Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, 34520-34535 [2018-14807]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34520-34535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14807]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30

[GN Docket No. 14-177; WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 18-73]


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 adopted rules in this document. A Final rule document for the 
Third Report and Order (3rd R&O) related to this document for the Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3rd FNPRM) is published in this 
issue of this Federal Register.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 10, 2018; reply comments 
are due on or before September 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 14-177, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: 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]. For 
information regarding the PRA information collection requirements 
contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing 
Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order (3rd FNPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, FCC 18-73, adopted 
on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, 2018. The complete text of this 
document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 
12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 
is available on the Commission's website at https://wireless.fcc.gov, or 
by using the search function on the ECFS web page at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons 
with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 
(202) 418-0432 (tty).

Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website 
for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 14-177.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by 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. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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 9050 Junction Dr., 
Annapolis Junction, Annapolis MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
    People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-
835-5322 (tty).

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this  3rd 
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

[[Page 34521]]

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    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 attached 3rd 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 for comments as specified in 
the 3rd FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this 3rd FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 3rd FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The 3rd FNPRM contains proposed information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained 
in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees

Synopsis

I. 42-42.5 GHz Band

A. Introduction

    1. The 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) consists of 500 megahertz, 
allocated to non-Federal fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, 
and it contains no current Federal allocation or service rules. The 
adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band is allocated to the Radio Astronomy Service 
(RAS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use and to the 
Federal fixed, fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space), and mobile except 
aeronautical mobile services on a primary basis. The allocations 
footnote corresponding to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band also requires that any 
assignments to the stations of other services also allocated to the 
band take all practicable steps to protect the RAS from harmful 
interference. Out-of-band signals into allocated radio astronomy bands 
can cause interference to radio astronomy observations. The Commission 
also notes that radio astronomy as a service frequently makes use of 
observations (passive) in bands not allocated to the RAS. This practice 
is a result of scientifically valuable signals being subject to the 
Doppler Effect and shifted in frequency outside radio astronomy-
allocated bands. In its 2016 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a 
proposal to authorize flexible fixed and mobile operations in the band 
under the new part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) 
rules, but only on the condition that adjacent channel RAS at 42.5-43.5 
GHz could be protected. The FNPRM also sought specific comment and 
detailed study on what protections should be established for this 
adjacent band--for example, whether out-of-band emission limits into 
the 42.5-43.5 GHz band should be established or whether it was 
necessary or appropriate to create a guard band below 42.5 GHz. In 
addition to the appropriate licensing and technical rules, the 
Commission also sought comment on the appropriate band plan for the 42 
GHz band--including whether the band should be licensed as a single 
channel, split into two channels, or split into multiple 100 megahertz 
channels--and whether to license the band geographically using Partial 
Economic Areas (PEAs). Although the Commission received comment on 
these various issues, in its 3rd FNPRM, the Commission seeks further 
comment on several of these proposals and issues, in light of recently 
enacted legislation that addresses the 42 GHz band.
    2. The MOBILE NOW Act, passed as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018 
provides that, within two years of its enactment, the Commission shall 
publish an NPRM ``to consider service rules to authorize mobile or 
fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including for advanced mobile 
service operations,'' in the 42 GHz band. Section 604(b) of the MOBILE 
NOW Act provides that, in conducting this rulemaking, the Commission 
shall: ``(1) consider how the band described in subsection (a) may be 
used to provide commercial wireless broadband service, including 
whether -- (A) such spectrum may be best used for licensed or 
unlicensed services, or some combination thereof; and (B) to permit 
additional licensed operations in such band on a shared basis; and (2) 
include technical characteristics under which the band described in 
subsection (a) may be employed for mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless 
operations, including any appropriate coexistence requirements.'' 
Consistent with the MOBILE NOW Act, and out of an abundance of caution, 
the Commission issues this 3rd FNPRM to seek further comment on how the 
42 GHz band could be used to provide commercial wireless broadband 
service including possible opportunities for unlicensed and/or shared 
use of the 42 GHz band.

B. Suitability for Mobile and Fixed Use

    3. Background. The Commission previously proposed to authorize 
fixed and mobile service operations in the 42 GHz band under the part 
30 UMFUS rules. In response to the Commission's FNPRM, most commenters 
generally supported establishing service rules that would allow the 
band to be flexibly licensed for fixed and mobile operations under part 
30. Qualcomm and T-Mobile argue that flexible use will allow individual 
licensees to shape the nature of the services they provide. Intel and 
Samsung argue that authorizing UMFUS expansion in the 42 GHz band would 
place it within the `tuning range' of radio equipment designed for the 
37-40 GHz bands, accelerating the deployment of technology capable of 
serving these bands. CTIA, Ericsson, Intel, and Samsung, among others, 
point to the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) WRC-19 
identification of the entire 37-42.5 GHz band as a candidate to study 
for mobile services, and they argue for similar treatment domestically. 
Commenters supporting geographic area licensing explained why they 
believe the alternatives of unlicensed or shared licensed use were not 
appropriate.
    4. Various commenters view the global harmonization of this band, 
and 5G spectrum generally, as an important step towards greater 
manufacturing efficiencies and more rapid development and deployment of 
services. For example, Samsung notes that the Commission has frequently 
highlighted international harmonization of spectrum as a key policy 
goal and endorsed its benefits. Commenters present different views, 
however, on the

[[Page 34522]]

timing of U.S. action on the band relative to ITU action. One commenter 
argues the FCC's studying bands like 42 GHz will supplement and advance 
the study efforts of ITU study groups. Lockheed Martin, however, 
opposes taking action in bands currently subject to ITU study because 
the Commission allegedly has provided no evidence it will protect 
incumbent services in these bands or respect the outcome of these 
studies. Alternatively, T-Mobile argues the Commission must address 
domestic wireless capacity requirements and should not await input from 
the ITU given that the international process can be manipulated to 
delay the designation of spectrum for terrestrial use.
    5. Certain FSS operators argue that the band should be licensed for 
satellite uses, and they raise arguments similar to those raised in 
petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's decision not to 
allocate the 42 GHz band for FSS. FWCC argues the band by itself is too 
narrow for fixed duplex operations and that, accordingly, the 42 GHz 
band should be combined with the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band to create 
a single band with rules for fixed operations. The Commission notes 
that although in its R&O, the Commission deleted the broadcasting and 
broadcasting-satellite service allocations from the 42-42.5 GHz band 
(42 GHz band) and declined to allocate the band to the fixed-satellite 
service (space-to-Earth), the Commission again declines to reverse 
those decisions. The Commission also declines to revisit its decision 
to deny FWCC's prior request that it establish service rules to enable 
fixed service at 42 GHz under part 101 of its Rules.
    6. Discussion. The Commission tentatively concludes that its part 
30 UMFUS Rules provide the best opportunity to provide commercial 
wireless broadband service to the public in this band. The ability to 
use this band together with the existing 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands, the 
international consideration of this band for mobile use, and the 
availability of 500 megahertz of unassigned spectrum all support the 
Commission's conclusion that this band is suitable for flexible use. In 
view of the extensive support in the record, the Commission proposes to 
authorize fixed and mobile licensed operations in this band under part 
30, and the Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and 
on alternate proposals. In particular, consistent with the MOBILE NOW 
Act, the Commission seeks comment on whether unlicensed services should 
be permitted in the band under part 30, or whether licensed services, 
unlicensed services, or other types of sharing besides unlicensed and 
licensed should be permitted under other rule parts as well. Proponents 
of unlicensed uses or sharing in the band between various types of 
operations should provide technical studies describing how such 
operations should coexist and share this band.
    7. The Commission also seeks to refresh the record on the previous 
proposal in the 2016 FNPRM to add Federal fixed and mobile allocations 
in this band and a framework under which both Federal and non-Federal 
operations could share. Under this proposal, the Commission would add a 
Federal allocation to the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis 
for Federal use in addition to the current non-Federal allocation.

C. Licensing, Technical, and Service Rules

    8. Introduction. In the FNPRM, the Commission previously sought 
comment on licensing the 42 GHz band under the part 30 UMFUS licensing 
and technical rules. The Commission sought comment on whether the 42 
GHz band should be licensed for exclusive use by PEAs, and commenters 
have generally supported this proposal. The FNPRM's proposal 
contemplated that licensing and operations in the 42 GHz band would be 
subject to the part 30 rules concerning permissible communications, 
initial authorizations, license term, construction requirements, 
partitioning and disaggregation, discontinuance of service, equipment 
authorization, power limits, emission limits, field strength limits, 
international coordination, RF safety, flexible duplexing, and 
competitive bidding procedures. Commenters have thus far generally 
supported applying the existing licensing and technical rules to the 42 
GHz band. The Commission will consider those comments in resolving 
those issues, as well as additional comments. Further, as described 
below, the Commission seeks comment on additional considerations 
regarding protection of radio astronomy at 42.5-43.5 GHz, and the band 
plan for the 42 GHz band.
    9. Protecting RAS Services at 42.5-43.5 GHz. As noted above, the 
Commission previously proposed to authorize flexible mobile and fixed 
operations in the 42 GHz band, as long as RAS could be protected in the 
adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band, and it sought comment on and invited 
detailed study of the forms that such protection should take given the 
location of RAS observatories. In response, The National Academy of 
Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) informed the Commission 
that RAS observations are currently made at a limited set observatories 
around the U.S. These sites are the GBT in Green Bank, WV, the VLA at 
Soccoro, NM, the Haystack Observatory in Westford, MA, and ten sites of 
the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), noted in the Table of Allocations 
footnote US 131. CORF asserted that frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821, 
43.122, and 43.424 GHz are of the greatest importance for the detection 
of strong silicon monoxide maser emissions from stars and star forming 
regions--important for measuring stellar temperature, density, wind 
velocity and other parameters. The 42 GHz band also is one of the 
preferred bands for measuring continuum observations. Because of the 
very low signal levels being measured, RAS telescopes are particularly 
vulnerable to in-band emissions, spurious out-of-band emissions, and 
emissions producing harmonics, making protection all the more 
important. CORF stated that the detrimental levels for continuum and 
spectral line radio astronomy observations for single dishes are -227 
dBW/m\2\/Hz and -210 dBW/m\2\/Hz, respectively, for the average across 
the full 1 gigahertz of the 42.5-43.5 GHz band and the peak level in 
any single 500 kHz channel, as based upon ITU-R RA.769, Tables 1 and 2, 
respectively. For observations using the entire VLBA, the corresponding 
limit is -175 dBW/m\2\/Hz.
    10. Proponents of using the 42 GHz band for flexible terrestrial 
wireless use generally agree that there are various effective means to 
protect RAS, including use of exclusion zones, coordination zones, and 
aggregate emissions limits--particularly since RAS sites are generally 
in remote locations. No commenter, however, provided studies or 
examples showing how these proposed methods would work in practice in 
this particular band. T-Mobile suggested that coordination with RAS 
should be required within a defined coordination distance. The 
Commission notes that CORF and T-Mobile agree that the relevant 
received power spectrum density at the RAS receiver should be the 
parameters established by ITU-R RA.769. The Commission agrees with CORF 
and T-Mobile that RAS bands can be protected by limiting UMFUS 
operations near a RAS. However, because no one has submitted technical 
studies regarding protection of RAS in this band, the Commission does 
not currently have sufficient information to propose specific rules to 
protect RAS facilities.

[[Page 34523]]

The Commission seeks comment on how it can protect RAS facilities in 
the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from UMFUS operations in 42-42.5 GHz. Should the 
Commission's rule be based on the ITUR RA.769 parameters or are there 
alternative protection criteria? The Commission also seeks comment on 
establishing coordination zones around the relevant RAS facilities, and 
on the appropriate distance at which coordination with RAS should be 
required.\1\ Interested parties should provide detailed technical 
analysis of the coexistence of RAS with terrestrial mobile operations 
that fully supports any proposed distance or methodology. The 
Commission also seeks comment on other proposals for ensuring 
protection of RAS facilities in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) has special protections 
afforded outside the allocated bands requiring coordination. The 
NRQZ does work with mobile radio providers, but coordination is 
required for operation of any mobile radio service above 24 GHz in 
the NRQZ. Also, as with the existing coordination requirements for 
the 37-38 GHz band, any coordination requirement would require 
licensees to coordinate all operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Band Plan. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether the band's 500 megahertz of spectrum should be licensed as a 
single channel, split in two, or broken into various multiple sizes. In 
response, several commenters noted the value of 100 megahertz channels 
as an acceptable outcome, particularly in a band such as 42 GHz where 
less spectrum is available. The Commission proposes to license the 42 
GHz band as 100 megahertz channels because this size would be 
consistent with developing industry standards that maximize spectral 
efficiency, all the while permitting interested parties to aggregate 
these channels should they desire larger bands. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Commenters seeking alternative-e band plans 
should justify why they believe other channel sizes would better serve 
future services they envision for this band.

II. 37-37.6 GHz (Lower 37 GHz Band)--Licensing Frameworks

    12. Background. The Federal and non-Federal allocations of the 37-
38.6 GHz Band (37 GHz Band) are as follows: The entire 37 GHz band (37-
38.6 GHz) is allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a primary 
basis for Federal and non-Federal use.\2\ Portions of the 37 GHz band 
are also allocated to the Space Research Service (SRS) (space-to-Earth) 
on a primary basis for Federal use (37-38 GHz) and to the Fixed-
Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis for non-
Federal use (37.5-38.6 GHz). The use of this FSS downlink allocation is 
limited to individually licensed earth stations and is also subject to 
other limitations. In addition, the 37 GHz band is adjacent to the 36-
37 GHz band, where passive sensors in the Earth exploration satellite 
service (EESS) and SRS are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the mobile service allocation in 
the 37-38 GHz band to exclude the aeronautical mobile service, i.e., 
the 37-38 GHz band is allocated to the mobile except aeronautical 
mobile service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules to permit fixed and 
mobile terrestrial operation in the 37 GHz band. The Commission also 
adopted a licensing regime for the 37.6-38.6 GHz portion of the band 
(Upper 37 GHz Band), which would be licensed in five 200 megahertz 
blocks on a geographical area basis, and made the Lower 37 GHz band 
available for coordinated co-primary sharing between Federal and non-
Federal users. The Commission identified non-Federal users as Shared 
Access Licensees (SAL) and decided that such users would be licensed by 
rule. The Commission explained that Federal and non-Federal users will 
access the Lower 37 GHz Band through a coordination mechanism, which it 
would develop more fully through government/industry collaboration. The 
Commission adopted the same technical rules for the Lower 37 GHz Band 
and the Upper 37 GHz Band.
    14. In the FNPRM, the Commission stated that Federal and non-
Federal fixed and mobile users would access the Lower 37 GHz Band by 
registering individual sites through a coordination mechanism. The 
Commission explained that the coordination mechanism is the regulatory, 
technical, or procedural tool necessary to actually facilitate 
coordinated access, will authorize a particular user to use a 
particular bandwidth of spectrum at a particular location. The 
Commission stated that the coordination mechanism must; (1) 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; (2) be capable of regularly updating the 
status of a coordinated location (on/off or authorized/unauthorized); 
and (3) be able to incorporate this type of information for both 
Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile uses. The Commission sought 
comment on the coordination mechanism and the functions that it should 
be able to perform. The Commission also proposed 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. The Commission sought comment on: 
Whether a portion of the lower band segment should be made available 
for priority access by Federal users, whether an enforcement mechanism 
in the lower band segment is necessary to help identify and rectify 
interference events, and whether and how to apply secondary market 
rules to the lower band segment.
    15. Two commenters, Starry and Intel, offer recommendations on the 
specific regulatory, technical, or procedural tool necessary to 
facilitate coordinated access in the Lower 37 GHz band. Starry proposes 
site-based registration through a third-party coordinator. Under its 
proposal, licensees would file ``specific information about each site 
sufficient for a third-party coordinator to conduct an interference 
analysis,'' including its location, height above ground level, EIRP, 
transmitter azimuth, and channel size. In addition, ``end points 
operating under the control of a registered transmitter'' would not be 
registered individually, and would instead fall under the authorization 
of the transmitter.'' The third-party coordinator would conduct an 
interference analysis under which previously registered sites would be 
protected at a modeled receive signal strength of -79 dBm/10 MHz 
assuming a test antenna at the end points with a gain of 25 dBi, at a 
height of 10 meters above ground. Also, under this proposal, licensees 
would be able to negotiate alternative sharing arrangements and sites 
would be required to be constructed and in operation within 120 days 
after the registration is accepted. Under Starry's proposal, there 
would be clear penalties for registering unused sites. Starry also 
offers additional ideas for an enhanced sharing framework that could be 
implemented over time. No party responded to Starry's proposal. Intel's 
proposal would use a database similar to the database used for the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands, except that the database would also play a role 
in frequency coordination.
    16. Discussion. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to 
further develop the record regarding the coordination mechanism that it 
would expect to use, as between either two or more non-Federal entities 
or between Federal and non-Federal entities. In order to facilitate 
shared use of the Lower 37 GHz band between Federal and non-Federal 
users, as well as among non-Federal users, the Commission

[[Page 34524]]

seeks comment on a proposed coordination mechanism and alternatives, as 
set forth below. The Commission anticipates that a sharing mechanism 
would facilitate quick access to spectrum without unreasonable 
processing delays and a predictable path for future coordination in the 
band among stakeholders. The Commission recognizes the importance of 
the Lower 37 GHz band to future Federal operations, and it will work in 
partnership with NTIA, DoD, and other Federal agencies to develop a 
sharing approach that allows for robust Federal and non-Federal use in 
this band.
    17. In designing a licensing mechanism for the Lower 37 GHz Band, 
the Commission seeks to accommodate a variety of use cases that may 
develop for this band--in essence, the Commission envisions Lower 37 
GHz as an innovation band in the mmW spectrum. In particular, the 
Commission anticipates that there will be at least four types of non-
Federal deployments in the Lower 37 GHz Band: Point-to-point links (for 
example backhaul and backbone links); fixed wireless broadband systems 
(generally consisting of a fixed access point and fixed subscriber 
units); single base station IoT-type systems (for example, in a 
factory); and carrier-based deployments of mobile systems using the 
Lower 37 GHz Band as supplemental capacity tied to other bands that are 
licensed on a geographic area basis. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are additional types of deployments contemplated for this 
band. If so, what would those additional uses be, and how would they 
affect the licensing of the Lower 37 GHz Band?
    18. As detailed above, Starry proposes a model in which proposed 
facilities would be registered with a third-party coordinator. Another 
possible model, under which the Commission would issue licenses 
authorizing operations, would be the coordination model used in part 
101 point-to-point bands. In order to complete frequency coordination, 
an applicant must give prior notice to nearby licensees and other 
applicants for licenses of the proposed applicant's operations, make 
reasonable efforts to avoid interference and resolve conflicts, and 
certify to the Commission that the proposed operation has been 
coordinated. Once the applicant has completed frequency coordination, 
the applicant must file an application for authorization with the 
Commission, specifying the latitude and longitude of the transmitter to 
be used to an accuracy of one second. The applicant must coordinate 
each operation, including any change in the location of the transmitter 
of more than five seconds in latitude or longitude or both, and must 
apply for a modification of their license. Similarly, if the applicant 
later seeks to deploy additional transmitters, the Commission's part 
101 rules require coordination of those facilities and the applicant 
must apply for modification of the license. The Commission seeks 
comment on the relative merits of using these coordination models in 
the Lower 37 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on the 
criteria that it should use to determine whether predicted interference 
would be harmful. If actual harmful interference occurs after 
successful coordination, how should the interference be resolved? How 
will future Federal operations be accommodated in the sharing framework 
and what parameters will be used to develop a trigger for required 
coordination? Given that the Commission is proposing construction 
requirements for non-Federal licensees in this band, as discussed 
below, the Commission seeks comment on how best to enforce those 
requirements in an environment where registrations are not filed with 
the Commission.
    19. For the four types of deployments, the Commission seeks comment 
on a first-come-first-served licensing or registration scheme, in which 
actual users have a right to interference protection, but no right to 
exclude other users. The Commission seeks comment on subsequent users 
being required to coordinate with previously registered non-Federal and 
Federal sites through part 101 notice and response rules or on the 
alternative of registering facilities with a third-party coordinator.
    20. With regard to Federal sites, the Commission proposes to 
require non-Federal users to work with Federal users in good faith to 
coordinate any new system Federal users may seek to deploy. The 
Commission anticipates that non-Federal users would not be required to 
agree to coordination requests that would carry a significant risk of 
harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria that 
it should use to determine whether interference is harmful. Is the 
coordination trigger that Starry proposes appropriate, or should the 
Commission use an alternative set of criteria? The Commission seeks 
comment on the best means of coordinating with Federal operations. The 
Commission intends to adopt as part of the rules a coordination 
methodology that will facilitate coordination for the kinds of cases 
that it anticipates may be typical. This will allow us to test the 
assumption that any coordination zone typically ``can be measured in 
meters rather than kilometers.'' To do so, the Commission will work 
with NTIA, on behalf of Federal users, and with industry to identify 
those cases. DoD has expressed an interest in a possible aeronautical 
allocation in the Lower 37 GHz band, so the Commission anticipates 
including aeronautical cases in its consideration of coordination 
methodologies.
    21. The Commission expects the identification and analysis of these 
cases to be a critical component to its understanding of the extent 
that the band can be shared dynamically. Commenters should address how 
to prevent ``warehousing,'' whereby a licensee preserves its rights 
without providing actual service. Should licensees receive any 
protection before they have completed construction and begun 
operations? How should ``operation'' be defined and how can the 
Commission plan to monitor compliance, including whether operations 
have been discontinued? Should the Commission put limits on the 
aggregate area, or amount of spectrum, that any one licensee or its 
affiliates can protect? These issues are critical to establishing the 
co-primary sharing rights that the Commission envisions for this band.
    22. To the extent that the solution to preserving Federal entity's 
options may be to reserve a part of the band for their priority use, 
the Commission seeks comment on how to define such priority rights. Are 
there geographic areas where such priority rights would have little or 
no adverse impact on non-Federal operations and, if so, what should be 
the process for identifying those areas? The Commission seeks comment 
on alternative approaches that can be used to ensure Federal and non-
Federal users will have access to the band to meet their needs.
    23. Below, the Commission seeks comment on whether offering three 
types of non-Federal licenses--point-to-point licenses; base stations 
licenses; and site-cluster licenses--would facilitate deployment in the 
Lower 37 GHz band.
    24. Point-to-point licenses. The Commission seeks comment on 
requiring individual point-to-point links to be coordinated with 
previously licensed or registered sites using part 101 notice and 
response rules. If it is determined that the proposed link would not 
interfere or could be modified not to interfere with previously 
licensed or registered sites, then a license would be issued for the 
specific point-to-point link in the Commission's Universal Licensing 
System (ULS) to establish future

[[Page 34525]]

interference protection rights. A point-to-point licensee would be 
required to construct its sites within 18 months from the date the site 
was registered. If the licensee fails to construct these sites within 
the 18 months, the licensee might be prohibited from reapplying for 
that specific link for 12 months. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach, as well as alternatives. Are there other methods that would 
facilitate licensing of point-to-point links? The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether it should require licensees to file individual 
construction notices in order to facilitate enforcement of construction 
obligations. The Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and 
benefits of this licensing mechanism.
    25. Base station licenses. The Commission seeks comment on 
permitting an applicant to select a point around which it would get a 
license for a specific site with either a 360 degree radius or a 
defined sector of a 360 degree radius. This license also would 
authorize any customer premises equipment (such as equipment used for 
point-to-multipoint networks) or mobile devices operating in 
conjunction with the licensed base station. The licensee would receive 
interference protection for a certain specified distance, for example 
one kilometer, that would then be a protection zone. The Commission 
proposes to require that individual base stations be coordinated with 
previously licensed or registered sites using part 101 notice and 
response rules. If it is determined that the proposed base station 
license would not interfere or could be modified to not interfere with 
a previously licensed or registered site, then a license would be 
issued in ULS to establish future interference protection rights. Under 
this licensing scheme, a subsequent licensee would not be precluded 
from licensing either a point-to-point link or a base station, or from 
registering a facility under a site-cluster license (discussed below) 
within a previously established protection zone, as long as it can be 
coordinated successfully with any previously licensed or registered 
facilities. The Commission proposes to require that a base station 
licensee must construct its site within 18 months from the date the 
site was licensed. If the licensee fails to construct its site within 
the 18 months, the Commission proposes that the licensee be prohibited 
from reapplying for a base station license covering any portion of the 
same area for 12 months. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, 
as well as alternatives commenters might propose. Are there other means 
or requirements that would facilitate licensing of these types of 
deployments? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require 
licensees to file individual construction notices. If so, should these 
construction notices be filed with the Commission or with a third-party 
database administrator? The Commission seeks comment on the relative 
costs and benefits of this licensing mechanism.
    26. Site-cluster licenses. The Commission recognizes that operators 
proposing 5G deployments may have difficulties determining the precise 
locations of their facilities, particularly in instances where they are 
deploying a large number of facilities. Requiring licensees to identify 
specific locations, file applications for each individual facility, and 
then wait 30 days for each application to undergo the mandatory public 
notice period may not promote efficient deployment of 5G services. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the use of a novel concept 
to address this issue: The site-cluster license. Under a site-cluster 
license, instead of licensing individual base stations or point-to-
point links, the applicant would license a larger (e.g., 5 km) non-
exclusive point-radius license within which it could register 
individual base stations and/or point-to-point links. Much like the 
licensing paradigm for the 70-80 GHz band, a non-exclusive point and 
radius license would not authorize operation, but rather would 
authorize the licensee to register individual base stations and/or 
point-to-point links within its non-exclusive site cluster area. A 
site-cluster licensee would not have the right to preclude facilities 
proposed by other licensees. To receive interference protection for 
specific facilities within the site-cluster, the applicant would have 
to coordinate those facilities with other Federal and non-Federal Lower 
37 GHz licensees (point-to-point, base station, or site-cluster) within 
the radius of its site cluster area, and register each specific 
facility. First-in-time rights would be triggered only for those 
facilities that are successfully registered. The Commission proposes 
that applicants for site-cluster licenses would file in ULS and would 
be issued a non-exclusive site-cluster license for a specific radius. 
Should individual base stations or point-to-point links registered 
under the umbrella of the site cluster license be registered either in 
ULS or, alternatively in a third-party database? The Commission seeks 
comment on the relative costs and benefits of either approach. Is this 
concept an effective means of facilitating large deployments?
    27. The Commission seeks comment on two buildout requirements for 
site-cluster licenses. First, a buildout period by which an applicant 
with a site-cluster license must register and construct a minimum of 
one specific facility within its site cluster area. Second, a buildout 
period for each specific site that the applicant registers, which would 
require the applicant to build that site within a specified period 
after registration. The Commission seeks comment on what those buildout 
periods should be. The Commission proposes that failure to meet its 
buildout requirement would preclude the applicant from reapplying for a 
non-exclusive license in that area for a certain period. The Commission 
seeks comment on what that period of time should be. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether it should require licensees to file 
individual construction notices. If so, should these construction 
notices be filed with the Commission or with a third-party database 
administrator? The Commission also seeks comment on alternative means 
of enforcing construction requirements. As mentioned above, the 
Commission seeks comment on what rights a registrant should have before 
it actually constructs its facility and begins operations.

III. 37.0-38.6 GHz (37 GHz Band)

    28. With regard to Federal co-primary access to the 37 GHz band, 
the R&O adopted rules that establish the coordination zones for the 14 
military sites and three scientific sites identified by NTIA, and noted 
the ability for Federal agencies to add future sites on a coordinated 
basis. The Commission seeks comment on how best to accommodate 
coordination zones for future Federal operations at a limited number of 
additional sites. For instance, should the Commission supplement Sec.  
30.205 to add more specific sites for Federal operations, or should it 
establish a process that would permit Federal entities in the future to 
identify a limited number of additional sites on an as-needed basis? 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the coordination zones 
previously established in Sec.  30.205 might be reduced to better 
accommodate nearby non-Federal operations without adversely impacting 
Federal operations at those sites.

[[Page 34526]]

IV. 25.25-27.5 GHz Band (26 GHz Band)

A. Suitability for Mobile Use

    29. Background. In this proceeding, the Commission has authorized 
mobile services in the 700 megahertz of spectrum in the 24 GHz band and 
850 megahertz of spectrum in the 28 GHz band). In the U.S., the 25.25-
27.5 GHz (``26 GHz'') band is allocated primarily for Federal 
government services, but Commenters in this proceeding note that there 
is a growing international consensus that terrestrial mobile services 
should be authorized in the broader 24.25-27.5 GHz band. This year the 
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations 
(CEPT) has adopted a preliminary determination to make the 24.25-27.5 
GHz band a ``clear priority'' for harmonization of 5G services 
throughout Europe and to promote it for worldwide harmonization at WRC-
19. In addition, at least eight countries in other parts of the world 
are also preparing to authorize terrestrial mobile services in that 
range. In February, 2018, ITU-R Task Group 5/1 issued a set of 
preliminary technical analyses concluding that the band can be shared 
among terrestrial mobile and incumbent services. Most of the 
contributors represented national governments, including the U.S.
    30. Discussion. As noted above, in regional and international 
forums leading to the World Radiocommunication Conference 2019 (WRC-
19), the frequency range from 24.25-27.5 GHz has emerged as the leading 
candidate for 5G services, referred to in ITU parlance as 
``International Mobile Telecommunication 2020'' (IMT-2020). The 
international momentum presents the Commission with an opportunity to 
consider whether the 26 GHz band would be suitable for flexible fixed 
and mobile use. The Commission notes that in the U.S., the 25.25-27.5 
GHz (``26 GHz'') band is allocated primarily for Federal government 
services.
    31. Equipment manufacturers indicate that they can readily 
integrate the 26 GHz band into a tuning range that includes two bands 
that the United States has already authorized for mobile services, the 
24 GHz band (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz) and the 28 GHz band 
(27.5-28.35 GHz). That presents three opportunities--first, to achieve 
manufacturing economies by covering several bands with a single radio; 
second, to provide international roaming capability in affordable user 
devices, and third, to accelerate the availability of equipment in 
newly authorized bands that share a tuning range with early-deployed 
bands. Some commenters also contend that the 26 GHz band has better 
coverage characteristics than other bands that might potentially be 
available at higher frequencies.
    32. The Commission will continue to actively support the 24 GHz and 
28 GHz bands. At the same time, the Commission believes the 26 GHz band 
could be suitable for flexible fixed and mobile use. It is relatively 
near to the 24 GHz and 28 GHz bands, which the Commission has already 
found suitable for fixed and mobile use. The amount of spectrum 
potentially available (over two gigahertz) could make this band a 
useful addition to UMFUS. The Commission recognizes that it would need 
to work out suitable sharing or protection arrangements with Federal 
incumbents in the band. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the 26 GHz band could be made available for non-Federal fixed 
and mobile use.

B. Spectrum Sharing and Compatibility

    33. Existing allocations for the 26 GHz band in this country are 
mostly Federal. While Federal use of the 26 GHz band to this point has 
been fairly limited, the Commission recognizes that Federal agencies 
may aspire to make heavier use of that band in the future. Any 
exploration of private sector opportunities in the band must therefore 
address the potential for spectrum sharing and compatibility among 
diverse participants.
1. Protection of Incumbents
    34. Background. The Federal allocations for the 25.25-27.5 GHz 
bands in this country generally follow the ITU's international 
allocations. In the Federal column of the U.S. Table of Allocations, 
the entire 25.25-27.5 GHz band has primary allocations for Fixed (FS), 
Mobile (MS), and Inter-Satellite (ISS) services, with Inter-Satellite 
limited to space research and Earth exploration-satellite applications, 
along with transmissions of data originating from industrial and 
medical activities in space. The 25.5-27 GHz band has a primary 
allocation for both Federal and non-Federal Space Research service 
(SRS) (space-to-Earth), with non-Federal Earth exploration-satellite 
service (EESS) subject to case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility 
analysis.
    35. Consistent with the international community's focus on making 
the 24.25-27.5 GHz band available for terrestrial mobile services, 
a.k.a. IMT, ITU-R's Study Group 5 Task Group 5/1 (TG 5/1) has been 
conducting extensive studies to evaluate the potential for sharing and 
compatibility in that range between mobile and EESS, SRS, FS, FSS, and 
ISS. As directed by WRC-15 Resolution 238, TG 5/1 has focused on 
ensuring the protection of EESS and SRS earth stations operating in the 
25.5-27 GHz band segment. The U.S. contribution to the EESS/SRS Study 
found that the coordination distances necessary to prevent IMT from 
causing interference is 52 km for SRS and 7 km for EESS.
    36. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on the best ways to 
protect existing incumbent operations and systems that Federal agencies 
might choose to deploy in the future, including identifying appropriate 
separation distances. The Commission invites comment on steps it could 
take to facilitate sharing now and in the future. For example, should 
the Commission give priority to Federal operations at certain locations 
such as military bases and test ranges? Alternatively, can the 
Commission strike an appropriate balance by ensuring deployment of 
Federal operations provided they do not affect more than a certain 
amount of population? Or might the Commission provide priority to non-
Federal operations in a certain number of markets, with priority to 
Federal operations elsewhere? To what extent would it be possible to 
develop coordination mechanisms between licensees and Federal 
operations?
    37. The Commission notes that the United States and other 
governments have submitted detailed sharing and compatibility studies 
for a frequency range that includes the 26 GHz band, which are being 
evaluated by that group. In general, it appears that protection zones 
around existing EESS and SRS earth stations would affect only small 
percentages of the overall U.S. population, though their impact on 
specific localities could be significant for the affected populations. 
The protection radiuses being considered by TG 5/1 are generally 
intended to serve only as triggers to begin a coordination process. The 
final definitions of exclusion zones around particular earth stations 
will need to take into account a variety of local factors, including 
terrain, clutter, and network design features that could mitigate the 
effect of IMT deployment inside coordination zones. The Commission also 
seeks comment on the best means of protecting existing fixed links in 
the band. The Commission notes that there are well-established 
protocols for coordinating Federal and non-Federal point-to-point 
services.

[[Page 34527]]

    38. The 26 GHz band currently has Federal fixed and mobile 
allocations in addition to the EESS, ISS, and SRS allocations. While 
Federal use of the 26 GHz band appears to be fairly limited to this 
point, the Commission recognizes that Federal agencies may be 
considering various potential uses for this spectrum in the future. It 
is difficult to predict what those services might be, their 
characteristics, and where they may be deployed. Nevertheless, the 
Commission believes that the nature of the technology apt to be used in 
this region of the spectrum is likely to enable sharing using such 
techniques as geographic separation, highly directional antennas, and 
taking advantage of the relatively high path losses to enable operation 
in close proximity. This should make sharing between Federal and non-
Federal systems easier than it has been at lower frequencies. 
Nevertheless, sharing the 26 GHz band between Federal and non-Federal 
systems will still require a carefully developed framework. The 
Commission intends to work closely with NTIA to enable UMFUS use of the 
26 GHz band while preserving the ability of Federal users to develop 
and deploy new technologies and services in the 26 GHz band. The 
Commission intends to explore a number of different approaches for 
sharing the band. For example, this may involve sharing the band using 
a framework similar to what the Commission is proposing for the lower 
37 GHz band. Alternately, the Commission may set aside portions of the 
26 GHz band for exclusively Federal use while making other portions 
available exclusively for non-Federal use. The Commission may limit 
non-Federal use of the band to certain geographic areas while reserving 
use of the band in other areas for Federal use. The Commission request 
comments on various approaches to sharing the 26 GHz band between UMFUS 
licensees and both existing and future Federal operations.
2. Spectrum Sharing and Compatibility With Other New Services
    39. Background. Elefante proposes to deploy what it calls 
``persistent stratospheric-based communications infrastructure'' at 
altitudes below 20 km in the 26 GHz band, and it says that ITU study 
groups are conducting studies for stations that would operate at 
altitudes between 20 and 50 km. Having analyzed the band with Lockheed 
Martin, Elefante concludes that spectrum sharing between unaffiliated 
mobile deployments and persistent stratospheric communications systems 
may not be possible absent an extremely high degree of dynamic 
coordination and information sharing. On that basis, Elefante 
recommends that UMFUS not be authorized in the 26 GHz band.
    40. Discussion. Where a high-altitude platform stations (HAPS) or 
Elefante-style platform is deployed above the center of an urban area, 
ground stations in the urban core would presumably communicate with the 
airborne station at relatively high elevation angles, which would allow 
shorter separation distances from terrestrial mobile equipment. By 
contrast, ground stations in the periphery of the urban area would 
likely require lower elevation angles to communicate with the airborne 
platform and would therefore require larger separation distances. A 
HAPS operator or Elefante might also choose to deploy some of their 
airborne platforms away from urban cores, which would enable some 
ground stations in exurban or rural areas to communicate at high 
elevation angles and with limited separation from terrestrial systems.
    41. In light of the above, the Commission invites comment on 
Elefante's conclusion that spectrum sharing between airborne platform 
services (i.e., both HAPS and systems such as Elefante's that would 
operate at lower altitudes) and unaffiliated UMFUS operators would be 
infeasible, and that UMFUS should therefore not be authorized in the 26 
GHz band.\3\ Alternatively, the Commission inquires whether it should 
prohibit airborne platform systems in the band, or authorize airborne 
platform services only if they are affiliated with UMFUS licensees. The 
Commission also invites comment on any additional spectrum-sharing 
techniques that might reduce the required separation distances between 
UMFUS equipment and ground stations communicating with airborne 
platforms. Finally, the Commission invites comment on any other new or 
proposed services, Federal or non-Federal, that should be given 
priority over UMFUS in the band or, alternatively, would be compatible 
with UMFUS and with incumbent services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On May 31, 2018, Elefante filed a petition for rulemaking to 
establish the Stratospheric-Based Communications Services (SBCS). 
This petition is pending, and the Commission has not initiated the 
requested rulemaking proceeding at this time. The Commission sees no 
basis for deferring initial consideration of flexible fixed and 
mobile use of the 26 GHz band, as Elefante requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Licensing the 26 GHz Band

    42. Background. In the R&O, the Commission noted that in recent 
years it has sought greater consistency in its approach to geographic 
license area sizes in order to help providers aggregate licenses in a 
more targeted and efficient manner, and that it has gravitated toward 
license areas that are derived from Economic Area (EA) units. Because 
Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) nest into EAs but can also be broken down 
into counties, the Commission found that choosing them would strike the 
right balance by facilitating access to spectrum by large and small 
providers, simplifying frequency coordination, and incentivizing 
investment. By contrast, the Commission decided to license the 28 GHz 
band by counties, primarily because the band was already licensed by 
Basic Trading Areas (BTAs), which could not readily be reformed into 
either EAs or PEAs. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission 
selected PEAs as the geographic unit for UMFUS licenses in two other 
bands, the 24 GHz and 47 GHz.
    43. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on using geographic 
area licensing and adopting PEAs as the geographic license area size 
for UMFUS licenses in the 26 GHz band. The Commission also seeks 
comment on site-based licensing, as well as other licensing mechanisms. 
Geographic area licensing may provide licensees with the flexibility to 
provide a variety of services, and will foster innovation and 
investment and thereby spur deployment. Will geographic area licensing 
facilitate coexistence between Federal and non-Federal uses? If the 
Commission decides to use geographic area licensing, PEAs also appear 
to provide a balance between the larger areas that can encourage more 
investment, and the smaller areas that can more efficiently accommodate 
mmW propagation characteristics. To the extent licensees are interested 
in smaller areas, partitioning is an available option. Commenters 
favoring site-based licensing or other licensing methods should set 
forth specific proposals for licensing the 26 GHz band. Given the 
amount of spectrum available, should the Commission consider using 
different licensing approaches in different parts of the band?

D. Band Plan

    44. Background. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission 
acknowledged that most millimeter-wave mobile design work is being 
built around 100-megahertz building blocks. It chose to license the 700 
megahertz in the 24 GHz band as seven 100-megahertz channels and to 
license the 1,000 megahertz in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band as five 200-
megahertz channels. In the R&O, the Commission decided to issue new 
licenses for the 28 GHz band in two 450-megahertz blocks, and it

[[Page 34528]]

divided the 39 GHz band into seven 200-megahertz channels.
    45. Discussion. If carriers will eventually require 200 megahertz 
bandwidths to meet their customers' needs, the Commission recognizes 
that the necessity of combining smaller channels to achieve the 
requisite scale could involve transaction costs that might eventually 
be passed on to consumers. On the other hand, 100 megahertz channels 
would increase the opportunity for competitive entry into the band and 
provide flexibility for uses that might require less spectrum. With 
those countervailing considerations in mind, the Commission seeks 
comment on adopting channel bandwidths of 100 megahertz or, in the 
alternative, 200 megahertz for the 26 GHz band.

V. 50.4-51.4 GHz Band

    46. Background. The 50.4-51.4 GHz band includes primary Federal and 
non-Federal allocations for fixed and mobile services, as well as 
primary Federal and non-Federal allocations for fixed-satellite (Earth-
to-space) and mobile satellite (Earth-to-space) services. In 1998, in 
the V-Band First Report and Order, the Commission designated the 50.4-
51.4 GHz band for use by wireless (fixed and mobile) services. In the 
FNPRM in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, the Commission proposed to 
authorize fixed and mobile operations throughout the 50.4-52.6 GHz band 
in accordance with the part 30 UMFUS rules. The Commission also 
proposed to use geographic area licensing to license UMFUS stations on 
a PEA basis and sought comment on sharing with satellite services. The 
Commission has received eight satellite applications or market access 
requests and twenty earth station applications seeking to use the 
existing FSS (Earth-to-space) allocation in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band for 
delivery of broadband services.
    47. In response to the FNPRM, certain satellite companies request 
that the Commission designate satellite services in the 50.4-52.4 GHz 
band currently allocated to FSS. Echostar supports preserving the co-
primary status of FSS and terrestrial fixed/mobile services in the 
50.4-52.4 GHz band and recommends adopting spectrum sharing rules that 
recognize likely deployment scenarios by the different services. CTIA 
asserts that any technical requirements should be equivalent to the 
Commission's part 30 rules for other shared bands. To the extent the 
Commission decides to adopt a sharing framework in the band, Viasat 
urges the Commission to consider broader and more balanced sharing 
between the services on a true co-primary basis at 50.4-52.4 GHz 
instead of imposing the ``three earth stations per license area'' 
framework adopted for the 28 GHz Band.
    48. Discussion. Although the 50.4-52.6 GHz band remains under 
consideration for UMFUS licensing, the Commission has throughout this 
proceeding sought to promote spectrum efficiency by permitting spectrum 
made available for UMFUS to be shared with other allocated services 
when possible. As in the case of other bands shared between co-primary 
terrestrial and fixed-satellite services, (e.g., 24.75-25.25 GHz, 37.5-
40 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz), the Commission believes that in the 50.4-
51.4 GHz band, where an FSS allocation already exists, that a limited 
number of individually licensed FSS earth stations can share the 50.4-
51.4 GHz band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations. Therefore, 
the Commission proposes to adopt rules permitting licensing of 
individual FSS earth stations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band using the 
criteria identical to those applicable in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. 
Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply the permitted aggregate 
population limits within the specified earth station PFD contour on a 
per-county basis, similar to the requirement in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
band. Additionally, as in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, the Commission 
proposes to adopt constraints on the number of permitted earth 
stations, not only per county, but also per PEA in which the earth 
stations are located. To reflect these requirements, the Commission 
proposes to modify Sec.  25.136(g) of the Commission's rules to include 
the 50.4-51.4 GHz band. The Commission also proposes to amend footnote 
NG65 to the U.S. Table to include the 50.4-51.4 GHz band, making clear 
the relative interference protection obligations between the co-primary 
services. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

VI. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies in the 26 GHz and 42 GHz Bands

    49. In this 3rd R&O, the Commission adopted its proposal to 
eliminate the pre-auction limit for the R&O bands, finding that 
entities bidding for licenses in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 
and 47 GHz bands will not be subject to bright-line, pre-auction limits 
on the amount of spectrum they may acquire at an auction of these 
bands. Similarly, to the extent that the Commission adopts UMFUS rules 
for some portion or all of the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands, it proposes to 
have no pre-auction limit on the amount of spectrum in these bands (or 
portions thereof) that an entity may acquire through competitive 
bidding. The Commission believes that the reasons for eliminating the 
pre-auction limit for these five bands would apply equally to the 26 
GHz and 42 GHz bands, given their technical characteristics relative to 
these other bands. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    50. To the extent that the Commission adopts UMFUS rules for some 
portion or all of the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands, it proposes to include 
those bands (or portions thereof) in the mmW spectrum threshold for 
reviewing proposed secondary market transactions. The Commission notes 
that these bands share similar technical characteristics to the 24 GHz, 
28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.

VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    51. 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 attached 3rd 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 for comments 
as specified in the 3rd FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this 
3rd FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 3rd FNPRM and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    52. In the 3rd FNPRM, the Commission proposes to increase the 
Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by adopting rules for 
fixed and mobile services in the 25.25-27.5 GHz and 42-42.5 GHz band. 
The Commission proposes to include this band in the part 30 UMFUS. 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 will also make 
possible new types of services for consumers and businesses. The 
Commission proposes to award Partial Economic Area-based licenses for 
these bands to best balance the needs of large and small carriers. The 
3rd FNPRM also proposes to include these bands, or portions of these 
bands, in the

[[Page 34529]]

mmW spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market 
transactions.
    53. 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, the 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.
    54. In the 3rd FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on 
developing the licensing framework it 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 seeks comment on a first-come-first-served licensing or 
registration scheme, in which actual users have a right to interference 
protection, but no right to exclude other users. The Commission seeks 
comment on subsequent users being required to coordinate with 
previously registered non-Federal and Federal sites through part 101 
notice and response rules or on the alternative of registering 
facilities with a third-party coordinator.
    55. The 3rd FNPRM also proposes to adopt rules permitting licensing 
of individual FSS earth stations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band using the 
criteria identical to those applicable in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. 
Although the 50.4-52.6 GHz band remains under consideration for UMFUS 
licensing, the Commission has throughout this proceeding sought to 
promote spectrum efficiency by permitting spectrum made available for 
UMFUS to be shared with other allocated services when possible. The 
Commission believes that in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band, where an FSS 
allocation already exists, that a limited number of individually 
licensed FSS earth stations can share the 50.4-51.4 GHz band with 
minimal impact on terrestrial operations.
    56. Overall, this proposal is designed to provide for flexible use 
of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of service 
offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile broadband 
use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in 
which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment would be able to develop 
through the application of flexible rules. The market-oriented 
licensing framework for these bands would ensure that this spectrum is 
efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new and 
innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the growth 
and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately leading to 
greater benefits to consumers.

B. Legal Basis

    57. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 
4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 
155, 157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, 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

    58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    59. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which 
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    60. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    61. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37, 132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category show that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Commission 
estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in 
the category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    62. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard

[[Page 34530]]

under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 
had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are 
small entities.
    63. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the UMFUS the Millimeter Wave Service, 
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic 
Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can 
choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At 
present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 
69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS 
licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licensees, and 467 
Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has 
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. 
The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this 
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms 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 SBA category 
and the associated standard, the Commission estimates that the majority 
of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    64. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier 
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees 
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that 
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein. The Commission notes, however, that both the common carrier 
microwave fixed and the private operational microwave fixed licensee 
categories includes some large entities.
    65. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``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.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of 
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a 
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite 
telecommunications providers are small entities.
    66. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of 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.'' 
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 1,442 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 
1400 firms had gross annual receipts of under $25 million and 42 firms 
had gross annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999. Thus, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by its actions can be 
considered small.
    67. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. 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 established a size standard for 
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that 
year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 
employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. 
Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry is small.

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

    68. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the 3rd FNPRM will 
impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other 
compliance obligations on small entities as well as other licensees and 
applicants.
    69. Applicants in the Lower 37 GHz band will be required to 
coordinate their proposed operations with other licensees and 
applicants. Such coordination is necessary to ensure that neighboring 
operations will not interfere with each other. Potential applicants 
will also be required to coordinate their operations with any Federal 
agencies with operations in the areas.
    70. Small entities and other applicants in 26 GHz, 42 GHz, and 
Lower 37 GHz UMFUS will be required to meet buildout requirements. In 
doing so, 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. With respect to the 26 GHz performance 
requirements, the Commission believes such requirements are necessary 
to ensure that spectrum is being put into use and has proposed a 
variety of metrics to provide small entities as well as other licensees 
with a variety of means by which they may demonstrate compliance. The 
Commissions anticipates the performance requirements will encourage 
rapid deployment of next generation wireless services, including 5G, 
which will

[[Page 34531]]

benefit small entities and the industry as a whole.

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

    71. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives for small businesses that it has considered in reaching 
its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    72. The Commission does not believe that its proposed changes will 
have a significant economic impact on small entities. The Commission 
believes the proposed site-based licensing scheme for the Lower 37 GHz 
band would facilitate access to spectrum by small businesses and a wide 
variety of other entities. However, to get a better understanding of 
costs and any burdens, 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 its construction or performance requirements in the 26 GHz and 
Lower 37 GHz bands can be alleviated for small businesses. The 
Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and 
alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed 
in response to the 3rd FNPRM.

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

    73. None.

VIII. Ordering Clauses

    74. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 
301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and Sec.  
1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this Third Report 
and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.
    75. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final, 
Supplemental Final, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    76. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

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

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 25, and 30 
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. In Sec.  2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations is amended as 
follows:
0
a. Revise pages 54, 55, 58, and 60.
0
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG65 
is revised.


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

    The revisions read as follows:
* * * * *

[[Page 34532]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY18.001


[[Page 34533]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY18.002


[[Page 34534]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY18.003


[[Page 34535]]


* * * * *

Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes

* * * * *
    NG65 In the bands 24.75-25.25 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz, 
stations in the fixed and mobile services may not claim protection from 
individually licensed earth stations authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 
25.136. However, nothing in this footnote shall limit the right of 
UMFUS licensees to operate in conformance with the technical rules 
contained in 47 CFR part 30. The Commission reserves the right to 
monitor developments and to undertake further action concerning 
interference between UMFUS and FSS, including aggregate interference to 
satellite receivers, if appropriate.
* * * * *

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.136 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(g), and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.136  Earth Stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 
37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands.

* * * * *
    (g) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service in the 24.75-25.25 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands, 
earth stations in these bands shall be limited to individually licensed 
earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth 
station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 50.4-51.4 GHz band must meet one of 
the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing 
any additional interference protection to stations in the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service:
    (1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service license(s) for the area in which the earth station 
generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, 
of greater than or equal to -77.6dBm/m2/MHz;
    (2) The earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized 
prior to August 20, 2018; or the earth station in the 50.4.2-51.4 GHz 
band was authorized prior to [effective date of this rule]; or
    (3) The application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz 
band was filed prior to August 20, 2018; or the application for the 
earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band was filed prior to [effective 
date for this rule]; or
    (4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following 
criteria in its application:
    (i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations 
operating in the same frequency band within the county where the 
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in 
either paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section, and 
there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in 
the same frequency band within the Partial Economic Area where the 
proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in 
paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section. For 
purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are 
collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be 
considered as one earth station;
    (ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux 
density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or 
equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz, together with the similar area of any 
other earth station operating in the same frequency band authorized 
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, does not cover, in the 
aggregate, more than the amount of population of the county within 
which the earth station is located as noted below:

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(4)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum permitted aggregate
  Population within the County where earth   population within -77.6 dBm/
             station is located                m\2\/MHz PFD contour of
                                                    earth stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 450,000.......................  0.1 percent of population
                                              in county.
Between 6,000 and 450,000..................  450 people.
Fewer than 6,000...........................  7.5 percent of population
                                              in county.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25 
GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and/or 50.4-51.4 GHz 
bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations 
shall be governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the 
agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's rules or the 
Communications Act.
* * * * *

PART 30--UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE

0
5. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:

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

0
6. Amend Sec.  30.4 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), 
(f), and (g), and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b) and (e).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  30.4  Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (b) 25.25-27.5 GHz band--25.25-25.45 GHz; 25.45-25.65 GHz; 25.65-
25.85 GHz; 25.85-26.05 GHz; 26.05-26.25 GHz; 26.25-26.45 GHz; 26.45-
26.65 GHz; 26.65-26.85 GHz; 26.85-27.05 GHz; 27.05-27.25 GHz; 27.25-
27.45 GHz; 27.45-27.5 GHz.
* * * * *
    (e) 42-42.5 GHz band--42-42.1 GHz; 42.1-42.2 GHz; 42.2-42.3 GHz; 
42.3-42.4 GHz; 42.4-42.5 GHz.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-14807 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P