[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58270-58308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19793]



[[Page 58269]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 164

August 24, 2016

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, et al.





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 58270]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 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 16-89]


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) seeks comment on proposed service rules to allow 
flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands and on refinements 
to the rules the Commission adopted in FCC 16-89. These refinements 
include: Providing additional detail on the sharing arrangement the 
Commission adopted in FCC 16-89 for the 37 GHz band; performance 
requirements for innovative uses such as Internet of Things (IoT) and 
machine-to-machine communications; additional issues relating to our 
mobile spectrum holdings policies; whether antenna height limits are 
necessary in mmW bands; whether minimum bandwidth scaling factors are 
necessary for transmitter power limits; whether allowing higher Power 
Flux Density (PFD) levels for Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) in the 37 
and 39 GHz bands would be consistent with terrestrial use of those 
bands; refining the coordination limits for point-to-point operations; 
and on sharing analysis and modeling.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 30, 2016; reply comments 
are due on or before October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 14-177, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected], phone: 202-418-0530 
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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 Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau, 
Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-
256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 16-89, adopted and 
released on July 14, 2016. The full text of the FNPRM is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 
document also is available for download over the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-89A1.docx.
    Comment Filing Procedures: You may submit comments, identified by 
GN Docket No. 14-177, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow 
the instructions provided on the Commission's Web site for submitting 
comments and transmit one electronic copy of the filing to GN Docket 
No. 14-177. 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 your email address''. 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 reach 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. The 
filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed 
of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 E. Hampton Drive, 
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this FNPRM 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 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,

[[Page 58271]]

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present IRFA of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
by the policies and rules proposed in the attached FNPRM. 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 FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this 
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13.

Synopsis

    1. This FNPRM has two sections that the Commission is seeking 
comment. First, the Commission proposes to adopt service rules allowing 
flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands. These bands 
potentially offer 17.7 GHz of spectrum that could be available for 
fixed or mobile use. By examining the suitability for mobile use of 
such a large amount of spectrum, the Commission takes steps to ensure 
that additional spectrum is available to allow the next generation of 
wireless technologies to flourish in the mmW bands. In addition, many 
of these bands will require sharing solutions to unlock their potential 
for flexible use services--the Commission seeks comment on the 
potential sharing mechanisms, and continue to encourage all 
stakeholders to work to develop and refine effective solutions to 
sharing. Second, the Commission seeks further comment on refinements to 
the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and Order in GN Docket 
No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 
10-112; FCC 16-89, adopted and released on July 14, 2016 (hereinafter 
Order or Report and Order). In particular, the Commission seeks comment 
on: (1) Providing additional detail on the sharing arrangement that the 
Commission adopted in the Order for the 37 GHz band; (2) performance 
requirements for innovative uses such as IoT and machine-to-machine 
communications; (3) additional issues relating to our mobile spectrum 
holdings policies; (4) whether antenna height limits are necessary in 
mmW bands; (5) whether minimum bandwidth scaling factors are necessary 
for transmitter power limits; (6) whether allowing higher PFD levels 
for FSS in the 37 and 39 GHz bands would be consistent with terrestrial 
use of those bands; (7) refining the coordination limits for point-to-
point operations; and (8) on sharing analysis and modeling.
    2. In the Order, several commenters ask the Commission to consider 
other bands for mobile use. Many commenters argue that the criteria 
should not preclude the Commission from considering bands that do not 
meet all of those criteria. For example, CTIA and Nokia ask the 
Commission to consider bands that do not have 500 MHz of spectrum 
because certain applications may be feasible for smaller bandwidths. 
Commenters also agree that while international harmonization is 
preferable, the Commission should not preclude bands from further 
consideration just because they are not proposed for mobile use 
throughout the world.
    3. Several factors lead us to conclude that it is now appropriate 
to consider additional bands for mobile use. First, as the record to 
the Report and Order has made clear, there are a wide variety of 
services, including fixed, mobile, and satellite, for which these bands 
could be used. This variety favors making multiple bands available, 
including bands for which the Commission did not to propose service 
rules in the NPRM (see In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 
GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC 
Rcd 11878 (2015)). Second, the World Radio Conference identified a 
large number of bands as candidate bands for IMT-2020 (International 
Mobile Telecommunications), including several bands that the Commission 
did not address in the NPRM. Third, it appears that the amount of 
global data traffic will continue to grow exponentially. Cisco 
estimates that global mobile data traffic will grow nearly tenfold 
between 2014 and 2019. Under these circumstances, the Commission 
believes it is now appropriate to seek comment on proposing mobile 
service rules for most of the bands identified at the 2015 World Radio 
Conference.
    4. Specifically, the Commission proposes authorizing flexible use 
licenses that would permit fixed and mobile services in the following 
bands: 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz, 31.8-33.4 GHz, 42-42.5 GHz, 
47.2-50.2 GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz. Each of these 
bands was identified as a candidate band for IMT-2020.
    5. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that there are 
challenges that must be overcome before the Commission can authorize 
service in these bands, including existing allocations and/or 
operations in these bands. The Commission will continue to work with 
existing stakeholders, wireless providers, the satellite industry, 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and 
other interested Federal stakeholders to determine where different 
services can coexist and develop ways to maximize flexible use. In 
several bands, the Commission believes sharing mechanisms that the 
Commission has adopted in the Report and Order and in other proceedings 
can allow many of these bands to be utilized for fixed and mobile use 
while also accommodating existing uses.
    6. The Commission discusses each of the bands in additional detail 
below. The Commission generally proposes to use the licensing and 
service rule framework the Commission adopted in the Order. Except for 
the 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, the Commission proposes to use 
geographic area licensing with Partial Economic Area (PEAs) as the 
license area size. For the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands, the 
Commission proposes to use a licensing framework similar to the 
framework developed for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. For any 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) bands for which the 
Commission adopts geographic area licensing and accept mutually 
exclusive initial applications, the Commission has decided to conduct 
any spectrum auction of licenses in conformity with the general 
competitive bidding procedures set forth in Part 1 Subpart Q of the 
Commission's rules, including rules governing designated entity 
preferences. The Commission seeks comment here on whether to apply the 
same small business definitions and associated bidding credits the 
Commission has adopted for auctions of UMFUS licenses to auctions of 
licenses in the additional bands discussed below, as the Commission 
seeks any other spectrum bands that the Commission may subsequently 
decide to include in the UMFUS. Our proposal is based on our 
anticipation that the same types of services would be deployed in these 
additional bands as are contemplated to be deployed in the bands that 
the Commission has already designated for the UMFUS. The

[[Page 58272]]

Commission asks commenters to provide specific data on the costs and 
benefits associated with the licensing mechanisms the Commission has 
proposed.
    7. In the Order, the Commission is making 3.85 GHz of mmW spectrum 
available for licensed mobile use, as well as adding seven gigahertz of 
spectrum for unlicensed use, bringing the total to 14 GHz of unlicensed 
spectrum available in the 57-71 GHz band. In view of these relative 
proportions, the Commission believes it is appropriate to make 
additional licensed spectrum available for flexible use. Furthermore, 
the Commission continues to believe there is value in using both 
geographic area licensing and shared access. The Commission seeks 
comment on alternative licensing mechanisms for each of these bands, 
including unlicensed operation. To the extent the Commission adopts 
geographic area licensing, the Commission also seeks comment on 
alternative license area sizes.
    8. The Commission also proposes to generally apply the Part 30 
technical rules the Commission has adopted in the Order to each of the 
bands where the Commission ultimately adopts flexible use rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on any deviations from those rules or special 
technical rules that would be needed for any of those bands. Commenters 
who propose special technical rules should explain the specific need 
for such rules and quantify the costs and benefits associated with 
their proposed rules. The Commission also encourages commenters to 
provide detailed technical analysis supporting any technical proposals.
    9. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the Commission believes 
these bands might be able to support expanded sharing, including two-
way shared use between Federal and non-Federal users in these bands and 
sharing among different types of service platforms. The Commission 
continues to believe there is an opportunity to leverage the 
propagation characteristics of these bands to further enhance sharing 
Federal and non-Federal users. The Commission seeks comment generally 
on ways to further Federal and non-Federal sharing in these bands, 
including refinement of the concept the Commission adopted in the Order 
for the 37 GHz band.

A. Additional Bands

1. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz)
    10. The Commission proposes to add a mobile allocation to the 
24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz segments of the 24 GHz band, a fixed 
allocation to 24.75-25.05 GHz, and to authorize both mobile and fixed 
operations in those segments under the new Part 30 UMFUS rules. This 
band is already used internationally for fixed service and is included 
in the WRC study for future international mobile allocation. The 
existing manufacturing base and global harmonization of this band make 
it an attractive option for mobile use. The Commission further proposes 
to grant mobile rights to the existing fixed licensees, in order to 
facilitate coordination between fixed and mobile uses in the areas that 
are currently licensed. The Commission proposes to add these new fixed 
and mobile authorizations on a co-primary basis. The Commission seeks 
comment on that arrangement, as well as on the alternative of making 
mobile or fixed use secondary to FSS.
    11. The Commission recognizes that there are existing satellite 
interests and operations in this band, and the Commission seeks comment 
on the best way to promote effective sharing between satellite and 
mobile uses. Given that the current use of the band for satellite 
appears to be rather limited, should the Commission maintain the 
existing limits and coordination procedures on satellite operations in 
the 25.05-25.25 GHz band, and apply those same limits to the 24.75-
25.05 GHz band? Alternatively, are there other sharing mechanisms that 
would better achieve coexistence? Would the sharing regime the 
Commission has adopted for the 28 GHz band be appropriate in this band, 
or do the differences between FSS earth stations in that band and BSS 
feeder links here suggest a different solution?
    12. The Commission also proposes to modify the existing band plan 
for new licenses in the 24 GHz band. Currently, the 24 GHz bands is 
channelized into five 40 MHz by 40 MHz channel pairs. As with the 39 
GHz band, the Commission sees benefits to converting the 24 GHz band 
plan to unpaired blocks. Going forward, the Commission proposes to 
license the 24.25-24.45 GHz band segment as a single, unpaired block of 
200 MHz, and the 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment as two unpaired blocks of 
250 MHz each. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as 
the alternative of using 100 MHz unpaired channels, or two 200 MHz 
channels and one 100 MHz channel in 24.75-25.25 GHz. The Commission 
also seeks comment on how to treat existing 24 GHz band licensees. 
Should incumbent licenses be converted to UMFUS licenses, as the 
Commission has done in 28 GHz and 39 GHz? Also, is it necessary to 
repack existing licensees, or can they keep their existing frequency 
assignments because there are so few licensees?
2. 32 GHz Band (31.8-33.4 GHz)
    13. The Commission proposes to add primary non-Federal fixed and 
mobile service allocations to the 32 GHz band (31.8-33.4 GHz).\1\ The 
Commission also proposes to authorize fixed and mobile operations in 
the 32 GHz under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
rules. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the 32 GHz band is not 
currently allocated for mobile operations, and therefore, perhaps it is 
not as suited to the provision of 5G services as other bands under 
consideration. Since the NPRM was adopted, however, ITU WRC-15 decided 
to conduct the appropriate sharing and compatibility studies for the 32 
GHz band, which may lead to an allocation for mobile service in the 32 
GHz band at WRC-19 and the opportunity for globally harmonized services 
in this band. Global harmonization, in turn, will promote global 
interconnection, roaming, and interoperability. In addition, there is a 
significant amount of contiguous bandwidth available in the 32 GHz 
band. Finally, the Commission notes that there is significant support 
among the commenters to allocate the 32 GHz band for fixed and mobile 
5G services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the 31.8-33 GHz band. 
Because the ITU identified 31.8-33.4 GHz as a potential candidate 
band, we will expand our consideration to the 31.8-33.4 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. However, there are still two major challenges to authorizing 
mobile operations in the 32 GHz band: (1) Protecting radionavigation 
operations in the 32 GHz band; and (2) protecting radio astronomy 
observations in the adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz band. The Commission 
discusses those challenges and invites further comment on those issues 
below.
a. Federal and Non-Federal Services in the 32 GHz Band
    15. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the compatibility 
of mobile use of the 32 GHz band with existing aeronautical and 
shipborne radar use of the band, future radionavigation and other 
Federal services, as well as deep space research

[[Page 58273]]

in the 31.8-32.3 GHz portion of the 32 GHz band. In the Order, 
commenters did not address these issues directly. Instead, Echodyne, a 
technology startup, asks the Commission to proceed cautiously to ensure 
that it does not hinder the development of innovative technologies for 
the radionavigation bands. Echodyne states that ``near term advances in 
radar technology soon will help fuel revolutionary changes in many 
sectors.'' For instance, Echodyne indicates that ``accurate, 
lightweight, and low-power detect and avoid systems will be essential 
to widespread commercial deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems and 
autonomous vehicles,'' which Echodyne argues, will change the face of 
transportation, shipping, security, and numerous other industries. 
According to Echodyne, these advances rely on effective radionavigation 
operations that need consistent operating conditions across a 
geographic region, including a predictable and uniform interference 
environment. Echodyne indicates that it is skeptical that the 32 GHz 
band could be made available for mobile use.
    16. The Commission seeks comment on the compatibility of fixed and 
mobile services with existing allocated services in the 32 GHz band. In 
the Order, commenters who support mobile use of this band should 
provide specific technical information and proposals showing how fixed 
and mobile uses of this band is compatible with radionavigation uses. 
In that regard, the Commission asks Echodyne and other commenters to 
provide specific information on existing and planned non-Federal uses 
of radar in this band. The Commission will continue to work with NTIA 
and other Federal partners to determine the protection requirements for 
Federal users and the opportunity to expand shared Federal use across 
the band.
    17. The Commission also seeks comment on protecting other allocated 
service within the 32 GHz band. For Space Research Service operations 
in the Goldstone, California area, would coordination requirements be 
sufficient to protect those operations? In the NPRM, the Commission 
noted that the risk of interference between terrestrial operations and 
ISS links in 64-71 GHz appeared to be low because of atmospheric 
absorption. Would the same analysis apply in the 32 GHz band?
b. Radio Astronomy and EESS in the Adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz Band
    18. The 32 GHz band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz band. In the 
United States, the 31.3-31.8 GHz band is allocated for Earth 
Exploration Satellite (passive), radio astronomy, and Space Research 
(passive). No station is authorized to transmit in the 31.3-31.8 GHz 
band and the radio astronomy operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band are 
protected from unwanted emissions only to the extent that such 
radiation exceeds the level which would be present if the offending 
station were operating in compliance with the technical standards or 
criteria applicable to the service in which it operates.
    19. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the need to protect the 
31.3-31.8 GHz passive band may severely limit the availability of 
usable spectrum in the 31.8-33 GHz band and sought detailed technical 
analysis from commenters on the out-of-band emission limits required to 
protect operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band. The Commission indicated 
that a detailed analysis would help it determine how much of the 31.8-
33 GHz band could be used for mobile operations while protecting the 
passive services in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
    20. In the Order, CORF submitted the most information on this 
topic. CORF states that although the critical science undertaken by 
Radio Astronomy observers cannot be performed without access to 
interference free bands, Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) bands can be 
protected regionally by limiting emissions within a certain radius of 
the facility. But, CORF explains, ``the emissions that radio 
astronomers receive are extremely weak--a radio telescope receives less 
than 1 percent of one-billionth of one-billionth of a watt (10-20 W) 
from a typical cosmic object.'' CORF further explains that radio 
observatories are particularly vulnerable to interference from in-band 
emissions, spurious and out-of-band emissions from licensed and 
unlicensed users of neighboring bands, and emissions that produce 
harmonic signals in the RAS bands, even when those manmade signals are 
weak and distant. EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA) argues 
that any deep space research operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band can 
be protected from mobile terrestrial operations in the 32 GHz band 
because there are very few research facilities and they are located in 
very remote areas. The Commission seeks specific comment on how the 
Commission should protect these operations.
    21. CORF stresses the importance of the data collected from Earth 
Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and that billions of dollars have 
been invested in EESS satellites. CORF notes that for certain 
applications, satellite-based microwave remote sensing is the only 
practical method of obtaining atmospheric and surface data for the 
entire planet. Data derived from EESS have contributed substantially to 
the study of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, climatology, and 
oceanography and is used by multiple governmental agencies. CORF 
indicates that incumbent users designed and developed EESS missions 
without the expectation of transmissions in close proximity to the 
31.3-31.8 GHz band. They also report that most incumbent users at 31.5 
GHz operate in a direct detection (homodyne) mode. CORF recommends that 
the Commission adopt adequate guard bands to protect EESS operations in 
the 31.3-31.8 GHz ``until the current satellites can be replaced with 
satellites with filtering suited to the new spectral environment.'' 
CORF claims that proportionally larger guard bands are needed as the 
frequency increases. In direct detection, CORF explains, band 
definition is achieved with filters that are limited by the properties 
of the materials used in the filter itself. Thus, for example, ``for a 
given material, the minimum bandwidth of a filter is proportional to 
the central frequency, so that the width of the necessary guard bands 
to suppress emissions to a desired level also increases in proportion 
to the frequency.'' CORF continues, ``it is impossible to reject a 
signal 10 MHz away from a band edge at these higher frequencies, so 
guard bandwidths must be scaled in frequency to accommodate this 
physical limitation.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt a guard band to protect EESS operations in the 
31.3-31.8 GHz band, and if so, how large should the guard band be? 
ESOA, disagrees with CORF and states that services operating in the 
31.3-31.8 GHz band can be protected through ``carefully crafted 
operating requirements.'' The Commission seeks comment on ESOA's 
statement and ask what these ``carefully crafted operating 
requirements'' might be.
    22. CORF also expresses concern that ``mobile devices with limited 
size and cost will not be able to adequately filter their out-of-band 
emissions to meet the stringent requirements'' of the 31.3-31.8 GHz 
band. Avanti responds that under agenda item 1.13 for WRC-19 (World 
Radiocommunication Conference), the International Telecommunication 
Union-Radiocommunication (ITU-R) will develop technical measures, if 
necessary, to protect passive services from interference from 5G mobile

[[Page 58274]]

broadband systems. The Commission seeks detailed information concerning 
the capability of mobile and other consumer devices to limit out-of-
band emissions into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band, and seek comment on whether 
guard bands or other special rules will be necessary to limit emissions 
into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
c. Band Plan
    23. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan 
for the 32 GHz band. The Commission proposes to license the band using 
channels of either 200 MHz or 400 MHz bandwidth. Given the contemplated 
use cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? 
The Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages 
and disadvantages of various band plans.
3. 42 GHz Band (42-42.5 GHz)
    24. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile service 
operations to operate in the 42 GHz band (42-42.5 GHz) under the Part 
30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules, as long as the 
Commission can ensure that adjacent channel RAS services will be 
protected. The band potentially offers 500 megahertz for new flexible 
use services, has existing fixed and mobile allocations, and is being 
studied internationally for possible mobile use. The Commission also 
proposes to adopt geographic area licensing using PEAs as the 
geographic area. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well 
as alternatives.
    25. The Commission denies FWCC's request that the Commission 
establish service rules to enable fixed service at 42.-42.5 GHz, but 
keeps its request pending for the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. The Commission 
believes that flexible use licensing, which would allow a variety of 
services to be offered, would be more likely to place the spectrum in 
its highest and best use, as opposed to rules that would only allow 
point-to-point operation. Nevertheless, the Commission does not deny 
FWCC's petition with respect to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band because point-
to-point operation may be more likely to co-exist with co-channel RAS. 
The Commission will give further consideration to the 42.5-43.5 GHz 
band separately.
    26. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is possible to 
authorize fixed and mobile use in the 42 GHz band while protecting RAS 
observations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band. If protection is 
possible, the Commission seeks comment on what protections should be 
established. CORF notes that frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821, 43.122, 
and 43.424 GHz (for observations of silicon monoxide) are among those 
of greatest importance to radio astronomy. CORF represents, ``The 
detrimental levels for continuum and spectral line radio astronomy 
observations for single dishes are -227 dBW/m2/Hz and -210 dBW/m2/Hz, 
respectively, for the average across the full 1 GHz band and the peak 
level in any single 500 kHz channel. For observations using the entire 
Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the corresponding limit is -175 dBW/
m2/Hz.'' Does the Commission need to establish special out-of-band 
emission limits into the 42.5-43.5 GHz band? Is it necessary or 
appropriate to establish a guard band below 42.5 GHz? The Commission 
asks proponents of terrestrial use in the 42 GHz band to provide 
detailed studies demonstrating how such use can be compatible with RAS 
use in the 42.4-43.5 GHz band. The Commission also asks CORF and other 
radio astronomy interests to provide additional information on the 
locations where observations are made in the 42.4-43.5 GHz band.
    27. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan 
for the 42 GHz band. Should the band be licensed as a single channel, 
split into two channels, or split into multiple 100 megahertz channels? 
The Commission recognizes that if the Commission adopts a guard band to 
protect adjacent channel radio astronomy, the guard band will affect 
the band plan by making less spectrum available. Given the contemplated 
use cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? 
The Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages 
and disadvantages of various band plans.
    28. Finally, the Commission proposes to add Federal fixed and 
mobile allocations into this band, and additionally seek comment on 
establishing a framework under which Federal and non-Federal users 
could share the band. Given the short propagation distances, lack of 
incumbent licensees, and other factors, as described in the 37 GHz 
sharing section and the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and 
Order, the Commission believes it is possible for both Federal and non-
Federal users to coexist on a co-primary basis, particularly using 
simple methods of coordination (to enable geographic sharing). The 
Commission therefore seeks comment on whether to extend Federal access 
to this band, including how to best achieve coexistence with non-
Federal uses. For instance, are there additional considerations in 
addition to leveraging the sharing regime adopted for the co-primary 
coordinated sharing in the 37 GHz band? Should the Commission use more 
static sharing mechanisms? Would an SAS-based sharing approach 
facilitate Federal and non-Federal sharing of this band? Are there 
other tools the Commission can leverage to create a robust sharing 
environment that allows this spectrum to meet both Federal and non-
Federal needs?
4. 47 GHz Band (47.2-50.2 GHz)
    29. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile 
operations in the 47 GHz band (47.2-50.2 GHz) under the Part 30 Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service rules. The band potentially offers 3 GHz 
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile 
use.
    30. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that this band is 
authorized for FSS use. While there are no current authorized 
operations, this band may be paired with the 40-42 GHz downlink band. 
Unlike in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands, where FSS can use other spectrum 
to operate user equipment, FSS would have to use some portion of the 47 
GHz band to operate user equipment. Sharing between terrestrial mobile 
and FSS user equipment is more complicated, particularly when the FSS 
user equipment is transmitting.
    31. With respect to individually licensed earth stations, it 
appears that the Commission could adopt the sharing framework the 
Commission has adopted for the 28 GHz band. Specifically, in each PEA, 
the Commission proposes that there can be one location where FSS earth 
stations can be located on a co-primary basis, subject to the 
conditions and limitations the Commission has adopted in other bands. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
    32. The Commission seeks comment on the best approach for sharing 
between FSS user equipment and terrestrial operations. One option would 
be to have geographic area licensing on a PEA basis, but also authorize 
database-driven sharing between terrestrial licensees and stationary 
FSS user equipment. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
leveraging a Spectrum Access System (SAS) or other database 
coordination mechanism to facilitate sharing between terrestrial 
operations and FSS user equipment. Under the SAS proposal, terrestrial 
licensees would provide the geographic coordinates and other pertinent 
technical information concerning their facilities to the SAS. Satellite 
operators would then access

[[Page 58275]]

the information in the SAS to determine where their user equipment 
could transmit without causing interference to terrestrial operations. 
The Commission recognizes that many terrestrial operators oppose being 
required to provide information on their deployments to a database, but 
those operators have not presented a viable alternative that would 
allow sharing between these services.
    33. Another option would be to divide the band into a segment where 
FSS has priority and a segment where UMFUS operations has priority.\2\ 
In the segment where FSS had priority, FSS could operate its user 
equipment without any obligation to protect UMFUS operations. 
Conversely, in the segment where UMFUS licensees had priority, 
satellite user equipment could operate on a purely secondary basis and 
would be required to cease transmitting if it caused interference to 
fixed or mobile operations. Supporters of this option should propose a 
split for the band and explain how their proposed split best balances 
the needs of UMFUS and FSS licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission could maintain the current wireless services 
and FSS designations. When the Commission made the separate 
designations for the FSS and wireless services in the band, it did 
not place any restrictions on the use of either portion of the band 
by either the FSS or wireless services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. A third option would be to develop specific criteria for 
assigning priority between FSS and terrestrial operations. For example, 
the Commission could require both FSS and UMFUS licensees to register 
their operations in a database, and the Commission could assign 
interference protection on a first-come, first-served basis. The 
Commission seeks comment on a first-come, first-served approach, and 
the Commission also invites commenters to propose alternative criteria 
for assigning priority. Commenters should provide detailed information 
on the costs and benefits of their proposed mechanisms for assigning 
priorities. The Commission also seeks comment on other alternatives for 
sharing between UMFUS and FSS in this band.
    35. The Commission also seeks comment on sharing with co-primary 
Federal services in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, as well as protection of 
passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz band. Our understanding 
is that there are currently no authorized Federal or non-Federal 
operations in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band but that there may be future 
Federal operations in that band. Are the rules and framework the 
Commission adopted in the Order for sharing of the 37 GHz band 
applicable to the 48.2-50.2 GHz band? Could a modified first-come, 
first-served mechanism be used to establish priority in this band 
without precluding use of the band by co-primary Federal users? Should 
the Commission leverage the database-driven sharing mechanism? The 
Commission intends to work with NTIA and other Federal agencies to 
identify an appropriate framework to protect current or planned Federal 
interests in and ensure future access to this band on a co-primary 
shared basis. The Commission also seeks comment on protecting radio 
astronomy in the 48.94-49.04 GHz band. Are there any steps the 
Commission needs to take to protect radio astronomy over and above 
implementing the existing prohibition on aeronautical use in that 
segment? The Commission encourages CORF and other radio astronomy 
interests to provide information on locations where this band is used 
for radio astronomy observations. With respect to the 50.2-50.4 GHz 
band, the Commission notes that the international allocation for the 
passive services ``shall not impose undue constraints on the use of 
adjacent bands by the primary allocated services in those bands.'' On 
the other hand, at WRC-12, the WRC recognized ``that long-term 
protection of the EESS in the [, inter alia, 50.2-50.4 GHz band] is 
vital to weather prediction and disaster management.'' The WRC did 
establish emission limits for FSS stations operating in the 49.7-50.2 
GHz and 50.4-50.9 GHz bands, but did not address fixed or mobile 
stations operating in those bands. Given that framework, what 
requirements would be appropriate to protect passive services in the 
50.2-50.4 GHz bands?
    36. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan 
for the 47 GHz band. One possibility would be to divide the band into 
six channels of 500 MHz each. One advantage of that band plan is that 
the channels would align with 48.2 GHz, which is where the Federal 
allocation and current FSS designation begin and where FSS user 
equipment can begin to be deployed. On the other hand, 500 megahertz 
channels would not align with the band plan in other bands, where the 
Commission is using multiples of 200 MHz. Given the contemplated use 
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? The 
Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages and 
disadvantages of various band plans.
5. 50 GHz Band (50.4-52.6 GHz)
    37. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile 
operations in the 50 GHz band (50.4-52.6 GHz) under the Part 30 Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service rules. The band potentially offers 2 GHz 
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile 
use. The Commission also proposes to use geographic area licensing in 
this band and license the band on a PEA basis. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals, as well as alternatives. The Commission 
also seeks comment on the non-Federal satellite allocations in the 
50.4-51.4 GHz band.\3\ Assuming that the 40-42 GHz (space-to-Earth) 
band is paired with the 48.2-50.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band, the 
Commission requests comments on how this uplink band would be used by 
FSS operators. The Commission also requests comments on means of 
accommodating sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the NATO Joint Frequency Agreement 
identifies the 39-5-40.5 GHz downlink band and the 50.4-51.4 GHz 
uplink band for future military FSS and MSS requirements. See NTIA 
letter, IB Docket No. 97-95, received May 7, 1997, at p. 4. See also 
NTIA's Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan, September 2000, at p. 122 
(available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/final-1rsp.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. The Commission also seeks comment on sharing with co-primary 
Federal services in the 50.4-52.6 GHz band, as well as protection of 
passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz and 52.6-54.25 GHz 
bands. The Commission's understanding is that there are currently no 
authorized Federal or non-Federal operations in this band but that 
there may be future Federal operations in that band. Are the rules and 
framework the Commission adopted in the Order for sharing of the 37 GHz 
band applicable to this band? Could a database-driven sharing approach 
facilitate sharing between Federal and non-Federal operations? Could a 
modified first-come, first-served mechanism be used to establish 
priority in this band without precluding use of the band by co-primary 
Federal users? The Commission intends to work with NTIA and other 
Federal agencies to identify an appropriate framework to protect 
current or planned Federal interests and to ensure future access to 
this band on a co-primary shared basis. With respect to the 50.2-50.4 
GHz band this band is vital to weather prediction and disaster 
management, and the international allocation for the passive services 
``shall not impose undue constraints on the use of adjacent bands by 
the primary allocated services in those bands.'' Given that framework, 
what limits on emissions into the 50.2-50.4 GHz would be appropriate? 
On the

[[Page 58276]]

other hand, there is a specific limit on fixed emissions into the 52.6-
54.25 GHz band. What impact will that limit have on the suitability of 
this band to provide terrestrial service? What limits would be 
necessary on mobile service to protect the 52.6-54.25 GHz band?
    39. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan 
for the 50 GHz band. One option is to establish ten channels of 200 MHz 
each, which would be consistent with the channel plan for the 39 GHz 
band. Other options include four channels of 500 megahertz each or five 
channels of 400 MHz each, with one extra 200 MHz channel. Is there any 
value in establishing a guard band immediately below 52.6 GHz to 
protect the passive band above 52.6 GHz? Given the contemplated use 
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? The 
Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages and 
disadvantages of the various band plans.
6. 70/80 GHz Bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz)
    40. When evaluating services or uses that could be viable if the 
Commission authorize their introduction into the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz 
bands, the Commission must consider three basic issues. First, the 
Commission needs to consider whether the bands offer adequate spectrum 
for the proposed new services or uses in bands where tens of thousands 
of incumbent operations are already registered. Second, the Commission 
needs to consider whether the new services or uses are compatible with 
the fundamental electromagnetic characteristics of the relevant 
spectrum. And third, the Commission needs to consider whether more than 
one service or use can coexist in the bands. The Commission addresses 
each of these considerations and corollary concerns below.
    41. The NPRM posited that it might not be possible to authorize 
mobile services or unlicensed access in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands 
without causing interference to incumbent point-to-point links. After 
further review, the Commission finds that the bands are relatively 
lightly used both in terms of the number of registered sites 
(especially on a large geographic scale) and with respect to the 
quantity of spectrum available. As E-Band Communications notes, ``The 
10 GHz of spectrum available [in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands] 
represents by far the most ever allocated by the FCC at any one time, 
representing 50-times the bandwidth of the entire cellular spectrum.'' 
Moreover, the great majority of existing links in the bands are 
concentrated in just a few localities. As of June 10, 2016, only 16 
counties had an average site density of more than one transmission or 
reception site per square mile, and those 16 counties contain more than 
73 percent of all registered transmitters and receivers in the 71-76 
and 81-86 GHz bands. Given the narrow beamwidths and limited path 
lengths involved, it would be reasonable to treat the remaining 3,125 
counties and county-equivalents as the functional equivalent of a green 
field, provided that adequate measures are taken to protect the few 
incumbents in them.
    42. The Commission must also consider whether the physical 
characteristics of the bands are suitable for the kinds of services 
that might be authorized in the bands--this is particularly true for 
mmW bands where atmospheric and other environmental phenomena affect 
the utility of the band. In general, for example, atmospheric 
attenuation increases the higher one goes in the electromagnetic 
spectrum, limiting the potential length of transmission paths. However, 
the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands experience less attenuation than 
frequencies in the 50-60 GHz range.
    43. In addition to atmospheric attenuation, spreading loss also 
becomes an issue in the mmW bands. As the Friis transmission law 
states, path loss grows with the square of the frequency, even when 
radio waves are traveling through a vacuum. The caveat, however, is 
that Friis's law applies only to transmissions from omnidirectional 
antennas. As a recent technical study and analysis explains, ``[T]he 
smaller wavelength of mmW signals also enables proportionally greater 
antenna gain for the same physical antenna size. Consequently, the 
higher frequencies of mmW signals do not in themselves result in any 
increased free space propagation loss, provided the antenna area 
remains fixed and suitable directional transmissions are used.'' In 
short, the directionality of the antennas that are feasible at shorter 
wavelengths may result in less path loss than theorized. Based upon 
this preliminary analysis, the Commission believes the bands might be 
valuable for a variety of uses, including mobile as well as fixed uses. 
In determining whether new and different services can coexist in these 
bands, the Commission must also look at whether the new service use can 
be authorized in a manner that does not disrupt the incumbent use (or 
otherwise, the Commission could decide to disrupt the incumbent use), 
and whether the existing use can and should continue to expand. 
Specific to this analysis is whether the current and potential future 
fixed point-to-point uses of these bands might be compatible with other 
types of fixed or mobile uses.
    44. When evaluating the compatibility between fixed and mobile 
services in the 70/80 GHz band, one important consideration is the 
beamwidths of their transmission paths because tighter beams are less 
likely to cause interference. Historically, the Commission has tried to 
balance the desire for smaller antennas against the spectrum 
efficiencies of narrow beamwidths in the 70/80 GHz band. Over the last 
decade, the Commission has continued to explore modifying the technical 
rules to allow larger beamwidths. Most recently, on October 13, 2015, 
WTB's Broadband Division opened a new docket (Public Notice 30 FCC Rcd 
10961 (WTB 2015)) to address two waiver requests seeking a further 
relaxation of antenna standards in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. As 
the waiver requests and comments filed in that docket attest, evidence 
suggests that the Commission might further relax the allowed beamwidth 
to 2.2 degrees. That step, if taken, would bring the bands' technical 
standards into a realm that is at least potentially compatible with 
dynamic beamforming technology because a 2.2-degree beamwidth is also 
achievable by the kinds of MIMO base stations that will be supporting 
mmW mobile services. At least when operating with beamforming MIMO, 
these base stations would likely be able to coexist with conventional 
point-to-point Fixed Service links.
    45. The introduction of fixed services under somewhat relaxed 
directionality requirements in addition to mmW mobile services pose a 
new coexistence consideration. It is likely that, when both fixed and 
mobile mmW services are operated by the same entity, they can 
sufficiently plan, coordinate, and time their use to facilitate 
coexistence. In looking at whether incumbent fixed services, new more 
dynamic fixed services, and potential mobile services (and equipment) 
in these bands may coexist, it is apparent that the use of a central 
coordinating database capable of calculating and enforcing protections 
among different types of users, like a Spectrum Access System, could 
facilitate this coexistence.
    46. Initially, coordination of non-Federal links with Federal 
operations in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz (70/80/90) bands 
was accomplished under a traditional coordination process: that is, 
requested non-Federal links were recorded in the Commission's Universal 
Licensing

[[Page 58277]]

System (ULS) database and coordinated with the NTIA through the 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) Frequency Assignment 
Subcommittee. However, beginning on February 8, 2005, this interim link 
registration process was replaced by a permanent process in which 
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 with 
Federal operations. A ``green light'' response indicates that the link 
is coordinated with the Federal Government; a ``yellow light'' response 
indicates a potential for interference to Federal Government or certain 
other operations. In the case of a ``yellow light,'' the licensee must 
file an application for the requested link with the Commission, which 
in turn will submit the application to IRAC for individual 
coordination. This automated process is designed to streamline the 
administrative process for non-Federal users in the bands. The 
Commission noted that the classified nature of some Federal operations 
precludes the use of a public database containing both Federal and non-
Federal links.
    47. This system has been effectively used for over a decade to 
facilitate coexistence between commercial systems and Federal systems: 
the technical data needed to avoid interfering with incumbent non-
Federal licensees is already available in existing registration 
databases, and an automated system to prevent interference with Federal 
systems is already in place and has been in operation for years.
    48. Recently, the Commission has developed other means of 
facilitating spectrum sharing. In May 2016, seven parties filed 
applications to be certified SAS Administrators for the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. The SAS is a critical tool to enable spectrum 
sharing in the band. SAS will protect incumbent users based on 
technical criteria, authorize all devices in the band, protect a 
Priority Access Tier, and coordinate a General Authorized Access (GAA) 
Tier. By leveraging the SAS computational power, protections can be 
tailored to the characteristics of the systems that require protection, 
different uses with different characteristics can be coordinated in a 
similar area, and spectrum efficiency can be maximized. Based on the 
experience with the coordination system for the 70/80 GHz band, and the 
existing rules for the SAS, the Commission proposes to establish a SAS-
based regulatory framework adapted to the constraints and the 
opportunities of the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. In particular, the 
Commission invites comments on the following questions and proposals:
     The Commission proposes to establish three tiers of users 
for the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz band, consisting of: (1) Incumbent Access 
users, which would receive the highest level of protection; (2) 
Priority Access Licensees (PALs); and (3) GAA users. Each tier would be 
required to prevent interference to, and accept interference from, 
higher tier users.
     The Commission seeks comment on whether the rules for 
these bands should be included in Part 30 (Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service) or Part 96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service).
     Incumbent Access: The Commission proposes to continue to 
protect existing Federal locations and seek comment on the ability to 
add future sites on the same protected basis. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether existing 70/80 GHz licensees and registered links 
should also qualify for incumbent protection. Alternatively, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether they should be grandfathered for 
some period of time, then required to transition to the new service the 
Commission proposes here (most notably, deploy equipment consistent 
with the technical rules and capable of communicating to an SAS). To 
the extent grandfathered links are protected, the Commission proposes 
to require the links to be operational and in service, and seek comment 
on requiring incumbent licensees to certify their construction and 
operational status with the Commission. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the appropriate means for protecting Federal incumbents, 
including whether the Commission should modify the existing system or 
utilize a more automated system (like a sensor-based system). Finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which Federal users could 
expand their service area and gain protected status under the incumbent 
tier.
     Priority Access: As in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, the Commission proposes to create a Priority Access Tier in 
which the Commission would make PALs available for geographic license 
areas. The Commission proposes to authorize PALs within census tracts, 
with one-year, non-renewable license terms. The Commission believes 
that this approach will provide licensees with the certainty required 
to promote investment while maximizing efficient use of the spectrum 
and incentivizing a variety of innovative deployment models. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
     General Authorized Access: The Commission proposes to 
create a GAA tier, and seek comment on whether the tier should be 
licensed by rule or subject to a ``licensed light'' regime similar to 
the existing structure for the 70/80 GHz band (non-exclusive nationwide 
licenses with individual sites authorized). The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the GAA tier should have access to a set channels, 
(i.e., there would be some first-in-time right that would provide some 
level of certainty) or if the Commission should require (or allow) the 
SAS to dynamically maximize the number of GAA sites in a given area. 
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
defer authorizing GAA users until the conclusion of initial Priority 
Access license terms.
     Protection Methodology: The Commission invites comment on 
the appropriate technical methodologies for protecting licensees that 
are entitled to protection, including but not limited to the following 
alternatives:
    a. Require SAS to calculate expected aggregate interference at each 
incumbent or Priority Access receiver, based on their positions and the 
technical parameters of their equipment, together with the 
corresponding parameters of intruding transmitters.
    b. Establish a maximum aggregate received signal level within 
Priority Access license areas, which would be measured in terms of 
power flux density (PFD) per megahertz of bandwidth at specified 
heights above the ground.
    c. Implement an alternate protection scheme whereby the SAS would 
protect operator-defined contours around Priority Access base stations 
to a protection level at a specified dBm per megahertz of bandwidth 
anywhere within the contour.
     Technical Rules: The Commission proposes to establish two 
classes of licenses for point-to-point operations in these bands that 
will be subject to the technical requirements described below.
    a. Class A licenses would be authorized only for operations at a 
minimum specified height above ground level, would be authorized to use 
comparatively high power levels, and would be required to use tight-
beamwidth antennas. Class B point-to-point licenses would be authorized 
transmit at streetlamp level, with somewhat relaxed beamwidth 
requirements in order to accommodate

[[Page 58278]]

smaller antennas. The Commission invites comment on the appropriate 
height limits, power levels, and beamwidth constraints that would be 
appropriate for these purposes.
    b. The Commission proposes to authorize dynamic beamforming 
antennas to provide in-band backhaul so long as they conform to the 
same beamwidth requirements, height limitations, and other requirements 
that apply to conventional antennas used for point-to-point links.
    c. The Commission proposes to authorize the same dynamic 
beamforming antennas to serve mobile user equipment, with further 
relaxation of beamwidth requirements, provided that they are situated 
no higher than streetlamp level and provided further that their 
antennas are inclined downward at a minimum specified angle when they 
are communicating with mobile user equipment. The Commission invites 
comment on appropriate beamwidths, inclination angles, power levels, 
and height constraints for these purposes.
    d. The Commission proposes to require that Class A license 
equipment be professionally installed but that non-professionals be 
allowed to install Class B license equipment and mobile base station 
equipment, provided that the installer is equipped with the necessary 
geo-location equipment or that the equipment itself is capable of 
ascertaining its location and its orientation.
    e. The Commission invites comment on technical requirements that 
would be appropriate for different kinds of user equipment in these 
bands, differentiating between point-to-point, handheld mobile 
equipment, and mobile equipment that will typically be situated more 
than 20 centimeters away from people. The Commission proposes to 
require that user equipment be allowed to transmit only when it is 
locked onto a serving base station, with the possible exception of 
brief pilot or sounding signals.
    f. The Commission proposes to require SAS to maintain and verify 
information from registered base stations and Fixed Service 
transmitters and receiver equipment under their coordination, and the 
Commission invites comment on the minimum geographic positioning 
accuracy that the Commission should require, including accuracy with 
respect to altitude as well as latitude and longitude. The Commission 
also seeks comment on requiring licenses to update registration 
information if the location or operational status of registered base 
station equipment changes. The Commission does not propose to require 
SAS to maintain position awareness of mobile user equipment.
    g. The Commission proposes to establish out of band emissions 
(OOBE) limits for all equipment authorized to operate in these bands, 
and the Commission invites comments on the appropriate technical 
parameters to apply for that purpose.
     Indoor Use: The Commission invites comments on the 
feasibility of authorizing unlicensed, indoor-only operations, subject 
to Part 15 of our rules. The Commission has decided not to adopt the 
NPRM's proposal to authorize unlicensed indoor-only operations in the 
37 GHz band, but the Commission believes that the comparative amount of 
signal leakage through windows could be much lower in the 71-76 GHz and 
81-86 GHz bands, and consequently would be less likely to interfere 
with outdoor operations. The Commission seeks further information on 
that issue, especially from commenters that have performed relevant 
tests or have access to the results of such tests. The Commission notes 
that Part 15 already provides technical rules for indoor-only operation 
in the 92-95 GHz band that are similar to the rules in the existing 57-
64 GHz band, but require that these devices be AC-powered in order to 
ensure that they only operate indoors. If the Commission allows 
unlicensed operation at 71-76 GHz/81-86 GHz, should similar technical 
rules apply? What additional restrictions should be added to ensure 
that this type of equipment will not interfere with authorized services 
that are currently operating in these bands? Alternatively, would 
registered indoor GAA use be a better mechanism for facilitating indoor 
use of these bands? The Commission seeks comment on this and any other 
relevant issue regarding unlicensed and indoor operations within this 
spectrum.
     The Commission proposes to extend the same requirements 
and privileges to all parts of the United States, but the Commission 
also invites comment on the alternative of establishing a separate 
regulatory framework for the 16 counties that are heavily registered 
with incumbent users.
     The Commission proposes to require SAS to be capable of 
performing the following operations:
    a. Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic 
location and assign them to PAL and/or GAA licensees;
    b. Determine the maximum permissible transmission power level for 
incumbent, PAL, and GAA licensees at a given location and communicate 
that information;
    c. Register and authenticate the identification information and 
location of incumbent, PAL and GAA licensees;
    d. Enforce Exclusion and Protection Zones, including any future 
changes to such Zones, to ensure compatibility between non-Federal 
users of spectrum in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands and incumbent 
Federal operations;
    e. Ensure that PAL and GAA licensees protect non-Federal incumbent 
users consistent with the rules;
    f. Protect Priority Access Licensees from impermissible 
interference from other users;
    g. Facilitate coordination between GAA users to promote a stable 
spectral environment;
    h. Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between 
the SAS, ESC, and PAL and GAA licensees;
    i. Provide any ESC that the Commission might approve with any 
sensing information reported by PAL and GAA licensees if available;
    j. Facilitate coordination and information exchange with other SASs 
and exchange information, as needed, with NTIA.
    49. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative methods of 
authorizing additional access to these bands, including exclusive use 
licensing and unlicensed. As discussed, authorizing new flexible use 
operations in these bands is difficult given the incumbent fixed 
commercial and Federal operations. How would an exclusive use licensing 
or unlicensed access models work? How would incumbents be protected and 
be permitted to expand? Could the Commission auction overlay licenses 
that allow the auction winner to negotiate with the incumbents in the 
area for their rights? How could unlicensed operations sufficiently 
protect incumbents? Have circumstances changed since the Commission 
declined to allow unlicensed operations in these bands in 2003? The 
Commission seeks comment on these and other issues implicated in any 
alternative licensing or authorization scheme.
8. Bands Above 95 GHz
    50. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that several parties 
expressed support for making additional spectrum available in the upper 
reaches of the spectrum, particularly above 95 GHz. The Commission 
invited parties to submit proposals for use of this spectrum, including 
proposals for authorizing use under our Part 15 rules for unlicensed 
devices. Commenters

[[Page 58279]]

generally did not respond to this request, but the Commission 
recognizes that the NPRM explored many spectrum issues and commenters 
may have chosen to focus on the specific proposals for the frequency 
bands below 95 GHz. Moreover, the Commission is aware that operations 
above 95 GHz involve nascent technology that is being developed by 
small companies that may not be accustomed to participating in FCC 
proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission is committed to developing a 
record that will provide a basis for proposing rules that will 
encourage the introduction of new services and devices above 95 GHz.
    75. The spectrum from 95 to 275 GHz has been allocated for a 
variety of different types of Federal and non-Federal radio services. 
In addition, the international Table of Frequency Allocations has been 
extended from 275 to 1,000 GHz for specific services and, in a separate 
proceeding, the Commission is considering how to amend the United 
States table. The bands above 95 GHz have already been identified for 
services that typically involve the reception of extremely weak 
signals, such as radio astronomy, space research, and Earth Exploration 
Satellite. All of the bands, with some minor exceptions, are allocated 
on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.
    51. The Commission recognizes that signals in the frequency bands 
above 95 GHz will attenuate rapidly, intuitively tending to minimize 
the risk of harmful interference to other radio services. However, this 
does not by itself provide a basis for proposing to allow use of any 
spectrum above 95 GHz. The Commission believes the process of 
facilitating technology above 95 GHz can best be advanced by 
identifying specific frequency bands rather than attempting to address 
all parts of the spectrum above 95 GHz. Accordingly, the Commission 
takes this opportunity to solicit information on the specific parts of 
the spectrum that would be most attractive from the standpoint of 
technology development while successfully coexisting with the types of 
radio communications services that operate under the existing 
allocations.
    52. In identifying specific frequency bands, the Commission asks 
commenters to provide specific analyses to justify any claims that 
there are no risks of harmful interference to other radio services. 
Which bands should be made available for licensed or unlicensed use? Is 
there sufficient information to identify where and on what frequencies 
both existing and planned radio astronomy, space research, Earth 
Exploration Satellite, and similar users will actually operate? What 
technical rules may be appropriate? For parties supporting unlicensed 
use, will it be necessary to control the locations of operation to 
prevent harmful interference to radio astronomy, space research, Earth 
Exploration Satellite, or other services? If so, how could the areas of 
permissible operations be controlled under the unlicensed rules? For 
bands that commenters believe should be made available on a licensed 
basis, should the new Part 30 rules or other service rules apply? How 
would the Commission create a licensing scheme for signals that 
generally propagate over very short distances? Should the Commission 
permit both mobile and fixed service? What technical rules should 
apply? The Commission encourages parties to file comments addressing 
these matters.

B. Federal Sharing Issues--37 GHz Band (37-38.6 GHz)

    53. As the Commission indicated in the Report and Order, FCC staff 
will--in coordination with NTIA, Department of Defense (DoD), and other 
Federal and non-Federal stakeholders--further define the sharing 
framework by more fully developing the coordination mechanisms the 
Commission adopt for the lower band segment. The Commission also seeks 
comment on adopting methods for shared (Federal and non-Federal) access 
of the upper band segment, including through a use or share 
requirement, and how to facilitate coordination for potential future 
Federal access across the licensed portions. Thus the Commission seeks 
comment on the issues described below.
1. Coordination Mechanism for the Lower Band Segment
    54. As explained in the Report and Order, the lower band segment is 
available for coordinated coequal sharing between Federal fixed and 
mobile users and non-Federal fixed and mobile users. Non-Federal fixed 
and mobile users, which the Commission will identify as Shared Access 
Licensees (SALs), will be authorized by rule. Federal and non-Federal 
fixed and mobile users will access the band by registering individual 
sites through a coordination mechanism. The Report and Order explained 
that FCC staff will work with stakeholders, both Federal and non-
Federal, to help develop the details of the coordination process. Here, 
the Commission seeks comment on the coordination mechanism--that is, 
the regulatory, technical, or procedural tool necessary to actually 
facilitate coordinated access. Our expectation is that some of the 
issues raised here may be further developed through the collaborative 
process between the FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other Federal users set out in 
the Report and Order, as well as through comments in response to this 
FNPRM.
    55. The Commission believes that a robust coordination mechanism is 
essential to ensuring that both Federal and non-Federal fixed and 
mobile users have effective coordinated access to the lower band 
segment. The coordination mechanism will authorize a particular user to 
use a particular bandwidth of spectrum at a particular location. To do 
so efficiently and effectively, it must be able to obtain information 
about the type of equipment used, the signal contour from the 
coordinated location, and the bandwidth requested compared with the 
bandwidth available. As discussed below, it must also be capable of 
regularly updating the status of a coordinated location (on/off or 
authorized/unauthorized). Moreover, it will have to incorporate this 
type of information for both Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile 
uses. Here, the sharing environment is relatively straight forward--
there are limited incumbent uses that need to be protected, and Federal 
and non-Federal fixed and mobile users will have coequal rights to the 
band. The Commission also believes that the propagation characteristics 
of this band might help minimize the complexity of the coordination 
mechanism.
    56. The Commission notes that historically the Commission has used 
manual frequency coordination managed by third party frequency 
coordinators. Recently however, the Commission finalized the rules for 
the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service, which relies not on a 
static frequency coordination mechanism, but on a dynamic mechanism 
known as a SAS that coordinates uses among different tiers of users, 
rather than on an individual basis. The Commission seeks comment on the 
most appropriate mechanism for the lower band segment. Should the 
Commission rely on static, manual frequency coordination, a dynamic 
SAS-type mechanism, or something in between? For instance, would the 
advanced capabilities of automated coordination from SAS present 
advantages over other types of coordination? Is a full SAS 
implementation, consistent with the Part 96 requirements, appropriate 
here?
    57. The Commission also seeks comment on the protection or 
operation contours necessary for the coordination mechanism to reserve 
a quantity of spectrum at a location for a user. In the

[[Page 58280]]

Report and Order, the Commission established technical rules for 
operation in the lower band segment, which are consistent with the 
rules adopted for the 28 GHz band, the 39 GHz band, and the upper band 
segment of the 37 GHz band. Based on this technical information, should 
the Commission establish a maximum protection contour for coordinated 
sites? Alternatively, should the Commission allow the coordinated party 
to request less or more protection?
    58. Although non-Federal fixed and mobile users must follow the 
coordination requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and 
Order to protect the Federal sites listed in Section 30.205 of our 
rules, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure coexistence 
between Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users. Ideally, 
Federal fixed and mobile uses would comply with the same or similar 
technical requirements as non-Federal fixed and mobile uses. For 
instance, NTIA might establish in its Manual of Regulations and 
Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management a set of technical 
rules for operations in this band, there could be a notation in the 
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, or the Commission could rely on 
some other means. The Commission seeks comment on these and other 
mechanisms. Absent consistent (or known) technical rules governing 
Federal operations, how should the coordination mechanism account for 
their protection or operational area of these operations?
    59. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how best to coordinate 
Federal access. Is it feasible for Federal users to rely on the same 
coordination mechanism as non-Federal? How should the coordination 
mechanism address information security issues particular to Federal 
users? The Commission seeks comment on the means of achieving 
information security, including ways for the information to be masked, 
e.g., by having Federal users coordinate through a Federal intermediary 
that interfaces with the non-Federal coordination mechanism, such as 
the existing mechanism in the 70/80/90 GHz band.
2. Channelization of the Lower Band Segment
    60. As discussed in the Report and Order, the lower band segment 
consists of 600 MHz of spectrum from 37-37.6 GHz. Although the 
Commission adopted a channelization plan for the upper band segment, 
the Commission did not do so for the lower band segment. Thus, the 
Commission proposes to guarantee users in the lower band segment a 
minimum channel size. Specifically, the Commission proposes to 
establish a 100 MHz minimum channel size. The Commission also proposes, 
however, to allow users to aggregate 100 MHz channels into larger 
channel sizes, up to the maximum of 600 MHz where available (subject to 
use requirements as described below).
    61. The Commission also finds that our proposal to adopt a minimum 
channel size of 100 MHz strikes the right balance between providing 
enough spectrum for a diversity of wireless uses with helping to 
minimize the complexity of the coordination mechanism. The Commission 
notes that while most commenters in this proceeding generally favor 
channel sizes of 200 MHz or greater, other commenters suggest that 
smaller channel sizes can still facilitate robust wireless broadband 
services. By permitting users to aggregate up to 600 MHz channels, the 
Commission found that it has enabled maximum flexibility for a variety 
of use cases involving a variety of channel sizes. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on 
alternative approaches, including whether the Commission should adopt 
100 MHz or a larger minimum channel size. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the Commission should refrain from setting a 
minimum channel size and instead require the coordination mechanism to 
attempt to maximize the number of users in a given area.
3. Authorization Expiration/Construction Requirement for the Lower Band 
Segment
    62. To achieve a robust and efficient sharing environment and 
prevent spectrum warehousing, the Commission proposes that registered 
non-Federal sites must be put into service within seven days of 
coordination and that registered and coordinated sites must reassert 
their registration every seven days. For example, if the Commission 
relies on a database for coordination, a user could query the database 
for available frequencies at a location, and reserve those frequencies 
for seven days. Within seven days, it would need to activate a device 
that is capable of notifying the database that it is active on the 
channel. That device would then check in with the database (or receive 
and respond to a message from the database) at least once every seven 
days. If the device fails to check in within the seven day period, its 
authorization would lapse. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. Are these time frames appropriate? Are there other tools to 
ensure the spectrum is put to use consistent with the public interest?
4. Priority Access for Federal Users of the Lower Band Segment
    63. The Commission recognizes that Federal users' needs are not 
necessarily commensurate with non-Federal users' needs. The use cases 
will likely differ, the level of certainty and protection or a use 
related to a critical defense or national security mission may vary. 
The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
make a portion of the lower band segment available for priority access 
by Federal users. For instance, should the Commission allow Federal 
users to claim priority access to up to 200 MHz of the 600 MHz lower 
band segment? Could the coordination mechanism statically reserve this 
space or dynamically make it available when requested? For instance, if 
the entire band is in use, could the database reconfigure the channels 
or clear the necessary channel size?
5. Interference Mitigation in the Lower Band Segment
    64. The Commission seeks comment on any necessary enforcement 
mechanism in the lower band segment to help identify and rectify 
interference events. Because the Commission proposes to require users 
in the lower band segment to coordinate on a site-basis, it may be 
easier to identify and rectify any interference issues that may arise. 
The Commission recognizes, however, that there may be users and uses, 
both Federal and non-Federal, for which any interference may be 
significantly problematic. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on 
any additional interference mitigation and enforcement mechanisms that 
might be necessary.
6. Secondary Market Policies for the Lower Band Segment
    65. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to 
apply secondary market rules to the lower band segment. As proposed, 
the band will be made available on a site-by-site basis. Partitioning 
and disaggregation generally do not apply in site-based licensing 
circumstances. Should they apply here, and if so, how? Should the 
Commission apply our leasing rules? What are the benefits to secondary 
market rules for the lower band segment relative to other ways to gain 
access to the spectrum?

[[Page 58281]]

7. Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing in the Upper Band Segment
    66. As described in the Report and Order, the upper band segment, 
37.6-38.6 GHz, is divided into five channels each 200 megahertz wide. 
The upper band segment will be available on a geographic basis (with 
protected Federal sites) via auction. The technical and service rules 
the Commission adopted allow continuity between the upper band segment 
and the 39 GHz band, which provides 2400 MHz of contiguous spectrum 
under the same licensing and technical rules. Given the types of uses 
that may be deployed in the 37 GHz band and the flexible build out 
requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, there 
may be significant unused spectrum in in the upper band segment at any 
given time. To improve the spectrum efficiency and provide an 
opportunity for Shared Access Licensees and Federal users to expand in 
a manner that does not impact geographically licensed uses, the 
Commission proposes to permit shared access of the unused portions of 
the five channels in the upper band segment, under certain conditions. 
The Commission also seeks comment on establishing a process by which 
Federal users could coordinate with licensees for future expanded 
access in the upper band segment.
    67. The Commission notes that it has found spectrum sharing to be 
an effective tool to maximize spectrum efficiency. In the 700 MHz band, 
the Commission adopted a performance requirement that results in the 
licensee losing its unconstructed license area. In the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service, Priority Access License areas that are not in 
use must be made available for General Authorized Access use. Moreover, 
in the Report and Order, to meet the applicable performance 
requirements, licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band may choose to 
share access to their licensed spectrum. Furthermore, the Commission 
believes that the prospect of future shared access (on a coordinated 
and non-interference basis) to the remainder of the band may create 
incentives for investment and innovation in the shared channel.
    68. The Commission understands that upper band segment licensees 
may make reasonable business decisions to not serve particular parts of 
a licensed area, and that these decisions may change over time. In an 
environment where these unserved areas are shared, it is important to 
be able to both accurately identify the areas in use and enable the 
geographic area licensees to expand or contract their coverage as 
necessary. Under our proposal, the upper band segment licensee would 
retain the primary right to construct and provide service anywhere 
within its license area at any time, and any operations undertaken on a 
shared basis would be subject to displacement by the primary licensee. 
The Commission therefore proposes to require licensees to provide 
information about the extent of their operations at some future point 
in order to enable shared access.
    69. The Commission also seeks comment on when the Commission should 
phase in shared access. Would it be appropriate to phase in shared 
access at the end of the initial license term, or would it be 
appropriate to adopt a sharing requirement at an earlier time (e.g., 5 
years from the date the upper band segment geographic area license is 
granted). The Commission seeks comment on the scope of the information 
that the incumbent licensee must provide to the coordinating mechanism. 
Would a map with simple protection contours be sufficient, or would 
additional information be necessary? The Commission also seeks comment 
on the appropriate mechanism for dealing with multiple requests to 
share the same spectrum in the same location. Should the Commission 
adopt a first-come, first-served approach, require multiple parties to 
share unused spectrum amongst themselves, or adopt some other 
mechanism? In the Report and Order, the Commission established 
coordination zones around three Space Research Service (SRS) sites and 
14 military sites that apply across the entire 37 GHz band, including 
the upper band segment. As the Commission envision non-Federal users 
being able to coordinate for access on within the 14 military sites, 
the Commission seeks comment on additional circumstances and methods 
under which the upper band segment can be made for expanded future 
Federal use, in addition to the shared access scheme. For example, 
should the Commission establish a required coordination process under 
which Federal users could formally request coordinated access from a 
licensee? If the Commission establishes such a process, how does the 
Commission properly balance the respective rights and interests of 
Federal users and non-Federal licensees? How would the Commission 
ensure co-existence between deployed commercial systems (or planned 
systems) and the Federal system that is seeking coordinated access? 
Should the Commission impose an obligation on UMFUS licensees to 
consider in good faith such coordination requests from Federal users? 
What standards should the Commission establish for consideration of 
such coordination requests? Are there alternative ways of ensuring that 
Federal users can take advantage of their co-primary fixed and mobile 
allocations while protecting the rights of non-Federal licensees? Are 
there lessons and recommendations that the Commission can incorporate 
form the ongoing work within the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory 
Committee? The Commission seeks comment on all issues relating to 
Federal access to the upper band segment.

C. Performance Requirements

1. Additional Metrics
    70. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a list of 
performance metrics for measuring sufficient use of a license to 
qualify for renewal. The Commission acknowledged that this list is not 
exhaustive, and in particular, does not contain metrics designed to 
accommodate new and innovative services that may develop in the 
millimeter wave bands. The Commission therefore seeks comment on 
additional performance metrics that will better accommodate these new 
services while fulfilling our statutory obligation to encourage 
productive use of spectrum and avoid warehousing and speculation.
    71. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate 
metric to evaluate the deployment and performance of an Internet of 
Things (IoT) type service, which is designed primarily to facilitate 
machine-to-machine communication. Such services may or may not be 
deployed in areas of substantial residential population, and may or may 
not be designed to serve unaffiliated customers. Examples of this type 
of service would include the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
(SCADA) systems described by Southern Co. Because of the unique 
characteristics of these machine-to-machine services, the Commission 
proposes to develop a distinct metric by which to measure the 
deployment of such services, rather than attempting to modify a 
population coverage approach for this purpose. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal, including specific suggestions for what 
aspects of such services should be measured, how they should be 
measured, and what specific levels would constitute an acceptable level 
of service.
    72. In the Order, several commenters suggested that the Commission 
measure performance for all services in the

[[Page 58282]]

millimeter wave bands on the basis of actual use of the service, 
including number of devices connected, volume of data transmitted, or 
number of sessions initiated on the network. The Commission seeks 
further comment on these metrics, including specific numbers for the 
levels of devices, sessions, and data volume that commenters believe 
would be appropriate milestones. Would one of these metrics be the most 
appropriate way to measure deployment of an Internet of Things or 
machine-to-machine type service? The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether and how it would be practical to implement this type of usage-
based requirement. How could the Commission verify information provided 
by licensees? Should all kinds of devices, sessions, and/or data be 
counted equally? How should such a requirement be structured to ensure 
that it both measures and encourages meaningful service, rather than 
gamesmanship?
    73. As some commenters note in this proceeding, licensees in these 
bands may seek to provide service to areas with high daytime or 
transient populations but low or no residential populations, such as 
corporate campuses, interstate highways, or event venues. The 
Commission seeks comment on how to define such locations for the 
purposes of evaluating service coverage. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the appropriate framework for incorporating coverage of such 
locations into an overall performance metric. Would a venue per 
population metric be appropriate, similar to the current treatment for 
fixed links? Should the applicable milestone be based on the daytime or 
transient population served by such venues or traffic corridors? How 
should such population be measured?
    74. The Commission also seeks comment on any other types of service 
being contemplated by potential providers, as well as metrics that 
would be appropriate to measure performance or build-out of those 
services.
    75. Finally, in the Report and Order the Commission explained that 
licensees may demonstrate combinations of fixed and mobile deployments 
in order to meet their performance requirement, and that the Commission 
intended to review the showings on a case-by-case basis. Here, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to establish clear benchmarks or 
even guidance for the amount of buildout that might be adequate in 
these combined showings. For instance, should the Commission establish 
a scale with levels showing acceptable combinations of mobile and fixed 
deployment, where either mobile or fixed is increased relative to the 
other? Or should the Commission establish variations depending on the 
population density of a given license area, the land mass of the area, 
or some other factor? The Commission seeks comment on any other means 
to provide flexibility and clarity in how the Commission may measure 
combined showings, or whether the Commission should continue to review 
the showings on a case-by-case basis as contemplated in the Report and 
Order.
2. Sharing Mechanisms
    76. Given the relatively limited record on the substantive issues 
regarding mechanisms for sharing unused portions of UMFUS licenses, the 
Commission seeks further comment on the possibility of implementing a 
use-or-share regime in the UMFUS bands. The Commission continues to 
believe that a use-or-share regime may have the potential to enhance 
the efficiency and productivity of spectrum, if properly implemented. 
In particular, given the propagation characteristics, and high 
potential for re-use, of the mmW spectrum, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether such a regime could maximize the efficient use of these 
spectrum bands. The Commission further seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of adopting mechanisms for sharing unused UMFUS spectrum, as 
well as on the incentives that particular sharing regimes will create. 
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of 
requiring UMFUS licensees to share unused portions of their license in 
addition to, or in lieu of, meeting specific construction requirements, 
particularly in geographically licensed bands such as 28 GHz and 39 
GHz.
    77. In crafting an effective mechanism to share unused spectrum, 
there are two governing considerations: first, ensuring the licensee 
has exclusive use of the areas in which it is using the spectrum; and 
second, creating an efficient mechanism that both makes unused spectrum 
available and protects the licensee from interference. There are a 
variety of potential options for enhanced sharing mechanisms that 
address these considerations. The Commission seeks comment generally on 
the following opportunistic sharing mechanisms: a fully dynamic sharing 
solution, facilitated by a SAS or other third-party database; a 
modified shared access system that would be less dynamic but simpler; 
an unlicensed shared access approach, similar to white spaces, and 
other alternatives.
    78. The Commission seeks comment on variations of a use it or share 
it mechanism. A potential drawback of a keep what you use mechanism is 
that the Commission must reclaim, and later re-auction, the unused 
portions of the band, which takes time and minimizes a licensee's 
ability to decide later to deploy in an area (which is also a feature 
of the approach because it incentivizes maximum initial deployment). 
Use or share mechanisms permit a licensee to retain control of its 
license area, but require the licensee to share with other entrants in 
portions of the license area in which it is not operating. A use or 
share mechanism may be less administratively burdensome than keep what 
you use, and may also allow a greater number of users to access the 
shared spectrum. There are a number of possible variations of use or 
share, all of which share characteristics of basic frequency 
coordination.
    79. One option would be to automate shared access to enable dynamic 
opportunistic sharing. In a dynamic sharing solution, licensees would 
have some initial period of time to build out their networks. After 
this period, information about the extent of licensees' deployment 
would be made available, and other entities would be free to deploy 
outside of the area used by the licensee's operations on a coordinated 
basis, subject to further expansion by the licensee. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether an automated dynamic use or share mechanism 
would be appropriate in the mmW bands. Generally, these shared users 
would need to operate similar technologies subject to the same 
technical rules as the licensee to maximize spectrum efficiency and 
economies of scale with respect to equipment. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the propagation characteristics of these bands might 
facilitate shared access with slightly different technical rules. With 
respect to the sharing mechanism, what types of information, and what 
level of detail, would be required to facilitate dynamic sharing? 
Should opportunistic users be authorized on a license-by-rule basis, or 
by some other method? Should opportunistic users be afforded some level 
of interference protection from each other, and if so what should that 
level be?
    80. Another option is to rely on more traditional frequency 
coordination, typically used in point-to-point microwave, shared 
millimeter wave bands, and other services today. Under a simple 
frequency coordination process, the licensee's operations would

[[Page 58283]]

be protected around a contour, and new sites would be individually 
coordinated into the license area. While a database could further 
automate this process, it may not be necessary given the relatively 
simple sharing regime. The Commission seeks comment on whether a 
sharing mechanism based on traditional frequency coordination would be 
appropriate for the mmW bands.
    81. Yet another option is to established pre-defined geographic 
areas that will be available for shared access, depending on a 
licensee's construction. For instance, if a licensee meets its 
performance requirement, the Commission could find that any county (or 
other unit of geographic area) in which it has any operation is 
unavailable for sharing. For example, a licensee of a PEA might deploy 
heavily in some counties but not others; the heavily-deployed counties 
would then be deemed ``in use,'' while the counties with no deployment 
would be available for opportunistic use in undeployed areas. The 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of this mechanism as a 
whole, and on the specific details. What level of subdivision would 
best accommodate both licensee certainty and sharing opportunity? 
Should the Commission stop at the county level, or should the 
Commission further subdivide into census tracts or census blocks? What 
level of deployment in each subdivision should qualify that area for 
``used'' status? How should the Commission enable sharing--through a 
database, individual coordination, or some other method?
    82. Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on implementing 
unlicensed shared access, similar to TV white spaces, in the unused 
portions of the UMFUS bands. In this case, opportunistic users would 
operate on an unlicensed basis at lower power in any area where the 
licensee was not actually deployed. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether and how to implement such a system in the millimeter wave 
bands. Would this system require a third-party database, similar to the 
dynamic sharing solution? How should the Commission draw the contours 
around licensee deployments? Should the Commission use a fixed radius, 
or an interference contour at a certain level, or some other metric? 
Would this method be preferable to a dynamic sharing solution where the 
opportunistic users and the licensee followed the same technical rules? 
Are there technical benefits to this approach? Will there be sufficient 
scale to drive more special-purpose equipment development?
    83. To the extent that the Commission implements any variation of a 
use it or share it mechanism in the mmW bands, certain key aspects of 
that mechanism must be defined. Most importantly, the Commission seeks 
comment on how to define a licensee's ``use'' of its licensed spectrum. 
Should ``use'' be defined geographically, either by the service area of 
a network or by a defined radius or contour around deployed equipment? 
In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission recently 
adopted an engineering metric to determine the extent to which Priority 
Access Licenses are in use. Licensees can define the area of use 
subject to an objective maximum. Should the Commission follow this 
model? Should ``use'' be defined differently for different types of 
deployments, for example mobile vs. fixed links? Additionally, the 
Commission seeks comment on how best to allow the licensee room to 
expand beyond its area of actual deployment (or its ``used'' spectrum, 
however ultimately defined). For example, should the Commission define 
a contour for an additional protected area? If so, on what basis and 
how often should the Commission do so? Should the Commission set some 
level at which a subdivision of a license area would be declared 
``used'' in its entirety, and off-limits to opportunistic use? If so, 
what subdivisions and what level of deployment would be appropriate 
(e.g., 40% of the geographic area of a census tract)? Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate level of protection for 
licensees at the boundaries between ``used'' and ``unused'' areas. 
Should the level of cross-border interference protection be the same as 
that between two licensees, or would some other limit, either higher or 
lower, be more appropriate?
    84. In addition to the inquiries above, the Commission seeks 
comment on any other mechanisms of opportunistic sharing that could 
enhance spectrum efficiency in the UMFUS bands, as well as any other 
aspects of such a system that would be required to ensure it could be 
reliably and effectively implemented. The Commission especially seeks 
comment from any entity interested in using spectrum on an 
opportunistic basis in these bands. What technologies or business cases 
would lend themselves to this type of spectrum access? Which sharing 
mechanism, described above or otherwise, would best accommodate that 
use?
D. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
    85. In the Order, the Commission adopted an ex ante spectrum 
aggregation limit of 1250 megahertz that will apply to licensees 
acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands through 
competitive bidding.\4\ By helping to ensure that multiple providers 
have access to the spectrum the Commission made available in the Report 
and Order, the spectrum aggregation policies the Commission adopted 
support our overarching goals of facilitating competition, innovation, 
and the efficient use of the spectrum. The Commission seeks comment 
below on additional mobile spectrum holdings issues related to how to 
implement the spectrum aggregation limit; the appropriate holding 
period; and whether a spectrum aggregation limit would be appropriate 
as additional ``frontier'' spectrum bands become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission adopted a spectrum threshold of 1250 MHz in 
the Order for proposed secondary market transactions, and noted that 
while this 1250 MHz threshold would help identify those markets that 
provide particular reason for further competitive analysis, the 
Commission's consideration of potential competitive harms would not 
be limited solely to those markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Implementation of a Spectrum Aggregation Limit at Auction
    86. Of the 986 designated license areas in the 28 GHz band, 412 
areas have active licenses, which cover about 75 percent of the U.S. 
population, while the 37 GHz band is not yet licensed, and in the 39 
GHz band, current licensed areas cover about 49 percent of the U.S. 
population. Further, in terms of geographic licensed areas, the 28 GHz 
band will be licensed on a county basis across the U.S., while the 37 
GHz and 39 GHz bands will be licensed by PEA.
    87. For purposes of assessing eligibility to bid across the three 
spectrum bands any given entity cannot hold more than 1250 MHz of this 
spectrum in total. Taking into account existing incumbents' holdings in 
the 28 GHz band and the 39 GHz band, as well as different geographical 
license areas, the Commission put forward and seeks comment on two 
alternative methodologies for assessing bidding eligibility. The 
Commission asks for comment on which methodology is more appropriate, 
and why. The Commission also asks that interested parties comment on 
the likely costs and benefits associated with each methodology. Are 
there additional methodologies beyond the two alternatives set out 
below that would be more appropriate to adopt? If so, the

[[Page 58284]]

Commission invites interested parties to present their alternatives. 
Which methodological approach should the Commission use and how best 
would the Commission implement it?
    88. The first methodology that the Commission invites comment on is 
the ``maximum county-to-PEA'' option. Under this option, if any 
incumbent licensee in the 28 GHz band, for example, holds such 
spectrum, its spectrum holdings at the county level would be counted at 
the PEA level when determining eligibility to bid on 37 GHz and 39 GHz 
spectrum. For instance, if an incumbent licensee currently holds two 
licenses, or 850 MHz of spectrum, in the 28 GHz band in any county 
within a PEA, then that licensee's 28 GHz spectrum holdings would be 
counted as 850 MHz for the PEA as a whole. In addition, that same 
licensee's 39 GHz holdings, if any, would be added on to its 28 GHz 
holdings of 850 MHz. That licensee would then be able to acquire a 
maximum of an additional 400 MHz of spectrum across the 37 GHz and 39 
GHz bands if it so chose (this maximum of 400 MHz assumes it has no 
current holdings in the 39 GHz band). Similar calculations would apply 
in the 39 GHz band. For instance, for those licensees that currently 
hold more than 400 MHz of spectrum in the 39 GHz band in any county in 
a given PEA, such entities would be unable to bid on both licenses in 
the 28 GHz band but potentially could still bid for one license in the 
28 GHz band, as well as on 37 GHz spectrum and additional 39 GHz 
spectrum. To determine bidding eligibility across the three bands for 
those entities who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or 39 
GHz band, the Commission would similarly count maximum spectrum 
holdings in counties at the PEA level. The ``maximum county-to-PEA'' 
option is a simple way to calculate spectrum holdings in which the 
licensing areas of each band have varied geographies, and the 
Commission seeks comment on this first methodology for determining 
eligibility to bid.
    89. The second methodology that the Commission invites comment on 
is the ``population-weighted-average'' option. This option involves 
calculating an entity's current spectrum holdings on a county-by-county 
basis within a PEA in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and then 
constructing a population the weighted average for that PEA as a whole. 
For incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, the Commission 
would sum the product of county spectrum holdings and county population 
within the PEA (using U.S. Census 2010 population data), and then 
divide that sum by the total population of the PEA. This would provide 
us with the population-weighted amount of 28 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum 
held by that incumbent in that PEA. The entity would then be able to 
bid on 28 GHz spectrum (by county, and any winning bid would be 
weighted by the county population divided by the PEA population), and 
37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum (by PEA or partial PEA), up to the 
population-weighted limit of 1250 MHz. To determine eligibility to bid 
for those entities who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or 
39 GHz bands, the Commission would also calculate prospective holdings 
based on a population-weighted average within the PEA. Overall, any 
entity would not be able to bid on certain spectrum if, across the 
three bands, it would hold 1250 megahertz or more on a population-
weighted basis. The Commission seeks comment on this second methodology 
for determining eligibility to bid.

2. Holding Period

    90. In addition to the decisions made in the Report and Order, the 
Commission seeks comment on our proposal to adopt a holding period that 
would preclude certain proposed secondary market transactions for 
licensees that acquire certain amounts of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz 
spectrum at auction. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order 
(see Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings; WT Docket No. 12-269, 
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133 (2014)), the Commission established a 
six-year holding period, which represented the interim buildout period 
for 600 MHz licensees, restricting certain proposed secondary market 
transactions for 600 MHz band licensees. The Commission determined that 
establishing a holding period best balanced its goals of preserving the 
integrity of the market-based spectrum reserve it had established while 
still permitting some flexibility in secondary market transactions.
    91. The Commission proposes to adopt a holding period for licensees 
acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz bands. In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal to adopt a 
holding period that would restrict certain proposed secondary market 
transactions for mmW licensees necessary to support the spectrum 
aggregation policies the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, as 
well as our objective of ensuring that multiple providers will be able 
to access mmW spectrum as it becomes available.
    92. The Commission proposes a period of three years, given the 
nascent nature of the frontier spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 
GHz bands and the likely rapid development of multiple use cases for 
this spectrum. While the Commission could establish a holding period 
tied to the length of the license term or build out period for 
licensees in these bands, a shorter three-year holding period that is 
half of the buildout period the Commission established for incumbent 
licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands may best serve the public 
interest by allowing flexibility while still preventing entities from 
undermining our ex ante spectrum aggregation policies. The Commission 
seeks comment on our proposal. To the extent commenters support a 
longer holding period, the Commission seeks comment on how a longer 
holding period would better help the Commission achieve its objectives 
for the use of this spectrum. If a longer holding period is warranted, 
how long should it be? For example, should the length of the holding 
period be based on the 10 year license term and performance benchmarks 
for new licensees that the Commission adopted in the Order or would a 
different holding period be appropriate? The Commission asks commenters 
to address how it can best balance its general policy of promoting 
flexibility in secondary market transactions with our goals of 
encouraging competition and facilitating the deployment of new services 
and innovation to the benefit of consumers.
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Additional Spectrum Bands
    93. The Commission determined in the Order that grouping spectrum 
in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands together for purposes of 
applying these mobile spectrum holdings policies is appropriate in view 
of the similar technical characteristics and potential uses of spectrum 
in these bands. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to apply 
spectrum aggregation policies generally in the bands the Commission 
proposes making available in this Further Notice. The objective of the 
spectrum aggregation polices the Commission adopted in the Order is to 
promote competitive conditions and help ensure that multiple providers 
have the ability to acquire mmW spectrum as it becomes available, while 
avoiding the excessive concentration of licenses. Further, to the 
extent these bands to be made available have similar technical 
characteristics and potential uses as the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz 
bands, the Commission proposes to use

[[Page 58285]]

the approximately one-third threshold of the total amount of spectrum 
as our starting point but recognizes that its understanding of the 
appropriate approach for these bands is developing and that other 
thresholds may be appropriate. Is the approximately one-third threshold 
appropriate or are there alternative thresholds that the Commission 
should consider? What are the likely benefits and costs of our proposed 
threshold? The Commission asks interested parties to provide us with 
any alternative approaches to the appropriate spectrum aggregation 
policies for these bands as they become available.

E. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues

1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits
    94. The Commission does not believe the current record is 
sufficient for us to conclude that authorizing satellites to operate at 
the higher PFD of -105 dBW/m2/MHz would be consistent with terrestrial 
use of the 37.5-40 GHz band. In theory, the same rain storm that 
impairs satellite reception might be able to shield earth stations if 
the satellite raises its power level; the problem is that rain will 
rarely be uniformly present throughout a spot beam's footprint, leaving 
at least some terrestrial stations unshielded or inadequately shielded 
by rain and, hence, vulnerable to any increase in the spot beam's PFD 
level. Unlike with respect to the 28 GHz band, the issue of satellite-
terrestrial coexistence in the 39 GHz band has received relatively 
little attention.
    95. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that Boeing has 
submitted a study which shows that coexistence is possible, even at the 
higher PFD level. Boeing's presentation suggests that terrestrial 
mobile units might be able to suppress interfering signals from 
satellites if the satellite signals arrive at sufficiently high angles 
of elevation. On the other hand, Boeing assumes a maximum distance of 
200 meters between mobile units and base stations. The Commission 
believes the record would benefit from further development on this 
issue.
    96. Accordingly, the Commission seeks further comment on whether 
there are any circumstances under which allowing FSS satellites in the 
37.5-40 GHz band to operate at a higher PFD level than permitted under 
the existing rules would be consistent with terrestrial use of the 
37.5-40 GHz band. If a higher PFD limit would be appropriate, what 
limit should the Commission adopt? Commenters should provide detailed 
technical studies that explicitly list the assumptions they made 
concerning both terrestrial and satellite operations. Studies should 
study both fixed and mobile terrestrial operations. If a commenter 
believes a study submitted by another commenter is not valid, it should 
list the specific assumptions or analysis that it believes are not 
valid and provide its own assumptions or analysis. Ultimately, the 
Commission believes the burden is on FSS interests to show that the 
higher PFD level is consistent with terrestrial use. Terrestrial 
interests do have an obligation to provide sufficient information 
concerning the nature of their systems to allow other parties to 
analyze the interference impact of a higher PFD level.
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment
    97. The Commission seeks comment on the possibility of repealing 
the prohibition on satellite user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band. 
Initially, the Commission asks satellite interests to provide further 
information concerning the need and demand for user equipment in that 
band. The Commission notes that FSS user equipment can receive in the 
40-42 GHz band, which is not licensed for terrestrial operations. Are 
there uses for which access to the 40-42 GHz band is insufficient? The 
Commission asks FSS providers to provide specific examples and data 
demonstrating the need for user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
    98. Assuming a need exists, the Commission seeks comment on the 
appropriate manner of authorizing satellite user equipment. The 
Commission agrees with ViaSat's observation that because user equipment 
in this band would be receiving, it would not cause interference to 
terrestrial operations. One option would be to adopt ViaSat's proposal 
to allow FSS user equipment purely on a secondary basis at their own 
risk. If the Commission adopted that proposal, the Commission 
emphasizes that the equipment would truly be on a secondary basis and 
that FSS user equipment would have no expectation of interference 
protection. A variation on that option, based on the analysis Boeing 
has done, would be to require terrestrial operators to provide 
information on their deployments to FSS providers through a database, 
which the FSS providers could then use to determine where user 
equipment could operate without interference. The Commission asks other 
parties to comment on Boeing's technical analysis. To the extent Boeing 
relies on erroneous data concerning the nature of technical operations, 
the Commission asks terrestrial operators and equipment manufacturers 
to provide a specific analysis in response, with an explanation for the 
specific parameters used in their analysis. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the benefit to FSS operators of enhancing the 
ability to operate user equipment in the band outweighs the burden to 
UMFUS licensees of providing information on their deployments. The 
Commission asks both FSS operators and terrestrial operators to provide 
specific data on the relative costs and benefits.

F. Digital Station Identification

    99. Currently, AM/FM/TV broadcasters are required to announce their 
call signs, as are land mobile station operators. Adopting a similar 
requirement for millimeter wave band operations could make it easier to 
identify and monitor signals, which in turn could make it easier to 
find sources of interference to these systems. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment on requiring a digital identification (digital 
ID) for the millimeter wave band systems under consideration in this 
proceeding. Specifically, should operators be required to transmit an 
ID that is readily observable and decipherable by the Commission and/or 
other users that could be used to identify the operator/licensee of an 
unknown and/or interference source?
    100. If so, the Commission seeks comment on the details of such a 
digital ID requirement. For example, should the ID requirement apply to 
all millimeter wave band services, or be limited to licensed services, 
non-licensed services, or fixed operations? Alternatively, should it 
apply to all transmissions above a certain power limit or antenna 
height, or be limited to transmissions with some other technical 
parameter? If so, what should those technical parameters be? If there 
is an ID requirement for unlicensed equipment, what should the content 
of the ID be? Should unlicensed equipment authorization holder or 
equipment user be required to register in a nationwide database that 
would allow either the FCC and/or anyone to search an ID for operator 
contact information? Should the ID be continuously broadcast, similar 
to consumer Wi-Fi routers, only when the transmitter is operational, or 
only at regular intervals? Finally, should there be a labeling (or 
software screen display) requirement for the equipment itself that 
identifies the owner/operator? If so, should the requirement apply to 
all millimeter wave band equipment, or

[[Page 58286]]

only to fixed or mobile equipment, only to outdoor equipment, or only 
to some other subset of millimeter wave band equipment?

G. Technical Issues

1. Antenna Height
    101. The Commission seeks further comment on whether antenna height 
limits are appropriate and, if so, what thresholds and corresponding 
reductions in power should apply at higher antenna heights. Considering 
what future wireless networks are envisioned to be, are the antenna 
height thresholds and corresponding power reductions in the existing 
Part 24 (PCS) or Part 27 rules appropriate for future mmW mobile base 
stations? Based on what has been presented on the record, mobile mmW 
base stations in this band may be more likely deployed at street lamp 
post height, and will not be deployed at the heights of traditional 
mobile base station deployments. In that context is the 305 meter 
threshold currently in Part 27 valid or would lower thresholds be 
appropriate? Is there an alternative maximum height that should be 
considered? Conversely, given the existing PFD limits that the 
Commission has adopted to control interference at market boundaries and 
at the edge of an earth station contour, are additional antenna height 
restrictions and corresponding power reductions even necessary? The 
Commission tentatively proposes to adopt antenna height and power 
limits similar to those in our Part 27 rules. However, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether power limits based on antenna height are 
necessary and/or whether any modifications should be made to either the 
height thresholds or the power limits at specific heights that the 
Commission have proposed. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
there would there be any benefit in requiring antenna downtilt for 
antennas above a certain height?
2. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power 
Levels
    102. For applications and technologies that operate under the 
umbrella of the next generation of wireless networks, is it worth 
considering a sub-set of networks that might operate with band widths 
less than 100 MHz and how the maximum power limits adopted should be 
evaluated? What minimum band width should be established for base 
stations, transportable station, and mobile station classes of 
equipment? Is there value in establishing these bandwidth scaling 
limits for mobile and transportable classes such as the Commission did 
for base stations? If so what should the minimum band width scaling 
factors be for these classes of equipment based on the power levels the 
Commission adopted in the Report and Order? What is the minimum 
bandwidth that should be established for these two classes of equipment 
in relation to the adopted transmit power limits? Should the 
establishment of these limits be comparable to the rules that currently 
exist for part 27 frequency bands?
3. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point 
Operations
    103. In the Report and Order, in particular with smaller licensed 
areas, the Commission recognized that the existing coordination 
distances of 16 km for 39 GHz and 20 km for 28GHz result in 
coordination zones that encompass a large part of many license areas. 
In fact, in the context of 28 GHz county based licenses, the entire 
market area is subject to the coordination requirement in many cases. 
In adopting market border limits and coordination requirements our goal 
is to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to mitigate 
interference between adjacent area licensees without creating an 
unnecessary burden on licensees. While the Commission recognizes that 
under our rules adjacent area licensees are able to negotiate and agree 
to mutual terms and criteria that deviate from the market border and 
coordination limits imposed in our rules, the Commission also believes 
that the changes that the Commission adopted to market sizes warrants 
re-examination of the market boundary coordination requirements that 
were originally developed in the context of larger market sizes. 
Therefore, the Commission now seeks to create a record with an eye 
toward reducing the coordination burden on licensees. The Commission 
notes that in its comments in response to the NPRM, Sprint recommends 
that the Commission require an operator proposing to initiate new fixed 
operations to coordinate those operations with the adjacent block 
operator when a new fixed transmitter would be located within 3 km and 
within +/- 10 degrees of the receive azimuth of an existing fixed 
receiver, or a new fixed transmitter would be within 1 km of an 
existing fixed receiver, but outside the +/- 10 degree receive antenna 
main lobe, in order to avoid adjacent channel OOBE interference or 
brute force receiver overload. While Sprint's comments were in relation 
to adjacent channel interference a similar approach might be 
appropriate for co-channel coordination. The Commission seeks comment 
first on whether the existing coordination distances for traditional 
fixed point-to-point operations are still appropriate given smaller 
market area sizes. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
coordination distance should incorporate other technical criteria into 
factoring the distance. For example, should the coordination distances 
be dependent on the orientation of the fixed point-to-point antenna 
relative to the market boundary? Should the coordination distance be 
reduced in cases where a directional antenna is pointed away from the 
market boundary? Should the coordination distance be dependent on other 
technical factors such as the EIRP of the transmitting station, gain of 
the antenna, or other factors? The Commission requests comment on these 
issues. The Commission requests that commenters support any proposal 
with technical analysis.
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
    104. The wireless industry, standards groups, government 
organizations, and academia are currently engaged in developing 
propagation models for millimeter wave bands. The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) and the European Commission's 5G 
partnership with industry have active study groups looking at 
millimeter wave propagation modeling. Academia have published papers 
describing several models such as the Close In (CI) and alpha-beta-
gamma (ABG) free space reference distance models. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether these or other models are appropriate propagation 
models to apply when analyzing inter-service interference between 
terrestrial-based transmitters and receivers of different services. 
There are several factors that are common to the interference effects 
in both directions to and from 5G stations, including antenna beam 
forming, the location and height of antennas, and the propagation 
distance and environment between other systems and the 5G stations. 
Lower gain 5G antennas that are mostly indoors in cluttered 
environments and at lower heights will reduce the degree of RF coupling 
in both directions, and therefore reduce the propagation path loss 
required to meet interference threshold limits. Which millimeter wave 
propagation models are most appropriate for sharing analyses where the 
interfering emitters may be assembled from a group of indoor and 
outdoor emitters? When applying transmitter or receiver isolation 
factors

[[Page 58287]]

such as antenna directionality, should a degree of statistical 
probability be associated with the factor versus the assumption of 
worse case interference? The Commission asks parties to submit 
propagation analysis and path loss models of 5G deployment in both 
indoor and outdoor environments for use in determining interference 
impact and potential mitigation.
    105. If the terrestrial receiver or transmitter is fixed at a 
specific location then a terrain-based propagation loss model can be 
employed; what terrain based propagation models are most appropriate 
for millimeter wave analyses? When the terrestrial receiver is not at a 
known location, what are the most appropriate millimeter wave models to 
apply? How much isolation could one typically assume due to antenna 
beam forming techniques? What other interference mechanism, such as 
clutter, should be considered when modeling inter-service interference 
in millimeter wave bands? Generally, the Commission seeks further 
comment on millimeter wave propagation models appropriate for spectrum 
sharing studies between fixed, mobile and satellite systems, as well as 
active and passive services.
5. Part 15 Operation On-Board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band
    107. The Commission is seeking further technical analyses and 
sharing studies, specifically with respect to the various types of 
unlicensed applications envisioned on-board aircraft, the priority/
order of their planned introduction, as well as their associated 
potential harmful interference profile with respect to passive sensor 
services. For example, is the intent to provide only for applications 
that are used by the aircraft itself to reduce weight by replacing 
cabling and wiring with radio for applications, such as for connecting 
inflight entertainment systems, seatback display consoles, or 
connecting with sensors used to monitor the health of the aircraft 
structure and its critical systems in wireless avionics intra-
communication (WAIC)? Or is the intent to provide for the direct 
streaming of movies/news/internet service from ceiling-mounted access 
points to portable electronic devices carried aboard the aircraft by 
passengers in nearby seats? Are there additional inflight applications 
that commenters further envision?
    108. What harmful interference profile could be expected from each 
of these various types of on-board aircraft provisions of 60 GHz 
transmitters? How much difference would the type of aircraft body make 
in providing additional protection to passive sensor services from 
operation of these transmitters? Should the Commission propose, as a 
first cautious step, to allow WiGig transmissions on-board aircraft 
only for certain applications, such as inflight entertainment provision 
beaming from seatback display to user-provided devices, because such 
transmissions would be at a very short distance (1-2 feet, or 30 to 60 
cm), in a direct line-of-sight between each seatback display and user-
provided device, with little risk of escaping through cabin windows? If 
the Commission were to prohibit the first WiGig channel (57.24-59.4 
GHz) as CORF suggested to protect EESS, would this limitation 
ameliorate in any way the need to protect RAS, as WiGig devices will be 
using the rest of the spectrum from 59.4 GHz to 71 GHz? How would RAS 
and EESS be protected from potential WAIC applications using external 
structural sensors or cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft 
structure to monitor the performance of the aircraft during various 
phases of aircraft operation (taxi, take-off, landing, cruise, etc.)? 
Commenters should provide detailed technical analyses, with possible 
real-world transmission scenarios on aircraft, including expected 
signal leakage in this particular frequency band through unshielded 
cabin windows for the various types of inflight applications (e.g., 
entertainment provisions, WAIC provisions, etc.) in different aircraft 
body structures if the fuselage type and cabin window placements make a 
difference in signal shielding, etc., and any other additional harmful 
interference considerations involving use of 60 GHz transmitters on-
board aircraft.

H. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    109. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. 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 FNPRM for 
comments. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    110. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes to authorize mobile 
operations in the 24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band), 
the 31.8-33.4 GHz band (32 GHz band), the 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz 
band), the 47.2-50.2 GHz band (47 GHz band), the 50.4-52.6 GHz band (50 
GHz band) and the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands). The 
Commission is also seeking comment on possible uses of bands above 95 
GHz. Together with the bands that are the subject of our Report and 
Order--namely the 28, 37, 39 and 57-71 GHz bands, these bands are known 
as the ``mmW bands''.
    111. 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. For 
example, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can 
facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the 
amount of interference between adjacent cells. Furthermore, 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--a feat that might never be possible at the 
lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones 
operate today.
    112. The Commission proposes to include the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 
47 GHz, 50 GHz and 70/80 GHz bands in the Part 30 Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service. The Commission also proposes to add a mobile 
allocation in the 24 GHz and 32 GHz bands. This 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.

[[Page 58288]]

    113. In proposing service rules for these bands, 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, the Commission 
advances toward enabling rapid and efficient deployment. The Commission 
does 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.
    114. For the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz and 50 GHz bands the 
Commission proposes to assign PEA-based licenses through competitive 
bidding. In the 48.2-50.2 GHz portion of the 47 GHz band, the 
Commission proposes to require licensees to provide information on 
their facilities to enable sharing with FSS user equipment. Finally, in 
the 71-76/81-86 GHz bands, the Commission seeks comment on various 
systems managed by database operators which will coordinate use as 
between mmW base stations, fixed point-to-point links used for 
backhaul, and Federal operations.
    115. A portion of the 24 GHz band is allocated for satellite 
service but is limited to only feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite 
Service (BSS), and the Commission has proposed to either retain 
existing coordination procedures or to adopt the sharing regime used 
for the 28 GHz band to manage interference between terrestrial and 
satellite operations. Meanwhile, the 47 GHz band is also allocated for 
satellite and is intended to be used for FSS user equipment. The 
Commission has proposed that FSS operation at 47 GHz be limited to 
individually licensed earth stations subject to the same sharing 
framework the Commission adopted in the 28 GHz band except with SAS-
based sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations. Finally, 
although the 50 GHz band is also allocated for satellite, it contains 
no present satellite use and the Commission is exploring sharing 
mechanisms for the band in the future, including SAS.
    116. 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.
    117. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on various 
proposals for refining the rules the Commission have adopted in the 
Report and Order. The Commission seeks comment on various ways of 
developing the shared access framework the Commission has adopted for 
the 37-37.6 GHz band. That framework creates an innovative shared space 
that can be used by a wide variety of Federal and non-Federal users, by 
new entrants and by established operators--and smaller businesses in 
particular--to experiment with new technologies in the mmW space. The 
Commission proposes to adopt additional performance requirement metrics 
for uses such as Internet of Things and machine-to-machine 
communications. Adopting these additional metrics will allow licensees 
to use the mmW bands for innovative uses with the certainty that they 
can meet performance requirements and renew their licenses. For 
example, the Commission seeks further comment on whether the Commission 
should impose a ``use-or-share'' obligation on UMFUS licensees in order 
to efficiently make as much unused spectrum available as possible. Such 
a ``use-or-share'' regime could take varying forms, such as a fully 
dynamic sharing solution whereby opportunistic users could indefinitely 
deploy outside a licensee's geographic build-out area subject to the 
latter's potential expansion--as coordinated by a third-party database 
administrator; a modified shared access system whereby meeting a 
defined level of deployment in a set of geographic areas would 
foreclose their opportunistic use; and, an unlicensed shared access 
approach whereby opportunistic users would operate wherever licensees 
were not actually deployed.
    118. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission can 
allow FSS satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to operate at higher power 
and transmit a higher power flux density at the Earth's surface. If the 
Commission can allow such higher power without causing interference to 
terrestrial operations, this change could allow FSS operators to make 
greater use of the band. The Commission also asks whether the 
Commission should repeal the prohibition on satellite (FSS) user 
equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band and seek comment on whether 
terrestrial operators should have to divulge their deployments to FSS 
providers through a database in order to allow individual users to 
install their own receiving equipment without interfering with 
terrestrial operations. In addition, the Commission asks whether the 
Commission should adopt a requirement that millimeter wave band systems 
transmit an ID identifying themselves to enable better identification 
and control of sources of interfering signals much the same way that 
TV, radio or even WiFi systems presently identify themselves. Finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on revisions to the technical rules for 
the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, including revising 
coordination criteria between adjacent licensees for point-to-point 
operations; establishing a minimum bandwidth and bandwidth scaling 
factor corresponding to various power levels; proposing a reduction in 
transmit power limits responsive to increasing antenna height, and 
obtaining further information on millimeter wave propagation models, 
and whether Part 15 operations in the 57-71 GHz band can be allowed on 
board aircraft. These portions of the FNPRM will help ensure that 
licensees have maximum flexibility to operate while not causing 
interference to other licensees.

B. Legal Basis

    119. 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

    120. 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

[[Page 58289]]

additional criteria established by the SBA.

D. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions

    121. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. The Commission 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. The Commission estimates that, of 
this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
1. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite)
    122. 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 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this 
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had 
employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 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 action.
2. Fixed Microwave Services
    123. 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 (39 GHz), 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 39 
GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz 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 FRFA, 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 2012, show that there were 967 firms 
in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 
had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 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.
3. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications
    124. 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.
    125. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in 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 2012 show that 333 
Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year. Of 
this total, 275 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 58 
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.
    126. 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 1442 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1400 firms had annual 
receipts of under $25 million and 42 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.
4. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing
    127. 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.

[[Page 58290]]

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

    128. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements proposed in the FNPRM will apply to all entities in the 
same manner. 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.
    129. Any applicants for UMFUS licenses will be required to file 
license applications using the Commission's automated 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 the weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, 
processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. UMFUS 
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.
    130. Applicants in the UMFUS 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.
    131. The Commission also proposes to require UMFUS licensees to 
provide information on their proposed operations in order to facilitate 
sharing with other authorized services. This may include the 
possibility that UMFUS licensees will have to digitally identify their 
stations in order to help identify and eliminate causes of 
interference. In the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, terrestrial licensees may have 
to report their deployment information to FSS providers to facilitate 
the deployment of FSS user equipment. The Commission seeks comment on 
the scope of the information to be provided and the manner in which it 
should be provided.
    132. The Commission expects that all of the filing, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements associated with the demands described above, 
including professional, accounting, engineering or survey services used 
in meeting these requirements will be the same for large and small 
businesses that intend to utilize these new UMFUS licenses, but the 
Commission seeks comment on any steps that could be taken to minimize 
any significant economic impact on small businesses.

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

    133. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of 
burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
described above can be minimized for small businesses. In particular, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs associated 
with our construction or performance requirements in these bands can be 
alleviated for small businesses.
    134. The Commission intends to license the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 
and 50 GHz bands on a PEA basis, but the Commission will also permit 
partitioning and disaggregation by licensees in the mmW bands. As the 
Commission noted in the Report and Order, while PEAs are small enough 
to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers and PEAs 
could even be further disaggregated, PEAs also nest within, and may be 
aggregated to form, larger license areas. Therefore, the benefits and 
burdens resulting from assigning spectrum in PEA license areas would be 
equivalent for small and large businesses. Depending on the licensing 
mechanisms the Commission adopts for these bands, licensees may adjust 
their geographic coverage through auction or through the 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. And the Commission believes this ability to 
adjust spectrum holdings will make it easier for small entities to 
acquire or access spectrum. The Commission seeks comment from the 
public concerning whether these license area determinations would 
indeed benefit the small businesses or whether there are other 
alternatives the Commission should consider.
    135. For UMFUS bands for which the Commission accept mutually 
exclusive initial applications, the Commission will resolve such 
applications by competitive bidding conducted pursuant to Part 1 
Subpart Q of the Commission's rules, including rules governing 
designated entity preferences. In the Report and Order, the Commission 
adopted bidding credits for applicants for UMFUS licenses who qualify 
as small businesses. An entity with average annual gross revenues for 
the preceding three years not exceeding $55 million will qualify as a 
``small business'' and be eligible to receive a 15 percent discount on 
its winning bid. An entity with average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $20 million will qualify as a 
``very small business'' and be eligible to receive a 25 percent 
discount on its winning bid. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether to 
apply these same small business definitions and associated bidding 
credits to the auction of licenses in the additional bands the FNPRM 
proposes, as well as any other spectrum bands the Commission may 
subsequently decide to include in the UMFUS. The Commission believes 
providing small businesses and very small businesses with bidding 
credits, in addition to the protections built into the auction rules 
themselves should provide an economic benefit to small businesses by 
making it easier for them to acquire or access spectrum in these bands. 
The Commission seeks comment on this assessment and on whether there 
are any alternative steps the Commission could take to better assist 
small businesses.
    136. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted service rules 
that will permit licensees the flexibility to provide any fixed or 
mobile service that is consistent with their spectrum allocation. The 
Commission proposes that the same flexibility shall apply to the 24 
GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands and the Commission seeks 
comment concerning whether this flexibility will benefit small 
businesses by giving them more avenues for gaining access to valuable 
wireless spectrum. Finally, as noted above, the Commission is proposing 
to create a SAS-based regulatory framework in the 70/80 GHz band that 
will permit an innovative shared space in these bands. The SAS serves 
as an advanced, highly automated frequency coordinator across the band, 
potentially allowing this shared space to be used by a wide

[[Page 58291]]

variety of Federal and non-Federal users, by new entrants, by 
established operators, and small businesses in particular--to 
experiment with new technologies in the mmW space and innovate. Our 
proposals require that small businesses register with an SAS and comply 
with the rules established for the service and in return they receive 
the ability to access spectrum currently unavailable to them. The 
Commission believes this should constitute a significant benefit for 
small businesses, and the Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    137. The technical rules the Commission now proposes 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, and the Commission also seeks comment on these 
proposals.

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

    138. None.

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

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

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

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

0
1. 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
2. Amend Sec.  2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, by revising 
pages 54, 56, and 58 through 62 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *

[[Page 58292]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.115


[[Page 58293]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.116


[[Page 58294]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.117


[[Page 58295]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.118


[[Page 58296]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.119


[[Page 58297]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.120


[[Page 58298]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.121


[[Page 58299]]



PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
3. 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
4. Amend Sec.  25.208 by revising paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.208  Power flux density limits.

* * * * *
    (q) In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the 
Earth's surface produced by emissions from a geostationary space 
station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following 
values:
    -127 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0 
and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
    -127 + 4/3 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of 
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 20 degrees above the 
horizontal plane; and
    -107 + 0.4 ([delta]-20) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of 
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 20 and 25 degrees above the 
horizontal plane;
    -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25 
and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
    (r) In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the 
Earth's surface produced by emissions from a non-geostationary space 
station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following 
values:
    -120 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0 
and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
    -120 + 0.75 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of 
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the 
horizontal plane; and
    -105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25 
and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
* * * * *
0
5. Add part 30 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.
30.7 37-37.6 GHz Band--Shared Coordinated Service
30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements
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 Federal coordination requirements.
30.206 International coordination.
30.207 RF safety.
30.208 Operability.
30.209 Duplexing.
30.210 Information sharing requirements in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive 
bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
Subpart E--Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-to-
Multipoint Hub Stations, and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint User Stations
30.401 Permissible service.
30.402 Frequency tolerance.
30.403 Bandwidth.
30.404 Emission limits.
30.405 Transmitter power limitations.
30.406 Directional antennas.
30.407 Antenna Polarization.
Subpart F--Shared operation in the 71-76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
30.501 Scope.
30.502 Authorization required.
30.503 Frequency assignments.
30.504 Technical rules.
30.505 Protection of Federal incumbents.
30.506 Priority Access Licenses.
30.507 General Access.
30.508 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
30.509 Registration, authentication, and authorization of devices.

    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, scope and 
authority.

    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 
of this chapter 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).
    Authorized frequency. The frequency, or frequency range, assigned 
to a station by the Commission and specified in the instrument of 
authorization.
    Fixed satellite earth station. An earth station intended to be used 
at a specified fixed point.
    Local Area Operations. Operations confined to physical facility 
boundaries, such as a factory.
    Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio 
station that provides one-way or two-way communication with fixed 
Point-to-Multipoint Service User Stations.
    Point-to-Multipoint User Station. A fixed radio station located at 
users' premises, lying within the coverage area of a Point-to-
Multipoint Hub station, using a directional antenna to receive one-way 
communications from or providing two-way communications with a fixed 
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station.
    Point-to-Multipoint Service. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio 
service consisting of point-to-multipoint hub stations that communicate 
with fixed point-to-multipoint user stations.
    Point-to-point station. A station that transmits a highly 
directional signal from a fixed transmitter location to a fixed receive 
location.
    Portable device. Transmitters designed to be used within 20 
centimeters of the body of the user.
    Prior coordination. A bilateral process conducted prior to filing 
applications which includes the distribution of the technical 
parameters of a proposed radio system to potentially affected parties 
for their evaluation and timely response.
    Secondary operations. Radio communications which may not cause 
interference to operations authorized on a primary basis and which are 
not protected from interference from these primary operations
    Transportable Station. Transmitting equipment that is not intended 
to be used while in motion, but rather at stationary locations.
    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

[[Page 58300]]

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--27.5-27.925 GHz and 27.925-28.35 GHz.
    (b) 38.6-40 GHz band:
    (1) New channel plan:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Frequency  band
                     Channel No.                          limits (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................      38,600-38,800
2....................................................      38,800-39,000
3....................................................      39,000-39,200
4....................................................      39,200-39,400
5....................................................      39,400-39,600
6....................................................      39,600-39,800
7....................................................      39,800-40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Pending transition to the new channel plan, existing 39 GHz 
licensees licensed under part 101 of this chapter may continue 
operating on the following channel plan:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               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
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: 37,600-37,800 MHz; 37,800-38,000 MHz; 38,000-
38,200 MHz; 38,200-38,400 MHz, and 38,400-38,600 MHz. The 37,000-37,600 
MHz band segment shall be available on a site-specific, coordinated 
shared basis with eligible Federal entities;
    (d) 24.25-24.45 GHz band:
    (e) 24.75-25.25 GHz band: 24.75-25.00 GHz, 25.00-25.25 GHz;
    (f) 31.8-33.4 GHz band:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Channel No.                           Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................      31,000-32,000
2....................................................      32,000-32,200
3....................................................      32,200-32,400
4....................................................      32,400-32,600
5....................................................      32,600-32,800
6....................................................      32,800-33,000
7....................................................      33,000-33,200
8....................................................      33,200-33,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) 42-42.5 GHz band:
    (h) 47.2-50.2 GHz band:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Channel No.                           Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................      47,200-47,700
2....................................................      47,700-48,200
3....................................................      48,200-48,700
4....................................................      48,700-49,200
5....................................................      49,200-49,700
6....................................................      49,700-50,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) 50.4-52.6 GHz band:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Channel No.                           Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................      50,400-50,600
2....................................................      50,600-50,800
3....................................................      50,800-51,000
4....................................................      51,000-51,200
5....................................................      51,200-51,400
6....................................................      51,400-51,600
7....................................................      51,600-51,800
8....................................................      51,800-52,000
9....................................................      52,000-52,200
10...................................................      52,200-52,400
11...................................................      52,400-52,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (j) The 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands shall be available on a 
shared basis pursuant to the rules in subpart F of this part.


Sec.  30.5  Service areas.

    (a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and 
except for the shared 37-37.6 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, the 
service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are Partial 
Economic Areas.
    (b) For the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, the service areas shall be 
counties.
    (c) 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.
    (d) In the 37.5-40 GHz band, Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
licensees shall not place facilities within the protection zone of 
Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations authorized pursuant to Sec.  
25.136 of this chapter, absent consent from the Fixed-Satellite Service 
earth station licensee.


Sec.  30.6  Permissible communications.

    (a) 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 
Frequency Allocations in Sec.  2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
    (b) Fixed-Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner 
consistent with part 25 of this chapter.


Sec.  30.7  37-37.6 GHz Band--Shared Coordinated Service.

    (a) The 37-37.6 GHz band will be available for site-based 
registrations on a coordinated basis with co-equal eligible Federal 
entities.
    (b) Any non-Federal entity meeting the eligibility requirements of 
Sec.  30.3 of this part may operate equipment that complies with the 
technical rules of this

[[Page 58301]]

part pursuant to a Shared Access License.
    (c) Licensees in the 37-37.6 GHz band must register their 
individual base stations and access points prior to placing them in 
operation.
    (d) The minimum authorized channel bandwidth in this band is 100 
megahertz.
    (e) Registered non-Federal sites must be put placed service within 
seven days of coordination.
    (f) Equipment in this band must be capable of notifying the 
database that it is active on the channel. At least once every seven 
days, the equipment must be capable of notifying the coordination 
mechanism that the equipment is active and operating. If the equipment 
fails to make such a notification, the registration to operate that 
equipment is automatically terminated.
    (g) Federal licensees may claim access to 200 megahertz of spectrum 
in this area on a priority basis.


Sec.  30.8  5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements.

    (a) Statement. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee 
is required to submit to the Commission a Statement describing its 
network security plans and related information, which shall be signed 
by a senior executive within the licensee's organization with personal 
knowledge of the security plans and practices within the licensee's 
organization. The Statement must contain, at a minimum, the following 
elements:
    (1) Security Approach. A high-level, general description of the 
licensee's approach designed to safeguard the planned network's 
confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with respect to 
communications from:
    (i) A device to the licensee's network;
    (ii) One element of the licensee's network to another element on 
the licensee's network;
    (iii) The licensee's network to another network; and
    (iv) Device to device (with respect to telephone voice and 
messaging services).
    (2) Cybersecurity Coordination. A high-level, general description 
of the licensee's anticipated approach to assessing and mitigating 
cyber risk induced by the presence of multiple participants in the 
band. This should include the high level approach taken toward ensuring 
consumer network confidentiality, integrity, and availability security 
principles, are to be protected in each of the following use cases:
    (i) Communications between a wireless device and the licensee's 
network;
    (ii) Communications within and between each licensee's network;
    (iii) Communications between mobile devices that are under end-to-
end control of the licensee; and
    (iv) Communications between mobile devices that are not under the 
end-to-end control of the licensee;
    (3) Cybersecurity Standards and Best Practices. A high-level 
description of relevant cybersecurity standards and practices to be 
employed, whether industry-recognized or related to some other 
identifiable approach;
    (4) Participation With Standards Bodies, Industry-Led 
Organizations. A description of the extent to which the licensee 
participates with standards bodies or industry-led organizations 
pursuing the development or maintenance of emerging security standards 
and/or best practices;
    (5) Other Security Approaches. The high-level identification of any 
other approaches to security, unique to the services and devices the 
licensee intends to offer and deploy; and
    (6) Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. 
Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and 
Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security 
architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat 
information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-
based information sharing.
    (b) Timing. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee 
shall submit this Statement to the Commission within three years after 
grant of the license, but no later than six months prior to deployment.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (i) Confidentiality. The protection of data from unauthorized 
access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit.
    (ii) Integrity. The protection against the unauthorized 
modification or destruction of information.
    (iii) Availability. The accessibility and usability of a network 
upon demand.

Subpart B--Applications and Licenses


Sec.  30.101  Initial authorizations.

    Except with respect to in the 37-37.6 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.  30.103  Transition of existing local multipoint distribution 
service and 39 GHz licenses.

    Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in the 27.5-28.35 
GHz band issued on a Basic Trading Area basis shall be disaggregated 
into county-based licenses and 39 GHz licenses issued on an Economic 
Area basis shall be disaggregated into Partial Economic Area-based 
licenses on [effective date of final rule]. For each county in the 
Basic Trading Area or Partial Economic Area in the Economic Area which 
is part of the original license, the licensee shall receive a separate 
license. If there is a co-channel 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 
relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service to 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. Licensees relying on point-to-point 
service must demonstrate that they have four links operating and 
providing service, either to customers or for internal use. If the 
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If 
the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, a 
licensee relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate it has at 
least one link in operation and providing service for each 67,000 
population within the license area.
    (b) Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of 
service will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    (c) If a licensee in this service is also a Fixed-Satellite Service 
licensee and uses the spectrum covered under its UMFUS license in 
connection with a satellite earth station, it can demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of this section by demonstrating that 
the earth station in question is in service,

[[Page 58302]]

operational, and using the spectrum associated with the license. This 
provision can only be used to demonstrate compliance for the county in 
which the earth station is located.
    (d) Failure to meet this requirement will result in automatic 
cancellation of the license. In bands licensed on a Partial Economic 
Area basis, licensees will have the option of partitioning a license on 
a county basis in order to reduce the population within the license 
area to a level where the licensee's buildout would meet one of the 
applicable performance metrics.
    (e) Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees shall be required to make 
a showing pursuant to this rule by June 1, 2024.


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 must satisfy the 
construction requirements set forth in Sec.  30.105 by the partitioner 
and partitionee each certifying 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 partitioned license will automatically cancel.
    (2) Parties to disaggregation agreements must satisfy the 
construction requirements set forth in Sec.  30.105 by the 
disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifying 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 disaggregated 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 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) Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section, 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.
    (c) Unless specified otherwise, transmitters for use under the 
provisions of subpart E of this part for fixed point-to-point microwave 
and point-to-multipoint services must be a type that has been verified 
for compliance.


Sec.  30.202  Power limits.

    (a) For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile 
systems, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is 
limited to a maximum equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) 
density of +75dBm/100MHz, except as specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (b) For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all 
antenna elements is limited to a maximum EIRP density of +43 dBm/
100MHz.
    (c) For transportable stations, as defined in Sec.  30.2, the 
average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a 
maximum EIRP density of +55 dBm/100MHz.
    (d) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see 
Sec.  30.405.
    (e) Antenna Height Limits

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Effective
                                                           isotropic
        Antenna height (AAT) in meters (feet)            radiated power
                                                         density (EIRP)
                                                         (dBm/100 MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 1372 (4500)....................................                 62
Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500).....................                 63
Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000).....................                 64
Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)......................                 65
Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000).......................                 67
Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500).......................                 69

[[Page 58303]]

 
Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000).......................                 71
Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500).......................                 73
Up to 305 (1000).....................................                 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  30.203  Emission limits.

    (a) The conductive power or the total radiated power of any 
emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be -13 dBm/MHz or 
lower. However, in the bands immediately outside and adjacent to the 
licensee's frequency block, having a bandwidth equal to 10 percent of 
the channel bandwidth, the conductive power or the total radiated power 
of any emission shall be -5 dBm/MHz or lower.
    (b)(1) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 
megahertz or greater.
    (2) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier 
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block 
edges as the design permits.
    (3) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or 
average values.
    (c) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see 
Sec.  30.404.


Sec.  30.204  Field strength limits.

    (a) Base/Mobile Operations. The predicted or measured Power Flux 
Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at any location on the 
geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -
76dBm/m\2\/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the 
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.
    (b) Fixed Point-to-Point Operations:
    (1) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility 
in the 27,500-28,350 MHz band where the facilities are located within 
20 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, 
the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with 
the procedures specified in Sec.  101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with 
respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its 
operations.
    (2) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility 
in the 37,000-40,000 MHz band where the facilities are located within 
16 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, 
the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with 
the procedures specified in Sec.  101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with 
respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its 
operations.


Sec.  30.205  Federal coordination requirements.

    (a) Licensees in the 37-38 GHz band located within the zones 
defined by the coordinates in the tables below must coordinate their 
operations with Federal Space Research Service (space to Earth) users 
of the band via the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA). All licensees operating within the zone defined 
by the 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below must 
coordinate all operations. Licensees operating within the area between 
the zones defined by the 60 dBm and 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in 
the tables below must coordinate all operations if their base station 
EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100 MHz or if their antenna height exceeds 
100 meters above ground level. Licensees operating outside the zones 
defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below are 
not required to coordinate their operations with NTIA.

                                Table 1--Goldstone, California Coordination Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP                                      75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Latitude/Longitude  Latitude/Longitude  Latitude/Longitude
        Latitude/Longitude (decimal degrees)           (decimal degrees)   (decimal degrees)   (decimal degrees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.69217/-115.6491..................................  34.19524/-          34.69217/-115.6491  34.19524/-
                                                       117.47963                               117.47963
35.25746/-115.32041.................................  34.24586/-          35.25746/-          34.24586/-
                                                       117.36210           115.32041           117.36210
36.21257/-117.06567.................................  35.04648/-          36.11221/-          34.21748/-
                                                       117.03781           116.63632           117.12812
36.55967/-117.63691.................................  35.04788/-          36.54731/-          34.20370/-
                                                       117.00949           117.48242           116.97024
36.66297/-118.31017.................................  34.22940/-          36.73049/-          34.12196/-
                                                       117.22327           118.33683           116.93109
36.06074/-118.38528.................................  34.20370/-          36.39126/-          34.09498/-
                                                       116.97024           118.47307           116.75473
35.47015/-118.39008.................................  34.12196/-          36.36891/-          34.13603/-
                                                       116.93109           118.47134           116.64002
35.40865/-118.34353.................................  34.09498/-          35.47015/-          34.69217/-115.6591
                                                       116.75473           118.39008
35.35986/-117.24709.................................  34.19642/-          35.40865/-          34.69217/-115.6491
                                                       116.72901           118.34353
35.29539/-117.21102.................................  34.64906/-          35.32048/-          ..................
                                                       116.62741           117.26386
34.67607/-118.55412.................................  34.44404/-          34.63725/-          ..................
                                                       116.31486           118.96736
34.61532/-118.36919.................................  34.52736/-          34.55789/-          ..................
                                                       116.27845           118.36204
34.91551/-117.70371.................................  34.76685/-          34.51108/-          ..................
                                                       116.27930           118.15329
34.81257/-117.65400.................................  34.69217/-115.6591  34.39220/-          ..................
                                                                           118.28852
34.37411/-118.18385.................................  34.69217/-115.6491  34.38546/-          ..................
                                                                           118.27460
34.33405/-117.94189.................................  ..................  34.37524/-          ..................
                                                                           118.24191
34.27249/-117.65445.................................  ..................  34.37039/-          ..................
                                                                           118.22557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58304]]


             Table 2--Socorro, New Mexico Coordination Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP                  75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Latitude/Longitude       Latitude/Longitude      Latitude/Longitude
   (decimal degrees)        (decimal degrees)        (decimal degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.83816/-107.66828      33.44401/-108.67876      33.10651/-108.19320
34.80070/-107.68759      33.57963/-107.79895      33.11780/-107.99980
34.56506/-107.70233      33.84552/-107.60207      33.13558/-107.85611
34.40826/-107.71489      33.85964/-107.51915      33.80383/-107.16520
34.31013/-107.88349      33.86479/-107.17223      33.94554/-107.15516
34.24067/-107.96059      33.94779/-107.15038      33.95665/-107.15480
34.10278/-108.23166      34.11122/-107.18132      34.08156/-107.18137
34.07442/-108.30646      34.15203/-107.39035      34.10646/-107.18938
34.01447/-108.31694      34.29643/-107.51071      35.24269/-107.67969
33.86740/-108.48706      34.83816/-107.66828      34.06647/-108.70438
33.81660/-108.51052      .......................  33.35946/-108.68902
33.67909/-108.58750      .......................  33.29430/-108.65004
33.50223/-108.65470      .......................  33.10651/-108.19320
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 3--White Sands, New Mexico Coordination Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP                  75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Latitude/         Latitude/
    Latitude/          Latitude/          Longitude         Longitude
    Longitude          Longitude          (decimal          (decimal
(decimal degrees)  (decimal degrees)      degrees)          degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.98689/-         31.78455/-         31.7494/-         32.88382/-
 107.15967          106.54058          106.49132         108.16588
33.91573/-         32.24710/-         32.24524/-        32.76255/-
 107.46301          106.56114          106.56507         108.05679
33.73122/-         32.67731/-         32.67731/-        32.56863/-
 107.73585          106.53681          106.53681         108.43999
33.37098/-         32.89856/-         32.89856/-        32.48991/-
 107.84333          106.56882          106.56882         108.50032
33.25424/-         33.24323/-         33.04880/-        32.39142/-
 107.86409          106.70094          106.62309         108.48959
33.19808/-         33.98689/-         33.21824/-        31.63664/-
 107.89673          107.15967          106.68992         108.40480
33.02128/-         .................  33.24347/-        31.63466/-
 107.87226                             106.70165         108.20921
32.47747/-         .................  34.00708/-        31.78374/-
 107.77963                             107.08652         108.20798
32.31543/-         .................  34.04967/-        31.78322/-
 108.16101                             107.17524         106.52825
31.79429/-         .................  33.83491/-        31.7494/-
 107.88616                             107.85971         106.49132
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Licensees in the 37-38.6 GHz band located within the zones 
defined by the coordinates in the table below must coordinate their 
operations with the Department of Defense via the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

        Table--Coordination Areas for Federal Terrestrial Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Coordination area
          Location                 Agency          (Decimal Degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Lake, CA..............  Navy...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 35.59527 and
                                                longitude -117.22583.
                                               30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 35.52222 and
                                                longitude -117.30333.
                                               30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 35.76222 and
                                                longitude -117.60055.
                                               30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 35.69111 and
                                                longitude -117.66916.
San Diego, CA...............  Navy...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 32.68333 and
                                                longitude -117.23333.
Nanakuli, HI................  Navy...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 21.38333 and
                                                longitude -158.13333.
Fishers Island, NY..........  Navy...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 41.25 and
                                                longitude -72.01666.
Saint Croix, VI.............  Navy...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 17.74722 and
                                                longitude -64.88.
Fort Irwin, CA..............  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 35.26666 and
                                                longitude -116.68333.
Fort Carson, CO.............  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 38.71666 and
                                                longitude -104.65.
Fort Hood, TX...............  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 31.11666 and
                                                longitude -97.76666.
Fort Bliss, TX..............  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 31.8075 and
                                                longitude -106.42166.

[[Page 58305]]

 
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ.....  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 32.48333 and
                                                longitude -114.33333.
Fort Huachuca, AZ...........  Army...........  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 31.55 and
                                                longitude -110.35.
White Sands Missile Range,    Army...........  30 kilometer radius
 NM.                                            centered on
                                               latitude 33.35 and
                                                longitude -106.3.
Moody Air Force Base, GA....  Air Force......  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 30.96694 and
                                                longitude -83.185.
Hurlburt Air Force Base, FL.  Air Force......  30 kilometer radius
                                                centered on
                                               latitude 30.42388 and
                                                longitude -86.70694.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  30.206  International coordination.

    Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6, and 38.6-40 GHz bands 
are subject to existing and future international agreements with Canada 
and Mexico.


Sec.  30.207  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. Technical information showing the 
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.


Sec.  30.208  Operability.

    Mobile and transportable 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.


Sec.  30.209  Duplexing.

    Stations authorized under this rule part may employ frequency 
division duplexing, time division duplexing, or any other duplexing 
scheme, provided that they comply with the other technical and 
operational requirements specified in this part.


Sec.  30.210  Information sharing requirements in the 48.2-50.2 GHz 
band.

    (a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or Mobile Service system in 
the 48.2-50.2 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 the48.2-50.2 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.
    (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 
48.2-50.2 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.

Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures


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

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for Upper Microwave 
Flexible User Service 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) Eligibility for small business provisions. (1) A small business 
is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its

[[Page 58306]]

controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
have average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the 
preceding three (3) years.
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more 
than $20 million for the preceding three (3) years.
    (b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small 
businesses may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that 
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a 
consortium of very small businesses may use a bidding credit of 25 
percent, as specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
    (c) A rural service provider, as defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of 
this chapter, who has not claimed a small business bidding credit may 
use a bidding credit of 15 percent bidding credit, as specified in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter.

Subpart E--Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed 
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Stations, and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint 
User Stations


Sec.  30.401  Permissible service.

    Stations authorized under this subpart may deploy stations used 
solely as fixed point-to-point stations, fixed point-to-multipoint hub 
stations, or fixed point-to-multipoint user stations, as defined in 
Sec.  30.2 subject to the technical and operational requirements 
specified in this subpart.


Sec.  30.402  Frequency tolerance.

    The carrier frequency of each transmitter authorized under this 
subpart must be maintained within the following percentage of the 
reference frequency (unless otherwise specified in the instrument of 
station authorization the reference frequency will be deemed to be the 
assigned frequency):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Frequency
                     Frequency (MHz)                         tolerance
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500 to 28,350........................................           0.001
38,600 to 40,000........................................            0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  30.403  Bandwidth.

    (a) Stations under this sub-part will be authorized any type of 
emission, method of modulation, and transmission characteristic, 
consistent with efficient use of the spectrum and good engineering 
practice.
    (b) The maximum bandwidth authorized per frequency to stations 
under this subpart is set out in the table that follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Frequency band (MHz)             Maximum authorized bandwidth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500 to 28,350..........................  850 MHz.
38,600 to 40,000..........................  200 MHz.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For channel block assignments in the 38,600-40,000 MHz bands when
  adjacent channels are aggregated, equipment is permitted to operate
  over the full channel block aggregation without restriction.

Sec.  30.404  Emission limits.

    (a) The mean power of emissions must be attenuated below the mean 
output power of the transmitter in accordance with the following 
schedule:
    (1) When using transmissions other than those employing digital 
modulation techniques:
    (i) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more 
than 50 percent up to and including 100 percent of the authorized 
bandwidth: At least 25 decibels;
    (ii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more 
than 100 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized 
bandwidth: At least 35 decibels;
    (iii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more 
than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 
Log10 (mean output power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, 
whichever is the lesser attenuation.
    (2) When using transmissions employing digital modulation 
techniques in situations not covered in this section:
    (i) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed 
from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 
250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: As specified by the following 
equation but in no event less than 11 decibels:
    A = 11 + 0.4(P - 50) + 10 Log10 B. (Attenuation greater 
than 56 decibels or to an absolute power of less than -13 dBm/1MHz is 
not required.)
    (ii) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed 
from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized 
bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (the mean output power in 
watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation. 
The authorized bandwidth includes the nominal radio frequency bandwidth 
of an individual transmitter/modulator in block-assigned bands. 
Equipment licensed prior to April 1, 2005 shall only be required to 
meet this standard in any 4 kHz band.
    (iii) The emission mask in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section 
applies only to the band edge of each block of spectrum, but not to 
subchannels established by licensees. The value of P in the equation is 
the percentage removed from the carrier frequency and assumes that the 
carrier frequency is the center of the actual bandwidth used. The 
emission mask can be satisfied by locating a carrier of the subchannel 
sufficiently far from the channel edges so that the emission levels of 
the mask are satisfied. The emission mask shall use a value B 
(bandwidth) of 40 MHz, for all cases even in the case where a narrower 
subchannel is used (for instance the actual bandwidth is 10 MHz) and 
the mean output power used in the calculation is the sum of the output 
power of a fully populated channel. For block assigned channels, the 
out-of-band emission limits apply only outside the assigned band of 
operation and not within the band.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  30.405  Transmitter power limitations.

    On any authorized frequency, the average power delivered to an 
antenna in this service must be the minimum amount of power necessary 
to carry out the communications desired. Application of this principle 
includes, but is not to be limited to, requiring a licensee who 
replaces one or more of its antennas with larger antennas to reduce its 
antenna input power by an amount appropriate to compensate for the 
increased primary lobe gain of the replacement antenna(s). In no event 
shall the average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as 
referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the following:

                         Maximum Allowable EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Frequency band (MHz)                      Fixed (dBW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500-28,350 \1\.......................................            + 55
38,600-40,000...........................................            + 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For Point-to-multipoint user stations authorized in these bands, the
  EIRP shall not exceed 55 dBw or 42 dBw/MHz.

Sec.  30.406  Directional antennas.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized upon specific request by the 
applicant, each station authorized under the rules of this subpart must 
employ a directional antenna adjusted with the center of the major lobe 
of radiation in the horizontal plane directed toward the receiving 
station with which it communicates; provided, however, where a station 
communicates with more than one

[[Page 58307]]

point, a multi- or omni-directional antenna may be authorized if 
necessary.
    (b) Fixed stations (other than temporary fixed stations) must 
employ transmitting and receiving antennas (excluding second receiving 
antennas for operations such as space diversity) meeting the 
appropriate performance Standard A indicated below, except that in 
areas not subject to frequency congestion, antennas meeting performance 
Standard B may be used. For frequencies with a Standard B1 and a 
Standard B2, in order to comply with Standard B an antenna must fully 
meet either Standard B1 or Standard B2. Licensees shall comply with the 
antenna standards table shown in this paragraph in the following 
manner:
    (1) With either the maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points requirement or 
with the minimum antenna gain requirement; and
    (2) With the minimum radiation suppression to angle requirement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline of main
                                                     Maximum       Minimum                                 beam in decibels
                                                  beamwidth to 3   antenna  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Frequency (MHz)             Category        dB points\1\      gain                10[deg]    15[deg]    20[deg]    30[deg]    100[deg]   140[deg]
                                                 (included angle    (dbi)      5[deg]       to         to         to         to         to         to
                                                   in degrees)               to10[deg]   15[deg]    20[deg]    30[deg]    100[deg]   140[deg]   180[deg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38,600 to 40,000\2\..........  A...............  n/a............         38         25         29         33         36         42         55         55
                               B...............  n/a............         38         20         24         28         32         35         36         36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a licensee chooses to show compliance using maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points, the beamwidth limit shall apply in both the azimuth and the
  elevation planes.
\2\ Stations authorized to operate in the 38,600-40,000 MHz band may use antennas other than those meeting the Category A standard. However, the
  Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.

Sec.  30.407  Antenna polarization.

    In the 27,500-28,350 MHz band, system operators are permitted to 
use any polarization within its service area, but only vertical and/or 
horizontal polarization for antennas located within 20 kilometers of 
the outermost edge of their service area.

Subpart F--Shared operation in the 71-76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands


Sec.  30.501  Scope.

    (a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of 
devices in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands. The operation of all 
equipment in this band shall be coordinated by one or more authorized 
Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).
    (b) Operations in this band include Priority Access and General 
Authorized Access tiers of service. Priority Access Licensees and 
General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to 
Incumbent Users and must accept interference from Incumbent Users. 
General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to 
Priority Access Licensees and must accept interference from Priority 
Access Licensees.


Sec.  30.502  Authorization required.

    (a) Devices must be used and operated consistent with the rules in 
this subpart.
    (b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application, 
provided that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, 
character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the 
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity 
will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of an 
authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions, 
and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the 
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the 
Commission's rules and policies thereunder.
    (c) Grandfathered registered fixed links are authorized to operate 
consistent with Sec.  101.1529 of this chapter.


Sec.  30.503  Frequency assignments.

    (a) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in 
use by a Priority Access Licensee may be utilized by General Authorized 
Access Users.
    (b) An SAS shall assign authorized devices to specific frequencies, 
which may be reassigned by that SAS, consistent with this part.


Sec.  30.504  Technical rules.

    Devices in these bands shall be subject to the technical rules in 
subpart C of this part.


Sec.  30.505  Protection of Federal incumbents.

    Prior to commencing operation, all operations in these bands must 
complete coordination with Federal Government links according to the 
coordination standards and procedures adopted in Report and Order, FCC 
03-248, and as further detailed in subsequent implementation public 
notices issued consistent with that order.


Sec.  30.506  Priority Access Licenses.

    (a) Applications for Priority Access Licenses must:
    (1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an 
authorization;
    (2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, 
and necessity;
    (3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application 
forms;
    (4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance 
with all applicable rules; and
    (5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and 
complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec.  1.65 of this chapter.
    (b) Devices used for Priority Access must register with a Spectrum 
Access System and comply with its instructions pursuant to Sec.  
30.508.
    (c) Records pertaining to PALs, including applications and 
licenses, shall be maintained by the Commission in a publicly 
accessible system.


Sec.  30.507  General Access.

    (a) Devices used for General Authorized Access must register with 
the Spectrum Access System and comply with its instructions.
    (b) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to use 
frequencies assigned to Priority Access Licenses when such frequencies 
are not in use, as determined by the Spectrum Access System.
    (c) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access 
Use shall be made available on a shared basis.
    (d) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of 
interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users 
operating in accordance with this part.
    (e) General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful 
interference to and must accept interference from

[[Page 58308]]

Priority Access Licensees and Grandfathered Registered Links in 
accordance with this part.


Sec.  30.508  Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.

    The Spectrum Access System shall:
    (a) Enact and enforce all policies and procedures developed by the 
SAS Administrator.
    (b) Determine and provide to devices the permissible channels or 
frequencies at their location.
    (c) Determine and provide to devices the maximum permissible 
transmission power level at their location.
    (d) Register and authenticate the identification information and 
location of devices.
    (e) Ensure that devices protect Grandfathered Register Links from 
harmful interference.
    (f) Protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused by 
other Priority Access Licenses and from General Authorized Access 
Users.
    (g) Resolve conflicting uses of the band while maintaining, as much 
as possible, a stable radio frequency environment.
    (h) Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between 
the SAS and devices.
    (i) Protect Grandfathered Registered Links consistent with Sec.  
101.1529 of this chapter.
    (j) Implement the terms of applicable current and future 
international agreements.


Sec.  30.509  Registration, authentication, and authorization of 
devices.

    (a) A Spectrum Access System must register, authenticate, and 
authorize operations of devices consistent with this part.
    (b) Devices composed of a network of base and fixed stations may 
employ a subsystem for aggregating and communicating all required 
information exchanges between the SAS and devices.
    (c) A Spectrum Access System must also verify that the FCC 
identifier (FCC ID) of any device seeking access to its services is 
valid prior to authorizing it to begin providing service. A list of 
devices with valid FCC IDs and the FCC IDs of those devices is to be 
obtained from the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

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

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

0
7. Add Sec.  101.1529 to read as follows:


Sec.  101.529  Grandfathered operation and transition to upper 
microwave flexible use service.

    Links registered with a third party database administrator on or 
before [insert effective date of rules] that are constructed, in 
service, and fully compliant with the rules in part 101, subpart Q as 
of [insert date one year after effective date of rules] will be 
afforded protection from harmful interference caused by Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use users until the end of their license term.

[FR Doc. 2016-19793 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P