manage the interference.
    262. In the 39 GHz band, we previously proposed above to continue 
using the existing 39 GHz channel plan. The 39 GHz band is subdivided 
into 14 channel pairs. Each channel pair has 50 megahertz by 50 
megahertz of spectrum and is licensed on an Economic Area geographical 
service area basis. The existing band plan was created to support 
traditional fixed point- to-point and point-to-multi-point wireless 
services. Our current rules do not prescribe or preclude either FDD or 
TDD based wireless operations, however,

[[Page 1833]]

paired 50 MHz channels in the band plan naturally imply FDD operations. 
Most commenters agree that the technologies proposed for mobile mmW, at 
a minimum, will need at least 100 MHz of contiguous spectrum. Some 
commenters even suggested the need for up to 2GHz of contiguous 
bandwidth. We seek comment on the impact of the current channel plan, 
which may favor FDD operations, on the ability to deploy future mmW 
wireless networks that might deploy either FDD or TDD based 
technologies. Should we consider alternate band plans in order to 
accommodate TDD operations, and if so, how should we modify our 
proposals to accommodate such band plans?
3. Transmission Power Limits and Antenna Height
a. Base Stations
    263. Currently, the Part 101 rules allow a maximum EIRP of +55dBW 
(or +85dBm) for the 28 GHz band and the 39 GHz band order to provide 
flexible fixed services for various applications. Existing service 
providers in the 28 and 39 GHz bands generally use those bands for 
establishing fixed point-to-point or point-to-multipoint high capacity 
communication links. A fixed transmitter typically includes a high-gain 
antenna mounted at a high tower elevation in order to provide a line-
of-sight path to the receiving antenna. The range of these 
communication links often extends to several miles when the maximum 
allowed transmission power is used. We propose that we maintain the 
existing EIRP limit of +55dBW (or +85dBm) solely for fixed point-to-
point or point-to-multipoint systems. This limit would allow continued 
operation of current or future fixed point-to-point or point-to-
multipoint systems that are operating consistent with the current Part 
101 rules, and we are not aware of any problems with the existing limit 
for fixed operations.
    264. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, most commenters envision 
mmW band Mobile Services as supplementing existing 3G/4G services by 
overlaying their comparatively large cells with deployment of small 
cell-like equipment, with service radii of a few hundred meters. 
Commenters suggest a maximum transmission power limit of 58-65 dBm EIRP 
for base stations. Intel states that ``58 dBm (631 watts) EIRP for base 
station transmitters . . . could achieve the performance and range for 
the applications targeted for these bands.'' Samsung states that, in 
its field trials, ``Based on a 58 dBm EIRP limit, satisfactory 
communications links were attained even in non-line-of-sight scenarios 
more than 200 meters away.'' Straight Path states that ``the FCC 
[should] adopt an EIRP limit of 65 dBm (3160 watts) for base stations 
operating in the 39 GHz and LMDS bands. This is consistent with the 
maximum power limit for other spectrum in which mobile services 
operate--e.g., the Cellular, Broadband PCS, WCS, AWS, and 700 MHz 
bands.'' Furthermore, most commenters are proposing to build systems 
with emission bandwidth greater than 100 megahertz. Samsung and 
Motorola suggest 100 megahertz of channel bandwidth, while Nokia and 
NYU propose a minimum bandwidth of 300 megahertz and 500 megahertz. TIA 
and Huawei state that 1-2 gigahertz of spectrum may be aggregated to 
provide gigabit throughput.
    265. Based on the proposed deployment and service scenarios of mmW 
mobile broadband service, we conclude that the transmission power 
limits of Mobile Services in PCS and AWS bands are more applicable than 
the Part 101 FS rules as potential models for the mmW mobile broadband 
service. Therefore, we propose to adopt 1640 watts (or 62dBm) EIRP as 
the maximum transmission power limit for base stations operating in the 
28, 39, and 37 GHz bands.
    266. In a number of recent proceedings, the Commission has applied 
the power spectral density concept when adopting transmission power 
limits. For example, base stations operating in the PCS, AWS-1, AWS-3, 
AWS-4 and 700 MHz bands are allowed to operate at maximum power when 
transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 megahertz or less and may 
scale the transmission power linearly per 1 megahertz with an emission 
bandwidth greater than 1 megahertz. For base stations operating in the 
28, 39, and 37 GHz bands, we propose to adopt 100 megahertz as the 
scaling factor such that the base station transmission power is limit 
to 1640 watts EIRP, when transmitting with less than 100 megahertz of 
emission bandwidth and 1640 watts EIRP per 100 megahertz when 
transmitting with more than 100 megahertz of emission bandwidth. This 
proposed rule would allow additional transmission power for systems 
employing more than 100 megahertz emission bandwidth, and it would 
support the maximum transmission power limits suggested by commenters. 
We also propose to adopt the practice of doubling transmission power 
limits in rural counties where the population density is 100 or fewer 
persons per square mile, based on the most recently available 
population statistics from the Bureau of the Census. We seek comment on 
these proposed transmission power limit rules.
    267. Some commenters suggest that in-band backhaul might be 
feasible in the mmW bands by dedicating certain portion of array 
antennas of 5G system for backhaul use or allocating certain portion of 
timeslots of TDD 5G system for backhaul use. Recently, the Commission 
modified 60GHz rules to allow a peak EIRP limit of 85 dBm with very 
high gain antennas to support outdoor point-to-point backhaul service. 
We seek comment on whether a higher transmission power limit should be 
considered for the in-band application where the same equipment is used 
to for mobile service and backhaul service.
    268. Our PCS and AWS rules require reduction of the transmission 
power limit when the antenna height is more than 305 meters (or 1000 
feet). The purpose of those rules is to mitigate the risk of harmful 
interference from high-elevation transmitters to neighboring services 
in adjacent markets. We seek comment on whether a similar antenna 
height limit should be applied to the base stations operating in the 
proposed bands. Should we allow increased antenna heights in rural 
areas? We request that commenters provide technical analyses to justify 
their proposals.
b. Mobile Stations
    269. Commenters propose a wide range of mobile station transmission 
power limits in response to the NOI. Nokia states that ``at this time 
we are assuming approximately +30dBm EIRP for mobile units which can 
serve as an initial guidance to the Commission.'' Intel states that 
34dBm, including 9dBi of array gain with 8 elements, for mobile devices 
could achieve the performance and range for the applications targeted 
for these bands. Straight Path recommends that ``for mobile station, 
the FCC should adopt a 30dBm maximum output power and 43 dBm maximum 
peak EIRP. Samsung recommends 85dBm for 5G mobile stations operating in 
the 28 GHz band, which is the current transmission limit for base 
stations operating in the LMDS band.
    270. We are tentatively inclined to accept Straight Path's 
recommendation that, for mobile transmitters in the 28, 39, and 37 GHz 
bands, we should adopt the same maximum peak EIRP limit of 43 dBm (20 
watts) that is already allowed in the 57-64 GHz band under the current 
Part 15 rules. As discussed in further detail below, all radiofrequency 
devices are subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure 
specifications in sections 1.1307(b),

[[Page 1834]]

2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission's rules. When the 57-64 GHz rules 
were adopted in 1995, most of the products envisioned for that band 
were not handheld devices, and the higher transmission power was 
granted to support future technologies that were expected at that time. 
In practice, most of the part 15 devices presently reaching consumers 
for operation in 57-64 GHz band are generally expected to be used at 
least 20 centimeters away from the user's body and are therefore 
subject to the requirements in section 2.1091 of the rules. Handheld 
and other portable user equipment operating in close proximity to users 
will likely have to operate at lower power in order to comply with the 
limits specified in section 2.1093 for devices which are likely to be 
used within 20 centimeters of the user's body under. A device operating 
at a lower power level to satisfy exposure limits will likely comply 
with the proposed maximum peak EIRP limit. Thus, we propose that the 
same maximum peak EIRP limits would apply in any case so long as the 
exposure limits are met, and a reduction or separate categorization of 
maximum peak EIRP for different types of devices depending on normal 
use is unnecessary and redundant with the requirements in sections 
2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission's rules. We maintain that the 
requirements applicable to equipment operating in the 28, 39, and 37 
GHz bands to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's exposure 
limits will depend on the normally maintained separation distance from 
a user's body. The combined effect of those rules and a maximum peak 
EIRP limit of 43 dBm would be to ensure compliance with the exposure 
limits while allowing industry flexibility to develop higher-powered 
transmitters for situations where an appropriate separation distance is 
maintained. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and invite 
alternative proposals.
4. Emission Limits
    271. Background. Rule 101.111(a)(2)(iv) establishes an emission 
limit for fixed stations operating in the 28 GHz band expressed as A=11 
+ .4*(P-50) + 10log10B, where A is attenuation below the mean output 
power of the transmitter, B is the authorized bandwidth in megahertz 
(40 megahertz for the LMDS band), and P is the percentage by which the 
transmitter bandwidth is removed from the carrier frequency. This 
emission limit is defined in conducted fashion. For fixed stations 
operating in the 39 GHz band, there are several rule sections that 
apply to emission limitations according to the type of digital 
modulation techniques deployed. These rules are created to support 
various fixed microwave technologies with conventional antenna systems, 
and the emission limits are defined as conducted.
    272. For most mobile systems, the Commission has generally required 
licensees to attenuate their unwanted emission power below the 
transmission power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10log10(P), or -13 
dBm for any emissions on frequencies outside the licensee's authorized 
spectrum. These requirements take effect at the edges of the assigned 
frequencies (e.g., channel, block or band), and may be used as a basis 
for developing further requirements that relate to transmitter 
performance by industry standard organizations. This limit is applied 
equally both to base stations and to mobile stations, and compliance 
with this limit in existing systems, where access to the RF port of the 
antennas is conveniently available, is based on conducted measurement 
of transmission power at the output of the individual RF port. In the 
NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether a limit of 43 + 
10log10(P) might be appropriate for mobile broadband systems in the 
proposed mmW bands.
    273. In response to the NOI, some commenters express reservations 
about specifying an out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limit at this early 
stage of technology development. Several commenters agree that an OOBE 
limit of 43 + 10Log10 (P) for base stations would be appropriate.
    274. Measurement Challenges. Some commenters indicate that 
conducted measurement of OOBE can be challenging. We acknowledge the 
measurement challenges identified by commenters and discussed in the 
Equipment Authorization section, and in response we propose to define 
emission limits in radiated fashion. Commenters suggest that the 5G 
base stations in mmW bands are expected to employ more than 100 
radiating elements to effectively create multiple beams to serve 
multiple simultaneous users in a given cell. 5G mobile stations in mmW 
bands are also expected to have tens of radiating elements with 
multiple power amplifiers. With lack of RF ports, the emission 
measurement needs to be made in radiated fashion, and the antenna gain 
must be characterized and subtracted from the radiated measurement if 
the emission limit is to be defined in conducted fashion. Most mobile 
services in licensed bands define the emission limit in conducted 
fashion, where the measurement for determining compliance is done 
directly at the antenna port. Measuring the emission on a radiated 
fashion requires that the measurement be made at some point away from 
the antenna, where the measurement is made on the signal created by the 
radiated elements and transmitted over the air. We tentatively conclude 
that defining the emission limit in radiated fashion is more practical 
than alternative methods and seek comment on this proposal.
    275. Accordingly, we seek further comment on radiated emission 
limits for 5G transmitters in mmW bands. We define out-of-band emission 
and spurious emission as characterizing the overall emission 
performance of a transmitter and the measurement procedures for 
spurious emissions at antennal terminals and field strength of spurious 
radiation are described in the Commission's rules. For bands higher 
than 1 GHz, for example PCS and AWS-1, compliance with the emission 
rule is based on a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater, 
except within the first 1 megahertz. In the first 1 megahertz band 
immediately outside and adjacent to the channel block, a resolution 
bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the 
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed, provided that 
the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement 
bandwidth.
    276. Some commenters suggest that an emission attenuation of 43+10 
logP per MHz (or -13dBm/MHz) in radiated fashion is still achievable at 
certain frequency offsets from the edge of the transmission signal, 
while others indicate that the conducted emission limit of 43+10logP is 
achievable but do not specify the resolution bandwidth or the 
measurement offset. Intel states that a ``step-like mask cannot meet 
requirements for 100/200 MHz channels; [m]ask must be gradual up to 
offset of 50 MHz.''. Straight Path states, ``The spurious emission 
limit (emission limit for P > 250) . . . will mostly be governed by the 
``43 + 10 Log10 (the mean output power in watts) decibels'' limit, 
which is equivalent to -13 dBm/MHz with typical configurations of 5G 
systems.'' We seek comment on whether a radiated emission limit of 
43+10log(P) can be supported by 5G transmitters operating in the 27.5-
28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands, and if so, what 
resolution bandwidth and frequency offset should be considered to 
define out-of-band emissions and spurious emissions. We request that 
commenters provide technical showings on how the proposed radiated 
emission

[[Page 1835]]

limits can mitigate the risk of harmful interference to operations by 
adjacent users. While our proposed rules contain an emission 
attenuation of 43+10logP per MHz with the measurement techniques of PCS 
and AWS bands, we recognize, however, that we need additional 
information before we can reach any conclusions on the appropriate 
emission limit.
    277. Protection of Passive Bands. As discussed in the ``Passive 
Services Below 37 GHz'' section above, the 36.43-36.5 GHz band is used 
for radio astronomy spectral line emissions and all practical steps 
must be taken to protect radio astronomy in that band from 
interference. In the same section, we note that the EESS and space 
research operations are not entitled to interference protection from 
duly authorized fixed and mobile services in the 36-37 GHz band. 
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps we could take to protect those 
operations without unduly limiting fixed and mobile operations in the 
37 GHz band.
    278. As commenters propose emission limits for mobile stations and 
base stations operating in 37-40 GHz band, we ask commenters to provide 
interference analysis into passive service receivers operating in 36-37 
GHz band, including the assumptions on the distance separation, 
propagation model, system loading, aggregate number of transmitters, 
antenna characteristics, and others as appropriate.
5. Interference Protection and Coordination
a. Coordination and Field Strength Limits at Market Borders
    279. Background. The Commission's rules for mobile services 
typically define field strength limits at the market boundaries in 
order to prevent interference between licensees in adjacent markets. 
For example, Part 27 for AWS specify that the predicted or measured 
median field strength at any location on the geographical border of a 
licensee's service area shall not exceed 47 dB[micro]V/m unless the 
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different 
field strength. Our current rules contain coordination distances for 
both the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands under which a fixed terrestrial 
licensee, within a certain prescribed distance of a mutual GSA border, 
is required to coordinate with the potentially affected fixed licensee 
of an adjacent GSA. Straight Path recommends ``a PFD limit of -86 dBm/
m2/MHz or, equivalently, an electric field strength limit of 30 dBuV/m/
MHz as the co-channel interference limit at the economic area boundary 
for 39 GHz mobile services.'' Qualcomm believes that it may be 
premature given the state of technology to establish field strength or 
power flux density limits at geographic service area borders at this 
time. Nokia believes that mmW mobile operations will involve advanced 
networks that will be capable of managing and avoiding interference not 
only among themselves but also with other licensees and technologies. 
Their belief in this proposition is coupled with the concept that the 
advanced narrow beams formed in highly attenuating frequencies will, in 
and of themselves, provide sufficient interference protection to 
protect adjacent licensees and differing wireless technologies 
operating in the spectrum.
    280. Discussion. We seek comment on the appropriate interference 
protection criteria. Specifically, is the existing field strength limit 
of 47 dBuV/m specified in Part 27 appropriate for mmW mobile and fixed 
services? Is Straight Path's proposed PFD limit of -86 dBm/m2/MHz, 
which incorporates a spectral density more appropriate? Are there 
alternative more appropriate interference protection limits than these 
mentioned? Or, are coordination distances, such as those currently 
specified for the fixed services more appropriate? Additionally we seek 
comment on alternative, interference limits at the geographical service 
area border that would protect future mmW operations from unwanted 
interference. Any such proposed alternative limits should be described 
in detail and supported by engineering analysis. Commenters who believe 
that field strength limits at the license boundaries are not necessary 
should provide specific technical details and analysis substantiating 
their position that such protections will not be necessary in the 
future. Additionally we also seek comments as to the applicability of 
any such interference limit to current or potential future fixed point-
to-point terrestrial facilities. Are the Part 27 interference 
protection technical limits, or alternatively those proposed by 
Straight Path at the geographic service area border adequate protection 
criteria for current and potential future fixed point-to-point 
terrestrial deployments? Are there other proposed interference 
protection limits that would be more appropriate for protecting fixed 
services?
    281. A worst-case scenario to consider would be a fixed point-to-
point terrestrial bi-directional link in one GSA near its border, 
oriented directly toward an urban area in an adjacent GSA that also 
lies near the border. Would the Part 27 and Straight Path limits for 
which we seek comment have more of a limiting effect on fixed point-to-
point transmitter deployments than existing rules? Considering the 
reception antenna in the same scenario, would the Part 27 and Straight 
Path interference protection limits at the GSA border adequately 
protect a point-to-point fixed link close to the GSA border that uses 
narrow-beam, high-gain antennas? Would the protection afforded by the 
proposed limit be less effective in the protection of fixed point-to-
point receivers oriented toward adjacent GSAs near their borders? 
Considering this worst-case scenario, should the existing rules based 
on specified distances from adjacent borders be retained, along with 
the existing coordination requirements? Is there another more 
appropriate rule that could be applied specifically to current and 
potential future deployments of fixed point-to-point facilities? Is 
there a threshold protection level that could be established that 
benefits the fixed point-to-point facilities as well as future mmW 
mobile facilities?
    282. In a similar fashion, we have considered proposed concepts 
involving applications where mmW mobile base stations would deploy 
backhaul and fronthaul ``in-band'' solutions. These mmW conceptual 
backhaul/fronthaul uses further support our inquiry as related to the 
questions posed above because they appear to align closely with the 
operation of fixed point-to-point facilities. If it is determined that 
the current rules for fixed point-to-point facilities should be 
retained, should they be applied to mmW base station backhaul 
technologies? If so, should we consider retaining the existing distance 
and coordination requirements with respect to cases where an mmW base 
station would require ``in-band'' wireless backhaul? Should these 
distance requirements be modified and/or made uniform and applied 
consistently across all the bands? In the converse would the Part 27 
and Straight Path interference protection limits allow for these 
distance requirements that trigger required coordination to become 
irrelevant in the transition to new rules for these bands?
b. Canadian and Mexican Borders
    283. Sections 101.147(r)(13), 101.509(d), and 27.57 of our rules 
provide that fixed and mobile operations are subject to international 
agreements with Mexico and Canada. We propose to apply the same 
limitation to the newly established rule parts for the mmW bands. Until 
such time as any adjusted agreements between the United

[[Page 1836]]

States, Mexico, and/or Canada can be agreed to, mmW mobile operations 
must not cause harmful interference across any of our international 
borders, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in 
force. Currently there are existing Arrangements for the 27.5--28.35 
GHz LMDS band and 38.6C-40.0 GHz band between the United States and 
Canada. We note that further modification of the proposed rules might 
be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada 
and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. We seek comment on this 
issue, including the costs and benefits of alternatives.
6. 37 GHz Technical Rules
    284. We seek comment on any changes to our technical rules that may 
be required if we adopt our proposal to authorize local area operations 
in the 37 GHz band by rule while issuing geographic area licenses for 
outdoor use. Are there circumstances under which local area deployments 
could cause interference to outdoor systems, notwithstanding the heavy 
signal attenuation in this band? In order to avoid interference, should 
we propose lower authorized power for local area deployments? What 
special technical rules, if any, would be needed for indoor systems to 
promote indoor/outdoor coexistence? For example, do we need to 
establish a requirement that local area users and geographic area 
licensees coordinate their proposed operations? If a coordination 
mechanism is necessary, how should we design that mechanism? If we 
decide that geographic area licensees should have priority over local 
area operations, how should we define the responsibilities of the local 
area licensee to avoid interference? If, on the other hand, we decide 
that local are operations have priority, are there any special 
technical rules that would be needed for outdoor operations in this 
environment? We seek comment on these and other issues relating to the 
technical rules for our proposed hybrid licensing approach in 37 GHz.
7. Interoperability
    285. The Commission historically has sought to promote the 
development of interoperable equipment, allowing smaller providers to 
benefit from the scale generated by equipment capable of operating 
across an entire band or adjacent bands. Beginning with the licensing 
of cellular spectrum, the Commission maintained that consumer equipment 
should be capable of operating over the entire range of cellular 
spectrum as a means to ``insure full coverage in all markets and 
compatibility on a nationwide basis.'' Since that time, the Commission 
has addressed the issue of interoperability in several bands, including 
in the Lower 700 MHz band (where it implemented an industry solution to 
LTE interoperability), the AWS-3 band (where it mandated 
interoperability for some operators), and the H Block band (where it 
stressed the importance of interoperability). We continue believe that 
interoperability delivers important benefits to consumers.
    286. We propose to require that mobile equipment operating within 
each mmW band be interoperable using all air interfaces that the 
equipment utilizes on the frequencies. Interoperability helps ensure a 
robust market for equipment, and helps ensure that such equipment is 
available equally to all licensees. We note that interoperability could 
be a particularly important issue in the 37 GHz band if we license 
local area operations and outdoor operations separately. If we take 
that approach, we believe it would be necessary to ensure 
interoperability in order to ensure that equipment is available for 
both types of deployments. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there 
unique issues implicated in creating interoperable equipment at the 
frequencies and bandwidths proposed herein? We also seek comment on 
Straight Path's contention that it should be possible to achieve 
interoperability between different technologies, e.g., switching 
between LTE and Wi-Fi.
8. Limits on Terrestrial Emissions
    287. We seek comment on whether we should adopt emission limits 
above a certain elevation angle to terrestrial facilities in order to 
prevent interference between terrestrial facilities and satellites.
    288. In the 28 GHz band, there appear to be three situations where 
terrestrial operators might generate transmissions toward reception 
antennas on satellites. The first case would involve transmissions from 
mmW base stations, but comments and research indicate that the most 
common scenario for such stations would likely include a downward beam-
tilt from an antenna situated on a street lamp pole or on a building at 
a similar height. The second case would involve transmissions from 
mobile user equipment toward their serving base stations. Those 
transmissions could be directed upward, but we recognize that any 
interference to satellites from such user equipment, if it were to 
occur, would only result from the aggregate power from a very large 
number of mmW user devices transmitting simultaneously toward the 
satellite receiver. Noting that comments suggest that mmW user devices 
are likely to use steerable beamforming antenna arrays the likelihood 
that a large number of user devices would be pointed at a satellite 
(while oriented to communicate with a base station) is unlikely. 
Therefore, such interference appears to be unlikely, but we request any 
technical analyses that might indicate otherwise, together with any 
technical limitations that might be required to prevent such 
interference.
    289. Perhaps the most likely increased source of interference to 
satellites (particularly NGSO satellites) would be the large number of 
backhaul links that will likely be necessary to connect the many small-
cell base stations that will be required to support mobile service in 
the 28 GHz band. Some commenters envision that future mmW mobile base 
stations could require a substantial amount of in-band backhaul in 
order to move traffic from street-level base stations in urban canyons 
to aggregate backhaul points at higher elevations, using the same 28 
GHz spectrum that will be used for mobile access. XO a large holder of 
LMDS licenses in the 28 GHz band, has stated that it currently has 
approximately 750 point-to-point-to-point facilities, mainly in urban 
environments, in most cases serving as an alternative to fiber to 
connect buildings to telecommunications backbone facilities. It seems 
reasonable to assume that in the interim and near future, until such 
time as mmW mobile technologies develop to the point of being 
commercially viable for deployment, more such facilities proposing 
technical parameters consistent with the current Part 101 Rules will 
continue to be built. Taking all three of the above sources of 
potential interference into account, are the existing and proposed 
power and emission limits for terrestrial operations in the 28 GHz band 
sufficient to prevent interference into satellite receivers? We request 
comments and technical information that would assist us in determining 
whether it would be necessary or beneficial to limit skyward emissions 
from terrestrial mmW facilities in the 28 GHz band, and, if so, at what 
thresholds.
9. Technical Rules for Part 15 Operation Within the 64-71 GHz Band
    290. We propose to allow unlicensed operations in the 64 71 GHz 
frequency band pursuant to the same technical rules as in the 57 64 GHz 
frequency band under section 15.255 of our rules, with slight 
modifications. We believe that making available a 14-gigahertz

[[Page 1837]]

segment of contiguous spectrum in these frequencies will encourage the 
development of very high-speed wireless links with higher connectivity, 
bandwidth and throughput between small cell sites to support spectral 
efficiency in existing communications systems as well as in future 5G 
systems, consistent with the Commission's objectives to bring broadband 
access to every American and to provide additional competition in the 
broadband market.
    291. Part 15 of the Commission's regulations permits the operation 
of radio frequency (RF) devices without an individual license from the 
Commission or the need for frequency coordination. The technical 
standards contained in Part 15 are designed to ensure that there is a 
low probability that such devices will cause harmful interference to 
other users of the radio spectrum. Unlicensed operations within the 57-
64 GHz band are currently permitted under section 15.255 of our rules. 
Any type of unlicensed operation within the 57-64 GHz band is permitted 
under these rules, with the exception of operation on board aircrafts 
or satellites, and in mobile field disturbance sensor applications.
    292. As indicated above, in the Spectrum Frontiers NOI, the 
Commission sought comment on the potential for the provision of mobile 
radio services in bands above 24 GHz, and in particular, on the 
advisability of amending its rules to allow unlicensed Part 15 
operations in the 64 71 GHz band segment. Commenters unanimously 
support this action and recommend that the Commission proceed with 
extending the band to cover 57 to 71 GHz under the same Part 15 
provisions that allow operation in the currently authorized 57-64 GHz 
band.
    293. Suitability of the Existing Rules in section 15.255 to the 64 
71 GHz Band. We are proposing to extend the technical requirements in 
section 15.255 to encompass the 57 71 GHz band. As we discuss in detail 
below, we believe that the existing technical rules in the 57 64 GHz 
band can successfully apply to the proposed 64 71 GHz adjacent band, 
with certain minor adjustments. In addition, we seek comment on certain 
aspects of the rules to further the growth and development of these 
devices without increasing the potential for harmful interference to 
authorized users in these bands. We examine the pertinent rules in 
section 15.255 below.
    294. Operation On Board Aircraft. Section 15.255(a)(1) prohibits 
operation of equipment used on aircraft in the 57 64 GHz band. This 
requirement was adopted in 1995 pursuant to the request of the CORF to 
protect radio astronomy operations. We now observe that new tri-band 
chipsets compliant with IEEE Standard 802.11ad and intended for use in 
future WiGig products may operate in the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 60 GHz 
bands. These components can be embedded into laptops or other mobile 
electronic devices used by travelers on airplanes. The present 
prohibition in our rules would require mobile devices to affirmatively 
disable Wi-Fi operation at 60 GHz (but not in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz 
frequency ranges) while operating on board a plane, possibly creating 
difficulty in enforcing compliance.
    295. Radio astronomy has no allocations in this 57-64 GHz range; 
two major radio telescopes (in Green Bank, WV and on Kitt Peak, AZ) 
operate on an unprotected basis at these frequencies in the continental 
United States. There are telescopes in Chile, Japan and Europe that 
regularly operate at these frequencies, and US astronomers are 
scientific partners with researchers in those facilities. The issue for 
US radio astronomy about devices operating over the full range of the 
57-64 GHz band is whether strong harmonics or out-of-band emission 
could interfere with observations of the cosmos in the Q-band (40-50 
GHz) or W-band (80-96 GHz at all the VLBA sites). While radio signals 
around 60 GHz attenuate rapidly with distance, attenuation effects due 
to oxygen become much less pronounced in the 64-71 GHz band and higher, 
so interference effects propagate over much longer distances. 
Furthermore, strong harmonic emissions could seriously interfere with 
radio astronomy observations of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) spectral 
emission in passive-only bands (protected by ITU-R 5.340 and US246) 
including 109.5-111.8 GHz, 114.25-116 GHz, 164-167 GHz, 182-185 GHz, 
and 226-231.5 GHz. Harmonics could also interfere with radio astronomy 
operations at the 111.8-114.25 GHz, 217-226 GHz, and 241-248 GHz bands.
    296. We observe an ongoing industry effort to work with the NTIA 
and other federal agencies to study compatibility of operation of these 
new chipsets and their operation on board in flight aircraft. As such, 
we believe that the prohibition on operation on board aircraft may be 
revisited at the present time. We therefore seek comment on this issue. 
We request technical studies and interference analyses demonstrating 
whether transmissions in the 57-71 GHz band should be permitted on 
aircraft. Such operations may include applications in the 57 71 GHz 
band that support enhancement of in-flight communications service 
offerings by airlines to meet the increasing consumer demand for 
broadband connectivity on aircraft. Is it possible to limit unlicensed 
device operation on aircraft to a narrower portion of the 57-64 GHz 
band to minimize impact to the radio astronomy observations? If so, 
should we consider such a limitation?
    297. Fixed Field Disturbance Sensor Operation. Section 15.255(a)(2) 
prohibits operation of field disturbance sensors in the 57 64 GHz band; 
however it makes an exception for sensors in certain fixed industrial 
applications (speed control, fluid level, and motion detection 
functions, etc.) These devices are required to operate at a power level 
30 dB lower than communications devices in the 57 64 GHz band, in order 
to avoid causing harmful interference to co channel communications 
devices. Since the rules require these fixed field disturbance sensors 
to operate at a much lower power than communications equipment in the 
band, and they have not been the subject of any case of harmful 
interference over the years, we believe that such devices should be 
able to co-exist with communications equipment in the proposed 64 71 
GHz band without additional harmful interference potential. We seek 
comment on whether to extend the requirements for these fixed field 
disturbance sensors in Section 15.255 into the proposed 64 71 GHz band.
    298. Emission Limits. Except for fixed field disturbance sensors 
discussed above, section 15.255(b) limits the average power of any 
emission in this band to 40 dBm EIRP and the peak power to 43 dBm EIRP 
for transmitters located either indoors or outdoors. In 2013, the 
Commission modified these rules to provide transmitters located 
outdoors with very high gain antennas (i.e., higher than 30 dBi) an 
average EIRP emission limit of 82 dBm and a peak EIRP limit of 85 dBm, 
in each case minus 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is below 51 
dBi. At that time, the Commission observed that two primary types of 
equipment serving different markets have emerged to share the 57 64 GHz 
band: (1) In building wireless personal area networking (WPAN) devices 
designed to share uncompressed high definition (HD) data signals 
between consumer entertainment devices, such as high definition 
televisions (HDTV), cameras, and laptop computers, usually within the 
same room; and (2) outdoor short range point to point systems intended 
to extend the reach of fiber optic networks by providing service to 
adjacent structures, provide broadband backhaul links between cellular 
networks base

[[Page 1838]]

stations, or interconnect buildings in campus environments.
    299. At the request of the 60 GHz industry stakeholders that offer 
this second type of application, the Commission adopted higher emission 
levels to provide longer range coverage for outdoor point to point 
links with very high gain antennas resulting in very narrow beamwidths, 
while maintaining the existing lower emission levels for any 
application indoors or outdoors.
    300. We believe that future 5G technologies, similar to existing 4G 
or LTE technologies, would take advantage of mobile data off-loading to 
unlicensed operations at Wi-Fi hotspots, either indoors or outdoors, as 
well as leveraging short backhaul links between pico cells. Therefore, 
we believe the existing two types of emission limits that we propose to 
apply to the 64 71 GHz band will continue to benefit both the low power 
networking communication links, including mobile use for data and voice 
communications, and the high-power high antenna gain fixed point to 
point backhaul links. We further note that although oxygen attenuation 
is most severe in the 57 64 GHz band which is approximately centered at 
60 GHz, its effect becomes much less pronounced in the adjacent 64 71 
GHz band. Thus, equipment operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band at 
the same emission levels would effectively be able to provide longer 
range and higher data throughput, as these levels are not as attenuated 
by the oxygen phenomenon. We seek comment on these tentative 
conclusions.
    301. Spurious Emissions. Section 15.255(c) restricts spurious 
emissions to a power density limit of 90 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 
meters for frequencies between 40 and 200 GHz, and to the general limit 
for intentional radiators in section 15.209 for frequencies below 40 
GHz. We propose to apply the same spurious emissions limits to 
transmitters operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band. We seek comment 
on this proposal.
    302. Publicly Accessible Coordination Channel. Section 15.255(d) 
sets aside a publicly-accessible coordination channel in the 57.00 
57.05 GHz band, in which only spurious emissions and emissions related 
to coordination techniques regarding interference management between 
diverse, non-interoperable, transmitters are permitted. The rules 
further stipulate that the development of standards for this channel 
shall be performed pursuant to experimental authorizations issued under 
Part 5 of the Commission's rules. This requirement was adopted in 1998 
and modified in 2000 at the request of industry. However, since 1998, 
there has been no report submitted to the FCC related to any specific 
experimental research with respect to this band. We also observe that 
with recent technological advances and industry standardization, co-
existence between 60 GHz devices is better resolved by voluntary 
standards than by a coordination channel requirement in the rules. 
Because specifications on coordination techniques could reside in 
industry standards, we question the need to maintain a requirement that 
adds costs to equipment design and installation. Removing this 
requirement would also provide an extra 50 MHz of spectrum for data 
transmission. We propose to remove this requirement from the rules and 
seek comment on this proposal, including its costs and benefits.
    303. Conducted Transmitter Output Power. Section 15.255(e) limits 
the peak transmitter conducted output power of 57-64 GHz unlicensed 
devices to 500 mW (i.e., 27 dBm) for transmitters with an emission 
bandwidth of at least 100 MHz, and is reduced for systems that employ 
narrower bandwidths. We propose to apply this conducted transmitter 
output power requirement to transmitters operating in the proposed 64 
71 GHz band. We seek comment on this proposal.
    304. Frequency Stability. Section 15.255(f) requires that 
fundamental emissions be contained within the 57-64 GHz frequency band 
during all conditions of operation; and that equipment be able to 
operate over the temperature range -20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an 
input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage. In 
adopting this requirement, the Commission noted that ``. . . 
[m]illimeter wave devices generally are more susceptible to changes in 
operating frequency due to fluctuations in temperature or voltage than 
are transmitters operating at lower frequencies.'' We propose to apply 
the same requirements to transmitters operating in the proposed 64 71 
GHz band. We seek comment on this proposal.
    305. Co-location of separately authorized transmitters. Section 
15.255(h) allows group installation of transmitters that have been 
tested separately for compliance with the rules and received separate 
equipment authorizations, as long as no transmitter in the group is 
equipped with external phase-locking inputs that permit beam-forming 
arrays to be realized. This requirement seeks to prevent the 
possibility of producing a high-power coherent beam from discrete 
transmitters that have not been tested for compliance together, which 
could lead to non-compliance with the emission limits. This requirement 
does not preclude the use of advanced antenna technologies with beam 
forming arrays in any transmitter, as long as its emissions in any 
array configuration comply with the limits on emissions and on RF 
exposure in the rules. We propose to apply the same requirement to 
equipment operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band. We seek comment on 
this proposal.
10. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
    306. The Commission recognizes that having widely accepted 
propagation models for millimeter wave bands is one of the key steps 
towards 5G technology development and interservice sharing in mmW 
bands. While the propagation models of low frequency bands are well 
understood and practiced, mainly due to their long history, the 
wireless industry and academia are currently engaged in development of 
propagation models for millimeter wave bands. The Satellite Industry 
Association (SIA) and EchoStar have filed comments raising their own 
questions on what types of propagation models might be used for sharing 
analysis between satellite and terrestrial systems. NYU also filed 
comments emphasizing the importance of propagation modeling for mmW 
band technology development.
    307. We seek comment on the various sharing analysis framework 
among fixed, mobile and satellite systems, as well as between active 
and passive services in the millimeter bands. Specifically, we request 
technical information on transmitter and receiver characteristics 
including peak and average transmit power and antenna performance, 
operational assumptions including antenna orientation and practical use 
case of transmitters and receivers, and appropriate propagation models 
for each sharing analysis that would assist in evaluating interference 
potential including aggregate effects as applicable.
11. Equipment Authorization
    308. There are some unique technical challenges specific to 
demonstrating compliance for the purpose of equipment authorization of 
millimeter-wave devices that may need to be addressed through guidance 
by the FCC Laboratory or future Commission proceedings. For example, as 
discussed above, it is expected that the millimeter-wave devices being 
contemplated are expected to be designed with an array of multiple 
antennas employing

[[Page 1839]]

dynamic beamforming and no output port for which to measure the 
conducted power of the transmitter, which may make challenging the 
verification of transmitter power, equivalent isotropic radiated power 
(EIRP), and antenna gain. Additionally, devices authorized for 
operation above 6 GHz have so far been intended for normal use at least 
20 centimeters from the body of the user, introducing new challenges 
for measurement of RF exposure for such devices at close distances. 
Throughout the next two sections, we seek comment on how we should 
address these technical challenges in future guidance to demonstrate 
compliance with the Commission's rules pertaining to equipment 
authorization. Specifically, we request information on relevant 
research as we address two topics: (1) Measurement techniques to verify 
that devices meet limits on peak EIRP and out-of-band emissions (OOBE), 
and (2) demonstration of compliance with respect to the Commission's 
rules on RF exposure.
a. Measurement Techniques
    309. EIRP Measurement. Above we proposed a maximum device EIRP, 
without a limitation on device conducted power or antenna gain. Present 
FCC Laboratory guidance addresses to a certain extent some of the 
technical procedures that could inform compliance demonstration with 
the proposed rules under consideration for millimeter-wave devices 
herein. However, direct measurement of the fundamental EIRP of 
millimeter-wave devices including those that use dynamic beamforming 
antenna arrays across channel bandwidths of 100 MHz (or more) at 
millimeter-wave frequencies are more challenging than the present 
guidance for a number of reasons. For instance, when performing 
radiated emission measurements there may be significant losses 
depending on the test measurement setup, and attempts to recoup some of 
the added losses could introduce additional complexity, perhaps by 
requiring that measurements be performed in the radiating near-field of 
the device under testing. This presents practical problems of 
measurement repeatability and consistency. Additionally, the equivalent 
antenna gain of the device under testing depends on the frequencies 
being measured and in the case of beamforming arrangements, the 
direction of the beam being formed, which is especially true across 
wide channels such as those being contemplated for millimeter-wave 
devices. We seek information on fundamental aspects of measurements of 
radiated emissions at these frequencies. What are the ways to 
demonstrate compliance with procedures which are practical, repeatable 
and do not have large margins of errors. We further seek comment on 
whether and how present procedures can be adapted or modified to 
appropriately to address these specific technical challenges presented 
by millimeter-wave devices.
    310. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emissions Measurement. 
Conventionally, out-of-band and spurious emissions are verified by 
direct measurement of conducted power at an output port, which avoids 
the additional losses and uncertainties associated with field 
measurements. However, millimeter-wave devices being contemplated are 
likely not to have an output port, primarily due to the manner in which 
the antennas in the array will be fed. At the present time the FCC 
Laboratory guidance does offer a procedure to measure the out-of-band 
and spurious emissions from devices with multiple antennas. The 
measurement challenges introduced in the previous paragraph regarding 
significant losses that could be introduced depending on the test 
measurement setup are accentuated in the case of out-of-band and 
spurious measurements due to the low levels relative to the fundamental 
emissions. We seek comment on what other measurement procedures may be 
used and whether we would need to provide any additional guidance to 
determine compliance with the out-of-band and spurious emission limits 
for millimeter-wave devices considering the technical challenges. 
Additionally, out-of-band emissions limits are presently measured using 
a 100 kHz bandwidth at operating frequencies below 1 GHz, and are 
measured using a 1 MHz bandwidth at operating frequencies above 1 GHz. 
We seek comment on whether we should further consider widening the 
measurement bandwidth, say to 10 MHz above 10 GHz, and what might be 
the practical implications in doing so. For example, a wider 
measurement bandwidth would include more thermal noise, which could 
make measurement more difficult because of the increased noise to a 
point higher than the emissions limits. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Finally, spurious emissions for devices operating above 10 
GHz are required by the Commission's rules to be measured up to the 
fifth harmonic of the highest fundamental frequency, below a certain 
cutoff frequency. We seek comment on whether these cutoff frequencies 
should be modified.
b. RF Exposure Compliance
    311. Radiofrequency (RF) devices must comply with the Commission's 
RF exposure limits. The Commission has an open proceeding in which it 
is examining its RF exposure rules and policies, which could 
potentially influence how such devices are authorized in the future. We 
propose to similarly require compliance with the radiofrequency 
radiation exposure specifications in sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 
2.1093 of the rules to equipment operating in the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service. We seek comment on this proposal; however, any 
issues raised involving the present exposure limits themselves as they 
exist today will be dealt with in the context of that separate 
proceeding.
    312. Presently, the Commission's rules include two types of 
guidelines limiting exposure to RF energy: (1) Specific absorption rate 
(SAR), and (2) maximum permissible exposure (MPE). There is no SAR 
limit for operations above 6 GHz, rather the MPE limit on total power 
flux density must be used to determine compliance at frequencies from 6 
through 100 GHz. Compliance with these rules for devices is 
demonstrated through the equipment authorization process, and will be 
subject to subsequent specific guidance on RF exposure compliance 
procedures. Nevertheless, determining compliance with the RF exposure 
limit for portable devices (intended for use within 20 centimeters of 
the body of a user) operating above 6 GHz does present some unique 
technical challenges not addressed in our guidance documents and 
warrant some additional discussion. Recognizing the specific guidance 
on evaluation to be issued by the FCC Laboratory which will address how 
to demonstrate compliance with our exposure limits, and given the 
additional considerations in the Commission's pending proceeding on RF 
exposure rules and policies, we seek comment on how to address these 
technical challenges.
    313. Conventionally, consumer portable devices operating at 
frequencies below 6 GHz intended to be held against the head during 
normal use are tested for SAR with the device placed directly against a 
head-shaped tissue-equivalent phantom defined by SAR measurement 
standards, called the specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM). SAR is 
evaluated under specific exposure conditions within tissue-equivalent 
media. However, the more tractable MPE measurements are

[[Page 1840]]

performed in free-space without a SAM present. MPE evaluations in free-
space do not account for the specific exposure conditions in the body 
tissues; however, the MPE limits without spatial averaging have a 
built-in conservativeness that assumes whole-body exposure and ensures 
compliance with SAR limits below 6 GHz. We acknowledged in our 
proposals in the RF Further Notice that the five centimeter minimum 
distance for measurement and calculation of MPE in free-space specified 
in our rules appears to be inappropriate at frequencies above 6 GHz, 
especially in the context of portable devices that may normally be 
operated closer than five centimeters from the head or body. However, 
we also acknowledged in those proposals in the Commission's RF Further 
Notice that there could be some minimum distance at which device 
coupling with measurement probes could reduce measurement accuracy, 
even with today's advanced and more compact measurement equipment. 
However, with computational techniques there may be no practical 
limitation on minimum distance. We seek comment on what major factors, 
considering both measurement and computational techniques, we should 
take into account when developing guidance to evaluate consumer 
portable devices operating at frequencies above 6 GHz intended to be 
held against the head or close to the body during normal use. We 
encourage comments addressing whether the technical challenges 
described above regarding probe-device coupling in the near-field are 
surmountable when measuring MPE, and whether suitable techniques can be 
established to validate the computational model used in simulations of 
near-field power density.
    314. As noted above, consistent with other existing advanced 
wireless service rules, we are proposing a 20 watts (43 dBm) peak EIRP 
for mobile devices. However, the major distinctions between millimeter-
wave devices being contemplated and existing wireless devices are the 
default use of an array of multiple antennas with no output port at 
which to measure the conducted power of the transmitter. Also mentioned 
in our proposals in the RF Further Notice was the rationale for a 
maximum averaging area of one square centimeter for MPE above 6 GHz to 
be consistent with one gram averaging of SAR. We note that the antenna 
array dimensions being contemplated can be significantly larger than a 
single square centimeter, and every antenna in an array is being fed 
equal power, effectively spreading the power across the entire aperture 
of the device's antenna array. In this regard, peak EIRP in the far-
field is conceptually considered to be inversely related to the maximum 
power flux density of the antenna array in the near-field, and 
ultimately the maximum conducted power that could be used by the device 
while still complying with the Commission's RF exposure limits might 
not be related to peak EIRP, however we seek comment on this concept. 
Recognizing also that portable devices are likely to operate at 
conducted power levels much lower than the proposed maximum peak EIRP, 
due to antenna array gain and to effectively manage device power 
consumption among other reasons, we also seek comment on whether to 
maintain our continued approach to allow portable devices to be 
authorized up to the maximum EIRP permitted by the rules, as long as 
our RF exposure limits are met, and if not, what other alternative 
approaches we should consider. Related to equipment authorization 
procedures, we specifically seek comment on whether an averaging area 
of one square centimeter would appropriately reflect the intent of the 
rationale behind our present exposure limits in the interim, until the 
Commission considers the issues brought forth in its RF Inquiry. 
Moreover, similar to the rationale that permits consideration of 
lateral separation between antennas measured for peak SAR in the 
context of reducing test requirements for some types of equipment 
operating at frequencies below 6 GHz, and given the anticipated 
dimensions of antenna arrays for these devices, we seek comment on 
whether any one square centimeter averaging area across the dimensions 
of the array can be assessed independently while still adhering to the 
intent of these guidelines.

V. Ordering Clause

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    315. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to authorize 
mobile operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), the 38.6-40 
GHz band (39 GHz band), and the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band). These 
bands are known collectively as the mmW bands.
    316. Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered 
unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at 
such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate 
around obstacles. As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower 
bands and carriers have resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in 
order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is taking 
another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least 
some of its presumed disadvantages can be turned to advantage. First 
and foremost, the perceived unsuitability of mmW frequencies for mobile 
and other applications have not been considered as potential spectrum 
for wide-bandwidth, broadband operations whenever technology becomes 
available to exploit those under-used resources. As discussed further 
below, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can 
facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the 
amount of interference between adjacent cells. Where longer paths are 
desired, however, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW signals make 
it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly 
focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses. Also, 
the short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to build 
multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough 
to fit into handsets--a feat that might never be possible at the lower, 
longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones operate 
today.
    317. In the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands, we propose to create 
a new radio service in a new rule part that would authorize fixed and 
mobile services. The additional spectrum for mobile use will help 
ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless 
networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. It 
could also make possible new types of services for consumers and 
businesses.
    318. For the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, we propose to assign licenses 
by competitive bidding using counties as the area for geographic area 
licensing. We also propose to transition existing licensees in these 
bands to county-based licenses. For the 37 GHz, we propose a hybrid 
licensing scheme in which rights to local area operations tailored to 
physical facility boundaries would be assigned by rule and rights to 
outdoor operations would be assigned by geographic area licensing using 
counties as the geographic unit. This hybrid mechanism could facilitate 
the development of advanced enterprise and industrial applications not 
suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services.
    319. These service rules would make available additional spectrum 
for

[[Page 1841]]

flexible use. In proposing service rules for the band, which include 
technical rules to protect against harmful interference, licensing 
rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes, 
and performance requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance 
toward enabling rapid and efficient deployment. We do so by proposing 
flexible service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this 
spectrum, except where special provisions are necessary to facilitate 
shared use with other co-primary users.
    320. At the same time, because the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands 
are shared with satellite services, we also seek comment on ways to 
facilitate satellite uses that are consistent with fixed and mobile use 
of the bands. Specifically, we propose a mechanism under which 28 GHz 
gateway earth stations could obtain co-primary status if their presence 
would not impede terrestrial development. We also ask if there are 
circumstances under which satellite user equipment could be authorized 
in these bands on a secondary basis.
    321. We also propose to authorize unlicensed operation pursuant to 
Part 15 of our rules in the 64-71 GHz band. The proposed technical 
rules would be based on our existing rules for the 57-64 GHz band.
    322. Overall, these proposals are designed to provide for flexible 
use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of 
service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile 
broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory 
environment in which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment would be 
able to develop through the application of flexible rules. The market-
oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure that this 
spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new 
and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the 
growth and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately 
leading to greater benefits to consumers.

B. Legal Basis

    323. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 
316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336 and section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    324. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    325. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million 
businesses, 99.7 percent of which are small, according to the SBA. In 
addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions 
are small.
    326. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 
2011, show that there were 10,145 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 10,117 had employment of 999 or 
fewer, and 28 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that 
may be affected by our proposed action.
    327. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), the 39 GHz 
Service (39GHz), the 24 GHz Service, and the Millimeter Wave Service 
where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common 
carrier status. At present, there are approximately 61,970 common 
carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private and public safety operational-
fixed licensees, 20,349 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS 
licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39GHz licenses, 5 24GHz licenses, and 
408 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission 
has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave 
services. For purposes of the IRFA, the Commission will use the SBA's 
definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite)--i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is 
considered small. Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2011, show that 
there were 10,145 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 10,117 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 28 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by 
our proposed action. The Commission notes that the number of firms does 
not necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission estimates 
that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding 
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under 
the SBA definition.
    328. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. 
Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The 
first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or 
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second also has a 
size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
    329. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in

[[Page 1842]]

providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 
show that 659 Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that 
entire year. Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by 
our action.
    330. The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 2,981 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts 
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small 
entities that might be affected by our action.
    331. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The proposed rules relating to Part 15 
operation pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications 
devices. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. 
Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and 
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and 
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: All 
such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this 
category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this 
total, 784 had less than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    332. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will apply 
to all entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that 
applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context 
promotes fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/
or administrative burdens associated with the proposed rules will 
unduly burden small entities, as discussed below. The revisions the 
Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more 
information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to 
wireless spectrum.
    333. Any applicants for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
licenses will be required to file license applications using the 
Commission's automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an 
online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful 
information tool, one that enables potential licensees to research 
applications, licenses, and antenna structures. It also keeps the 
public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing 
utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service applicants that must submit long-form license applications 
must do so through ULS using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure 
Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 
602, and other appropriate forms.
    334. Applicants in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service will be 
required to meet buildout requirements at the end of their initial 
license terms. In doing do, they will be required to provide 
information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed, 
the nature of the service they are providing, and the extent to which 
they are providing coverage in their license area.
    335. We also propose to require Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service licensees to provide information on their proposed operations 
in order to facilitate sharing with other authorized services. We seek 
comment on the scope of the information to be provided and the manner 
in which it should be provided.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    336. The proposal in the NPRM to license the 28 GHz, 39 GHz bands 
using county-sized licenses. We also propose to assign outdoor rights 
in the 37 GHz band using county size licenses. These license areas are 
small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller 
carriers. County license areas also nest within and may be aggregated 
up to larger license areas. Therefore, the benefits and burdens 
resulting from assigning spectrum in county license areas are 
equivalent for small and large businesses. Depending on the licensing 
mechanism we adopt, licensees may adjust their geographic coverage 
through auction or, as we discuss in section IV.E.8 of the NPRM, 
through secondary markets. This proposal should enable providers, or 
any entities, whether large or small, providing service in the mmW 
bands to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks 
pursuant to individual business plans. As a result, we believe the 
ability of licensees to adjust spectrum holdings will provide an 
economic benefit by making it easier for small entities to acquire 
spectrum or access spectrum.
    337. The proposals to facilitate satellite service in the 28 GHz, 
39 GHz, and 37 GHz would facilitate service by all Fixed Satellite 
Service entities, including small entities.
    338. The NPRM proposal in section IV.E.10 pertaining to how the mmW 
band licenses will be assigned includes proposals to assist small 
entities in competitive bidding. We propose that the Commission would 
conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in the mmW bands in 
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 
1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and substantially consistent 
with the competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in 
previous auctions. Specifically, we propose to employ the Part 1 rules 
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, 
unjust enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting 
requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between 
auction applicants. Specifically, small entities will benefit from the 
proposal to provide small businesses with a bidding

[[Page 1843]]

credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 
25 percent. Providing small businesses and very small businesses with 
bidding credits will provide an economic benefit to small entities by 
making it easier for small entities to acquire spectrum or access to 
spectrum in these bands.
    339. In section IV.F of the NPRM, the Commission proposes service 
rules that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-Federal 
fixed or mobile use, subject to the Commission's proposed Part 30 
flexible use and other applicable rules (including service rules to 
avoid harmful interference). The technical rules we propose or seek 
comment on will allow licensees of mmW band spectrum to operate while 
also protecting licensees of nearby spectrum, some of whom are small 
entities, from harmful interference.
    340. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by 
licensees in the mmW bands. These secondary market rules apply equally 
to all entities, whether small or large. We believe the opportunity to 
enter into secondary market agreements for mmW band spectrum will 
provide an economic benefit to all entities, whether large or small. 
Therefore, the benefits and burdens resulting from secondary market 
agreements for spectrum are equivalent for small and large businesses.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    341. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30 and 101

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 
and 101 and add a new part 30 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, 
and 1455.
0
2. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions for ``Wireless 
Radio Services'' and ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1.907  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13, 
20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this 
chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
    Wireless Telecommunications Services. Wireless Radio Services, 
whether fixed or mobile, that meet the definition of 
``telecommunications service'' as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended, 
and are therefore subject to regulation on a common carrier basis. 
Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio services 
authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 30 of this chapter. In 
addition, Wireless Telecommunications Services include Public Coast 
Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, common carrier fixed 
microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic Message 
Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this chapter.
0
3. Section 1.1307 is amended by adding an entry for ``Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (part 30)'' above the entry for ``Radio Broadcast 
Services (part 73)'' in Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) and revising 
paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1307  Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, 
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

   Table 1--Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine
                        Environmental Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Service (title 47 CFR rule part)         Evaluation required if:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service     Non-building-mounted antennas:
 (part 30).                               height above ground level to
                                          lowest point of antenna <10 m
                                          and power >1640 W EIRP.
                                         Building-mounted antennas:
                                          Total power of all channels
                                          >1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; 
the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this 
chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 
of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 
25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services 
pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services 
(ship earth stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the 
Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 
MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the 
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device 
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this 
chapter; or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of 
this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF 
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.9001 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9001  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of part 1, subpart X is to implement policies and 
rules pertaining to spectrum leasing arrangements between licensees in 
the services identified in this subpart and spectrum lessees. This 
subpart also implements policies for private commons arrangements. 
These policies and rules also implicate other Commission rule parts, 
including parts 1, 2, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 80, 90, 95, and 101 of 
title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * *

[[Page 1844]]

0
5. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraphs (hh) through (kk) 
and adding paragraph (ll) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.9005  Included services.

* * * * *
    (hh) The Multipoint Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101 
of this chapter);
    (ii) The 700 MHz Guard Bands Service (part 27 of this chapter);
    (jj) The ATC of a Mobile Satellite Service (part 25 of this 
chapter);
    (kk) The 600 MHz band (part 27 of this chapter); and
    (ll) The Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30 of this 
chapter).

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.

0
7. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  2.1091  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile 
devices.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the 
Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; 
the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this 
chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to 
part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth 
station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the 
Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband 
Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to 
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment 
authorization or use if:
* * * * *
0
8. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1093  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable 
devices.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone 
Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal 
Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the 
Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; 
the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 
of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service pursuant to 
part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station 
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized 
Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz 
Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the 
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device 
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), pursuant to subparts H and I of 
part 95 of this chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal 
communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave 
devices authorized under Sec. Sec.  15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 
15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to 
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment 
authorization or use.
* * * * *

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
9. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 
549.

0
10. Section 15.255 is proposed to be amended by revising the section 
heading, paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 
(ii), and paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (c)(1); removing paragraph 
(d); redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through 
(g); revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2); and adding new 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.255  Operation within the band 57-71 GHz .

* * * * *
    (b) Within the 57-71 GHz band, emission levels shall not exceed the 
following equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP):
    (1) * * *
    (i) The average power of any emission shall not exceed 40 dBm and 
the peak power of any emission shall not exceed 43 dBm; OR
    (ii) For fixed point to point transmitters located outdoors, the 
average power of any emission shall not exceed 82 dBm, and shall be 
reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. 
The peak power of any emission shall not exceed 85 dBm, and shall be 
reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 51 dBi.
    (A) The provisions in this paragraph for reducing transmit power 
based on antenna gain shall not require that the power levels be 
reduced below the limits specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (B) The provisions of Sec.  15.204(c)(2) and (4) that permit the 
use of different antennas of the same type and of equal or less 
directional gain do not apply to intentional radiator systems operating 
under this provision. In lieu thereof, intentional radiator systems 
shall be certified using the specific antenna(s) with which the system 
will be marketed and operated. Compliance testing shall be performed 
using the highest gain and the lowest gain antennas for which 
certification is sought and with the intentional radiator operated at 
its maximum available output power level. The responsible party, as 
defined in Sec.  2.909 of this chapter, shall supply a list of 
acceptable antennas with the application for certification.
    (2) For fixed field disturbance sensors that occupy 500 MHz or less 
of bandwidth and that are contained wholly within the frequency band 
61.0-61.5 GHz, the average power of any emission, measured during the 
transmit interval, shall not exceed 40 dBm, and the peak power of any 
emission shall not exceed 43 dBm. In addition, the average power of any 
emission outside of the 61.0-61.5 GHz band, measured during the 
transmit interval, but still within the 57-71 GHz band, shall not 
exceed 10 dBm, and the peak power of any emission shall not exceed 13 
dBm.
* * * * *
    (4) The peak power shall be measured with an RF detector that has a 
detection bandwidth that encompasses the 57-71 GHz band and has a video 
bandwidth of at least 10 MHz. The average emission levels shall be 
measured over the actual time period during which transmission occurs.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The power density of any emissions outside the 57-71 GHz band 
shall consist solely of spurious emissions.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Peak transmitter conducted output power shall be measured with 
an RF detector that has a detection bandwidth that encompasses the 57-
71 GHz band

[[Page 1845]]

and that has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz.
* * * * *
    (h) Measurement procedures that have been found to be acceptable to 
the Commission in accordance with Sec.  2.947 of this chapter may be 
used to demonstrate compliance.

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
11. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Interprets or applies sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 
307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and 721 of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 
721, unless otherwise noted.

0
12. Section 25.202 is amended by revising footnote 2 to the table in 
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.202  Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    \2\ FSS is co-primary if the FSS licensee also holds the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use license for the area where the earth station is 
located. Otherwise, FSS is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service.
* * * * *
0
13. Part 30 is added to read as follows:

PART 30--UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE

    Subpart A--General

Sec.
30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Eligibility.
30.4 Frequencies.
30.5 Service areas.
30.6 Permissible communications.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
30.101 Initial authorizations.
30.102 Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-38.6 
GHz band.
30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution service 
and 39 GHz licenses.
30.104 License term.
30.105 Construction requirements.
30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
30.107 Discontinuance of service.
Subpart C--Technical Standards
30.201 Equipment authorization.
30.202 Power limits.
30.203 Emission limits.
30.204 Field strength limits.
30.205 Information sharing requirements.
30.206 Federal coordination requirements.
30.207 International coordination.
30.208 RF safety.
30.209 Interoperability.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive 
bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.


    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 
309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.


Sec.  30.1  Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.

    As of [effective date of final rule], Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service licenses for the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, and licenses issued in 
the 38.6-40 GHz band under the rules in part 101 of this chapter shall 
be reassigned to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in bands other than 27.5-28.35 
GHz shall remain in that service and shall be governed by the part 101 
rules applicable to that service.


Sec.  30.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this part:
    Authorized bandwidth. The maximum width of the band of frequencies 
permitted to be used by a station. This is normally considered to be 
the necessary or occupied bandwidth, whichever is greater. (See Sec.  
2.202 of this chapter).
    Base station. A station at a fixed location used as part of a 
mobile service.
    Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (in a given direction). The product 
of the power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-
wave dipole in a given direction.
    Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The product of the 
power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction 
relative to an isotropic antenna.
    Fixed service. A radio communication service between specified 
fixed points.
    Fixed station. A station in the fixed service.
    Local Area Operations. Operations confined to physical facility 
boundaries, such as a factory.
    Mobile service. A radio communication service between mobile and 
land stations, or between mobile stations.
    Mobile station. A station in the mobile service intended to be used 
while in motion or during halts at unspecified points.
    Point-to-point station. A station that transmits a highly 
directional signal from a fixed transmitter location to a fixed receive 
location.
    Universal Licensing System. The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is 
the consolidated database, application filing system, and processing 
system for all Wireless Radio Services. ULS supports electronic filing 
of all applications and related documents by applicants and licensees 
in the Wireless Radio Services, and provides public access to licensing 
information.


Sec.  30.3  Eligibility.

    Any entity who meets the technical, financial, character, and 
citizenship qualifications that the Commission may require in 
accordance with such Act, other than those precluded by section 310 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible 
to hold a license under this part.


Sec.  30.4  Frequencies.

    The following frequencies are available for assignment in the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service:
    (a) 27.5 GHz-28.35 GHz band;
    (b) 38.6-40 GHz band:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Channel group A                                          Channel group B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Frequency band                                    Frequency band
                 Channel No.                    limits (MHz)              Channel No.             limits (MHz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A.........................................     38,600-38,650  1-B...........................     39,300-39,350
2-A.........................................     38,650-38,700  2-B...........................     39,350-39,400
3-A.........................................     38,700-38,750  3-B...........................     39,400-39,450
4-A.........................................     38,750-38,800  4-B...........................     39,450-39,500
5-A.........................................     38,800-38,850  5-B...........................     39,500-39,550
6-A.........................................     38,850-38,900  6-B...........................     39,550-39,600
7-A.........................................     38,900-38,950  7-B...........................     39,600-39,650
8-A.........................................     38,950-39,000  8-B...........................     39,650-39,700
9-A.........................................     39,000-39,050  9-B...........................     39,700-39,750
10-A........................................     39,050-39,100  10-B..........................     39,750-39,800
11-A........................................     39,100-39,150  11-B..........................     39,800-39,850

[[Page 1846]]

 
12-A........................................     39,150-39,200  12-B..........................     39,850-39,900
13-A........................................     39,200-39,250  13-B..........................     39,900-39,950
14-A........................................     39,250-39,300  14-B..........................     39,950-40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) 37-38.6 GHz band: 37,000-37,533 MHz; 37,534-38,066 MHz; and 
38,067-38,600 MHz.


Sec.  30.5  Service areas.

    (a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the 
service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are 
counties.
    (b) Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Stations licensed 
in the 38.6-40 GHz bands licensed with Rectangular Service Areas shall 
maintain their Rectangular Service Area as defined in their 
authorization. The frequencies associated with Rectangular Service Area 
authorizations that have expired, cancelled, or otherwise been 
recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable 
county licensee.
    (c) Upper Microwave Flexible Use authorizations issued pursuant to 
a special filing window for Holders of Fixed Satellite Service earth 
stations shall have a service area consisting of the census tract 
within which the relevant earth station is located.


Sec.  30.6  Permissible communications.

    (a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a 
licensee in the frequency bands specified in Sec.  30.4 may provide any 
services for which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in 
the non-Federal Government column of the Table of Allocations in Sec.  
2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
    (b) County licenses in the 37-38.6 GHz band shall not authorize 
local area operations. Such local area operations shall be authorized 
pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  30.102.
    (c) Fixed Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner 
consistent with part 25 of this chapter.

Subpart B--Applications and Licenses


Sec.  30.101  Initial authorizations.

    Except with respect to local area operations in the 37-38.6 GHz 
band, an applicant must file a single application for an initial 
authorization for all markets won and frequency blocks desired. Initial 
authorizations shall be granted in accordance with Sec.  30.4. 
Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be 
accepted, except where required for environmental assessments, in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter.


Sec.  30.102  Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-
38.6 GHz band.

    Any party who meets the eligibility requirements in Sec.  30.3 may 
operate local area operations in the 37-38.6 GHz band within the 
boundaries of property they own.


Sec.  30.103  Transition of existing local multipoint distribution 
service and 39 GHz licenses.

    Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses issued on a Basic 
Trading Area basis and 39 GHz licenses issued on an Economic Area basis 
shall be disaggregated into county-based licenses on [effective date of 
final rule]. For each county in the Basic Trading Area or Economic Area 
which is part of the original license, the licensee shall receive a 
separate license. If there is a Rectangular Service Area licensee 
within the service area of a 39 GHz Economic Area licensee, the 
disaggregated license shall not authorize operation with the service 
area of the Rectangular Service Area license.


Sec.  30.104  License term.

    Initial authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years 
from the date of initial issuance or renewal.


Sec.  30.105  Construction requirements.

    (a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees must make a 
buildout showing as part of their renewal applications. Licensees 
providing mobile, point-to-multipoint, or point-to-point service, must 
demonstrate that they are providing reliable signal coverage and 
service to at least 40 percent of the population within the service 
area of the licensee, and that they are using facilities to provide 
service in that area either to customers or for internal use. In 
determining the percentage of population covered in each county, the 
population covered by a licensee's service area will be measured at the 
census block level, using the centroid of each census block from the 
most recent U.S. Census. If the total population of the census blocks 
covered by the licensees reliable signal is 40% or greater the licensee 
will be deemed to have met the performance requirement. Failure to meet 
this requirement will result in automatic cancellation of the license.
    (b) Existing 39 GHz licensees shall not be required to make a 
showing pursuant to this rule and shall be governed by the provisions 
of Sec.  101.17 of this chapter if the expiration date of their license 
is prior to March 1, 2021.


Sec.  30.106  Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

    (a) Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation 
shall request from the Commission an authorization for partial 
assignment of a license pursuant to Sec.  1.948 of this chapter. Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees may apply to partition their 
licensed geographic service area or disaggregate their licensed 
spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.
    (b) Technical standards--(1) Partitioning. In the case of 
partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant 
to Sec.  1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on 
a schedule to the application. The geographic coordinates must be 
specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of 
latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American 
Datum (NAD83).
    (2) Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
    (3) The Commission will consider requests for partial assignment of 
licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
    (4) For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, part 30 
systems must be designed so as not to exceed the signal level specified 
for the particular spectrum block in Sec.  30.204 at the licensee's 
service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area 
licensees have agreed to a different signal level.
    (c) License term. The license term for a partitioned license area 
and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original 
licensee's license term as provided for in Sec.  30.104.
    (d)(1) Parties to partitioning agreements have two options for 
satisfying the construction requirements set forth in Sec.  30.105. 
Under the first

[[Page 1847]]

option, the partitioner and partitionee each certifies that they will 
collectively share responsibility for meeting the construction 
requirement for the entire pre-partition geographic license area. If 
the partitioner and partitionee collectively fail to meet the 
construction requirement, then the licenses of both the partitioner and 
partitionee will automatically cancel. Under the second option, the 
partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will independently 
meet the construction requirement for its respective partitioned 
license area. If the partitioner or partitionee fails to meet the 
construction requirement for its respective partitioned license area, 
then the relevant license will automatically cancel.
    (2) Parties to disaggregation agreements have two options for 
satisfying the construction requirements set forth in Sec.  30.105. 
Under the first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each 
certifies that they will collectively share responsibility for meeting 
the construction requirement for the entire pre-partition geographic 
license area. If the disaggregator and disaggregatee collectively fail 
to meet the construction requirement, then the licenses of both the 
disaggregator and disaggregatee will automatically cancel. Under the 
second option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifies that 
it will independently meet the construction requirement for its 
respective disaggregated license area. If the disaggregator or 
disaggregatee fails to meet the construction requirement for its 
respective disaggregated license area, then the relevant license will 
automatically cancel.


Sec.  30.107  Discontinuance of service.

    (a) An Upper Microwave Flexible Use License authorization will 
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if the 
licensee permanently discontinues service after the initial license 
term.
    (b) For licensees with common carrier regulatory status, permanent 
discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during 
which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber 
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee 
in the individual license area. For licensees with non-common carrier 
status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 
consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.
    (c) A licensee that holds a 600 MHz band authorization or an AWS 
authorization in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands, that 
permanently discontinues service as defined in this section must notify 
the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 
601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An authorization will 
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service 
is permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a 
licensee fails to file the required form requesting license 
cancellation.

Subpart C--Technical Standards


Sec.  30.201  Equipment authorization.

    (a) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be 
of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its 
certification procedure.
    (b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in 
these services may request equipment authorization following the 
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment 
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an 
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set 
forth in part 2 of this chapter.


Sec.  30.202  Power limits.

    (a) For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile 
systems, the power is limited to:
    (1) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 1640 watts 
when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 100 MHz or less, except 
in rural areas, the maximum EIRP shall be 3280 watts;
    (2) An EIRP of 1640 watts/100 MHz when transmitting with an 
emission bandwidth greater than 100 MHz, except in rural areas, the 
maximum EIRP shall be 3280 watts/100 MHz.
    (b) For fixed stations operating solely in point-to-point and 
point-to-multipoint modes, the power is limited to a maximum EIRP of 
+55dBW.
    (c) For mobile stations, the power is limited to 20 watts.


Sec.  30.203  Emission limits.

    (a) The power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block 
shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in EIRP by at least 
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB.
    (b)(1) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 
megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately 
outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, a resolution 
bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the 
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. The emission 
bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one 
below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center 
frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB 
below the transmitter power.
    (2) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier 
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block 
edges, both upper and lower, as the design permits.
    (3) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or 
average values, provided they are expressed in the same parameters as 
the transmitter power.


Sec.  30.204  Field strength limits.

    The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on 
the geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed 
47 dB[micro]V/m unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) 
agree(s) to a different field strength. This value applies to both the 
initially offered service areas and to partitioned service areas.


Sec.  30.205  Information sharing requirements.

    (a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or Mobile Service system in 
the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 37.5-40 GHz band will make the technical 
information about its system listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section available to FSS operators by one or more of the following 
means:
    (1) An online database operated by the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
licensee;
    (2) An online database operated by a third-party database manager, 
or
    (3) A continuously transmitted pilot signal receivable throughout 
the terrain within which a FSS facility could cause interference to or 
receive interference from the terrestrial system.
    (b) All licensees deploying fixed systems in the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 
37.5-40 GHz bands will make the following information about each such 
system available to FSS operators in those bands by one or more of the 
means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Licensee's name and address.
    (2) Transmitting station name.
    (3) Transmitting station coordinates.
    (4) Frequencies and polarizations.
    (5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, effective isotropic 
radiated power, emission designator, and type of modulation (digital).
    (6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, gain, and a radiation pattern 
provided or certified by the manufacturer.

[[Page 1848]]

    (7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level 
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
    (8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with 
respect to the horizon.
    (9) Receiving station name.
    (10) Receiving station coordinates.
    (11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and, if required, a 
radiation pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer.
    (12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and 
ground elevation above mean sea level.
    (13) Receiving antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with respect 
to the horizon.
    (14) Path azimuth and distance.
    (c) All licensees deploying mobile service base stations in the 
27.5-28.35 GHz or 37.5-40 GHz bands will make the following information 
about each such base station available to FSS operators by one or both 
of the means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Licensee's name and address.
    (2) Transmitting station name.
    (3) Transmitting station coordinates.
    (4) Frequencies and polarizations.
    (5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, maximum effective 
isotropic radiated power, emission designator, and types of modulation.
    (6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, maximum gain, and maximum 
extent of all possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the 
manufacturer.
    (7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level 
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
    (8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) maximum and minimum angles of 
elevation with respect to the horizon.
    (9) Transmitting antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or 
designation of omnidirectionality.
    (10) Boundary of the area served by the base station for purposes 
of communication with mobile user equipment.
    (11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and maximum extent of all 
possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the manufacturer.
    (12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and 
ground elevation above mean sea level.
    (13) Receiving antenna boresight maximum and minimum angles of 
elevation with respect to the horizon.
    (14) Receiving antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or 
designation of omnidirectionality.


Sec.  30.206  Federal coordination requirements.

    Licensees in the 37-38 GHz band must protect co-channel Space 
Research Service (space-to-Earth) facilities from interference. Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Licensees licensed in the 37-38 GHz band 
operating near Space Research Service facilities must coordinate any 
operations that could permit mobile, fixed, and portable stations to 
operate near those facilities.


Sec.  30.207  International coordination.

    Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 38.6-40 GHz bands are subject 
to international agreements with Canada and Mexico.


Sec.  30.208  RF safety.

    Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency 
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  1.1307(b), 
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. 
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices 
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming 
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and 
unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this 
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.


Sec.  30.209  Interoperability.

    (a) Mobile and portable stations that operate on any portion of 
frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands must be 
capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands 
using the same air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any 
frequencies in the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands, respectively.
    (b) The basic interoperability requirement in paragraph (a) of this 
section does not require a licensee to use any particular industry 
standard. Devices may also contain functions that are not operational 
in U.S. Territories.

Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures


Sec.  30.301  Upper microwave flexible use service subject to 
competitive bidding.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for 38.6-40.0 GHz band 
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive 
bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will 
apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.


Sec.  30.302  Designated entities and bidding credits.

    (a) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business and has not 
claimed a rural service provider bidding credit may use the bidding 
credits set forth in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2) of this chapter, except that 
the 35 percent bidding credit in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(A) of this 
chapter shall not be available.
    (b) A rural service provider (as defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of 
this chapter who has not claimed a small business bidding credit will 
be eligible to receive a 15 percent bidding credit.

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

0
14. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

0
15. Section 101.17 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.17  Performance requirements for the 38.6-40.0 GHz frequency 
band.

* * * * *
    (c) Existing 39 GHz licensees shall not be required to make a 
showing pursuant to this rule if the expiration date of their license 
is after March 1, 2021.


Sec.  101.56  [Removed and Reserved]

0
16. Remove and reserve Sec.  101.56.
0
17. Section 101.63 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.63  Period of construction; certification of completion of 
construction.

    (a) Each Station, except in Multichannel Video Distribution and 
Data Service, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, and the 24 GHz 
Service, authorized under this part must be in operation within 18 
months from the initial date of grant.
* * * * *


Sec.  101.101  [Amended]

0
18. Section 101.101, the table, is amended by removing the entries 
``27,500-28,350'' and ``38,600-40,000.''
0
19. Section 101.103 is amended by removing paragraph (i) and revising 
paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.103  Frequency coordination procedures.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) When the transmitting facilities in a Basic Trading Area (BTA) 
are to be operated in the bands 29,100-29,250 MHz and 31,000-31,300 MHz 
and the facilities are located within 20 kilometers of the boundaries 
of a BTA, each licensee must complete the frequency coordination 
process of paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to neighboring 
BTA licensees that may be affected by its operations prior to 
initiating service. In addition, all licensed transmitting facilities 
operating in the bands 31,000-31,075 MHz and 31,225-31,300 MHz and 
located within 20 kilometers of

[[Page 1849]]

neighboring facilities must complete the frequency coordination process 
of paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to such authorized 
operations before initiating service.
* * * * *


Sec.  101.107  [Amended]

0
20. Section 101.107 is amended by removing the entry ``27,500 to 
28,350'' from the table in paragraph (a).
0
21. Section 101.109 is amended in the table in paragraph (c) by 
removing the entries ``27,500 to 28,350'' and ``38,600 to 40,000'' and 
revising footnote 7 to the table.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  101.109  Bandwidth.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    \7\ For channel block assignments in the 24,250-25,250 MHz band, 
the authorized bandwidth is equivalent to an unpaired channel block 
assignment or to either half of a symmetrical paired channel block 
assignment. When adjacent channels are aggregated, equipment is 
permitted to operate over the full channel block aggregation without 
restriction.
* * * * *


Sec.  101.113  [Amended]

0
22. Section 101.113 is amended in the table in paragraph (a) by 
removing the entries ``27,500-28,350'' and ``38,600 to 40,000.''


Sec.  101.115  [Amended]

0
23. Section 101.115 is amended in the table in paragraph (b)(2) by 
removing the entry ``38,600 to 40,000'' and redesignating footnote 15 
as footnote 14.
0
24. Section 101.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (t) and 
removing and reserving paragraph (v).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  101.147  Frequency assignments.

    (a) Frequencies in the following bands are available for assignment 
for fixed microwave services.
928.0-929.0 MHz (28)
932.0-932.5 MHz (27)
932.5-935 MHz (17)
941.0-941.5 MHz (27)
941.5-944 MHz (17) (18)
952.0-960.0 MHz (28)
1,850-1,990 MHz (20) (22)
2,110-2,130 MHz) (1) (3) (7) (20) (23)
2,130-2,150 MHz (20) (22)
2,160-2,180 MHz (1) (2) (20) (23)
2,180-2,200 MHz (20) (22)
2,450-2,500 MHz (12)
2,650-2,690 MHz
3,700-4,200 MHz (8) (14) (25)
5,925-6,425 MHz (6) (14) (25)
6,425-6,525 MHz (24)
6,525-6.875 MHz (14) (33)
6,875-7,125 MHz (10), (34)
10,550-10,680 MHz (19)
10,700-11,700 MHz (8) (9) (19) (25)
11,700-12,200 MHz (24)
12,200-12,700 MHz (31)
12,700-13,200 (22), (34)
13,200-13,250 MHz (4) (24) (25)
14,200-14,400 MHz (24)
17,700-18,820 MHz (5) (10) (15)
17,700-18,300 MHz (10) (15)
18,820-18,920 MHz (22)
18,300-18,580 MHz (5) (10) (15)
18,580-19,300 MHz (22) (30)
18,920-19,160 MHz (5 (10) (15)
19,160-19,260 MHz (22)
19,260-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
19,300-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
21,200-22,000 MHz (4) (11) (12) (13) (24) (25) (26)
22,000-23,600 MHz (4) (11) (12) (24) (25) (26)
24,250-25,250 MHz
29,100-29,250 MHz (5), (16)
31,000-31,300 MHz (16)
42,000-42,500 MHz
71,000-76,000 MHz (5) (17)
81,000-86,000 MHz (5) (17)
92,000-94,000 MHz (17)
94,100-95,000 MHz (17)
* * * * *
    (t) 29,100-29,250; 31,000-31,300 MHz. These frequencies are 
available for LMDS systems. Each assignment will be made on a BTA 
service area basis, and the assigned spectrum may be subdivided as 
desired by the licensee.
* * * * *


Sec.  101.149  [Removed and Reserved]

0
25. Remove and reserve Sec.  101.149.
0
26. Section 101.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  101.1005  Frequencies available.

    (a) The following frequencies are available for assignment to LMDS 
in two license blocks:

Block A of 300 MHz
29,100-29,250 MHz
31,075-31,225 MHz
Block B of 150 MHz
31,000-31,075 MHz
31,225-31,300 MHz

    (b) In Block A licenses, the frequencies are authorized as follows:
    (1) 29,100-29,250 MHz is shared on a co-primary basis with feeder 
links for non-geostationary orbit Mobile Satellite Service (NGSO/MSS) 
systems in the band and is limited to LMDS hub-to-subscriber 
transmissions, as provided in Sec. Sec.  25.257 and 101.103(h) of this 
chapter.
    (2) 31,075-31,225 MHz is authorized on a primary protected basis 
and is shared with private microwave point-to-point systems licensed 
prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in Sec.  101.103(b).
* * * * *

Subpart N--[Removed and Reserved]

0
27. Remove and reserve Subpart N.

[FR Doc. 2015-31852 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P