Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For 
Mobile Radio Services 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to 
Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 
GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands 
Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service 
Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, 
and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic 
Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for 
Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 
40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency 
Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed 
and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz 
Frequency Band;  Allocation of Spectrum in the 
46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless 
Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-
38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government 
Operations
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 14-177
IB Docket No. 15-256
RM-11664
WT Docket No. 10-112
IB Docket No. 97-95
REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  July 14, 2016 Released:  July 14, 2016
Comment Date:  September 30, 2016
Reply Comment Date:  October 31, 2016
By the Commission:  Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing separate 
statements; Commissioner Pai approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement; Commissioner 
O’Reilly approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 4
III. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
2
A. The Millimeter Wave Mobile Opportunity...................................................................................... 6
B. Notice of Inquiry.............................................................................................................................. 8
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .................................................................................................... 11
D. Recent Technological Developments............................................................................................. 15
E. World Radio Conference ............................................................................................................... 16
IV. REPORT AND ORDER ...................................................................................................................... 17
A. 28 GHz Band (27.5-28.35 GHz) .................................................................................................... 19
1. Suitability for Mobile Use....................................................................................................... 22
2. Licensing the 28 GHz Band .................................................................................................... 28
a. Use of Geographic Area Licensing................................................................................... 28
b. License Area Size ............................................................................................................. 33
3. Mobile Rights for Incumbents................................................................................................. 37
4. Satellite Terrestrial Sharing..................................................................................................... 43
a. Sharing with FSS Earth Stations....................................................................................... 43
b. Licensing of FSS Earth Stations ....................................................................................... 48
c. Aggregate Interference to Satellite Receivers................................................................... 61
5. Band Plan ................................................................................................................................ 70
B. 39 GHz Band (38.6-40 GHz) ......................................................................................................... 73
1. Suitability for Mobile Service ................................................................................................. 75
2. Licensing the 39 GHz Band .................................................................................................... 77
a. Use of Geographic Area Licensing................................................................................... 77
b. License Area Size ............................................................................................................. 80
3. Mobile Rights for Incumbents................................................................................................. 83
4. Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway Earth Stations ................. 88
5. Band Plan ................................................................................................................................ 94
6. Pre-Auction License Reconfiguration ..................................................................................... 97
C. 37 GHz Band (37-38.6 GHz) ....................................................................................................... 101
1. Suitability for Mobile Use..................................................................................................... 103
2. Licensing the 37 GHz Band .................................................................................................. 106
3. License Area Size.................................................................................................................. 119
4. Band Plan for Upper Band Segment ..................................................................................... 122
D. 64-71 GHz Band .......................................................................................................................... 125
E. Federal Sharing Issues ................................................................................................................. 132
1. 39.5-40 GHz .......................................................................................................................... 133
2. 37-38.6 GHz .......................................................................................................................... 138
3. Passive Services Below 37 GHz............................................................................................ 152
F. Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues............................................................................... 159
1. Creation of New Rule Service and Part................................................................................. 159
2. Regulatory Status .................................................................................................................. 162
3. Foreign Ownership Reporting ............................................................................................... 169
4. Eligibility............................................................................................................................... 172
5. License Term......................................................................................................................... 174
6. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies...................................................................................... 178
7. Performance Requirements ................................................................................................... 191
a. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 191
b. Performance Metrics and Milestones.............................................................................. 196
c. Failure to Meet Buildout Requirements.......................................................................... 211
d. Treatment of Incumbents ................................................................................................ 217
e. Alternatives to Performance Requirements .................................................................... 221
8. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations ............................................................................. 224
9. Secondary Markets Policies .................................................................................................. 229
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation ..................................................................................... 229
b. Spectrum Leasing ........................................................................................................... 235
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
3
10. Other Operating Requirements.............................................................................................. 240
11. Competitive Bidding Procedures........................................................................................... 245
a. Applicability of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules ........................................................ 245
b. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses ............................................. 247
c. Rural Service Provider Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses ................................. 251
d. Small Business and Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit Caps.................................. 252
e. Tribal Lands Bidding Credit ........................................................................................... 253
f. Bidding Process Options................................................................................................. 254
12. Security.................................................................................................................................. 255
G. Technical Rules............................................................................................................................ 266
1. Flexible Duplexing Rules...................................................................................................... 266
2. Transmission Power Limits and Antenna Height.................................................................. 270
a. Base Stations................................................................................................................... 270
b. Mobile Stations ............................................................................................................... 283
c. Transportable Stations .................................................................................................... 288
d. Terrestrial Aggregate Interference Concerns to FSS Satellite Receivers in 28 
GHz................................................................................................................................. 288
3. Out-Of-Band Emission Limits .............................................................................................. 297
a. Use of Conductive Emission Limits ............................................................................... 297
b. Licensed Block Edge Region.......................................................................................... 306
4. Interference Protection and Coordination ............................................................................. 309
a. Coordination and Field Strength Limits at Market Borders ........................................... 309
(i) Base/Mobile Operations........................................................................................... 310
(ii) Fixed Point-to-Point Operations............................................................................... 313
b. Canadian and Mexican Borders ...................................................................................... 315
5. Operability............................................................................................................................. 317
6. Technical Rules for Part 15 Operation within the 64-71 GHz Band..................................... 325
a. Operation On-board Aircraft........................................................................................... 327
b. Field Disturbance Sensor Operation ............................................................................... 334
c. Emission Limits .............................................................................................................. 339
d. Spurious Emissions......................................................................................................... 343
e. Publicly-Accessible Coordination Channel .................................................................... 347
f. Conducted Transmitter Output Power ............................................................................ 348
g. Frequency Stability ......................................................................................................... 351
h. Co-location of Separately-Authorized Transmitters ....................................................... 352
7. Equipment Authorization ...................................................................................................... 353
a. Measurement Techniques ............................................................................................... 354
b. RF Exposure Compliance ............................................................................................... 356
H. Other Allocation Issues................................................................................................................ 364
V. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING................................................................... 369
A. Additional Bands ......................................................................................................................... 370
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 370
2. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz) .................................................... 385
3. 32 GHz Band (31.8-33.4 GHz).............................................................................................. 386
a. Federal and non-Federal Services in the 32 GHz Band.................................................. 391
b. Radio Astronomy and EESS in the Adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz Band ............................... 394
c. Band Plan........................................................................................................................ 399
4. 42 GHz Band (42-42.5 GHz) ................................................................................................ 404
5. 47 GHz Band (47.2-50.2 GHz).............................................................................................. 408
6. 50 GHz Band (50.4-52.6 GHz).............................................................................................. 418
7. 70/80 GHz Bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz) ................................................................... 424
8. Bands Above 95 GHz............................................................................................................ 442
B. Federal Sharing Issues - 37 GHz band (37-38.6 GHz) ................................................................ 446
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
4
1. Coordination Mechanism for the Lower Band Segment ....................................................... 448
2. Channelization of the Lower Band Segment......................................................................... 454
3. Authorization Expiration/Construction Requirement for the Lower Band Segment ............ 456
4. Priority Access for Federal Users of the Lower Band Segment ............................................ 457
5. Interference Mitigation in the Lower Band Segment ............................................................ 458
6. Secondary Market Policies for the Lower Band Segment..................................................... 459
7. Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing in the Upper Band Segment ..................................... 460
C. Performance Requirements .......................................................................................................... 465
1. Additional Metrics................................................................................................................. 465
2. Sharing Mechanisms ............................................................................................................. 471
D. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies ............................................................................................ 483
1. Implementation of a Spectrum Aggregation Limit at Auction.............................................. 484
2. Holding Period ...................................................................................................................... 488
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits For Additional Spectrum Bands ........................................... 491
E. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues .............................................................................................. 492
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits...................................................................................... 492
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment................................................................................... 500
F. Digital Station Identification........................................................................................................ 503
G. Technical Issues ........................................................................................................................... 505
1. Antenna Height...................................................................................................................... 505
2. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power Levels .................. 507
3. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point Operations..................... 509
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling ............................................................................................ 511
5. Part 15 Operation On-board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band .............................................. 514
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 517
A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose ........................................................................................ 517
B. Comment Period and Procedures................................................................................................. 518
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 520
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.................................................................................................... 522
E. Further Information...................................................................................................................... 523
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES.................................................................................................................... 524
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Population Densities of Cities with Long-Haul Internet Nodes
APPENDIX C – Sources and Methods for Geographic Depressions Suitable for Terrain Shielding
APPENDIX D – Coordination Contours for NASA and NSF sites in the 37-38.6 GHz band
APPENDIX E – Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX F – List of Commenters
APPENDIX G – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX H – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
Today, we take a significant step towards securing the Nation’s future in the next 1.
generational evolution of wireless technology to so-called 5G.
1
  We build upon years of successful 
spectrum policy – including flexible use, unlicensed, and sharing policies – to create service rules for 
using four spectrum bands above 24 GHz.  These high frequencies previously have been best suited for 
satellite or fixed microwave applications; however, recent technological breakthroughs have newly 
enabled advanced mobile services in these bands, notably including very high speed and low latency 
                                                     
1
We note that we do not intend to define what qualifies as “5G”. Standard bodies like 3GPP and the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) plan to develop the requirements by early 2017. See 3
rd
Generation Partnership 
Project (3GPP), Tentative 3GPP Timeline for 5G, http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1674-timeline_5g
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
5
services.  To promote the deployment of these highly beneficial technologies, we are acting quickly –
more quickly than most of our counterparts around the world – to establish a coherent framework built on 
a robust public record.  In addition to this significant step forward, we will also continue to explore new 
opportunities to make additional bands available and to explore other issues, including robust Federal 
sharing, raised in the accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
We recognize that as we continue to explore millimeter wave (mmW) bands for flexible 2.
services, including mobile services, some bands have incumbent rights and may present complex sharing 
issues.  We are committed to working with industry, incumbent licensees, our Federal government 
partners, and other interested stakeholders to resolve those issues.  In particular, we find that these bands 
offer inherent opportunities stemming from the physical characteristics of the spectrum to facilitate robust 
shared access.  As described herein, we today move forward with the creation of a new paradigm for 
Federal and non-Federal sharing in the 37 GHz band, with the goal of fully developing a powerful new
model for efficiently sharing high-frequency spectrum can be applied to other such bands in the future.
Our actions today will establish a framework that will help ensure continued American 3.
leadership in wireless broadband by facilitating access to spectrum, maximizing flexibility, and 
encouraging wireless innovation.  At the same time, we adopt rules that will allow these bands to be 
shared with a variety of other uses, including fixed, satellite, and Federal government uses.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Report and Order, we take the following actions:4.
? Upper Microwave Flexible Use Licensing:  We adopt a general framework applied across 
three licensed bands to make a substantial amount of spectrum available with similar 
rules tailored to the characteristics of each band.  This framework will serve as the basis 
for how we will pursue flexible use licensing in additional mmW bands going forward.
? 27.5-28.35 GHz and 38.6-40 GHz bands:  We create new upper microwave flexible use 
licenses authorizing mobile operations in these bands using geographic area licensing.  In 
the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), we adopt county-sized geographic area 
licenses.  In the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), we adopt Partial Economic Area 
(PEA) licenses.  We maintain the co-primary Federal FSS and MSS allocations in the 
39.5-40 GHz band, limited to military systems.
? 37-38.6 GHz band:  We adopt a band plan that allows for continuity of commercial 
operations between the 37 and 39 GHz bands. We also protect a limited number of 
Federal military sites across the full 37 GHz band and maintain the existing Federal fixed 
and mobile allocations throughout the band.  In the 37-37.6 GHz band, we create a space 
for coordinated co-primary shared access between Federal and non-Federal users.  
Through this structure, additional proposals in the FNPRM, and the collaborative 
industry/government process that will take place will further define the sharing process. 
We will take substantial strides to advance Federal and non-Federal sharing in the 37 
GHz band while also making a significant amount of spectrum available for wireless 
broadband.
? 64-71 GHz band:  We authorize operations in the 64-71 GHz band under Part 15 of our 
rules based on the rules we recently adopted for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band.  This 
action will provide more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi-like “WiGig” 
operations and short-range devices for interactive motion sensing.
? Incumbent Operations:  We adopt rules that facilitate incumbent terrestrial use of the 
spectrum and permit expansion of satellite operations with certain limitations.
? We grant mobile operating rights to existing Local Multipoint Distribution Service and 
39 GHz band licensees, while subdividing their existing licenses to either the county or 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
6
PEA level.
? In the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and part of the 37 GHz bands, we adopt rules that will provide 
various mechanisms for Fixed-Satellite Service licensees to upgrade the status of their 
earth stations without significantly impacting terrestrial operations.
? We revise the band plan for the 38.6-40 GHz band to provide licensees with wider blocks 
of contiguous spectrum and allow existing licensees to move into the new band plan.
? We implement rules to protect incumbent Federal operations and adopt a sharing
paradigm to ensure Federal access to the 37 GHz band.
? We adopt spectrum holdings policies for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands that 
will apply to licenses acquired through auctions and the secondary market.
? We adopt a variety of other service and technical rules to facilitate the use of these bands.
? We help promote an environment that encourages early and ongoing consideration of 
security issues by requiring licensees to submit a statement describing its security plans 
and related information prior to commencing operations.
? In order to meet our statutory duty to ensure that spectrum is being placed in use, we 
adopt performance requirements that are flexible to allow multiple use cases to evolve 
over time.
? We adopt technical rules to facilitate licensed operation and mitigation methods so that 
incumbent operations are protected in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
? We delete the broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service allocations from the 42-
42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) and we decline to allocate the band to the fixed-satellite 
service (space-to-Earth). 
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the following proposals:5.
? We seek comment on authorizing fixed and mobile use of the following bands:  24.25-
24.45 GHz together with 24.75-25.25 GHz (24 GHz band), 31.8-33 GHz (32 GHz band), 
42-42.5 GHz (42 GHz band), the 47.2-50.2 GHz (47 GHz band), 50.4-52.6 GHz (50 GHz 
band), and the 71-76 GHz band together with the 81-86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands). 
We also seek comment on use of bands above 95 GHz.
? We seek to further develop the sharing framework we adopted today for the 37-37.6 GHz 
band, both among non-Federal operators and with the Federal government.  We also seek 
comment on circumstances under which Federal government users can gain coordinated 
access to spectrum in the 37.6-38.6 GHz band (in addition to the protected sites) in the 
future.
? We seek comment on establishing performance requirements for innovative uses 
associated with the Internet of Things (IoT) such as machine-to-machine 
communications, healthcare devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office 
automation.  We also seek comment on supplementing our performance requirements 
with a use-or-share obligation.
? We seek comment on implementing the spectrum holdings policies adopted today for the 
28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, and to further develop the record on spectrum 
holdings policies as new “frontier” spectrum bands become available.
? We seek comment whether it would be possible for satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to
radiate a higher Power Flux Density and to have their transmissions also received by user 
terminals.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
7
? We seek comment on the feasibility and desirability of a digital station identification 
requirement in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
? We seek comment on refining our technical rules for these bands.
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Millimeter Wave Mobile Opportunity
Millimeter wave frequencies have historically been considered unsuitable for mobile 6.
applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to 
propagate around obstacles.  Technological advances hold promise for potentially unlocking mmW bands 
for mobile and other operations in a way that meets the need for flexible access to spectrum to improve 
bandwidth in constrained geographies.  As discussed further below, short transmission paths and high 
propagation losses can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of 
interference between adjacent cells.  In addition, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short 
wavelengths of mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly 
focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW 
signals also make it possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small 
enough to fit into handsets – a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer, wavelength 
frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones operate today.  
While the discussion concerning a possible fifth generation of mobile wireless technology 7.
includes a wide variety of ideas and technological developments, the possible use of mmW bands for 
mobile use and other high-bandwidth uses is a key concept within that discussion. Many commenters 
point to the increasing demand for data from consumers using an ever wider variety of devices.
2
The 
mmW bands could be particularly useful in supporting very high capacity networks in areas that require 
such capacity. The record also shows that the mmW bands can be used for backhaul and machine-to-
machine communication.  Several commenters also highlighted that the low latency of 5G technology 
will enable various IoT applications including wearables, fitness and healthcare devices, autonomous 
driving cars, and home and office automation.
3
  In addition to the advanced antenna system, other 
enabling technologies for 5G include distributed network architecture, adaptive coding and modulation, 
multi-radio access technology, and advanced small cell technology.
4
  Moving quickly to make this 
spectrum available in the near term will best enable potential users, technology developers, and 
innovators to have relative certainty about the spectrum structure in the mmW bands for these new uses.
B. Notice of Inquiry
In October 2014, acting on advice from the Commission’s Technological Advisory Council, 8.
the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the prospects for operating mobile radio 
services in the frequency bands above 24 GHz.
5
  The Notice of Inquiry acknowledged the longstanding 
presumption that it would be infeasible to provide mobile services at such high frequencies but also took 
note of recent field trials in New York City and Austin, Texas, funded by the U.S. Army and Samsung, 
                                                     
2
See CTA Comments at 4-5, CTIA Comments at 4-5.
3
5G Americas Comments Attach., 5G Technology Evolution Recommendations White Paper at 3-6 (2015), 
http://www.4gamericas.org/files/2414/4431/9312/4G_Americas_5G_Technology_Evolution_Recommendations_-
_10.5.15_2.pdf, AT&T Comments at 2,Verizon Comments at 1, CTIA Reply Attach. A, Thomas K. Sawanobori, 
The Next Generation of Wireless: 5G Leadership in the U.S., at 7-12 (2016), http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-
source/default-document-library/5g_white-paperweb.pdf, Sprint Reply at 3-4.
4
See DMC R&D Center, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 5G Vision, http://www.samsung.com/global/business-
images/insights/2015/Samsung-5G-Vision-0.pdf.
5
In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd 
13020, 13021, para. 2 (2014) (Notice of Inquiry).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
8
which appeared to demonstrate that non-line-of-sight services can be provided in the mmW bands by 
capturing reflections of signals that would otherwise be blocked by intervening obstructions.
6
  Based on 
those and other developments, the Commission foresaw “a potential coalescence of technologies that 
could lead to the emergence of a new and radically more capable generation of wireless mobile service 
that can capitalize on use of the millimeter wave region of the spectrum around the year 2020.”
7
The Commission also noted that significant momentum was starting to build among diverse 9.
countries and regions around the idea of a fifth generation of mobile and fixed services, that some 
envision as accommodating an eventual 1000-fold increase in traffic demand for mobile services; high-
bandwidth content with speeds in excess of 10 gigabits per second (GB/s); end-to-end transmission delays 
(latency) of less than one-thousandth of a second, and, in the same networks, sporadic, low-data-rate 
transmissions among an “Internet of things”—all of this to be accomplished with substantially improved 
spectral and energy efficiency.
8
  In that context, bands above 24 GHz were typically being considered not 
for stand-alone mobile services but as supplementary channels to deliver ultra-high speed data in specific 
places, as one component of service packages that will likely include continued use of lower bands to 
ensure ubiquitous coverage and continuous system-wide coordination.
9
The Notice of Inquiry sought comment on the technologies underlying the development of 10.
mmW mobile services using bands above 24 GHz, the frequency bands that would be suitable for 
advanced mobile services, and the best ways to manage interference among operators and other licensees 
operating in the same or adjacent bands. Finally, the Commission sought comment on licensing and 
authorization schemes for mobile operations above 24 GHz.
10
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On October 22, 2015, the Commission adopted and released the Notice of Proposed 11.
Rulemaking in this proceeding.
11
  The Commission proposed to authorize mobile services in the 28 GHz, 
39 GHz, 64-71 GHz, and 37 GHz bands.  In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, the Commission proposed to 
license the spectrum by geographic area licensing using county-sized licenses.  In the 64-71 GHz band, 
we proposed to authorize unlicensed operations pursuant to our Part 15 rules that were recently adopted 
for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band.  For the 37 GHz band, we proposed a hybrid licensing mechanism that 
would grant operating rights by rule to property owners, while establishing geographic area licenses based 
on counties for outdoor use.  This licensing mechanism was designed to facilitate the deployment of 
advanced enterprise and industrial applications not suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network 
services, while also providing additional spectrum for more traditional cellular deployments.
12
The Commission further proposed to grant mobile operating rights to existing fixed Local 12.
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 39 GHz band licensees, although it also sought comment on 
utilizing an overlay auction as an alternative method of awarding mobile operating rights.  Recognizing 
that the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands were shared with the Fixed-Satellite Service, we proposed 
                                                     
6
Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 13022, 13024 paras. 5, 11.  Those trials found that 39 GHz mobile base stations 
can sustain 100 percent coverage in cells with a 200-meter radius in high-density urban areas.  Receivers equipped 
with highly directional, steerable antennas were able to capture and combine as many as 14 links with rooftop-
mounted transmitters despite obstructions in propagation paths.  Id.
7
Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 13025, para. 13.
8
Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 13023, paras. 7, 9.
9
Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 13023, para. 7.
10
See Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd at 13026-27, para. 16.
11
In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 11878 (2015) (NPRM).
12
See generally NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11881-82, para. 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
9
market-based rules that could facilitate greater satellite use of those bands without unduly limiting 
terrestrial use of those bands.  We also sought comment on various licensing rules, including performance 
requirements.  In addition, we sought comment on technical rules needed to facilitate licensed operation 
and mitigation methods to protect incumbent operations in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands.  We 
also recognized the importance of preventing interference between Federal uses and new mobile use of 
these bands, and sought comment on any rules that would be necessary to facilitate coexistence with 
Federal systems.  Finally, we asked for comment on how to ensure that effective security features are 
built into key design principles for communications devices and networks that will use these bands.
13
Comments on the NPRM were due January 26, 2016, and reply comments were due February 13.
26, 2016.
14
  We received 55 comments and 38 reply comments.
15
  A list of commenters, reply 
commenters, and ex parte filings is contained in Appendix F.
16
On March 10, 2016, the Commission held a workshop on the use of bands above 24 GHz.
17
  14.
The workshop explored the concepts raised in this proceeding and the state of technological developments 
in the mmW bands. In parallel to the workshop, the Commission hosted equipment demonstrations 
illustrating some of the technologies enabling advanced wireless services in the mmW bands.
D. Recent Technological Developments
Momentum continues to build for developing technologies that can leverage mmW bands, 15.
including for so-called 5G services.  Both Verizon and AT&T announced their road maps to develop 5G 
services and their intent to have field trials in 2016.
18
  On February 16, 2016, the NYU Wireless Center 
stated that it has developed an open source downloadable 5G channel simulator software.
19
  Over the last 
twelve months, the Office of Engineering and Technology has issued at least 40 experimental 
authorizations for tests of technologies that are related to so-called 5G services, including in the mmW 
bands.  This is but some of the current and ongoing work on 5G technologies across the world.  
                                                     
13
See generally NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11881-82, para. 4.
14
See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Proposed Rules, 81 FR 1802 (Jan. 13, 
2016); Office of Engineering and Technology and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Extend Period to File Reply 
Comments for Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 1135 (OET WTB 2016).
15
United States Cellular Corporation and Sprint Corporation filed their reply comments on February 29, 2016.  
There was an outage of the Electronic Comment Filing System on the evening of February 26, 2016.  On our own 
motion, we will consider those reply comments to be timely filed.
16
When citing comments, we will use the short name of the commenter contained in Appendix E, followed by the 
words “Comments” or “Reply.”  Similarly, for ex parte filings, we will use the name of the commenter along with 
the date the ex parte was filed as listed in ECFS (this date may be different from the date on the actual ex parte
letter).
17
Office of Engineering and Technology, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and International Bureau 
Announce Agenda for Workshop and Tech Demonstration on Spectrum Frontiers and Technological Developments 
in the Millimeter Wave Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 1865 (OET WTB IB 2016). See also 
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/03/spectrum-frontiers-workshop.
18
See Verizon sets roadmap to 5G technology in U.S.; Field trials to start in 2016, News Release (Sep. 8, 2015), 
available at http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-sets-roadmap-5g-technology-us-field-trials-start-2016; 
AT&T Unveils 5G Roadmap Including Trials In 2016, News Release (Feb. 12, 2016), available at
http://about.att.com/story/unveils_5g_roadmap_including_trials.html.
19
See NYU Wireless at New York University Tandon School of Engineering (NYU Wireless), Open Source 5G 
Channel Model Simulator Software, http://wireless.engineering.nyu.edu/5g-millimeter-wave-channel-modeling-
software/.  The NYU Wireless Center has been leading the research in mmW technology, including the propagation 
measurements and models, radiation and biological health effects, mmW MAC layer design and other component 
technology development. NYU Wireless, Research, http://nyuwireless.com/research/. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
10
E. World Radio Conference
The International Telecommunication Union’s World Radiocommunication Conference 16.
(WRC) 2015 (WRC-15) was held from November 2-27, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland.
20
  One of the tasks 
of that conference was to set the agenda for the next WRC, which is expected to take place in 2019 
(WRC-19).  In that regard, WRC-15 adopted Resolution 238, entitled “Studies on frequency-related 
matters for International Mobile Telecommunications identification including possible additional 
allocations to the mobile services on a primary basis in portion(s) of the frequency range between 24.25 
and 86 GHz for the future development of International Mobile Telecommunication for 2020 and 
beyond.”  In that resolution, the ITU’s Radiocommunication Bureau was directed “to conduct and 
complete in time for WRC-19 the appropriate studies to determine the spectrum needs for the terrestrial 
component of IMT in the frequency range between 24.25 GHz and 86 GHz for 2020 and beyond.”
21
  ITU-
R was also directed “to conduct and complete in time for WRC-19 the appropriate sharing and 
compatibility studies, taking into account the protection of services to which the band is allocated on a 
primary basis, for the frequency bands:  24.25-27.5 GHz, 37-40.5 GHz, 42.5-43.5 GHz, 45.5-47 GHz, 
47.2-50.2 GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz, 66-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz, which have allocations to the mobile service 
on a primary basis; and 31.8-33.4 GHz, 40.5-42.5 GHz and 47-47.2 GHz, which may require additional 
allocations to the mobile service on a primary basis.”
22
  Despite strong support from the United States, 
The Republic of South Korea, Japan, and other countries, Resolution COM6/20 does not include the 27.5-
28.35 MHz band.  Nonetheless, we, along with South Korea and Japan, have made a commitment to 
pursue authorizing mobile operations in these bands domestically.
IV. REPORT AND ORDER 
In this Report and Order we adopt new licensing, service, and technical rules for three bands.  17.
In so doing, we attempt to follow a consistent framework across all of the bands that can serve as a 
template for additional bands in the future.  We adopt 10 year license terms and performance 
requirements that are flexible to allow multiple use cases to evolve over time.  These basic building 
blocks are modified in order to meet the specific characteristics of a particular band.
We also take significant steps forward on solutions to spectrum sharing in the mmW bands.  18.
We adopt rules that will allow both satellite and terrestrial networks to continue to expand in a flexible 
manner.  We continue to facilitate co-primary shared access to the 39.5-40 GHz band for Federal and 
non-Federal users, and building off of recent policy developments in spectrum sharing, we also create a 
new approach to Federal sharing in the 37 GHz band.  Specifically, instead of relying on static exclusion 
zones, we create a space for both Federal and non-Federal users to share on a coequal basis and set out a 
process for defining how that sharing will be implemented.  Finally, we substantially increase the amount 
of unlicensed spectrum available by adding another seven gigahertz to the existing 57-64 GHz band, and 
adopting flexible technical rules.
A. 28 GHz Band (27.5-28.35 GHz) 
Background.  In 1997, the Commission developed a band plan making 1,300 megahertz of 19.
LMDS spectrum available in each basic trading area (BTA) across the United States.
23
Specifically, the 
                                                     
20
See International Telecommunication Union, World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15), Geneva 
Switzerland, 2-27 November 2015, http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx.
21
The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15), Resolution COM6/20: Studies on frequency-related 
matters for International Mobile Telecommunications identification including possible additional allocations to the 
mobile services on a primary basis in portion(s) of the frequency range between 24.25 and 86 GHz for the future 
development of International Mobile Telecommunications for 2020 and beyond, at 3 (Geneva, Switzerland 2015).
22
Id.
23
See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 GHz 
Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies For Local 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
11
Commission allocated two LMDS licenses per BTA—an “A Block” and a “B Block” in each.
24
  The A 
Block license is comprised of 1,150 megahertz of total bandwidth, and the B Block license is comprised 
of 150 megahertz of total bandwidth.
25
  The A Block consists of the sub bands 27.50-28.35 GHz (the A1 
Band); 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band); and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3 Band).
26
  The B Block consists
of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1 Band) and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band).
27
  Of the 986 
designated license areas (493 BTAs times two licenses per BTA), 412 areas have active licenses, which 
cover about 75 percent of the U.S. population.
LMDS operates in two frequency bands that are allocated to the fixed and mobile services on 20.
a primary basis for non-Federal use.
28
While the Commission has not, to date, authorized any specific 
service (including LMDS) to provide mobile service in those bands, it previously expressed an 
expectation that it would expand the LMDS authorization to include the mobile service if proposed and 
supported by the resulting record.
29
  The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes a primary Fixed-
Satellite Service (FSS) allocation limited to the Earth-to-space direction across the LMDS band,
30
however, Section 25.202 of the Commission’s rules provides that FSS is secondary to LMDS.
31
  Forty-
one stations are licensed for Earth-to-space transmissions on a secondary basis in the 28 GHz band, and 
there are twelve pending applications for new earth station operations in this band.
32  
The NPRM proposed to authorize mobile operations in the contiguous 850 megahertz of 21.
spectrum at 27.5-28.35 GHz, which is in the A1 Band of the LMDS A Block.
33
  The Commission 
concluded that research conducted by industry and academic groups had demonstrated that mobile 
technologies can work in that band.
34
  We also acknowledged some opposition to our proposal but found 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Multipoint Distribution Service and For Fixed-Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on 
Reconsideration and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12605, para. 136 (1997) (“Second 
LMDS Report and Order”); see also Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide 36-39 (123rd ed. 1992).  
Rand McNally is the copyright owner of the Major Trading Area (MTA) and BTA Listings, which list the BTAs 
contained in each MTA and the counties within each BTA, as embodied in Rand McNally’s Trading Area System 
MTA/BTA Diskette, and geographically represented in the map contained in Rand McNally’s Commercial Atlas & 
Marketing Guide.  The conditional use of Rand McNally copyrighted material by interested persons is authorized 
under a blanket license agreement dated February 10, 1994 and covers use by LMDS applicants.  This agreement 
requires authorized users of the material to include a legend on reproductions (as specified in the license agreement) 
indicating Rand McNally ownership.  The Commission has allocated the LMDS for operations in a total of 493 
BTAs throughout the nation.
24
See Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12600, para. 125.
25
See id.
26
See 47 CFR § 101.1005.
27
See id.
28
LMDS operates in the 28 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz bands.  The 28 GHz band is part of the larger 27.5-29.5 GHz 
band, which is allocated to the fixed, fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space), and mobile services on a primary basis for non-
Federal use.  There are no Federal allocations in the 28 GHz band.  The 31-31.3 GHz band is allocated to the fixed 
and mobile services on a primary basis for non-Federal use and to the standard frequency and time signal-satellite 
service (space-to-Earth) on a secondary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.  See 47 CFR § 2.106.
29
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12637, para. 207.
30
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
31
47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.2.
32
On July 8, 2016, the Commission’s IBFS database listed 36 Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) Earth-to-space licenses 
for the 27.5-28.35 GHz band and 47 pending applications.
33
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11892, para. 30.
34
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11891-92, para. 30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
12
that the prospect of mobile service in the band should not thwart any reasonable expectations of satellite 
operators: their use of the band is secondary with respect to LMDS under Commission rules, and the 
Second LMDS Report and Order had put them on notice that mobile service might eventually be 
authorized in the 28 GHz band.
35
  While not every country is planning to use the 28 GHz band for mobile 
service, we noted that the 28 GHz band has a co-primary mobile allocation throughout the world.
36
  Most 
importantly, we expressed the expectation that satellite and mobile operators would be able to coexist in 
the 28 GHz band if a well-crafted regulatory framework were adopted.
37
1. Suitability for Mobile Use
Some satellite operators, satellite equipment suppliers and satellite-focused trade associations 22.
urge the Commission not to authorize terrestrial mobile services in the 28 GHz band.
38
  This perspective 
is by no means unanimous or unqualified even among that group, however.
39
  SES, for example, says that 
it expects to support terrestrial mobile services in bands above 24 GHz by providing video distribution, 
providing backhaul services, and by extending terrestrial network coverage to sea, air, and remote land 
masses.
40
  EchoStar says that satellite operators could coexist with mobile services in the band by 
avoiding deployment of gateway earth stations in large urban centers.
41
  ViaSat estimates that the 
compatibility distance between satellite earth stations and terrestrial mobile in the 28 GHz band would be 
in the range of 160 meters, and could be further reduced by additional mitigation techniques.
42
  Nearly all 
other commenters who address the topic emphatically support mobile service authorization in the 28 GHz 
band.
43
  
Perhaps more so than other mmW bands, the 28 GHz band has been the focus of academic 23.
research and industry prototyping efforts to develop mobile service technologies.
44
  The 28 GHz band is 
attractive for research on enabling mobility in mmW bands because, with 850 megahertz of contiguous 
bandwidth, it has ample capacity to accommodate a wide range of high data-rate applications, and it has 
global co-primary allocations for fixed and mobile services.
45
  There are no Federal allocations in the 
band.
46
  Further, because this is an active service with LMDS licenses covering about 75 percent of the 
U.S. population, it can be quickly repurposed for new flexible uses, including mobile.
47
  The ready 
availability of the spectrum will also help drive the development of a robust ecosystem at a large scale.
                                                     
35
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11889, 11892, paras. 26, 31.  
36
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11892, para. 32.
37
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11892, para. 33.
38
See, e.g., Avanti Comments at 2, Boeing Comments at ii, 4, ESOA Comments at 4-5, O3b Comments at 12-14. 
39
See EchoStar Comments at 14 (supporting the Commission’s proposal to award mobile operating rights to 
existing LMDS licensees for geographic areas in which they currently hold 28 GHz licenses); SES Comments at 5 
(“SES does not oppose the development of 5G services in . . . the bands that have been proposed in the NPRM”).
40
SES Americom Comments at 5.
41
EchoStar Reply at 18-19.
42
ViaSat Reply at 12.
43
See, e.g., Cisco Comments at 4-5, Huawei Comments at 8-9, ITIC Comments at 3-4, Intel Comments at 3, Mobile 
Future Comments at 8, Samsung Comments at 10-11, TIA Comments at 6-7, Nokia Reply at 3, Samsung Reply at 4, 
Sprint Reply at 3, WISPA Reply at 2.
44
Intel Comments at 3.
45
Samsung Comments at 12.
46
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11891, para. 27.
47
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11890, para. 25.  By comparison, licenses in the 39 GHz band cover about 49 percent of 
the U.S. population, and the 37 GHz band is not yet licensed.  NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11893, 11896, paras. 35, 47.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
13
Opponents of authorizing new flexible and mobile use in the 28 GHz band raise three basic 24.
objections: (1) that there is no international consensus to authorize mobile services in the band; (2) that 
LMDS operators do not have an equitable expectation of mobile rights in the band; and (3) that mobile 
services in the 28 GHz band would impair vital satellite services.  We discuss the first of those issues 
below, reserving discussion of the second and third issues for Section IV.A.4.c (Aggregate Interference to 
Satellite Receivers). 
Regarding the alleged absence of international consensus expressed by some of the 25.
commenting parties,
48
we note that the 28 GHz band already has a primary worldwide mobile service 
allocation, which embodies a previously agreed consensus among ITU members.
49
  Although WRC-15 
omitted 27.5-28.35 GHz from a list of mmW bands that it invited ITU-R to study for mobile service,
50
the 
record in this proceeding makes it abundantly clear that there are significant benefits to authorizing 
mobile use in the 28 GHz band regardless of that international decision.
Administrations and wireless industry representatives that have been major leaders in the 26.
mobile industry support authorization of mobile services in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band.  Verizon notes that 
countries supporting mobile use in the band include South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Finland, and Singapore
– “technology powerhouses with their sights set on 5G” – and argues that this Commission should not 
delay repurposing the 28 GHz band while its counterparts in those countries support their industries’ 
efforts to develop mobile technologies for the band.
51
Intel says that major markets like the U.S., Japan, 
and Korea are moving expeditiously, “blazing the trail for mobile 5G services in the 28 GHz band, in 
spite of the WRC-15 decision not to study the 28 GHz band leading up to WRC-19.”
52
Ericsson contends 
that, regardless of the outcome of WRC-15, spectrum from this general range very likely will be used for 
5G around the world, as evidenced by the fact that Japan and Korea appear to be pressing ahead to use
frequencies in this range for their Olympic Game deployments.
53
  Nokia expresses disappointment with 
the outcome of WRC-15, sees “great potential” for the 28 GHz band and urges the Commission to 
“unlock the promise of that band for mobile use.”
54
  Internationally, Huawei and Alcatel-Lucent are also 
focusing on the 28 GHz band as key spectrum for mobile use.
55
  T-Mobile USA, whose majority owner is 
the flagship German telecommunications company, Deutsche Telekom, filed comments in this proceeding 
expressing its support for mobile services in the 28 GHz band.
56
  Other comments reflect near-unanimous 
support among carriers, equipment suppliers, and associations that represent them.
57
                                                     
48
See Avanti Comments at 2-5, Boeing Comments at 5-9, ESOA Comments at 2-3, 8, Global VSAT Forum 
Comments at 2, O3b Comments at 12, 15-17, ESOA Comments at 7-8.
49
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11895, para. 42.
50
See WRC-15 Final Acts, Resolution 238 (Resolution 238), at 298 and 298 n.1.
51
See Verizon Reply at 3.
52
Intel Reply at 8.
53
Ericsson Reply at 2, n.4, citing Cheon Tai-Un, 5G Mobile to Be Commercialized for the World’s First Time by 
2020, Korea IT Times, July 15, 2014, http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/38950/5g-mobile-becommercialized-
worlds-first-time-2020; NTT Docomo Press Release, DOCOMO Successfully Conducts 5G Trials in Actual-use 
Environments—Trials carried out with Nokia Networks, Samsung, Ericsson, Fujitsu and Huawei (Nov. 26, 2015), 
https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/info/media_center/pr/2015/1126_00.html.
54
Nokia Comments at 10.
55
Huawei Comments at 8-9, XO Comments at 15 n.30.
56
T-Mobile Comments at 9-11.
57
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTIA Comments at 14-15, Intel Comments at 3-5, ITI 
Comments at 3-4, Samsung Comments at 12, TIA Comments at 7, Verizon Comments at 5-6, Nokia Reply at 3, 
Samsung Reply at 4, Sprint Reply at 3, and WISPA Reply at 2. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
14
We acknowledge the comments of parties that emphasize the importance of international 27.
harmonization,
58
but in this case, it appears there is sufficient international interest (including from Japan 
and South Korea) for using the 28 GHz band and adjacent bands to justify making the 28 GHz band 
available for mobile use.  Intel and Ericsson both state that the mobile industry could readily create 
integrated circuits with tuning ranges for various bands in that part of the spectrum, and the Republic of 
Korea submitted a proposal to WRC-15 stating that the “frequency range from 24.25 GHz to 29.5 GHz 
proposed from regional groups could be implemented by one single device to facilitate global roaming 
around the year 2020.”
59
  These kinds of capabilities are already being reflected in standards 
development.  Microsoft explains that 3GPP release 13 will allow for carrier aggregation of multiple 
bands of spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, in the 5 GHz band, and it says that, once 5G service is 
defined, the committee will likely extend its standards to encompass the millimeter wave bands.  
Microsoft argues that carriers should ultimately be able to aggregate low-, medium-, and high-band 
spectrum.
60
  The significant domestic and international interest in making the 28 GHz band available for 
new mobile uses clearly supports taking action in this Report and Order to create new flexible use 
licenses.
2. Licensing the 28 GHz Band
a. Use of Geographic Area Licensing
Background.  We proposed to use geographic area licensing for the 28 GHz band for a 28.
number of reasons, including the fact that issuing a single license including both fixed and mobile service 
rights would allow the licensee to coordinate fixed and mobile uses within its geographic area.  Such an 
approach would be consistent with the Commission’s prior decision to use geographic area licensing for 
LMDS.  In addition, we noted that geographic licensing is consistent with the Commission’s licensing 
approach for flexible use bands, such as bands licensed under Part 27 of the Commission’s rules.
61
  
The majority of commenters addressing this issue supported using geographic area licensing 29.
with each resulting license having the flexibly to provide fixed or mobile services.
62
  In addition to the 
advantages noted by the Commission, commenters argued that exclusive rights will promote investment 
and expedite the deployment of mobile and other advanced services.
63
  Public Knowledge/OTI, Federated 
Wireless, and Google urge the Commission to adopt a licensing scheme based on the Spectrum Access 
System (SAS) and concepts adopted by the Commission for the 3.5 GHz band.
64
  Microsoft asks the 
Commission to limit geographic area licensing to the 28-28.35 GHz band and make the 27.5-28 GHz 
band available for unlicensed use.
65
                                                     
58
See, e.g., Avanti Comments at 5, Boeing Comments at 8-9, ESOA Comments at 2.
59
Proposal of the Republic of Korea to the Plenary Meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-
15), Revision 1 to Addendum 24 to Document 102-E, 10 November 2015, Agenda Item 10, at 1-2.
60
Microsoft Comments at 17.
61
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11907-08, para. 93.
62
5G Americas Comments at 3-4, AT&T Comments at 12, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 10, CTIA 
Comments at 11, Ericsson Comments at 5-6, EchoStar Comments at 14-15, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC 
Comments at 4, HTSC Comments at 5, Huawei Comments at 8-10, Intel Comments at 4, ITIC Comments at 4, 
Mobile Future Comments at 10, 13, Nokia Comments at 14-15, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, Samsung Comments 
at 11, Straight Path Comments at 5, T-Mobile Comments at 9-10, Verizon Comments at 5, XO Comments at 8.  See 
also FiberTower Reply at 4, Mobile Future Reply at 8.
63
5G Americas Comments at 3-4, CTIA Comments at 11, Qualcomm Comments at 7.
64
Federated Wireless Comments at 5-16, Google Comments at 3-5, OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 7-10.
65
Microsoft Comments at 14-18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
15
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to implement geographic area licensing throughout the 30.
28 GHz band because geographic area licensing will expedite deployment, provide licensees with the 
flexibility to provide a variety of services, and is consistent with the existing licensing scheme.  One 
significant advantage to this approach is that we can expedite use of the band for advanced services 
because it is consistent with the existing framework in this band.
In contrast, if we adopted a separate framework for mobile use of the band, we would need to 31.
develop a SAS, define the specific rights held by the existing licensees, and work out rules for 
coordination with the existing licensees.  Adopting geographic area licensing for this band is also 
consistent with our goal of adopting a balanced licensing approach that includes licensed, unlicensed, and 
innovative sharing approaches across a variety of bands.  For these reasons, we are not adopting a 3.5 
GHz-style SAS framework for this band.
Similarly, we decline to adopt Microsoft’s proposal to create an unlicensed portion of the 32.
band.  We believe splitting the band into unlicensed and licensed segments would potentially hinder 
deployment by making it more difficult for licensees to use the full 850 megahertz of spectrum.  We 
nonetheless agree that a balance between licensed and unlicensed usage is important, and as described 
below, we are also making seven gigahertz of spectrum available for use by unlicensed devices in the 64-
71 GHz band, and create an opportunity for shared access in the 37-37.6 GHz band segment.
b. License Area Size
Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to use counties as the base geographic area unit for 33.
licenses in the 28 GHz band.  As we explained:
We believe there may be several advantages to county-based licenses.  First, we believe county 
licenses best fit the localized types of services we expect to be offered in the mmW bands.  These 
bands do not propagate well over long distances, and when used in mobile applications, are 
expected to provide coverage of areas measured in meters, not kilometers.  Second, establishing 
smaller licenses could provide licensees with additional flexibility to target their deployments to 
those areas where they need the capacity.  Under the existing framework in 28 GHz and 39 GHz, 
a licensee must meet buildout for its entire BTA or EA or lose its license.  Establishing smaller 
license areas will allow licensees to base their deployment decisions on market forces and 
customer demand.  If it does not make business sense for a licensee to build in a particular 
county, it can sell or lease the license for that county.  Third, smaller license areas reduce the 
potential for warehousing spectrum; again, licensees will be more likely to acquire and hold only 
the licenses they need to meet their customers’ demand.  Fourth, county based licenses could 
equally facilitate access by both small carriers and large carriers.  Smaller license areas allow 
smaller carriers to better tailor their spectrum acquisitions to the locations for which they need it 
the most.  Smaller license areas would facilitate access by larger carriers because such carriers 
could both narrowly target the areas in which they need the additional spectrum or aggregate the 
counties—which serve as the building blocks for traditional license areas —into larger license 
areas, thus achieving economies of scale.
66
The majority of commenters support using Rand McNally BTAs, which, as explained, is the 34.
license area unit used by existing LMDS licensees.
67
  They raise four concerns about using counties: (1) 
counties do not fit the contemplated services to be offered using mmW spectrum; (2) counties will result 
in more borders, which will make it more difficult for licensees to coordinate with each other; (3) a larger 
number of small licenses will increase the administrative burdens on licensees and the Commission (e.g., 
                                                     
66
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
67
5G Americas Comments at 5-9, AT&T Comments at 17-19, Cisco Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 11-12, 
Ericsson Comments at 9-10, Intel Comments at 4, Mobile Future Comments at 13, Nokia Comments at 18, Verizon 
Comments at 10-12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
16
more buildout showings are required); and (4) that requiring buildout to be made on a county-by-county 
basis would increase licensee’s costs and would be unfair to licensees who paid for spectrum.
68
  
FiberTower and US Cellular, on the other hand, support using counties.
69
  US Cellular believes that 
smaller license areas will facilitate access to spectrum by smaller carriers, allow larger carriers to more 
precisely target the spectrum they need, and reduce the potential for warehousing spectrum.
70
Discussion.  We will adopt counties as the license area size for Upper Microwave Flexible 35.
Use Service (UMFUS) licenses in the 28 GHz band.  We also adopt our proposal to subdivide existing 
LMDS licenses on a county basis.
71
  As we explained in the NPRM, a county-based license affords a 
licensee the flexibility to develop localized services, allows for targeted deployments based on market 
forces and customer demand, and facilitates access by both smaller and larger carriers.
72
  In our view, the 
claims of certain commenters that larger license areas will better fit the services contemplated for these 
bands lack specificity and do not take into account the potential need for targeted deployment.
73
  It is 
unclear that providers need to – or will want to – aggregate nationwide licenses, as mobile operations in 
the band may initially be deployed.  On a mobile basis, this band is envisioned for mobile operations in 
denser population centers or around highway corridors.  While it is true that county-sized licenses will 
result in more borders, we adopt a power flux density limit at the border that will facilitate coordination 
between licensees.  Furthermore, no party offered evidence that there have been problems providing 
service near existing BTA borders.  We note that licensees in other services regularly coordinate their 
operations along shared borders and have well established procedures for conducting this coordination.  
We expect that licensees will be able to apply these same procedures in this band without any undue 
burden. To the extent existing BTA licensees do not believe it is economically viable to build within 
certain counties of a BTA, we believe it would be appropriate to give other interested parties an 
opportunity to license and to make use of the spectrum.  Finally, establishing smaller license areas is fair 
to existing licensees because those licensees are also obtaining valuable new rights and they are keeping 
the same bundle of rights they had previously.  Overall, we believe the benefits of smaller license areas 
for this specific band outweigh any administrative burden on licensees and the Commission.  
In this proceeding, we are endeavoring to create a regulatory scheme that will suit the 36.
development of innovative wireless services for years to come.  The Commission in recent years has 
sought greater consistency in its approach to geographic license area sizes to help providers aggregate 
licenses in a more targeted and efficient manner, gravitating toward license areas that are derived from 
Economic Area (EA) units.
74
  BTAs have only been used as the license area for a few commercial 
wireless services.  Counties, however, are the base unit that make up common commercial wireless 
license sizes, including EAs and the new Partial Economic Area (PEA) license areas.
75
  There is also a 
practical advantage to issuing county-based licenses.  Specifically, the Commission would be required to 
                                                     
68
See Nextlink June 3, Ex Parte Letter (a detailed discussion of the costs involved in building out mmW licenses).
69
FiberTower Comments at 3, US Cellular Reply at 4-9.
70
US Cellular Reply at 5-9.
71
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11913-14, para. 115.
72
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
73
See Straight Path Comments at 8-13.
74
The EA license areas the Commission uses are based upon a definition established by U.S Department of 
Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.  See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 
Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, XX FCC Rcd 6567, 6595, n.193(2014) (Incentive Auction Report 
and Order).
75
See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Final Redefinition of the BEA 60 Fed. Reg. 13114 (March 10, 1995); Areas;
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, 
Public Notice, DA 14-759, App. B (WTB 21014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
17
negotiate a new licensing agreement with Rand McNally to use BTAs in UMFUS.  In recent years, the 
Commission has avoided using license areas controlled by third parties in order to eliminate the time and 
expense involved in negotiating such agreements.
3. Mobile Rights for Incumbents
Background. The 27.5-29.5 GHz band has had long-standing allocations for fixed, mobile, 37.
and Fixed-Satellite Service (Earth-to-space) allocations.
76
  In the 1996 LMDS First Report and Order, the 
Commission designated the 27.5-28.35 GHz band for LMDS on a primary basis and determined that 
satellite services would be permitted in that band on a non-interference basis to LMDS systems, and only 
for the purpose of providing limited gateway-type services.
77
  The following year, in the 1997 Second 
LMDS Report and Order, the Commission expressed an expectation that it would expand the LMDS 
authorization for Fixed Service to include Mobile Service if proposed and supported by the resulting 
record.  In the Second LMDS Report and Order, the Commission stated:
Although LMDS is allocated as a fixed service, we know of no reason why we would not allow 
mobile operations if they are proposed and we obtain a record in support of such an allocation. 
We believe this would be consistent with our goal of providing LMDS licensees with maximum 
flexibility in designing their systems.
78
The technology of the time did not enable the use of these frequencies for advanced mobile services and, 
therefore, the Commission did not authorize mobile service in the band.  However, the band retained its 
mobile allocation and, in the intervening period, the Commission has authorized some satellite services in 
the band for the purpose of providing limited gateway-type services. 
Recently, technological advances have enabled the development of viable mobile networks in 38.
the mmW bands. Accordingly, in the NPRM, we proposed to permit existing LMDS and 39 GHz
licensees to exercise the full extent of their rights – including mobile rights – for geographic areas and 
bands in which they currently hold licenses.  We noted three likely advantages to this proposal.  First, this 
approach would minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to expanded use of the band, 
which would benefit consumers.  We opined that it would be particularly important to take actions that 
expedite service because of the great benefits these new technologies could bring to consumers and 
because of the technical and logistical challenges licensees will face.  Second, we noted that given the 
technical characteristics of this band and the nature of the services that may be developed for it, the 
differences between fixed and mobile operation are increasingly blurred.  We therefore suggested that 
attempting to define separate bundles of “fixed” and “mobile” rights might create unnecessary complexity 
and be inconsistent with the underlying technologies, in which case it would be more efficient to have 
both the fixed and mobile usage rights contained within the same license.  Third, the existence of separate 
licenses for fixed and mobile operation might create unusually large challenges related to interference.  
For example, one point-to-point link could preclude mobile use of the spectrum in a downtown region. 
We noted that a single license that combines both fixed and mobile rights avoids this issue and provides 
the licensee with the appropriate incentives to evaluate the tradeoffs between different uses.
79
As an alternative, however, we also sought comment in the NPRM on the costs and benefits 39.
of using an overlay auction that would separately license the mobile rights associated with certain 
accompanying fixed rights on the same frequency – as long as the overlay licensee obtaining the mobile 
                                                     
76
In the Matter of Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-
29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for 
Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed-Satellite Services, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 19005, 19008, para. 6 (1996) (LMDS First Report and Order).
77
  LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19025, para. 45.
78
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12637, para. 207.
79
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11908, para. 95.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
18
rights did not interfere with the incumbent’s fixed use.
80
  We noted several possible advantages to overlay 
licenses.  First, an overlay auction would assign these rights to the user that values the set of rights most 
highly, whether it be an incumbent licensee or a new potential user.  Second, the use of an auction, rather 
than a direct grant of additional rights to existing licensees, would ensure that a portion of the value 
associated with these additional rights will accrue to the United States Treasury.  Third, we noted that the 
Commission has relevant experience in the application of overlay rights in other bands.
81
Most commenters support granting mobile rights to incumbent LMDS licensees and oppose 40.
the grant of overlay licenses.
82
  AT&T, on the other hand, suggests that incumbent licenses be modified to 
limit their authorizations to protecting existing operations, both by frequency and by area of operations, 
and that overlay licenses be issued for the remaining rights.
83
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to grant mobile operating rights to existing active LMDS 41.
licensees.  This grant is in fulfillment of the Commission’s original mobile allocation for 28 GHz and its 
stated expectation of allowing mobile use in the band in “providing LMDS licensees with maximum 
flexibility in designing their systems.”
84
Once the rules we adopt today take effect, existing licensees will 
be able to provide mobile services consistent with Part 30 licensing and technical rules.  Granting mobile 
operating rights to existing licensees will expedite the deployment of service, minimize the difficulties 
involved in coordinating fixed and mobile deployments, and provide a uniform licensing scheme 
throughout the United States.  We remain concerned that awarding fixed and mobile rights separately 
would lead to disputes between fixed and mobile licensees that could make it more difficult for both 
licensees to provide service.
We recognize that awarding mobile rights to incumbent licensees could be viewed as a 42.
windfall to those licensees, although the Commission contemplated granting mobile rights when it first 
created LMDS.  Here, the benefits of expediting service and ease of coordinating fixed and mobile service 
outweigh any foreseeable disadvantages of granting mobile rights to incumbents.  In this instance, we find 
that expedition is particularly important because of the need to make mmW spectrum available for 
innovative and novel issues.
4. Satellite Terrestrial Sharing 
a. Sharing with FSS Earth Stations
Background.  The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes a primary Fixed-Satellite 43.
Service (FSS) allocation limited to the Earth-to-space direction across the 28 GHz band.
85
Twenty years 
ago, in the LMDS First Report and Order,
86
the Commission designated 850 megahertz at 27.5-28.35 
GHz for LMDS on a primary basis, along with other band segments, and permitted geostationary Fixed-
Satellite Service (GSO/FSS) or non-geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service (NGSO/FSS) systems to 
provide links in that band segment on a non-interference basis to LMDS systems, but only for the purpose 
                                                     
80
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11909, para. 97.
81
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11909, para. 97.
82
5G Americas Comments at 3-4, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 10, CTIA Comments at 14, Ericsson 
Comments at 5-6, EchoStar Comments at, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC Comments at 4, HTSC Comments 
at 4, Huawei Comments at 11-12, Intel Comments at 4, ITIC Comments at 4, Mobile Future Comments at 10, Nokia 
Comments at 15-16, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, Straight Path Comments at 14-16, T-Mobile Comments at 10-12, 
Verizon Comments at 5-6, XO Comments at 8-11. See also FiberTower Reply at 4-5, Mobile Future Reply at 5.
83
AT&T Reply at 14-15.
84
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12637, para. 207.
85
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
86
LMDS First Report and Order.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
19
of providing limited Earth-to-space gateway-type services.
87
  The Commission also rejected a proposal 
from GE Americom to offer limited protection to FSS gateways operating in the 27.5-28.35 band 
segment, stating that gateway links would operate on a non-interference basis with respect to LMDS 
operators.
88
  The Commission found that co-frequency sharing between LMDS and ubiquitously deployed 
satellite earth stations was not yet feasible, but said that it would consider revisiting that conclusion if 
future technology became available to facilitate that type of sharing.
89
The NPRM expressed the 
Commission’s intention to review its policies with respect to accommodating gateway earth stations in 
the 28 GHz band.
90
Initially, some parties contended that any mobile use of the 28 GHz band would be 44.
inconsistent with continued satellite use of the band.
91
  Following the NPRM, two main issues emerged 
between proponents of terrestrial use of the band and satellite industry representatives: (1) how can the 
size of the interference zone where FSS earth stations may cause interference to terrestrial receivers be 
limited; and (2) should the Commission limit the aggregate skyward interference caused by terrestrial 
systems to radio receivers on satellites.
92
Discussion.  The record demonstrates that FSS earth stations in the 28 GHz band can share 45.
the band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations.  For example, EchoStar argues that 28 GHz Earth-
to-space stations would not curtail the deployment of 5G systems outside a few very small non-urban 
areas.
93
  EchoStar and ViaSat both estimate that terrestrial mobile stations could be deployed as close as 
170 meters to their Earth-to-space transmitters in the 28 GHz band.
94
  SES Americom suggests “carving 
out some rural areas where future gateway earth stations can be licensed for use in the 28 GHz band.”
95
  
With respect to terrestrial operations, AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon estimate that the 
necessary separation distances between FSS earth stations and terrestrial deployments are between 50 and 
400 meters depending on the type of earth stations.
96
  Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to 
create rules that allow for continued and expanded sharing between terrestrial operations and FSS earth 
stations in the 28 GHz band.
We recognize that sharing may be more difficult for non-geostationary satellite systems, such 46.
as the system operated by O3b.  While O3b argues that it needs multiple sites in a county in order to serve 
                                                     
87
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19025, para. 45.
88
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19026, para. 48.  That restriction is codified at 47 CFR 
§ 25.202(a)(1), n.2 (“FSS is secondary to LMDS in this band”).
89
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19015-16, para. 27.
90
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11918, para. 130.
91
See, e.g., Boeing Comments at 6, Avanti Reply at 8, ESOA Reply at 4 n.4, and Inmarsat Reply at 7-8.
92
See, e.g., SIA May 10, Ex Parte Presentation at 2 (“In the mmW bands, UMFU and satellite services can operate 
on a co-primary basis with clear operating rules.”).
93
See EchoStar Feb. 19, Ex Parte Letter at 4 (“There is no technological barrier that prevents terrestrial operators 
from deploying 5G networks while protecting existing and planned satellite uses of the 28 GHz . . .  band.”).  We 
discuss EchoStar’s proposals to allow 28 GHz Earth-to-space operations in greater detail in Section IV.A.4.b 
(Licensing of FSS Earth Stations), below.
94
See EchoStar Comments at 16 (5G parameters submitted by Samsung in this proceeding imply that the required 
coordination distance between a transmitting gateway and a mobile base station in the 28 GHz band would be 
approximately 170 meters), ViaSat Comments at i-ii, 13-14, Exhibit 1 (if the 5G interference threshold were set at 
the 47 dBuV/m specified in Part 27 of the Commission’s rules, any areas of incompatibility would likely occur in an 
area no more than about 160 meters from the earth station, and that area could be further reduced by shielding).
95
SES Americom Comments at 13.
96
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
20
customer locations,
97
it ignores the Commission’s decision that it was allowing FSS to access the 28 GHz 
band solely for the purpose of providing limited Earth-to-space gateway-type services.
98
  O3b had no 
reasonable expectation that the Commission would grant earth stations designed to serve customer 
locations priority over fixed LMDS services and mobile services that the Commission contemplated 
would become part of LMDS.  O3b estimates that the preclusive distance for its gateway earth stations 
with respect to mmW mobile stations is between 1.2 and 13.8 kilometers.
99
  Nonetheless, we believe that 
sharing is feasible for O3b.  First, as discussed below, we are grandfathering O3b’s existing earth stations 
in Texas and Hawaii.  Second, O3b has the option of locating future earth stations in relatively remote 
areas.  Third, O3b can obtain protection by purchasing an exclusive use terrestrial license at auction or by 
working with a licensee in the secondary market to partition a license area with sufficient size to allow it 
to deploy additional earth stations without impacting terrestrial operations, or enter into a different type of 
negotiated sharing arrangement.  Fourth, O3b can take advantage of shielding or other mitigation 
techniques.
100
  Comsearch characterizes satellite operators’ use of naturally occurring terrain features as 
follows:
Before the great explosion of satellite communications for all types of uses, earth station sites 
were carefully selected with protection from interference the primary consideration. Most 
locations were many miles from the cities that they were serving, with the ideal earth station site 
being naturally shielded by terrain at a spot, which was calculated to be virtually free of 
interfering signals. For most types of communication, this type of isolation is not required, 
although it is still true that the most important aspect of a site is its shielding.
101
There are many naturally occurring terrain features that are capable of providing terrain shielding for 
NGSO gateway stations and shielding can also be provided by creating berms or other man-made 
barriers.
102
In short, while allowing new earth stations in the 28 GHz band is not without cost to 47.
terrestrial licensees, we believe that the small area encumbered by a new earth station (with the limits 
noted below) will minimize such costs and will allow both satellite and terrestrial services to expand and 
coexist.  Furthermore, satellite operators deployed in this band knowing that they were secondary 
licensees with respect to LMDS, that the Commission had chosen to allow only limited satellite use, and 
that the Commission had long envisioned allowing mobile use in the band. Despite these facts, below we 
create a path to further expand satellite gateways that could add thousands of new sites because we 
believe the relatively small protection zones will have little impact on terrestrial use.
b. Licensing of FSS Earth Stations
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission said that it was disinclined to automatically 48.
grant co-primary status for all FSS operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, principally because it would 
be inconsistent with the development of terrestrial mobile service in the band.
103
  With respect to 
                                                     
97
See O3b May 31, Ex Parte Letter at 8.
98
See LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19025, para. 45.
99
O3b March 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 1.
100
Site-shielding of earth station antennas is a well-established technique.  
101
Comsearch White Paper, Fundamentals of Earth Station Frequency Coordination, at 7 
(http://www.comsearch.com/articles/es_coordination_guide.pdf).
102
See S.A. Bokhari, et al., Site Shielding of Earth-Station Antennas, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 
Vol. 37, No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 7 (IEEE accession number 1045-9243/93) 
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=370577&newsearch=true&searchWithin=%22Publicatio
n%20Title%22:antennas%20and%20propagation%20magazine&searchWithin=%22Volume%22:37&searchWithin
=%22Issue%22:1) (last visited July 3, 2016).  This information is provided for illustrative purposes only.
103
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11918, para. 130.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
21
gateways, however, the Commission proposed that satellite operators could acquire terrestrial flexible use 
licenses enabling them to exclude terrestrial operators that might be subject to interference from within 
the license area.  The NPRM proposed that satellite operators be allowed to take advantage of four 
market-oriented mechanisms to operate their earth stations without the obligation to protect terrestrial 
stations: purchase geographic area licenses at auction, acquire such licenses from existing licensees, 
obtain partitioned segments of existing geographic area licenses from existing licensees, or enter into 
contractual agreements with nearby licensees.
104
  With regard to existing 28 GHz FSS earth stations, the 
Commission proposed that they retain their existing secondary status relative to terrestrial use if situated 
in the licensed areas of existing licensees, subject to whatever contractual arrangements satellite operators 
might have entered into with terrestrial licensees.
105
With respect to FSS earth stations located outside the 
territories of existing LMDS licenses, the Commission proposed the following:
Prior to holding an auction, the Commission would open a closed filing window for Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use licenses.  The filing window would be restricted to FSS licensees with 
an earth station within the census tract (or other area we may adopt) of the proposed license.  The 
FSS earth station licensee would have the opportunity to apply for a license including the license 
area where the earth station was located.  Because the filing window would be restricted to the 
FSS operator, there would be no mutual exclusivity.  Once the FSS operator was issued the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use license, it would have co-primary status.
106
The NPRM also sought comment on alternative mechanisms for upgrading both existing and future FSS 
earth stations.
107
Satellite interests contend that county-sized geographic service areas are far too large for their 49.
needs and that terrestrial license holders will be reluctant to sell them access to smaller, partitioned areas, 
either because they see satellite operators as competitors or because their own needs in the evolving 5G 
landscape are difficult to foresee.
108
  They also contend that requiring satellite operators to participate in 
spectrum auctions would violate the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International 
Telecommunication Act (ORBIT Act).
109  
Terrestrial wireless interests and their equipment suppliers 
generally favor the Commission’s market-oriented proposals,
110
though AT&T and Verizon recommend 
that we take the pragmatic step of grandfathering existing satellite gateway stations.
111
Discussion. We maintain the current status of FSS, and as described below, create new 50.
opportunities for continued expansion of FSS earth stations on a protected basis.  Upgrading the FSS 
designation to co-primary status, even if limited to individually licensed earth stations, would be 
inconsistent with terrestrial use of this band and the Commission’s decision to facilitate expanded 
                                                     
104
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11918-11919, paras. 132-134.
105
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11920, para. 137.
106
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11920, para. 140.
107
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11921-22, paras. 142, 146.
108
See, e.g., EchoStar Comments at 23-24, 33, O3b Comments at 18-19, 26, SES Americom Comments at 14, SIA 
Comments at 15-16, ViaSat Comments at ii, 16, EchoStar Reply at 14-17, O3b Reply at 16-17, SES Americom 
Reply at 7-8, ViaSat Reply at 12-14.
109
47 U.S.C. § 765(f).  See, e.g.,, EchoStar Comments at iii, 34-35, O3b Comments at 18, EchoStar Reply at 13-14.
110
CTA Comments at 16-17, CTIA Comments at 31-32, Ericsson Comments at 20-22, Intel Comments at 5-6, ITIC 
Comments at 5-6, Mobile Future Comments at 14, Nokia Comments at 24, Samsung Comments at 22, Straight Path 
Comments at 37-38, TIA Comments at 11-13, T-Mobile Comments at 16, Verizon Comments at 22-23, XO 
Comments at 34, ITIC Reply at 4, Nokia Reply at 6, Samsung Reply at 8-9, Verizon Reply at 10-11.
111
AT&T Comments at 12, Verizon Reply at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
22
terrestrial use, and would not effectively facilitate sharing in the band.
112
  We believe the 28 GHz band 
will play a vital role in the deployment of advanced mmW services, and fully upgrading FSS under our 
service rules to co-primary status would be inconsistent with this goal and would be unnecessary to meet 
the FSS community’s needs.
We recognize, however, that FSS operators rely on this band for gateway connectivity and 51.
have invested significant capital in the band and will continue to do so in the future.
113
  We believe there 
is value in creating meaningful, targeted opportunities to deploy additional FSS earth stations in the band 
without harming terrestrial operations.  The NPRM’s proposals encouraging satellite operators to 
participate in county-sized (or smaller) market transactions were predicated in part on the vast protection 
zones that satellite operators have traditionally claimed were necessary, either to protect their operations 
or to protect others from them.
114
  Here, there is a consensus that much smaller protection zones are 
needed.  As stated above, EchoStar and ViaSat have both estimated that terrestrial mobile stations could 
be deployed as close as 170 meters to their Earth-to-space transmitters in the 28 GHz band.
115
  Most other 
satellite operators either support those specific calculations,
116
agree in general terms that the necessary 
preclusive zones can be very small,
117
or state that gateway earth stations can be located in rural areas far 
away from the urban cores where mmW mobile operations will be most viable.
118
The ability of satellite earth stations and terrestrial operations to coexist in close proximity to 52.
each other has two significant ramifications.  First, it should be possible for satellite and terrestrial 
services to share the 28 GHz band with de minimis impairment of each other’s operations.  Second, the 
disparity between the county-sized license areas we have established for 28 GHz UMFUS licensees and 
the extremely small areas required for FSS earth stations makes it inappropriate for us to rely exclusively 
on a market-based mechanism for assigning rights to FSS earth stations, although we retain this option as 
one means through which FSS operators may expand.
In addition to acquiring the terrestrial license rights, we also conclude that it would be 53.
efficient to continue to authorize gateway satellite earth stations under the existing Part 25 first-come, 
first-served basis.  We adopt a mechanism under which FSS earth stations will, so long as they comply 
with conditions noted below, be able to deploy new gateways in limited circumstances without being 
                                                     
112
FSS has exclusive use of several spectrum bands that lack terrestrial service rules, but the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 
39 GHz bands are all shared with terrestrial services.  
113
We note that these investment decisions have been made with the explicit understanding the FSS is secondary in 
this band domestically.
114
See, e.g., In the Matter of Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, Report and Order and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6502, 6525-26, para. 63 (2005) (SIA calculated that fixed stations must be located 
at least 313 km away from an FSS earth station to ensure adequate protection).  See also FWCC Comments at 11-13 
(band-sharing between the Fixed Service and Fixed-Satellite Service has always been highly asymmetric in favor of 
the FSS).
115
See EchoStar Comments at 16 (5G parameters submitted by Samsung in this proceeding imply that the required 
coordination distance between a transmitting gateway and a mobile base station in the 28 GHz band would be 
approximately 170 meters) and ViaSat Comments at i-ii, 13-14, Exhibit 1 (if the 5G interference threshold were set 
at the 47 dBuV/m specified in Part 27 of the Commission’s rules, any areas of incompatibility would likely occur in 
an area  no more than about 160 meters from the earth station, and that area could be further reduced by shielding).
116
EchoStar Comments at i, 33.
117
SES Americom Comments at 14.
118
See EchoStar Comments at I, 20, SES Americom Comments at 14, SES Americom Reply at 4-5.  A qualified 
exception is O3b, which operates a non-geosynchronous middle-earth-orbit constellation that is atypical of the 
industry.  See O3b Comments at 17-18 (in most cases the interference footprint will be small, but that can vary 
depending on the type of satellite system, the type of earth station, surrounding terrain, typical rain cell density, and 
many other factors). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
23
required to take any additional actions to provide interference protection to UMFUS licensees.  We build 
this upon record support for several different approaches to sharing in the 28 GHz band.
The authorization of FSS earth stations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band that will not be required 54.
to take any additional actions to provide interference protection to UMFUS licenses is subject to the 
following conditions.  First, we will authorize no more than three locations in each county where FSS 
may deploy earth stations on a protected basis. Second, an FSS applicant must demonstrate in its license 
application that the permitted interference zone around its earth station, which we will define as the 
contour within which FSS licensees generate a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground 
level, of no more than -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz, together with any preexisting earth stations located in the 
same county on a protected basis, will, in the aggregate, cover no more than 0.1 percent
119
of the 
population of the county license area where the earth station is located.
120
  Third, the applicant must show 
that the permitted interference zone does not infringe upon any major event venue, arterial street,
interstate or U.S. highway, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.  We note that 
Verizon supports prohibiting siting earth stations near athletic and/or entertainment venues, interstate and 
U.S. highways, and port facilities.
121
We believe the other locations we have identified are similarly areas 
where we could expect to have high demand for wireless services.  Fourth, prior to filing its application, if 
there is an existing 28 GHz UMFUS licensee in the county where it is proposing to locate its earth station, 
the earth station applicant must coordinate its operation with the existing UMFUS licensees using the 
coordination procedures contained in Section 101.103(d) of the Commission’s rules.
122
  The purpose of 
the coordination is to ensure that the earth station will not interfere with existing facilities operating under 
the UMFUS license.  We expect that UMFUS licensees will cooperate in good faith in the coordination 
process and only raise objections if there is a legitimate concern about interference to existing UMFUS 
facilities or failure to comply with the criteria listed above.
These conditions are designed to provide FSS licensees with substantial opportunities to 55.
expand their limited use of the 28 GHz band to deploy earth stations that do not have to protect terrestrial 
services, while minimizing the impact on terrestrial operations.  Since there are over 3,000 counties in the 
United States, with a potential for up to three locations in each county, FSS licensees would have many 
choices for earth station locations.  Furthermore, even with the conditions we have imposed, FSS 
operators will have great flexibility in selecting earth station locations that meet their needs.  Taking 
ViaSat’s 160-meter radius estimate as a point of departure, the typical interference zone for terrestrial 
operations around a gateway earth station would cover about 0.08 square kilometers.  As ViaSat notes, 
this zone could be reduced further by reducing the preclusive distance around the earth station,
123
using 
mitigation techniques such as shielding.
124
  Even without such reductions, the interference zone would 
represent only about 0.0033 percent of the area of an average U.S. county.
125
  If one were to assume an 
even population distribution throughout every county, ViaSat’s interference zone would cover no more 
than 0.1 percent of the population of any county that covers more than 80 square kilometers.  There are 
                                                     
119
For further discussion of the 0.1 percent population limit, see para. 55, infra.
120
The International Bureau will issue a public notice seeking comment on the appropriate methodology to calculate 
the 0.1 percent population limit and further details regarding earth station interference zone calculation (including 
propagation models, e.g. free space versus probabilistic), and will also seek comment on best practices for earth 
station siting to minimize the impact on UMFU services, colocation of earth stations, and accommodating multiple 
earth station interference zones without exceeding 0.1 percent of population in a given county.
121
See Verizon June 14, Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.  
122
See 47 CFR § 101.103(d).
123
ViaSat Comments at 13-14.
124
ViaSat Reply at 12.
125
ViaSat Comments at 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
24
only four counties in the United States that cover less than 80 square kilometers.
126
  In addition, any 
interference zone will be allowed to accommodate multiple FSS earth stations that could, for instance, be 
serving different satellites in the geostationary orbit, as long as these earth stations, in the aggregate, do 
not cause the interference zone to exceed the limits we adopt today.
127
Conversely, we believe that allowing FSS earth stations to share the 28 GHz band under these 56.
conditions will not unduly hinder terrestrial deployment in the band.  We note that existing LMDS 
licensees are obtaining valuable mobile rights today, and the value of those rights far outweighs any 
impairment imposed by this sharing mechanism.  In addition, under the rules we adopt today, we believe 
that FSS operations will encumber only a small geographic area and a small portion of the population of 
the license area.  While we maintain flexibility for FSS operators to choose the areas that fit within these 
conditions, current and future licensees will have some ability to predict the potential impact on the 
license area.
Other than applying those conditions, we do not propose to designate the locations of any 57.
county’s satellite permitted interference zones in advance – i.e., we will leave the choices of locations to 
the discretion of the satellite operators, conditional upon the licensees constructing and activating their 
earth stations within 12 months, pursuant to Section 25.133 of our rules.
128
We also note that FSS operators will have other mechanisms available to deploy earth 58.
stations that do not have to protect terrestrial services.  We will adopt our proposal to grant such rights to 
any FSS earth stations for which the FSS operator also holds the UMFUS license that covers the earth 
station’s permitted interference zone.  To the extent FSS operators and UMFUS licensees enter into 
private agreements, their relationship will be governed by those agreements.  Finally, FSS earth stations 
may continue to be authorized without the benefit of an interference zone.
129
  In this respect, taking into 
account the small size of the area around an earth station where terrestrial operations would not be 
protected, we encourage UMFUS licensees to be flexible in providing certainty to the operation of FSS 
earth stations in areas where they do not intend to deploy terrestrial services. We emphasize that these 
FSS earth stations will have no expectation of interfering rights and will have to cease operation if 
requested by UMFUS licensees at any time on the basis of harmful interference to their services. 
We also modify our proposal in the NPRM for treatment of existing FSS gateway earth 59.
stations.
130
  Since we are no longer requiring FSS operators to obtain an UMFUS license in order to obtain 
the right to interfere, we will not grant UMFUS licenses to existing FSS earth station holders.  Instead, we 
will grandfather all existing 28 GHz FSS earth stations authorized as of the adoption date of this Report 
and Order and grant them the right to operate under the terms of their existing authorizations without 
taking into account possible interference to UMFUS operations.  We will also grandfather pending 
applications for 28 GHz earth stations filed prior to the adoption date of this Report and Order if such 
applications are subsequently granted pursuant to the existing Part 25 rules (i.e., without regard to the 
criteria we adopt today).  We note that in many instances, these earth stations are used to provide valuable 
services to customers.  In areas where there is no existing LMDS licensee, a new UMFUS licensee will 
have the ability to take the existing FSS earth station into account before it acquires the license or plans 
deployment.  Even in areas where there is an existing LMDS licensee, Samsung’s analysis demonstrates 
                                                     
126
See United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census Gazetteer Files, http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
data/data/gazetteer2010.html.
127
See Boeing Reply at 9-10.
128
See 47 CFR § 25.133.
129
Earth stations authorized on a secondary basis will be subject to immediate shutdown if harmful interference to 
an UMFUS station occurs.  
130
See AT&T Comments at 12, Verizon Reply at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
25
that existing earth stations will have a small impact on the terrestrial licensee.
131
  Finally, we note that 
AT&T and Verizon support grandfathering existing earth stations.
132
In adopting these rules, we acknowledge with appreciation the efforts that AT&T and 60.
EchoStar have made to forge a compromise proposal that would be acceptable to other parties.
133
  We 
decline to adopt their compromise proposal because it would have provided less predictability regarding 
the locations of future earth stations, and it would have limited the ability of FSS to deploy near 
population centers even if the deployment affected a small percentage (or even none) of the population.  
By contrast, the sharing mechanism that we adopt today will provide predictability to terrestrial licensees 
while giving FSS the opportunity to greatly expand their operations to over 9,500 locations. We believe 
the rules that we adopt today will encourage intensive use of the band by both UMFUS and FSS 
licensees.
c. Aggregate Interference to Satellite Receivers
The second issue that must be considered with respect to satellite-terrestrial system 61.
coexistence is aggregate skyward interference to satellite receivers.  There is a concern on the record that 
upward transmissions from large numbers of terrestrial stations will, in the aggregate, generate enough 
power to be received at the satellite’s receiver, thus degrading the satellite’s performance.  The most 
detailed concerns about aggregate interference are raised in ex parte presentations by O3b, SES, ViaSat, 
and a group referring to themselves as Satellite Operators.
134
For the reasons noted below, we conclude 
that the potential for aggregate interference rising to the level of harmful interference is unlikely and thus 
is not a basis for refusing to authorize mobile service in the 28 GHz band, and we decline to establish any 
regulatory limit on aggregate power levels.
Under our rules, FSS is secondary to LMDS fixed and mobile operations in the 28 GHz band.  62.
Our rules specifically state, “FSS is secondary to LMDS in [the 27.5-28.35 GHz] band.”
135
  We reject 
ViaSat’s argument that the Commission granted FSS primary status over mobile operations.  ViaSat relies 
in part on the following passage from the LMDS First Report and Order:
We are designating discrete spectrum bands for specific types of systems. Services 
designated for domestic licensing priority are specified in capital letters in the graphic 
depiction of the band plan. These services have licensing priority vis-à-vis any other type 
of service allocated domestically or internationally in the band.  Lower-case letters 
indicate services in a particular band segment which also have licensing priority vis-à-vis 
                                                     
131
Samsung May 9, Ex Parte Letter.
132
AT&T Comments at 12, Verizon Reply at 10.
133
See AT&T and Echostar May 19, Ex Parte Letter, AT&T and EchoStar April 6, Ex Parte Letter.  
134
See O3b Mar. 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attachment at 2-3; Satellite Operators May 12, Ex Parte Letter; SES 
Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter, and ViaSat Apr. 21, July 1, and July 7, Ex Parte Letters.  Satellite Operators 
include representatives of EchoStar, Inmarsat, Intelsat, O3b, OneWeb, SES, and ViaSat.
135
47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.2.  Internationally, this band is allocated to the fixed-satellite service (FSS) and the 
fixed and mobile services on a co-primary basis.  We recognize that there are non-U.S. licensed FSS networks in 
this band, and that the United States needs to protect those systems consistent with its relevant international 
obligations.  This framework exists in other bands where FSS shares spectrum with terrestrial services
internationally, such as the C-band.  Contrary to Lockheed Martin’s assertions, the Commission is not violating U.S. 
international treaty obligations by adopting rules that will enable the provision of UMFUS in the 28 GHz band 
without first resolving potential aggregate interference issues.  See Lockheed Martin June 24, Ex Parte Letter.  As 
discussed below, we conclude that the risk of aggregate interference is low.  In the event, however, that there is an 
instance where a non-U.S.-licensed FSS network receives harmful interference, we intend to address such 
interference in accordance with applicable U.S. international treaties, and will monitor industry developments to that 
end.  See para. 69, infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
26
any third service allocated domestically or internationally in the band, but have no 
licensing priority over the service in capital letters in the band segment and must operate 
on a non-interference basis and must accept interference vis-à-vis that service.
136
Contrary to ViaSat’s view, the Commission can, and in fact did, establish priority for mobile services 
through its service rules.  ViaSat claims that FSS retains primary status over any new mobile service, 
because the Commission established priority only for LMDS.  This argument fails because mobile service 
is part of LMDS, and is not a “third service” or a “new service.”  The mobile allocation already existed at 
the time of the LMDS First Report and Order, but the Commission made no distinction between fixed 
and mobile service in terms of priority – it established priority for a terrestrial service over a satellite 
service.
137
  As noted above, the Commission contemplated that LMDS, the designated primary service, 
could eventually obtain mobile rights.
138
  Indeed, it “kn[e]w of no reason why we would not allow mobile 
operations if they are proposed and we obtain a record in support” thereof.
139
  It declined to authorize 
mobile operations “for now,”
140
not because of concerns about coexistence with FSS (which it had already 
designated a secondary due to the infeasibility of sharing at that time), but because it was unclear that the 
technology existed to facilitate mobile operations and whether mobile operations could share with fixed 
operations.  The actions we are taking today are precisely the actions the Commission contemplated when 
it established service rules for LMDS – adding mobile rights to existing LMDS licenses.
141
We also note that if the Commission had intended to make mobile operations secondary to 63.
FSS, it could have very clearly done so by explicitly stating that FSS had priority over the mobile 
allocation.  In the LMDS First Report and Order, when the Commission intended to discuss the mobile 
allocation, it specifically referred to the mobile allocation.
142
  If the Commission intended to make mobile 
secondary to FSS, it could have specifically referred to mobile instead of a “third service.”  Indeed, when 
the Commission talked of mobile services in the 28 GHz band, it said that authorizing such services 
“would be consistent with our goal of providing LMDS licensees with maximum flexibility in designing 
their systems.”
143
  If the Commission intended to treat mobile services independently of LMDS, it would 
not have referred to providing flexibility to LMDS licensees.
FSS operators received multiple notices of their secondary status.  Indeed, in the LMDS First 64.
Report and Order, the Commission specifically rejected a request from GE Americom to provide some 
protection to FSS gateways as “inconsistent with the designation of FSS for secondary licensing priority 
in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band.”
144
  As ViaSat recognizes, FSS license conditions in the 28 GHz band 
explicitly state that FSS operations in the 28 GHz band are on an “unprotected, non-harmful interference 
                                                     
136
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19024, para. 44.  See ViaSat Comments at 11; ViaSat July 1 Ex 
Parte at 7.
137
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19008, para. 6.
138
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12637, para. 207.
139
Id.
140
Id.
141
ViaSat relies on the fact that the LMDS service rules did not authorize mobile operations for issued LMDS 
licenses.  ViaSat July 1 Ex Parte at 8-9.  That fact, while correct, does not support ViaSat’s position.  For purposes 
of assigning priority, the pertinent consideration is that the Commission explicitly contemplated that potential future 
mobile rights would be made available as part of LMDS.  
142
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19008, para. 6 (“The 27.5-29.5 GHz frequency band is allocated 
for fixed service, fixed-satellite service uplinks and mobile service.”)
143
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12637, para. 207.
144
LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19026, para. 48.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
27
basis relative to LMDS.”
145
  The NPRM in this proceeding noted, “Twenty stations are licensed for Earth-
to-space transmissions on a secondary basis in the 28 GHz band. . . .”
146
  That much being said, we 
recognize that FSS operators use the 28 GHz band to provide services today and intend to provide 
additional services in the future.  
However, the record in this proceeding does not demonstrate that the rules that we adopt 65.
today would significantly risk harmful interference to satellite operations because of aggregate 
interference received at the satellite receiver.  Under the existing rules, LMDS stations have a maximum 
authorized transmit power of 55 dBW (85 dBm), versus the 75 dBm we adopt today.
147
  Furthermore, 
LMDS can operate in either point-to-point or point-to-multipoint mode, and there are no existing limits 
on upward emissions.  In contrast, we are adopting lower power limits for base-station and mobile 
operations in UMFUS.  Furthermore, the systems contemplated for these bands have several 
characteristics that will tend to limit transmissions towards satellite receivers.  As noted in the NPRM, 
most industry evaluations of potential mmW mobile base station deployments appear to assume that such 
stations’ antennas will be tilted downward at a slight angle, typically from a street lamp pole or a location 
on a building at a similar height.
148
  Intel explains that this configuration is necessary not only to direct 
transmissions toward user equipment but also to limit interference between adjacent cellular base stations. 
In fact, says Intel, failure to adopt this downtilt configuration would impair throughput to users at cell 
edges by about 60 percent.
149
  Although ViaSat expresses concern that in some limited locations mobile 
base stations might be directed skyward to provide coverage to users in the upper floors of tall buildings, 
because of this need for downward coverage such mobile providers can rely on wired in-building 
facilities where necessary.  Mobile base stations in this band will probably use antenna systems that 
employ dynamic beamforming techniques to produce beams as narrow as 1.0 degree,
150
which will 
substantially reduce the likelihood that such beams will point directly at satellite receivers.
151
  User 
equipment will also employ antenna arrays to generate dynamic beamforming, varying both azimuth and 
                                                     
145
See ViaSat July 1 Ex Parte Letter at 11 n.51.
146
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11891, para. 27.
147
See 47 CFR § 101.113(a).
148
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11925, para. 156, citing Young-Han Nam, et al., of Samsung Telecommunications 
America, Full-Dimension MIMO (FD-MIMO) for Next Generation Cellular Technology, IEEE Communications 
Magazine, Vol. 51, No. 6, June 2013, 172 at 174
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6525612&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A652558
2%29%26rowsPerPage%3D50) (last visited July 3, 2016).
149
Intel May 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 2.
150
See IEEE Globecom ’16 White Paper prepared by Aalto University, AT&T, BUPT, CMCC, Ericsson Huawei, 
Intel, KT Corp., Nokia, NTT Docomo, New York University, Qualcomm, Samsung, University of Bristol, and 
University of Southern California, 5G Channel Model for Bands up to 100 GHz, (May 2016, revised version 2.1)  
(http://www.5gworkshops.com/5GCM.html) (5G Channel Model) at 7.  See also Robert W. Heath, Jr., and Tianyang 
Bai, Cockrell School of Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Coverage and Capacity Analysis of mmWave 
Cellular Systems, (June 15, 2013), at 17 (64-element MIMO base station capable of 1.6-degree beamwidth when 
communicating with mobile units equipped with 16 antenna elements) 
(http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~rheath/presentations/2013/mmWave_coverage_heath.pdf).  See also Tianyang Bai, 
Ahmed Alkhateeb, and  R. W. Heath, Jr.,Coverage and Capacity of Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks, IEEE
Communications Magazine (2014 vol. 52, no. 9) at 70-77; Tianyang Bai and  R. W. Heath, Jr., Coverage and Rate 
Analysis for Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, (2015 vol. 14, 
no. 2) at 1100-1114
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6894455&searchWithin=%22Publication%20Title%22:c
ommunications%20magazine&searchWithin=%22Volume%22:52&searchWithin=%22Issue%22:9&searchWithin=
%22Start%20Page%22:70&newsearch=true).
151
Intel May 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
28
elevation in order to maintain signal connections with their base stations.
152
  Again, terrestrial operators 
are likely to deploy this technology of their own accord: by Intel’s analysis, choosing not to use dynamic 
beamforming technology would reduce throughput at cell edges by about 70 percent.
153
  Base stations and 
user equipment will also likely employ dynamic power control, both to avoid draining batteries and to 
limit intersystem interference.
154
  In fact, both base stations and user equipment could be entirely silent 
much of the time; terrestrial operators report that, in current deployments, network loading rarely exceeds 
30 percent.
155
  All of these features will limit the extent of skyward transmissions from terrestrial mobile 
systems.
156
  
In addition, it is important to recognize that most mmW transmissions will likely not occur in 66.
environments that have line of sight to satellites.  By some estimates, as much as 80 percent of 
smartphone use occurs indoors, with much of the remainder occurring in vehicles.
157
  Because mmW 
signals are heavily attenuated by exterior walls, roofs and windows, signals originating from handheld 
smartphones will be largely confined within any buildings or vehicles where they are used, and would 
need to be relayed to mobile base stations by other devices with exterior antennas that will likely have 
sufficient beamforming ability to limit skyward transmissions.
158
  In principle, spilling signal power 
uselessly into outer space would represent a source of inefficiency, so it is likely that dynamically 
beamformed signals will be aimed at receivers on the ground or not far above it.  The most vulnerable 
satellites – those situated at elevations close to the horizon – will be protected further by the path losses 
that terrestrial signals will encounter in the cluttered environments of street canyons, suburban foliage, 
and other obstacles.
159
We have reviewed the studies submitted by the various parties, including the satellite 67.
operators.  As discussed in the Technical Rules section, infra, we conclude that the various studies 
submitted by the parties do not support establishment of an aggregate interference limit.  From the 
satellite operators’ perspective, part of the challenge is that mmW mobile is a new, rapidly evolving 
technology, and the terrestrial mobile industry is still developing system designs and propagation models.  
Even so, there has been substantial progress in that regard,
160
and the interference models submitted by 
satellite operators in this proceeding do not take into account prospective features of mmW mobile 
systems that are readily accessible on the public record, as recounted above.  O3b, for example, assumes 
that mmW mobile user equipment will employ no beamforming at all, and will generate omnidirectional 
signals.
161
  Interference models submitted by other parties do not adequately account for, and in some 
cases do not take into account at all, antenna beamwidths, downtilts, beamforming, power control, traffic 
                                                     
152
See 5G Channel Model at 7.
153
Intel May 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 2.
154
Intel May 24, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 2-3.
155
See, e.g., AT&T, Nokia, T-Mobile, Samsung and Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 5.
156
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11964, para. 298.
157
See FCC Acts to Help Emergency Responders Respond to Wireless 911 Calls, FCC News Release, Feb. 20, 
2014.
158
See 5G Channel Model.  See also NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11910, para. 101.
159
See ITU Radiocommunication Sector, Technical Feasibility of IMT in Bands Above 6 GHz, (July 2015) (ITU-R 
Report M.2376-0) at 14-17 (http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2376).
160
See, e.g., AT&T, Nokia, T-Mobile, Samsung and Verizon May 6 and 12, Ex Parte Letters; 5G Channel Model; 
ITU-R Report M.2376-0; National Institute of Science and Technology, Communications Technology Laboratory, 
5G mmWave Channel Model Alliance (http://www.nist.gov/ctl/wireless-
networks/5gmillimeterwavechannelmodel.cfm).
161
O3b March 24, Ex Parte Letter at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
29
patterns, number of simultaneously transmitting stations, the obstruction losses that terrestrial signals are 
likely to encounter before reaching satellites at low elevations, and the fact that the majority of 
transmissions will occur indoors.
162
  Terrestrial operators have every incentive to design networks that 
direct the signals they are transmitting to the locations of the receivers – either another fixed point on a 
vertical structure, or a mobile unit within a couple of meters of the ground – especially given the 
propagation characteristics of these frequencies. Furthermore, mobile units, which are likely to be 
transmitting at angles more skyward, are operating at powers significantly lower than base 
stations. These are both true regardless of the types of systems that are ultimately deployed in these 
bands.  Nonetheless, given the wide variety of deployments and uses we expect to see in these bands, it 
would be inappropriate to universally mandate these design features in every deployment, in the absence 
of more credible support for the proposition that satellite systems will receive harmful interference from 
mmW mobile systems. 
Our decision not to set specific limits on aggregate interference is consistent with our 68.
treatment of that issue in other bands.  In AWS-3, we declined to establish aggregate power limits to 
protect Federal satellites in the 1761-1780 MHz band because it was unlikely that aggregate interference 
was likely to occur.
163
  Similarly, in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band, which is shared between FSS and Fixed 
Service (FS), the Commission held with respect to concerns regarding a different type of aggregate 
interference:  “[W]e view rule changes that would allow greater FS use of the 11 GHz band as beneficial 
to the public interest, so long as existing users would not be harmed.”
164
  Similarly, we see great public 
benefit to more intensive terrestrial use of the 28 GHz band where terrestrial use is the primary designated 
service in the band.
For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that the satellite industry has not shown that 69.
it has a legal right to protection from aggregate interference or that harmful aggregate interference is 
likely to occur from the mobile operations now being authorized for LMDS.  We also recognize that SES, 
EchoStar, and ViaSat believe that satellite and mobile operations can coexist.
165
  Nonetheless, we are 
sensitive to the concerns raised.  We note that the satellite and wireless industries have begun the process 
of modeling the terrestrial systems under consideration for this band to provide further information 
concerning their potential impact on satellites.  We encourage both industries to continue working 
cooperatively on this issue, including by submitting any relevant data demonstrating changes in the 
amount of aggregate interference on record as UMFU services are deployed.  We direct the International 
Bureau, the Office of Engineering and Technology, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to 
jointly establish a separate docket that parties can use to file the relevant data and analyses, and we 
reserve the right to revisit this issue should additional information or other circumstances warrant further 
Commission review or action.
166
                                                     
162
See Intel May 24, Ex Parte Letter at 8-9; Satellite Operators May 12, Ex Parte Letter; SES Americom May 5, Ex 
Parte Letter, and ViaSat Apr. 21, Ex Parte Letter.
163
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 Mhz, 1755-
1780 Mhz, & 2155-2180 Mhz Bands, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4645, para. 92 (2014) (AWS-3 Report and Order).
164
Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Modify Antenna Requirements for the 10.7 – 11.7 GHz 
Band, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17153, 17176, para. 48 (2007).
165
See para. 22, supra.
166
In the NPRM, we also sought comment on the possibility of repealing the prohibition on FSS user equipment in 
the 28 GHz band.  NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11922-26, paras. 147-159.  While there has been considerable comment 
on this issue, in light of the evolving nature of technology and deployment in the band, we do not believe the issue is 
ripe for action at this time.  Accordingly, we will consider this issue in the future, either in this proceeding or in a 
separate proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
30
5. Band Plan
Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to license the 28 GHz band as a single 850 70.
megahertz channel, as it is currently licensed.
167
  We expressed the belief “that continuing to license this 
band as a single block would be in the public interest because it would provide a wide band (850 
megahertz) of contiguous spectrum that could be used to provide high-speed service.”
168
Commenters were split on this issue.  Intel, Nokia, Samsung, Straight Path, and TIA support 71.
licensing the 28 GHz band as a single block.
169
  5G Americas, AT&T, and T-Mobile support dividing the 
band into multiple blocks.
170
  In particular, T-Mobile cites a competitive interest in having multiple 
operators in the 28 GHz band.
171
Discussion.  We will license the 28 GHz band as two 425 megahertz blocks.  We believe 425 72.
megahertz channels will be sufficient for a licensee to provide the type of high data rate services and other 
innovative uses and applications contemplated for this spectrum.  The fact that several carriers support 
dividing the bands into multiple blocks supports that conclusion.  We also agree with T-Mobile that there 
are benefits to competition in allowing multiple licensees to provide service in the 28 GHz band.  We 
emphasize that existing LMDS Channel A1 licensees will receive licenses for both channels, so they will 
maintain their existing license rights.  To the extent licensees are interested in having a contiguous block 
of 850 megahertz of spectrum, they are free to acquire both licenses, subject to compliance with our 
spectrum aggregation policies.
B. 39 GHz Band (38.6-40 GHz)
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to develop service rules for mobile operations in the 73.
38.6-40 GHz band (the “39 GHz Band”). This band is currently allocated to the fixed, fixed satellite 
(space-to-Earth), and mobile services on a primary basis for non-Federal use.
172
  There are Federal FSS 
(space-to-earth) and MSS (space-to-Earth) allocations in the 39.5-40 GHz band, limited to military 
systems.
173
  
The 39 GHz band is licensed by Economic Area (EA) and consists of 14 blocks of 50 by 50 74.
megahertz channels.
174
  Out of the 2,464 possible terrestrial fixed service EA licenses available in this 
band (14 channel pairs for each of 176 EAs) only 870 licenses currently exist.  Other licenses were 
voluntarily cancelled or terminated for failure to meet substantial service requirements.
175
  In addition, 
there are currently 229 active Rectangular Service Area (RSA) licenses that predate the creation of the EA 
licenses in which the licensees self-defined their service area, and where they retain the exclusive right to 
                                                     
167
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914, para. 116.
168
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914, para. 116.
169
Intel Comments at 4, Nokia Comments at 21, Samsung Comments at 14, Straight Path Comments at 22, TIA 
Comments at 30.  See also Nokia Comments at 21 (As an alternative, Nokia could also support licensing the band in 
blocks of 400 and 450 megahertz).
170
5G Americas Comments at 15 (three 200 megahertz blocks and one 250 megahertz block), AT&T Comments at 
12 (channels of 200 megahertz each). T-Mobile Comments at 11 (supports smaller license blocks in general)
171
T-Mobile Comments at 11.
172
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
173
Federal MSS earth stations may not claim protection from non-Federal fixed and mobile stations.  The 38.6-39.5 
GHz band is not allocated for Federal use.  47 CFR § 2.106 n.US382, G117.
174
See 47 CFR § 101.147(v)(1); see also NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at paras. 35.
175
See 47 CFR § 101.17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
31
operate.
176
  The populations in licensed areas (both EA and RSA licenses) vary by channel, but in 
aggregate they cover about 49 percent of the U.S. population.  The Commission has previously indicated 
that licensees of the band could have the flexibility to provide mobile service and stated the belief that 
“the issue of technical compatibility of fixed and mobile operations within a service area is one that can 
and should be resolved by the licensee.”
177
  The Commission declined, however, to permit mobile 
operations until it conducted a separate proceeding to resolve any inter-service and inter-licensee 
interference issues.  As a result, no mobile operations currently exist in the 39 GHz band.
178
  To 
accommodate high-density fixed terrestrial systems under a “soft segmentation” band plan, the 
Commission has established lower power flux density limits for satellite transmissions in the 37.5-40 
GHz band than in other satellite bands.
179
We note that there are no commercial satellite operations in the 
band.
1. Suitability for Mobile Service
Background.  Commenters, including incumbent terrestrial licensees, overwhelmingly 75.
support opening the band for mobile use.
180
  The only commenters opposing mobile use of the 39 GHz 
band are certain satellite interests who argue that mobile and satellite uses are incompatible with each 
other, despite the fact that this band is currently unused by satellite operators.
181
  Not all satellite interests 
view mobile and satellite uses as being incompatible, however.
182
Discussion.  We will authorize mobile operation in the 39 GHz band (38.6-40 GHz), as 76.
discussed below, and we will issue new licenses granting existing and new 39 GHz licensees both fixed 
and mobile rights.  We believe that the significant bandwidth available in this band will help to 
accommodate the expected continued rise in demand for mobile data.
183
  Commenters, including 
                                                     
176
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0 - 38.6 GHz and 38.6 - 40 GHz Bands, Report and 
Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, at 18637, para. 79. (1997) (“39 GHz Report 
and Order”).
177
See 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18615, para. 24.
178
See 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18615, para. 25.
179
See 47 CFR § 2.106; Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 
40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band 
for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government 
Operations, Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25428, 25438, para. 24 (2003) (“V-Band Second Report and 
Order”).  See also 47 CFR § 25.208(r).  The Commission has pending a proposal to establish procedures pursuant to 
which FSS licensees may raise their power flux density levels if necessary to compensate for “rain fade.”  See
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-
50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz 
Frequency Band;  Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, Third Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 15663 (2010) (“V-Band Third NPRM”).
180
AT&T Comments at 3, 14, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 10, CTIA Comments at 14, Ericsson 
Comments at 5, Facebook Comments at 2, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC Comments at 4, HTSC Comments 
at 4, Huawei Comments at 8-9, Intel Comments at 3, ITIC Comments at 4, Mobile Future Comments at 10, Nokia 
Comments at 14-15, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, Samsung Comments at 11, Straight Path Comments at 5, T-
Mobile Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 5, XO Comments at 8, CCA Reply at 4-5.
181
See Boeing Comments at 7-9, Inmarsat Comments at 9-10, SIA Comments at 17.
182
See, e.g., ViaSat Comments at 19-21, Boeing May 9, Ex Parte Letter.
183
Cisco estimates the global mobile data traffic grew 74 percent in 2015, and 563 million mobile devices and 
connections were added in 2015.  See Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast 
Update, 2015–2020 (Feb. 3, 2016),  http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
32
incumbent terrestrial licensees, overwhelmingly support opening the band for mobile use and expanding 
their reach to mobile.
184
  We agree and believe the band can be used by both mobile and satellite because 
satellite use can be accommodated with minimal impact on terrestrial service.
185
  Accordingly, in the 
paragraphs that follow, we create the service rules to enable such mobile use and we detail the means by 
which satellite must cooperate with new mobile services in these bands to reduce interference and 
improve service.
2. Licensing the 39 GHz Band
a. Use of Geographic Area Licensing
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on applying a geographic area 77.
licensing scheme to the 39 GHz band.
186
  We proposed issuing new licenses to current incumbent fixed 
operators in these bands, which would allow the flexibility to provide fixed and mobile operations.  For 
areas with no existing 28 GHz or 39 GHz licensees, we proposed to use geographic area licensing, which 
will permit the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive license applications that must be resolved by 
competitive bidding.
187
  We sought comment on various factors we identified in support of this plan.  For 
example, we noted that allowing the same licensee to coordinate fixed and mobile uses within its 
geographic area would minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to expanded use of 
the band.
188
  The Commission recognized that given the convergence between fixed and mobile 
technologies, attempting to define separate bundles of fixed and mobile rights might create unnecessary 
complexity and be inconsistent with the underlying technologies.
189
  Furthermore, we contemplated that 
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees would have the opportunity to engage in mobile operations if the associated 
technical issues could be solved.
Most commenters took the same position on geographic area licensing in both the 28 GHz 78.
and 39 GHz bands.  The majority of commenters addressing the issue agreed with using geographic area 
licensing to flexibly permit fixed or mobile services by each licensee.
190
  In addition to the advantages 
noted by the Commission, commenters argued that exclusive rights will promote investment and expedite 
the deployment of mobile and other advanced services.
191
  Public Knowledge/OTI, Federated Wireless, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html; see also Presentation of Theodore (Ted) Rappaport, 
David Lee/Ernst Weber professor of electrical engineering at NYU, and founding Director of NYU Wireless, FCC 
Spectrum Frontiers Workshop (March 10, 2016) (https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/03/spectrum-
frontiers-workshop).
184
AT&T Comments at 3, 14, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 10, CTIA Comments at 14-15, Ericsson 
Comments at 5, Facebook Comments at 2, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC Comments at 4, HTSC Comments 
at 4, Huawei Comments at 8-9, Intel Comments at 3, ITIC Comments at 4, Mobile Future Comments at 10, Nokia 
Comments at 14-15, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, Samsung Comments at 17, Straight Path Comments at 5, 14, T-
Mobile Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 5, XO Comments at 8.
185
See Section IV.B.4 (Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway Earth Stations), infra.
186
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11907-11909, paras. 93-98.
187
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11907-11908, para. 93.
188
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11908, paras. 94-95.
189
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11908, paras. 95.
190
See 5G Americas Comments at 2, AT&T Comments at 12, 14, 19, Cisco Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 10, 
CTIA Comments at 14-15, Ericsson Comments at 5-6, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC Comments at 4-5, 
HTSC Comments at 4-5, Huawei Comments at 8-9, 9-10, Intel Comments at 3-4, 7-8, ITIC Comments at 4, Mobile 
Future Comments at 10, Nokia Comment at 14-15, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, Samsung Comments at 11-12, 
Straight Path Comments at 14, T-Mobile Comments at 9-10, Verizon Comments at 5, XO Comments at 7-8.
191
5G Americas Comments at 3-4, CTIA Comments at 14, Qualcomm Comments at 7-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
33
and Google urge us to adopt a licensing scheme based on using Spectrum Access System (SAS) and 
concepts adopted by the Commission for use in the 3.5 GHz band.
192
  They contend that an SAS would 
facilitate access to spectrum by a wide range of users.
Discussion.  We adopt geographic area licenses that will grant licensees the flexibility to 79.
provide fixed and mobile services.  As with the 28 GHz band, we find that in this band, geographic area 
licensing will expedite deployment, provide licensees with the flexibility to provide a variety of services, 
and is consistent with the existing licensing scheme in the band.  We will maintain the current co-primary 
Federal FSS and MSS allocations and associated regulations in this band.  We also find that the presence 
of incumbent geographic area licenses in a large part of the country renders the 39 GHz band a poor 
candidate for implementing an SAS-based sharing model.
b. License Area Size
Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to use counties as the base geographic area unit for 80.
licenses in the 39 GHz band.  As noted with respect to the 28 GHz band, we saw several advantages to 
counties.
193
  We also sought comment on alternative licensing areas, PEAs, census blocks, or block 
groups.
194
The majority of commenters addressing this issue support using Economic Areas (EAs), 81.
which is the license area unit used by existing 39 GHz licensees.
195
  They raise three concerns about the 
use of counties: (1) counties do not fit the contemplated services to be offered using mmW spectrum, (2) 
counties will result in more license areas, which will make it more difficult for licensees to coordinate 
border areas with each other, and (3) issuing a larger number of small licenses will increase 
administrative burdens on licensees and the Commission (e.g., more buildout showings are required).
196
  
In contrast, FiberTower and US Cellular support the use of counties.
197
Discussion.  We will license the 39 GHz band using PEAs, because we find that use of this 82.
license area size will facilitate access to spectrum and the rapid deployment of service in the band.  PEAs 
are smaller than BTAs or EAs, and therefore are more realistically obtainable by smaller bidders, yet are
larger than counties which various commenters deem too small.  Licensing the 39 GHz band on a PEA 
basis strikes the appropriate balance between facilitating access to spectrum by both large and small 
providers and simplifying frequency coordination while incentivizing investment in, and rapid 
deployment of, new technologies.  PEAs also nest into EAs but can also be broken down into counties, 
allowing operators to combine or partition their PEAs into the license areas of their choice.
198
  We believe 
that the size and ability to combine/partition will aid in the rapid deployment of these licenses.  Our 
decision to license the 39 GHz band on a PEA basis is distinguishable from our decision to use counties 
                                                     
192
See OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 7-12, Federated Wireless Comments at 5-13, Google Comments at 
4.
193
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
194
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11913, para. 113.
195
5G Americas Comments at 5-9, AT&T Comments at 17-19, Cisco Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 11-12, 
Ericsson Comments at 9-10, Intel Comments at 2-3, Mobile Future Comments at 13, Nokia Comments at 18, 
Verizon Comments at 10.
196
See 5G Americas Comments at 6-9, AT&T Comments at 18-19, CTA Comments at 12, Verizon Comments at 
10-12.
197
FiberTower Comments at 3, US Cellular Reply at 5-10.
198
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, 
29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6595-6604, paras. 68-80 (2014) (Incentive Auction Report and Order).  See 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(l); see 
also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas, Public Notice, 29 FCC 
Rcd 6491 (WTB 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
34
as the license area in the 28 GHz band, because, as previously discussed, the latter band is currently 
licensed by BTAs and cannot readily be reformed into either EAs or PEAs.
3. Mobile Rights for Incumbents
When the Commission established rules for the 39 GHz band, it contemplated that 39 GHz 83.
licensees would have the opportunity to engage in mobile operations if the associated technical issues 
could be resolved.
199
  Accordingly, in the NPRM, we proposed to permit existing 39 GHz licensees to 
exercise the full extent of these rights – including mobile rights – for geographic areas and bands in which 
they currently hold licenses.
200
  We noted three likely advantages to this proposal.  First, this approach 
would minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to expanded use of the band, which 
would benefit consumers.  We opined that it would be particularly important to expedite service because 
of the great benefits these new technologies could bring to consumers and because of the technical and 
logistical challenges licensees will face.  Second, we noted that given the technical characteristics of this 
band and the nature of the services that may be developed for it, the differences between fixed and mobile 
operation are increasingly blurred.  We therefore suggested that attempting to define separate bundles of 
“fixed” and “mobile” rights might create unnecessary complexity and be inconsistent with the underlying 
technologies, in which case it would be more efficient to have both the fixed and mobile usage rights 
contained within the same license.  Third, the existence of separate licenses for fixed and mobile 
operation might create unusually large challenges related to interference.  For example, one point-to-point 
link could preclude mobile use of the spectrum in a downtown region. We noted that a single license that 
combines both fixed and mobile rights avoids this issue and provides the licensee with the appropriate 
incentives to evaluate the tradeoffs between different uses.
201
As an alternative, we also sought comment on the use of an ‘overlay auction to separately 84.
license the mobile rights in the 39 GHz frequencies – as long as the overlay licensee obtaining the mobile 
rights did not interfere with the incumbent’s fixed use of the same frequencies.
202
  We noted several 
possible advantages to overlay licenses.  First, an overlay auction would assign these rights to the user 
that values the set of rights most highly, whether it is an incumbent licensee or a new potential user.  
Second, the use of an auction, rather than a direct grant of additional rights to existing licensees, would 
ensure that a portion of the value associated with these additional rights will accrue to the United States 
Treasury.  Third, we noted that the Commission has relevant experience in the application of overlay 
rights in other bands.
203
The majority of commenters addressing this issue support granting mobile rights to 85.
incumbent 39 GHz licensees
204
and most of these commenters oppose an overlay auction.
205
  AT&T 
                                                     
199
See 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18615, para. 24.
200
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11908, para. 95.
201
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11908, para. 95.
202
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11909, para. 97.
203
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11909, para. 97.
204
See 5G Americas Comments at 3-4, Cisco Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 10, CTIA Comments at 14, 
Ericsson Comments at 5-6, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, FWCC Comments at 4, HTSC Comments at 4, Huawei 
Comments at 11, Intel Comments at 4, ITIC Comments at 4, Mobile Future Comments at 10, Nokia Comments at 
15, Qualcomm Comments at 7, Samsung Comments at 11-12, Straight Path Comments at 14-16, T-Mobile 
Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 5, XO Comments at 8.
205
See 5G Americas Comments at 4, Cisco Comments at 5 n.11, Huawei Comments at 11, Intel Comments at 4, 
Mobile Future Comments at 10, Nokia Comments at 15, Qualcomm Comments at 7, Samsung Comments at 11-12, 
Straight Path Comments at 14-16, T-Mobile Comments at 9, Verizon Comments at 6, XO Comments at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
35
suggests that incumbent licenses be modified to limit their authorizations to protection of existing 
operations, both by frequency and by area of operations.
206
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to grant mobile operating rights to existing active 39 86.
GHz licensees for the same reasons we granted mobile operating rights to LMDS incumbent licensees.  
Granting mobile operating rights to existing licensees will expedite the deployment of service, minimize 
the difficulties involved in coordinating fixed and mobile deployments, and provide a uniform licensing 
scheme throughout the United States.  In contrast, separating fixed and mobile rights through assignment 
of overlay licenses would delay the implementation of mobile service.  We remain concerned that 
awarding fixed and mobile rights separately would lead to disputes between fixed and mobile licensees 
that could make it more difficult for both licensees to provide service.
  We recognize that awarding mobile rights to incumbent licensees could be viewed as a 87.
windfall to those licensees, although the Commission contemplated granting mobile rights when it first 
created LMDS.  Here, the benefits of expediting service and facilitating the coordination of fixed and 
mobile service outweigh any potential disadvantages of granting mobile rights to incumbents.
4. Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway Earth 
Stations
The NPRM invited comments on three issues relating to FSS use of the radiofrequency 88.
spectrum from 37.5 GHz to 40 GHz, encompassing both the 38.6-40 GHz (39 GHz) band and the 37-38.6 
GHz (37 GHz) band.
207
  The first question was whether we should make any changes to our treatment of 
gateway earth station applications; the second, whether it would be reasonable to eliminate the prohibition 
against ubiquitous deployment of user equipment; and the third question, whether it would be feasible to 
allow satellite operators to increase their power flux densities (PFDs) above existing limits during heavy 
rain storms.
208
  In none of those cases did the Commission foresee any reason to differentiate between the 
37 GHz and 39 GHz bands with respect to satellite sharing issues.
The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations accords co-primary status to FSS earth stations in 89.
the 37.5-40 GHz frequencies,
209
but Commission rules provide that gateway earth stations in the 39 GHz 
band may be deployed only if the FSS licensee obtains a 39 GHz license for the area where the earth 
station will be located, or if it enters into an agreement with the corresponding 39 GHz licensee.
210
  The 
Commission mentioned the changes that the NPRM was proposing for the licensing of satellite operations 
in the 28 GHz band and sought comment on whether similar changes should be adopted for the 37.5-40 
GHz channel groups.
211
  The NPRM asked whether the Commission should establish a waiver process by 
which non-Federal FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz bands could acquire co-primary status in areas 
where there is no geographic service area licensee, if they can demonstrate that doing so would not have a 
negative impact on future terrestrial service.
212
  The Commission asked if the fact that 37.5-40 GHz FSS 
operations are space-to-Earth, rather than Earth-to-space as in the 28 GHz band, should lead to different 
                                                     
206
AT&T Reply at 14; see also Cisco Comments at 5 n.11.
207
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 160.
208
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 160.
209
47 CFR § 2.106.
210
See 47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.3.  There is no corresponding rule for the 37 GHz band because the Commission has 
not yet adopted service rules for that band.  
211
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 161.
212
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 162.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
36
answers to these questions.
213
  The Commission also sought comment on any other changes it should 
make to the existing rules.
214
Commenters acknowledge that the space-to-Earth nature of satellite operations in the 90.
37.5-40 GHz bands means that it is earth stations that need protection against interfering signals from 
terrestrial operations rather than the opposite situation that applies for Earth-to-space operations in the 
28 GHz band.
215
  EchoStar calculates that satellite earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band will need 
exclusion zones with radii extending no more than about two kilometers.
216
  EchoStar states this radius in 
the 37.5-40 GHz bands is about 12 times the radius (170 meters) circumscribing the exclusion zone that 
EchoStar says is required for earth stations in the 28 GHz band.  The areas required for the resulting 
exclusion zones would be about 138 times as large – 12.6 square kilometers (4.9 square miles) for the 
37.5-40 GHz bands versus 0.09 square kilometers (0.03 square miles) for the 28 GHz band.  By 
comparison with the 28 GHz band, therefore, accommodating satellite earth stations in the 39 GHz band 
is approximately two orders of magnitude more difficult.  
The smallest counties mentioned in our discussion of satellite interference zones for the 91.
28 GHz band each cover about 80 square kilometers.  The exclusion area that EchoStar says is required 
for the 37.5-40 GHz frequencies would cover about 16 percent of such a county -- a proportion that could 
seriously impair the growth prospects for mmW mobile.  The challenge is less daunting when we consider 
the possibility of authorizing earth station sites on a Partial Economic Area basis rather than a county 
basis.  The average PEA in the 48 contiguous U.S. states covers about 18,692 square kilometers (7,217 
square miles).
217
Therefore, the requisite exclusion zone would cover about 0.0674 percent of the average 
PEA’s land mass in the contiguous U.S.  If people were evenly distributed across this hypothetical 
average PEA, substantially less than 0.1 percent of its population would fall in the earth station’s 
exclusion zone.
218
These calculations show that some PEAs should be able to host a 39 GHz earth station 92.
without placing more than 0.1 percent of the PEA’s population in the earth station’s exclusion zone.  
Most PEAs cover substantially less territory than the average PEA does; i.e., even for some PEAs, a five 
square-mile exclusion zone might affect an unacceptably high proportion of their populations.  But 
satellite operators will not necessarily need to deploy 39 GHz earth stations in the smaller, more densely 
populated PEAs.  For satellite gateway earth stations in particular, the sine qua non is not proximity to 
population centers, per se, but access to long-haul, high data-rate Internet facilities.  As Figure 1 shows, 
direct access to long-haul Internet nodes is available not just in major population centers but also in some 
of the more remote parts of the U.S.
219
  The table in Appendix B confirms that many of those nodes are in 
                                                     
213
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 162.
214
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11926, para. 161.
215
See, e.g., EchoStar Reply at 20-21.
216
EchoStar Comments at 33.
217
The combined land area (not including water area) of the contiguous 48 U.S. states is 2,954,841 square miles). 
United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census Gazetteer Files, http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
data/data/gazetteer2010.html (last visited June 16, 2016).  There are 410 Partial Economic Areas in the contiguous 
48 U.S. states.  See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas, GN 
Docket No. 12-268, Public Notice, DA 14-759 (WTB June 2, 2014).  
218
As of July 2015, the official estimate for the population of the contiguous 48 states was 311,654,056.  United 
States Census Bureau, Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2015/index.html).
219
R. Durairajan, P. Barford, J.Sommers and W. Willinger. InterTubes: A Study of the US Long-haul Fiber-optic 
Infrastructure, in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 2015 (http://www.sigcomm.org/node/3852); R. Durairajan, S. 
Ghosh, X. Tang, P. Barford, and B. Eriksson, Internet Atlas: A Geographic Database of the Internet, in Proceedings 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
37
Figure 1: Long-Haul Internet Connections
places with comparatively low population densities – i.e., near areas where it should be possible to deploy 
earth stations without creating exclusion zones that affect unacceptably high proportions of the 
population.  In addition, as we suggested for the 28 GHz band, satellite operators can substantially reduce 
the sizes of the exclusion zones that they require by constructing artificial site shields or by taking 
advantage of naturally occurring terrain features.
220
   Figure 2 illustrates how spatial analysis software can 
process digital elevation data to identify geographic depressions, which are capable of providing natural 
site-shielding in all directions.
221
  For earth stations that communicate only with geosynchronous 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
of the 5
th
ACM Workshop on HotPlanet, August 2013 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262247359_Internet_atlas_A_geographic_database_of_the_internet). 
220
See S.A. Bokhari, et al., Site Shielding of Earth-Station Antennas, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 
Vol. 37, No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 7 (IEEE accession number 1045-9243/93) 
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=370577&newsearch=true&searchWithin=%22Publicatio
n%20Title%22:antennas%20and%20propagation%20magazine&searchWithin=%22Volume%22:37&searchWithin
=%22Issue%22:1).
221
The sources and methods used to generate this map are described in Appendix C.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
38
Figure 2
satellites, more limited site shielding would typically suffice.  In addition, satellite operators may continue 
to protect their earth stations from interference using any of four market-oriented mechanisms: purchasing 
geographic area licenses at auction, acquiring licenses from existing licensees, obtaining partitioned 
segments of existing geographic area licenses from existing licensees, or obtaining contractual 
agreements from nearby licensees not to interfere into their earth station operations.
Based on those considerations, we will authorize non-Federal satellite earth stations in the 39 93.
GHz band on a first-come, first-served basis that will entitle them to protection from terrestrial 
transmissions subject to the following conditions.
222
  First, the earth station applicant must define a 
protection zone in its application around its earth station where no terrestrial operations may be located.  
The FSS applicant may self-define this protection zone, but it must demonstrate using reasonable 
engineering methods that the designated protection zone is no larger than necessary to protect its earth 
station.  Second, we will authorize a maximum of three protection zones in each PEA, so the applicant 
must demonstrate that there are no more than two existing protection zones in the PEA or demonstrate 
that its protection zone will be contiguous to any preexisting satellite protection zone.  Third, the 
applicant must demonstrate the existing and proposed protection zones, in the aggregate, will not cover 
more than 0.1 percent of the PEA’s population.
223
  Fourth, the applicant must show that the protection 
                                                     
222
We adopt a new footnote, NG63, to the Allocation Table that reflects the existing limitation to gateway earth 
stations. See 47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.3.
223
The International Bureau will issue a public notice seeking comment on the appropriate methodology to calculate 
the 0.1 percent population limit and will also seek comment on best practices for earth station siting to minimize 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
39
zone does not infringe upon any major event venue, arterial street, interstate or U.S. highway, urban mass 
transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.  Finally, the earth station applicant must coordinate 
with terrestrial fixed and mobile licensees whose license areas overlap with the protection zone, in order 
to ensure that the protection zone does not encompass existing terrestrial operations.  The coordination 
requirements will be based on our existing requirements contained in Section 101.103(d) of the 
Commission’s rules.
224
  If the earth station is authorized, UMFUS licensees will be prohibited from 
placing facilities within the protection zone absent consent from the FSS operator, and the FSS operator 
must respond in good faith to requests to place facilities within a protection zone.
5. Band Plan
Background.  Having decided on PEAs as the appropriate geographic area for the 39 GHz 94.
band, our next objective is to determine the appropriate bandwidth or channel size in these areas.  The 
NPRM sought comment on retaining the existing band plan, which consists of 14 channel pairs of 50 
MHz by 50 MHz (totaling 1.4 gigahertz) licensed by EA.
225
  The NPRM proposed keeping the existing 
band plan to expedite deployment while maintaining national uniformity.  We also sought comment on 
expanding the channel size and any costs the licensee could incur if the channel plan were changed.
226
  
Commenters also argue that 200 MHz blocks are necessary to attain the data speeds and meet the capacity 
requirements of wireless 5G uses, with such larger channel bandwidths optimizing traffic management 
and improving system performance.
227
  Many commenters supporting 200 megahertz channels for the 39 
GHz band envision the channels as part of a larger 3 gigahertz band that combines the 37 GHz and 39 
GHz bands.
228
  The allocation of 3 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum above 24 GHz for mobile operations 
is viewed as one of the best way to spark investment in 5G and significantly support deployment of new 
technologies that can enable high-data rate transmissions.
229
Only a few incumbent licensees express a 
preference for maintaining the current paired 50 MHz band plan
230
(though one has recently changed its 
position and is open to a rebanding if an appropriate transition plan enables it to continue serving its 
customers
231
).  Alternatively, some commenters argue for channels larger than 200 megahertz, suggesting 
two 500 megahertz channels and one 400 megahertz channel for the band.
232
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
impact on UMFU services, colocation of earth stations, and accommodating multiple earth station interference zones 
without exceeding 0.1 percent of population in a given PEA..
224
47 CFR § 101.103(d).
225
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914, para. 117.
226
See 5G Americas Comments at 14-15, AT&T Comments at 14, CTA Comments at 12, CTIA Comments at 21-
22, Ericsson Comments at 9, Qualcomm Comments at 11, Samsung Comments at 14, TIA Comments at 30-31, T-
Mobile Comments at 11-12, Verizon Comments at 7, Intel Reply at 8, Verizon Reply at 7,.
227
AT&T Comments at 10, Samsung Comments at 14.
228
See 5G Americas Comments at 15, AT&T Comments at 14-16, CTA Comments at 12, CTIA Comments at 21-
22, Ericsson Comments at 8-9, AT&T Reply at 19, 21-22, CTIA Reply at 12-14, EchoStar Reply at 20, Verizon 
Reply at 4, 7. 
229
See 5G Americas Comments at 15, AT&T Comments at 15-16, CTA Comments at 12, CTIA Comments at 21-
22, Ericsson Comments at 8, Huawei Comments at 5-6, Intel Comments at 7, Straight Path Comments at 6, T-
Mobile Comments at 13, Verizon Comments at 6-7, AT&T Reply at 21-22, CCA Reply at 5, Mobile Future Reply at 
6-7, Samsung Reply at 6-7.
230
FiberTower Comments at 6 (arguing that licensees should be free to swap with other licensees and that both TDD 
and FDD should be supported), XO Comments at 24 (arguing that its existing FDD links would be jeopardized).
231
XO Reply at 12.
232
See 5G Americas Comments at 15 (suggesting that combinations of 200 and 500 MHz could be used), Nokia 
Comments at 5, 21-22 (recommending dividing the 39 GHz band into three channels with 400 megahertz, 500 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
40
Discussion. The Commission will create seven 200 megahertz bands out of the 39 GHz band 95.
(38.6-40 GHz).  We find that this channel size is large enough to take advantage of the data throughput 
capacity of these bands yet yields a sufficient quantity of channels in the band to provide access to 
multiple operators simultaneously.  We agree with the comment that next generation 5G networks are 
expected to depend in part on higher frequencies, increased spectral efficiency and greater density of cell 
deployments and that these factors alone may be insufficient to meet the expected tenfold increases in 
peak data rates and user throughput without using ultra-wide channel bandwidths of at least 200 MHz.
233
  
These wider channels available at higher frequencies could allow for higher data rates in environments 
constrained by power or signal-to-noise ratios.
234
  By facilitating higher throughput, wideband channels 
will thereby permit more users to simultaneously use the band.  
We also modify the current band plan that is based on paired spectrum blocks in favor of 96.
larger, unpaired channels to enable Time Division Duplexing (TDD) which commenters believe will best 
enable a 5G mobile service environment.
235
  Straight Path asserts that TDD is preferable in these 
frequencies given the current lack of adequate frequency duplexers capable of meeting the performance, 
cost or form factor requirements necessary to facilitate Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) at these 
higher wavelengths.
236
TDD does not require a frequency duplexer and allows flexible downlink-uplink 
ratios that depend on traffic and result in efficient utilization of spectrum.
237
  While these and other 
commenters note the benefits of TDD in the context of 5G, commenters overwhelmingly support rules 
that allow for flexible duplexing schemes,
238
and the rules we adopt will allow any type of 
duplexing. Licensees may also continue to offer FDD service by acquiring and pairing multiple spectrum 
blocks. Because the existing channel plan favors FDD operation and limits flexibility to accommodate 
other duplexing schemes, reconfiguring the channel plan will remove obstacles to TDD schemes while 
still allowing for flexibility to accommodate FDD. Furthermore, larger bandwidths may optimize traffic 
management and improve system performance because a single, wide carrier permits centralized 
spectrum management whereas aggregation and use of various narrow bandwidth channels requires 
greater power consumption and equipment complexity.
239
  Finally, as discussed below, 200 megahertz 
channels will potentially create several empty channels for new entrants after incumbent licensees swap 
or repack their existing systems into consecutive or adjacent channels.
240
  Given all of the considerations 
above, we find that 200 MHz channels are the best band size for 39 GHz.
6. Pre-Auction License Reconfiguration
Background.  One concern we wish to address before licensing the unassigned 39 GHz 97.
frequencies concerns the fragmentation of the band.  A large number of the 28 50 megahertz available 
channel pairs at 39 GHz are interspersed among free, unassigned channels in noncontiguous batches 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
megahertz, and 500 megahertz each), Straight Path Comments at 23 (recommending dividing the 39 GHz band into 
three channels with 400 megahertz, 500 megahertz, and 500 megahertz each); see also Straight Path Reply at 9-12.
233
See AT&T Comments at 9-10.
234
Google Comments at 5.
235
Ericsson Comments at 9, Straight Path Comments at 23.
236
Straight Path Comments at 23-24.
237
Straight Path Comments at 24.  Straight Path also noted that with smaller bandwidths, other barriers to efficient 
use could include guard bands as well as more expensive transceivers and front end devices.  Id. at 24.  Verizon also 
argues channels in these bands should be auctioned unpaired to permit TDD.  Verizon Comments at 7; see also 
Ericsson Comments at 9, TIA Comments at 31.
238
See infra Section IV.G.1 (Flexible Duplexing Rules).
239
See AT&T Comments at 10.
240
See Section IV.B.6 (Pre-Auction License Configuration), infra..
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
41
throughout the existing EAs.  Holding any auction based on this fragmented band would likely be 
inefficient, as bidders would reasonably expect to incur significant transaction costs in assembling 
contiguous spectrum post-auction.
241
  The NPRM sought comment on Straight Path’s proposal to allow 
incumbent licensees to exchange their licenses pre-auction.
242
  Straight Path recommends that the 
Commission conduct a voluntary, pre-auction license swap or exchange which would give licensees the 
opportunity to consolidate their licensed blocks into larger tranches of contiguous spectrum thereby 
leaving more valuable empty contiguous channel blocks for the Commission to auction.
243
  Nearly 65% of 
all 39 GHz fixed terrestrial licenses are unassigned, Straight Path holds nearly 34% of the licenses, and 
less than 2% of the licenses are held by a few other entities.
244
  While not all licensees may choose to 
participate in such swaps, just the participation of Straight Path and the Commission alone could yield a 
significant improvement in the available unencumbered spectrum.
245
Discussion.  Straight Path’s proposal contains the clearest delineation of rules and steps 98.
necessary to align adjacent spectrum tranches to create contiguous bands – the goal advocated by 
commenters.
246
  We agree with Straight Path that in EAs where only it holds licenses, the Commission 
should accept any exchange application in which Straight Path or others propose to acquire the same 
amount of spectrum in the market that it proposes to relinquish as long as it meets the end goal of creating 
a contiguous block or blocks of spectrum.
247
  In instances where there are multiple geographic area 
licensees, Straight Path advocates that the Commission should first accept any band plan mutually 
acceptable to the various licensees as long as it also increases the amount of contiguous spectrum for at 
least one of the licensees.
248
  If licensees do not agree on a band plan, Straight Path argues the 
Commission should accept applications in which an incumbent geographic area licensee seeks to acquire 
any contiguous spectrum blocks adjacent to spectrum blocks it already holds subject to two limitations (i) 
the target spectrum block is not already occupied by another incumbent geographic area licensee; and (ii) 
the target spectrum block could not be requested by another incumbent geographic area licensee on the 
grounds that it is adjacent to a block it holds or that it could hold. A licensee should be able to continue 
to add contiguous unused blocks in a row until it reaches a prohibited block—i.e., a spectrum block that 
                                                     
241
See Intel Reply at 10.
242
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914, para. 117.
243
Straight Path Reply at 12.  
244
Other licenses are held by FiberTower, T-Mobile, NextLink(XO), SmartCity LLC, and SureWest.  See Intel 
Reply at 8 n.27, 9, Figure A; see also Straight Path April 4 Ex Parte Letter.
245
Intel Reply at 12.  Straight Path currently holds licenses in each of the existing 175 EAs and in most EAs Straight 
Path is the only licensee with the remaining 39 GHz channel blocks unoccupied. Straight Path April 4 Ex Parte
Letter Attach. 1, at 1.
246
See Intel Comments at 12, Nokia Comments at 24, Skyriver Comments at 17, T-Mobile Reply at 16; see also 
Iridium Reply at 5.
247
Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 1.  For example, treating the 14 channel pairs as 28 
independent channels, 
in EA13, channel blocks 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, 20, 24, and 28 are vacant, and Straight Path holds channel blocks 2-5, 7-9, 11-
13, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-27 for a total of twenty channel blocks. Under Straight Path’s proposal, it would relinquish its 
authorizations for blocks 21-23 and 25-27 in exchange for the vacant blocks 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 20, giving it twenty 
contiguous channel blocks, with the Commission holding eight contiguous channel blocks (21-28). Similarly, in EA12, 
channel blocks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 22, 26, and 28 are vacant, and Straight Path holds channel blocks 3, 5, 7, 
9-11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 27 for a total of fourteen channel blocks. In this example, Straight Path would 
relinquish its authorizations for blocks 17, 19, 21, 23-25, and 27 in exchange for the vacant blocks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 
14, giving both Straight Path and the Commission fourteen contiguous channel blocks.
Id. at 1.
248
Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
42
could also be claimed by another incumbent licensee.
249
  Straight Path suggests that in this way, 
contiguous occupied bands could be aligned starting at the lower edge of the band – at 38.6 GHz – and 
moving up toward 40 GHz.  Because we are adopting a band plan for the 37 GHz band that provides for 
continuity of commercial operations across the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands, when the bands are viewed 
together, Straight Path’s swapping plan results in occupied spectrum in the middle of the combined bands.  
One alternative might be to push incumbents to the upper end of the band near 39.5 GHz, in order to 
create larger available swathes of spectrum by combining the lower frequencies with the open bands in 
the 37 GHz band.  However, in the interest of addressing mobile data demand as quickly as possible, 39 
GHz licensees at the bottom of the band will provide the first market for mmW mobile equipment as soon 
as it becomes available, and this will further the goal of interoperability by allowing fixed licensees to 
more rapidly foster the development of mobile in their bands.
Some of the 200 MHz spectrum blocks offered at auction will also contain at least one 99.
incumbent RSA licensee occupying some portion of the spectrum.
250
  Straight Path argues that where the 
incumbent geographic license holder is also the RSA licensee, the RSA license will be deemed not to 
exist and will be cancelled upon an exchange.
251
Otherwise, incumbent licensees will only be permitted to 
elect to add contiguous channels with greater encumbrances than vice versa; accordingly, a geographic 
area licensee can always opt to exchange a block without an RSA for an adjacent block with an RSA 
whose operations it will have to protect, and similarly it can always opt to take a license area with a more 
encumbered RSA over a block it holds with a less encumbered RSA, but it cannot “upgrade” to an RSA-
free block or a license with an embedded RSA that is less encumbered.
252
  Overall, although Intel and 
Straight Path have argued that EAs are the appropriate geographic area for new licenses given their 
historical use and the complexity of the swap process,
253
as discussed above, our preferred license area 
size for the 39 GHz band are PEAs, and such PEAs neatly fit into the EAs they comprise.  Accordingly, 
once incumbents’ spectrum swapping has run its course at the EA level, the resulting license area/band 
combinations should be further broken down into PEAs, which ‘nest’ into EAs.
We believe this reconfiguration process will yield a band, and licenses, that are more 100.
useable by incumbents as well as new entrants for the new flexible use services, including mobile 
broadband that we are authorizing in this Report and Order.  Straight Path currently holds 931 licenses 
                                                     
249
Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 2.
By way of illustration, in EA30, there is an incumbent geographic area licensee on channel blocks 6 and 20; channel 
blocks 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, and 27 are vacant; and Straight Path holds licenses for channel blocks 1-3, 
8, 10, 11, 14-17, 22, 24, 25, and 28, for a total of fourteen channel blocks. Because of the presence of an incumbent, 
Straight Path would not be eligible to apply for the channels occupied by the incumbent or channels adjacent to those 
occupied by the incumbent—in this case, channel blocks 5-7 and 19-21. Instead, Straight Path would be permitted to 
acquire blocks 4 (adjacent to its current blocks 1-3), 9 (adjacent to its current blocks 8 and 10), 12 (adjacent to its 
current block 11) and 13 (adjacent to its current block 14) and relinquish channel blocks 22, 24, 25, and 28 in 
exchange. As a result, Straight Path would hold channel blocks 1-4 and 8-17 for a total of fourteen channel blocks, 
and—assuming the other incumbent does not apply for any channel swaps—the Commission would hold channel 
blocks 5, 7, 18, 19, and 21-28 to auction. Similarly, in EA56, there is a second incumbent geographic area licensee on 
channel blocks 5, 6, 19, and 20; channel blocks 1-4, 7, 8, 14-18, 21, 22, and 28 are vacant; and Straight Path holds the 
licenses for channel blocks 9-13 and 23-27 for a total of ten channel blocks. In this scenario, Straight Path would be 
prohibited from applying for (i) channel blocks 5, 6, 19, and 20, which are occupied by the other incumbent licensee; 
(ii) blocks 4, 7, 18, and 21, which are immediately adjacent to blocks held by the other licensee; and (iii) block 17, 
which could be subject to competing claims as contiguously adjacent to blocks held by both licensees. Instead, Straight 
Path would be permitted to acquire channel blocks 8 (adjacent to its channel block 9), and 14-16 (with channel block 
14 adjacent to its current channel block 13 and with continuing adjacency, without the presence of a prohibited channel, 
through channel block 16). It would retain channels 9-13 and 23 for a total of ten channel blocks.  Id.
250
See Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 3.
251
Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 3.
252
See Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 3.
253
See Intel Reply at 13; Straight Path April 4, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1, at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
43
out of 1,098.
254
  If Straight Path voluntarily reconfigures its rights as it has advocated, this will
substantially reduce encumbrances (i.e., remaining RSAs or blocks within EAs that have not been 
reconfigured) that might exist in new license areas before a future auction.  While we adopt a voluntary 
reconfiguration approach, it is our hope and expectation that all licensees will take advantage of this 
opportunity to convert their licenses to the new flexible use licensing scheme and band plan.  
Furthermore, while we adopt a voluntary approach, we note that under Section 316 of the Act we retain 
the right to modify any license consistent with the public interest.
255
C. 37 GHz Band (37-38.6 GHz)
The 37 GHz band presents a number of opportunities because, other than a limited 101.
number of existing Federal uses that need protection, the band is a greenfield– there are no existing non-
federal operations, terrestrial or mobile.  In addition, it is adjacent to the 39 GHz band, which presents an 
opportunity to create a larger, contiguous 37/39 GHz band, subject to similar technical and operational 
rules.  Also, the Federal fixed and mobile service allocations are lightly used.  The approach we adopt 
today takes full advantage of these opportunities.
Specifically, we can meet the twin goals of expanding commercial access in this band 102.
while facilitating continued and expanded Federal use.  Because there are both Federal and non-Federal 
fixed and mobile rights and there are minimal incumbency issues (or an installed base of equipment), the 
approach we adopt in this band can significantly further the regulatory, policy, and technical approaches 
to Federal and non-Federal sharing.  As discussed in greater detail below, we adopt a band plan that 
allows for continuity of commercial operations between the 37 and 39 GHz bands, we protect a limited 
number of Federal military sites across the full 37 GHz band, and we identify 600 megahertz of spectrum 
that will be available for coordinated coequal shared access between Federal and non-Federal users.  
Through this structure, additional proposals in the FNPRM, and the collaborative industry/government 
process that will take place to further define the sharing process and paradigm, we will take substantial 
strides forward on Federal and non-Federal sharing in the mmW bands while also making a significant 
amount of spectrum available for wireless broadband.
1. Suitability for Mobile Use
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to develop service rules for 103.
mobile operation in the 37 GHz band.
256
  In undertaking this task, the Commission indicated that because 
the band has both Federal and non-Federal allocations and is located adjacent to a passive services band, 
developing rules to permit mobile operation in the 37 GHz band will be challenging.
257
  The Federal and 
non-Federal allocations of the 37 band are as follows: The entire 37 GHz band is allocated to the fixed 
and mobile services on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.
258
  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 
                                                     
254
These numbers include both EA and RSA licenses.
255
47 U.S.C. § 316.
256
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897-98, paras. 51-53.
257
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897-98, paras. 52-53.
258
The Commission proposed to modify the mobile service allocation in the 37-38 GHz band by excluding the 
aeronautical mobile service, i.e., the 37-38 GHz band would be allocated to the mobile except aeronautical mobile 
service.  See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) 
(WRC-07), Other Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97, and 101 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference 
(Geneva, 2012)(WRC-12), Other Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, Report and Order, Order, and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4268 para. 244 (2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
44
use (37.5-38.6 GHz).
259
The use of this FSS downlink allocation is subject to the soft-segmentation plan 
adopted by the Commission in the V-Band Second Report and Order.
260
  And finally, 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.
261
  To accommodate the needs and characteristics of these different uses, the 
Commission stated that it intended to develop a flexible rules framework for the 37 GHz band that would 
enable as wide a range of services as possible.
262
  The Commission also committed to working with the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ensure that Federal operations 
are protected while maximizing the use of the 37 GHz band for commercial operations.
263
  Since the 
Commission released the NPRM, the ITU in WRC-15 committed to study the use of the 37-40.5 GHz 
band for terrestrial services.
264
Many commenters support the development of service rules to permit fixed and mobile 104.
terrestrial operations in the 37 GHz band.
265
  Other commenters express reservations.  For instance, 
Boeing asks the Commission to ensure that any identification of spectrum for 5G services protects the
growth of existing and near-term satellite communications services and specifically requests that the 
Commission not authorize 5G technologies in the 37-38.6 GHz band until the international community 
has completed the studies called for by the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference on the potential 
use of the 37 GHz band for satellite.
266
  Also, Cisco urges the Commission to proceed with caution 
because potential enterprise or industrial users have not yet organized or amassed sufficient interest in the 
mmW bands to initiate the necessary technological development.
267
Discussion.  Today we adopt rules to permit fixed and mobile terrestrial operation in the 105.
37 GHz band to enable as wide a range of services as possible.  We find that there are several important 
characteristics of the 37 GHz band that make the provision of fixed and mobile terrestrial operations 
especially promising: it contains 1.6 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum, which could support ultra-high 
data rates; it is contiguous with the 39 GHz band, which will permit operators to aggregate spectrum 
across both bands; and it has global co-primary fixed and mobile allocations, which could enable 
operators to achieve economies of scale.
268
  Although, as discussed above, Cisco urges us to proceed 
cautiously,
269
and Boeing urges us to wait until the studies called for by the WRC-15 are completed,
270
we 
are persuaded that fixed and mobile terrestrial services can be provided in the 37 GHz band.
271
  In this 
regard, in analyzing the suitability of the 37 GHz band for mobile service, the band is very similar to the 
                                                     
259
The existing rules limit the FSS use of the 37.5-40 GHz band to gateway earth stations.  See 47 CFR § 
25.202(a)(1) n.3.
260
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897, paras. 49 (citing V-Band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25438 paras.
23-24).  See also 47 CFR § 2.106.
261
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897-11898, paras. 52-53. See U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 CFR § 2.106.
262
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897-11898, para. 52.
263
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11898, para. 53.
264
Boeing Comments at 8.
265
Mobile Future Comments at 8-9, Nokia Comments at 9-10, Samsung Comments at 11-13, Straight Path 
Comments at 5.
266
Boeing Comments at ii.
267
Cisco Comments at i.  
268
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11897 para. 51.
269
Cisco Comments at i.
270
Boeing Comments at ii.
271
Samsung Comments at 11-13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
45
39 GHz band.  It has an existing mobile allocation, the propagation characteristics are very similar to the 
39 GHz band, and we do not see any inconsistency with other allocations that would make the band 
unsuitable for mobile service.  In terms of timing of our action, considering the potential benefit for 5G 
services and the significant lead time that will be necessary to develop the services in this band, we 
believe that we should move forward and develop fixed and mobile terrestrial services rules for the 37 
GHz band.  Moreover, as discussed more fully below, the rules we adopt today accommodate the needs of 
NASA, NSF, the military, and FSS operations in the 37 GHz band as well as EESS (passive) and SRS 
(passive) operations in the adjacent 36-37 GHz band.
272
2. Licensing the 37 GHz Band
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a hybrid authorization, 106.
licensing scheme that would convey licensed local area operating rights to premises occupants, and 
separately, geographic area licenses for wide area use.
273
The Commission proposed to license local area 
operating rights by rule, under Section 307(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
Communications Act), and to license wide area rights by auction.
274
  The Commission proposed to use 
counties as the geographical size for the wide-area licenses.
275
The Commission also sought comment on an alternative licensing scheme in which the 107.
37 GHz band would be divided into several blocks; some of which would be assigned by rule for local 
area uses.
276
  Under this proposal, the band could be divided into three 533 megahertz or four 400 
megahertz blocks and one or two blocks could be assigned by rule to local areas uses and the others could 
be assigned on a geographic area basis and assigned though an auction process.
277
  
In addition, the Commission sought comment on a second alternative licensing scheme in 108.
which the entire 37 GHz band would be licensed geographically, but the geographic areas would be small 
enough to accommodate local area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses.
278
As discussed below, most commenters oppose the hybrid authorization proposal.
279
109.
Instead, many commenters favor a licensing scheme based on geographic area licensing with geographic 
areas larger than counties, such as BTAs, EAs, or PEAs.
280
  Public Knowledge and Starry, Inc. favor 
adopting a scheme similar to the one that the Commission adopted in the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband 
                                                     
272
Since the considerations for satellite sharing in the 37.5-40 GHz band are identical to the considerations present 
in the 39 GHz band, we will adopt the same rules for terrestrial sharing for both bands.  See supra Section IV.B.4 
(Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing).  For additional discussion of Federal sharing in the band, see Section 
IV.E (Federal Sharing Issues), infra.
273
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11909-10, para. 100.
274
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11910, paras. 102-103.
275
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 110.
276
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11911, para. 105.
277
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11911, para. 105.
278
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11911, para. 106.
279
5G Americas Comments at 14, AT&T Comments at 16, CTA Comments at 10-11, CTIA Comments at 11, 
Ericsson Comments at 7, Intel Comments at 13-14, ITIC Comments at 5, Mobile Future Comments at 11-12, NCTA 
Comments at 13-16, Nokia Comments at 16, PCIA Comments at 10-11, Qualcomm Comments at 8, Samsung 
Comments at 13, TIA Comments at 18-21, T-Mobile Comments at 12-13, Verizon Comments at 6.
280
5G Americas Comments at 8-9, CTA Comments at 11-12, Mobile Future Comments at 13, Qualcomm 
Comments at 9, TIA Comments at 22-23.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
46
Radio Service.
281
  Finally, several commenters urge us to combine the 37 GHz band with the 39 GHz 
band and license both under the same geographic area licensing framework.
282
  
In 2016, NTIA sent a letter to the Commission addressing issues raised in the NPRM, 110.
regarding, in part, licensing the 37-38.6 GHz.
283
  NTIA recommends that the Commission adopt a 
modified version of their Alternative Proposal in the NPRM, creating a band plan with a 600 megahertz 
shared block in the 37-37.6 GHz band.
284
Discussion.  We adopt a licensing approach that makes five 200 megahertz blocks 111.
available on a geographic area-licensed basis in the 37.6-38.6 GHz portion of the band (upper band 
segment).  We will make the 37-37.6 GHz block (lower band segment) available for coordinated co-
primary sharing between Federal and non-Federal users, where non-Federal rights are granted by rule.  
We note that the entire band is subject to Federal co-primary fixed and mobile allocations.  We decline to 
adopt the hybrid authorization licensing scheme because it is unsupported by the record.
285
  Specifically, 
commenters oppose it because they do not believe that the 37 GHz band is appropriate for this particular 
scheme, though it could be used for other bands.
286
  In addition, the satellite industry expresses concern 
that the hybrid licensing approach does not provide satellite operators with any meaningful certainty that 
they will be able to expand into the 37 GHz band.
287
   
Of the three licensing options that the Commission sought comment on in the NPRM, we 112.
find that a variation of our alternative proposal best enables the band to be used for new commercial uses 
while simultaneously allowing fixed and mobile Federal use to expand.  Although there is support in the 
record to license the entire 37 GHz band by geographic area, we find that it is in the public interest to 
license a portion of this band on a non-exclusive shared basis, and to license the remainder of the band by 
geographic area to give potential licensees additional opportunity to access large blocks of spectrum or to 
use 37 GHz spectrum in combination with, and similarly to, 39 GHz spectrum.  Allowing part of the band 
to be made available on a non-exclusive, shared basis will promote access to spectrum by a wide variety 
of entities, support innovative uses of the band, and help ensure that spectrum is widely utilized.  
Adopting geographic area licensing for the other portion of the band will expeditiously make spectrum 
available and allow common development of the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.  Furthermore, users in the 
shared portion of the band will benefit from efforts by equipment manufacturers and licensees to develop 
equipment for the portion of the band licensed on a geographic area basis.  Thus, we find that adopting 
the alternative proposal, as modified below, should promote investment and deployment in both bands.  
As explained below, we agree that there are benefits to adopting the same geographic area licensing 
framework for the 37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum bands.  Also, we find that adopting the alternative 
proposal, in addition to other decisions made by the Commission today, provides satellite operators the 
certainty they need to be able to expand their operations into the 37 GHz band in the future.  
                                                     
281
OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 5-6, Starry May 5, Ex Parte Letter.
282
5G Americas Comments at 15, AT&T Comments at 15-16, Intel Comments at 7-8, T-Mobile Comments at 13, 
Verizon Comments at 6-7.  
283
Letter from Paige R. Atkins, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, dated July 12, 
2016, to Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC (2016 NTIA Letter).
284
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.  
285
5G Americas Comments at 14, AT&T Comments at 16, CTA Comments at 10-11, CTIA Comments at 11, 
Ericsson Comments at 7, Intel Comments at 13-14, ITIC Comments at 5, Mobile Future Comments at 11-12, NCTA 
Comments at 13-14, Nokia Comments at 16, PCIA Comments at 10-11, Qualcomm Comments at 8, Samsung 
Comments at 13, TIA Comments at 18-19, T-Mobile Comments at 12, Verizon Comments at 6.
286
Intel Comments at 14-15.
287
SIA Comments at 17-18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
47
We adopt a modified version of the alternative proposal as follows: we will create a band 113.
plan with a 600 megahertz shared block in 37-37.6 GHz and a geographically-licensed portion in 37.6-
38.6 GHz.  The lower band segment will be fully available for use by both Federal and non-Federal users 
on a coordinated co-equal basis.  Non-Federal users, which we will identify as Shared Access Licensees 
(SAL), will be authorized by rule.  Federal and non-Federal users will access the band through a 
coordination mechanism, including exploration of potential dynamic sharing through technology in the 
lower 600 megahertz, which we will more fully develop through the FNPRM and through 
government/industry collaboration.  We envision this segment serving as a proving ground for Federal 
and non-Federal sharing in the mmW bands, as a way to facilitate expanded Federal use in the band, an 
opportunity to facilitate lower-cost access to mmW bands, and a means for all providers to gain additional 
capacity where and when it is needed.  
As described below, we adopt the same technical rules for the shared band segment as we 114.
do for the rest of the 37 GHz band.
288
  These technical rules are also consistent with the 39 GHz band.  
We also adopt an operability requirement that will ensure equipment developed for the 37 and 39 GHz 
bands is able to operate across the entire 37-40 GHz band.
289
  This will help drive scale in the 
development and access to the equipment, and allow users in the shared portion of the band, including 
Federal users, to benefit.  In order to ensure a sharing environment in 37-37.6 GHz that is predictable, 
manageable, and efficient, we strongly encourage Federal users to comply with the same technical rules, 
and will work with NTIA to explore establishment of guidance in its regulations. 
Following the adoption of this Report and Order, the Wireless Bureau and Office of 115.
Engineering and Technology will, in collaboration with NTIA and Federal stakeholders, work with 
industry stakeholders and other interested parties to further define the sharing framework.  We will hold 
one or more public meetings to examine the state of innovative sharing techniques and technologies and 
to have an open dialogue about how sharing can best be implemented and achieved in the 37-37.6 GHz 
band.  We strongly encourage both industry and Federal stakeholders to use new and existing 
experimental testbeds to develop sharing approaches and technologies.  Based on stakeholder feedback, 
the Wireless Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology may, jointly with NTIA, issue a 
public notice seeking comment on a refined and detailed 37 GHz sharing framework.  In response to the 
record developed, the Commission, jointly with NTIA, will establish the 37 GHz sharing mechanism.  We 
believe this inclusive and collaborative process ensures that all parties’ needs are met and that an effective 
and robust sharing mechanism will be developed.
In the upper band segment (37.6-38.6 GHz), we will use geographic area licensing with 116.
PEAs as the licensing unit, which is consistent with the licenses in the 39 GHz band.  In this band, there 
will be Federal co-primary use coordination zones around 14 military sites where the military will have 
the right to operate fixed and mobile operations, and the three Space Research Service sites as described 
below.
290
  Non-Federal users will be able to access these locations through a coordination mechanism that 
will be developed and established by WTB and OET in conjunction with NTIA and announced via Public 
Notice.  We also recognize that there are existing Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile allocations in 
the upper band segment, and in the FNPRM, we seek comment on developing additional criteria under 
which Federal users can obtain access to the upper band segment.
291
  
We believe licensing the 37 GHz band in this manner has many benefits.  In the lower 117.
band segment, we are creating an innovative shared space that can be used by a wide variety of Federal 
and non-Federal users.  SALs will be widely available to provide easy access to spectrum, including for
                                                     
288
See infra Section IV.G (Technical Rules).
289
See infra Section IV.G.5 (Operability).
290
See infra Section IV.E.2 (Federal Sharing Issues, 37-38.6 GHz).
291
See infra Section V.B.7 (Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing in the Upper Band Segment).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
48
new innovative uses and for targeted access where and when providers need additional capacity.  It will 
help further efforts to facilitate sharing between Federal and non-Federal users, and will give Federal
users and consumers an opportunity to take advantage of speed-to-market and lower cost of broadly 
deployed commercial technologies, and provide Federal users opportunities for current use and future 
growth.  In the upper band segment, we note that the 37 GHz band and the 39 GHz band will be licensed 
under the same framework, with identical technical and licensing rules.  They will both be licensed by 
PEAs, which will allow licensees in the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands to aggregate blocks of spectrum or to 
pair blocks of spectrum.  
Below, we discuss in further detail some of the decisions we have made concerning the 118.
37 GHz band.  In the FNPRM, we seek comment on refining the sharing framework we are adopting 
today.
292
3. License Area Size
Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to use counties as the base geographic area unit 119.
for licenses in the 37 GHz band and gave four reasons for doing so.
293
  First, the Commission explained 
that because 37 GHz signals do not propagate well over long distances, when it is used for mobile 
applications coverage will be measured in meters, not kilometers.
294
  Second, the Commission further 
explained that small license areas could provide licensees with additional flexibility to target their 
deployments where they need capacity.
295
  Third, smaller license areas reduce the potential for 
warehousing spectrum.  Fourth, county based licenses could equally facilitate access by both small 
carriers and large carriers.
296
Unlike in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, there are no incumbent non-Federal licensees in 120.
the 37 GHz band.  Therefore, we do not need to take incumbent licensees into account in setting a license 
area size.
Discussion.  We are presented with a unique opportunity to adopt a licensing scheme that 121.
will apply to 2,400 megahertz of contiguous spectrum, the upper segment from 37.6-38.6 GHz together 
with the 38.6-40 GHz band.  In the shared band segment, we will authorize fixed and mobile users on a 
site-based coordinated basis.  We believe this approach will allow users to access spectrum where and 
when it is needed, which will help maximize spectrum by providing opportunities for each user to target 
just the areas it needs.  As discussed above, we are licensing the 39 GHz band by PEA.  Our reasons for 
adopting PEAs as the geographic area for the 39 GHz band apply here as well.
297
  Specifically, as we 
noted with respect to the 39 GHz band, after reviewing the record, we now believe that PEAs strike the 
appropriate balance between facilitating access to spectrum by both large and small providers and 
simplifying frequency coordination while incentivizing investment in, and rapid deployment of, new 
technologies.
298
Thus, we adopt the same geographic license structure for both the upper band segment of 
the 37 GHz band and the 39 GHz band.  This decision will give licensees the flexibility that they need and 
will encourage investment in a wide variety of services and technologies.  
                                                     
292
See infra Section V.B (Federal Sharing Issues—37-38.6 GHz Band (37 GHz band)).
293
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, paras. 110-111.
294
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
295
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
296
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11912, para. 111.
297
See supra Section IV.B.2 (Licensing the 39 GHz band).
298
See para. 82, supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
49
4. Band Plan for Upper Band Segment
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on two possible 122.
channelization plans.
299
  Under the first possibility, the 37 GHz band would be divided into three equal 
blocks of 533 megahertz.
300
  Under the second possibility the band would be divided into four blocks of 
400 megahertz each.
301
  Commenters generally recommend that the Commission establish large blocks, 
with a minimum block size of 200 megahertz.
302
  As mentioned above, several commenters recommend 
that the Commission combine the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands under one licensing framework.
303
Discussion.  We will divide the upper band segment into five blocks of 200 megahertz 123.
each for non-Federal users.  As explained in this Report and Order, we are attempting to create a 
consistent and coherent licensing framework that can be applied throughout the mmW bands, with 
modifications based on the characteristics of a particular band.  Our decision to choose 200 megahertz 
channels rather than 533 megahertz channels also stems, in part, from our previous decision to create two 
licensing segments for the 37 GHz band: a 600 megahertz lower band segment licensed by rule, and a 
1,000 megahertz upper segment, which will be licensed geographically by PEA.  Adopting 200 megahertz 
channel sizes for the upper band segment is consistent with the 200 megahertz channels we adopt for the 
39 GHz band.  Because we license the upper band segment of the 37 GHz band and the 39 GHz band by 
PEA, licensees will have the flexibility to pair their 37 GHz license with a 39 GHz license.  
In addition, the provision of fixed and mobile terrestrial operations at this frequency will 124.
depend upon large blocks of spectrum and a single 200 megahertz block provides a sufficient amount of 
spectrum for the provision of high-capacity wireless broadband.  Those licensees needing more spectrum 
than a 200 megahertz channel can combine channels to create contiguous blocks of 200 megahertz 
channels, either within the 37 GHz band or by combining 37 GHz spectrum with 39 GHz spectrum.  
Licensees also have the option of acquiring 425 megahertz channels in the 28 GHz band.  
D. 64-71 GHz Band
We are making available the 64-71 GHz frequency band for use by unlicensed devices 125.
pursuant to the same technical standards as in the 57-64 GHz frequency band under Section 15.255 of our 
rules, with slight modifications.
304
  As the Commission has consistently stated, it is optimal to include a 
balance of licensed rights and opportunities to operate on an unlicensed basis in order to meet the 
country’s wireless broadband needs. Our action here creates a 14-gigahertz segment of contiguous 
spectrum in these frequency bands to encourage the development of new and innovative unlicensed 
applications, and promote next-generation high-speed wireless links with higher connectivity and 
                                                     
299
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914-15, para. 118.
300
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914-15, para. 118.
301
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914-15, para. 118.
302
5G Americas Comments at 14 (supporting 200 megahertz channels), CTA Comments at 12-13 (supporting 200 
megahertz channels), CTIA Comments at 22 (supporting 200 megahertz channels), Huawei Comments at 19 
(supporting 400 megahertz channels), Nokia Comments at 21-22 (supporting 400 megahertz channels), Samsung 
Comments at 14 (supporting 200 megahertz channels), TIA Comments at 29-30 (supporting 200 megahertz 
channels).
303
5G Americas Comments at 15, AT&T Comments at 15-16, Intel Comments at 7-8, T-Mobile Comments at 13, 
Verizon Comments at 6-7.  
304
47 CFR § 15.255.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
50
throughput, while alleviating spectrum congestion from carrier networks by enabling mobile data 
off-loading
305
through Wi-Fi and other unlicensed connections.
306
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend its rules to allow 126.
unlicensed Part 15 operations in the 64-71 GHz band.
307
  Part 15 of the Commission’s regulations permits 
the operation of radio frequency (RF) devices without an individual license from the Commission or the 
need for frequency coordination.
308
  The technical standards contained in Part 15 are designed to ensure 
that there is a low probability that such devices will cause harmful interference to other users of the radio 
spectrum.
309
  Unlicensed operations within the 57-64 GHz band are currently permitted under Section 
15.255 of our rules.
310
  Any type of unlicensed operation within the 57-64 GHz band is permitted under 
these rules, with the exception of operation on-board aircraft or satellites, and in mobile field disturbance 
sensor applications.
311
  
Several commenters support the Commission’s proposal and recommend that the 127.
Commission proceed expeditiously to extend the provisions of Section 15.255 to cover 57 GHz to 
71 GHz.
312
  These parties argue that the way consumers use wireless devices today creates a 
disproportionate demand on unlicensed wireless capacity, and that most of the Internet traffic today –
which drives wireless demand – originates and/or ends using unlicensed devices.
313
  
                                                     
305
Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted 
for cellular networks to reduce the amount of data being carried on the cellular bands, freeing bandwidth or allowing 
users to obtain better connectivity via wired services in situations where local cell reception may be poor.
306
See Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2015–2020 White 
Paper (Feb. 1, 2016), available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-
networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html (“Fifty-one percent of total mobile data traffic was 
offloaded onto the fixed network through Wi-Fi or femtocell in 2015.”)
307
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11965, para. 303.
308
47 CFR §§ 15.1 et seq.
309
The primary operating conditions under Part 15 are that the operator of a Part 15 device must accept whatever 
interference is received and must correct whatever harmful interference is caused.  Should harmful interference 
occur, the operator is required to immediately correct the interference problem, even if correction of the problem 
requires ceasing operation of the Part 15 equipment causing interference.  See 47 CFR § 15.5.
310
47 CFR § 15.255.  See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Use of 
Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New Radio Applications, First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 4481 (1995) (Above 40 GHz First Report and Order and Second FNPRM); Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 12212 (1997) (Above 40 GHz MO&O 
and Fourth NPRM); Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15074 (1998);  Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's 
Rules to Allocate Additional Spectrum to the Inter-Satellite, Fixed, and Mobile Services and to Permit Unlicensed 
Devices to Use Certain Segments in the 50.2-50.4 GHz and 51.4-71.0 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 
25264 (2000); Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation in the 57-64 GHz Band, Report 
and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 12517 (2013).  
311
47 CFR § 15.3(l) defines a field disturbance sensor as “a device that establishes a radio frequency field in its 
vicinity and detects changes in that field resulting from the movement of persons or objects within its range.” 
Examples of field disturbance sensors include radars operating under 47 CFR §§ 15.252 or 15.256; and perimeter 
protection systems operating under 47 CFR §§ 15.209(g) or 15.229.
312
See, e.g., Boeing Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 8, DSA Comments at 2, Facebook Comments at 5, FWCC 
Comments at 3, Google Comments at 6, Intel Comments at 17, Microsoft Comments at 5, NCTA Comments at 3, 
OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 27, Qualcomm Comments at 14, Straight Path Comments at 6, ViaSat 
Comments at 21-22, Vubiq Networks Comments at 3, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 5.
313
See e.g., NCTA Comments at 3-5; Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 4. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
51
Additionally, among the proponents of unlicensed operations, Microsoft, New America 128.
Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge (OTI & PK) and the Information Technology Industry 
Council (ITIC) (hereinafter Microsoft et al) request extending the band even further, to 72.5 GHz rather 
than just to 71.0 GHz, in order to make the most efficient use of the spectrum, given the IEEE standard
314
for channel size and ITU-R
315
recommended channel plan.
316
  These parties argue that extending the band 
will provide seven non-overlapping channels of 2.16 gigahertz instead of six as proposed. Microsoft 
further requests that the Commission allow indoor Part 15 operations between 72.5 GHz and 76 GHz
because it will not conflict with the lightly-licensed outdoor use.
317
  The Wi-Fi Alliance and the Dynamic 
Spectrum Alliance (DSA) also recommend that the Commission maximize the available spectrum for 
unlicensed uses by opening up the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands to both indoor and 
outdoor unlicensed operations.
318
  In contrast, the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) 
strongly opposes these requests, contending that mobile or unlicensed operation at 71-76/81-86 GHz 
would threaten interference to the many thousands of fixed links in these bands.
319
  
On the other hand, a number of commenters disagree with the Commission’s proposal, 129.
suggesting instead that the Commission provide only the 64-66 GHz band for unlicensed operations and 
reserving the 66-71 GHz band for licensed use.
320
  These parties argue that the 66-76 GHz band has been 
selected to be studied for globally harmonized services, based on the recommendations of World Radio 
Conference (WRC) 2015 for international mobile telecommunication (IMT) 2020 services, and that the 
Commission should license this spectrum for exclusive use to be consistent with international efforts.
321
  
These parties also contend that there is a great imbalance in the Commission’s proposals for licensed and 
unlicensed uses of the mmW spectrum because only 3.85 gigahertz of spectrum is proposed to be made 
available for licensed services while 14 gigahertz of spectrum (in the 57-71 GHz band) would be 
accessible for unlicensed uses.
322
Discussion.  We are adopting rules to allow for unlicensed operations in the 64-71 GHz 130.
band, subject to the technical standards in Section 15.255, thus creating a contiguous spectrum segment 
                                                     
314
See Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Standard 802.11ad-2012, IEEE Standard for Information 
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Local and metropolitan area 
networks--Specific requirements-Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) 
Specifications, Amendment 3: Enhancements for Very High Throughput in the 60 GHz Band
(https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.11ad-2012.html).
315
See International Telecommunication Union, Radiocommunication Sector, Report M.2227 Multiple Gigabit 
Wireless Systems in frequencies around 60 GHz (2011) (ITU-R Report M.2227) (http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-
M.2227).
316
ITIC Comments at 7, Microsoft Comments at 5-7, OTI and Public Knowledge Commentsat 29, DSA Reply at 3, 
Qualcomm Reply at 2, ZII Reply at 2.
317
Microsoft Comments at 18, Microsoft Reply at 10-11.
318
Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9-10, DSA Comments at 1.  
319
FWCC Reply at 9.  FWCC also indicates that there are pending rulemaking and waiver requests in these bands.  
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Requests of Aviat Networks and CBF Networks, Inc. 
D/B/A Fastback Networks for Waiver of Certain Antenna Requirements in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz Bands, Public 
Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 10961 (2015).
320
See e.g., AT&T Comments at 17, CTIA Comments at 17-19, Ericsson Comments at 19-20, Giganets Comments 
at 2, Mobile Future Comments at 16-17, Nokia Comments at 17-18, T-Mobile Comments at -1415, Verizon 
Comments at 13.
321
AT&T Comments at 17, Huawei Comments at 19-20, Nokia Comments at 4, T-Mobile Comments at 14-15.
322
CTIA Comments at 17-19, Verizon Comments at 13.  In reality, in this proceeding, we are only making available 
7 gigahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band; unlicensed operations in the 57-64 GHz adjacent 
band is already permitted in Section 15.255 of the rules. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
52
with the 57-64 GHz band.  We observe that unlicensed WiGig devices using the 57-64 GHz band are just 
beginning to be marketed and these products are standardized pursuant to an internationally harmonized 
channelization scheme,
323
which should promote their growth and usage.
324
  Making available additional 
spectrum contiguous to the existing 57-64 GHz band may enable higher throughputs and enhanced use of 
present spectrum, as well as to permit an increase in the number of simultaneous high-bandwidth users.  
We agree with Intel that a lesser amount of spectrum would limit the growth potential of 60 GHz 
applications.
325
  We also agree with the WISPA that “because ITU may study a band is an insufficient 
reason for the Commission to delay making a valuable spectrum resource available for unlicensed use.”
326
  
We acknowledge that eventual harmonization with international requirements will benefit consumers by 
promoting a global marketplace and enhancing the international competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.  
However, notwithstanding a desire for harmonization with international standards, we determine to make 
these frequencies available for unlicensed use based on our analysis of U.S.-specific factors.  Here, we 
determine that we should not wait for the outcome of the ITU study of this band, contrary to what T-
Mobile advocates,
327
because that could take years, leaving 5 gigahertz of spectrum to lie fallow in the 
meantime, when unlicensed applications are ready in the very near future to make use of this spectrum, 
given current planned deployments of WiGig products in the adjacent 57-64 GHz band.
328
  In addition, 
we note that spectrum characteristics vary at different frequencies, due to different propagation losses and 
other atmospheric and sharing conditions, thus a strict linear comparison per frequency unit of spectrum 
amount in different frequency bands as “gigahertz parity” (e.g., 3.85 gigahertz of spectrum in lower bands 
vs. 14 gigahertz of spectrum in upper bands) is not a valid comparison.  Based on the above, we are 
permitting use of the 57-71 GHz band by unlicensed devices pursuant to the technical rules in Section 
15.255, as amended today.
With respect to the additional requests from Microsoft et al to extend the band up to 131.
72.5 GHz, and to allow indoor use of the 72.5-76 GHz band by unlicensed devices,
329
we do not find that 
additional spectrum above and beyond the very large 14-gigahertz of contiguous spectrum in the 
57-71 GHz band that we are providing for unlicensed operations herein is warranted at this time, due to 
the presence of the numerous existing fixed links in the 71-76/81-86 GHz bands.
330
  When the 
Commission adopted rules for licensed operations in these bands in 2003, it did not permit unlicensed 
                                                     
323
See notes 303-04, supra.
324
See Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Certified WiGig, http://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wigig-certified.  WiGig products 
certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance operate over unlicensed spectrum in the 60 GHz band and are designed to deliver 
multi-gigabit speeds, low latency, and security-protected connectivity between nearby devices. See also, 60-GHz 
standards at notes 303-04, supra.
325
Intel Comments at 17-18.
326
WISPA Reply at 9.
327
T-Mobile Comments at 14-15.
328
We also note that the “study” of a frequency band by the ITU does not mean necessarily that the band will be 
automatically designated for licensed use, because licensing of spectrum is deferred to “the sovereign right of each 
State to regulate its telecommunication”.  See International Telecommunication Union, Constitution and Convention
(http://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ConstitutionAndConvention.aspx).
329
ITIC Comments at 7, Microsoft Comments at 18, OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 29.
330
See FWCC Reply at 9.  For example, as of June 17, 2016, there were 407 active non-exclusive nationwide 
licenses for fixed service in the 71-76 GHz band with 12,994 coordinated, registered point-to-point links. See the 
Commission’s Universal Licensing System database under the Millimeter Wave 70/80/90 GHz Service, available at 
Federal Communications Commission, License Search,
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp. All links are registered with third party database 
managers. The public can obtain information about registered links through the Third Party Database System. See
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing_4&id=millimeter_wave.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
53
sharing of these bands because “an underlay of unlicensed devices in the bands could detrimentally affect 
the quality and buildout of service.”
331
  In addition, the fixed point-to-point equipment that has been 
developed for deployment in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands were not engineered to operate in a 
Part 15 unlicensed environment.  Subsequently, in 2014, the Commission adopted Part 15 rules
332
to 
permit a special type of unlicensed device, level probing radars (LPR), to share the 75-85 GHz band; 
these devices, however, must be operated in a vertically downward position at fixed locations with severe 
limitations on antenna beamwidth.
333
In contrast, the 5G unlicensed transmitters envisioned here would 
be both mobile and fixed and would not have such limitations.  We find that parties requesting to extend 
the band beyond 71 GHz for unlicensed operation did not submit any persuasive technical arguments to 
prove that unlicensed sharing with the 71-76/81-86 GHz licensed services is feasible at this time.  
Accordingly, we deny these requests at this time.  However, we are seeking further information on this 
topic in the FNPRM.  Specifically, we request comments on unlicensed use of this spectrum indoors and 
we invite parties to submit additional information, studies and technical data concerning this issue.
334
E. Federal Sharing Issues  
Many bands above 24 GHz have Federal allocations on a primary basis. As we continue 132.
to increase flexibility in the non-Federal use of these bands, we must consider appropriate mechanisms 
and tools to share these bands that recognize the co-primary rights in these bands. In this Report and 
Order, we facilitate sharing in the 39.5-40 GHz band and 37-38.6 GHz band, including through new 
sharing schemes that promote dynamic and flexible access in the 37-37.6 GHz band. We also continue to 
explore sharing requirements in many bands in the FNPRM. In order to continue to evolve spectrum 
access and sharing regimes that meet both Federal and non-Federal needs, it will be imperative for all 
stakeholders, including wireless and satellite industries, to engage proactively to help shape these 
solutions. 
1. 39.5-40 GHz
Background.  The 39.5-40 GHz portion of the 39 GHz band is allocated to the Federal 133.
FSS and MSS a primary basis, limited to space-to-Earth (downlink) operations.
335
  However, Federal 
MSS earth stations in this band may not claim protection from non-Federal fixed and mobile stations in 
this band.
336
In the NPRM, the Commission explained that when the 39 GHz Report and Order was 134.
adopted, Federal use of the band was limited to military systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, that 
the Department of Defense (DoD) stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at 39.5-40 
GHz in the future, and that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-
40 GHz as a possible space research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data 
requirements.
337
  The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such plans would not affect the 
continued development of the 39 GHz band for non-Federal use, but the Commission said that it intended 
to address those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would focus on developing inter-
                                                     
331
See Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 
FCC Rcd 23318, 23336, para. 41 (2003). 
332
47 CFR § 15.256.
333
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Level Probing Radars and Tank 
Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz and 75-85 GHz, Report and 
Order, 29 FCC Rcd 761 (2014).
334
See Section V.A.7 (70/80 GHz Bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz)), infra.
335
47 CFR § 2.106.
336
47 CFR § 2.106 n.US382.
337
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11928, para. 168 citing 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18615, para. 25.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
54
licensee and inter-service standards and criteria.
338
  At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations 
provides that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to military systems.
339
Although only four commenters responded to our questions on these issues, all four 135.
agreed that it is possible for Federal and non-Federal operations to share the 39 GHz band.  They also 
agreed that the Commission should adopt coordination zones to mitigate interference between Federal and 
non-Federal operations.  For instance, AT&T argues that the Commission should adopt coordination 
zones rather than novel spectrum sharing techniques because coordination zones balance the twin goals of 
efficient spectrum utilization and the prevention of harmful interference to incumbents.
340
Intel argues 
that portions of the band that are strictly Federal use could be separated from those for commercial use.
341
  
Cisco states that while coordination will have to be done by the Commission staff and their counterparts 
at NTIA, co-existence is achievable.
342
  Finally, Nokia argues that the Commission should continue work 
with NTIA and other Federal agencies to minimize Federal coordination zones, which would maximize 
the value of the spectrum.
343
In 2016, NTIA sent a letter to the Commission addressing issues raised in the NPRM, 136.
regarding, in part, military operations in the 39.5-40 GHz portion of the 38.6-40 GHz band.
344
NTIA 
explained that the 39.5-40 GHz band is allocated to military mobile-satellite service (MSS) and fixed-
satellite service (FSS) earth stations.
345
  Federal MSS earth stations cannot claim protection from non-
Federal fixed and mobile stations as specified in footnote US382 of the table of frequency allocations.
346
  
However, Federal earth stations in the MSS are not required to protect non-Federal fixed and mobile 
services.
347
  NTIA stated that given the existing regulatory constraints in the 39.5-40 GHz band, the 
NPRM’s proposed non-Federal fixed and mobile operations will not impact Federal satellite operations in 
the 39.5-40 GHz band.
348
Discussion.  We conclude that it is possible for Federal operations to share the band with 137.
non-Federal fixed and mobile terrestrial operations because the protections offered by footnote US382 are 
sufficient to protect both Federal and non-Federal operations in this band.
349
  Thus, no changes to our 
rules are necessary.
2. 37-38.6 GHz
Background.  Developing flexible licensing rules for the 37 GHz band is challenging, in 138.
part, because the 37-38.6 GHz band is also allocated for primary Federal use, and thus, the band must be 
shared between Federal and non-Federal operations.  The 37 GHz band is allocated to the Federal fixed 
                                                     
338
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11928, para. 168 citing 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18615, para. 25.
339
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11928, para. 168 citing 47 CFR § 2.106 n.G117.
340
AT&T Comments at 3-4, 15.  Within a coordination zone, licensees would be permitted to provide service to the 
extent that they have successfully coordinated operations with a Federal incumbent.  AT&T Comments at 15.
341
Intel Comments at 11.
342
Cisco Comments at 6-7.
343
Nokia Comments at 25.
344
2016 NTIA Letter.
345
2016 NTIA Letter at 5.
346
2016 NTIA Letter at 5.
347
2016 NTIA Letter at 5.
348
2016 NTIA Letter at 4-5.
349
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US382.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
55
and mobile services, and the 37-38 GHz portion of the band is also allocated to the Federal space research 
service (SRS), limited to space-to-Earth (downlink) operations.
350
  
The Commission explained that there are a number of Federal sites that utilize the 37-139.
38.6 GHz band.  In 2004, NTIA identified the following NASA receiving earth stations in the Space 
Research Service (SRS): Goldstone, California; Guam, Pacific Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops 
Island, Virginia; and White Sands, New Mexico.
351
  NTIA subsequently identified the NASA receiving 
earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland.
352
  NTIA also identified Green Bank, West Virginia; and 
Socorro, New Mexico, which the National Science Foundation (NSF) cites as supporting its Very Long 
Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth station operations.  The Commission further explained that NTIA 
recommended in 2004 that coordination with Federal operations should be performed within the 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) process.
353
  NTIA noted the importance of the 37-38 
GHz band to support a permanent manned presence in earth orbit (on or near the moon), to initiate 
manned exploration of Mars, and to support VLBI by satellite.
354
  In addition, NTIA identified 14 military 
sites in the 37-38.6 GHz band that require protection.
355
In 2006, NTIA sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming the need to protect NASA, 140.
NSF, and military operations from non-Federal terrestrial and FSS operations in the 37-38 GHz band.
356
  
NTIA requested Federal operations be protected by establishing a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency 
Allocations specifying the Federal sites and the coordination areas.
357
  NTIA also recommended that 
because of the potential for interference from airborne systems, the aeronautical mobile service allocation 
should be deleted from the 37-38 GHz band.
358
In 2016, NTIA sent a letter to the Commission addressing issues raised in the NPRM, 141.
regarding, in part, protection of Federal space research operations in the 37-38.6 GHz band and the 14 
military sites in the 37-38.6 GHz band that it originally identified in its 2004 letter.
359
  
With regard to the protection of Federal space research operations, NTIA states that it 142.
identified a number of NASA and National Science Foundation (NSF) earth station receive locations that 
would likely be subject to protection and coordination if the Commission authorized non-Federal fixed 
and mobile operations in the 37-38.6 GHz band.
360
  NTIA further states that the 37-38.6 GHz band is 
important to support U.S. goals to provide permanent manned presence in Earth’s orbit (on or near the 
                                                     
350
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11928, para. 170.
351
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  See Letter from Fredrick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator, 
Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, dated March 24, 2004, to Mr. Edmond J. Thomas, Chief, Office of 
Engineering and Technology, FCC.
352
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897 para. 48.  See Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office 
of Spectrum Management, to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Re: Notification of 
Pending Status of Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Earth Station (Mar. 20, 2014).
353
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.
354
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  
355
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  
356
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  See Letter from Fredrick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator, 
Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, dated Sept. 13, 2006, to Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, FCC.
357
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  
358
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11896-11897, para. 48.  
359
2016 NTIA Letter.  For a list of the 14 military sites see 2004 NTIA Letter at Enclosure 2.
360
2016 NTIA Letter at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
56
moon), initiate manned exploration of the planet Mars, and support data return links to the very long 
baseline interferometer.
361
  NTIA also states that after consultation with NASA and NSF, it has 
determined that only three sites would need specific protection and coordination in connection with this 
proceeding: the NASA Deep Space Communications Complex in Goldstone, California; the NASA 
Tracking Station in White Sands, New Mexico; and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in
Socorro, New Mexico.
362
  NTIA also provides the coordination areas for the Goldstone, White Sands, and 
Socorro sites,
363
and requests that the Commission require all fixed and mobile stations operating in the 
37-38.6 GHz band located within the geographic areas listed in Enclosure 2 to its 2016 letter be 
coordinated with NTIA.
364
  NTIA states that operation within the coordination areas will be possible if the 
non-federal proponent shows NTIA that its deployment can adequately protect the earth stations.
365
  NTIA 
states that it, in coordination with NASA, NSF, and the Commission, may conduct additional analysis and 
testing to determine the extent to which the recommended coordination areas in Enclosure 2 can be 
reduced.
366
With regard to the NSF Green Bank, WV site, NTIA noted that it is within an existing 143.
Quiet Zone in which any fixed or mobile stations operating in the 37-38.6 GHz band are subject to the 
requirements set forth in Section 1.924(a) of the Commission’s rules.
367
With regard to the 14 military sites that it originally identified in its 2004 letter,
368
NTIA 144.
states that after consultation with DoD, it has determined that these 14 sites, which are listed in Enclosure 
3, are still representative of where the military plans to operate systems consistent with the current 
allocation.
369
  To protect DoD operations, NTIA recommends that non-Federal fixed and mobile stations 
operating in the 37-38.6 GHz band within the geographic areas listed in Enclosure 3 to its 2016 letter be 
coordinated with NTIA.
370
  NTIA notes that operation within the coordination areas is possible if the non-
Federal proponent can show NTIA that its proposed deployment can adequately protect the existing and 
planned DoD operations.
371
As discussed above, NTIA recommends that the FCC adopt a modified version of their 145.
Alternative Proposal in the Spectrum Frontiers NPRM, creating a band plan with a 600 megahertz shared 
block in the 37-37.6 GHz band.  NTIA notes that this 600 megahertz band segment will be fully available 
for use by Federal and non-Federal users on a coordinated co-equal basis outside of the coordination 
zones until improved coordination mechanisms are developed.
372
NTIA states that Federal and non-
Federal users will access the band through a coordination mechanism, including exploration of potential 
dynamic sharing through technology in the lower 600 megahertz that can be developed through a process 
with Federal and industry collaboration.
373
  In the 37.6-38.6 GHz band segment, NTIA recommends 
                                                     
361
2016 NTIA Letter at 3.  
362
2016 NTIA Letter at 3-4.  
363
2016 NTIA Letter at Enclosure 2.
364
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.
365
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.  
366
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.  
367
2016 NTIA Letter at 4,n.12 citing 49 CFR § 1.924(a)(1).
368
2004 NTIA Letter at Enclosure 2.
369
2016 NTIA Letter at 5.
370
2016 NTIA Letter at 5 and Enclosure 2.
371
2016 NTIA Letter at 6.
372
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.
373
2016 NTIA Letter at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
57
Federal co-primary use coordination zones around the 14 military installations where the Federal agencies 
will have the right to operate fixed and mobile operations and the three SRS sites will be protected from 
interference.
374
  NTIA states that it will work with the Commission to develop and establish a 
coordination process that can allow non-Federal users to access these locations.
375
In response to the NPRM, the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio 146.
Frequency (CORF) indicated that because DoD’s existing weather satellites will continue to use the 37-
37.5 GHz band until at least 2020,
376
the Commission should coordinate the rollout of any new 37-37.5 
GHz regulations with DoD.
377
CTIA recommends that the Commission can best balance the needs of Federal and 147.
commercial users by adopting stringent, but small, coordination zones.
378
  CTIA argues that the adoption 
of overly conservative coordination zones will inhibit the value of licensed spectrum rights and diminish 
the investment incentives and certainty associate with those rights.
379
  CTIA also recommends that the 
Commission consider deferring consideration of bi-directional sharing issues until NTIA’s Commerce 
Spectrum Managements Advisory’s subcommittee makes a recommendation on that issue sometime in 
2016.
380
  Mobile Future urges the Commission work with NTIA to ensure that commercial users are able 
to fully utilize their spectrum holdings at all times in a manner that meets the needs of their customers.
381
Discussion. We conclude that non-Federal fixed and mobile operations can share the 37-148.
38 GHz band with SRS downlink operations under certain conditions.  First, as a result of discussions 
between NTIA and the Commission, NTIA indicated that it would request protection for only three SRS 
earth station sites:  Goldstone, California; White Sands, New Mexico; and Socorro, New Mexico.  
Second, to address NTIA’s recommendations, we will establish coordination zones for these three sites by 
adding a footnote to the US Table of Allocations listing the locations to be protected and their respective 
coordination zones.
382
  Third, with respect to operations, at Green Bank, West Virginia, NTIA indicated 
that since Green Bank, West Virginia is located in an existing quiet zone, any new or modified stations 
including in the fixed and mobile services, within the zone are required by § 1.924(a) of the
Commission’s rules to notify the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, and thus Green Bank would 
not be included in the footnote.  Therefore, we adopt footnote US151, which requires that, in the 37-38 
GHz band, fixed and mobile stations not cause harmful interference to Federal SRS earth station at three 
sites and that non-Federal applications for such use be coordinated with NTIA in accordance with new 
Section 30.205 of the Commission’s rules.
We conclude that non-Federal fixed and mobile operations can share the 37-38.6 GHz 149.
band with DoD operations.  With regard to Federal co-primary access to the 37 GHz band, we will adopt 
rules that entail the coordination zones recommended by NTIA for the 14 military sites, and the ability for 
                                                     
374
2016 NTIA Letter at 4-5.
375
2016 NTIA Letter at 5.
376
CORF Comments at 10.
377
CORF Comments at 7 n.2.
378
CTIA Comments at 33.
379
CTIA Comments at 33.
380
CTIA Comments at 34.
381
Mobile Future Comments at 14-15.
382
The coordination zones are described in Appendix D – Coordination Contours for NASA and NSF sites in the 
37-38.6 GHz band.  The Commission and NTIA may coordinate with NASA and the NSF to conduct an additional 
analysis based upon the rules adopted today to determine the extent to which these coordination zones might be 
reduced in the future. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology will 
announce any reduced protection zones via public notice.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
58
Federal agencies to add future sites on a coordinated basis.
383
  As discussed above, we will make the 37-
37.6 GHz block (lower band segment) available for coordinated co-primary sharing between Federal and 
non-Federal users, where non-Federal rights are granted by rule.
384
  This framework will facilitate access 
by DoD and other Federal users.  In the FNPRM, we seek comment on defining the sharing framework in 
greater detail.
385
  In the upper band segment, we seek comment on facilitating Federal coordination with 
licensees for access to licensed areas.
We also do not believe that it is necessary to take action to protect the weather satellites, 150.
which according to CORF, will operate above 37 GHz until at least 2020 because it will take a significant 
amount of time for mmW devices to be developed and deployed in the 37 GHz band.  Therefore, we 
expect that relatively few mmW devices will be operating in the band while the weather satellites are still 
in use.
386
Under the plan we adopt today, we enable the deployment of new commercial services 151.
while protecting Federal agency missions.  This balances the needs of commercial operators with the 
needs of Federal agencies for protection and future growth by creating an environment where Federal and 
non-Federal users can share the band on a co-primary basis and providing enough certainty to future 
commercial users to stimulate investment in the spectrum.
3. Passive Services Below 37 GHz
Background. There are Federal and non-Federal allocations for the Earth Exploration-152.
satellite Service (passive) and Space Research Service (passive) in the 36-37 GHz band.  Also, footnote 
US342 specifies that all practicable steps must be taken to protect radio astronomy in the 36.43-36.5 GHz 
band.
387
  Several other allocations around 40 GHz also permit radio astronomy use.
388
  
The NPRM sought comment on whether any special protections are necessary or 153.
appropriate for passive services below 37 GHz.
389
  While noting that EESS and space research operations 
are not entitled to interference protection from Fixed and Mobile Services,
390
the NPRM sought comment 
on whether we could take steps to protect these passive operations without unduly limiting 37 GHz band 
operations.  Specifically, the NPRM asked about creating a 100 megahertz guard band at the lower end of 
the 37 GHz band or adopting a stricter out-of-band emission limit.  The NPRM also sought comment on 
                                                     
383
The coordination zones are described in Appendix A– Rule 30.205(b).
384
See supra Section IV.C.2 (37 GHz Band (37-38.6 GHz); Licensing the 37 GHz Band).
385
See infra Section V.B (Federal Sharing Issues-37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band)).
386
See 3
rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Tentative 3GPP Timeline for 5G, http://www.3gpp.org/news-
events/3gpp-news/1674-timeline 5G.
387
47 CFR § 2.106 n.US342. 
388
Very Large Array receivers use the frequency ranges of 26.5-40 GHz (Ka-band), and 40-50 GHz (Q-band). 
VLBA receivers cover 21.7-24.1 GHz and 41.0-45.0 GHz. Similarly, the Green Bank Telescope has a sensitive 
receiver and specialized wideband (continuum as well as spectrometric) back-ends for observations over the 26-40 
GHz range.
389
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11930, para. 176.
390
The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations footnote that specified that the EESS and space research service are not 
entitled to interference protection from Fixed and Mobile Services that was in effect when the NPRM was issued has 
subsequently been repealed.  Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 97, and 101 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference 
(Geneva, 2007) (WRC-07), Other Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, Report and Order, Order, and Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4232-33, para. 135 (2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
59
whether any special protections are needed to protect radio astronomy operations in the 36.43-36.5 GHz 
band.
391
  
CORF explains that the 36-37 GHz band is used for global weather forecasting and the 154.
study of ocean surface topography, ocean winds, and sea ice.
392
CORF recommends that the Commission 
consider a guard band greater than 100 MHz at 37 GHz to account for aggregate interference into the 36-
37 GHz band.
393
  According to CORF, a 100 MHz guard band will provide adequate protection from 
interference from a single 1 watt transmitter, but multiple interferers may require a wider guard band.
394
  
CORF claims that because the EESS satellites are only overhead for a short period of time, timesharing 
arrangements could protect EESS applications.
395
  CORF also recommends protecting radio astronomy at 
three sites by exclusion or coordination of transmitters within 30 kilometers of line-of-sight of these 
locations and by adopting limits on spurious emissions and/or exclusions zones to meet ITU 
recommendation 769.
396
  The IEEE Technical Committee on Frequency Allocations in Remote Sensing 
(IEEE FARS) notes that the band is used by four different satellite based remote sensing systems and 
requests that the technical rules we adopt ensure that these systems are protected from harmful 
interference.
397
  IEEE FARS supports adopting a guard band at 37 GHz, but believes further study is 
needed to determine the appropriate size of the guard band.
398
  
T-Mobile argues that CORF’s “proposals are overly conservative and will hinder growth 155.
and innovation in the millimeter wave bands.”
399
  According to T-Mobile, we should defer action on 
protecting EESS and radio astronomy until after a subcommittee of NTIA’s Commerce Spectrum 
Management Advisory Committee provides its recommendations on bi-directional sharing.
400
  Huawei 
comments that compatibility may be achieved by agreeing to of suitable out-of-band emission limits and, 
possibly, exclusion zones around sensitive receiving sites and adopting guard bands.
401
  NTIA states that 
the proposed out-of-band emission limit for non-Federal fixed and mobile stations is lower than the power 
level specified in footnote US550A, which limits mobile stations and fixed stations that are not hubs of 
point-to-multi-point systems to a transmitted power of -10dBW in the 36-37 GHz band.
402
  As a result, 
NTIA asserts that fixed and mobile stations complying with the proposed out-of-band emission limit in 
the NPRM should not cause interference to the passive sensors in the 36-37 GHz band.
                                                     
391
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11930, para. 176.
392
CORF Comments at 6-7.
393
CORF Comments at 19.
394
CORF Comments at 9-10.  CORF suggest an out-of-band emission limit of -166 dBW/GHz to protect the passive 
operations.  Id. at 10.
395
CORF Comments at 10.
396
These observatories are located at Green Bank Telescope (West Virginia), the Very Large Array (Socorro, New 
Mexico), and the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (California).  CORF Comments at 11.
397
IEEE FARS Reply at 2-3.  According to IEEE FARS, two of these remote sensing systems operate above 37 
GHz.  Id. at 3.
398
IEEE FARS Reply Comments at 4.  IEEE FARS presents calculations showing that a guard band of 200 MHz at 
37 GHz is needed to protect one of the sensor systems from ten mmW devices transmitting at 1 watt of power.  Id. at 
3-4.
399
T-Mobile Reply at 17-18.
400
See CTIA Comments at 33-34.
401
Huawei Comments at 17.
402
See 2016 NTIA Letter at 4; 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US550A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
60
Discussion.   We believe that the out-of-band emission limit that we adopt in this Report 156.
and Order will provide adequate protection to the passive sensors in the adjacent 36-37 GHz band.  The 
out-of-band emission limit will keep emissions from an UMFUS device into the 36-37 GHz band well 
below the -10 dBW level specified by footnote US550A.  We note that the -10dBW power limit was 
adopted to protect passive sensors in the 36-37 GHz band in accordance with ITU Resolution 752 (WRC-
07).
403
  Because this limit was adopted by the ITU to protect passive sensors from harmful interference 
from fixed and mobile transmitters in the 36-37 GHz band, we conclude that it will provide appropriate 
protection to the passive sensors from transmitters in the adjacent band.  
We will not adopt a guard band at 37 GHz to protect the EESS and SRS in the 36-37 157.
GHz band as suggested by CORF and IEEE FARS.  Neither CORF nor IEEE FARS make a specific 
recommendation on the necessary size of the guard band, although CORF requests a guard band of at 
least 100 MHz.  Because a guard band will reduce the spectrum available for mmW devices, we do not 
want to take this step without compelling evidence that it is necessary.  No one has provided information 
on the specific benefits and necessity of adopting a guard band of at least 100 MHz to protect EESS and 
SRS.  Given the lack of data supporting adoption of a guard band, we believe that the out-of-band 
emission limit that we have adopted will provide adequate protection to the EESS and SRS without the 
need for a guard band at 37 GHz.      
With regard to protecting radio astronomy at the three locations specified by CORF, we 158.
are not convinced that additional measures are needed to protect radio astronomy.  The radio astronomy 
observations that CORF is concerned about will be conducted in the 36.43-36.5 GHz band, which is 500 
megahertz from the 37 GHz band,
404
so the emission limits that we are adopting for mmW devices should 
sufficiently protect radio astronomy.  
F. Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues
1. Creation of New Rule Service and Part
Background.  LMDS and the 39 GHz service are currently regulated under Part 101 of 159.
the Commission’s rules, which governs fixed microwave services.
405
  In light of the additional flexibility 
we are providing to LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, including mobile operating rights, we proposed in the 
NPRM to create a new radio service, the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, and to regulate that new 
service under a new Part 30 of the Commission’s rules.
406
  We also proposed to include the contemplated 
new 37 GHz band as part of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
407
  
Comments on our proposal were mixed.  CTA and FiberTower support creating a new 160.
service rule in Part 30 to provide all licenses with the appropriate degree of flexibility.
408
  CTIA suggests 
that Part 27 would be sufficient to accommodate the new service and would provide simplicity and 
                                                     
403
Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding 
Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC-07), Other 
Allocation Issues, and Related Rule Updates, Report and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 
FCC Rcd 4183, 4232, para. 135 (2015).
404
One of these radio astronomy sites is located in the quiet zone specified in 47 CFR § 1.924(a).  Licensees 
planning to operate a base station in this zone are required to notify the radio observatory, and if the radio 
observatory objects, the Commission may “take whatever action is deemed appropriate.”  
405
47 CFR § 101.1 et seq.
406
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11930, para. 177.
407
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11930, para. 177.
408
CTA Comments at 16, FiberTower Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
61
consistency for mobile licensees
409
while Google believes that the bands should be licensed under Part 96, 
as part of an enhanced sharing regime.
410
  No other commenters discuss this issue.
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to create a new service, the Upper Microwave 161.
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) under a new Part 30 of our rules to include the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 
GHz bands.  Licensing the millimeter wave bands under Part 27, as CTIA suggests,
411
would produce a 
less flexible regime than we intend while the rules we adopt in Part 30 will provide much of the flexibility 
present in the Part 27 rules.  Part 27 would be a poor fit for the point-to-point services currently operating 
in the 28 and 39 GHz bands, and for the backhaul uses other licensees may wish to include in their 
services.  Part 96, which Google suggests,
412
is designed for a specific regime of intensive, three-tier 
sharing.
413
  As we are not adopting this type of sharing regime for these bands at this time, using this rule 
part would be inappropriate.  We conclude that establishing a new rule part will allow us to have one 
unified set of rules governing the various types of operations we contemplate licensees will offer, which 
will provide more clarity to licensees and more accurately reflect the nature of these licenses.
2. Regulatory Status
Background.  For LMDS, the Commission has previously determined that applicants 162.
could provide common-carrier service, non-common carrier service, or both, and also enabled licensees to 
later amend their applications or modify that status.
414
The Commission permitted LMDS to be licensed 
to allow both common carrier and non-common carrier services in a single license.
415
  In other words, the 
Commission permitted LMDS licensees to provide all services anywhere within its licensed area at any 
time, consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements that are imposed on the respective 
operations.
416
  In adopting this rule, the Commission expressly rejected the application of a presumption 
of common carrier status to an application.
417
Similarly, in the 39 GHz band, the Commission concluded that licensees should be 163.
permitted to serve as a common carrier or as a private licensee.
418
  It determined that licensees who select 
common-carrier regulatory status would be able to provide private service, and those licensees who select 
private service provider regulatory status could share the use of their facilities on a non-profit basis or 
could offer service on a for-profit, private carrier basis, subject to Section 101.135 of the Commission’s 
                                                     
409
CTIA Comments at 19-20.
410
Google Comments at 4.
411
CTIA Comments at 19-20.
412
Google Comments at 4.
413
See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-
3650 MHz Band, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959, 3975,
para. 45 (2015) (3.5 GHz Report and Order).
414
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12643-45, 12652-54, paras. 221-26, 245-51.
415
Id. at 12651, para. 244.
416
Id. at 12643-44, para 222.
417
Id. at 12643, para. 222.  The Commission did specify that “[a]n LMDS licensee may be required to adhere to the 
following filing or authorization requirements in modifying a station: (1) in Section 1.1301 through 101. 5239 
concerning actions that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, (2) in Sections 
22.369 and 101.123 concerning radio frequency quiet zones, (3) Part 17 of our rules concerning antenna structure 
clearance procedures and the obligation under Section 17.4 to register with the Commission prior to construction, 
(4) any restrictions regarding border areas under international agreements, and (5) any applicable technical rules in 
this part.”  Id. at 12643-44, para. 222.
418
39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18635, para. 76.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
62
rules.
419
Under this approach, licensees would elect the status of the services they wish to offer and be 
governed by the rules applicable to their status.
420
The open and flexible approach the Commission took to regulatory status in Part 101 is 164.
also consistent with the Commission’s approach to other wireless services, such as the Part 27 rules for 
terrestrial wireless service.  The Commission permits Part 27 applicants who may wish to provide both 
common carrier and non-common carrier services (or to switch between them) under a single license to 
request status as both a common carrier and a non-common carrier.
421
Such licensees are able to provide 
all allowable services anywhere within their licensed area at any time, consistent with their regulatory 
status.  Applicants are required to indicate regulatory status for any services they choose to provide, but 
apart from that designation, they are not generally required to describe the services they seek to 
provide.
422
  Further, licensees must notify the Commission if they change the service or services they 
offer such that it would be inconsistent with their regulatory status.
423
In the NPRM, we proposed to maintain this open and flexible regulatory framework for 165.
the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
424
  Specifically, we proposed to permit applicants and 
licensees to request common carrier status, non-common carrier status, private internal communications 
status, or a combination of these options, for authorization in a single license (or to switch between 
them).
425
  This would allow, but not require, applicants in these bands to choose between providing 
common carrier and non-common carrier services.  Alternatively, the applicant may wish to limit its 
operations to common carrier or non-common services, in which case it would apply only for 
authorization on a common carrier or a non-common carrier basis, and the license would be issued for the 
status specified. The licensee would be able to provide all Fixed and Mobile Services anywhere within its 
licensed area at any time, consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements that are imposed on its 
respective operations. We also proposed to rely on the applicant’s self-designation to determine its status 
(common carrier or non-common carrier) for the purpose of enabling us to fulfill our obligations to 
enforce the common carrier requirements contained in statutes and our regulations.
426
CTA, Qualcomm, and XO support our proposal.
427
  TIA also supports a flexible 166.
regulatory framework generally.
428
  No commenters oppose our proposal, and no commenters address the 
issue of whether to rely on the applicant’s determination of its status as a common carrier or non-common 
carrier.
Discussion. We adopt our proposal from the NPRM to implement a flexible regulatory 167.
framework for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  As we proposed, UMFUS licensees in the 28, 
39, and 37 GHz bands will be able to choose the regulatory status (common carrier, non-common carrier, 
                                                     
419
Id.
420
Id.
421
See 47 CFR § 27.10; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications 
Service (“WCS”), Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10846-48, para. 119-22 (1997) (Part 27 Report and 
Order).
422
See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848, para. 121; see also LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 
FCC Rcd at 12644, para. 223; 47 CFR § 101.1013.
423
See 47 CFR § 27.10(d); see also 47 CFR § 27.66.  
424
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11931, para. 182.
425
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11932, para. 183.
426
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11932, para. 184.
427
CTA Comments at 13, Qualcomm Comments at 6-7, XO Comments at 23.
428
TIA Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
63
or both) that best fits their business models and the services they seek to provide.
429
  This approach will
maintain an open and flexible framework that will allow the business judgments of individual applicants 
and licensees in these bands to shape the nature of the services offered pursuant to their licenses.  
We also adopt our proposal to rely on the applicant’s designation of its common carrier 168.
or non-common carrier status, to enable us to fulfill our obligations to enforce the common carrier 
requirements contained in statutes and our regulations.
430
  An election to provide service on a common 
carrier basis requires that the elements of common carriage be present, and the applicant is in the best 
position to ascertain the presence of these elements.  This approach is consistent with the Commission’s 
past decisions regarding the classification of mobile services.
3. Foreign Ownership Reporting
Background.  Certain foreign ownership and citizenship requirements are imposed by 169.
subsections (a) and (b) of Section 310 of the Act, as modified by the 1996 Act.
431
  These provisions 
prohibit the issuance of licenses to certain applicants.  For current LMDS, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz licensees, 
these statutory provisions are adopted in Part 101 of the Commission’s rules at Section 101.7 of the 
Commission’s rules.
432
  Specifically, Section 101.7(a) prohibits the granting of any license to be held by a 
foreign government or its representative.
433
Section 101.7(b) prohibits the granting of any common 
carrier license to be held by individuals that fail any of the four citizenship requirements listed.
434
  
In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the Section 310 requirements would apply to 170.
any applicants in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
435
  Based on this interpretation of the 
requirements of Section 310, we proposed in the NPRM to include a provision in the new Part 30 that 
would mirror the current Section 101.7 of our rules.
436
  In addition, we proposed that all applicants for 
Part 30 licenses be required to report the same foreign ownership information, regardless of the specific 
type of service they sought to provide.
437
  An applicant requesting authorization for broadcast, common 
carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical Fixed Services, alone or in combination with other services,
would be prohibited from holding a license if it met any of the criteria in Section 310(b).  If the applicant 
requested authorization for services other than for broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, or 
aeronautical Fixed Services, it could hold a license if it met the single alien ownership requirement in 
Section 310(a), regardless of whether it would otherwise be disqualified for a common carrier 
authorization. No commenters addressed the issue of foreign ownership reporting requirements, or 
opposed our proposals.
Discussion.  We adopt our proposals from the NPRM to require the same foreign 171.
ownership reporting from all applicants for Part 30 licenses, regardless of the specific type of service they 
seek to provide, and to implement this requirement by including a provision in Part 30 that mirrors 
Section 101.7 of our current rules.
438
  This approach will properly implement the restrictions contained in 
                                                     
429
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11932, para. 183.
430
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11932, para. 184.
431
47 U.S.C. § 310.
432
47 CFR § 101.7.
433
47 CFR § 101.7.
434
47 CFR § 101.7.
435
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11932, para. 186.
436
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, para. 188.
437
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, para. 187.
438
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, paras. 187-88; 47 CFR § 101.7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
64
Section 310(a) and (b) of the Act, and is consistent with our treatment of flexible use services regulated 
under Part 27 of the Commission’s rules.
439
  
4. Eligibility
In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt an open eligibility standard for the Upper Microwave 172.
Flexible Use Service.
440
  We noted that an open eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, 
character, or other generally applicable qualifications that may apply under our rules.  Cisco and CTA 
support this proposal, citing uncertainty as to how the UMFUS bands will develop,
441
and the need to 
allow innovation from all parties.
442
  No commenters oppose our proposal.
We adopt our proposal to implement an open eligibility standard for the Upper 173.
Microwave Flexible Use Service.
443
  This approach is in keeping with the flexibility of the other licensing 
rules we adopt in this Report and Order,
444
as well as our treatment of other flexible use services, and will 
encourage innovation and efficient use of spectrum in these bands.
5. License Term
Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a 10-year license term for all 174.
UMFUS licenses.
445
  We noted that existing LMDS and 39 GHz license terms have 10-year license terms, 
and we opined that a 10-year license term would help maintain consistency.
446
  We also sought comment 
on whether licensees should receive a renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms if they continue to 
provide at least the level of service required at the end of their initial license terms through the end of any 
subsequent license terms.
447
The majority of commenters who address this proposal support a 10-year license term, 175.
although a few of those commenters suggest that a longer license term may be appropriate.
448
  XO asks 
for an initial license term of 15 years.
449
  Those commenters, plus XO, also support the Commission’s 
proposal concerning renewal expectancy.  In contrast, Public Knowledge believes a three-year license 
term is more appropriate in connection with its proposal to use the licensing framework adopted for the 
3.5 GHz band.
450
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to establish a 10-year license term for all UMFUS 176.
licenses, and our proposal to award a renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms if the licensee
                                                     
439
See 47 CFR § 27.12(a).
440
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, para. 189.
441
Cisco Comments at 11.
442
CTA Comments at 13-14.
443
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, para. 189.
444
See supra Section IV.F.1 (Creation of New Rule Service and Part).
445
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11915, para. 121.
446
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11915, para. 119.
447
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11915, para. 122.
448
AT&T Comments at 20, Cisco Comments at 10 (minimum term of 10 years), CTIA Comments at 22-23, HTSC 
Comments at 4, Intel Comments at 23, Mobile Future Comments at 13-14, Nokia Comments at 19, PCIA Comments 
at 11, Qualcomm Comments at 11-12, TIA Comments at 25, T-Mobile Comments at 10 n.40, Verizon Comments at 
10 (at least 10 years).
449
XO Comments at 22.
450
OTI and Public Knowledge Comments at 23-24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
65
continues to provide at least the initially-required level of service.
451
  While we have pursued shorter 
license terms and non-renewable licenses in other bands, and continue to believe there are circumstances 
where those structures are appropriate, here we adopt a 10 year license term that can be renewed.  We 
believe a 10-year license term will give licensees sufficient certainty to invest in their systems, 
particularly as the new technology is still nascent and will require time to fully develop.  If the standards 
for mobile service in the mmW bands are established by, at the latest, 2020, new licensees would still 
have the majority of the license term after that point to plan and to deploy service.  Neither XO nor any 
other commenter has presented facts that would justify a longer license term.  A 10-year license term is 
also consistent with existing license terms in a wide variety of services.
We also adopt our proposal to award a renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms 177.
if the licensee continues to provide at least the initially-required level of service through the end of any 
subsequent license terms.
452
  That treatment is consistent with our treatment of many other licensed 
services and will provides incentives for licensees to continue to provide service.
6. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
Background.  Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile wireless services, 178.
and ensuring access to and the availability of sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting competition, 
innovation, and investment.
453
In prior rulemakings, the Commission has developed policies to ensure 
that spectrum is assigned in a manner that promotes competition, innovation and the efficient use of 
spectrum.
454
  In so doing, its spectrum policies have applied both to the acquisition of spectrum through 
auction as well as through secondary market transactions.  In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and 
Order, the Commission established a market-based spectrum reserve in the Incentive Auction designed to 
ensure against excessive concentration of low-band spectrum holdings,
455
and to facilitate access by 
multiple service providers to such spectrum.
456
  The Commission also found it in the public interest to 
continue to use its spectrum screen and case-by-case review
457
and, in addition, to require that any 
                                                     
451
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11915, paras. 121-22.
452
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11915, para. 122.
453
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11933, n.340.
454
The Communications Act requires the Commission to examine closely the impact of spectrum aggregation on 
competition, innovation, and the efficient use of spectrum to ensure that spectrum is assigned in a manner that serves 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity.  Section 309(j)(3) of the Act provides that, in designing systems of 
competitive bidding, the Commission must “include safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the 
spectrum,” and must seek to promote various objectives, including “promoting economic opportunity and 
competition and ensuring that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people by 
avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants,” and 
promoting the “efficient and intensive use” of spectrum.  Act, § 309(j)(3) codified at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).
455
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6192-93, paras. 139-43.  The Commission replaced 
its post-auction case-by-case analysis of the licensing of spectrum bands through competitive bidding with a 
determination of whether a band-specific mobile spectrum holding limit is necessary and, if so, to establish that limit 
ex ante.  Id. at 6156, 6168, 6190, paras. 45, 68, 135.  The Commission declined to adopt any mobile spectrum 
holding limits for the licensing of the AWS-3 bands through competitive bidding.  Id. at 6190, para 135.  
456
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6204, para. 174. To qualify to bid on reserved 
spectrum, an entity must not have an attributable interest in 45 megahertz or more, or approximately one-third or 
more, of suitable and available below-1-GHz spectrum.  The 45 megahertz threshold is consistent with the 
approximately one-third threshold for total spectrum that we use to identify those holdings in local markets that may 
raise particular competitive concerns in the context of secondary market transactions.  Id. at 6204-05, paras. 175-76.
457
Id. at 6223-24, para. 231.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
66
increase in spectrum holdings of below 1 GHz be treated as an “enhanced factor” in its review if post-
transaction the acquiring entity would hold approximately one-third or more of such spectrum.
458
  
In the NPRM, we sought comment on how to address mobile spectrum holdings issues 179.
for the bands proposed for this new radio service.
459
  In particular, we sought comment on whether to 
adopt a band-specific spectrum holding limit in the licensing of these spectrum bands through competitive 
bidding, either for individual bands or a combination of these bands, and asked commenters to consider 
the costs and benefits of any such limits.
460
In addition, we proposed to exclude these bands from the 
Commission’s spectrum screen, which applies to secondary market transactions, because it is not clear 
that these bands would be suitable and available for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services 
in the near term.
461
With respect to the existing spectrum screen, the majority of commenters agree with our 180.
proposal not to include mmW bands in the spectrum screen, given the unique technical characteristics of 
the spectrum available in these three bands.
462
  Commenters argue that mmW spectrum is likely to be 
used as a supplement to low-bandwidth spectrum to enhance bandwidth and capacity, characteristics that 
will be increasingly important with the development of 5G services.
463
  Mobile Future, TIA, Verizon, and 
XO agree that the Commission should refrain from including these bands in the spectrum screen because 
there is no basis to conclude that they are suitable for providing mobile service in the same manner as 
other spectrum bands that currently are included in the spectrum screen.
464
  On the other hand, CCA 
proposes that upon a determination that this spectrum is suitable and available in the near term, the 
Commission should consider how to add these bands to the spectrum screen on a per-band basis to 
prevent the largest service providers from aggregating this spectrum to the detriment of competition and 
consumers.
465
  O3b argues that if the Commission authorizes mobile service in the 28 GHz band, it should 
include that spectrum in the spectrum screen and for all purposes in calculating each licensee’s mobile 
spectrum holdings.
466
On the issue of spectrum aggregation limits in the mmW bands, Verizon, XO, and TIA181.
oppose any band-specific aggregation limits.  Verizon claims that arbitrary band-specific aggregation 
limits for mmW spectrum would quash the development of nascent technologies that require operators to 
aggregate substantial amounts of spectrum.467  Verizon proposes that the Commission should provide 
                                                     
458
Id. at 6240, paras. 286-88.
459
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11934, para. 191.
460
Id. at 11934, para. 191.
461
Id. at 11934, para. 192.
462
Ericsson Comments at 6, Mobile Future Comments at 15, TIA Comments at 28, Verizon Comments at 14, XO 
Comments at 19.
463
AT&T Reply at 5 (noting that the mmW bands are not a “stand-alone solution” and serve as a complement to 
lower-bandwidth spectrum); see also CTIA Reply at 5 (noting that “While the NPRM focuses on spectrum above 24 
GHz, the wireless industry will require access to high-, mid-, and low-frequency spectrum to deliver the next 
generation of broadband.  The high-frequency bands highlighted by the Commission in the NPRM will provide 
significant bandwidth and capacity to 5G services.  Meanwhile, lower-frequency bands have better propagation 
characteristics that will be more advantageous for macro network coverage and capacity.”).
464
Mobile Future Comments at 15, TIA Comments at 28, Verizon Comments at 14, XO Comments at 19.
465
CCA Reply at 13-14.  
466
O3b Reply at 7-8, n.17.
467
Verizon Comments at 3, 15.  Verizon states that “If any competition issues arise in the future, the Commission 
and the antitrust authorities can address them as the industry develops: doing so now would be premature.”  Id. at 
15.  See also Verizon June 20, Ex Parte Letter at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
67
companies with the flexibility required to transfer, share, and acquire mmW spectrum to meet the large 
bandwidths that will likely be necessary for 5G deployment,
468
and, in response to recent ex parte filings, 
argues that adopting any spectrum aggregation limits ignores the large amounts of mmW spectrum that 
will be available as 5G technologies and services develop.
469
  XO also argues that as technology continues 
to evolve, additional high frequency spectrum will become conducive to 5G mobile use, further weighing 
against the need for band-specific limits.
470
  TIA expresses concern that limiting a single licensee to no 
more than 1250 megahertz of spectrum could curtail technology developments in the bands.
471
AT&T initially argued that adopting spectrum aggregation caps would undermine the 182.
potential of next generation services and threaten the commercial viability of the spectrum.
472
However, 
in its recent ex parte filing, AT&T supports a proposed overall aggregation threshold of 1250 megahertz 
applied ex ante that would trigger additional scrutiny and review should it be exceeded, as well as an 
approach that would result in two distinct licensees of the 425 megahertz licenses in the 28 GHz band 
given the importance of that band to emerging 5G development efforts.
473
  CCA argues that the 
Commission must incorporate protections to ensure that this spectrum is not dominated by AT&T and 
Verizon – as they allege the below-1-GHz bands currently are today.
474
  CCA argues that the Commission 
should establish a clear spectrum aggregation policy,
475
and in recent ex parte filings, proposes a two-
tiered approach – a one-third screen for all licensed mmW spectrum and a one-half screen for licensed 
spectrum in a particular band, like 28 GHz – both with respect to secondary market transactions and as an 
ex ante auction mechanism.
476
  T-Mobile proposes that the Commission should monitor future spectrum 
aggregation to ensure that there is a competitive marketplace for mmW band spectrum and to take action 
if necessary to ensure reasonable access to the spectrum.
477
  In recent ex parte filings, T-Mobile has also 
advocated for a one-third screen applicable to all mmW spectrum, as well as a one-half screen in 
individual bands.
478
                                                     
468
Verizon June 20, Ex Parte Letter at 1.
469
Verizon (Gregory M. Romano) July 7, Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.  See also Verizon (Charla M. Rath) July 7, Ex 
Parte Letter at 1 (arguing that there is no evidence of actual or tangible harm to warrant a mmW spectrum limit, and 
no basis for band-specific limits).
470
XO Comments at 20.
471
TIA July 7, Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.  
472
AT&T Reply at 12.
473
AT&T June 29, Ex Parte Letter at 1-3 (arguing that the 37-39 GHz bands “stand in a slightly different posture” 
than the 28 GHz band and that given the performance differences moving from 28 GHz to 37-39 GHz, any 
aggregation approach to the 37-39 GHz band, including any intraband limits, should take that into consideration 
such that 5G deployments in 37-39 GHz have an opportunity to compete on par with deployments in 28 GHz).  See 
also AT&T July 7, Ex Parte Letter at 3 (arguing that licensees would need 44%-66% more spectrum in the 39 GHz 
band to provide the same cell edge data rate with the same cell radius as compared to 28 GHz).
474
CCA Reply at 13.  See also CCA June 7, Ex Parte Letter at 3 (arguing that pending transactions demonstrate a 
need to monitor consolidation of high-band spectrum and urging the Commission to implement a separate screen for 
each band to avoid harmful aggregation).
475
CCA June 15 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
476
CCA June 15, Ex Parte Letter at 2; CCA June 29, Ex Parte Letter at 2; CCA June 30, Ex Parte Letter at 4; CCA 
July 7, Ex Parte Letter at 2. 
477
T-Mobile Reply at 11.  See also T-Mobile May 9, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 2 (advocating for a “competitive 
playing field” in the mmW bands).
478
T-Mobile June 20, Ex Parte Letter at 4-5 (arguing that although several mmW bands have similar characteristics, 
they are not identical and their utility may be different).  See also T-Mobile June 30, Ex Parte Letter at 6 (T-Mobile 
notes that one-third of 3250 megahertz is 1083 megahertz.  Further, T-Mobile argues that that there are technical 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
68
Discussion.  We find it essential today to establish clear and transparent mobile spectrum 183.
holdings policies that will promote competition in the future, including competition in the development of 
5G services, as well as promote the efficient use of mmW spectrum, and avoid an excessive concentration 
of licenses.  As mentioned in the NPRM, demand for mobile service that mmW spectrum is expected to 
enhance and improve has been increasing,
479
and our predictive judgment is that interest in the spectrum 
will be high.
480
  Thus, we find that it would provide regulatory certainty, flexibility in planning, and 
expedited deployment if we supply guidance on application of these policies at this stage when we 
authorize mobile service in these bands and adopt related rules governing the terms of service, rather than 
at some later stage.
481
  In our consideration of whether to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for the 
licensing spectrum through competitive bidding and, if so, what type of limit to apply, our evaluation 
includes, among other things, the promotion of competition in relevant markets, the acceleration of
private sector deployment of advanced services, and generally managing the spectrum in the public 
interest.
482
  We evaluate how a limit would likely affect the quality of communications services or result 
in the provision of new or additional services to consumers, as well as any other statutory goals and 
directives applicable to a particular spectrum band being licensed by competitive bidding.
483
As the Commission noted in the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, the mobile 184.
wireless marketplace is highly concentrated, and with continually increasing consumer demand for 
mobile broadband, “in order for there to be robust competition, multiple competing service providers 
must have access to or hold sufficient spectrum to be able to enter a marketplace or expand output rapidly 
in response to any price increase or reduction in quality, or other change that would harm consumer 
welfare.”
484
In addition, we have found that holding a mix of spectrum bands is advantageous to 
providers and that consumers benefit when multiple providers have access to a mix of spectrum bands.
485
  
We conclude here that with, the rapid rate of technological advance, mmW spectrum is likely to be a 
critical component in the development of 5G, and we must take steps today to ensure its optimal use to 
the benefit of all American consumers.  For these reasons, we adopt an ex ante spectrum aggregation limit 
of 1250 megahertz that will apply to licensees acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz 
bands, through competitive bidding in auction.  We also adopt today for these same reasons a spectrum 
threshold of 1250 megahertz for proposed secondary market transactions in these three bands.
486
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
distinctions in the bands – notably an approximately 20% difference in propagation capacity); T-Mobile July 7, Ex 
Parte Letter at 3.
479
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11882, para. 6.
480
See, e.g., Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Nextlink Wireless, LLC for Long-Term 
De Facto Transfer Spectrum Leasing Arrangement, ULS File No. 0007162285 (filed Mar. 3, 2016).
481
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6190, para. 135.
482
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6192-93, para. 143.  See also generally 47 U.S.C. 
§ 309(j).
483
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6192-93, para. 143.  See also generally 47 U.S.C. 
§ 309(j).
484
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6143-44, 6146-47, 6157, paras. 17-18, 23-25, 47.
485
Id. at 6163-64, para. 59.  As the Commission stated, “The continually evolving marketplace makes having a mix 
of low- and high-band spectrum more important for the deployment of robust high quality networks by multiple 
service providers, which in turn can increase competition, drive down prices, and ensure continued innovation and 
investment.”  Id.
486
We note that this 1250 megahertz spectrum threshold helps to identify those markets that provide particular 
reason for further competitive analysis, but that our consideration of potential competitive harms would not be 
limited solely to those markets identified by the threshold.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
69
Historically, mmW frequencies have been considered unsuitable for mobile applications 185.
because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate 
around obstacles.
487
  As noted in the NPRM, bands above 24 GHz were not typically considered for stand-
alone mobile services but rather as supplementary channels to deliver ultra-high speed data in specific 
places.
488
  Due to technological advances, the mmW bands could potentially be used for mobile 
broadband and are likely to serve as an important supplement to lower-band spectrum.  Specifically, the 
mmW bands potentially will be used for supporting very high capacity networks in areas that require such 
capacity, as well as for machine-to-machine communications,
489
and in the development of various 
Internet of Things applications including wearables, fitness and healthcare devices, autonomous driving 
cars, and home and office automation.
490
  
We find that grouping the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands together for purposes of 186.
applying these spectrum holdings policies, either at auction or in the secondary market, is appropriate in 
view of the interchangeability of the spectrum in these bands, i.e., similar technical characteristics and 
potential uses of this spectrum that are unique to the mmW bands.  While certain differences across the 
mmW bands exist, we find these technical differences are not sufficient to significantly affect how these 
spectrum bands might be used and to require separate band-specific limits.  This approach mirrors our 
existing CMRS spectrum screen, which applies across a number of bands that do not have the same 
technical characteristics and not on a band-specific basis.
491
  Even assuming that more 37 GHz to 39 GHz 
spectrum would be needed to provide the same performance, there will be 2400 megahertz of 37 GHz and 
39 GHz spectrum available for service providers’ use, almost three times as much as in the 28 GHz band.  
And, in any event, all the particular facts of any proposed secondary market transaction will be carefully 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the public interest is served.  For these reasons, we do not 
find that adopting a band-specific spectrum aggregation limit is necessary, and we find that the spectrum 
holdings policies we adopt today will best support our objective of ensuring that multiple providers have 
access to this high band spectrum that is likely to be critically important in the development of 5G 
services moving forward.  We anticipate, as discussed below in the FNPRM that applying these spectrum 
holdings policies to spectrum with similar technical characteristics that may become available in the 
future is also likely to be appropriate.
Competitive Bidding.  We conclude that an approach based on limiting an entity’s 187.
holding to approximately one-third of the relevant spectrum will help to ensure that multiple providers are 
able to access a sufficient amount of spectrum to the benefit of consumers.
492
  In our consideration of the 
appropriate limit to set at auction, we note that as a result of the various license sizes in these bands, 
setting a limit at approximately one-third would as a practical matter result in a limit notably lower than a 
one-third limit.
493
  Given the varied license sizes of spectrum blocks in each band, as well as the total 
                                                     
487
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11882, para. 5.
488
Id. at 11883, para 8.
489
Id. at 11882-3, paras. 6-7.  The short transmission paths and high propagation losses unique to mmW spectrum 
can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference between adjacent 
cells.  In addition, the short wavelengths of mmW signals make it feasible to beam signals with enough gain to 
overcome propagation losses and, unlike longer-wavelength spectrum below 6 GHz, to accommodate antennas small 
enough to fit into handsets to beam such signals.  Id. at para 5.
490
See supra Section III (Background).
491
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6169-70, paras. 71-72.
492
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6205, para. 176.
493
The total available amount of the mmW spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands today is equal to 
3250 megahertz, approximately one-third of which is 1100 megahertz.  Given the sizes of the spectrum blocks in 
these bands, however, no entity could hold more than 1050 megahertz, and an entity interested in holding only 
licenses in the 37 and 39 MHz bands could hold no more than 1000 megahertz.  More specifically, the latter entity 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
70
amount of mmW spectrum available, we find that permitting licensees to acquire somewhat more than 
one-third of the spectrum available in these bands at auction is appropriate.  We therefore will not permit 
licensees to acquire more than 1250 megahertz across the three bands at auction.
494
  We find that the 
spectrum aggregation limit we adopt today will help ensure that multiple providers will be able to access
a sufficient amount of mmW spectrum to facilitate the deployment of new services and innovation that 
will benefit consumers, while guarding against the excessive concentration of licenses.
495
  We ask for 
comment below on how this limit might be implemented.
496
Secondary Market.  We adopt our proposal to exclude mmW spectrum from the current 188.
spectrum screen that includes those spectrum bands that the Commission has determined are suitable and 
available for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services.  As the Commission has previously 
explained, spectrum is considered “available” if it is “fairly certain that it will meet the criteria for 
suitable spectrum in the near term, an assessment that can be made at the time the spectrum is licensed or 
at later times after changes in technology or regulation that affect the consideration.”
497
We do not find 
that the mmW bands are suitable and available for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services
in the same manner as other spectrum bands that are currently included in the Commission’s spectrum 
screen as applied to secondary market transactions.  We make this finding based on the unique 
characteristics of these bands as described above.  Accordingly, we do not include the mmW bands in the 
spectrum screen.
However, we recognize that this frontier spectrum is likely to become increasingly 189.
valuable to the advent of 5G services.  In its competitive analysis of wireless transactions, the spectrum 
screen applicable to lower-band spectrum has been one tool used to help identify particular markets for 
further competitive analysis; it is applied on a county-by-county basis and identifies local markets where 
an entity would hold approximately one-third or more of the total spectrum suitable and available for the 
provision of mobile telephony/broadband services, post-transaction.
498
  Similarly, for proposed secondary 
market transactions that would result in an entity holding 1250 megahertz or more of the total spectrum in 
the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, we will apply our threshold on a county-by-county basis, and 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
would be able to hold no more than five licenses of 200 megahertz each across the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands for a 
total of 1000 megahertz.  An entity interested in holding some 28 GHz spectrum could hold either two 28 GHz 
licenses and one license of 200 megahertz for a total of 1050 megahertz, or one 425 megahertz license in the 28 
GHz band and three licenses of 200 megahertz for a total of 1025 megahertz.
494
We recognize that there are incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands that currently hold varying 
amounts of spectrum.  These licensees would be able to bid in the auction to an amount that would be no more than 
1250 megahertz in total, taking existing spectrum holdings into account.  Service providers’ existing spectrum 
holdings across the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands therefore will be counted for purposes of our application of 
the 1250 megahertz limit.
495
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6193, para. 176.  See also Auction 1000 Bidding 
Procedures PN, 30 FCC Rcd at 9063, para. 172.  In view of the block sizes we adopt today, we anticipate that the 
1250 megahertz spectrum holdings limit will allow acquisition of spectrum in more than one of the available bands.  
We further note that, in applying our mobile spectrum holding policies, we do not include the 600 megahertz of 
spectrum in the 37 GHz band that we designate for application of a Federal access paradigm.
496
See infra Section V.D (Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies).
497
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6169, para. 71.  (Suitability is determined by 
whether the spectrum is capable of supporting mobile service given its physical properties and the state of 
equipment technology, whether the spectrum is licensed with a mobile allocation and corresponding service rules, 
and whether the spectrum is committed to another use that effectively precludes its uses for mobile services).  Id.
498
See, e.g., Applications of AT&T Inc., E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative, Plateau Telecommunications, Inc., New 
Mexico RSA 4 East Limited Partnership, and Texas RSA 3 Limited Partnership for Consent To Assign Licenses and 
Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5107, 5118, para. 24 (2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
71
subject such transactions to our case-by-case review in order to ensure that the public interest is served.  
As noted above, while this 1250 megahertz spectrum threshold helps to identify those markets that 
provide particular reason for further competitive analysis, our consideration of potential competitive 
harms will not be limited solely to those markets identified by the threshold.  Establishing this spectrum 
aggregation threshold in the secondary market context recognizes the specific characteristics of the 
spectrum while helping to ensure that multiple entities have an opportunity to obtain mmW spectrum for 
deployment of innovative mobile technologies.
Summary.  We find, on balance, that the potential public interest benefits of adopting a 190.
1250 megahertz limit for auctions of this spectrum, and a 1250 megahertz threshold for secondary market 
transactions for these unique spectrum bands outweigh any potential public interest harms.  Further, 
adopting these spectrum holdings policies is consistent with our previous determination that an 
“approximately one-third threshold for total spectrum that we use to identify those holdings in local 
markets that may raise particular competitive concerns” is an effective analytical tool in the secondary 
market context.
499
  We anticipate that the potential costs of adopting such spectrum holdings policies will 
be low.  We disagree with commenters who argue that it is premature for the Commission to establish any 
spectrum aggregation policies in these bands and that such policies will undermine the potential use of 
this spectrum.  On the contrary, as noted above, we find that establishing such policies that will apply as 
mmW spectrum is introduced into the marketplace will help promote competition from the outset.  We 
have explained that mmW spectrum holds the potential for a range of uses from supporting high capacity 
networks to use with various Internet of Things applications.  While we cannot be certain at this time how 
this spectrum will be used, we find that its anticipated value to the future of 5G makes it critical that 
multiple providers have access to it.  The spectrum holdings policies we adopt today will guard against 
consolidation of this spectrum by one or two providers and will encourage the development of innovative 
services to the benefit of the American consumer. 
7. Performance Requirements
a. Introduction
Background.  The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote the 191.
productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide service to customers in a timely manner, 
and to promote the provision of innovative services in unserved areas, particularly rural ones.  Our 
overriding purpose in establishing performance requirements is to provide “a clear and expeditious 
accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is indeed being provided to the public.”
500
  
In doing so, we must strike an appropriate balance between providing licensees with operational 
flexibility and ensuring that spectrum does not lie fallow. 
Over the years, the Commission has tailored performance requirements with an eye to the 192.
unique characteristics of individual frequency bands and the types of services expected, among many 
other factors.  In the case of Part 101 services, such as 24 GHz, LMDS, and 39 GHz, licensees are 
required to demonstrate that they are providing “substantial service” at the end of their first license period 
in order to obtain renewal.
501
  The Commission has generally defined substantial service as “service 
                                                     
499
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6205, para. 176.
500
39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18623 para. 42.  See also Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission's 
Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and to Provide Additional 
Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, Second Report and Order,
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Notice of Inquiry, Order on Reconsideration, and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 9735, 9772, para. 101 (2012) (“Wireless Backhaul Second Report 
and Order”).
501
47 CFR § 101.1413; 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18623.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
72
which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally 
warrant renewal.”
502
For existing geographically-licensed Part 101 services, including the LMDS and 39 GHz193.
services, the Commission has generally specified safe harbors that will satisfy the substantial service 
requirement.
503
  It has also emphasized that safe harbors are merely one means of demonstrating 
substantial service, and that given an appropriate showing, a level of service that does not meet a safe 
harbor may still constitute substantial service.
504
  It has also determined that all substantial service 
showings that do not meet an established safe harbor would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
505
  
In connection with its Wireless Backhaul proceeding, the Commission rejected an 194.
argument from the National Spectrum Managers Association (NSMA) that the Commission should credit 
antecedent activities such as developing equipment, offering spectrum leases, and submitting proposals to 
potential customers towards a finding of substantial service.
506
  The Commission has stated that it would 
consider possible revisions to buildout policies in upper microwave services in WT Docket No. 10-112.
507
Commenters express a wide variety of views on appropriate performance requirements 195.
for the millimeter wave bands and the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  Some commenters argue 
against any type of concrete performance requirements, either because secondary markets would be 
sufficient to achieve productive use of the spectrum,
508
or because the characteristics of services to be 
offered in these bands are not yet known with enough certainty,
509
or because the propagation 
characteristics of these bands lend themselves to site-based licensing rather than geographic area 
licensing.
510
  Commenters who support performance requirements in some form were split between those 
who support “reasonable” or “flexible” performance requirements without specifics,
511
and those who 
support “rigorous” performance requirements.
512
  Commenters also discuss more specific suggestions for 
performance requirements, which we discuss in more detail below.
b. Performance Metrics and Milestones
Background.  Under the Act, we have an obligation to adopt rules that prevent the 196.
warehousing of spectrum, and we have an interest in doing so.
513
  It is our goal to create a regulatory 
scheme that promotes the rapid and widespread deployment of wireless broadband, to consumers’ benefit.  
One way to both fulfill our statutory obligation and promote widespread deployment is to institute
                                                     
502
47 CFR § 101.1413.
503
Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9772, para. 101.
504
Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9772, para. 101.
505
Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9772, para. 101.
506
Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and 
Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave 
Licensees, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 
FCC Rcd 11614, 11661, para. 114 (2011).
507
Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9773, para. 102.
508
Mobile Future Comments at 15-16.
509
AT&T Comments at 22-23, O3b Reply at 14.
510
O3b Reply at 14-16.
511
Facebook Comments at 6-7, CCA Reply at 3, Mobile Future Reply at 9, Samsung Reply at 11-12, Straight Path 
Reply at 22-23.
512
SES Americom Reply at 2.
513
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
73
enforceable buildout or coverage requirements.  The Commission commonly measures performance on 
the basis of population covered by a licensee in a license area.
514
  This approach can be readily adopted to 
wide-area coverage based fixed systems (point-to-multipoint systems).  For licensees providing fixed, 
point-to-point links, the Commission has generally evaluated buildout using a different metric – it 
compares the number of links in operation to the population of the license area.
515
  The Commission has 
also evaluated buildout, including in rural areas, by the percentage of land area served by a licensee.
516
In the NPRM, we proposed to establish a unified metric by which all types of services 197.
could be evaluated, and sought comment on what form that should take.
517
  Specifically, we proposed that 
each deployment, mobile or fixed, be assigned a “service contour,” and that the residential population 
inside each service contour be aggregated to determine the total population coverage of the deployment.
518
  
We also proposed that population coverage be measured on a census tract basis; if a reliable signal level 
was present at the centroid of a census tract, that census tract’s population would be deemed “covered” by 
the service.
519
  Separately, we suggested that the appropriate coverage level milestone for renewal would 
be 40 percent of the total population of the license area.
520
  In addition, the Commission sought comment 
on having a separate performance requirement for fixed services.
521
FiberTower supports the idea of a uniform metric,
522
but many commenters oppose it on 198.
the grounds that the various possible services would be too different from each other.
523
  The only 
commenter to address the appropriate level of population coverage was XO, who suggests a threshold of 
20 percent of the population rather than 40 percent.
524
  
Many commenters object to any population-based buildout requirement, on the grounds 199.
that services in the millimeter wave bands are too different from traditional services in lower-frequency 
                                                     
514
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(q)(2) (“An AWS-4 licensee shall provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer 
terrestrial service within seven (7) years from the date of the license to at least seventy (70) percent of the population 
in each of its license areas. . .”); (r)(1), (2) (AWS-3 bands).
515
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14 (o)(1)(i) (For BRS and EBS, constructing six permanent links per one million people
constitutes substantial service), (p)(2) (for 2.3 GHz WCS, “For point-to-point fixed systems, except those deployed 
in the Gulf of Mexico license area, a licensee must construct and operate a minimum of 15 point-to-point links per 
million persons (one link per 67,000 persons) in a license area by March 13, 2017, and 30 point-to-point links per 
million persons (one link per 33,500 persons) in a licensed area by September 13, 2019.”)
516
For example, in establishing a rural safe harbor, the Commission has suggested that serving at least seventy-five 
percent of the geographic area of a certain percentage of rural counties in a service area could be another means of 
meeting a buildout requirement.  See, e.g., Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and 
providing Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies to Provide Spectrum-Based Services, Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19123, para. 79 (2004); 47 CFR 
§ 27.14(o)(1)(iii)(A).
517
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11938-39, paras. 204-05.
518
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11939, para. 206.
519
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11939, para. 207.
520
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11940, para. 213.
521
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11940, para. 210.
522
FiberTower Comments at 9-10.
523
Intel Comments at 23-25, Joint LMDS/Broadband One Reply at 4, TIA Comments at 26-28.
524
XO Reply at 9-11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
74
bands, and the specifics of these services are not yet fully known.
525
  Along those lines, some commenters 
object generally to the use of “traditional models” of performance requirements.
526
  Some commenters 
suggest that the Commission instead adopt a “substantial service” requirement similar to that currently 
used for Part 101 Fixed Services, in order to allow licensees maximum flexibility to follow technology 
and industry standards as they develop;
527
however, FWCC opposes a substantial service standard, on the 
grounds that this method has not been successful in the past, and may even have deterred construction and 
deployment.
528
  A number of commenters suggest a usage-based system where performance would be 
measured by number of devices connected, number of sessions initiated, or volume of traffic carried.
529
A few commenters have more specific proposals.  AT&T argues that if we must 200.
implement performance requirements, we should credit such activities as leasing spectrum or submitting a 
description of planned deployments.
530
  Intel proposes a “performance requirement framework” consisting 
of several categories, with a different performance requirement for each category; licensees could choose 
the category that best fit the service they chose to offer.
531
  CTIA suggests a substantial service standard, 
with safe harbors for a certain number of links per population, number of mobile connections per 
population, or number of mobile connections in proportion to the geographic size of the license area.
532
With regard to satellite operations, we proposed in the NPRM that in the absence of a 201.
unified performance metric, a satellite operator who purchases a license to be used in association with an 
earth station would be required to demonstrate that the earth station is in operation and providing 
service.
533
  EchoStar argues against a unified performance metric that includes satellite operators because 
it believes that adding another performance requirement for satellite operators would be redundant, as 
Part 25 already contains build-out requirements.
534
We also sought comment on how to ensure productive use of this spectrum beyond the 202.
initial license term.
535
  We asked whether licensees should continue to be subject to performance 
requirements, and perhaps stricter ones, to qualify for subsequent renewals.
536
  T-Mobile and FWCC 
support the idea of requiring licensees to pay the price originally paid at auction for the license again at 
each renewal, as a substitute for performance requirements,
537
but no commenters directly address this 
issue. 
                                                     
525
5G Americas Comments at 9-11, AT&T Comments at 22-23, FWCC Comments at 5-7, Intel Comments at 23-25, 
Nokia Comments at 19-20, SES Americom Comments at 15, T-Mobile Comments at 18-19, Qualcomm Reply at 6-
7.
526
Cisco Comments at 13-14, CTIA Comments as 23-26. See Qualcomm Comments at 14, XO Comments at 21-22, 
O3b Reply at 14-16.
527
CCA Reply at 11-12, CTIA Comments at 23-26, Verizon Comments at 18-20.
528
FWCC Reply at 6.
529
5G Americas Comments at 10-11, Nokia Comments at 20, TIA Comments at 27-28.
530
AT&T Reply at 17 n.55, 21.
531
Intel Comments at 23-25.  See also Southern Co. Reply at 2-5.
532
CTIA May 24, Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
533
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 224.
534
EchoStar Comments at 39-40, EchoStar Reply at 13-14.
535
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11941, para. 218.
536
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11941, para. 218.
537
FWCC Comments at 7-8, T-Mobile Comments at 19.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
75
Discussion.  We decline to adopt a unified performance metric at this time.  Based on the 203.
criticisms and alternative suggestions in the record, we conclude that such an approach would not provide 
the flexibility necessary to support innovative uses of the spectrum, as it would favor one deployment 
approach over another.
538
  A unified approach might also deter investment and deployment in these 
bands.
539
  We also decline to adopt a “substantial service” standard of performance for the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service.  We determine that such a standard, with no firm minimum 
requirements, would not adequately safeguard effective use of spectrum in these bands.  We also decline 
to adopt a usage-based metric for performance requirements because it is not clear that there is a workable 
method of measuring or enforcing such a requirement.  Instead, we adopt a series of metrics, tailored for 
each type of service a licensee might choose to offer.  Licensees may fulfill their performance 
requirements by showing that they meet their choice of any one of the below standards, or a combination 
of several.  This framework is intended to provide enough certainty to licensees to encourage investment 
and deployment in these bands as soon as possible, while retaining enough flexibility to accommodate 
both traditional services and new or innovative services or deployment patterns.  Its increased level of 
firmness over a substantial service metric is also consistent with our recent approach in other services.
540
We note that this list of metrics is not intended to be exhaustive.  We recognize that the 204.
metrics we adopt today do not cover all possible types of service that licensees may seek to offer in these 
bands, and that new, innovative services may be developed with different characteristics that we cannot 
foresee at this time.  We therefore seek further comment in the FNPRM on additional metrics that should 
be applied to these innovative services.
541
We adopt these performance requirements today only in relation to the end of the initial 205.
license terms in these bands. Because we believe we are taking action with significant lead time before 
the full development of the technology, we believe an interim benchmark might be difficult to meet and 
may result in a substantial number of waiver and extension requests.  While we do not adopt any ongoing 
or subsequent performance requirements at this time, we strongly encourage licensees to deploy networks 
and services in a timely manner consistent with the development of the technology for these bands.  We 
emphasize, however, that the Renewal and Service Continuity proceeding (WT Docket No. 10-112), 
which addresses this issue, remains open, and that licensees may be subject to any requirements adopted 
as part of that proceeding at some later date.
542
Mobile and point-to-multipoint. For mobile and point-to-multipoint services in the 28 206.
GHz, 37 GHz (geographic area licenses only), and 39 GHz bands, we adopt a modified version of our 
proposal in the NPRM.  In order to meet the standards for license renewal, a licensee providing mobile 
service must provide coverage to 40 percent of the population of the license area and must be using the 
facilities to provide service.  This is a lower portion of the population than is the standard for lower 
frequency bands
543
because this level of coverage strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring 
                                                     
538
See, e.g., EchoStar Comments at 35-37; Cisco Comments at 13-14; Mobile Future Comments at 15-16, Nokia 
Comments at 20; TIA Comments at 25-28.
539
See TIA Comments at 27-28.
540
See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block – Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 
9558-60, paras. 195-200 (2013) (H-Block Service Rules Report and Order); Amendment of the3 Commission’s Rules 
with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, Report and 
Order, 29 FCC Fcd 4610, 4659-60, paras. 135-37 (2014) (AWS-4 Report and Order).  
541
See Section V.C.1 (Additional Metrics), infra.
542
Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 9773, para. 102.
543
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(q)(2) (70 percent population coverage final buildout requirement for AWS-4), (r)(2) 
(75 percent population coverage final buildout requirement for AWS-4), (s)(2) (75 percent population coverage final 
buildout requirement for AWS-3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
76
sufficient use of the spectrum and allowing licensees flexibility to deploy an emerging technology which 
may be more suitable for smaller coverage areas.  We view the current safe harbor of 20 percent 
population coverage as inappropriate going forward because the new technologies being developed will 
dramatically increase the opportunities to use these bands.  Since we are not requiring service 
demonstrations until the end of the license term, we believe licensees will have more than adequate time 
to meet this benchmark.  Similarly, we do not believe CTIA’s suggestions of 10 “connections” per 10,000 
population, or 50 connections per county, will result in robust build out in these bands.
544
  Under CTIA’s 
proposed definition of a “connection,” these 10 connections could represent as little as one subscriber 
accessing the network 10 times in one month.
545
  This is a particularly low benchmark for mobile 
operations, which is one of the primary target use cases for this new service.  We do not believe this 
standard represents a sufficient level of service to justify renewal.
We decline to adopt the measurement method we proposed in the NPRM and conclude 207.
that requiring a specific methodology is unnecessary.
546
  Instead, we will provide licensees with flexibility 
in terms of how they make their service showings, but Commission staff will continue to review showings 
to ensure that they accurately reflect coverage. 
Fixed.  We do not adopt our proposed method of “keyhole contours” for assigning fixed 208.
links a population equivalent.
547
Instead, we adopt a more traditional method of demonstrating fixed 
service: the number of links per population in the license area.  Specifically, we adopt a requirement that 
geographic area licensees providing Fixed Service in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, or 37 GHz bands must 
construct and operate at least four links in license areas with less than 268,000 population, and at least one 
link per 67,000 population in license areas with greater population.  This standard is similar to the 
standard we established for fixed point-to-point services in the 2.3 GHz band.
548
  While links in mmW 
bands will presumably be shorter because of the propagation characteristics, the higher frequencies will 
allow more reuse of spectrum in a given area.  These links must be part of a network that is actually 
providing service, whether to unaffiliated customers or private, internal uses, and all links must be present 
and operational at the end of the license term.  As with the mobile performance milestone, for bands 
licensed by areas larger than counties the number of links and the size of the population will be calculated 
over the entire license area, not county by county.
Satellite.  We adopt our proposal from the NPRM.
549
  A licensee who purchases a 28 GHz 209.
UMFUS license may fulfill build-out requirements for the license by deploying an earth station in the 
license area that is operational and providing service.  We note that a licensee may not fulfill this 
requirement by leasing a portion of its license area to a satellite operator that builds and operates an earth 
station within the leased area.  In 37 and 39 GHz, because we adopt significantly larger geographic 
license areas than counties, constructing and operating an earth station will fulfill the performance 
requirement only for the county in which it is constructed, and not for the entire license area. Satellite 
operators who develop earth stations under the satellite sharing mechanisms we adopt today for the 28 
GHz and 39 GHz bands will continue to be subject to the applicable Part 25 build-out requirements.
550
  
Combination.  Licensees whose deployments contain a mix of services, for example 210.
mobile service combined with fixed backhaul may meet the relevant fixed or mobile/point-to-multipoint 
                                                     
544
CTIA May 24 Ex Parte Letter at 4.
545
CTIA May 24 Ex Parte Letter at 4.
546
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11939, para. 207.
547
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11940, para. 213.
548
See 47 CFR § 27.14(p)(2).
549
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 224.
550
See 47 CFR § 25.133(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
77
standard separately.  We decline to establish a specific formula for evaluating such buildouts on a 
combined basis.  Instead, we will evaluate such showings on a case-by-case basis, as we have done for 
LMDS.
551
c. Failure to Meet Buildout Requirements
Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed that if a licensee fails to meet the applicable 211.
buildout requirements, its authorization for each county in which it fails to meet the requirement would 
terminate automatically without Commission action.
552
  We also proposed to evaluate whether licensees 
had met their build-out requirements on a county-by-county basis, as part of a proposal to license both the 
28 GHz and 39 GHz bands on a county basis.
553
No commenters discuss the remedy for failing to meet applicable performance 212.
requirements.  EchoStar proposes that incumbent LMDS licensees continue to have their buildout 
requirements assessed on the basis of their current license areas, rather than county-by-county, “in 
recognition of [their] reasonable expectations.”
554
  
Discussion.  We adopt a modified version of our proposal, tailored to the different license 213.
area sizes we adopt for each band.  For all bands, we adopt our proposal to terminate licenses (or portions 
of licenses, as appropriate) automatically if a licensee fails to meet the applicable performance 
requirements,
555
which is widely applied in many wireless services.
556
  The band-specific approaches to 
license renewal and termination are explained in more detail below.  In the accompanying FNPRM, we
seek to further develop the record on use-or-share obligations.
28 GHz.  As discussed above, the 28 GHz band will be licensed by county because 214.
partitioning licenses in these bands into license areas smaller than counties would be administratively 
burdensome without providing any off-setting benefits to licensees or service providers.
557
  Accordingly, 
if a licensee in the 28 GHz band fails to meet the applicable performance requirements at the end of its 
license term, the license for that county will terminate immediately in its entirety.  As we are reissuing the 
licenses in these band by county rather than by BTA,
558
we decline to implement EchoStar’s proposal to 
continue to evaluate incumbent licensees’ performance on a BTA-wide basis.
559
  
37 and 39 GHz.  As discussed above, the 39 GHz band, as well as the 37.6-38.6 GHz 215.
band, will be licensed by PEAs, rather than counties.
560
  In order to balance the need to ensure productive 
use of spectrum with the need to encourage investment and deployment, we adopt a modified approach to 
performance requirements in this band. 
A licensee who meets the applicable performance requirement for the entire PEA, taken 216.
as a whole, will be eligible to renew the entire license.  A licensee who does not meet the requirements for 
the entire license area will have two options: (1) automatic termination of the entire license, or (2) 
partition the license at the county level, and return a portion of the license to the Commission such that 
                                                     
551
See, e.g., Nextlink Wireless, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 8585 (WTB BD 2009).
552
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11940-41 para. 214.
553
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11937 paras. 199-200.
554
EchoStar Comments at 38-39.
555
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11940-941, para. 214.
556
See 47 CFR § 1.955(a)(2).
557
See supra Section IV.A.2 (Licensing the 28 GHz Band).
558
See supra Section IV.A.2 (Licensing the 28 GHz Band).
559
See EchoStar Comments at 38-39.
560
See supra Section IV.B.2 (Licensing the 39 GHz Band); Section IV.C.3 (37 GHz Band, License Size).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
78
the applicable performance requirements are met for the remaining non-forfeited area.  For example, a 
licensee of a PEA containing five counties of 100,000 people each, who deployed mobile service 
covering 60 percent of the population in each of two counties, and made no deployments in the other 
three counties, would be covering only 24% of the total population of the license area.  This would not be 
enough to meet performance requirements across the entire license.  However, the licensee could forfeit 
the portion of the license covering the three un-deployed counties, and retain and renew the portion of the 
license covering the remaining two counties.  Similarly, a licensee of the same hypothetical PEA who 
deployed mobile service covering 80 percent of one county, and 30 percent of another, could retain and 
renew the portion of the license for those two counties because the resulting two-county license area 
would have coverage of 55 percent of its population, which exceeds the 40 percent requirement.  
d. Treatment of Incumbents
Background.  Current licensees in the LMDS and 39 GHz bands are subject to different 217.
performance requirements than those we adopt today for future licensees in these bands.
561
  In the NPRM, 
we proposed to apply the existing performance requirements to incumbent LMDS and 39 GHz licensees 
at the end of their current license terms, so long as the license term expires prior to March 1, 2021.
562
  We 
also sought comment on allowing current licensees to meet their performance requirements under the 
current rules at some earlier date, for example 2018, in order to then allow licensees to begin transitioning 
their networks to other uses as soon as possible.
563
Qualcomm and Straight Path support our proposal to allow licensees to meet their current 218.
performance requirements before the end of their current license terms.
564
  XO supports giving 
incumbents the option to fulfill their current substantial service requirements, rather than the new 
requirements, at the end of their current terms.
565
Discussion.  We decline to adopt our proposal from the NPRM.
566
  For license terms 219.
concluding before 2020, licensees may be unable as a practical matter to meet the new, more rigorous 
requirements we adopt for these bands at the end of their current license terms because of the nascent 
state of technology.  Moreover, providing for additional time will provide more effective opportunities for 
licensees to use the spectrum in ways that maximize the flexibility now afforded by our new rules.  For 
example, the transition toward providing innovative mobile services is likely to require complex business 
decisions and changes in plans.  In short, it is our intent to encourage deployment of new and innovative 
services – particularly mobile service – as efficiently and effectively as possible.  
Thus, we slightly modify and extend the deadline for meeting the performance 220.
requirements pertaining to licensees’ current licenses for licenses expiring after the adoption date of the 
rules in this proceeding.
567
  Specifically, current licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands who, under 
the current rules, face a deadline for demonstrating substantial service after the adoption date of this 
Report and Order will not be required to demonstrate substantial service at renewal.  Instead, those 
licensees will be required to fulfill the performance requirements we adopt today for their respective 
licenses by June 1, 2024.  This approach will allow current licensees to focus on growing and 
                                                     
561
See 47 CFR § 101.17.
562
NPRM 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 219.
563
NPRM 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 219.
564
Straight Path Comments at 38, Qualcomm Reply at 7.
565
XO Comments at 28-29.
566
NPRM 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 219.
567
This rule change “relieves a restriction” otherwise applicable to licensees whose licenses expire between the 
adoption date and the effective date of our new rules.  5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
79
transitioning their networks in line with new and developing industry standards, which will support earlier 
and more robust deployment of next-generation services in these bands.
e. Alternatives to Performance Requirements
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on two alternatives to 221.
adopting performance requirements.  First, we sought comment on a consecutive license concept under 
which applicants would bid for a license in a given county in a single, one-time auction, and the winning 
bidder in that auction would be required to pay the auction price, adjusted for inflation, before the start of 
each five-year license term. If the winning bidder made this payment before a five-year license term, a 
new license would be issued to the licensee for that five-year term.  We reasoned that, “[s]uch an 
approach would be one way to incentivize construction of network facilities and spectrum use, given that 
a licensee would be unlikely to pay the auction price in successive license terms unless it could come up 
with a viable long-term plan for using the spectrum.”
568
  We also sought comment on separating 
interference and exclusion rights using an “option” concept to accomplish the goals of performance 
requirements.  We noted that in the 3.5 GHz proceeding, we recently sought comment on a proposal to 
define “use” of priority access licenses in such a way as to separate the right to operate without 
interference from the right to exclude other users.
569
  Under that proposal, the priority access licensee 
would have the right, but not the obligation, to exclude other users by making an additional “option” 
payment.
570
T-Mobile and FWCC support the idea of implementing a “warehousing fee” approach 222.
under which licensees would pay the auction price again at every renewal rather than fulfilling 
performance requirements,
571
while Verizon explicitly opposes this option.
572
  We received no comments 
on the “option payment” concept.
Discussion.  We decline to adopt either of these alternatives for these bands.  The 223.
Communications Act contemplates that the Commission will take measures “to prevent stockpiling or 
warehousing of spectrum by licensees.”
573
  As noted above, we believe the foregoing performance 
requirements are feasible in these bands, and the best method to prevent warehousing in this context.  O3b 
argues that such “consecutive license terms with recurring payments” would simply change the financial 
calculation underpinning warehousing: while the initial bid would be smaller and discounted less, the 
lower price of entry could encourage warehousing by reducing the amount initially needed to hold on to 
the spectrum.
574
In the absence of any discussion of the “option payment” concept, we will not adopt the 
proposal at this time.
8. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
Background.  Under Section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, an authorization will 224.
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.”
575
  
In the NPRM, we proposed that for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees that identify their 
                                                     
568
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 221.
569
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 222.
570
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11942, para. 222.
571
FWCC Comments at 7-8, T-Mobile Comments at 18-19.
572
Verizon Comments at 21-22.
573
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
574
O3b Comment at 27.  However, this argument ignores the fact that under this proposal, the recurring payment 
forces a licensee to make an annual decision about its need for the spectrum based upon a more rational and current 
determination of revenue relative to cost.  
575
47 CFR § 1.955(a)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
80
regulatory status as common carrier or non-common carrier, “permanently discontinued” should be 
defined as a period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not provide service to at least 
one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider in the service area of its 
license (or smaller service area in the case of a partitioned license).
576
We proposed a different approach for licensees that use their licenses for private, internal 225.
communications.  For these services, we propose to define “permanent discontinuance” as a period of 180 
consecutive days during which the licensee does not operate any facilities under the license.
577
We 
proposed that licensees not be subject to this requirement until one year after their initial license period 
ends, to allow them adequate time to construct their networks.
578
We also proposed that when 28 GHz, 37 GHz, or 39 GHz licensees permanently 226.
discontinue service, the licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days, by 
filing FCC Form 601 and requesting license cancellation.
579
  We further proposed that an authorization 
automatically terminates without specific Commission action if service is permanently discontinued, even 
if a licensee fails to file the required form.
580
  No commenters discuss the permanent discontinuance of 
service proposals.
Discussion.  We adopt our proposals from the NPRM related to permanent 227.
discontinuance of operations.
581
  Specifically, we adopt the two separate proposed definitions of 
“permanent discontinuance,” for common carrier and non-common carrier service, and for private 
communications services.  We also adopt our proposal to wait to implement this requirement until one 
year after the initial license period ends.  This approach is consistent with the definitions the Commission 
has adopted for other spectrum bands that are licensed for mobile use, including the H Block, AWS-3, 
and AWS-4 bands.
582
We also adopt our proposal that a licensee who permanently discontinues service must 228.
notify the Commission within 10 days, and our proposal that such licenses terminate automatically even if 
a licensee fails to appropriately notify the Commission.  This approach to permanent discontinuance is 
consistent with Section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
583
The permanent discontinuance rule is 
intended to provide operational flexibility while ensuring that spectrum does not lie idle for extended 
periods, and the rules we adopt today support those goals.
9. Secondary Markets Policies
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
Background. The Commission’s Part 101 rules generally allow for geographic 229.
partitioning and spectrum disaggregation in the LMDS and 39 GHz service.
584
  Geographic partitioning 
refers to the assignment of geographic portions of a license to another licensee along geopolitical or other 
boundaries.  Spectrum disaggregation refers to the assignment of discrete amounts of spectrum under the 
                                                     
576
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 225.
577
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 226.
578
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 226.
579
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 227.
580
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, para. 227.
581
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11943, paras. 225-26.
582
See 47 CFR § 27.17.
583
47 CFR § 1.955(a)(3).
584
See 47 CFR § 101.56.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
81
license to another entity.  Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic area 
operated by different companies on adjacent frequencies in the same band.
In 1997, the Commission determined that all LMDS licensees would generally be 230.
permitted to disaggregate and partition their licensees.
585
  The Commission later adopted specific 
procedural, administrative, and operational rules to govern the disaggregation and partitioning of LMDS 
licenses.
586
  Similarly, in the same year, the Commission concluded that partitioning and disaggregation 
would be permitted in the 39 GHz band and adopted partitioning and disaggregation rules in these band as 
well.
587
The rules require the spectrum to be disaggregated by FDD pair in the 39 GHz band.
588
In the NPRM, we proposed to continue to allow partitioning and disaggregation in the 28 231.
and 39 GHz bands, and to permit 37 GHz licensees to partition and disaggregate their licenses as well.
589
  
We also proposed to require all parties to a partitioning or disaggregation agreement to independently 
fulfill the applicable performance and renewal requirements,
590
which is consistent with the current 
requirements.
591
Commenters overwhelmingly support allowing secondary market transactions in general, 232.
and partitioning and disaggregation in particular.
592
  Intel supports expanding disaggregation in the 39 
GHz band by also permitting pair-splitting.
593
  No commenters oppose allowing secondary market 
transactions generally, or partitioning or disaggregation specifically.  No commenters discuss 
performance requirements for parties to a partition or disaggregation.
Discussion. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to allow partitioning and disaggregation 233.
of licenses in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands.
594
  As the Commission noted when first establishing 
partitioning and disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate the efficient use of 
spectrum by enabling licensees to make offerings directly responsive to market demands for particular 
types of services, increasing competition by allowing new entrants to enter markets, and expediting 
provision of services that might not otherwise be provided in the near term.
595
  This policy would leave 
the decision of determining the correct size of licenses to the licensees and the marketplace.  Allowing 
this flexibility is consistent with the record, and with the flexible approach to licensing these bands that 
                                                     
585
Second LMDS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12608, paras. 144-45.
586
See Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz 
Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed-Satellite Services, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11655 
(1998) (LMDS Fourth Report and Order).  See also 47 CFR § 101.1111.
587
39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18635-36, paras. 71-74; 47 CFR § 101.56.
588
47 CFR § 101.56(a)(1).
589
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11944-45, para. 233.
590
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11945, para. 234.
591
See 47 CFR § 101.56; 47 CFR § 101.1111.
592
AT&T Reply at 11, Cisco Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 14-15, Ericsson Comments at 6, FiberTower 
Comments at 8-9, HTSC Comments at 4-5, Intel at 25-26, Mobile Future Comments at 16, TIA Comments at 30-31, 
Verizon Comments at 13-14, XO Comments at 23.
593
Intel Comments at 26.
594
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11944-45, paras. 233-34.
595
Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Service Licensees, Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21831, 21833, para. 1 (1996).  We discuss 
spectrum aggregation policies with regard to secondary market transactions in Section IV.F.6 (Mobile Spectrum 
Holdings) supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
82
we adopt above in this Report and Order.
596
   Because the band plan we adopt for the 39 GHz band does 
not use paired spectrum blocks, the current rule that licenses in that band must be disaggregated in pairs 
will no longer apply.
597
We also adopt our proposal to require all parties to a partitioning or disaggregation 234.
agreement to independently fulfill applicable performance and renewal requirements. According to the 
performance requirements framework we adopt above,
598
individual licensees may choose which metric 
they fulfill (e.g., fixed, mobile, or satellite), but each licensee must make a showing that independently 
satisfies the requirements. This requirement will facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling service 
providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum blocks to meet their operational needs.
b. Spectrum Leasing
Background.  In 2003, in order to promote more efficient use of terrestrial wireless 235.
spectrum through secondary market transactions and in order to eliminate regulatory uncertainty, the 
Commission adopted the Secondary Markets First Report and Order, which contained a comprehensive 
set of policies and rules to govern spectrum leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and 
spectrum lessees.
599
  These policies and rules enabled terrestrially-based Wireless Radio Service licensees 
holding “exclusive use” spectrum rights to lease some or all of the spectrum usage rights associated with 
their licenses to third party spectrum lessees.
600
Those third party lessees were then permitted to provide 
wireless services consistent with the underlying license authorization.
601
This 2003 Order excluded a number of wireless radio services from the spectrum leasing 236.
rules and policies, including Part 101 services.
602
  A year later, the Commission extended the spectrum 
leasing policies to a number of additional wireless services, including Part 101 services.
603
  At that time, 
the Commission also built upon the spectrum leasing framework by establishing immediate approval 
procedures for certain categories of terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements.
604
In the NPRM, we proposed to apply these spectrum leasing policies to the new Part 30 237.
radio service governing Upper Microwave Flexible Use Services, including all 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 
                                                     
596
See supra Section IV.F.1 (Creation of New Rule Service and Part).
597
See supra Section IV.B.2 (Licensing the 39 GHz Band).
598
See supra Section IV.F.7.b (Performance Metrics and Milestones).
599
Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 20604 (2003) (Secondary Markets First 
Report and Order), Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 24817 (2003).
600
Secondary Markets First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20609-13, 20648-49, paras. 8-9, 12-13, 91-92.  
Wireless Radio Services do not include satellite services.  47 CFR § 1.907.  Under these secondary market policies 
and rules, the service rules and policies applicable to the licensee under its license authorization – including all 
technical, interference, and operational rules – apply to the spectrum lessee as well.  Secondary Markets First Report 
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20648-49 paras. 91-92; see 47 CFR §§ 1.9020(c)-(d), 1.9030(c)-(d), 1.9035(c)-(d).  The 
rules and procedures for spectrum leasing arrangements are set forth in Part 1, Subpart X.  47 CFR §§ 1.9001 et seq.
601
Secondary Markets First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20648-49, paras. 91-92.
602
Id.
603
Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, 
Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC 
Rcd 17503 (2004) (Secondary Markets Second Report and Order).
604
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
83
GHz terrestrial licenses.
605
  We proposed to apply these policies in the same manner that they apply to 
Part 101 services.
606
As noted above,
607
many commenters support allowing secondary market transactions 238.
generally and spectrum leasing specifically.
608
  Commenters cite the additional flexibility afforded by 
leasing spectrum,
609
and the market certainty granted by using established rules.
610
  Several commenters 
also mention that spectrum leasing allows a broader range of entities to access licensed spectrum and 
provides additional competition in the marketplace.
611
  No commenters oppose allowing spectrum leasing 
arrangements.
Discussion. We adopt our proposal to allow spectrum leasing in the 28 and 39 GHz 239.
bands, as well as the portion of the 37 GHz band licensed on a geographic area basis.
612
  Allowing 
spectrum leasing in these bands will promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the 
spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services and devices, enhance economic opportunities 
for accessing spectrum, and promote competition among providers.  In addition, spectrum leasing policies 
in a particular band generally follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation policies for 
that band.
613
  Thus, our adoption of spectrum leasing rules for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands is
consistent with our decision above to allow partitioning and disaggregation in these bands as well.
614
10. Other Operating Requirements
Background.  In the NPRM, we noted that licensees in the Upper Microwave Flexible 240.
Use Service may also be required to comply with rules contained in other parts of the Commission’s 
rules, depending on the particular services they provide.
615
  Examples of these rules include the filing 
procedures for the Universal Licensing System, as set forth in Part 1,
616
and the provisions of Part 20 
governing Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), to the extent a licensee provides such a service.
617
We proposed in the NPRM to require UMFUS licensees to comply with these service-241.
specific rules, as well as other rule parts that pertain generally to wireless communications services.
618
  
We also sought comment on any provisions in existing service-specific rules that might require specific 
                                                     
605
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946, para. 238.
606
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946, para. 238.  See, e.g., 47 CFR § 1.9005(j).
607
Supra Section IV.F.9.a, Partitioning and Disaggregation.
608
AT&T Reply at 11, Cisco Comments at 11, CTA Comments at 15, Ericsson Comments at 6, FiberTower 
Comments at 8-9, HTSC Comments at 4, Intel Comments at 25-26, Mobile Future Comments at 16, NCTA 
Comments at 17-18, TIA Comments at 13, XO Comments at 23.
609
Cisco Comments at 11, XO Reply at 13-14.
610
XO Reply at 13-14.
611
Mobile Future Reply at 10, XO Comments at 23.
612
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946, para. 238.
613
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020/2180-2200 MHz Bands, Report and Order and 
Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16198 para. 258 (WTB 2012) (AWS-4 Service Rules Report 
and Order).
614
See supra Section IV.F.9.a (Partitioning and Disaggregation).
615
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946, para. 240.
616
See 47 CFR §§ 1.911-1.959.
617
47 CFR §§ 20.1-20.22.
618
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946-47, paras. 241-42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
84
recognition or adjustment to comport with the supervening application of the new Part 30, as well as any 
provisions that might be necessary in Part 30 to fully describe the scope of covered services and 
technologies.
619
  
No commenters suggest any reason why UMFUS licensees should not also be subject to 242.
those rule parts that apply to wireless communications services generally.  In addition, no commenters 
identify any existing provisions that might require adjustment, or suggest any specific non-technical rule 
provisions that should be included in Part 30.
620
  
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to require UMFUS licensees to comply 243.
with other rule parts that pertain generally to wireless communications services, and with any applicable 
service-specific rules.
621
  This approach will maintain general consistency among various wireless 
communications services.  Consistent with our proposal, we will add UMFUS to the definitions of 
Wireless Radio Service and Wireless Telecommunications Service in Section 1.907 of the Commission’s 
rules.  We refrain from modifying other existing rules in other rule parts at this time, as no commenter has 
identified any incompatibilities or inconsistencies between the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
and the existing service-specific or generally applicable rules.  To consolidate the technical rules for all of 
the types of flexible uses that might be deployed by UMFUS licensees under a single rule part, and to 
maintain consistency between the rules that we adopt and the current technical requirements that existing 
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees are subject to, we will move the existing Part 101 technical rules for 
traditional point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations into Part 30.  
11. Competitive Bidding Procedures
Background.  We explained in the NPRM that it would be in the public interest and 244.
consistent with our statutory mandate
622
to adopt a licensing scheme that allows the filing of mutually 
exclusive applications for licenses in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands which, if accepted, would be resolved 
through competitive bidding.
623
  The comments on this issue generally support this proposal and the 
Commission’s proposed use of its competitive bidding rules to auction UMFUS licenses.
624
  Thus, as 
detailed below, we adopt our proposal to use the Part 1 competitive bidding rules to auction licenses in 
the bands that compose the UMFUS.
a. Applicability of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
We proposed in the NPRM to conduct any spectrum auction of UMFUS licenses in 245.
conformity with the general competitive bidding procedures set forth in Part 1 Subpart Q of the 
Commission’s rules.
625
  No commenters proposed any alternative or objected.  Given our experience in 
successfully conducting auctions using these procedures, we will adopt our proposed approach.  We will 
employ the Part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust 
enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting requirements and the prohibition on certain 
communications between auction applicants – including those updates made in the Competitive Bidding 
                                                     
619
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946, para. 241.
620
In the Technical Rules section, infra, we will discuss incorporating certain technical rules currently in Part 101 
into Part 30.
621
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11946-47, paras. 241-42.
622
See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1), (2).
623
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11947, para. 243-45.  
624
AT&T Reply at 11, Mobile Future Comments at 16, Qualcomm Comments at 6, 10, 12, Mobile Future Reply at 
5.
625
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11947, para. 246.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
85
Update Report and Order.
626
  We note however, that the Commission could modify these procedures at a 
later time.  
In discussing the competitive bidding rules, one commenter urges that if the Commission 246.
adopts county-level licenses, it would be critical to permit ‘package bidding’ so that operators could 
assemble larger footprints by bidding on multiple counties at one time.
627
  In response, two commenters 
argue that the Commission should not permit any form of package bidding because such bidding 
procedures may make it more difficult for small bidders to acquire specific licenses that are included in 
larger packages.
628
  Issues involving such bidding procedures are more appropriately addressed in a pre-
auction proceeding that will seek public input on the competitive bidding procedures to be used for a 
particular auction of UMFUS licenses.  Accordingly, we defer consideration of such matters to such 
proceeding(s) where interested parties are likely to have a more informed context for such input.
629
b. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
In authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress mandated that the 247.
Commission “ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of 
spectrum-based services.”
630
  One of the principal means by which the Commission fulfills this mandate 
is through the award of bidding credits to small businesses.  In the Competitive Bidding Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility requirements for 
small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account the capital requirements and other 
characteristics of each particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold.
631
  Further, in the Part 1 
Third Report and Order and the more recent Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, the 
Commission, while standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a service-by-
service approach to defining small businesses.
632
  We recently updated our standardized schedule of small 
business definitions to reflect the capital challenges small businesses face in the current wireless industry, 
and in the NPRM we sought comment on whether to apply those updated definitions for auctions of 
spectrum in the UMFUS bands.
633
  
                                                     
626
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2101-1.2114; see also Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules, et al., Report and Order; 
Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order; Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and 
Order; Third Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015) (modified by Erratum, 30 FCC Rcd 8518 (WTB 2015)) 
(Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order).
627
Verizon Comments at 12-13.
628
EchoStar Comments at 40-41; U.S. Cellular Comments at 10-12.
629
A pre-auction proceeding conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 309(j)(3)(E)(i) of the Communications 
Act typically addresses multiple issues governing the conduct of an auction such as bidding procedures, minimum 
opening bids and or reserve prices, cap levels on bidding credits and payment procedures.  See 47 U.S.C. 
§ 309(j)(3)(E)(i).
630
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D).  In addition, Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that, in establishing eligibility 
criteria and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall seek to promote a number of objectives, including 
“economic opportunity and competition . . . by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating 
licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses 
owned by members of minority groups and women.”  Id. § 309(j)(3)(B).
631
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 7269, para. 145 (1994); 47 CFR § 1.2110(c)(1).
632
Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7521, para. 65; Part 1 Third Report and Order, 
13 FCC Rcd at 388, para. 18; 47 CFR § 1.2110(c)(1).
633
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11948-49, para. 248-49.  Under the new standardized schedule, businesses with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $4 million would be eligible for a 35 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
86
Based on the Commission’s prior experience with the use of bidding credits in spectrum 248.
auctions, we believe that the using bidding credits is an effective tool to achieve the statutory objective of 
promoting participation of designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based service.  
In adopting competitive bidding rules for the 39 GHz band, the Commission included 249.
provisions for designated entities to promote opportunities for small businesses, rural telephone 
companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women to participate in the 
provision of spectrum-based services.
634
  Specifically, the Commission adopted bidding credits for 
applicants qualifying as small businesses.  For auction of licenses in the 39 GHz band, the Commission 
adopted two small business definitions.
635
  These two small business definitions were later adopted as the 
highest two of three thresholds in the Commission’s standardized schedule of bidding credits.
636
  In the 
NPRM, we proposed to adopt for the UMFUS the two small business definitions with higher gross 
revenues thresholds reflecting the recently adopted updates to the Part 1 schedule of small business 
definitions in the Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order.
637
  We adopt our proposal to apply the 
two small business definitions with higher gross revenues thresholds to auctions of UMFUS licenses in 
the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands and any other spectrum bands that we may subsequently designate for
inclusion in the UMFUS.  Accordingly, an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding 
three years not exceeding $55 million will qualify as a “small business,” while an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20 million will qualify as a “very 
small business.”  While the capital requirements of the services to be deployed in these bands is not yet 
known, we believe that using these gross revenue thresholds will enhance the ability of small businesses 
to acquire and retain capital and thereby complete meaningfully at auction.  We also believe that these 
thresholds are not overly inclusive, and prevent designated entity benefits from flowing to entities for 
which such credits are not necessary.  We believe that the various spectrum bands included in the 
UMFUS – spectrum that will be utilized under the same or similar technical rules – will be deployed for 
the same types of service, and therefore the two small business definitions with higher gross revenues 
thresholds should apply to all of the bands in the UMFUS.
We also adopt our proposal to provide qualifying “small businesses” with a bidding 250.
credit of 15 percent and qualifying “very small businesses” with a bidding credit of 25 percent, consistent
with the standardized schedule in Part 1 of our rules.
638
  This proposal was modeled on the small business 
size standards and associated bidding credits that the Commission adopted for a range of other services, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
percent bidding credit, businesses with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding 
$20 million would be eligible for a 25 percent bidding credit, and businesses with average annual gross revenues for 
the preceding three years not exceeding $55 million would be eligible for a 15 percent bidding credit.  Competitive 
Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7524, para. 74.  We also adopted a monetary cap on the total 
amount of bidding credits that an eligible small business or rural service provider may be awarded in any particular 
auction.  Specifically, the amount of the bidding credit cap for a small business in any particular auction will not be 
less than $25 million and the bidding credit cap for the total amount of bidding credits that a rural service provider 
may be awarded will not be less than $10 million.  See id. at 7541, para. 114.
634
See 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 18662-63, para. 150 (1997) (defining a qualifying small business 
as one with no more than $40 million in average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years and a very 
small businesses as one with no more than $15 million in average annual gross revenues for the preceding three 
years); see also 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D).
635
See id.; 47 CFR §§ 101.1208, 101.1209.
636
See Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Competitive Bidding Proceeding, Third Report and Order
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 403-04 para. 47 (1997).
637
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11948-49, paras. 248-49 (citing Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 
FCC Rcd at 7524, para. 74).
638
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11949, para. 249. See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B), (C).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
87
including Advanced Wireless Services in the AWS-1 band.
639
  We believe that this two-tiered approach 
has been successful in the past, and will once again utilize it.  We use the existing 39 GHz service rules as 
a starting point, but adjust the bidding credit levels to be consistent with the schedule in Part 1 of our 
rules.
640
  We believe that use of the small business definitions and associated bidding credits set forth in 
the Part 1 bidding credit schedule will provide consistency and predictability for small businesses.  No 
commenter provides any alternative or reason why our bidding credit thresholds or small business 
definitions would not work in this service.  Accordingly we adopt our proposals regarding small business 
definitions and bidding credits.
c. Rural Service Provider Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
The rural service provider bidding credit awards a 15 percent bidding credit to those 251.
servicing predominantly rural areas and that have fewer than 250,000 combined wireless, wireline, 
broadband and cable subscribers.
641
  In the NPRM, we stated that in the absence of comments to the 
contrary, we would leave open the option for future bidding applicants to apply for rural service provider 
bidding credits in lieu of a small business bidding credits.
.642
  We now decide that we will apply the rural 
service provider bidding credit to auctioning the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.  Although we have 
not received comments about this issue, we believe that a targeted bidding credit will better enable rural 
service providers to compete for spectrum licenses at auction and in doing so, will increase the 
availability of 5G service in rural areas.
d. Small Business and Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit Caps
In the Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, we adopted a process for 252.
establishing a reasonable monetary limit or cap on the amount of bidding credits that an eligible small 
business or rural service provider may be awarded in any particular auction.
643
  We established the 
parameters to implement a bidding credit cap for future auctions on an auction-by-auction basis.
644
           
Consistent with the Commission's longstanding approach, after adoption of all of the necessary service 
rules for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, the Commission will initiate a public notice process 
to solicit public input on certain details of auction design and the auction procedures for the initial auction 
of UMFUS licenses. As part of that process, we will solicit public input on the appropriate amount of the 
bidding credit cap and subsequently establish the cap that will apply for that auction, based on an 
evaluation of the expected capital requirements presented by the particular spectrum being auctioned and 
the inventory of licenses to be auctioned.
645
e. Tribal Lands Bidding Credit
The tribal lands bidding credit program awards a discount to a winning bidder for serving 253.
qualifying tribal land that have a wireline telephone subscription rate equal to or less than 85 percent of 
the population.
646
  We believe that tribal entities involved in the telecommunications industry face unique 
                                                     
639
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11949, para. 249 n.424.  See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 
1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162, 25220, para. 149
(2003); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020/2180-2200 MHz Bands, et al., WT Docket 
No. 12-70, et al., 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16185, para. 217 (adopting the AWS-1 size standards and associated bidding 
credits for small businesses for any AWS-4 licenses awarded through competitive bidding).
640
See 47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(2).
641
Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7530, para. 88.
642
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11950, para. 253.
643
Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7539-44, paras. 110-21.
644
Id. 
645
See Competitive Bidding Update Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7541, para. 114.
646
47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
88
challenges in participating in spectrum auctions and that the tribal lands bidding credit will promote 
further deployment and use of spectrum over tribal lands.  No commenters oppose the tribal land bidding 
credit nor suggest that the tribal lands bidding credit is unnecessary.  Accordingly, a winning bidder for a 
market will be eligible to receive a credit for serving qualifying Tribal lands within that market, provided 
it complies with the applicable competitive bidding rules.
647
f. Bidding Process Options
Finally, we also sought comment in the NPRM on whether we should revise any of our 254.
bidding process and payment rules to ameliorate the administrative difficulties the Commission could 
potentially face in enforcing the construction requirements in the 3,143 counties nationwide.
648
  One 
alternative we discussed was to allow prospective millimeter wave licensees to bid, in a single auction, on 
licenses that have consecutive terms of license rights in a given geographic area – i.e., licensees could bid 
at auction for the right to obtain a license in a given county not just for a single license term, but for each 
subsequent five-year license term; and the winning bidder would pay an auction-determined fee, in lieu of 
other performance requirements before the start of each term.
649
  Once a winning bidder made this 
payment, a new license would issue for the next consecutive license term.
650
  Some commenters support 
adopting such payments in lieu of performance requirements.
651
  However several commenters criticize 
the approach as incentivizing spectrum warehousing.
652
  For example, O3b notes that consecutive license 
terms with recurring payments would simply change the financial calculation underpinning warehousing: 
while the initial bid would be smaller and discounted less, the lower price of entry could encourage 
warehousing by reducing the amount initially needed to hold on to the spectrum.
653
  We decline to adopt 
recurring payments as an alternative to performance requirements in this order and note it is unlikely we 
would adopt such payments given our review of the record and further consideration of the factors 
affecting these bands.  In the NPRM, we speculated that these payments could incentivize deployment of 
network facilities and discourage spectrum warehousing because a licensee would be unlikely to pay the 
auction price for successive terms for spectrum it did not intend to use.
654
  However, we believe there is a 
strong likelihood that bidders would still warehouse spectrum and leave it fallow if the cost of the 
recurring payment to the spectrum holder was outweighed by the benefit derived from foreclosing other 
operators’ access to the spectrum.  This would counter our goal of accelerating deployment in these 
bands.  Accordingly we decline to adopt this proposal.
12. Security
The FCC’s approach to cybersecurity proceeds from the view that communications 255.
providers are generally in the best position to evaluate and address risks to their network operations.  This 
approach recognizes the importance of private sector leadership and innovation in cybersecurity, and it 
                                                     
647
47 CFR § 1.2110(f)(3).  
648
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11950, para. 255.
649
See id.at 11950, para. 255.
650
See id.at 11950, para. 255.
651
FWCC Comments at 7-8. (“This approach at least will encourage any construction that promises eventual 
revenues, without unduly penalizing construction that fails to meet minimum requirements within a set time.  It also 
enables bidders, and then licensees, to make short-term, and hence better informed financial decisions, which in turn 
may help moderate the wild swings in the returns of some past auctions.”)  T-Mobile initially called for these 
payments in lieu of performance, naming them a “warehousing fee.”  T-Mobile Comments at 19.  T-Mobile has 
since argued the Commission should not adopt any performance requirements at this time.  T-Mobile Reply at 16.  
652
See Verizon Comments at 21-22, O3b Comment at 27.  
653
O3b Comments at 27.
654
See id. at 11942, para. 221, 11951, para. 256.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
89
reduces the need for ongoing regulatory involvement in private sector security practices.  It will prove 
successful, though, only if the private sector aggressively addresses evolving threats through security-by-
design, even where short-term market incentives may not be sufficient to drive long-term security 
investments before harm is realized.
Emerging security standards for new flexible uses of the mmW bands (and “5G” more 256.
broadly) are developing in parallel, but not necessarily at the same pace, with the emerging networks, 
devices, and equipment.
655
  While CTIA has observed that significant, multi-stakeholder, multi-
disciplinary, and “multi-layered” efforts are ongoing, domestically and globally, “to assure that [5G] 
network and [mmW] device security is preserved to the maximum extent feasible,”
656
we must 
acknowledge that to date many wireless communications systems have not been successful at 
implementing security-by-design.  We recognize that, in the race to market, vital security protections too 
often fall by the wayside. 
We today take narrowly tailored steps to help promote an environment that encourages 257.
the early and ongoing consideration of security issues by all private sector participants, including 
infrastructure and device firms, established communications firms, and new entrants to communications 
markets.  New mmW-based networks will enable valuable new services, and accelerating the deployment 
of those services is a national priority.  Those benefits, however, will be undermined if security risks are 
not managed by licensees.  Accordingly, we are moving expeditiously both to meet the need for new 
mmW spectrum for next generation services and to help ensure that security for these services is built in 
from the beginning, not left as an afterthought.  In this approach, we concur with stakeholders who 
identify that there is an opportunity to take action now – before the technology is mature or the services 
deployed – to encourage, from the outset, the development of necessary cybersecurity protections
alongside the development of emerging services and technologies.
657
In the NPRM, we recognized the significance of security to 5G networks and the future 258.
devices enabled by and connecting to them.  Because of the implications related to both sets of issues, we 
sought comment on how to secure mmW band devices, networks, and their communications, and 
specifically on “how to ensure that effective security features are built into key design principles for all 
mmW band communications devices and networks.”
658
We expressed a belief in the value of “security-
by-design” that is motivated by our expectations that these networks may provide capabilities for a wide 
variety of new devices and applications, including, among others, traditional mobile communications
capabilities, IoT and other applications as well as devices critical to public safety and related services that 
provide essential protections to the nation
659
We indicated that security by design means ensuring that the 
goals that drive the development of networks and devices include achieving an objective state of 
security.
660
In that context, we explained that the security constructs of confidentiality, integrity, and 
availability help us gain insight into security generally,
661
and that security-by-design can help ensure that 
                                                     
655
See AT&T Comments at 3; 4G Americas Comments, Attach. at 2-3; Qualcomm, Inc. Reply at 9; Letter from 
Thomas K. Sawanobori, CTO, and John A. Marinho, Vice President of Technology & Cybersecurity, CTIA, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-177, et. al, at 2-3 and 5, quoting TIA Comments at 36 (filed 
May 23, 2016) (CTIA Ex Parte).
656
CTIA Ex Parte at 2.
657
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC Comments at 2, 7; Huawei Comments at 4, 23; 4G Americas Comments at 
17-18.
658
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11952-53, paras. 260-61.
659
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11952-53, paras. 260-261.
660
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11952-53, paras. 260-261.
661
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11952, para. 261.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
90
the next generation of wireless networks meets these critical components of a secure network. Several 
commenters expressed their support for this approach.
662
  
We continue to believe in the significant benefits of security by design, including the 259.
benefits that we would expect to flow from using the confidentiality, integrity, and availability 
construct
663
for assessing, planning and incorporating security elements into networks and devices as early 
as possible in their developmental stages. Indeed, the record demonstrates that security elements are 
appropriate and important for service providers and equipment developers to consider now, during the 
development process, as well as part of an ongoing discussion as networks and devices are deployed and 
operated.
For example, one commenter notes that the “network-based hop-to-hop security approach 260.
used today to secure the path between communications users will not be sufficient for differentiated end-
to-end security for certain 5G services.”
664
  Systems are in need of a “secure architecture, stringent 
identity management and data protection, more rigorous authentication methods, and an array of system-
level protections to defend against distributed denial of service . . . attacks and other intrusions.”
665
  
Accordingly, the commenter believes that security features that are incorporated into 5G systems by 
design would provide a significant advantage over any “built on top of” system design.
666
  Since the 
service and network architecture of 5G is going through dramatic remodeling, the commenter maintains it 
will “improve the feature and competitive strength for 5G if security protection is included at an early 
stage.”
667
  
The view that security should be a fundamental component in the design of any new 261.
network architecture and protocols is also shared by 5G Americas, which underscores the heightened 
sense that security is expected to take on as new technology and services are deployed.
668
  For example, 
5G Americas states that 5G systems are expected to provide important applications such as “smart grids, 
telemedicine, industrial control, public safety and automotive, [which] have security requirements to 
defend against intrusion and to ensure uninterrupted operations.”
669
  Other commenters offer additional 
examples illustrating why it is appropriate and important to build security elements into considerations 
that go into developing networks and devices.  For instance, AT&T notes a variety of developments that 
will have security implications:  “machine to machine communications will contemplate energy 
optimization, reduced signaling, and massive connectivity. With these advancements, IoT [Internet of 
Things] will become a reality.  5G systems will be capable of supporting a range of machine-to-machine 
services, from connected cars to smart cities to telemedicine and beyond.”
670
  Highly secure 5G systems 
will be expected even in times of stress.  As FiberTower notes, “reliance on 5G will only increase in the 
                                                     
662
See Nokia Reply, Attach. at 1; Letter from Joseph M. Sandri, FiberTower, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 14-177, at 1 (filed Mar. 28, 2016) (FiberTower Ex Parte); Huawei Comments at 23-24; Letter from 
Patricia Paoletta, Counsel for 5G Americas, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-177, at 1 
(filed Apr. 8, 2016) (5G Americas Ex Parte).
663
These concepts guided our discussion of security in the NRPM.  NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd. at 11952-54, paras. 261-64. 
664
Huawei Comments at 24. 
665
Huawei Comments at 24. 
666
Huawei Comments at 24. 
667
FiberTower Comments at 2, Huawei Comments at 23 (quoting Huawei, 5G Security: Forward Thinking at 11 
(2015)).
668
5G Americas Comments at 17.
669
5G Americas Comments at 17.
670
AT&T Comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
91
event of a man-made or naturally occurring outage in a critical service.”
671
  To support these needs, we 
believe 5G services will need to be highly secure prior to deployment, and we think it reasonable that the 
Commission be apprised of security plans in place prior to 5G services becoming operational.
Based on our analysis of the record, the Commission can best facilitate adoption of 262.
security-by-design approaches by promoting an open dialogue about security practices that would be 
consistent with a discussion at a standards organization.  Therefore, we are asking to receive from 
licensees – before they begin operations – general statements, at a level consistent with the open forum 
standards body discussions, of their plans for safeguarding their networks and devices from security 
breaches. Requiring licensees to submit that information at that juncture creates an incentive for them to 
engage in the development of security measures at an earlier stage.  The specific information that we 
receive will also facilitate the Commission’s ability to help in identifying security risks, including areas 
where more attention to security may be needed, and in disseminating information about successful 
practices for addressing the risks.  Moreover, this approach avoids the drawbacks of imposing prescriptive 
security mandates – e.g., downsides such as the likelihood that one size will not fit all, the lack of agility 
in responding to changing circumstances and technologies, and the rigidity that such mandates tend to 
introduce into systems at the outset – thereby preserving for operators, equipment developers, and other 
interested parties significant flexibilities for addressing security concerns. 
As described in detail below, the provision that we are adopting today promotes 263.
“security-by-design” approaches within the mmW network and product development environment, in 
ways that should (i) minimally impact (but appropriately enhance the prospects for security “assurance”) 
ongoing design and development with respect to this nascent technology, (ii) facilitate integration of
network and product development with the timeline for standards development, and (iii) encourage early 
participation in and monitoring of such standards development.  This provision – a requirement that each 
licensee discuss at a high level how confidentiality, integrity, and availability
672
principles are reflected in 
its network security design planning in a Statement submitted to the Commission prior to commencing 
operations – should also help inform our collective understanding and strategies for addressing security 
issues in the next generation of communications networks.  More specifically, we are requiring licensees 
to file a Statement with the Commission within three years after grant of the license, but no later than six 
months prior to deployment.
673
This time period accords with the Commission’s security-by-design goals 
while leaving flexibility for licensees depending on when they are able to deploy service. The Statement 
must be signed by a senior executive within the licensee’s organization with personal knowledge of the 
organization’s security plans and practices, within the licensee’s organization, and must include, at a 
minimum, the following elements:
? A high-level, general description of the licensee’s security approach designed to safeguard the 
planned network’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability with respect to communications 
from: a device to the licensee’s network; one element of the licensee’s network to another 
                                                     
671
FiberTower Reply at 8. See also Nokia Reply, Attach. at 1 (“[c]onsidering all this, it is obvious that in 5G 
networks security must be ‘built in.’  When designing 5G networks, architectural considerations must be 
accompanied with respect to security considerations, and such security considerations are expected to influence 
architectural decisions.”).
672
Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in 
transit. See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=6609. Integrity 
refers to the protection against the unauthorized modification or destruction of information. See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS 
Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=4584. Availability refers to the accessibility and 
usability of a network upon demand. See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, 
http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=5637.  For a discussion of all three constructs of confidentiality, 
integrity and availability, see also NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11952 paras. 261-64.
673
To the extent that there are material changes to the information presented in the Statement, licensees must file 
updates to notify the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
92
element on the licensee’s network; the licensee’s network to another network; and device to 
device (with respect to telephone voice and messaging services).
? A high-level, general description of the licensee’s anticipated approach to assessing and 
mitigating cyber risk induced by the presence of multiple participants in the band.  This should 
include the high level approach taken toward ensuring consumer network confidentiality, 
integrity, and availability security principles, which are to be protected in each of the following 
use cases:  communications between a wireless device and the licensee’s network; 
communications within and between each licensee’s network; communications between mobile 
devices that are under end-to-end control of the licensee; and communications between mobile 
devices that are not under the end-to-end control of the licensee.
? A high-level description of cybersecurity standards and practices to be employed, whether
industry-recognized or related to some other identifiable approach;
? A description of the extent to which the licensee participates in standards bodies or industry-led 
organizations pursuing the development or maintenance of emerging security standards and/or 
best practices;
? The high-level identification of any other approaches to security, unique to the services and 
devices the licensee intends to offer and deploy; and
? Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations 
(ISAOs)
674
as elements of the licensee’s security architecture. Plans should include comment on 
machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-
based information sharing.
The intent of the disclosures is to facilitate multi-stakeholder peer review and earlier 264.
development of devices and a commercially viable market for the service.  The Commission recognizes 
that the Statements concern the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical communications infrastructure and, 
accordingly, the content of the Statements should be at a high-level and not include information that, if 
publicly disclosed, would create a significant risk to the security of this infrastructure or related systems 
and networks.  The Commission also recognizes that an entity’s cybersecurity posture can be a 
competitive differentiator
675
and that unauthorized disclosures of Statements containing more detailed 
information could result in competitive harm to the licensee.  Here again, we conclude that the Statements 
should not provide information at a level of granularity that its public disclosure would jeopardize the 
competitive position of the licensee.  For example, we expect that these disclosures will contain 
information that could be disclosed at a standards meeting where stakeholders gather to share ideas and 
information for the purpose of advancing the state of the art. If, however, licensees intend to submit 
information that warrant confidential treatment, they may seek confidential treatment pursuant to the 
Commission’s rules.
676
  Furthermore, the information required to be submitted under this rule as it relates 
                                                     
674
An ISAO is a group created to gather, analyze, and disseminate cyber threat information.  ISAOs provide a 
flexible approach to self-organized information sharing activities amongst communities of interest such as small 
businesses across sectors.  See U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, ISAO FAQ, https://www.dhs.gov/isao-faq (last 
visited June 15, 2016).
675
See, e.g., Ponemon Institute (sponsored by Raytheon), 2015 Global Megatrends in Cybersecurity at 2 (Feb. 
2015), http://www.raytheon.com/news/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/content/rtn_233811.pdf (last visited Feb. 
4, 2016) (Identifying as a top trend for 2015 that “[c]ybersecurity will become a competitive advantage and C-level 
priority.”).  
676
We note that they have the right under Title 1 of our rules to request confidential treatment.  Accordingly, 
pursuant to Section 0.459(a)(4), licensees filing Statements will be required to file a justification for confidential 
treatment.  The Commission will work with licensees that file such statements to work toward a Statement that can 
be shared publicly.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
93
to security plans and practices will not be used for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the 
Communications Act or any of the Commission’s rules, other than the requirement of filing such 
Statements.
677
The Commission finds that appropriate cybersecurity safeguards are a fundamental part 265.
of the development and deployment of mmW systems and services contemplated by this Report and 
Order.  The reporting requirement we adopt today will not only help ensure that industry focuses the 
necessary degree of attention throughout these development and deployment processes on the most 
effective ways to include these safeguards at the earlier possible points, but it will also keep us informed 
of the ongoing progress in this area so we can provide timely, measured and effective responses to 
address any emerging problems before they become intractable.
678
  It will also be important to consider 
how best to ensure that the types of cyber safeguards that we encourage today for the mmW bands will be 
incorporated more broadly into future so called 5G networks and services.  Consequently, we direct the 
Office of Engineering and Technology, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to, by not later than October 31, 2016, issue in a separate docket a Notice of 
Inquiry (NOI) exploring the security implications and solutions in future 5G networks, beyond the actions 
we take in this Report and Order.  We believe this NOI is an opportunity to look holistically at the 
potential security implications in future 5G networks offering different types of services to different types 
of users (e.g., wireless broadband, low-data-rate IoT applications, high-data-rate IoT applications).  It will 
also provide a collaborative vehicle for exploring 5G security-related threats, solutions, and best practices 
in order to address the implications more effectively.  The NOI is not intended to duplicate or replace 
ongoing or future 5G security architecture and 5G design work by standards bodies, industry or academic 
groups, but instead to facilitate common appreciation across the 5G ecosystem for the evolving security 
standards.  The NOI will also provide an opportunity for stakeholders to identify new 5G issues as new 
IoT functions are developed in 5G, and as national security, public safety, critical infrastructure 
industries, and consumers begin to understand the implications and potential opportunities of 5G. 
G. Technical Rules 
1. Flexible Duplexing Rules
Background.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on our proposal to adopt flexible 266.
duplexing rules in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz band to allow TDD, 
FDD, or other duplexing schemes that might develop in the context of mobile mmW.
679
  We also 
                                                     
677
We also note that licensees making this statement are bound by the Commission’s rules to make truthful and 
accurate statements.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.17.  We do not intend to restrict the Commission’s discretion in enforcing 
the Act and its rules based upon information gathered through independent investigations.  In the event that the 
Commission determines that the public interest requires it to engage in future rulemaking in this area, its action will 
be informed by and may make use of information compiled from Statements consistent with appropriate treatment 
of any confidential information.  See, e.g., Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential 
Information Submitted to the Commission, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816, 24823 & n.39, 24853 (1998).   
678
The reporting requirement that we adopt today is similar in purpose to certain other reporting requirements that 
we have established to help inform the Commission about ongoing progress in other areas, such as television “white 
spaces” (Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 
MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, 25 FCC Rcd 18661, 18700-03, paras. 94-100 (2010)), and multilingual Emergency 
Alert System alerting (Emergency Alert System; Petition of Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the 
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications 
Council  for Immediate Relief; Petition of Randy Gehman for Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 2414, 2424-29 ¶¶ 19-31 
(2016)).
679
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 269.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
94
proposed to retain the existing channel plan for the 39 GHz band while recognizing that the existing 
channel plan favors an FDD duplexing scheme.
680
  
Many commenters believe that TDD will be the predominant duplexing scheme used in 267.
mobile mmW systems and note the specific advantages of TDD.
681
  For example, Nokia states that the 
advantages of TDD include the ability to use less complex radios, to use dynamic TDD, and to obtain 
more accurate channel state information for transmit beamforming with lower overhead.
682
  CTIA states 
that antenna arrays and beamforming, which will be required to take full advantage of the mmW bands, 
are better suited to TDD.
683
  Huawei notes that TDD offers the inherent reciprocal channel estimation 
process, which improves the system’s ability to dynamically adapt to channel conditions.
684
  Qualcomm 
and Straight Path note that TDD does not require a duplexer.
685
  Samsung, Straight Path, Skyriver, and 
XO also note that the services these bands are expected to support will likely be asymmetric and that 
TDD is a more suitable technology to accommodate such services.
686
However, commenters also overwhelmingly support our proposal to adopt rules that are 268.
flexible and allow for TDD as well as FDD and other duplexing schemes.
687
  Cisco supports the 
Commission’s proposal to allow TDD and FDD deployment in the mmW bands, and requests that the 
Commission facilitate using either technology by making the spectrum available in unpaired blocks.
688
  
Nokia states that while TDD is a good candidate for 5G mmW systems, the Commission should not 
mandate TDD for mmW systems, but instead should leave the door open to FDD and other new types of 
duplexing that may be available in the future.
689
Intel states that private parties should be permitted to 
decide on the most appropriate duplexing scheme at any point in the future, without the delays associated 
with a future regulatory proceeding to broaden or change the duplexing scope.
690
Discussion.  Consistent with our proposal in the NPRM, we will adopt flexible duplexing 269.
rules for the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands.
691
  While the comments indicate that 
TDD is the duplexing scheme licensees are most likely to deploy in the bands, we see no reason to 
prevent them from using other technologies.  Therefore, the rules we adopt will allow any type of 
duplexing to be deployed, subject to other technical rules to manage interference.  We also adopt changes 
to the 39 GHz channel plan, as discussed in more detail in Section IV.B.5 (39 GHz Band (38.6-40 GHz)), 
which will accommodate more flexible duplexing schemes.    
                                                     
680
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 270.
681
Cisco Comments at 9, CTIA Comments at 28, Huawei Comments at 25-27, Nokia Comments at 25-26, 
Qualcomm Comments at 15-16, Samsung Comments at 17, Skyriver Comments at 16-17, Straight Path Comments 
at 23-24, T-Mobile comments at 19, TIA Comments at 31. 
682
Nokia Comments at 25.
683
CTIA Comments at 28.
684
Huawei Comments at 25-27.
685
Qualcomm Comments at 15, Straight Path Comments at 23, 24
686
See Samsung Comments at 17, Straight Path Comments at 24, Skyriver Comments at 17, XO Comments at 24-
25.
687
Cisco Comments at 9-10, CTIA Comments at 28, FiberTower Comments at 6, Intel Comments at 20, Nokia 
Comments at 25-26, Samsung Comments at 17, Skyriver Comments at 16-17, Straight Path Comments at 40, TIA 
Comments at 31, T-Mobile Comments at 19, Verizon Comments at 17, XO Comments at 24-25. 
688
Cisco Comments at 9-10.
689
Nokia Comments at 26
690
Intel Comments at 20.
691
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 269.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
95
2. Transmission Power Limits and Antenna Height
a. Base Stations
Background.  In the NPRM we proposed to adopt 1640 watts (or 62dBm) EIRP as the 270.
maximum transmission power limit for base stations operating in the 28, 39, and 37 GHz bands.
692
We 
also proposed to adopt 100 megahertz as the scaling factor so that base station transmission power is 
limited to 1640 watts EIRP, when transmitting with up to and including 100 megahertz of emission 
bandwidth and 1640 watts EIRP per 100 megahertz when transmitting with more than 100 megahertz of 
emission bandwidth.  This proposed rule would allow additional transmission power for systems 
employing more than 100 megahertz emission bandwidth, and it would support the maximum 
transmission power limits suggested by commenters.  We also proposed to permit licensees to double 
their transmission power limits in rural counties where the population density is 100 or fewer persons per 
square mile, based on the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census.
693
  
Additionally, we sought comment on whether a higher transmission power limit should be considered for 
in-band applications where the same equipment is used for mobile service and backhaul service.
694
Finally, we sought comment on whether we should adopt a height limit for base station antennas.
695
Most commenters believe that we should adopt a higher power limit than the 62 dBm 271.
EIRP proposed in the NPRM, but initially disagreed on the specific limit we should adopt.
696
  Qualcomm, 
Samsung, Straight Path, and Verizon state that power limits in the 68-75 dBm range are appropriate
697
while Ericsson, Nokia, TIA, XO argue that power limits in the 82-85 dBm range are necessary.
698
  More 
recently, Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson (the “Consensus Filers”) have reached 
a consensus that 75 dBm EIRP is a reasonable transmission power limit.
699
  According to the Consensus 
Filers, the proposed 62 dBm limit will result in a lower power spectral density than is achievable in other 
mobile bands and therefore the base station range will be much smaller.  The lower range and shorter 
propagation distances at these frequencies will substantially constrain 5G deployment.  The Consensus 
Filers, while acknowledging that many parties have advocated for higher limits, state that the consensus 
of the group is that 75 dBm is a reasonable compromise.  
The commenters provide many reasons why higher power limits will be advantageous for 272.
5G systems.  Qualcomm notes that additional power would increase link reliability, particularly in dense 
urban areas and in higher-band spectrum during weather events.
700
  Verizon states that the NPRM
considers neither the increased propagation losses nor beamsteering and antenna gain effects, and 
suggests that given the high frequencies and very short RF wavelengths in these bands, companies can 
utilize high gain antennas and planar antenna arrays in proportionally smaller volumes making a higher 
                                                     
692
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 274. 
693
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 275.
694
In the NPRM, some commenters suggested that in-band backhaul might be feasible in the mmW bands by 
dedicating a portion of array antennas of a 5G system for backhaul use or allocating a portion of the timeslots of a 
TDD 5G system for backhaul use.  NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 276
695
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11956, para. 277.
696
CTIA and FiberTower supported allowing higher transmit powers but did not specify a limit.  CTIA Comments 
at 29-30, FiberTower Comments at 11.
697
Qualcomm Comments at 16, Samsung Comments at 18, Verizon Comments at 16, Straight Path Reply at 26-27.
698
Ericsson Comments at 13, Nokia Comments at 26, TIA Comments at 33, XO Comments at 26, XO Reply at 15-
16.
699
Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson April21, Ex Parte Letter.
700
Qualcomm Comments at 16.  Qualcomm suggests increasing the maximum transmit power level for base stations 
by 10-12 dB to account for increased propagation losses in these bands.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
96
base station EIRP of up to 75 dBm more appropriate.
701
  Samsung points out that the proposed power 
limits are significantly less than what has been traditionally allowed in the millimeter wave bands.
702
  
Ericsson suggests setting the EIRP to 82 dBm/100MHz or 85 dBm/100 MHz in rural areas, to equalize 
the bands above 24 GHz with the PCS and similar bands.
703
  XO argues that higher power limits in the 28 
GHz and 39 GHz bands will enable larger base station footprints and account for the larger number of
antennas and higher bandwidths.
704
  Straight Path believes that a 72 dBm/100 MHz (75 dBm/100 MHz in 
rural areas) EIRP limit should be adequate even for macro cell deployment of mmW technologies with a 
cell radius expanding to a few kilometers
705
Several commenters present analysis and simulation results that support allowing higher 273.
transmitted powers.  Straight Path provides several link budget analyses showing promising results for 
intra-site distances between 500 – 5000 meters with an EIRP limit of 72 dBm/100 MHz.
706
  Nokia 
provides system level simulation results showing the impact on user equipment (UE) throughput 
performance at 39 GHz from increasing the base stations transmit power from 62 dBm/100 MHz EIRP to 
85 dBm EIRP. Nokia’s simulations show that for indoor UEs, the deployment was path loss limited due 
to the high penetration losses at 39 GHz and, as a result, increasing the transmit power levels can 
significantly improve system performance.
707
Nokia’s simulations also show that outdoor systems are 
also path loss limited and can benefit from increasing the transmit power level of base stations to 85 dBm 
EIRP.
708
  Intel provides an analysis that shows power levels of 75 dBm are realistically implementable 
and meet throughput and range expectations.
709
Intel provides an example of how conducted power to 
each antenna element directly impacts implementation complexity and cannot be easily increased beyond 
certain levels, e.g., 10 dBm, without paying a considerable penalty on implementation complexity.
710
As 
a result, Intel claims that the main driver for increasing the EIRP becomes increasing the number of 
elements in the antenna array, recognizing that the antenna array size is limited by the physical 
dimensions of the form factors.
711
However, not all commenters favor allowing a higher power limit in the band.  AT&T 274.
and T-Mobile both generally support the EIRP limits proposed in the NPRM and AT&T states that 
industry and the Commission should continue to study the benefits of allowing higher powers.
712
  Boeing 
believes that the 75 dBm limit proposed by many commenters is inconsistent with the documented 
operational range of contemplated 5G applications and would impair the ability of satellites systems and 
UMFUS to share the 37.5-40.0 GHz band.
713
  SES Americom expresses concern that aggregate 
                                                     
701
Verizon Comments at 16.  
702
  Samsung Comments at 18.  Samsung believes that the power limits proposed for the millimeter wave bands are 
too restrictive for fixed base stations and supports power limits up to 75 dBm.  Id.
703
Ericsson Comments at 12-13.  TIA suggests identical limits for similar reasons. TIA Comments at 32.
704
XO Comments at 26, XO Reply at 15-16.
705
Straight Path Reply at 26.
706
See Straight Path Reply at Appendix Tables 1, 2, and 3.
707
Nokia Comments at 26-27, Appendix A at 7.
708
Nokia Reply at 7, Appendix at 4.
709
Intel Reply Appendix A at 22-28.
710
Intel Reply at 19.
711
Intel Reply at 19.
712
T-Mobile Comments at 19, AT&T Reply at 17-18.  AT&T notes that higher powers may make co-existence with 
satellite incumbents more difficult. 
713
Boeing May 9, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
97
transmissions from terrestrial stations will cause interference to satellites in the 28 GHz band and argues 
that we should carefully consider the maximum power of base and mobile stations because it is a critical 
element in this interference scenario.
714
  Avanti does not believe it is possible to establish an EIRP limit 
on terrestrial base and mobile stations that would protect satellite receivers in the Ka-band from 
interference.
715
  
No commenters directly address whether base station equipment that support both mobile 275.
services and backhaul requires higher power limits.  However, comments from Straight Path and XO 
suggest the need for higher in-band back haul limits while also supporting the same higher limits for 
base/mobile operations.
716
Commenters recognize the need for traditional point-to-point and point-to-
multi-point fixed services that operate at higher power levels under the current Part 101 rules.
717
  
Discussion. We believe that an increase in the maximum base station power from what 276.
the NPRM proposed is necessary for two reasons.  First, the 62 dBm/100 MHz EIRP power limit 
proposed in the NPRM will limit UMFUS base stations to a much lower power density than is permitted 
for other mobile services.  For example, PCS and AWS base stations are permitted to transmit at 62 
dBm/MHz EIRP, which would permit a total EIRP of 82 dBm for a 100 MHz signal.
718
  We see no reason 
why UMFUS should be limited to a lower power density than PCS and AWS.  Second, the propagation 
properties in the mmW band make higher powers necessary.  Signal attenuation with distance is higher in 
the mmW bands than at lower frequencies and signals are more severely attenuated due to obstacles such 
as foliage and walls.  As the simulations submitted by commenters illustrate, higher signal powers are 
necessary to permit relatively modest base station coverage areas and to increase data throughput.  
Unnecessarily limiting the base station power in the mmW bands by applying the existing Part 27 base 
station limit could unduly inhibit future technologies and applications.  
We will adopt a base station power limit of 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP as the base station 277.
power limit for the 28 GHz, the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
719
  For channel bandwidths less than 100 
megahertz the permitted EIRP will be reduced below 75 dBm proportionally and linearly based on the 
bandwidth relative to 100 megahertz.
720
  Because the technology for providing mobile services in these 
bands is still being developed, the appropriate transmitted power requirements for this equipment cannot 
be definitively known at this time.  This 75 dBm/100 MHz limit represents a consensus that has been 
endorsed by the commenters who have expressed an intention to manufacture UMFUS equipment.  
Therefore, we are confident that this power level will provide the equipment manufacturers and future 
licensees with the flexibility needed to deploy service in these bands.  Because of the early stage of 
development of UMFUS technology, we will monitor how this technology develops and revisit the base 
station power limit in the future if it becomes necessary.  
                                                     
714
SES Americom Reply at 5.  As discussed in Section IV.G.2.d (Terrestrial Aggregate Interference Concerns to 
FSS Satellite Receivers in 28 GHz), numerous commenters have expressed concern about aggregate interference to 
satellite receivers in the 28 GHz band. 
715
Avanti Comments at 6.
716
XO Comments at 26, Straight Path Reply at 26-27, XO Reply at 15-16.
717
FiberTower Comments at 5-6, Nokia Comments at 26, Qualcomm Comments at 16.  The NPRM proposed to 
maintain the existing 85 dBm EIRP limit for fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint systems.  NPRM, 30 FCC 
Rcd at 11955, para. 271.
718
  Base stations for PCS, 700 MHz, and AWS are limited to 1640 watts/MHz EIRP with an emission bandwidth 
greater than 1 MHz. WCS base stations are limited to 2000 watts EIRP. See 47 CFR §§ 24.232(h)(1), 27.50.
719
This maximum power limit is defined as the average power of the sum of all antenna elements for fixed and base 
stations operating in connection with mobile systems.  See Appendix A, § 30.202(a).
720
For example, a 50 MHz channel would be permitted to transmit with half the power—i.e., 72 dBm.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
98
We are not persuaded by those commenters who do not favor increasing the base stations 278.
power limit above the level proposed in the NPRM.
721
  Boeing’s claim that the 75 dBm limit is 
inconsistent with the operational range of 5G applications is contradicted by the simulation results that 
show the benefits of increasing the maximum power beyond 62 dBm and the consensus among equipment 
manufacturers that 75 dBm is a reasonable power limit for UMFUS base stations.  Furthermore, our rules 
for the 37.5-40.0 GHz band, about which Boeing expresses sharing concerns, limit the FSS to gateway-
type earth station operations and prohibit the ubiquitous deployment of satellite earth stations designed to 
serve individual consumers.
722
We do not believe that the higher power limit we are adopting will 
significantly affect the limited gateway FSS operations permitted in the band because we are providing a 
means for gateway earth stations in the band to obtain protection from terrestrial transmissions.
723
  As for 
SES Americom’s and Avanti’s concerns, we explain in Section IV.G.2.d. (Terrestrial Aggregate 
Interference Concerns to FSS Satellite Receivers in 28 GHz), that we do not believe we need to take 
specific action with respect to aggregate interference to satellite receivers in the 28 GHz band at this time.  
We therefore will not unduly restrict the development of UMFUS by limiting the base station transmit 
power.
We will not adopt a different power limit for equipment that is used to provide both279.
mobile services and backhaul.  As the NPRM noted, several commenters to the Notice of Inquiry
suggested that it might be feasible to deploy such 5G equipment.
724
  We note that those commenters did 
not address this subject in response to the NPRM and no other commenters specifically request higher 
power limits for such equipment.  We believe that by adopting a higher power limit for base stations than 
proposed in the NPRM, we are also providing adequate power to ensure successful deployment for 
combined access/backhaul equipment.  In addition, we will not limit base station antenna height at this 
time because no commenters address the issue.  Instead, we shall seek further comment on this topic in 
the FNPRM.
725
Compliance with the transmit power limit shall be ascertained with over the air 280.
measurement of EIRP of the device under test (DUT).  As Qualcomm has stated, mmW devices are being 
designed with an array of multiple antennas employing dynamic beamforming and that these designs 
make verification of transmitter power, EIRP, and antenna gain challenging.
726
  In this early stage of 
mmW development, compliance testing will be challenging because of lack of test equipment and/or
facilities that can accurately measure over the air EIRP of the DUT and the need to account for the 
introduction of antenna arrays and beamforming.  Even so, OET has issued a number of Knowledge 
Database (KDB) publications that delineate measurement procedures for testing of antenna arrays.
727
  
                                                     
721
T-Mobile and AT&T, who support adopting the 62 dBm/100 MHz limit, did not provide any reason why this 
limit was appropriate.
722
47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1), V-Band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25442, para. 33.
723
See supra Section IV.B.4 (Non-Federal Satellite-Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway Earth Stations).
724
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11957, para. 276.
725
See Section V.G.1 (Antenna Height).
726
See Qualcomm Reply at 9.
727
See Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, 
Emissions Testing of Transmitters with Multiple Outputs in the Same Band (October 31, 2013) and MIMO with 
Cross-Polarized Antenna (October 25, 2011) 
(https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=B0ZQiTBTVsn3P3wZ2WdqhQ%3D%3D and 
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=i%2BFRza%2B2Hh0pf9nHJHJGHw%3D%3D).  We note that 
OET has developed a substantial body of additional guidance that is available via public notices, frequently asked 
questions (FAQ’s), and specific process guidance that is compiled in our online Knowledge Database (KDB).  
Equipment authorization topics that relate to new services and devices authorized by the Commission are often 
addressed in the KDB.  This includes, for example, simple answers to questions, guidance on how to file for 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
99
Moreover, OET will address the further development of mmW measurement procedures with input from 
industry stakeholders and other interested parties and issue further KDB guidance.
b. Mobile Stations
Background.  For mobile transmitters in the 28, 39, and 37 GHz bands, the NPRM281.
tentatively proposed to adopt the same maximum peak EIRP limit of 43 dBm (20 watts) that is permitted
in the 57-64 GHz band under the current Part 15 rules.
728
  The NPRM proposed this maximum power 
limit for mobile transmitters while recognizing that handheld and other portable user equipment operating 
in close proximity to users will likely have to operate at lower power in order to comply with the 
Commission’s rules that limit exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
729
  The NPRM envisioned that the 
combined effect of those rules, with a maximum peak EIRP limit of 43 dBm, would ensure compliance 
with the exposure limits while allowing industry flexibility to develop higher-powered transmitters for 
situations where an appropriate separation distance is maintained.
There is strong support among commenters for the 43 dBm maximum mobile EIRP 282.
power limit.
730
  Intel, Nokia and Straight Path provide in depth analyses that indicate significant benefits 
are achievable with a mobile station power level of 43 dBm.  Intel’s analysis indicates that a UE power 
level of 43 dBm is realistically implementable and meets throughput and range expectations.
731
  Straight 
Path provided several link budget analyses to support the 43 dBm mobile power limit
732
and pointed out 
that this power limit is consistent with power limits for the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Broadband 
PCS, WCS, AWS, the 700 MHz band, Wi-Fi, and the 60 GHz band.
733
  Two commenters suggest the 
Commission adopt a higher mobile EIRP power limit to account for future technological developments 
and also apply to transportable and customer premise equipment devices.
734
Discussion.  As proposed in the NPRM, we will adopt a 43 dBm EIRP maximum mobile 283.
power limit in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands.
735
  The simulations and 
analyses by commenters indicate that this power level will be sufficient to provide the expected range and 
data rates.  In addition, the power level is consistent with our rules for Part 15 devices in the 57-64 GHz 
band that have been in place since 1995.  We are also encouraged by the strong support for this power 
limit, especially from commenters who indicate that they will manufacture equipment for these bands.  
We note that UMFUS devices will be expected to comply with our rules regarding 284.
radiofrequency radiation exposure in addition to complying with the 43 dBm EIRP limit we are 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
authorization of new types of devices, and guidance on how to conduct rule compliance testing.  The staff guidance 
provided in the KDB is intended to assist the public in following Commission requirements.   The guidance is not 
binding on the Commission and will not preclude the Commission from making a different decision in any matter 
that comes to its attention for resolution.
728
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 279.
729
47 CFR §§ 2.1091, 2.1093.
730
Nokia Comments at 27-28, Qualcomm Comments at 16, Straight Path Comments at 41-42, TIA Comments at 32, 
Verizon Comments at 16-17, Intel Reply at 19.
731
Intel Reply at 19, Appendix A at 22-28.
732
Straight Path Comments at Appendix A1-A3, Straight Path Reply at Appendix A Tables 1, 2, and 3.  Straight 
Path notes a considerable amount of antenna gain can be achieved in mobile or portable devices (around 10 dB) and 
that the maximum EIRP of 43 dBm means the average output power of these devices will be less than 33 dBm (or 2 
watts) even if they operate at the peak EIRP all the time.  Straight Path Comments at 41. 
733
Straight Path Comments at 41-42.
734
CTA Comments at 15-16, XO Comments at 27.
735
Unlike the EIRP limit for base stations, this EIRP limit is not scaled depending on the signal bandwidth.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
100
adopting.
736
  These radiofrequency radiation exposure rules specify more stringent exposure limits for 
devices that are designed to be used within 20 centimeters of the user’s body.  We recognize that such 
devices may have to limit their transmit power below the 43 dBm limit to meet exposure limits. 
c. Transportable Stations
Background.  In response to the NPRM, a number of commenters requested that we285.
establish an equipment class with a maximum power limit higher than the 43 dBm EIRP we are adopting 
for mobile stations.
737
  Commenters refer to these devices in varying ways such as customer premises
equipment,
738
local hubs,
739
transportable (not mobile),
740
CPE for wireless broadband,
741
and user 
equipment built into vehicles.
742
  Most commenters supporting this idea advocate maximum power limits 
between the 43 dBm mobile limit and the 62 dBm base station limit proposed in the NPRM.
743
Intel, 
Nokia, and Straight Path provide analyses that indicate significant benefits for equipment that operates at 
higher power levels than mobile station equipment.  For instance, Intel claims their analysis suggests that 
an EIRP power level of 55 dBm would be adequate for this class of user devices.
744
  Nokia provides 
simulation results showing the impact on throughput from increasing the UE transmit power from the 43 
dBm EIRP to 53 dBm EIRP for 39 GHz UEs.
745
Nokia’s simulations show that indoor deployments are
path loss limited due to the high penetration losses at 39 GHz and that increasing the transmit power 
levels can significantly improve system performance.
746
  Straight Path provides link budget analyses 
showing that an EIRP limit of 53 dBm significantly improves the uplink throughput and suggests that 
these devices should be generally safe because the free space loss within 1.25 meters will reduce the 
power density to less than 1 mW/cm
2
even along the direction of the peak EIRP.
747
  As an additional 
precaution, Straight Path recommends that these units be placed outdoors to minimize RF exposure.
748
  
Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson state that because some stakeholders envision 
developing and deploying semi-stationary, movable 5G devices, the Commission should establish an 
intermediate power limit of 55 dBm EIRP for such devices.
749
                                                     
736
47 CFR §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093.
737
Nokia Comments at 27-28, Qualcomm Comments at 16, Samsung Comments at 19, TIA Comments at 32, 
Verizon Comments at 16-17, XO Comments at 27, AT&T Reply at 18-19, Ericsson Reply at 10, Intel Reply at 20, 
Straight Path Reply at 27-28, ; Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson April 21, Ex Parte Letter 
at 1.
738
Verizon Comments at 17, Nokia Comments at 27, Samsung Comments at 19, TIA Comments at 32, AT&T 
Reply at 19.
739
Qualcomm Comments at 16.
740
Samsung Comments at 19, TIA Comments at 32.
741
AT&T Reply at 19.
742
AT&T Reply at 19.
743
Qualcomm Comments at 16, Samsung Comments at 19, TIA Comments at 32, XO Comments at 27, Nokia 
Comments at 27-28, AT&T Reply at 18-19, Ericsson Reply at 10, Intel Reply at 19-20, Straight Path Reply at 41-42,
Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson April 21, Ex Parte Letter.
744
Intel Reply at 20, Appendix A.
745
Nokia Comments at 27, Appendix A.
746
Nokia Comments at 27, Appendix A.
747
Straight Path Reply at 27-28, Appendix A.
748
Straight Path Reply at 28.
749
Verizon, Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Nokia, and Ericsson April 21, Ex Parte Letter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
101
Discussion. We agree with the majority of commenters that there is a need for an 286.
additional class of transportable stations requiring a maximum allowable power limit higher than the 43 
dBm adopted for mobile user equipment stations.  Higher power for such devices will increase range, 
enable higher data rates and provide for better coverage throughout buildings, which will allow 
consumers flexibility in installation locations to provide service where needed. These devices could be 
used to provide residential broadband service, which as the simulation results provided by Nokia illustrate 
will benefit from a higher transmit power than we are allowing for mobile stations.  We adopt a 55 dBm
EIRP maximum power limit for this for this class of equipment, which we shall refer to as transportable 
stations.  This 55 dBm limit represents a consensus that has been endorsed by commenters who have 
expressed an intention to manufacture UMFUS equipment.  We note that in adopting this higher power 
limit for transportable stations that such devices will be expected to comply with our rules regarding 
radiofrequency exposure.
750
  
No commenter has proposed a definition of transportable devices for purposes of our 287.
rules.  However, the terminology that most commenters have used suggests that such devices will be 
stationary while operating.  Therefore, we shall define a transportable device as transmitting equipment 
that is not intended to be used while in motion, but rather at stationary locations.  We believe this 
definition is appropriate because it will exclude portable devices that are meant to be carried by people 
while operating such as mobile phones or smart phones from transmitting at the higher power level.  One 
commenter has suggested that these transportable devices could be built into vehicles, which implies that 
they should be permitted to operate while in motion.  We have chosen not to expand our definition to 
include devices in moving vehicles because such devices in general will not need to transmit signals that 
penetrate walls and therefore will not require more power than mobile devices.
d. Terrestrial Aggregate Interference Concerns to FSS Satellite 
Receivers in 28 GHz 
Background.  EchoStar, Inmarsat, Intelsat, O3b Limited, OneWeb, SES Americom, Inc., 288.
and ViaSat Inc. (collectively, the “Satellite Operators”) have jointly requested that the Commission adopt 
restrictions on the aggregate skyward emissions from UMFUS devices.  According to the Satellite 
Operators, even if there is only a low level of base station deployment, the aggregate level of interference 
from UMFUS will result in severe degradation of satellite service.  The Satellite Operators suggest that 
the Commission either limit skyward aggregate emissions from UMFUS to 16.5 dBm/MHz/1000km
2
or 
require that UMFUS devices employ techniques to reduce skyward emissions such as power control, 
antenna downtilt, restricting off-axis EIRP, or suppressing sidelobes of antenna patterns.
751
  The suggested 
emission limit is based on an analysis of the level of UMFUS skyward emission that will result in an 
interference to noise ratio of -12.2 dB for the most sensitive of six different satellites.  According to the 
Satellite Operators, as few as 79 UMFUS base stations transmitting at 75 dBm could cause interference to 
the satellite receivers.
752
Several individual satellite operators have also presented analyses of the potential for 289.
interference to their satellite receivers from UMFUS transmissions.  SES provides an analysis using the
characteristics of its SES-15 satellite, which is scheduled to launch in the second quarter of 2017.
753
  
SES’s analysis specifies the protection criteria for other co-primary services based on ITU-R Rec S.1432-
1 as -12.2 dB.
754
  This analysis assumes that the UMFUS base station antennas have a 20dB 
                                                     
750
47 CFR §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093.
751
EchoStar, Inmarsat, O3b, OneWeb, SES, ViaSat June 13, Ex Parte Letter at 5; EchoStar, Inmarsat, O3b, 
OneWeb, SES Americom, ViaSat May 10, Ex Parte Letter at 6.  
752
The number of base stations that would cause interference depends on the assumed base station environment 
(rural, suburban, or urban), transmitted power, and elevation angle of the satellite.
753
See SES Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter.
754
SES Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
102
discrimination toward the satellite, that all base stations are in line of sight of SES-15 (no clutter loss), 
and that all base stations operate at maximum transmit power levels (either 62 dBm or 75 dBm).
755
  SES 
also presents the number of base stations or mobile stations that can be located in several cities within one 
spot beam of SES-15 without causing interference.
756
  For example, SES claims that only 117 base 
stations transmitting at 62 dBm could be located in New York City.
757
  
O3b’s analysis claims that satellite protection criteria will be exceeded when a relatively 290.
small number of UMFUS mobile stations are located within a satellite beam.
758
O3b’s analysis does not 
appear to take into account clutter loss and uses an interference margin of -12.2 dB.
759
  ViaSat also 
provides a technical analysis which details the protection levels needed for a number of spacecraft, 
including those licensed to ViaSat.
760
  In its analysis, ViaSat also uses an equivalent interference criterion 
of -12.2 dB I/N.
761
  ViaSat evaluates the impact from UMFUS mobile stations transmitting at either 23 
dBm/100 MHz or 43 dBm/100 MHz EIRP.  These simulations did not include the aggregating effect of 
transmissions from 5G base stations.
762
  ViaSat’s analysis shows that the interference protection criterion 
is exceeded even with an UE density of one UE per km
2
at either power level.   
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon (collectively, the “Joint Filers”)291.
provide simulation results from Nokia.  These simulations show that the number of 5G mmW base station 
sectors that could simultaneously transmit within a spot beam of a satellite receiver without causing 
interference ranged from 700 to over a million depending on the interference criteria, receiver noise 
temperature, ratio of line of sight to non-line of sight base stations, and characteristics of the satellite 
(elevation angle, orbital distance, antenna gain).
763
  The simulations showed that the number of mobile 
stations could vary from 2800 to almost half a billion depending on the assumed parameters.
764
  The Joint 
Filers claim that the simulation results are most sensitive to the path loss and interference criteria.  
Ericsson has submitted simulation results showing that depending on the technical parameters of the 
satellite receivers, between 127,000 and 4,394,000 base stations may transmit within a satellite spot beam 
without causing interference.
765
    
The Joint Filers point out that both the O3b and ViaSat analyses use satellite protection 292.
I/N ratios of -12.2 dB for purposes of their calculations, instead of using actual signal-to-interference-
plus-noise ratios for the deployed systems.
766
The Joint Filers note that the -12.2 dB criteria is 
presumably derived from Recommendation ITU-R S.1432, which was developed by ITU-R Working 
Party 4A in 2000. Recommendation S.1432 specifies a 6% delta T/T interference allowance (equivalent 
to a -12.2 dB interference–to-noise ratio) for co-primary services, which is also the coordination trigger 
between satellite networks in Article 5 of the Radio Regulations.
767
  The Joint Filers claim that there is a 
                                                     
755
See SES Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
756
See SES Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter at 3.
757
See SES Americom May 5, Ex Parte Letter at 3.
758
O3b March 24, Ex Parte Letter at 3.
759
O3b March 24, Ex Parte Letter at 2 n.3 (citing ITU-R S.1432-1 for co-primary interference sources).
760
See ViaSat April 21, Ex Parte Letter at 2, Attach. 1. 
761
ViaSat April 21, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 1.
762
ViaSat April 21, Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 2.
763
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 13, Ex Parte Letter at 16.
764
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 13, Ex Parte Letter at 24-27.
765
See Ericsson, June 15, Ex Parte Letter at 8, Table 3.
766
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
767
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
103
general recognition in the satellite community that this interference level was developed when satellite 
networks were considered to be power limited, whereas today satellite networks tend to be interference 
limited and, as such, this protection level is very conservative.
768
  Nokia’s simulations use FSS protection 
criteria (i.e., I5G/Nthermal) of -12.2 dB, -6 dB and 0 dB, with noise temperatures of 650K and 1000K. 
Nokia’s simulations use SIA-provided parameters defined for different types of earth 293.
stations, designated Class 1, 2, and 3, to create a cumulative distribution function (“CDF”) of relative 5G 
BS-into-FSS space station antenna gain to provide an alternative to a worst case scenario analysis.
769
  The 
Joint Filers suggest that the SIA-provided parameters used in the simulations are very conservative in a 
number of respects.
770
The Joint Filers indicate that the satellite noise and receive beam gain figures are 
based on the most sensitive projections about future, planned satellite network deployments, not 
necessarily satellite networks that currently exist.
771
The Joint Filers question whether the SIA parameters
are realistic in an environment where a mere 3 dB difference in the receiver sensitivity and FSS antenna 
gain can change the aggregate interference results by a factor of 2. The Joint Filers provide an example
where the SIA-supplied parameters for Class 3 earth stations used a satellite orbital distance of
approximately 1,000 km, even though the closest deployed system has an orbital distance of 8,062 km. 
The Joint Filers suggest that incorporating the actual deployed system orbital distance would increase, by 
a factor of 63, the number of simultaneously active BS sectors within the spot beam for Class 3 
systems.
772
  
Discussion. The analyses provided by commenters leads us to conclude that specific 294.
technical limits on UMFUS stations are not necessary at this time to address aggregate interference.  As 
discussed in more detail below, the information in the record shows a wide disparity between assumptions 
and illustrates that much work must be done to accurately model mmW systems and the effects that these 
systems might have on co-channel satellite receivers.  As a result, we do not want to unduly restrict the 
development and growth of UMFUS unless we have adequate evidence that actual harm will occur.  We 
do not believe the record demonstrates that there is a risk of interference to satellites from aggregate 
interference caused by UMFUS stations.  Consequently, we will not adopt a limit on aggregate skyward 
interference from 28 GHz band UMFUS stations or require that UMFUS stations employ specific 
techniques to reduce skyward emissions.  We observe that features such as antenna downtilt, suppression 
of sidelobes and adaptive power control will occur naturally because they are inherent characteristics of 
anticipated 5G technologies.
The analyses provided by the satellite operators are based on very conservative 295.
assumptions and provide for a worst case scenario regarding aggregate interference from future terrestrial 
networks.  For example, the satellite analyses appear to assume terrestrial devices will continuously 
operate at maximum power levels and do not account for the fact that many UMFUS deployments will 
occur indoors.  Most of the satellite analyses assume all terrestrial devices will be line of sight to the 
satellites with the exception of the analysis submitted jointly by the Satellite Operators, which assumes 
only a 9.6 dB attenuation for a 90% non-line of sight scenario.
773
  These analyses also assume a -12.2 dB 
interference criteria, which the Joint Filers point out has been under past review in language reflected in a 
Conference Preparatory Meeting report to WRC-15.
774
  The Joint Filers also note that some system 
parameters provided by SIA, such as satellite noise and receive beam gain, are based on the most 
                                                     
768
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
769
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 4. 
770
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 5.
771
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 5.
772
AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 5.
773
EchoStar, Inmarsat, O3b, OneWeb, SES Americom, and ViaSat, May 10, Ex Parte Letter at 13.
774
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon, May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
104
sensitive projections about future, planned satellite network deployments, not necessarily satellite 
networks that currently exist. 
While the Joint Filer’s simulation results are not based on as conservative assumptions as 296.
the satellite operators, they vividly illustrate how the assumptions made can lead to vastly different 
conclusions.  Assumptions such as the antenna pattern of the UMFUS devices, how many of the devices 
are line of sight to the satellites, the characteristics of the satellites, and the satellite interference criteria 
clearly can make an enormous difference in the number of devices that may transmit without interference 
occurring.  Given that mmW technology is just being developed and the deployment scenarios of these 
devices are uncertain, many of these assumptions are speculative at this point and any conclusions that 
can be drawn from analyses or simulations at this point are necessarily tentative.  We also observe that no 
information has been submitted into the record as to how terrestrial licensees would demonstrate 
compliance with a limit on aggregate energy at each satellite or each point in the sky.  While we conclude 
that the various studies submitted by the parties do not support establishment of an aggregate interference 
limit or adoption of specific technical requirements to reduce skyward emissions, they do indicate the 
need for additional study on the effect of aggregate interference on satellite receivers.
775
  We expect that 
the parties will continue to study this issue and inform the Commission of the outcome.  We will revisit 
this issue if additional information comes to our attention suggesting that regulatory requirements are 
necessary.   
3. Out-Of-Band Emission Limits
a. Use of Conductive Emission Limits
Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a radiated out-of-band emissions 297.
(OOBE) limit that required licensees to attenuate their unwanted radiated emission power below the 
transmission power (P)
776
by a factor of at least 43 + 10log10(P) per MHz for any emissions on frequencies 
outside the licensee’s authorized spectrum.
777
  Two important concerns behind this proposal were the 
OOBE measurement challenges in the millimeter wave (mmW) band, and the nature of OOBE
propagation.  With respect to the former, the Commission concluded that defining the emission limit as
radiated
778
is more practical than alternative methods.
779
  Also, having defined the emission limit as
radiated, the nature of OOBE propagation was implicitly assumed to be non-directional.  
In response to the NPRM, a number of commenters state their general support for the 298.
OOBE limit.  Samsung states that it supports the Commission proposal for out-of-band emission limits at 
this time, but it is continuing to study the availability of technical components required to comply with 
                                                     
775
We encourage satellite operators and proponents of mmW technology to work together to study this issue and, if 
necessary, develop techniques to mitigate the likelihood of aggregate interference to satellite receivers.  We do not 
believe that aggregate interference from UMFUS transmitters will ever reach a level that harms the operations of the 
28 GHz satellite systems.  However, any increase in the noise level due to aggregate interference that may occur will 
develop over a period of years as UMFUS systems are deployed.  Satellite operators can monitor the noise level at 
the satellite receivers and inform the Commission before the satellite receiver performance is impacted.
776
P is the conductive power in watts.  See also 47 CFR § 2.1 n.2.
777
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11960, 11988.
778
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11960 n.488  (Most mobile services in licensed bands define the emission limit as
conducted, where the measurement for determining compliance is done directly at the antenna port. Measuring the
emission as radiated requires that the measurement be made at some point away from the antenna, where the 
measurement is made on the signal created by the radiated elements and transmitted over the air.).
779
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11960 para. 284 (5G mobile stations in mmW bands are also expected to have tens of 
radiating elements with multiple power amplifiers. With lack of RF ports, the emission measurement needs to be 
made as radiated, and the antenna gain must be characterized and subtracted from the radiated measurement if the 
emission limit is to be defined as conducted.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
105
these limits and may file supplemental information in the future once that review is completed.
780
  Intel 
expresses concern about specifying the -13 dBm/MHz
781
level in the first 50 MHz outside the channel 
edge.
782
  Straight Path believes the OOBE limit is achievable with a combination of digital filtering and 
waveform shaping, guard bands, and RF filtering.
783
Most commenters, however, express concerns that implementing an OOBE limit using 299.
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) may be too restrictive.  They argue that because the OOBE 
limit is expressed as radiated, a significantly higher attenuation is required for advanced systems with 
high gain antennas as compared to systems where the OOBE limit metric is conductive. Ericsson states 
that emission requirements expressed as EIRP with the same emission level as conducted emission 
requirements pose a significantly and unnecessarily stricter requirement on 5G antenna arrays.
784
.  Sprint 
argues that there is no compelling need to apply such tight OOBE limits in a band that has to date had 
only limited use and the anticipated new mobile and fixed uses of these bands can be designed to 
accommodate a less restrictive OOBE approach.
785
  Qualcomm states that the Commission should not 
implement the proposed 43 + 10log10(P) attenuation level using the EIRP metric.
786
Some of the commenters opposing EIRP as a metric for OOBE suggest using Total 300.
Radiated Power
787
(TRP) instead.
788
  Ericsson states that TRP is the proper metric for advanced antenna 
array systems for 5G at higher frequencies, or in general for advanced antenna arrays when they are used 
at lower frequencies as well.
789
  Qualcomm states that the Commission should consider using alternate
measurement procedures, such as TRP, to assess compliance with emissions limits.
790
  In its ex parte, 
Qualcomm proposes a second alternative, a detailed emission mask based on decibel-relative (dBr) EIRP 
                                                     
780
See Samsung Comments at 19.
781
The attenuation factor of 43 + 10log10(P)) per MHz with respect to the transmit power P (in watts) is equivalent 
to -13 dBm/MHz ([ ? [43 +  ? 30]] = 	?13	).
782
See Intel Reply at 20.
783
See Straight Path Comments at 43.
784
See Ericsson Comments at 14 (“For example, a 62 dBm EIRP system with a –13 dBm/MHz emission 
requirement results in 19 dB more stringent attenuation than a 43 dBm system with a 19 dBi antenna gain and with 
the same –13 dBm/MHz emission requirements required as a conducted level, which is the case today for other 
cellular systems at lower frequencies. This is due to the significantly higher attenuation required for advanced 
antenna systems compared to systems where requirements apply as conducted.”).
785
See Sprint Reply at 8.
786
See Qualcomm Reply at 8.
787
See Straight Path August 5, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (The following shows the relationship between the Total 
Radiated Power (“TRP”), i.e., the total transmit power, and the Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (“EIRP”) 
Where ? is the angle in elevation and ? is the angle in azimuth. In other words, if we integrate the EIRP along a 
sphere that encloses the transmitter, we will arrive at the Total Radiated Power.). TRP can also be expressed as ratio 
of EIRP to Directivity of antenna,  =


	. See W.L. Stutzman and Gary A. Thiele, “Antenna Theory and 
Design”, 2013, at 582.
788
See Ericsson Comments at 14-15, TIA Comments at 33, Qualcomm Reply at 8-9.
789
See Ericsson Comments at 14.
790
See Qualcomm Reply at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
106
measurement at certain percentage frequency offset.
791
  Some commenters suggest including a conductive 
OOBE metric as well as TRP metric.
792
  Ericsson states at this stage of development of 5G systems, it is 
too early to exclude the conducted requirements and thus, urges “the FCC to allow for conducted 
requirements where the multiple transmitter output directive should be made applicable.”
793
  Straight Path 
states that the Commission should define the OOBE limit relative to the average EIRP across the entire 
authorized bandwidth along the spatial direction with the strongest average EIRP.
794
Discussion. One of the implications of requiring an EIRP metric for the OOBE limit is 301.
that a transmitter has to meet the limit along the maximum EIRP direction. This makes meeting the 
radiative OOBE limit particularly challenging, as recognized by the commenters.  In the mmW band, 
transmitters require higher gain antennas to compensate for significantly higher propagation losses
795
and 
consequently the antennas will, in general, have much smaller beamwidth, as compared to other lower 
band mobile systems.  As a result, OOBE of mmW transmitters have highly directive characteristics, 
concentrating the transmission power along a narrow beam
796
in the direction of maximum EIRP.  
Furthermore, because the beam is narrow and because a transmitter needs to track the relative movement 
of its intended receiver in order to maintain the communication link, the OOBE of the mmW transmitter 
should be spatially averaged over the path of the receiver to reflect the spatially transient nature of the 
transmitter OOBE.  In this regard, Qualcomm states that, “based on its simulations to date, the average 
interference from a mobile and a base-station/small cell with a steerable/selectable array is very different 
and variable when compared to a fixed link.  With mobile operations, the interference impact differs from 
fixed links due to the dynamic nature of the array, for it points in different directions as mobile users 
move and are served.”
797
  We believe these features of the mmW spectrum make the OOBE limit in the 
maximum EIRP direction less significant and a spatially averaged OOBE limit more appropriate.  One 
way to spatially average OOBE of a transmitter is to determine its out of band total radiated power (TRP) 
or by extension its out of band conductive power.
798
  To set forth a more suitable OOBE metric that 
reflects the aforementioned features of mmW band, we should express the OOBE limit as an equivalent 
                                                     
791
See Qualcomm May 9, Ex Parte Letter at 2, Note (“dBr is the relative difference as measured in equal bandwidth 
for both the transmission signal and the off-channel frequency. The mean transmit power should be used for the dBr 
reference transmission signal power.”).
792
See TIA Comments at 33.
793
Ericsson Comments at 15.
794
Straight Path Comments at 43.
795
For a given aperture size, relative increase in free space propagation path loss is exactly canceled by higher 
antenna gain.  See Wonil Roh, Samsung Electronics Corp. DMC R&D Center, Communications Research Team, 
Performances and Feasibility of mmWave Beamforming Prototype for 5G Cellular Communications, (2013) at 11-
12 (http://faculty.poly.edu/~tsr/Publications/samsung.pdf).
796
See Ericsson May 25, Ex Parte at 1-2 (“For millimeter wave bands, beam forming is made possible with massive 
array antennas. With small wavelengths, element separation is greatly reduced to the order of millimeters and it is 
therefore possible that radios may be built with as many as 512 elements (e.g., 16x16, cross-polarized), each with an 
integrated Power Amplifier (“PA”) within a small total footprint. The combination of these PAs and antenna 
elements can by themselves achieve transmission power levels above the Commission’s proposed 62 dBm/100 MHz 
level. If these antenna elements can be driven by Gallium Nitride (“GaN”) PAs, even more gains in power levels can 
be achieved as long as the thermal effects can be managed”).
797
Qualcomm Reply Comments at 9.
798
TRP of a transmitter is closely related to its’ conductive power. In fact, TRP is product of antenna radiation 
efficiency,, and conductive power P ( = ) and depending on antenna efficiency TRP can be virtually the 
same as the conductive power P.  See W.L. Stutzman and Gary A. Thiele, Antenna Theory and Design, 2013,
equations 13-40 and 2-155.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
107
conductive limit.  An equivalent conductive limit is consistent with the OOBE rule for other mobile 
systems.  
Compliance with a conductive OOBE limit in the mobile mmW systems will be the same 302.
as other mobile systems where access to the antenna RF port(s) is available.  Where access to the RF 
port(s) is not available, a somewhat more complicated process is necessary.  For each frequency (or 
band), an emission measurement of the device under test (DUT) must be performed along the direction of 
the maximum EIRP.  The EIRP measurement value is then adjusted for the antenna gain along the same 
direction as the measured EIRP and at the same frequency (or band) to obtain a conductive OOBE power 
of the device.  This process needs to be performed for both polarization and, the respective conductive 
OOBE power summed, to obtain the total conductive OOBE power of the device.  To obtain the antenna 
gain, licenses should use a validated antenna pattern computation, manufacturer supplied antenna pattern, 
or any other approach acceptable to the Commission as may be described in OET’s KDB publications.
799
  
We recognize that under certain circumstances the DUT antenna may interact with its supporting structure 
sufficiently enough that the interaction may require consideration through simulation or by an additional 
measurement step.  One way to identify such circumstances may be through the antenna pattern validation 
step.  Other means of identifying and considering such circumstances may be described in OET’s KDB 
publications.
With respect to TRP,
800
TRP measurement requires EIRP measurement of the device 303.
under test around spherical surface of the device for both polarizations, and as a result it can be time 
consuming and difficult.
801
  A reverberation chamber is deemed to be one of the most practical means of 
TRP measurement.
802
  However, as noted by Straight Path, TRP measurement in a reverberation chamber 
requires conducted power measurement of power amplifiers.  Straight Path further argues that given that 
in many cases 5G transceiver power amplifiers
803
and antennas may be integrated on a single printed 
circuit board, it is unclear how conducted measurement can be achieved for transceivers.
804
Moreover, 
even if access to RF ports were to be made available, a conductive measurement would be far easier and 
economical to perform than TRP, as no over the air measurement would be required for conductive 
measurement.  However, given that a number of commenters have requested TRP as a metric for OOBE, 
                                                     
799
See https://www.fcc.gov/kdb.
800
See Ericsson May 25, Ex Parte Letter at 1 (“TRP requires that the sum of all emissions from all transceivers in 
the advanced antenna array should be kept below the required unwanted emission level, and in practice the level of 
unwanted emissions per transceiver in the antenna array would need to be kept 10·log10(n) dB lower (where n is the
number of transceivers) than the required unwanted emission level which is also fully in line with FCC’s 
MIMO/Multiple transmitter requirements. However, Ericsson would also support the option of using “conducted 
equivalent” measurements, which is similar to TRP as both metrics correspond to same unwanted emission 
requirement.”).
801
See Tadahiro Watanabe et al., Total Radiated Power Measurement above 1 GHz with Partially-Spherical 
Scanning of a Probe, 2009 Proceedings of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers at 
179 (http://www.ieice.org/proceedings/EMC09/pdf/21R3-3.pdf).
802
See Tadahiro Watanabe et al., Total Radiated Power Measurement above 1 GHz with Partially-Spherical 
Scanning of a Probe, 2009 Proceedings of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers at 
179 (http://www.ieice.org/proceedings/EMC09/pdf/21R3-3.pdf).
803
See Ericsson Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“The power capability of power amplifiers for integrated circuit technology is 
improving over time and in particular GaN integrated circuit PA technologies are evolving rapidly and deliver 
power levels an order of magnitude higher compared to conventional technologies such as CMOS as shown in the 
figure below. Thus, a transition to GaN PA technology together with efficiency improvement schemes would pave 
the way for higher achievable EIRP for millimeter wave systems. In addition to possible EIRP increases due to 
improvement in PA integrated circuit technology power capability such as GaN, increasing the number of sub-arrays
(transceiver and corresponding radiating elements) could also result in increased EIRP.”).
804
See Straight Path Reply Comments at 29.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
108
and given that TRP is a spatial averaging method, we will allow TRP as the alternate metric for 
compliance.  As there are no TRP measurement procedures currently defined, new measurement 
procedures will be developed through the FCC Laboratory’s KDB process.
As mentioned above, in the NPRM  the Commission proposed a radiated OOBE limit that 304.
requires licensees to attenuate their unwanted radiated emission power below the transmission power (P) 
by a factor of at least 43 + 10log10(P) per MHz (or an absolute power of -13 dBm/MHz) for any emissions 
on frequencies outside the licensee’s authorized spectrum.  This radiated OOBE limit is consistent with 
the conductive OOBE limit that the Commission has generally required for other mobile systems.
805
  In 
addition, a number of commenters state that using TRP as a metric the proposed OOBE attenuation factor 
or absolute power of -13dBm/MHz would be feasible.
806
  For these reasons we are setting the OOBE limit 
for both conductive metric and TRP metric to -13 dBm/MHz.  This may be used as a basis for developing 
further requirements that relate to transmitter performance by industry standard organizations.  This limit 
applies to base stations, transportable, and mobile stations.
807
  
With respect to dBr radiated emission mask, the mask is significantly more relaxed than 305.
the -13 dBm/MHz absolute limit that a number of commenters support.
808
  In addition, we find that the 
equivalent conductive limit (or alternatively TRP) is the appropriate metric for OOBE in this band.
809
  For 
these reasons, we decline to adopt the dBr radiated emission mask that Qualcomm proposes. 
b. Licensed Block Edge Region
Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a resolution bandwidth of at least 306.
one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter in the first 
megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block.
In response, a number of commenters suggest that the bandwidth-dependent unwanted 307.
emission limit in the first megahertz penalizes the use of broader bandwidths.
810
  Ericsson urges the 
Commission to reconsider this requirement because it unnecessarily and unreasonably discriminates 
against broadband systems and recommends that the Commission instead adopt bandwidth-independent 
unwanted emission requirements.
811
  Intel argues that a level of -11 dBm/MHz in the first 20 megahertz 
outside the channel edge would be a reasonable approach that balances performance and cost given the 
current status of the filter technology and that energy efficiency is an important objective of 5G systems.  
Nokia and Sprint recommend an emission limit of -13 dBm/100 kHz for the first one megahertz bands 
immediately adjacent to the licensee’s frequency block, while TIA recommends an emission limit of -13 
dBm/30 kHz for the first one megahertz bands.
812
  Sprint tabulates the impact of a one percent 
measurement requirement and identifies a 20 dB penalty for using a 500 megahertz channel over a 5 
megahertz channel.
813
  Qualcomm believes that the FCC should define out-of-band emissions limits up to 
± 250% of the channel bandwidth, similar to what mobile systems use today, and that a stepped limit be 
implemented where one limit runs from ± 50% to 150% and a second limit runs from ± 150% to 250% of 
                                                     
805
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11959, also See 47 CFR §§ 24.238, 27 (h)(1).
806
See Ericsson Comments at 15 TIA Comments at 33.
807
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11959.
808
See Ericsson Comments at 13-15, Intel Reply at 20, Nokia Comments at 28, Samsung Comments at 19.
809
In its Reply, Qualcomm supported the TRP metric, but it has since changed its position to the dBr emission mask.  
See Qualcomm Reply at 8-9, Qualcomm May 9, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
810
See TIA Comments at 32-33, Sprint Reply at 8-9.
811
See Ericsson Comments at 15-16.
812
See Nokia Comments at 28, Sprint Reply at 8-9, TIA Comments at 32-33.
813
See Sprint Reply at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
109
the channel bandwidth.
814
  Samsung recommends a bandwidth-dependent channel edge emission, starting 
with an emission level of -13 dBm/100kHz in the first 10 percent of the channel bandwidth, an emission 
level of -8 dBm/MHz between the 10 to 25 percent of the channel bandwidth, and an emission level of -
13 dBm/MHz beyond the 25 percent of the channel bandwidth.
815
Discussion. We agree with Ericsson, and some of the other commenters that a bandwidth-308.
dependent unwanted emission requirement at the first megahertz adjacent to the licensed block 
discriminates against broadband systems.  However, a bandwidth-independent unwanted emission 
requirement at the channel edge may not be sufficient for very large bandwidth channels, or may not be 
spectrally efficient for narrowband channels.  As it is difficult at this nascent stage of mmW development 
to anticipate the future channel configuration of this technology, we are relaxing the emission requirement 
at the channel edge dependent on channel bandwidth, so as to provide for the greatest latitude for channel 
configuration.  For the first 10 percent of the channel bandwidth from the edge of the licensed block, we 
require an emission level of -5 dBm/MHz. Beyond the first 10 percent of the channel bandwidth, we 
require an emission level of -13 dBm/MHz. These requirements exceed Intel’s request over the first 10 
percent of the channel bandwidth immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee’s frequency block.  
The permissible out of band power under these emission limits are higher than Nokia and Sprint 
recommendations over the first 10 percent of the channel bandwidth, but lower than Samsung’s 
recommendations.  Overall, we believe these requirements balance the various comments on record. 
4. Interference Protection and Coordination
a. Coordination and Field Strength Limits at Market Borders
As noted in the NPRM, the Commission’s rules for mobile services typically define field 309.
strength limits at the market boundaries in order to prevent interference between licensees in adjacent 
markets.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on the appropriate interference protection criteria at the 
market boundaries.
816
  Specifically, we asked for comment on: (1) using a field strength limit of 47 
dBuV/m, (2) Straight Path’s proposed PFD limit of -86 dBm/m
2
/MHz, and (3) any alternative more 
interference protection limits that commenters believe would be more appropriate.
817
  We also sought 
comment on whether the same criteria was appropriate for both base/mobile and traditional fixed point-to-
point backhaul.
(i) Base/Mobile Operations
Background. XO Communications and Skyriver support establishing field strength limits 310.
for mobile operations.  XO Communications believes that the Commission should require UMFUS 
licensees to comply with field strength limits at the edge of their geographic service areas, but does not 
recommend a specific field strength limit at this time given the nascent state of 5G technology.
818
Skyriver supports applying the proposed 47 dbV/m limit for mobile operations.
819
  Conversely, a number 
of commenters express concern with specifying a field strength limit to prevent interference at market 
borders.  For instance Sprint suggests that a field strength approach may not be the best metric because it 
ignores the frequency component and measurement bandwidth that are important factors in determining 
the potential for interference.
820
  Sprint notes in its comments that the existing level for PCS was 
                                                     
814
See Qualcomm Reply at 9.
815
See Samsung May 9, Ex Parte Letter at 4.
816
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 290.
817
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 290.
818
See XO Comments at 28.  
819
Skyriver Comments at 14.
820
Sprint Reply at 5-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
110
established by ensuring that just enough power was permitted for the operator to provide service at its 
border while reasonably protecting the service area beyond that border and that if a 47 dBuV/m field 
strength border limit were to be used at 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz, the border power values become 
quite different due to the extremely high frequency component.
821
  Sprint also notes in its comments that 
with the wide variety of transmitters, devices and use cases that are likely to be deployed in the mmW 
bands, it is essential that the Commission adopt interference protection rules that are flexible enough to 
permit highly differing uses in the band while at the same time minimizing the potential for harmful 
interference between users in adjacent bands or at the edges of geographic areas.
822
Therefore, Sprint 
recommends that an absolute value should be considered in the protection rule.
823
  Nokia states that it is 
important for the Commission to clarify what reference bandwidth is to be used for the field strength at 
any location on the geographical border of a licensee’s service area.
824
  Nokia believes that coexistence 
between licensees could be managed by coordination and technology without the Commission regulating 
field strength limits at market borders in these bands.
825  
Straight Path proposes a limit of ?86 
dBm/m
2
/MHz.
826
Intel proposes a limit of ?90.3 dBm/m
2
/MHz.
827
  AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, 
and Verizon in a joint filing indicate that interference from existing transmit FSS earth stations into 5G 
networks can be controlled by limiting the PFD at 10 meters above ground level to -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz at 
a distance of 200 meters.
828
Discussion. We agree with the majority of commenters that some criteria is necessary at 311.
market boundaries to manage interference and coordination between adjacent area licensees.  We also 
believe that given the wide channel bandwidths and diversity of potential applications that might be 
deployed in these bands, any criteria that we adopt should include a scaling factor for the bandwidth.  
Therefore, we will adopt a PFD limit/MHz that base operations must meet at the licensee’s market 
boundary, absent a mutual agreement between adjacent market licensees to exceed that value.
We continue to believe that the 47dBuV/m field strength value that we proposed in the 312.
NPRM is an appropriate basis on which to set a PFD limit for the mmW bands.  This is the same limit that 
has been successfully used in the PCS, AWS, and BRS bands.  However, we note that a field strength of 
47dBuV/m results in a very conservative absolute power limit because field strength does not take into
consideration the bandwidth and frequency components.
829
  Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to 
convert a 47dBuV/m field strength to a PFD limit in terms of dBm/m
2
/MHz for the mmW bands.  
Looking again at the AWS, PCS, and BRS bands, we note that the equivalent PFD based on a 47dBuV/m 
field strength is within the range of -76 to -81 dBm/m
2
/MHz depending on what bandwidth is assumed.
830
  
                                                     
821
Sprint Reply at 6.
822
Sprint Reply at 4.
823
Sprint Reply Comments at 5-7.
824
Nokia Reply Comments at 4-5.
825
See Nokia Comments at 29.
826
See Straight Path Aug. 5, Ex Parte Letter at 8-9.
827
See Intel June 22, Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 25, Table 5, 26.
828
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon May 6, Ex Parte at 1.
829
For example, at a given distance, a 47dBuV/m field strength is equivalent to a received power level in the 28 
GHz band of ?119 dBm/100 MHz or   ?139 dBm/MHz at 28 GHz, whereas the same field strength results in a 
received power level of -96 dBm/5 MHz or ?103dBm/MHz at PCS frequencies, where Pr(dBm/MHz) = 47-
20Log(fMHz)-77.2+10Log(1/BW).   
830
47dBuV/m is equivalent to ?76dBm/m
2
/MHz for PCS assuming a 5 MHz channel; ?81dBm/m
2
/MHz for PCS 
assuming a 15 MHz channel; ?79 dBm/m
2
/MHz for AWS assuming a 10 MHz channel; and ?76 dBm/m
2
/MHz for 
BRS assuming a 5.5 MHz channel, where PFD(dBm/m
2
/MHz) = 47-115.8+10log(1/BW).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
111
We observe that these values bound the -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD limit proposed by the joint filers.  We 
also recognize that these values are higher than the ?86 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD proposed by Straight Path and 
the -90.3 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD proposed by Intel.  However, we  note that Straight Path assumed an 
interference criteria of -10 dB I/N.
831
In recent rulemakings the Commission has assumed an interference 
criteria of 0 dB I/N.
832
  Adjusting Straight Path’s proposed limit to provide a 0dB I/N as opposed to a -
10dB I/N yields a market boundary limit of -76 dBm/m
2
/MHz.  We also note that Intel’s proposed PFD 
was based on worst case assumptions about the receive antenna gain, citing that the base station would 
have a gain of 29.1 dB in the direction of the interfering source.
833
  We believe that this assumption is 
overly conservative.   For example, the joint filers stated that a lower antenna gain is typically computed 
in the simulation towards the earth station since the receive beam is pointed in the direction of the 
transmitting UE, and it is statistically unlikely to coincide with the direction towards the earth station.
834
Thus, on balance, we believe that adopting a ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD limit as suggested by the joint 
filers, will protect terrestrial facilities in adjacent market areas from interference in a variety of different 
terrestrial to terrestrial use cases as well as the earth station to terrestrial scenario.
835
Therefore, we will 
adopt a market border PFD limit of ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz measured at 1.5 meters above ground.
836
  We 
emphasize that this level is intended to be a coordination trigger and that adjacent licensees are free to 
coordinate mutually agreed upon limits that exceed this value along their common market boundaries.
837
  
We will also reserve the right to revisit the market border PFD limit in the future if it becomes necessary 
as technology and services develop in these bands.
(ii) Fixed Point-to-Point Operations
Background. Several commenters address the criteria for coordinating fixed point-to-313.
point operations near market boundaries.  Skyriver states that adopting a field strength limit of 47 
dBuV/m would severely impact fixed service providers because it would require a dramatic reduction in 
transmit power.
838
  Skyriver suggests that the Commission retain a 16 kilometer coordination zone at the 
market boundaries for fixed point-to-point operations.  Sprint recommends that the Commission require 
an operator proposing to initiate new fixed operations to coordinate those operations with adjacent block 
operators in order to avoid adjacent channel OOBE interference or brute force receiver overload.
839
  
Under Sprint’s recommendation, coordination would be required when a new fixed transmitter is located 
within 3 km and within +/- 10 degrees of the receive azimuth of an existing fixed receiver, or is located
within 1 km of an existing fixed receiver, but outside the +/- 10 degree receive antenna main lobe.
840
  
                                                     
831
See Straight Path Aug. 5, Ex Parte Letter at 8-9.
832
See In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the 
Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, and 
Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules for Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the Repurposed 600 MHz 
Band and 600 MHz Duplex Gap, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9551, 9609, para. 143, (2015) (a 3 dB rise in the 
noise floor as the appropriate interference criterion).
833
See Intel June 21, Ex Parte Letter Attach. at 25, Table 5.
834
See AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, T-Mobile, and Verizon May 6, Ex Parte Letter at 4 n.8.
835
See ViaSat Comments at Exhibit 1 (ViaSat assumed a 47 dBuV/m field strength, adjusted for a 5.5 MHz 
bandwidth to arrive at a protection level of -106.1669 dBW/m
2
/MHz (-76 dBm/ m
2
/MHz), which results in required 
separation distances of approximately 161 meters between an FSS earth station and a terrestrial base/mobile. 
836
The 1.5 meter measurement height is consistent with our Part 27 rules.  
837
These provisions are consistent with existing Part 24 and Part 27 rules.  See 47 CFR § 24.236 and 47 CFR 
§ 27.55.
838
Skyriver Comments at 13.  Skyriver provides several examples that illustrate its point.  Skyriver Comments at 14.
839
Sprint Reply at 5.
840
Sprint Reply at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
112
Sprint’s suggestion is predicated on the assumption that the Commission’s ULS system contains the 
latitudes, longitudes, and frequencies of licensed point-to-point paths, and those operating under lease, at 
28 GHz and 39 GHz.
841
  
Discussion.  We agree with Skyriver that a field strength limit would not be appropriate 314.
for fixed point-to-point operations because it would require large power reductions by fixed service 
providers.  As discussed above in Section IV.F.10. (Other Operating Requirements), we will retain the 
existing Part 101 technical rules for traditional fixed point-to-point links.  As such, we believe that it is 
also appropriate to retain the existing requirement that fixed point-to-point operations within 16
kilometers (in the 38.6-40 GHz band) or 20 kilometers (in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band) of a licensee’s 
market boundary must coordinate with co-channel licensees in adjacent market areas.
842
  With respect to 
Sprint’s suggestion that we impose a coordination requirement for adjacent channel licensees; in light of 
the OOBE limits that we are adopting,
843
we do not believe that any additional coordination requirement 
is necessary for adjacent channel operation.
844
  We seek comment on further refining these coordination 
requirements in the FNPRM.
845
b. Canadian and Mexican Borders
Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt a rule for the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 315.
GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands similar to Section 101.147(r)(13), 101.509(d), or 27.57 of our rules which 
provide that fixed and mobile operations are subject to existing and future international agreements with 
Mexico and Canada.
846
  We noted that there are existing arrangements for fixed operations in the 27.5 –
28.35 GHz
847
and 38.6 – 40.0 GHz bands
848
between the United States and Canada.
849
We also noted that 
mmW operations must not cause harmful interference across any of our international borders.  No parties 
filed comments with respect to this proposal.
Discussion.  Consistent with our rules for other services, we adopt a rule that the 27.5-316.
28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands are subject to existing and future agreements with 
Mexico and Canada.
5. Operability
Background.  The Commission historically has sought to promote the development of 317.
interoperable equipment, allowing smaller providers to benefit from the scale generated by equipment 
capable of operating across an entire band or adjacent bands.
850
  Beginning with the licensing of cellular 
                                                     
841
Sprint Reply at 5.
842
We seek comment in the FNPRM on reducing these coordination distances. See Section V.B.1 (Coordination 
Mechanism for the Lower Band Segment).
843
See Section IV.G.3 (Out-Of-Band Emission Limits).
844
We also note that Sprint’s assumption that ULS contains current station information is not entirely correct.  
While ULS does contain some information on leased links there is no requirement for licensees to report all fixed 
point-to-point links operating under their geographic licenses.  Therefore the ULS database is an incomplete record 
of the existing point-to-point links.   
845
See Section V.G.3 (Coordination Criteria at Market Borders).
846
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 293.
847
See https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/lmdsagre.pdf.
848
See https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/24-38fin.pdf.
849
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, para. 293
850
We use the term ‘operability’ here to refer to a requirement that equipment must be capable of operating across 
the entire band. As noted below, the term is different from “interoperability,” which we use here to refer to 
equipment capable of operating across multiple interfaces.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
113
spectrum, the Commission maintained that consumer equipment should be capable of operating over the 
entire range of cellular spectrum as a means to “insure full coverage in all markets and compatibility on a 
nationwide basis.”
851
  Since that time, the Commission has addressed the issue of interoperability in 
several bands,
852
including in the Lower 700 MHz band (where it implemented an industry solution to 
LTE interoperability),
853
the AWS-3 band (where it mandated interoperability for some operators),
854
and 
the H Block band (where it stressed the importance of interoperability).
855
  
In the NPRM, we proposed to require that mobile equipment operating within each mmW 318.
band be operable across the entirety of each band in which it operates, with each air interface it uses in 
that band or bands.
856
  We also sought comment on whether it would be possible to achieve 
interoperability between different technologies.
857
The record was mixed concerning an operability requirement.  A number of commenters 319.
oppose any interoperability requirement.
858
  Similarly, some commenters argue that the Commission 
should allow private industry standards and market forces to determine whether and to what extent to 
adopt interoperability standards for the millimeter wave bands.
859
  Other commenters, however, support 
an interoperability requirement.
860
  CCA and US Cellular emphasize that operability supports competition 
among carriers,
861
and that operability does not necessarily develop as an industry standard absent a 
regulatory requirement.
862
  No commenters addressed the question of whether there would be unique 
challenges to implementing interoperability in the millimeter wave bands.
There was some confusion among commenters as to what type of operability we 320.
proposed to require.  Some commenters interpret our proposal as requiring that all devices be capable of 
using all possible air interfaces, in addition to all frequencies in the band.
863
  These commenters 
strenuously opposed this interpretation as technically infeasible.
864
  To clarify, it was not our intent in the 
NPRM proposal to suggest that all devices be compatible with all air interfaces (though we did separately 
                                                     
851
Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825-845 MHz and 870-890 MHz for Cellular Communications Systems; and 
Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules Relative to Cellular Communications Systems, Report and
Order, 86 FCC 2d 469, 482 (1981).  The Commission adopted band-wide interoperability requirements for cellular 
service. Id.
852
Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, 
Report and Order [and] Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 
5754 paras. 103, 106 (1997); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications 
Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4957, 5021-22 paras. 163-64 (1994).
853
See Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum, Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification, 28 FCC Rcd 15122 (2013).
854
See AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4698-99, paras. 229-30.
855
H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9498, para. 32.
856
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11964, para. 296.
857
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11964, para. 296.
858
AT&T Reply at 9-10, Ericsson Comments at 17, Verizon Comments at 17-18.
859
CTA Comments at 15-16, CTIA Comments at 30-31, Huawei Comments at 27-28, T-Mobile Comments at 20.
860
CCA Reply at 3, 12-13, Nokia Comments at 29-30, Straight Path Reply at 28-29, US Cellular Reply at 3-4.
861
CCA Reply at 12-13, US Cellular Reply at 12.
862
US Cellular Reply at 16-17.
863
CTIA Comments at 30-31, Ericsson Comments at 17, Huawei Comments at 27-28, Qualcomm Comments at 17-
18, Samsung Reply at 12, Verizon Comments at 17-18.
864
Qualcomm Comments at 17-18, Samsung Comments at 19-20
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
114
seek comment on whether some degree of cross-technology interoperability would be possible).
865
  
Rather, the NPRM proposed that to the extent a device uses a particular air interface in a particular 
millimeter wave band or a block or blocks within the band, that device should be capable of accessing the 
entirety of that band with that air interface.
866
Discussion.  We adopt our proposal to require operability across each millimeter wave 321.
band for mobile and transportable equipment.
867
  We continue believe that interoperability delivers 
important benefits to consumers.  While there is significant opposition in the record to an interoperability 
requirement, no commenter offered specific reasons why the type of operability proposed in the NPRM
would be either technically infeasible or harmful as a policy matter in these bands.  In addition, much of 
the opposition in the record appears to be based on an interpretation of an interoperability requirement 
that we did not propose.  We therefore conclude that the benefit to consumers outweighs the burden to 
manufacturers in this regard.
Specifically, we require that any mobile or transportable device designed to operate 322.
within the 28 GHz band (27.5 GHz – 28.35 GHz) be capable of operating at all frequencies within the 28 
GHz band, on each air interface it uses to operate in the 28 GHz band, and similarly that a device 
operating in the 37 or 39 GHz bands be capable of operating at all frequencies within those bands (37 
GHz – 40 GHz).  For example, a device that uses an LTE air interface to operate in a lower frequency 
band, and a future 5G air interface to operate in the 28 GHz band, would be compliant with this 
requirement if it could operate on frequencies from 27.5 GHz to 28.35 GHz using the 5G air interface.  
For the purposes of this requirement, for the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands, a device 323.
operating in either band must be capable of operating across the entirety of both bands, from 37 GHz to 
40 GHz (including the 37-37.6 MHz lower block).  This requirement will increase the market for 
equipment in these bands, and allow both smaller and larger service providers to benefit from economies 
of scale and increased equipment availability.  Mandating operability will also facilitate shared use of the 
37 GHz band by ensuring that a wide variety of equipment is available by both Federal agencies and non-
Federal SALs.
We emphasize that we are not mandating compatibility of each device with all possible 324.
air interfaces to be used in these bands, as some commenters interpreted.
868
  Rather, we are mandating that 
with each air interface used by a particular device in a millimeter wave band, that device must be capable 
of operating across the entire band.  We do not adopt any requirement that a device must be capable of 
utilizing any particular standard, technology, or air interface.  Additionally, while we do not require 
operability of base or fixed equipment, it is our expectation that licensees will work in good faith through 
the standards setting process to develop standards, as technically feasible, that support the operation of 
base and fixed equipment across each band.
6. Technical Rules for Part 15 Operation within the 64-71 GHz Band
As indicated above,
869
we are adopting requirements for unlicensed operations in the 325.
64-71 GHz band that are based on the technical standards used for the 57-64 GHz band under Section 
                                                     
865
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11964, para. 296.
866
As US Cellular noted, this meaning was further clarified by the text of our proposed rules, which read in relevant 
part, “The basic interoperability requirement in paragraph (a) of this section does not require a licensee to use any 
particular industry standard.”  US Cellular Comments at 15-16, NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11990 (Appendix A).
867
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11964, para. 296.
868
CTIA Comments at 30-31, Ericsson Comments at 17, Huawei Comments at 27-28, Qualcomm Comments at 17-
18, Samsung Reply at 12, Verizon Comments at 17-18.
869
See supra Section IV.D (64-71 GHz Band).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
115
15.255 of our rules.
870
  Part 15 of the Commission’s regulations permits the operation of radio frequency 
(RF) devices without an individual license from the Commission or the need for frequency 
coordination.
871
  The technical standards contained in Part 15 are designed to ensure that there is a low 
probability that such devices will cause harmful interference to other users of the radio spectrum.
872
  
Except for operating on-board aircraft or satellites, and in mobile field disturbance sensor applications, 
any type of unlicensed operation is permitted within the 57-64 GHz band under Section 15.255 of our 
rules.
873
Suitability of the Existing Rules in Section 15.255 to the 64-71 GHz Band.  In the NPRM, 326.
the Commission proposed to apply the existing rules in Section 15.255 to the 64-71 GHz band with some 
adjustments, and sought comments on certain aspects of the rules to further the growth and development 
of devices without increasing the potential for harmful interference to authorized users in the bands.
874
  
Proponents of unlicensed operations unanimously support the proposal to extend the technical rules in 
Section 15.255 to cover the entire 57-71 GHz band.  Google argues that harmonized rules for the 
frequencies between 57 and 71 GHz will allow economies of scale and other efficiencies, thereby 
facilitating rapid and widespread deployment of unlicensed devices;
875
the Wi-Fi Alliance confirms that 
extending Part 15 rules to the 64-71 GHz band would greatly enhance the capacity of next-generation 
WiGig technologies.”
876
We find that the existing technical rules in the 57-64 GHz band can successfully 
apply to the proposed 64-71 GHz adjacent band, with certain adjustments, as we examine the pertinent 
rules in detail below.
a. Operation On-board Aircraft
Background.  Section 15.255(a)(1) prohibits operation of equipment used on aircraft in 327.
the 57-64 GHz band.  This requirement was adopted in 1995 pursuant to the request of CORF to protect 
radio astronomy (RAS) operations.
877
  In the NPRM, the Commission did not propose to allow 60 GHz 
operations on-board aircraft, but stated it believes that the prohibition on operation on-board aircraft of 
60 GHz devices may be revisited at the present time.  To compile a comprehensive record on this issue, 
the Commission sought technical studies and interference analyses demonstrating whether transmissions 
in the 57-71 GHz band should be permitted on aircraft over the entire band, or potentially limited to a 
narrower portion of the band to minimize impact to the radio astronomy observations.
878
  The 
Commission further noted that there is an ongoing industry collaboration with NTIA and other Federal 
                                                     
870
47 CFR § 15.255.
871
47 CFR §§ 15.1 et seq.
872
The primary operating conditions under Part 15 are that the operator of a Part 15 device must accept whatever 
interference is received and must correct whatever harmful interference is caused.  Should harmful interference 
occur, the operator is required to immediately correct the interference problem, even if correction of the problem 
requires ceasing operation of the Part 15 equipment causing interference.  See 47 CFR § 15.5.
873
A field disturbance sensor is defined as “a device that establishes a radio frequency field in its vicinity and 
detects changes in that field resulting from the movement of persons or objects within its range.”  47 CFR § 15.3(l).  
Examples of unlicensed field disturbance sensors include radars operating under 47 CFR §§ 15.252 or 15.256; and 
perimeter protection systems operating under 47 CFR §§ 15.209(g) or 15.229.
874
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11965, para. 303.
875
Google Comments at 7.
876
Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 5.
877
See Above 40 GHz First Report and Order and Second FNPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 4496-97, para. 35.  The 
Commission also stated that “if future filings indicate a need for use of these devices on aircraft and demonstrate 
how such devices can be designed to avoid potential interference to radio astronomy operations, then we may 
ultimately allow such use.”  Id.
878
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11966, para. 304.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
116
agencies to study the compatibility of operation of new chipsets and their operation on-board in-flight 
aircraft.
879
  In addition, the Commission observed that new tri-band chipsets compliant with IEEE 
Standard 802.11ad
880
and intended for use in WiGig products such as laptops and other mobile electronic 
devices used by travelers on airplanes may operate in the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 60 GHz bands, and that the 
present prohibition in the rules would require mobile devices to affirmatively disable Wi-Fi operation at 
60 GHz (but not in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz frequency ranges) while operating on-board a plane, possibly 
creating difficulty in enforcing compliance.
881
  
Many commenters endorse using 60 GHz transmitters on-board aircraft.
882
  These parties 328.
state that according to certain European CEPT ECC
883
and ITU reports,
884
modern aircraft can be expected 
to provide 5 to 35 dB of fuselage attenuation, and that shielded aircraft windows could provide 
attenuation levels of up to 25 dB.
885
  Boeing states that the optimal location of WiGig access points on 
aircraft is within the ceiling, pointing straight down toward passenger laptops (and directly away from 
Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) satellites above); it contends that due to this reason, only much 
weaker side lobe transmissions (reduced by 10 dB or more) from WiGig access points would be directed 
near the windows.
886
  The Wi-Fi Alliance submits a link budget analysis in which it found no interference 
to EESS with interference margins of 29 dBm for 1000 planes and 59 dBm for one plane; and no 
interference to radio astronomy with margins ranging from 3 dBm to 27 dBm, depending on the 
frequency and integration.
887
  Zodiac Inflight Innovations (ZII), a wireless inflight entertainment products 
provider, submits calculations and analysis of a ZII-developed aircraft cabin radio local area network 
(RLAN), operating in the 60 GHz spectrum and using link budgets based on the recommendations in 
ITU-R RA.769-2 which specifies the minimum required protection level for radio astronomy stations.
888
  
                                                     
879
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11966, para. 306.
880
802.11ad is an amendment to the existing IEEE 802.11 standard, which is at the core of billions of Wi-Fi 
products available worldwide.  See also, n.314 supra.
881
See Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Certified WiGig, http://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wigig-certified.  WiGig products 
that bear the Wi-Fi Alliance Certification mark operate in the 60 GHz frequency band.  Popular use cases for 
WiGig
®
include cable replacement for input/output and display extensions, wireless docking between devices like 
laptops and tablets, instant synchronization and backup, and simultaneous streaming of multiple, ultra-high 
definition video signals.
882
See, e.g.,  Boeing Comments at 15, CTA Comments at 8,IEEE 802 Comments at 5, Intel Comments at 19, 
Microsoft Comments at 13, ViaSat Comments at 22, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 6.
883
Co-existence study considering UWB applications inside aircraft and existing radio services in the frequency 
bands from 3.1 GHz to 4.8 GHz and from 6.0 GHz to 8.5 GHz, European Conference of Postal and 
Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) ECC Report 175 
(March 2012).
884
International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector, Technical characteristics and spectrum 
requirements of Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications systems to support their safe operation, Report M.2283-0 
(November 2013) (for frequencies below 18 GHz) (ITU-R Report M.2283) (http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-
M.2283); International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector, Compatibility analysis between 
wireless avionic intra-communication systems and systems in the existing services in the frequency band 4 200-
4 400 MHz, Report M.2319-0 (November 2014) (for frequencies below 4.4 GHz) (http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-
M.2283-2013).
885
Boeing Reply at 22-23, Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 8.  Note that the 25 dB attenuation figure is for shielded
windows (which most airplanes do not provide), as indicated in ITU-R Report M.2283-0, Appendix A, Table A-3.3.
886
Boeing Reply at 23.
887
Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 8, Attach. at 16.
888
International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector, Recommendation RA.769-2: Protection 
criteria used for radio astronomical measurements, (May 2003).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
117
Contrary to the Wi-Fi Alliance findings, ZII found that some combinations of transmit power levels, 
antenna radiation patterns and beam steering algorithms used on commercial radio components can result 
in RLAN systems that do not meet the protection recommendations of ITU-R RA.769-2 for RAS in all 
conditions, specifically in frequencies above approximately 63 GHz.
889
  ZII therefore only supports the 
use of RLAN systems in the 57-64 GHz band on-board aircraft and hopes that its continuing studies will 
have results to support operation in the 64-71 GHz band in the future.
890
On the other hand, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), the IEEE 329.
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society Technical Committee on Frequency Allocations in Remote 
Sensing (IEEE FARS), and CORF oppose the use of 60 GHz transmitters on-board aircraft.  NRAO states 
that current discussions on possible aeronautical use of the 60 GHz band between Boeing and NRAO, the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) representatives from the 
radio astronomy and remote sensing passive services have suffered from a lack of clarity about the 
implementation of airborne 60 GHz WiGig systems and basic quantities such as the power levels and 
distribution of signals inside the plane, and the expected leakage from the fuselage and windows.
891
  The 
IEEE FARS believes that the usage of WiGig devices operating in the 60 GHz band on-board aircraft 
requires further peer-review study to protect passive services in the band before lifting the prohibition on 
operations on-board aircraft in Section 15.255;
892
it states that based on its calculations of a worst-case 
scenario, as few as 20-30 WiGig users on-board aircraft could potentially exceed the interference 
threshold level for passive sensors prescribed by the ITU by 13-15 dB.
893
  It recommends that the 
Commission either require RF shielding of aircraft windows of at least an additional 25 dB, or prohibit 
on-board aircraft WiGig operations altogether.  CORF also recommends further study of real-world 
transmission scenarios on aircraft prior to authorizing unlicensed airborne use of the 57-71 GHz, 
particularly in the 57-59.3 GHz sub-band (where EESS has a primary allocation) because this band is
vitally important for weather forecasting from satellite remote sensing instruments and cannot be moved 
to another frequency.
894
  CORF asserts that interference in this band would substantially degrade weather 
forecasts and could significantly affect the U.S economy and public safety.
895
  CORF is concerned that 
airborne applications do not have the same oxygen attenuation as terrestrial applications so that the
atmospheric attenuations are different for different altitudes, which could result in more interference.
896
  
In addition, CORF expresses concern that because there are few direct lines of sight between centrally 
located access points and user terminals on aircraft, access points will attempt to use scattered and 
reflected signals to maximize throughput, and that walls of the aircraft near the windows are thus likely to 
be favored “bounce” sites, which could cause signals to escape through the aircraft windows.
897
  If 
airborne operations are allowed, CORF requests that we prohibit the first WiGig channel at 57.24-59.4 
GHz on-board aircraft because of the uncertainty of enforcing compliance of user devices on-board 
                                                     
889
ZII Reply at 13-14
890
ZII Reply at 14-15.
891
NRAO Comments at 5.
892
IEEE FARS Reply at 5-7.
893
International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector, Recommendation RS.2017-0: Performance 
and interference criteria for satellite passive remote sensing, (August 2012) (http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-
RS.2017-0-201208-I).
894
CORF Comments at 14.  
895
CORF Reply at 3.
896
CORF Comments at 12.
897
CORF Reply at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
118
aircraft,
898
By automatically disabling it, this will also eliminate the longer-term problem of 
device-to-device airborne communications.
899
  
Boeing, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and Intel filed ex parte letters to respond to CORF and 330.
reiterate that WiGig would not cause interference to either RAS or EESS in any of the WiGig channels.
900
  
Boeing argues that there is no justification for the Commission to adopt CORF’s proposal to prohibit 
airborne use of WiGig Channel 1 (covering 57.24 GHz to 59.4 GHz) or to require RF shielding on 
windows, because WiGig transmissions do not use reflections but beam forming, in which multiple 
antennas create narrow, discrete, directional (line-of-sight) communications between in-cabin access 
points and user devices in passengers’ hands, laps, or on tray tables.
901
  Intel recommends that we permit 
use of WiGig technology aboard aircraft in the entire 57-71 GHz band, except for the 57-59.3 GHz EESS 
sub-band, thus allowing most of the WiGig channels to be used.
902
Intel further recommends that the FCC 
delegate authority to OET to permit WiGig technology to use the 57-59.3 GHz sub-band if and when it 
determines a sufficient technical showing has been made.
903
Discussion.  We are reluctant to allow 60 GHz unlicensed operations on-board aircraft in 331.
the 57-71 GHz band at the present time.  As indicated above, in the NPRM the Commission did not 
propose to permit unlicensed operations on-board aircraft but sought to start the discussion to compile a 
comprehensive record on this subject.
904
  We note that as described above, there are substantial technical 
disagreements between the passive services licensees and the WiGig industry regarding the attenuation 
provided by aircraft components (e.g., windows and fuselage) and how WiGig signals would propagate 
(e.g., by direct line-of-sight or reflections, etc.) and aggregate.
905
  We further observe that even among the 
WiGig industry advocates, there is technical disagreement.  For example, ZII, a wireless inflight 
entertainment services and products provider, opposes on-board aircraft operation of WiGig devices in the 
64-71 GHz band at the present time due to its findings of potential harmful interference to passive 
services above 63 GHz despite its financial interest in providing these services.  Conversely, the Wi-Fi 
Alliance’s analysis found no harmful interference to EESS and RAS in the entire 57-71 GHz spectrum.
906
  
We also find that the studies and technical analyses submitted in the record are not persuasive for several 
reasons.  First, the CEPT ECC and ITU reports do not address the 60 GHz band, but cover lower 
frequencies.
907
  Second, as indicated above, the various link budget analyses from the industry (e.g., from 
ZII and Wi-Fi Alliance) do not show a technical consensus, at least for a portion of the proposed 57-71 
GHz band, and cast doubt on the validity of certain assumptions used to derive these link budgets.  Third, 
                                                     
898
CORF Reply at 3.
899
CORF Reply at 7.
900
See Boeing Apr. 12, Ex Parte Letter at 2, Intel Apr. 25 Ex Part Letter, Wi-Fi Alliance Apr. 21, Ex Parte Letter at 
2.
901
Boeing Apr. 12, Ex Parte Letter at 4-5.
902
Intel Apr. 25, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
903
Intel Apr. 25, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
904
See supra Section IV.D (64-71 GHz Band); NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11898-900, paras. 54-59.
905
For example, IEEE FARS found that based on its calculations of a worst-case scenario, as few as 20-30 WiGig 
users on-board aircraft could potentially exceed the interference threshold level for passive sensors prescribed by the 
ITU by 13-15 dB, whereas the Wi-Fi Alliance analysis show no harmful interference to RAS and EESS from WiGig 
operation on board 1000 planes.  See IEEE FARS Reply at 5-7, Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 8, Attach. at 16.
906
See ZII Reply at 15.
907
The CEPT ECC Report 175 covers only frequency ranges of 3.1-4.8 GHz and 6.0-8.5 GHz; the ITU-R Report 
M.2283-0 covers only frequencies up to 18 GHz; the ITU-R Report M.2319-0 covers only the frequency range of 
4.2-4.4 GHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
119
since the collaboration effort between the WiGig industry and NTIA/NSF/JPL has not yet resolved many 
issues, as indicated by NRAO,
908
a decision on our part at this time could prejudge the outcome of that 
work.  Finally, we note that 60 GHz transmitters in mobile devices are only just beginning to be 
marketed, and the impact of their deployment in real-world scenarios will require time to be assessed 
adequately.
909
  Further, the technology will continue to evolve to address signal propagation challenges in
the mmW spectrum such that analyses of WiGig transmissions on-board aircraft could change 
substantially once we have wide deployments.  
We find that further technical analyses and data are necessary before lifting the present 332.
operation restriction because the record so far did not reflect a clear perspective of the types of WiGig 
applications envisioned on-board aircraft, the priority/order of their planned introduction, etc., to provide 
an adequate assessment of their associated potential harmful interference profile as we elaborate further in 
the FNPRM to seek additional information on this topic, infra.
910
Specifically, we request sharing studies 
and data demonstrating that 60 GHz transmitters could operate on-board aircraft without causing harmful 
interference to passive sensor services in various types of inflight applications and on various types of 
aircraft.
Finally, we find that as long as we do not permit 60 GHz operations on-board aircraft, the 333.
airlines (who control the aircraft) would not install access points operating at 60 GHz on airplanes to 
provide entertainment/broadband services to WiGig user devices.  Without the presence of 60 GHz access 
points, the potential for widespread airborne WiGig transmissions is removed.  We also expect 
manufacturers/host integrators of WiGig transmitters that are incorporated into mobile devices, such as 
laptops, to provide instructions to end users regarding the prohibition of operating such transmitters 
on-board aircraft, in compliance with our rules as part of the equipment authorization process.  
Consequently, end users will be aware of this rule to avoid device-to-device transmissions.
911
  Based on 
the above, we are extending the restriction on on-board aircraft operation in Section 15.255(a)(1) to cover 
the entire 57-71 GHz band. 
b. Field Disturbance Sensor Operation 
Background.  Section 15.255(a)(2) prohibits operation of field disturbance sensors in the 334.
57-64 GHz band; however, it makes an exception for sensors in certain fixed industrial applications 
(speed control, fluid level, and motion detection functions, etc.).
912
  These devices are required to operate 
at a power level 30 dB lower than communications devices in the 57-64 GHz band, in order to avoid 
causing harmful interference to co-channel communications devices.
913
  In the NPRM, the Commission 
                                                     
908
NRAO comments at 5.
909
See Aaron Souppouris, Acer introduces “World's First” Laptop with 802.11ad WiFi, Engadget Jan. 4, 2016 
(http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/04/acer-travelmate-p648-802-11-ad-wifi-wigig/).
910
See discussion in Section V.G.5 (Technical Issues-Part 15 Operation on-board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band), 
at paras. 514-516, infra.
911
Device-to-device transmissions typically must be performed with a line of sight and at low power levels due to 
battery conservation requirements in mobile devices, unlike transmissions from access points to user devices that 
could occur at the maximum allowable power.  See Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 8.
912
See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 
GHz for New Radio Applications, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd at 12214-12215, paras. 6-11 (1997).
913
Fixed field disturbance sensors must limit emissions to less than 10 dBm peak EIRP as well as the peak 
transmitter conducted output power to less than ?10 dBm.  47 CFR § 15.255(b)(2) & (b)(3).  However, they are 
allowed to operate within the 61.0-61.5 GHz frequency band at the same emission levels as communications 
devices, as long as they limit their emissions outside of this 500 MHz band to less than 10 dBm average / 13 dBm 
peak EIRP in the rest of the 57-64 GHz band.  This requirement was part of the spectrum etiquette developed by the 
Millimeter Wave Communications Working Group (MWCWG) at the behest of the Commission to facilitate 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
120
observed that since the rules require these fixed field disturbance sensors to operate at a much lower 
power than communications equipment in the band, and they have not been the subject of any case of 
harmful interference over the years.  These devices should be able to co-exist with communications 
equipment in the proposed 64-71 GHz band without additional harmful interference potential.  The 
Commission proposed to extend the requirements for these fixed field disturbance sensors in Section 
15.255 into the proposed 64-71 GHz band.
914
  
The CTA urges the Commission to completely eliminate restrictions on field disturbance 335.
sensors across the 57-71 GHz band, thereby allowing both mobile and fixed radar applications to co-exist 
with communication devices.
915
It states that applications using these sensors are powering new 
innovations in wireless technology – including gesture technology that allows users to interact with 
devices (such as mobile watches and smartphones) without needing to touch them. It argues that today’s 
field disturbance sensors can operate at much lower power levels and have smaller fields of influence, 
greatly lessening their potential for interference.
916
  
Google also states that its research Project Soli uses a radar at 60 GHz to allow users to 336.
interact via hand gestures with devices a short distance away without needing to touch the device itself.
917
  
Google states that the power limits for these very short-range mobile radar applications can be less than 
10 dBm EIRP, but that longer-range applications, such as in-room activity tracking, can be supported by 
power limits equal to those of communication devices operating in the band. Google further argues that 
the interference profile of these field disturbance sensors does not exceed that of other communications 
devices currently authorized for use in the 57-64 GHz band.
918
No other party elaborated on the harmful 
interference potential of mobile radar applications in the band.  No party opposed the operation of fixed
field disturbance sensors at their existing power limits in the 64-71 GHz band.
Discussion.  We are reluctant at this time to lift the restriction on mobile field disturbance 337.
applications in the 60 GHz spectrum.    At this time, we do not have sufficient information about the 
operation of these mobile field disturbance sensors in this spectrum to allow general operation of all 
mobile field disturbance sensors.  However, we find that the narrow application of mobile radars in 
short-range devices for interactive motion sensing, such as that described in Google’s Project Soli, –
where a radar is used to detect hand gestures very close to a device to control the device without touching 
it – could be allowed without causing harmful interference to other authorized users.  As a first cautious 
step, we will not permit these devices to operate at the same power levels as 60 GHz communications 
devices in this spectrum, as Google requests,
919
but will allow these short-range devices to operate at the 
same low power levels as those permitted in existing fixed field disturbance sensors (i.e., 10 dBm peak 
EIRP and ?10 dBm peak transmitter conducted output power, approximately 30 dB below the allowable 
power levels of WiGig communications devices).  These power levels will ensure that the mobile radars 
will operate at very short distances – such as using hand gestures to control a watch, a smartphone’s or 
tablet’s screen – which will minimize their harmful interference potential.
920
  As we acquire more 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
co-existence of all 60 GHz devices in the 57-64 GHz band, and adopted into the rules in 1998.  See Revision of Part 
15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation in the 57-64 GHz Band, Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 
15074 (1998).  The spectrum etiquette is available at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et94-124/etiquette.pdf.  
914
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11967, para. 307.
915
A radar is one type of field disturbance sensor. 
916
CTA Comments at 8-9.
917
See Google Project Soli (https://www.google.com/atap/project-soli/).
918
Google Comments at 9.
919
Google Comments at 8-9.
920
47 C.F.R. § 15.255(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
121
experience with these devices, we may consider allowing them higher power levels in the future.
921
  
Accordingly, we are amending Section 15.255 to permit the operation of short-range devices for 
interactive motion sensing at 10 dBm peak EIRP and ?10 dBm peak transmitter conducted output power
over the entire 57-71 GHz band.
With respect to fixed field disturbance sensors, we find that these devices can continue to 338.
operate under the technical rules in Section 15.255, as they have successfully done over the years, and 
that these rules may be extended to the 64-71 GHz band without increasing the potential for harmful 
interference to communication devices in the band.  This would result in their wider usage in wireless 
factory automation processes in manufacturing facilities, such as those mentioned by Boeing.
922
  
Accordingly, we are amending Section 15.255 to allow the operation of fixed field disturbance sensors 
over the entire 57-71 GHz band at the existing power limits permitted in the 57-64 GHz band (i.e., 10 
dBm peak EIRP and ?10 dBm peak transmitter conducted output power).
c. Emission Limits 
Background.  Prior to 2013, except for fixed field disturbance sensors discussed above, 339.
Section 15.255(b) limited the average power of any emission in this band to 40 dBm EIRP and the peak 
power to 43 dBm EIRP for transmitters located either indoors or outdoors.
923
  In 2013, the Commission 
modified these rules to raise the emission limits for outdoor transmitters equipped with very high gain 
antennas (i.e., higher than 30 dBi) to an average EIRP emission limit of 82 dBm and a peak EIRP limit of 
85 dBm, in each case minus 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is below 51 dBi.
924
  
In the NPRM, the Commission observed that the two existing types of emission limits 340.
that it proposed to apply to the 64-71 GHz band will continue to benefit both the low-power networking 
communication links, including mobile use for data and voice communications, and the high-power 
high-antenna-gain fixed point-to-point backhaul links.  The Commission further noted that although 
oxygen attenuation is most severe in the 57-64 GHz band, which is centered approximately at 60 GHz,
925
its effect becomes much less pronounced in the adjacent 64-71 GHz band.  The Commission tentatively 
concluded that equipment operating in the proposed 64-71 GHz band at the same emission levels would 
effectively be able to provide longer range and higher data throughput, as these levels are not as 
attenuated by the oxygen phenomenon.
926
Commenters generally agree with, and support the Commission’s observations and 341.
tentative conclusion.  All are in favor of maintaining the existing EIRP limits of outdoor transmitters with 
very high-gain antennas.  However, some parties request an additional 10 dB for the lower power indoor 
and outdoor networking transmitters, which would increase the EIRP limits of these devices to 50 dBm 
(100W) average/53 dBm (200W) peak, from 40 dBm (10W) average/43 dBm (20W) peak.
927
  For 
example, the Wi-Fi Alliance argues that the higher EIRP limits would support devices with more antenna 
array elements and power amplifiers – promoting a greater diversity of applications, including those
                                                     
921
Google indicates that in-room activity tracking can be supported at power levels as high as those permitted in 
WiGig devices.  Google Comments at 9. 
922
Boeing Comments at 12.
923
47 CFR § 15.255(b)(1)(i).
924
47 CFR § 15.255(b)(1)(ii).
925
Attenuation of radio waves caused by oxygen is a little more than 15 dB/km at 60 GHz, and about 3 dB/km at 
70 GHz.  See OET Bulletin 67, Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications, July 1997, 
available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet70/oet70a.pdf.
926
Id.  See also Attenuation by Atmospheric Gases, International Telecommunication Union, Reports of the CCIR, 
1990, Vol V, Report 719-3, at pg. 189.  
927
DSA Comments at 1, 3, IEEE 802 Comments at 4, NCTA Comments at 6-7, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
122
requiring multiple-room coverage indoors.
928
  NCTA states that companies will likely use the 64-71 GHz 
band—as they use the 57-64 GHz band today—for outdoor, high-power, directional point-to-point 
backhaul links, as well as short-range indoor technologies like WiGig and WirelessHD,
929
and short-range 
outdoor networks. NCTA believes that the Commission can best promote the complementary 
development of all types of unlicensed technologies and their successful coexistence by adopting 
sufficiently high transmission power limits for low- power devices, – by increasing the emission limits by 
10 dB – to enable such devices to receive each other’s transmissions clearly, even in the presence of co-
channel high-power transmissions.
930
The IEEE 802 also recommends the same increase and believes that 
it will enhance indoor performance for a variety of consumer applications.
931
Discussion.  We decline to increase the EIRP limits for low-power networking indoor and 342.
outdoor 60 GHz transmitters by a factor of 10 as requested by commenters.  We note that the existing 
generous average and peak EIRP limits were adopted based on the very high oxygen attenuation in the 
57-64 GHz band, which would ensure that unlicensed transmitters operating in this band do not cause 
harmful interference to other authorized services.  We further note that we proposed the same emission 
limits for the 64-71 GHz band, despite the fact that this band does not exhibit the same atmospheric 
attenuation characteristics, which would enable equipment operating in the proposed 64-71 GHz band at 
the same emission levels to effectively provide longer range and higher data throughput.
932
  We find that 
keeping the same emission limits in the absence of high oxygen attenuation in the 64-71 GHz band 
effectively provides an increase in power.  No additional increase is necessary at this time and we are 
amending the EIRP limits for 60 GHz transmitters in Section 15.255 to apply across the 57-71 GHz band.
d. Spurious Emissions 
Background.  Section 15.255(c) restricts spurious emissions to a power density limit of 343.
90 pW/cm
2
at a distance of 3 meters for frequencies between 40 and 200 GHz,
933
and to the general limit 
for intentional radiators in Section 15.209 for frequencies below 40 GHz.
934
  In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to apply the same requirements to transmitters operating in the proposed 
64-71 GHz band.  
NRAO and CORF express concern that 64-71 GHz band operations could interfere with 344.
RAS operations via harmonics.
935
  NRAO notes that “radio astronomy does not observe from the ground 
in the spectrum band 52-68 GHz, where the upper end is somewhat approximate; therefore, radio 
astronomy’s concerns are more likely with the harmonics above the fundamental that propagate more 
freely.”
936
  CORF states that while RAS does not have allocations at the 64-71 GHz Band, it does have 
                                                     
928
Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 8.
929
WirelessHD, also known as UltraGig, is a proprietary standard owned by Silicon Image (originally SiBeam) for 
wireless transmission of high-definition video content for consumer electronics products.
930
NCTA Comments at 6-7, NCTA Reply at 8.
931
IEEE 802 Comments at 4-5.
932
See discussion in para. 340, and n.925, supra.
933
  A power density of 90 pW/cm
2 
is equivalent to a field strength of 18430 µV/m or 85.3 dBµV/m; and to an EIRP 
of -10 dBm.  Power density (PD), EIRP and field strength (E) are readily converted through the following formulae:  
PD = E
2
/120(Pi) = EIRP / (4 Pi D
2
), where D is the separation distance in meters, provided measurements are 
performed in the far field.  
934
47 CFR § 15.255(c); 47 CFR § 15.209(a).  The limit for emissions above 960MHz is 500 µV/m (54 dBµV/m) as 
measured at 3 meters, or -41.3 dBm EIRP.
935
NRAO Comments at 5-6.  CORF indicates that low-power terrestrial signals have little impact on EESS 
observations.  CORF Comments at 12.
936
NRAO Comments at 5, para. 16. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
123
co-primary allocations at the first and second harmonics of this band, at 128-142 GHz and at 192-213 
GHz, and that these harmonic bands are subject to protection due to allocations for RAS, as well as 
pursuant to footnote US342.
937
  No other party objected to our proposal.  
Discussion.  We observe that since we first adopted Part 15 rules for unlicensed operation 345.
in the 57-64 GHz band in the 1995-2000 time frame,
938
60 GHz unlicensed transmitters have been 
operating without causing harmful interference to RAS by their harmonic signals.
939
  This indicates that 
our spurious emission limits in Section 15.255 for transmitters operating in the existing 57-64 GHz band 
are adequate for protecting these passive services.
940
  Thus, we are only concerned with the potential 
effect of the harmonics of fundamental signals in the proposed 64-71 GHz band.
941
  We observe at the 
outset that the existing spurious emission limit in Section 15.255, at 90 pW/cm
2
, is extremely low as 
compared to the spurious limit adopted for other unlicensed transmitters operating in comparative 
spectrum, such as the 76-77 GHz,
942
which, at 600 pW/cm
2
, is more than 6 times higher than the spurious 
limit in Section 15.255.  
While acknowledging that attenuation effects due to oxygen become much less 346.
pronounced in the 64-71 GHz band as compared to the 57-64 GHz band, we still find that interference to 
RAS stations is unlikely for the following reasons.  First, RAS receivers discriminate against off-axis 
signals, are generally located in rural and remote areas, and radio astronomy observatories typically have 
control over access to a distance of one kilometer from the telescopes to provide protection from 
interference caused by uncontrolled radio frequency interference (RFI) sources.
943
  Second, the severe 
propagation losses of RF signals in the 64-71 GHz band,
944
their ability to be blocked easily by terrain and 
obstacles, and the typically directional emissions of transmitters at these frequencies limit any potential 
for interference from fundamental emissions to a short distance (e.g., 100-200 meters).
945
  Third, spurious 
and harmonic emissions generally roll off (i.e., reduce in amplitude) the further they are in frequency
from the fundamental emission; therefore, if fundamental emissions are severely attenuated, harmonics 
                                                     
937
CORF Comments at 15.  See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US 342.
938
We first adopted Section 15.255 for unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band.  See Above 40 GHz First 
Report and Order and Second FNPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 4496, para. 33. In 2000, we added the final 2-gigahertz from 
57-59 GHz to Section 15.255.  See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Additional Spectrum to 
the Inter-Satellite, Fixed, and Mobile Services and to Permit Unlicensed Devices to Use Certain Segments in the 50.2-
50.4 GHz and 51.4-71.0 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 25264 (2000).
939
The first harmonic signals of the 57-64 GHz band fall in the 114-128 GHz band, and the second harmonic signals 
of this band fall in the 171-192 GHz band. 
940
The Commission previously indicated that RAS allocations in the 111.8-114.25, 114.25-116, 182-185, and 226-
231 GHz bands were made prior to the addition of unlicensed operation in the 57-64 GHz band.  See Revision of 
Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation in the 57-64 GHz Band, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 
12517, 12532, para. 39, n.102 (2013) (60 GHz Report and Order).
941
Footnote US342 protects passive observations, inter alia, at the following bands that include harmonics of 
fundamental signals in the 64-71 GHz band: 128.33-128.59 GHz, 129.23-129.49 GHz, 130-134 GHz, 136-148.5 
GHz, 195.75-196.15, 209-226, and 241-250 GHz.  47 CFR § 2.106.
942
47 CFR § 15.253(d).
943
See Amendment of Sections 15.35 and 15.253 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Operation of Radar Systems 
in the 76-77 GHz Band/Amendment of Section 15.253 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Fixed Use of Radar in 
the 76-77 GHZ Band, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 7885, paras. 15-16 (2012).
944
Free space path loss (FSPL) for a 64 GHz signal is 78.07 dB and for a 71 GHz signal is 78.97 dB at 3 meters 
from the transmitter (i.e., FSPL (in dB)= 20 log F + 20 log d – 147.55, where F is the signal frequency in Hertz and 
d is the distance from the transmitter in meter).  
945
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, paras. 272 (2015) (“quoting Intel who states: “we anticipate the cell size of the 
resulting mmW technology to be relatively small, and lie between 100-200m in outdoor deployments.”)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
124
would be affected proportionally.
946
  Based on all these factors, we find that spurious and harmonic 
emissions of 57-71 GHz unlicensed transmitters at the very low limit of 90 pW/cm
2
in Section 15.255 
would not cause harmful interference to RAS operations.
947
  Accordingly, we are amending the spurious 
emission rule in Section 15.255 to apply across the 57-71 GHz band.
e. Publicly-Accessible Coordination Channel
Section 15.255(d) sets aside a publicly-accessible coordination channel in the 347.
57.00-57.05 GHz band, in which only spurious emissions and emissions related to coordination
techniques regarding interference management between diverse, non-interoperable, transmitters are 
permitted.
948
  The Commission observed in the NPRM that with recent technological advances and 
industry standardization, co-existence between 60 GHz devices is better resolved by voluntary standards 
than by a coordination channel requirement in the rules, and proposed to remove this requirement.
949
  
Commenters unanimously agree with the Commission’s assessment and support the elimination of this 
requirement to free a 50-megahertz swath of spectrum for communications usage.
950
  Accordingly, we are 
removing the requirement for a publicly-accessible coordination channel from Section 15.255.
f. Conducted Transmitter Output Power
Background.  Section 15.255(e) limits the peak transmitter conducted output power of 348.
57-64 GHz unlicensed devices to 500 mW (i.e., 27 dBm)
951
for transmitters with an emission bandwidth 
of at least 100 MHz, and is reduced for systems that employ narrower bandwidths.
952
  In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to apply this conducted transmitter output power requirement to transmitters 
operating in the entire 57-71 GHz band.
953
  
NCTA recommends removing the peak transmitter conducted power limit in Section 349.
15.255 to promote a wider range of applications and use cases that require more than just in-room 
coverage, and to enable device manufacturers to reduce the gain, size, cost, and complexity of antennas.
954
  
No other party commented on NCTA’s recommendation.  All other parties support our proposal.
Discussion.  We decline to remove this requirement.  The reason for limiting the peak 350.
transmitter conducted output power while allowing very high EIRP limits (in this case, 40 dBm (10W) 
average / 43 dBm (20W) peak) for an unlicensed transmitter is to ensure that the transmitter antenna 
                                                     
946
See 60 GHz Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12532, para. 39.
947
We note that NTIA also agrees that “at these higher frequencies, the existing Section 15.255 emission limit is 
adequate to protect the RAS sites performing observations in the 128-142 GHz and 192-213 GHz bands from second 
and third harmonic emissions generated by terrestrial unlicensed devices operating in the 64-71 GHz band.”  See 
2016 NTIA Letter at 8. 
948
47 CFR § 15.255(d).
949
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11969, para. 312.
950
See e.g., Intel Comments at 19, Microsoft Comments at 19, Qualcomm Comments at 15, Vubiq Comments at 6, 
Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9.
951
See 47 CFR § 15.255(e).  The 500 mW limit is equivalent to 27 dBm, with P (dBm) = 10 log (P (mW)).  
952
47 CFR § 15.255(b)(1)(i) limits the average EIRP of 60 GHz transmitters to 40 dBm and the peak EIRP to 
43 dBm.  In transmitters operating at the maximum peak EIRP permitted under the rules of Section 15.255(b)(1)(i), 
the antenna gain may not exceed 16 dBi.
953
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11969, para. 313.
954
NCTA Comments at 7; NCTA Reply at 8-9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
125
beamwidth
955
is kept sufficiently narrow to avoid causing harmful interference to other users in the band 
and to minimize the risk of RF exposure to humans.
956
  Accordingly, we deny NCTA’s request and amend 
the peak transmitter conducted output power requirement in Section 15.255 to apply across the 
57-71 GHz band.
g. Frequency Stability  
Section 15.255(f) requires that fundamental emissions be contained within the 57-64 GHz 351.
frequency band during all conditions of operation; and that equipment be able to operate over the 
temperature range ?20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated 
input voltage.
957
  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply the same requirements to transmitters 
operating in the 64-71 GHz band.
958
  No party objects to this proposal.  Accordingly, we are amending 
Section 15.255 to apply across the 57-71 GHz band.
h. Co-location of Separately-Authorized Transmitters
Section 15.255(h) allows group installation of transmitters that have been tested 352.
separately for compliance with the rules and received separate equipment authorizations, as long as no 
transmitter in the group is equipped with external phase-locking inputs that permit beam-forming arrays 
to be realized.  In the NPRM, the Commission indicated that this requirement seeks to prevent the 
possibility of producing a high-power coherent beam from discrete transmitters that have not been tested 
for compliance together.  This could lead to non-compliance with the emission limits but it does not 
preclude the use of advanced antenna technologies with beam-forming arrays in any transmitter, as long 
as the emissions in any array configuration comply with the emission and RF exposure limits.
959
  The 
Commission proposed to apply the same requirement to equipment operating in the 64-71 GHz band.
960
  
No party objects to this proposal.  Accordingly, we are amending Section 15.255 to apply across the 
57-71 GHz band.
7. Equipment Authorization
The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) was delegated authority by the 353.
Commission
961
to administer the equipment authorization program for RF devices under Part 2 of its 
rules.
962
All RF devices subject to equipment authorization must comply with the Commission’s rules 
                                                     
955
“Beamwidth” refers to the angle between the half-power points (i.e., the -3 dB points) of the main lobe of an
antenna, when referenced to the peak effective radiated power of the main lobe. Beamwidth is usually expressed in
degrees. 
956
RF exposure levels in the near field and on the antenna surface may increase as the size of the antenna decreases, 
and the use of a lower gain antenna could result in a transmission system that is more likely to exceed the RF 
exposure guidelines. See 60 GHz Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12529, para. 31 (2013).
957
47 CFR § 15.255(f).
958
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11969, para. 314.
959
Guidance for compliance testing of millimeter-wave transmitters is found in C63.10-2013, American National 
Standard of Procedures for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices, Clause 9, available at 
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/C63.10-2013.html; and in a series of KDB Publications: KDB No. 
662911 D01 Emissions Testing of Transmitters with Multiple Outputs in the same Band, and D02 MIMO with 
Cross-polarized Antenna, available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=49466; KDB No. 200443, Millimeter 
Wave Devices Measurement Procedures, available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=20677&switch=P. 
960
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11970, para. 315.
961
47 CFR § 0.241(b).
962
47 CFR Part 2 Subpart J.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
126
prior to importation or marketing, by being tested for compliance with the applicable technical 
requirements, using measurement procedures that either follow guidance issued by OET through its 
Knowledge DataBase (KDB) publications,
963
or have been found to be acceptable to the Commission in 
accordance with Section 2.947 of the rules.
964
a. Measurement Techniques
In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that there are some unique technical 354.
challenges specific to demonstrating compliance for the purpose of equipment authorization of millimeter
wave devices.  The Commission sought comments on a variety of challenges involved with measurements 
of in-band, out-of-band and spurious emissions.
965
  As discussed, supra,
966
a number of parties discuss the 
measurement challenges concerning emission limit metrics.  For example, certain parties oppose using 
EIRP as the metric for measuring OOBE limits,
967
proposing instead a different metric using Total 
Radiated Power (TRP),
968
claiming consistency with recent academic research for multiple-input, 
multiple-output (MIMO) antenna arrays.
969
  However, TRP is not presently part of the Commission’s 
measurement procedure guidance for devices using MIMO antennas.
970
   Commenters recommend that the 
Commission continue to provide guidance on acceptable new measurement procedures via OET’s KDB 
publications.
971
  Commenters also recognize that 5G technology is in the early stages of equipment design 
and development so it is difficult at this point in time to identify all of the potential compliance and 
measurement challenges.
972
  
We find that the mmW technology will continue to evolve to address various technical 355.
challenges in this spectrum (with respect to propagation, interference protection, modulation techniques, 
transmission security, etc.), and pending new measurement equipment availability to cover the entire 
mmW spectrum that we are making available for the next generation of wireless services herein, mmW 
measurement procedures are best developed by OET with the participation of interested parties.  We 
expect that OET will provide guidance on various acceptable measurement techniques for mmW devices 
through its KDB publications as products are developed.
b. RF Exposure Compliance
(RF) exposure compliance is an ongoing requirement for all transmitters authorized by 356.
the Commission.
973
  In the NPRM, we proposed to similarly require compliance with our general RF
                                                     
963
See https://www.fcc.gov/kdb.
964
47 CFR § 2.947.
965
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11971-11972, paras. 318-320.
966
See supra Section IV.G.3 (Out-Of-Band Emission Limits).
967
See e.g., Ericsson Comments at 14, Straight Path Comments at 43, Sprint Reply at 8.
968
TRP can also be expressed as ratio of EIRP to Directivity of antenna, =


.  See supra Section IV.G.3 (Out-
Of-Band Emission Limits) n.770.
969
Ericsson Comments at 15, fn. 24, citing the research of Christopher Mollén, et al., Out-of-Band Radiation 
Measure for MIMO Arrays with Beamformed Transmission (Oct. 19, 2015), available at 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.05513.
970
The Commission has issued KDB Publication No. 662911, Emissions Testing of Transmitters with Multiple 
Outputs in the Same Band (e.g., MIMO, Smart Antenna, etc) (v.02 r.01), available at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=B0ZQiTBTVsn3P3wZ2WdqhQ==&desc=662911%20D01%20Mu
ltiple%20Transmitter%20Output%20v02r01&tracking_number=49466. 
971
See, e.g., TIA Comments at 35, Qualcomm Reply at 9.
972
Samsung Comments at 18; Qualcomm Reply at 9.
973
See 47 CFR § 1.1310; 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(b) (for fixed), 2.1091 (for mobile), and 2.1093 (for portable).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
127
exposure limits in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of the rules for equipment operating in the
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
974
While we sought comment on this proposal alongside some of 
the other relevant technical challenges unique to compliance demonstration for devices envisaged to be 
operating under the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service,
975
we acknowledged in the NPRM that any 
issues raised involving the present exposure limits themselves would be considered in the context of our
separate proceeding on this particular issue.
976
In the NPRM, we sought comment on how to address determining compliance with the 357.
RF exposure limit for portable devices (intended for use within 20 centimeters of the body of a user) 
operating above 6 GHz,
977
recognizing that the FCC Laboratory will likely issue guidance to address these 
specific technical issues.
978
  Also in the NPRM, because we proposed a 20 watt (43 dBm) peak EIRP for 
mobile devices, we sought comment on whether to maintain our continued approach to allow portable 
devices to be authorized up to the maximum EIRP permitted by the rules as long as our RF exposure 
limits are met.
979
  In addition, because we had proposed in the RF Further Notice
980
determining 
compliance with the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits above 6 GHz over an area of one 
square centimeter, to be consistent with one gram cube (one cubic centimeter) averaging of our specific 
absorption rate (SAR) limit below 6 GHz, we sought comment on whether an averaging area of one 
square centimeter should be applied to Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service devices.
981
We received seven comments pertaining to RF exposure for the Upper Microwave 358.
Flexible Use Service.  According to Qualcomm
982
all of the commenters support using the limits and test 
procedures set out in IEEE
983
and ICNIRP
984
standards for portable device operations in the millimeter 
                                                     
974
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11990 App. A § 30.208.
975
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11972-75, paras. 321-24.
976
See Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies;
Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,
First Report and Order (RF Order), and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (RF Further Notice), and Notice 
of Inquiry (RF Inquiry), 28 FCC Rcd 3498 (2013).
977
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11972-74, paras. 322-23.
978
See April 2016 TCB Workshop slides 14 to 17, available at: 
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/apr16/4.1-RF-Exposure-TCB-Slides-April-2016-KC.pdf.
979
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11974-11975, para. 324.
980
See RF Further Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3539, para. 125.  Applying this SAR equivalency rationale to the MPE
limit for general population/uncontrolled exposure above 6 GHz, the limit would more specifically be 10 W/m
2
, 
averaged over any 1 cm
2
(defined in the shape of a 1 cm-by-1 cm square).  Note the conversion from mW/cm
2
to
W/m
2
for international system (SI) units: (10,000 cm
2
) / (1 m
2
) * (1 W) / (1,000 mW) = 10.  However, see also RF
Further Notice at para. 126, 28 FCC Rcd 3540 (2013), where “we seek comment on whether the blanket exemption 
as proposed may not be adequate to prevent exposure over our limits, for example, in a situation involving multiple 
high-gain millimeter-wave radiators.”  No comments were received in response to this specific solicitation of 
comments.  See also RF Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd at 3576-78, paras. 221-24 (“As portable devices are developed for 
operation at higher frequencies, lack of clear definitions of spatial peak and spatially averaged power density in our 
limits may become more significant. We invite comment on whether we should change or clarify spatial averaging 
requirements and spatial maximum power density limits, at least at higher frequencies, either in our rules limiting 
human exposure to RF energy or in our non-mandatory materials.”).
981
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11975 para. 324.
982
Qualcomm Mar. 7, Ex Parte Letter.
983
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to 
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2005, (2006).
984
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to 
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), 74 Health Physics 494 (1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
128
wave bands.  Most of the comments were relatively brief, with the exception of MMF’s more detailed 
comments.
985
MMF suggests that, based on their review of FCC, ICNIRP, and IEEE power density 359.
limits at millimeter wave frequencies, a better basis for such limits would be those from IEEE C95.1-2005 
(C95.1-2005 and C95.1a-2010).  However, all of these limits need to be updated because of their 
differences above 10 GHz.  MMF also point out the discontinuity of “several dB” that has been reported 
in the literature when using the FCC exposure limits for localized exposure at the transition frequency of 
6 GHz, where the basic restriction changes from SAR to MPE, and they state that this discontinuity would 
constrain network capacity and coverage.  MMF agrees that it is better dealt with the in the context of the 
RF Inquiry.  Finally, MMF requests greater clarity and guidance from the Commission through OET’s 
KDB publications as to measurement and assessment methodologies that can be used to demonstrate 
compliance with our limits.
TIA, while recognizing the ongoing RF Inquiry and pointing out the discontinuity 360.
between the SAR and MPE limits at 6 GHz, suggests that the Commission should promptly adopt IEEE 
C95.1-2005 as the applicable standard in the millimeter wave bands because it reflects well-established 
research and would support mobile applications.
986
  Even if this is not done, TIA suggests that 
manufacturers still require early guidance on evaluation procedures to determine compliance at these 
higher frequencies to support device design, and that this guidance could be provided through KDB 
publications.  Device manufacturers Ericsson and Nokia both suggest that the Commission consider 
adopting the IEEE C95.1-2005 limits for the services contemplated, with Nokia suggesting that the 
Commission not delay while broader issues in the RF proceedings are resolved.
987
  Like others, Ericsson 
points to the discontinuity at 6 GHz and references papers by Foster et al and Colombi et al.
988
  Ericsson 
states that the Foster paper questions the application of the current limits at higher frequencies.
Component manufactures Qualcomm and Intel both support spatial averaging of power 361.
density in determining compliance with the exposure limits.
989
  Qualcomm also emphasizes time 
averaging of power density to account for the effect of multiple element antennas when determining 
compliance for portable handsets above 24 GHz.  Qualcomm suggests that since ICNIRP and IEEE have 
specified spatial averaging areas and a time window for time averaging, these standards should be used to 
establish testing methods and measurement procedures for millimeter wave portable devices, and that 
these procedures should be formalized in a KDB publication when they are stable.  Finally, Straight Path, 
a spectrum licensee, quotes the FCC limits and states that they are in line with ICNIRP guidelines and 
that such guidelines are well established.
990
  In addition, Straight Path supports the spatial and time 
averaging considerations put forward by Qualcomm and recommends that the Commission continue to 
                                                     
985
See generally MMF Comments.
986
TIA Comments at 34-35.
987
Ericsson Comments at 17-19, Nokia Comments at 6, 30-31.
988
Kenneth R. Foster et al, Thermal Response of Tissues to Millimeter Waves: Implications for Setting Exposure 
Guidelines, 99 Health Physics, 806 (2010) and Davide Colombi et al, Implications of EMF Exposure Limits on 
Output Power Levels for 5G Devices above 6 GHz, DOI 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2400331, IEEE Antennas and 
Wireless Propagation Letters.  The paper by Colombi et al shows a comparison of IEEE, ICNIRP, and FCC limits in 
terms of the total maximum output power to comply at a 2 cm separation distance.  Although the paper uses half-
wave dipoles, which may not be sufficiently representative of antennas foreseen to be used in this service, above 30
GHz their results show a maximum of roughly 23 dBm using IEEE, 18 dBm using ICNIRP, and 15 dBm using FCC.  
Thus, the maximum discontinuity above 30 GHz is about 8 dB between IEEE and FCC, but varies below 30 GHz.  
However as the authors note, because IEEE has “not yet been adopted by any regulatory authority,” comparing FCC 
and ICNIRP–presently being used by many countries, this maximum discontinuity above 30 GHz is about 3 dB.
989
Qualcomm Comments at 18-20, Intel Reply at 17.
990
Straight Path Comments at 44-45, Straight Path Reply at 29-30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
129
follow the ICNIRP guidelines for these factors and suggests that the Commission support any further 
study of exposure limits in the millimeter wave bands in its ongoing proceedings on RF exposure limits 
and policies.  Straight Path also supports the proposals by other commenters to adopt industry standards.
With respect to the rules specific to Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in Part 30 of 362.
the Commission’s rules, we adopt the paragraph we proposed in the NPRM that requires compliance with 
our general RF exposure limits in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of the rules.
991
  The comments 
from industry advocate adopting alternative exposure limits, which we continue to view as beyond the 
scope of this proceeding, and that will be considered in a separate proceeding.
992
  We are not changing our 
fundamental exposure limits at this time in light of the devices to be expected under the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.
993
  More specifically, we are not modifying our specified SAR 
values as a primary exposure limit between 100 kHz and 6 GHz,
994
and we will continue to use the 
specified MPE power density limit as a primary exposure limit above 6 GHz.
995
We recognize that there is a discontinuity at 6 GHz resulting from the fact that our rules 363.
do not specify a spatial averaging area (an area over which to average power density) or a spatial peak 
power density above 6 GHz that is consistent with our localized (over 1 gram) specific absorption rate
(SAR) below 6 GHz.
996
  At lower frequencies for sources at least 20 cm from the body, spatial averaging 
over the entire body has been acceptable.  However, both IEEE and ICNIRP have recognized that at 
higher frequencies spatial averaging areas need to be smaller.  Of these specifications, the smaller and 
more conservative area is by ICNIRP, which has specified a spatial averaging area of 20 cm
2
above 10 
GHz.  While we note this as an apparently reasonable requirement we are not suggesting any particular 
changes to our evaluation procedures at this time.  We will separately consider the broader questions of 
the RF exposure limits and how they should be applied in our RF Inquiry.  In the meantime, as we 
acknowledged in the NPRM, specific guidance on evaluating devices operating in this service will be 
issued by OET, and it is consistent with our existing discussions on spatial averaging to further clarify 
guidance on an area over which to average power density in our KDB publications through that process.  
Finally, we acknowledge the variations between standards pointed out by the MMF and encourage further 
                                                     
991
See Appendix A infra.
992
See RF Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570 para. 205.
993
See 47 CFR § 1.1310.
994
See RF Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 3506 et. seq., paras. 20-27. The SAR limits are based on criteria published by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for localized SAR in §4.2 of “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with 
Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” ANSI/IEEE Std 
C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 
10017.
995
See 47 CFR § 1.1310(e).  The MPE limits are based on criteria published by the National Council on Radiation 
Protection and Measurement (NCRP) in “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency 
Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No. 86, §§ 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3, copyright 1986 by NCRP.
996
Our localized SAR limit for the general population is 1.6 W/kg as averaged over any one gram cube of tissue, 
applicable over the frequency range from 100 kHz through 6 GHz.  (For occupational exposure over this same 
frequency range, the localized SAR limit is 8 W/kg as averaged over any one gram cube of tissue.) Similarly at 
these frequencies, our whole-body SAR limit for the general population is 0.08 W/kg as averaged over the whole 
human body.  (For occupational exposure, the whole-body SAR limit is 0.4 W/kg.)  See 47 CFR § 1.1310(c): “The 
SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a 
peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape 
of a cube).”  (See also 47 CFR § 1.1310(b) for occupational limits.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
130
efforts on the specific issue of localized millimeter wave exposure by the standards setting bodies and the 
broader research community.
997
.
H. Other Allocation Issues
Background.  The 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) is allocated to the fixed, mobile, 364.
broadcasting, and broadcasting-satellite services on a primary basis for non-Federal use.
998
  Footnote 
US211 urges applicants for airborne or space stations assignments in the 40.5-42.5 GHz band to take all 
practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band from 
harmful interference.
999
In the V-Band Third NPRM, the Commission proposed to delete the broadcasting service 365.
and broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) allocations from the 42 GHz band to protect the radio astronomy 
service (RAS) in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
1000
  The Commission reasoned that the fixed service 
(FS) designation of the 42 GHz band made it potentially available for ubiquitous FS deployments that 
would interfere with similarly ubiquitously deployed BSS consumer receiver equipment and the general, 
wide BSS coverage of the band.
1001
  The Commission also sought comment on whether to add a primary 
allocation for the non-Federal fixed-satellite service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) in the 42 GHz band.
1002
  The 
band had already been internationally allocated for FSS downlink use and WRC-03 had adopted power 
flux density (PFD) limits on any potential satellite operations at 42-42.5 GHz to protect RAS in the 
42.5-43.5 GHz band.
1003
  The V-Band Third NPRM also hypothesized that FSS could operate with greater 
constraints on PFD and could use a limited number of spot-beams to communicate with relatively few 
earth stations, making the service a less ubiquitous interference threat to RAS than BSS, and enhancing 
possible sharing between RAS and FSS.
1004
  Satellite operators supported the expansion of FSS service 
into 42.5-43.5 GHz, to complement the existing contiguous satellite allocation at 40-42 GHz.
1005
In the NPRM, we declined to propose service rules for the 42 GHz band at that time due 366.
to concerns that we would be unable to adequately protect the RAS, which receives extremely weak radio 
waves of cosmic origin in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band,
1006
and because we found the band already 
                                                     
997
MMF, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, EMF Exposure Limits and Compliance Assessment for Wireless Devices 
Operating at Frequencies above 6 GHz, December 2, 2014, 
http://emfhealth.info/docs/eng/MMF_RFP_DosimetryAbove6GHz_021214.pdf. 
998
47 CFR § 2.106.
999
47 CFR § 2.106 n.US211.
1000
See V-Band Third NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15668-70, paras. 12-16.
1001
See id. at para. 14.  Although the 42 GHz band has both a domestic fixed service designation and an 
international high-density fixed service (HDFS) designation, currently no service rules have been adopted to 
authorize fixed operations in the band.  47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.547.
1002
See V-Band Third NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15668-70, paras. 17-19.
1003
See id. at paras.17, 19.
1004
See id. at para. 18.  The Commission asked whether FSS should operate according to the same rules in this band 
as it did at 37.5-40 GHz.  See id. at para. 19.
1005
Boeing Reply at 19, SIA Reply at 14.
1006
Protection of RAS stations that observe in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band is addressed in two footnotes in the 
Allocation Table.  Footnote US342 addresses in-band interference by requiring that, in making assignments to other 
services to which the 42.77-42.87 GHz, 43.07-43.17 GHz, and 43.37-43.47 GHz band segments are allocated, all 
practicable steps be taken to protect the RAS from harmful interference.  Footnote US342 also notes that emissions 
from spaceborne or airborne stations can be particularly serious sources of interference to the RAS.  Footnote 
US211 addresses adjacent-band interference by urging applicants for airborne or space station assignments in the 
40.5-42.5 GHz band to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the adjacent bands (e.g.,
42.5-43.5 GHz) from harmful interference.  47 CFR § 2.106 nn.US211, US342.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
131
encumbered by pending proposals to place both FS and non-Federal FSS in the band.
1007
  Such 
considerations made this band less desirable vis-à-vis the 28 or 39 GHz bands.  We nevertheless asked 
commenters to analyze its relative merit for FS, FSS, or mobile use, as well as the different mechanisms 
that these various services could use to share the 42 GHz band, and how such uses would be impacted by 
the need to protect RAS in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
1008
  While satellite interests have opposed use of the 
band for terrestrial service and have argued for FSS use instead, T-Mobile supports its use for mobile.
1009
  
CORF describes the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band as being one of the most important bands for radio 
astronomy because it is used to observe silicon monoxide, which yields important information on stellar 
temperatures, density, and wind velocities.
1010
  FWCC contends that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more 
suitable for fixed point-to-point service.
1011
Discussion.  For the reasons mentioned above and discussed in the NPRM, we delete the 367.
broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service allocations from the 42 GHz band to better protect the 
radio astronomy observations of the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from out-of-band emissions.  Further, the 
ubiquitous nature of the BSS and the broadcasting service would likely interfere with ubiquitous mobile 
deployment in similar ways to a ubiquitous fixed service deployment.  As previously noted, the BSS also 
poses an interference risk to adjacent RAS services.  Nevertheless, the BSS will still retain 1.5 gigahertz 
of spectrum in the 40.5-42 GHz band for its future operations.
We also decline to adopt our proposal to allocate the 42 GHz band for FSS downlink 368.
operations.  Given our decision today to grant FSS enhanced access to the 37.5-40 GHz band, and the fact 
that FSS has access to the 40.5-42 GHz band, we find there is less reason to further expand FSS 
operations to the 42 GHz band.  We believe there is value in potentially having an Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) band available for exclusive terrestrial use, and we address this issue in 
the companion FNPRM. 
V. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 
This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will have two sections.  First, we propose to 369.
adopt service rules allowing flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands.  These bands potentially 
offer 17.7 gigahertz of spectrum that could be available for fixed or mobile use.  By examining the 
suitability for mobile use of such a large amount of spectrum, we take steps to ensure that additional 
spectrum is available to allow the next generation of wireless technologies to flourish in the mmW bands.  
In addition, many of these bands will require sharing solutions to unlock their potential for flexible use 
services – we seek comment on the potential sharing mechanisms, and continue to encourage all 
stakeholders to work to develop and refine effective solutions to sharing.  Second, we seek further 
comment on refinements to the rules we adopt today.  In particular, we seek comment on: (1) providing 
additional detail on the sharing arrangement we adopted today for the 37 GHz band; (2) performance 
requirements for innovative uses such as IoT and machine-to-machine communications; (3) additional 
issues relating to our mobile spectrum holdings policies; (4) whether antenna height limits are necessary 
in mmW bands; (5) whether minimum bandwidth scaling factors are necessary for transmitter power 
limits; (6) whether allowing higher PFD levels for FSS in the 37 and 39 GHz bands would be consistent 
with terrestrial use of those bands; (7) refining the coordination limits for point-to-point operations; and 
(8) on sharing analysis and modeling.  We undertake these additional inquiries to ensure that mmW band 
spectrum is utilized as fully and efficiently as possible.
                                                     
1007
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11904, paras. 79-80.
1008
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11904, para. 80.
1009
Global VSAT Forum Comments at 6, T-Mobile Comments at 8, Boeing Reply at 19, SIA Reply at 14.
1010
CORF Reply at 8-9.
1011
FWCC Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
132
A. Additional Bands
1. Introduction
In the NPRM, we used four main criteria to determine which bands to propose for mobile 370.
use in the NPRM.  First, for purposes of the NPRM, we focused on bands with at least 500 megahertz of 
contiguous spectrum.  Second, to the extent practical, we proposed bands that are being considered 
internationally for mobile service.  Third, we sought to propose bands that are compatible with existing 
incumbent license assignments and uses.  Finally, we noted the importance of developing a flexible 
regulatory framework that would accommodate as wide a variety of services as possible.
1012
Several commenters ask the Commission to consider other bands for mobile use.
1013
  371.
Many commenters argue that the criteria should not preclude the Commission from considering bands 
that do not meet all of those criteria.  For example, CTIA and Nokia ask the Commission to consider 
bands that do not have 500 megahertz of spectrum because certain applications may be feasible for 
smaller bandwidths.
1014
  Commenters also agree that while international harmonization is preferable, the 
Commission should not preclude bands from further consideration just because they are not proposed for 
mobile use throughout the world.
1015
Several factors lead us to conclude that it is now appropriate to consider additional bands 372.
for mobile use.  First, as the record has made clear, there are a wide variety of services, including fixed, 
mobile, and satellite, for which these bands could be used.  This variety favors making multiple bands 
available, including bands for which we did not to propose service rules in the NPRM.  Second, the World 
Radio Conference identified a large number of bands as candidate bands for IMT-2020, including several 
bands that we did not address in the NPRM.  Third, it appears that the amount of global data traffic will 
continue to grow exponentially.  Cisco estimates that global mobile data traffic will grow nearly tenfold 
between 2014 and 2019.
1016
  Under these circumstances, we believe it is now appropriate to seek comment 
on proposing mobile service rules for most of the bands identified at the 2015 World Radio Conference.
Specifically, we propose authorizing flexible use licenses that would permit fixed and 373.
mobile services in the following bands:  24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz, 31.8-33.4 GHz, 42-42.5 
GHz, 47.2-50.2 GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz.  Each of these bands was identified as 
a candidate band for IMT-2020.  
At the same time, we recognize that there are challenges that must be overcome before 374.
we can authorize service in these bands, including existing allocations and/or operations in these bands.  
We will continue to work with existing stakeholders, wireless providers, the satellite industry, NTIA, and 
other interested Federal stakeholders to determine where different services can coexist and develop ways 
to maximize flexible use.  In several bands, we believe sharing mechanisms we have adopted in this and 
other proceedings can allow many of these bands to be utilized for fixed and mobile use while also 
accommodating existing uses.
We discuss each of the bands in additional detail below.  We generally propose to use the 375.
licensing and service rule framework we adopt today. Except for the 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, 
we propose to use geographic area licensing with PEAs as the license area size.  For the 71-76 GHz and 
81-86 GHz bands, we propose to use a licensing framework similar to the framework developed for the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.  For any UMFUS bands for which we adopt geographic area licensing 
                                                     
1012
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11887-88, paras. 20-23.
1013
ITIC Comments at 6-7, Mobile Future Comments at 9, Nokia Comments at 11-13, Samsung Comments at 14-
15, T-Mobile Comments at 4-9. 
1014
CTIA Comments at 10, Nokia Comments at 9.
1015
CTIA Comments at 11, Nokia Comments at 9.
1016
Cisco Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
133
and accept mutually exclusive initial applications, we have decided to conduct any spectrum auction of 
licenses in conformity with the general competitive bidding procedures set forth in Part 1 Subpart Q of 
the Commission’s rules, including rules governing designated entity preferences.
1017
  We seek comment 
here on whether to apply the same small business definitions and associated bidding credits we have 
adopted for auctions of UMFUS licenses to auctions of licenses in the additional bands discussed below, 
as well as any other spectrum bands that we may subsequently decide to include in the UMFUS.  Our 
proposal is based on our anticipation that the same types of services would be deployed in these 
additional bands as are contemplated to be deployed in the bands that we have already designated for the 
UMFUS.  We ask commenters to provide specific data on the costs and benefits associated with the 
licensing mechanisms we have proposed.
In the Report & Order portion of this item, we are making 3.85 GHz of mmW spectrum 376.
available for licensed mobile use, as well as adding seven gigahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use, 
bringing the total to 14 GHz of unlicensed spectrum available in the 57-71 GHz band.  In view of these 
relative proportions, we believe it is appropriate to make additional licensed spectrum available for 
flexible use.  Furthermore, we continue to believe there is value in using both geographic area licensing 
and shared access.  We seek comment on alternative licensing mechanisms for each of these bands, 
including unlicensed operation.  To the extent we adopt geographic area licensing, we also seek comment 
on alternative license area sizes.
We also propose to generally apply the Part 30 technical rules we have adopted today to 377.
each of the bands where we ultimately adopt flexible use rules.  We seek comment on any deviations 
from those rules or special technical rules that would be needed for any of those bands.  Commenters who 
propose special technical rules should explain the specific need for such rules and quantify the costs and 
benefits associated with their proposed rules.  We also encourage commenters to provide detailed 
technical analysis supporting any technical proposals.
As we explained in the NPRM, we believe these bands might be able to support expanded 378.
sharing, including two-way shared use between Federal and non-Federal users in these bands and sharing 
among different types of service platforms.  We continue to believe there is an opportunity to leverage the 
propagation characteristics of these bands to further enhance sharing between Federal and non-Federal
users.  We seek comment generally on ways to further Federal and non-Federal sharing in these bands, 
including refinement of the concept we adopt today for the 37 GHz band.
2. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz)
Background. There are two types of fixed licenses in this band.  The 24 GHz Service has 379.
a total of 176 EA or EA-like service areas.
1018
  In 2004, the Commission held Auction 56, in which it 
made 890 24 GHz licenses available.  Only seven of the 890 licenses were sold, and five of those licenses 
are currently active.
1019
  In addition, FiberTower holds a total of 38 pre-auction Digital Electronic 
Messaging Service licenses in this band.
There are no Federal allocations in the 24.25-24.45 GHz or 24.75-25.25 GHz band 380.
segments.
1020
The 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment is non-Federal allocated for FSS (Earth-to-space), and 
the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment also has a co-primary allocation for non-Federal Fixed Service.  A
footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that the use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band by 
                                                     
1017
See supra at para. 243.
1018
See 47 CFR § 101.523.
1019
See 24 GHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 14738 
(WTB 2004).
1020
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
134
the FSS (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS).
1021
  Section 
25.203(l) of the Commission’s rules provides that applicants for feeder link earth station facilities 
operating in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band may be licensed only where no existing Fixed Service licensee 
has been authorized, and shall coordinate their operations with 24 GHz Fixed Service operations if the 
power flux density of their transmitted signal at the boundary of the Fixed Service license area is equal to 
or greater than ?114 dBW/m
2
in any 1 MHz.
1022
  The 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service Report 
and Order determined that future Fixed Service systems locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS 
feeder link earth station may not claim protection from interference from the feeder link earth station’s 
transmissions, provided that those transmissions are compliant with the Commission’s rules, and that 
future 24 GHz Fixed Service applicants would be required to take into account the transmissions from the 
previously authorized earth station  when considering system designs, including their choices of locations 
for their license areas.
1023
  There are four active licenses for feeder link earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 
GHz band segment and one pending application, all of them held by DIRECTV.
1024
There is no mobile allocation in either of the 24 GHz band segments, and no fixed 381.
allocation at 24.75-25.05 GHz.
1025
  In the 24 GHz Report and Order, the Commission found that it would 
be premature to allow mobile operations in the 24 GHz bands but reserved the discretion to revisit that 
issue if it is presented with technical information demonstrating that such operations would be technically 
feasible without generating interference to fixed operations and BSS feeder links in 24 GHz band 
segments.
1026
  In the NPRM, the Commission declined to propose mobile service rules because there was 
relatively low interest in the band, there was less than 500 megahertz of spectrum available, and there was 
no mobile allocation.
1027
  The Commission sought further comment, however, because it did not want to 
preclude further consideration of the band.
1028
FiberTower, Global VSAT Forum, ITIC, Mobile Future, NCTA, Nokia, Samsung, and T-382.
Mobile support mobile operations in the 24 GHz band.
1029
Commenters cite the relatively low frequency 
of the band,
1030
its potential global harmonization,
1031
and the existing manufacturing base
1032
as factors 
                                                     
1021
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.NG 167.  Pursuant to 47 CFR § 25.202(g), 17/24 GHz BSS satellite telemetry, tracking, 
and command functions may also be authorized at the upper edge of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band.
1022
47 CFR § 25.203(l).
1023
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 Frequency 
Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for 
Fixed-Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8842, 8895, para. 128 (2007) (17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite 
Service Report and Order).
1024
See DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, call signs E070027, E130081, E140116, E150138, and E160062
1025
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1026
See Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, 
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16938, para. 7 (2000).
1027
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11901, para. 65.  The band segments under consideration in the NPRM were 24.25-24.45 
GHz and 25.05-25.05 GHz, which totaled only 400 MHz.  Id.
1028
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11901, para. 66.
1029
FiberTower Comments at 2-5, Global VSAT Comments at 4, ITIC Comments at 7, Mobile Future Comments at 
9, NCTA Comments at 18-20, Nokia Comments at 11-13, Samsung Comments at 15-16, T-Mobile Comments at 6-
7.
1030
FiberTower Comments at 5.
1031
NCTA Comments at 19-20, Nokia Comments at 11-13, Samsung Comments at 15-16, T-Mobile Comments at 6.
1032
FiberTower Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
135
supporting a mobile authorization. FiberTower and T-Mobile argue that the relatively small size of the 
band (2x200 MHz) should not preclude consideration for mobile use, because a 400 MHz bandwidth is 
sufficient to support gigabit speeds
1033
and “not all use cases require 500 megahertz of spectrum.”
1034
No 
commenters oppose mobile use of the band.
Discussion. We propose to add a mobile allocation to the 24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 383.
GHz segments of the 24 GHz band, a fixed allocation to 24.75-25.05 GHz, and to authorize both mobile 
and fixed operations in those segments under the new Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
rules. This band is already used internationally for fixed service
1035
and is included in the WRC study for 
future international mobile allocation. The existing manufacturing base and global harmonization of this 
band make it an attractive option for mobile use. We further propose to grant mobile rights to the existing 
fixed licensees, in order to facilitate coordination between fixed and mobile uses in the areas that are 
currently licensed.  We propose to add these new fixed and mobile authorizations on a co-primary basis.  
We seek comment on that arrangement, as well as on the alternative of making mobile or fixed use 
secondary to FSS.
We recognize that there are existing satellite interests and operations in this band, and we 384.
seek comment on the best way to promote effective sharing between satellite and mobile uses. Given that 
the current use of the band for satellite appears to be rather limited, should we maintain the existing limits 
and coordination procedures on satellite operations in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band, and apply those same 
limits to the 24.75-25.05 GHz band?  Alternatively, are there other sharing mechanisms that would better 
achieve coexistence?  Would the sharing regime we have adopted for the 28 GHz band be appropriate in 
this band, or do the differences between FSS earth stations in that band and BSS feeder links here suggest 
a different solution?
We also propose to modify the existing band plan for new licenses in the 24 GHz band.  385.
Currently, the 24 GHz bands is channelized into five 40 megahertz by 40 megahertz channel pairs.
1036
  As 
with the 39 GHz band, we see benefits to converting the 24 GHz band plan to unpaired blocks.  Going 
forward, we propose to license the 24.25-24.45 GHz band segment as a single, unpaired block of 200 
megahertz, and the 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment as two unpaired blocks of 250 megahertz each.  We 
seek comment on this proposal, as well as the alternative of using 100 megahertz unpaired channels, or 
two 200 megahertz channels and one 100 megahertz channel in 24.75-25.25 GHz.  We also seek 
comment on how to treat existing 24 GHz band licensees.  Should incumbent licenses be converted to 
UMFUS licenses, as we have done in 28 GHz and 39 GHz?  Also, is it necessary to repack existing 
licensees, or can they keep their existing frequency assignments because there are so few licensees? 
3. 32 GHz Band (31.8-33.4 GHz)
Background.  There are no current non-Federal licensees in the 32 GHz band.
1037
  386.
Internationally, the 32 GHz band is allocated for Fixed and Radionavigation services.
1038
  Administrations 
should take practical measures “to minimize potential interference between stations in the fixed service 
and stations in the radionavigation service . . . taking into account the operational needs of the airborne 
radar systems.”
1039
  In the United States, the entire 32 GHz band is allocated for the Federal 
                                                     
1033
FiberTower Comments at 4-5.
1034
T-Mobile Comments at 7.
1035
See FiberTower Comments at 4, n.5.
1036
See 47 CFR § 101.147(r)(13).
1037
In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the 31.8-33 GHz band.  Because the ITU identified 31.8-33.4 GHz as a 
potential candidate band, we will expand our consideration to the 31.8-33.4 GHz band.
1038
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.547A.
1039
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.547A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
136
Radionavigation Service and the 32.3-33.4 GHz band is allocated for the non-Federal Radionavigation 
Service.
1040
  Ground based radionavigation aids are not permitted to operate in the band except where they 
operate in cooperation with airborne or shipborne radionavigation devices.
1041
  The 31.8-32.3 GHz portion 
of the band is allocated to the Space Research Service (deep space) (space-to-Earth) on a co-primary 
basis, but use of that band for the Space Research Service is limited to Goldstone, California.
1042
  Finally, 
the 32.3-33 GHz band is allocated for Inter-Satellite Service (ISS).
1043
We note that other U.S. footnotes place additional limitations on radionavigation and 387.
space research (deep space) (space-to-Earth) operations.  Under footnote US211, applicants for airborne 
or space station assignments are urged to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy 
observations in the adjacent bands from harmful interference.
1044
  Finally, under footnote US74, radio 
astronomy service in the adjacent 31.3-31.5 GHz band must be protected from unwanted emissions only 
to the extent that such radiation exceeds the level which would be present if the offending station were 
operating in compliance with the technical standards or criteria applicable to the service in which it 
operates.
1045
  
In the NPRM, the Commission explained that there are two challenges to authorizing the 388.
32 GHz band for 5G services.
1046
  First, the 32 GHz band, unlike the other bands under consideration for 
5G use, is not currently allocated for mobile use.
1047
  Second, the Commission noted that the amount of 
usable spectrum in the 32 GHz band appears to be significantly curtailed by the need to protect the 
existing Federal and deep space research systems in the 32 GHz band, as well as operations in the 
adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz passive band.
1048
  
Discussion.  We propose to add primary non-Federal fixed and mobile service allocations389.
to the 32 GHz band.  We also propose to authorize fixed and mobile operations in the 32 GHz under the 
Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.  In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the 32 
GHz band is not currently allocated for mobile operations, and therefore, perhaps it is not as suited to the 
provision of 5G services as other bands under consideration.
1049
  Since the NPRM was adopted, however, 
ITU WRC-15 decided to conduct the appropriate sharing and compatibility studies for the 32 GHz band, 
which may lead to an allocation for mobile service in the 32 GHz band at WRC-19 and the opportunity 
for globally harmonized services in this band.
1050
  Global harmonization, in turn, will promote global 
interconnection, roaming, and interoperability.
1051
  In addition, there is a significant amount of contiguous 
                                                     
1040
See 47 CFR § 2.106.  See also 47 CFR § 87.173(b).
1041
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US69.
1042
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US262.
1043
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1044
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US211.
1045
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US74.
1046
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, paras. 73-74.
1047
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, paras. 73-74.
1048
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, paras. 73-74.
1049
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, para. 73.
1050
See Avanti Comments at 8.
1051
See Boeing Comments at 19-20, Samsung Comments at 15.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
137
bandwidth available in the 32 GHz band.
1052
  Finally, we note that there is significant support among the 
commenters to allocate the 32 GHz band for fixed and mobile 5G services.
1053
  
However, there are still two major challenges to authorizing mobile operations in the 32 390.
GHz band: (1) protecting radionavigation operations in the 32 GHz band; and (2) protecting radio 
astronomy observations in the adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz band.  We discuss those challenges and invite 
further comment on those issues below.
a. Federal and non-Federal Services in the 32 GHz Band
In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the compatibility of mobile use of the 391.
32 GHz band with existing aeronautical and shipborne radar use of the band, future radionavigation and 
other Federal services, as well as deep space research in the 31.8-32.3 GHz portion of the 32 GHz 
band.
1054
  Commenters did not address these issues directly.  Instead, Echodyne, a technology startup, asks 
the Commission to proceed cautiously to ensure that it does not hinder the development of innovative 
technologies for the radionavigation bands.
1055
  Echodyne states that “near term advances in radar 
technology soon will help fuel revolutionary changes in many sectors.”
1056
  For instance, Echodyne 
indicates that “accurate, lightweight, and low-power detect and avoid systems will be essential to 
widespread commercial deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems and autonomous vehicles,”
1057
which 
Echodyne argues, will change the face of transportation, shipping, security, and numerous other 
industries.
1058
  According to Echodyne, these advances rely on effective radionavigation operations that 
need consistent operating conditions across a geographic region, including a predictable and uniform 
interference environment.
1059
  Echodyne indicates that it is skeptical that the 32 GHz band could be made 
available for mobile use.
1060
     
We seek comment on the compatibility of fixed and mobile services with existing 392.
allocated services in the 32 GHz band.  Commenters who support mobile use of this band should provide 
specific technical information and proposals showing how fixed and mobile uses of this band is 
compatible with radionavigation uses.  In that regard, we ask Echodyne and other commenters to provide 
specific information on existing and planned non-Federal uses of radar in this band.  We will continue to 
work with NTIA and other Federal partners to determine the protection requirements for Federal users 
and the opportunity to expand shared Federal use across the band.
We also seek comment on protecting other allocated service within the 32 GHz band.  393.
For Space Research Service operations in the Goldstone, California area, would coordination 
requirements be sufficient to protect those operations?  In the NPRM, we noted that the risk of 
interference between terrestrial operations and ISS links in 64-71 GHz appeared to be low because of 
atmospheric absorption.
1061
  Would the same analysis apply in the 32 GHz band?  
                                                     
1052
See Avanti Comments at 7.
1053
Avanti Comments at 7,  ESOA Comments, at 8,  Global VSAT Forum Comments at 4-5, Nokia Comments at 
12, Samsung Comments at 15.  
1054
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11878, para. 74 (2015).
1055
Echodyne Comments at 3.
1056
Echodyne Comments at 3.
1057
Echodyne Comments at 3.
1058
Echodyne Comments at 3.
1059
Echodyne Comments at 4.
1060
Echodyne Comments at 4-5.
1061
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11899, para. 59.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
138
b. Radio Astronomy and EESS in the Adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz Band
The 32 GHz band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.  In the United States, the 31.3-394.
31.8 GHz band is allocated for Earth Exploration Satellite (passive), radio astronomy, and Space 
Research (passive).
1062
  Under footnote US246, no station is authorized to transmit in the 31.3-31.8 GHz 
band.
1063
  And under footnote US74, the radio astronomy operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band are 
protected from unwanted emissions only to the extent that such radiation exceeds the level which would 
be present if the offending station were operating in compliance with the technical standards or criteria 
applicable to the service in which it operates.
1064
  
In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the need to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz passive 395.
band may severely limit the availability of usable spectrum in the 31.8-33 GHz band and sought detailed 
technical analysis from commenters on the out-of-band emission limits required to protect operations in 
the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
1065
  The Commission indicated that a detailed analysis would help it determine 
how much of the 31.8-33 GHz band could be used for mobile operations while protecting the passive 
services in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
1066
CORF submitted the most information on this topic.  CORF states that although the 396.
critical science undertaken by Radio Astronomy observers cannot be performed without access to 
interference free bands, RAS bands can be protected regionally by limiting emissions within a certain 
radius of the facility.
1067
  But, CORF explains, “the emissions that radio astronomers receive are 
extremely weak—a radio telescope receives less than 1 percent of one-billionth of one-billionth of a watt 
(10-20 W) from a typical cosmic object.”
1068
  CORF further explains that radio observatories are 
particularly vulnerable to interference from in-band emissions, spurious and out-of-band emissions from 
licensed and unlicensed users of neighboring bands, and emissions that produce harmonic signals in the 
RAS bands, even when those manmade signals are weak and distant.
1069
  ESOA argues that any deep 
space research operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band can be protected from mobile terrestrial operations 
in the 32 GHz band because there are very few research facilities and they are located in very remote 
areas.
1070
  We seek specific comment on how we should protect these operations.  
CORF stresses the importance of the data collected from EESS and that billions of dollars 397.
have been invested in EESS satellites.
1071
CORF notes that for certain applications, satellite-based 
microwave remote sensing is the only practical method of obtaining atmospheric and surface data for the 
entire planet.
1072
  Data derived from EESS have contributed substantially to the study of meteorology, 
atmospheric chemistry, climatology, and oceanography and is used by multiple governmental
agencies.
1073
CORF indicates that incumbent users designed and developed EESS missions without the 
                                                     
1062
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1063
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US246.
1064
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US74.
1065
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, paras. 73-74.
1066
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11903, para. 74.
1067
CORF Comments at 3-5.
1068
CORF Comments at 3-4.
1069
CORF Comments at 3-4.
1070
ESOA Comments at 8.
1071
CORF Comments at 4-5.
1072
CORF Comments at 4-5.
1073
CORF Comments at 4-5.  The agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASADoD (especially the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
139
expectation of transmissions in close proximity to the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
1074
  They also report that most 
incumbent users at 31.5 GHz operate in a direct detection (homodyne) mode.
1075
  CORF recommends that 
the Commission adopt adequate guard bands to protect EESS operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz “until the 
current satellites can be replaced with satellites with filtering suited to the new spectral environment.”
1076
  
CORF claims that proportionally larger guard bands are needed as the frequency increases.
1077
  In direct 
detection, CORF explains, band definition is achieved with filters that are limited by the properties of the 
materials used in the filter itself.
1078
  Thus, for example, “for a given material, the minimum bandwidth of 
a filter is proportional to the central frequency, so that the width of the necessary guard bands to suppress 
emissions to a desired level also increases in proportion to the frequency.”
1079
  CORF continues, “it is 
impossible to reject a signal 10 MHz away from a band edge at these higher frequencies, so guard 
bandwidths must be scaled in frequency to accommodate this physical limitation.”
1080
  We seek comment 
on whether we should adopt a guard band to protect EESS operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band, and if 
so, how large should the guard band be?  ESOA, disagrees with CORF and states that services operating 
in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band can be protected through “carefully crafted operating requirements.”
1081
  We 
seek comment on ESOA’s statement and ask what these “carefully crafted operating requirements” might 
be.  
CORF also expresses concern that “mobile devices with limited size and cost will not be 398.
able to adequately filter their out-of-band emissions to meet the stringent requirements” of the 31.3-31.8 
GHz band.
1082
  Avanti responds that under agenda item 1.13 for WRC-19, the ITU-R will develop 
technical measures, if necessary, to protect passive services from interference from 5G mobile broadband 
systems.
1083
  We seek detailed information concerning the capability of mobile and other consumer 
devices to limit out-of-band emissions into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band, and seek comment on whether guard 
bands or other special rules will be necessary to limit emissions into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
c. Band Plan
We also seek comment on the appropriate band plan for the 32 GHz band.  We propose to 399.
license the band using channels of either 200 megahertz or 400 megahertz bandwidth.  Given the 
contemplated use cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best?  We encourage 
commenters to discuss the specific advantages and disadvantages of various band plans.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
U.S. Navy), the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Agency for International Development, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service.  Id.
1074
CORF Comments at 5.
1075
CORF Comments at 5.
1076
CORF Comments at 5.  The other alternative CORF mentions, but does not recommend, is time sharing of the 
band.  Id.
1077
CORF Comments at 5-6.
1078
CORF Comments at 5-6.
1079
CORF Comments at 5-6.
1080
CORF Comments at 5-6.
1081
ESOA Comments at 9.
1082
CORF Comments at 5-6.
1083
Avanti Comments at 8. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
140
4. 42 GHz Band (42-42.5 GHz) 
Background.  The 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) is now allocated to the fixed and 400.
mobile services on a primary basis for non-Federal use.
1084
  There are currently no terrestrial service rules 
in place for this band.  On May 9, 2012, FWCC filed a petition for rulemaking seeking to establish 
service rules for fixed point-to-point use of the 42-43.5 GHz band under Part 101 of the Commission’s 
rules.
1085
  The adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band is allocated to 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.
1086
  Footnote US211 urges applicants for airborne or space stations 
assignments in the 40.5-42.5 GHz band to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy 
observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from harmful interference.
1087
In the NPRM, we declined to propose service rules for the band at that time due to 401.
concerns that we would be unable to adequately protect the RAS in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band,
1088
and because we found the band already encumbered by pending proposals to place both FS and FSS 
operations in the band.
1089
  Such considerations made this band less desirable vis-à-vis the 28 or 39 GHz 
bands.  We nevertheless asked commenters to analyze its relative merit for FS or mobile use, as well as 
the different mechanisms that such various services could use to share the band, and how such uses would 
be impacted by the need to protect RAS in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
1090
  In particular, we note that T-
Mobile supports mobile service use of the 42 GHz band.
1091
  CORF describes the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz 
band as being one of the most important bands for radio astronomy because it is used to observe silicon 
monoxide, which yields important information on stellar temperatures, density, and wind velocities.
1092
  
FWCC contends that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more suitable for fixed point-to-point service than mobile 
use.
1093
While these proposals were pending, FWCC filed petitions for rulemaking seeking the 402.
establishment of a non-Federal fixed service allocation at 42.5-43.5 GHz as well as service rules for fixed 
point-to-point use of the 42.0-43.5 GHz band under Part 101.
1094
  In its comments to this proceeding, 
                                                     
1084
In the companion Report and Order, we are deleting the broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service 
allocations from the 42 GHz band.  There are currently no Federal allocations in the 42 GHz band.
1085
Petition for Rulemaking, Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, RM-11664 (filed May 9, 2012).  FWCC 
originally sought the establishment of service rules for the 41-42.5 GHz band.  In light of opposition from satellite 
licensees, FWCC revised its proposal to specify the 42-43.5 GHz band.  See Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., 
counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Coalition, RM-11664 (filed Feb. 11, 2013).
1086
47 CFR § 2.106.
1087
47 CFR § 2.106 n. US211.
1088
The footnote corresponding to this band in the Allocation Table urges applicants for airborne assignments in the 
42 GHz band to take all practicable steps to protect RAS observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from harmful 
interference.  47 CFR § 2.106 n.US211.  The 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.  47 CFR § 2.106 n.US342.
1089
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11904, paras. 79-80.
1090
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11904, para. 80.
1091
T-Mobile Comments at 8.
1092
CORF Reply at 8-9.
1093
FWCC Comments at 10.
1094
FWCC originally sought the establishment of service rules for the 41-42.5 GHz band.  See Petition for 
Rulemaking, Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), RM-11664 (filed May 9, 2012).  In light of 
opposition from satellite licensees, FWCC withdrew its proposal as to the 41-42 GHz band, leaving its request for 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
141
FWCC reiterates its request for a fixed allocation and service rules for the 42-43.5 GHz band so it can 
coordinate its co-primary operations with the RAS and operate subject to interference from Federal uplink 
earth stations located in the band.
1095
Discussion.  We propose to authorize fixed and mobile service operations to operate in 403.
the 42 GHz band under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules, as long as we can 
ensure that adjacent channel RAS services will be protected.  The band potentially offers 500 megahertz 
for new flexible use services, has existing fixed and mobile allocations, and is being studied 
internationally for possible mobile use. We also propose to adopt geographic area licensing using PEAs as 
the geographic area.  We seek comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
We deny FWCC’s request that we establish service rules to enable fixed service at 42.-404.
42.5 GHz, but keep its request pending for the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.  We believe that flexible use 
licensing, which would allow a variety of services to be offered, would be more likely to place the 
spectrum in its highest and best use, as opposed to rules that would only allow point-to-point operation.  
Nevertheless, we do not deny FWCC’s petition with respect to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band because point-to-
point operation may be more likely to co-exist with co-channel RAS.  We will give further consideration 
to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band separately.
We seek comment on whether it is possible to authorize fixed and mobile use in the 42 405.
GHz band while protecting RAS observations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band.  If protection is 
possible, we seek comment on what protections should be established.  CORF notes that frequency lines 
at 42.519, 42.821, 43.122, and 43.424 GHz (for observations of silicon monoxide) are among those of 
greatest importance to radio astronomy.
1096
  CORF represents, “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 GHz band and the peak level in any single 500 kHz channel.  
For observations using the entire Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the corresponding limit is -175 
dBW/m
2
/Hz.”
1097
  Do we need to establish special out-of-band emission limits into the 42.5-43.5 GHz 
band?  Is it necessary or appropriate to establish a guard band below 42.5 GHz?  We ask proponents of 
terrestrial use in the 42 GHz band to provide detailed studies demonstrating how such use can be 
compatible with RAS use in the 42.4-43.5 GHz band.  We also ask CORF and other radio astronomy 
interests to provide additional information on the locations where observations are made in the 42.4-43.5 
GHz band.
We also seek comment on the appropriate band plan for the 42 GHz band.  Should the 406.
band be licensed as a single channel, split into two channels, or split into multiple 100 megahertz 
channels?  We recognize that if we adopt a guard band to protect adjacent channel radio astronomy, the 
guard band will affect the band plan by making less spectrum available.  Given the contemplated use 
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best?  We encourage commenters to discuss 
the specific advantages and disadvantages of various band plans.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
service rules in the 42-42.5 GHz band.  See FWCC Reply, RM-11664 (filed July 24, 2012); see also Letter from 
Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Coalition, RM-11664 (filed Feb. 11, 2013).  In a separate supplemental petition, FWCC 
sought a non-Federal fixed service allocation and the establishment of fixed service rules for the 42.5-43.5 GHz 
band.  See Supplemental Petition for Rulemaking, FWCC (filed Feb. 11, 2013) (“FWCC Supplemental Petition”).  
FWCC contended in its NPRM comments that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more suitable for fixed point-to-point 
service.
  
FWCC Comments at 3.
1095
FWCC Comments at 10 (requesting “a non-Federal fixed allocation and service rules for the 42-43.5 GHz band, 
co-primary with the Radio Astronomy Service at 42.5-43.5 GHz and subject to possible interference from Federal 
Fixed Satellite uplink earth stations.”).
1096
CORF Reply at 8-9.
1097
CORF Reply at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
142
Finally, we propose to add Federal fixed and mobile allocations into this band, and 407.
additionally seek comment on establishing a framework under which Federal and non-Federal users could 
share the band.  Given the short propagation distances, lack of incumbent licensees, and other factors, as 
described in the 37 GHz sharing section and the rules we are adopting today,
1098
we believe it is possible 
for both Federal and non-Federal users to coexist on a co-primary basis, particularly using simple 
methods of coordination (to enable geographic sharing).  We therefore seek comment on whether to 
extend Federal access to this band, including how to best achieve coexistence with non-Federal uses.  For 
instance, are there additional considerations in addition to leveraging the sharing regime adopted for the 
co-primary coordinated sharing in the 37 GHz band?  Should we use more static sharing mechanisms?  
Would an SAS-based sharing approach facilitate Federal and non-Federal sharing of this band?  Are there 
other tools we can leverage to create a robust sharing environment that allows this spectrum to meet both 
Federal and non-Federal needs?
5. 47 GHz Band (47.2-50.2 GHz)
Background.  While there are primary non-Federal fixed and mobile allocations 408.
throughout the 47 GHz band, there are currently no service rules for terrestrial operations in this band.
1099
  
We note that the Commission has designated the 47.2-48.2 GHz segment of the 47 GHz band for wireless 
services use and the 48.2-50.2 GHz segment for FSS use.
1100
  The fixed allocations in the 47.2-47.5 GHz 
and 47.9-48.2 GHz segments are designated for use by high altitude platform stations.
1101
  Airborne 
mobile operations are prohibited in the 48.94-49.04 GHz segment.
1102
  There is a non-Federal Fixed-
Satellite (Earth-to-space) allocation throughout this band, and service rules currently exist for satellite 
operation under Part 25.  The 47.2-49.2 GHz band is also available for BSS feeder links.
1103
  In the 48.2-
50.2 GHz band, there are also primary Federal allocations for fixed, mobile, and Fixed-Satellite (Earth-to-
space) services.  The 48.94-49.04 GHz band is also used by radio astronomy for spectral line 
observations, and all practicable steps must be taken to protect radio astronomy in that band from 
interference.
1104
This band was not addressed in the NPRM.  At WRC-15, however, this band was 409.
identified as one of the bands for which sharing and compatibility studies were directed with an eye 
towards identifying the band for IMT-2020.  T-Mobile supports further consideration of this band.
1105
Discussion.  We propose to authorize fixed and mobile operations in the 47 GHz band410.
under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.  The band potentially offers 3 gigahertz 
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile use.
At the same time, we recognize that this band is authorized for FSS use.  While there are 411.
no current authorized operations, this band may be paired with the 40-42 GHz downlink band.  Unlike in 
the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands, where FSS can use other spectrum to operate user equipment, FSS would 
                                                     
1098
See Section IV.C.3 (License Area Size).
1099
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1100
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 
GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, First Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24649, 24651 para. 2 (1999) (V-Band First Report and Order).  
1101
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.552A
1102
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US264.
1103
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US297.
1104
See 47 CFR § 2.106 nn.5.555, US342.
1105
T-Mobile Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
143
have to use some portion of the 47 GHz band to operate user equipment.  Sharing between terrestrial 
mobile and FSS user equipment is more complicated, particularly when the FSS user equipment is 
transmitting.
With respect to individually licensed earth stations, it appears that we could adopt the 412.
sharing framework we have adopted for the 28 GHz band.  Specifically, in each PEA, we propose that 
there can be one location where FSS earth stations can be located on a co-primary basis, subject to the 
conditions and limitations we have adopted in other bands.  We seek comment on this proposal, as well as 
alternatives.
We seek comment on the best approach for sharing between FSS user equipment and 413.
terrestrial operations.  One option would be to have geographic area licensing on a PEA basis, but also 
authorize database-driven sharing between terrestrial licensees and stationary FSS user equipment.  In the 
NPRM, we sought comment on leveraging a Spectrum Access System (SAS) or other database 
coordination mechanism to facilitate sharing between terrestrial operations and FSS user equipment.
1106
  
Under the SAS proposal, terrestrial licensees would provide the geographic coordinates and other 
pertinent technical information concerning their facilities to the SAS.  Satellite operators would then 
access the information in the SAS to determine where their user equipment could transmit without 
causing interference to terrestrial operations.
1107
  We recognize that many terrestrial operators oppose 
being required to provide information on their deployments to a database,
1108
but those operators have not 
presented a viable alternative that would allow sharing between these services.
Another option would be to divide the band into a segment where FSS has priority and a 414.
segment where UMFUS operations has priority.
1109
  In the segment where FSS had priority, FSS could 
operate its user equipment without any obligation to protect UMFUS operations.  Conversely, in the 
segment where UMFUS licensees had priority, satellite user equipment could operate on a purely 
secondary basis and would be required to cease transmitting if it caused interference to fixed or mobile 
operations.  Supporters of this option should propose a split for the band and explain how their proposed 
split best balances the needs of UMFUS and FSS licensees.
A third option would be to develop specific criteria for assigning priority between FSS 415.
and terrestrial operations.  For example, we could require both FSS and UMFUS licensees to register their 
operations in a database, and we could assign interference protection on a first-come, first-served basis.  
We seek comment on a first-come, first-served approach, and we also invite commenters to propose 
alternative criteria for assigning priority.  Commenters should provide detailed information on the costs 
and benefits of their proposed mechanisms for assigning priorities.  We also seek comment on other 
alternatives for sharing between UMFUS and FSS in this band.
We also seek comment on sharing with co-primary Federal services in the 48.2-50.2 GHz 416.
band, as well as protection of passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz band.  Our understanding is 
that there are currently no authorized Federal or non-Federal operations in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band but 
that there may be future Federal operations in that band.  Are the rules and framework we have adopted 
today for sharing of the 37 GHz band applicable to the 48.2-50.2 GHz band?  Could a modified first-
come, first-served mechanism be used to establish priority in this band without precluding use of the band 
by co-primary Federal users?  Should we leverage the database-driven sharing mechanism?  We intend to 
work with NTIA and other Federal agencies to identify an appropriate framework to protect current or 
                                                     
1106
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11923-24, paras. 150-153.
1107
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11923-24, paras. 150-153.
1108
See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply at 12.
1109
We could maintain the current wireless services and FSS designations.  When the Commission made the 
separate designations for the FSS and wireless services in the band, it did not place any restrictions on the use of 
either portion of the band by either the FSS or wireless services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
144
planned Federal interests in and ensure future access to this band on a co-primary shared basis.  We also 
seek comment on protecting radio astronomy in the 48.94-49.04 GHz band.  Are there any steps we need 
to take to protect radio astronomy over and above implementing the existing prohibition on aeronautical 
use in that segment?  We encourage CORF and other radio astronomy interests to provide information on 
locations where this band is used for radio astronomy observations.  With respect to the 50.2-50.4 GHz 
band, we note that the international allocation for the passive services “shall not impose undue constraints 
on the use of adjacent bands by the primary allocated services in those bands.”
1110
  On the other hand, at 
WRC-12, the WRC recognized “that long-term protection of the EESS in the [, inter alia, 50.2-50.4 GHz
band] is vital to weather prediction and disaster management.”
1111
  The WRC did establish emission limits 
for FSS stations operating in the 49.7-50.2 GHz and 50.4-50.9 GHz bands, but did not address fixed or 
mobile stations operating in those bands.
1112
  Given that framework, what requirements would be 
appropriate to protect passive services in the 50.2-50.4 GHz bands? 
We also seek comment on the appropriate band plan for the 47 GHz band.  One 417.
possibility would be to divide the band into six channels of 500 megahertz each.  One advantage of that 
band plan is that the channels would align with 48.2 GHz, which is where the Federal allocation and 
current FSS designation begin and where FSS user equipment can begin to be deployed.  On the other 
hand, 500 megahertz channels would not align with the band plan in other bands, where we are using 
multiples of 200 megahertz.  Given the contemplated use cases and the nature of this band, what channel 
size would be best?  We encourage commenters to discuss the specific advantages and disadvantages of 
various band plans.
6. 50 GHz Band (50.4-52.6 GHz)
Background.  While there are primary fixed and mobile service allocations throughout 418.
this band, there are currently no service rules for this band.
1113
  There are also primary Federal allocations 
for the fixed and mobile services in the 50 GHz band.  In the 50.4-51.4 GHz segment, there are primary 
Federal and non-Federal allocations for the fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space) and mobile satellite (Earth-to-
space) services, although the Federal allocations are limited to military systems.
1114
  We note that the 
Commission has designated the 50.4-51.4 GHz segment for use by wireless services.
1115
  For fixed 
stations in this band, the unwanted emissions power into the adjacent 52.6-54.25 GHz band shall not 
exceed – 33dBW/100 MHz (measured at the input of the antenna).
1116
This band was not addressed in the NPRM.  At WRC-15, however, this band was 419.
identified as one of the bands for which sharing and compatibility studies were directed with an eye 
towards identifying the band for IMT-2020.  T-Mobile supports further consideration of this band.
1117
Discussion.  We propose to authorize fixed and mobile operations in the 50 GHz band420.
under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.  The band potentially offers 2 gigahertz 
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile use.  We also propose to use 
geographic area licensing in this band and license the band on a PEA basis.  We seek comment on these 
proposals, as well as alternatives.
                                                     
1110
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.340.1.
1111
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.338.  See also WRC-12 Resolution 750.
1112
See WRC-12 Resolution 750.
1113
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1114
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.G117.
1115
V-Band First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 24651, para. 2.  
1116
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US157.
1117
T-Mobile Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
145
We also seek comment on the non-Federal satellite allocations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz 421.
band.
1118
Assuming that the 40-42 GHz (space-to-Earth) band is paired with the 48.2-50.2 GHz (Earth-to-
space) band, we request comments on how this uplink band would be used by FSS operators.  We also 
request comments on means of accommodating sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations.
We also seek comment on sharing with co-primary Federal services in the 50.4-52.6 GHz 422.
band, as well as protection of passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz and 52.6-54.25 GHz bands.  
Our understanding is that there are currently no authorized Federal or non-Federal operations in this band 
but that there may be future Federal operations in that band.  Are the rules and framework we are 
adopting today for sharing of the 37 GHz band applicable to this band?  Could a database-driven sharing 
approach facilitate sharing between Federal and non-Federal operations?  Could a modified first-come, 
first-served mechanism be used to establish priority in this band without precluding use of the band by co-
primary Federal users?  We intend to work with NTIA and other Federal agencies to identify an 
appropriate framework to protect current or planned Federal interests and to ensure future access to this 
band on a co-primary shared basis.  With respect to the 50.2-50.4 GHz band, as noted above, this band is 
vital to weather prediction and disaster management, and the international allocation for the passive 
services “shall not impose undue constraints on the use of adjacent bands by the primary allocated 
services in those bands.”
1119
  Given that framework, what limits on emissions into the 50.2-50.4 GHz 
would be appropriate?  On the other hand, there is a specific limit on fixed emissions into the 52.6-54.25 
GHz band.  What impact will that limit have on the suitability of this band to provide terrestrial service?  
What limits would be necessary on mobile service to protect the 52.6-54.25 GHz band? 
We also seek comment on the appropriate band plan for the 50 GHz band.  One option is 423.
to establish ten channels of 200 megahertz each, which would be consistent with the channel plan for the 
39 GHz band.  Other options include four channels of 500 megahertz each or five channels of 400 
megahertz each, with one extra 200 megahertz channel.  Is there any value in establishing a guard band 
immediately below 52.6 GHz to protect the passive band above 52.6 GHz?  Given the contemplated use 
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best?  We encourage commenters to discuss 
the specific advantages and disadvantages of the various band plans.
7. 70/80 GHz Bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz)
Background.  On October 16, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order424.
establishing service rules to promote non-Federal development and use of the millimeter wave spectrum 
in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands, which are allocated to non-Federal and Federal 
users on a co-primary basis.
1120
  Based on the determination that highly directional, “pencil-beam” signal 
characteristics permit systems in these bands to be engineered so that many operations can co-exist in the 
same vicinity without causing interference to one another, the Commission adopted a flexible and 
innovative regulatory framework for the bands.
1121
  Specifically, the Commission created a two pronged 
authorization scheme for non-Federal entities for the entire 12.9 GHz of spectrum in the band.  First, a 
licensee applies for a non-exclusive nationwide license; second, the licensee registers individual point-to-
point links.  Under this licensing scheme, a non-exclusive license serves as a prerequisite for registering 
                                                     
1118
We note that the NATO Joint Frequency Agreement identifies the 39.5-40.5 GHz downlink band and the 
50.4-51.4 GHz uplink band for future military FSS and MSS requirements.  See NTIA letter, IB Docket No. 97-95, 
received May 7, 1997, at p. 4.   See also NTIA’s Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan, September 2000, at p. 122 
(available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/final-lrsp.pdf).
1119
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.340.1.
1120
The bands are allocated to both Federal and non-Federal users on a co-primary basis, except the 94.0-94.1 GHz 
portion, which is allocated for Federal use on a primary basis.  See generally Allocations and Service Rules for the 
71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23322-23331, paras. 6-26
(2003) (70-80-90 GHz Report and Order).
1121
70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23337-39, paras. 44-47.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
146
individual point-to-point links.  Licensees may operate a link only after the link is both registered with a 
third-party database and coordinated with NTIA.
1122
  This flexible and streamlined regulatory framework 
was designed to encourage innovative uses of the millimeter wave spectrum, facilitate future development 
in technology and equipment, promote competition in the communications services, equipment, and 
related markets, and advance sharing between non-Federal and Federal systems.
As of June 10, 2016, there were 446 active non-exclusive nationwide licenses covering 425.
the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands.
1123
  Based upon information available from the third-party 
database managers that are responsible for registering links in those bands, as of June 10, 2016, there 
were approximately 22,600 registered fixed links
1124
in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands.
1125
Access to these bands is based on a set of spectrum rights and sharing mechanisms 426.
between Federal and non-Federal users, and among different types of non-Federal uses (fixed and 
satellite).  In these bands, non-Federal operations may not cause harmful interference to, nor claim 
protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations located at 28 military bases.
1126
  In addition, in 
the 80 GHz band, licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy observatories must 
coordinate their proposed links with those observatories.
1127
  Third-party database managers are 
responsible for recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database link system and 
coordinating with NTIA’s automated “green light/yellow light” mechanism to determine the potential for 
harmful interference to Federal operations and radio observatories.
1128
The 71-74 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal 427.
Fixed, FSS, Mobile, and MSS (space-to-Earth) operations.
1129
  The 74-76 GHz band segment has co-
primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, FSS (space-to-Earth), Mobile, and SRS 
operations.
1130
  In addition, there are non-Federal allocations in that band segment for Broadcasting and 
BSS operations.
1131
  The 81-86 GHz band has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, 
FSS (Earth-to-space), and Mobile, and within that band the 81-84 GHz band segment also has a Federal 
and non-Federal allocation for MSS (Earth-to-space).
1132
The 76-77 GHz band is currently used for 
unlicensed vehicular radars under Part 15 of the rules.
1133
The Commission has proposed to authorize 
                                                     
1122
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB BD 2005). 
1123
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on May 9, 2016.
1124
A link in this context is defined as a communication path between one location and another in a single direction, 
regardless of frequency channel.   In other words, multiple channels registered between the same transmit and 
receive location are not considered separate links.  Bi-directional communications are counted as separate links. 
1125
These statistics are based on a review of the third party database managers’ data on May 9, 2016.   See
www.micronetcommunications.com/LinkRegistration/ ; www.comsearch.com/applications/link7090/index.jsp ; 
http://mmradioforms.com/mmRadioForms/FrontPage.aspx
1126
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US389.
1127
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US388.
1128
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB BD 2005).
1129
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1130
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1131
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1132
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
1133
See 47 CFR § 15.253.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
147
non-Federal radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band on a licensed basis under Part 95. This proposal 
would shift vehicular radars away from the existing Part 15 unlicensed model.
1134
In the NPRM, the Commission stated that interest among commenters in using these 428.
bands for mobile operations appeared to be rather limited.
1135
  It also noted that the coordination process 
between fixed and mobile operations would be considerably more complicated in these bands because 
there are multiple fixed licensees in a given area (as opposed to 28 GHz or 39 GHz, which are 
geographically licensed resulting in a limited number of potential users in any given area and band).  The 
Commission further acknowledged that the need to protect Federal earth stations and radio astronomy 
locations would also require limits on mobile operations in these bands.
The Commission declined to offer a specific proposal to amend its rules for the 70 and 80 429.
GHz bands in NPRM, stating that it was not clear how either licensed mobile or unlicensed Wi-Fi units 
could be coordinated to avoid interference to fixed links.
1136
  However, the Commission sought comment 
on whether it should revisit its 2003 decision not to allow Part 15 operations in these bands,
1137
and if so, 
what specific bands it should consider for Part 15 operations or for licensed use.
1138
The NPRM further 
asked about the structure of a sharing mechanism between fixed and mobile systems if the Commission 
were to authorize mobile operations in the 70 and 80 GHz bands, and how the coordination and licensing 
might be administered.
1139
  With respect to pending proposals to change the current Part 101 rules 
governing fixed operations in these bands, the Commission noted that some of those issues were already 
under consideration in the Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-153.
1140
In response to the NPRM, commenters propose diverse alternative service plans for the 430.
70 and 80 GHz bands.  Those recommendations include licensed mobile service,
1141
unlicensed access,
1142
and fixed service licensed by rule.
1143
  CORF contends that it is essential that the protections presently 
afforded to the primary allocations for the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) at 76.0-77.5 GHz and 78.0-94 
GHz remain in place, and that we maintain geographic separation between emitters and RAS facilities
sufficient to ensure that aggregate interference remains below threshold levels.
1144
CORF also 
recommends that the Commission enable wide guard bands to protect the primary allocation to the Earth 
Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) at 86-92 GHz.
1145
Discussion.  When evaluating services or uses that could be viable if we authorize their 431.
introduction into the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands, we must consider three basic issues.  First, we need to 
                                                     
1134
See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Radar Services in the 76-81 
GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1625, 1632-1638, paras. 24-
44 (2015).
1135
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 86.
1136
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 87.
1137
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 87, citing 70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23336, para. 41.
1138
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 87.
1139
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 87.
1140
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 88.
1141
Huawei Comments at 7, 19-22, Mobile Future Comments at 9, Nokia Comments at 12-13, TIA Comments at 6 
n. 14, T-Mobile Comments at 4, 8-9; Intel Reply at 15.
1142
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comments at 1, 3, Microsoft Comments at 18, Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 9-10; 
Microsoft Reply at 4-6, 10-11, NCTA Reply at 14, Qualcomm Reply at 8.
1143
FWCC Comments at 8-9; Intel Reply at 15.
1144
CORF Comments at 16-20.
1145
CORF Comments at 16-20.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
148
consider whether the bands offer adequate spectrum for the proposed new services or uses in bands where 
tens of thousands of incumbent operations are already registered.  Second, we need to consider whether 
the new services or uses are compatible with the fundamental electromagnetic characteristics of the 
relevant spectrum.  And third, we need to consider whether more than one service or use can coexist in 
the bands.  We address each of these considerations and corollary concerns below. 
As noted above, the NPRM posited that it might not be possible to authorize mobile 432.
services or unlicensed access in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands without causing interference to 
incumbent point-to-point links.
1146
  After further review, we find that the bands are relatively lightly used 
both in terms of the number of registered sites (especially on a large geographic scale) and with respect to 
the quantity of spectrum available.  As E-Band Communications notes, “The 10 GHz of spectrum 
available [in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands] represents by far the most ever allocated by the FCC at any 
one time, representing 50-times the bandwidth of the entire cellular spectrum.”
1147
  Moreover, the great 
majority of existing links in the bands are concentrated in just a few localities, as illustrated in Figure 3.  
As of June 10, 2016, only 16 counties had an average site density of more than one transmission or 
reception site per square mile, and those 16 counties contain more than 73 percent of all registered 
transmitters and receivers in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands.  Given the narrow beamwidths and limited 
path lengths involved, it would be reasonable to treat the remaining 3,125 counties and county-
equivalents as the functional equivalent of a green field, provided that adequate measures are taken to 
protect the few incumbents in them.
Figure 3
                                                     
1146
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11906, para. 87.
1147
E-Band Communications, LLC, web site (http://www.e-band.com/index.php?id=86).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
149
We must also consider whether the physical characteristics of the bands are suitable for 433.
the kinds of services that might be authorized in the bands – this is particularly true for mmW bands 
where atmospheric and other environmental phenomena affect the utility of the band.  In general, for 
example, atmospheric attenuation increases the higher one goes in the electromagnetic spectrum, limiting 
the potential length of transmission paths.  However, as shown in Figure 4, the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz 
bands experience less attenuation than frequencies in the 50-60 GHz range.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
150
Figure 4
Millimeter Wave Signal Attenuation Characteristics Based on Oxygen and Water Absorption (Source: Dynamic Spectrum 
Alliance Comments at 3, citing Penton Electronics, http://electronicdesign.com/communications/millimeter-waves-will-expand-
wireless-future)
In addition to atmospheric attenuation, spreading loss also becomes an issue in the mmW 434.
bands.  As the Friis transmission law states, path loss grows with the square of the frequency, even when 
radio waves are traveling through a vacuum.  The caveat, however, is that Friis’s law applies only to 
transmissions from omnidirectional antennas.  As a recent technical study and analysis explains, “[T]he 
smaller wavelength of mmW signals also enables proportionally greater antenna gain for the same 
physical antenna size.  Consequently, the higher frequencies of mmW signals do not in themselves result 
in any increased free space propagation loss, provided the antenna area remains fixed and suitable 
directional transmissions are used.”
1148
  In short, the directionality of the antennas that are feasible at 
shorter wavelengths may result in less path loss than theorized.  Based upon this preliminary analysis, we 
believe the bands might be valuable for a variety of uses, including mobile as well as fixed uses.
In determining whether new and different services can coexist in these bands, we must 435.
also look at whether the new service use can be authorized in a manner that does not disrupt the 
incumbent use (or otherwise, we could decide to disrupt the incumbent use), and whether the existing use 
can and should continue to expand.  Specific to this analysis is whether the current and potential future 
fixed point-to-point uses of these bands might be compatible with other types of fixed or mobile uses.
When evaluating the compatibility between fixed and mobile services in the 70/80 GHz 436.
band, one important consideration is the beamwidths of their transmission paths because tighter beams are 
less likely to cause interference. Historically, the Commission has tried to balance the desire for smaller 
                                                     
1148
Sundeep Rangan, Theodore S. Rappaport, and Elza Erkip, Millimeter-Wave Cellular Wireless Networks: 
Potentials and Challenges, Proceedings of the IEEE (Vol. 102, No. 3, March 2014) at 366 (Digital Object Identifier: 
10.1109/JPROC.2014.2299397) (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6732923).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
151
antennas against the spectrum efficiencies of narrow beamwidths in the 70/80 GHz band.  Over the last 
decade, the Commission has continued to explore modifying the technical rules to allow larger 
beamwidths.
1149
  Most recently, on October 13, 2015, WTB’s Broadband Division opened a new docket 
to address two waiver requests seeking a further relaxation of antenna standards in the 71-76 and 81-86 
GHz bands.
1150
  As the waiver requests and comments filed in that docket attest, evidence suggests that 
we might further relax the allowed beamwidth to 2.2 degrees.
1151
  That step, if taken, would bring the 
bands’ technical standards into a realm that is at least potentially compatible with dynamic beamforming 
technology because a 2.2-degree beamwidth is also achievable by the kinds of MIMO base stations that 
will be supporting mmW mobile services.
1152
  At least when operating with beamforming MIMO, these 
base stations would likely be able to coexist with conventional point-to-point Fixed Service links.
1153
The introduction of fixed services under somewhat relaxed directionality requirements in 437.
addition to mmW mobile services pose a new coexistence consideration.  It is likely that, when both fixed 
and mobile mmW services are operated by the same entity, they can sufficiently plan, coordinate, and 
time their use to facilitate coexistence.
1154
  In looking at whether incumbent fixed services, new more 
dynamic fixed services, and potential mobile services (and equipment) in these bands may coexist, it is 
apparent that the use of a central coordinating database capable of calculating and enforcing protections 
among different types of users, like a Spectrum Access System, could facilitate this coexistence.  
Initially, coordination of non-Federal links with Federal operations in the 71-76 GHz, 81-438.
86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz (70/80/90) bands was accomplished under a traditional coordination process:
                                                     
1149
Originally, the Commission adopted a maximum EIRP of +55 decibel watt (dBW) and required a minimum 
antenna gain of 50 dBi with 0.6 degree half-power bandwidth. 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 
23355, para. 96. On reconsideration, the Commission was “persuaded as a policy matter that relaxing the technical 
parameters to allow for lower-gain, wider beamwidth antennas best serves the public interest by promoting 
increased development of the nascent 70/80 GHz industry. . .,” and reduced the minimum antenna gain to 43 dBi, 
with a requirement that the maximum authorized EIRP be reduced by 2 dB for each dB the antenna gain was less 
than 50 dBi.  Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4889, 4905, para. 34 (2005) (70/80/90 GHz Reconsideration Order).  The 
Commission estimated that allowing smaller antennas would expand the potential use of the bands from 20-25 
percent of business locations to 75-80 percent of business locations.  Id.
1150
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Requests of Aviat Networks and CBF Networks, Inc. 
d/b/a Fastback Networks for Waiver of Certain Antenna Requirements in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz Bands, Public 
Notice 30 FCC Rcd 10961 (WTB 2015).
1151
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Requests of Aviat Networks and CBF Networks, 
Inc. d/b/a Fastback Networks for Waiver of Certain Antenna Requirements in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz Bands, 
Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 10961 (WTB 2015).  AT&T, Comsearch, the Fixed Wireless Communications 
Coalition, the Telecommunications Industry Association, and T-Mobile filed comments supporting a relaxation of 
antenna standards.  Dash Networks was the sole commenter opposing the proposal.
1152
See, e.g., Robert W. Heath, Jr., and Tianyang Bai, Cockrell School of Engineering, University of Texas at 
Austin, Coverage and Capacity Analysis of mmWave Cellular Systems (June 15, 2013) at 17 (64-element MIMO 
base station capable of 1.6-degree beamwidth when communicating with mobile units equipped with 16 antenna 
elements) (http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~rheath/presentations/2013/mmWave_coverage_heath.pdf).  See also 
Tianyang Bai, Ahmed Alkhateeb, and  R. W. Heath, Jr., Coverage and Capacity of Millimeter Wave Cellular 
Networks, IEEE Communications Magazine (vol. 52, no. 9, 2014) at 70-77; Tianyang Bai and  R. W. Heath, Jr., 
Coverage and Rate Analysis for Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks, IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications (Vol. 14, no. 2, Feb. 2015) at 1100-1114
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6894455&searchWithin=%22Publication%20Title%22:c
ommunications%20magazine&searchWithin=%22Volume%22:52&searchWithin=%22Issue%22:9&searchWithin=
%22Start%20Page%22:70&newsearch=true).
1153
See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11962, para. 292.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
152
that is, requested non-Federal links were recorded in the Commission’s Universal Licensing System 
(ULS) database and coordinated with the NTIA through the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee 
(IRAC) Frequency Assignment Subcommittee.
1155
  However, beginning on February 8, 2005, this interim 
link registration process was replaced by a permanent process in which third-party database managers are 
responsible for recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database link system and 
coordinating with NTIA’s automated “green light/yellow light” mechanism to determine the potential for 
harmful interference with Federal operations.
1156
  A “green light” response indicates that the link is 
coordinated with the Federal Government; a “yellow light” response indicates a potential for interference 
to Federal Government or certain other operations.
1157
  In the case of a “yellow light,” the licensee must 
file an application for the requested link with the Commission, which in turn will submit the application 
to IRAC for individual coordination.
1158
  This automated process is designed to streamline the 
administrative process for non-Federal users in the bands.  The Commission noted that the classified 
nature of some Federal operations precludes the use of a public database containing both Federal and non-
Federal links.
1159
This system has been effectively used for over a decade to facilitate coexistence between 439.
commercial systems and Federal systems: the technical data needed to avoid interfering with incumbent 
non-Federal licensees is already available in existing registration databases, and an automated system to 
prevent interference with Federal systems is already in place and has been in operation for years.  
Recently, the Commission has developed other means of facilitating spectrum sharing.  In 440.
May 2016, seven parties filed applications to be certified SAS Administrators for the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service.
1160
  The SAS is a critical tool to enable spectrum sharing in the band.  SAS will protect 
incumbent users based on technical criteria, authorize all devices in the band, protect a Priority Access 
Tier, and coordinate a General Authorized Access (GAA) Tier.  By leveraging the SAS computational 
power, protections can be tailored to the characteristics of the systems that require protection, different 
uses with different characteristics can be coordinated in a similar area, and spectrum efficiency can be 
maximized.  Based on the experience with the coordination system for the 70/80 GHz band, and the 
existing rules for the SAS, we propose to establish a SAS-based regulatory framework adapted to the 
constraints and the opportunities of the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands.  In particular, we invite comments 
on the following questions and proposals:
? We propose to establish three tiers of users for the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz band, consisting of: (1) 
Incumbent Access users, which would receive the highest level of protection; (2) Priority Access 
Licensees (PALs); and (3) General Authorized Access (GAA) users.  Each tier would be required 
to prevent interference to, and accept interference from, higher tier users. 
? We seek comment on whether the rules for these bands should be included in Part 30 (Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service) or Part 96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service).
? Incumbent Access:  We propose to continue to protect existing Federal locations and seek 
comment on the ability to add future sites on the same protected basis.  We seek comment on 
whether existing 70/80 GHz licensees and registered links should also qualify for incumbent 
                                                     
1155
70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23343, para. 60.
1156
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB BD 2005).
1157
See generally 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US388, US389.
1158
See 70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23341-43, paras. 52, 54, 58.
1159
See 70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23340, para. 48.
1160
Press Release, FCC, Continuing Momentum in the 3.5 GHz Band (May 17, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/blog/2016/05/17/continuing-momentum-35-ghz-band.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
153
protection.  Alternatively, we seek comment on whether they should be grandfathered for some 
period of time, then required to transition to the new service we propose here (most notably, 
deploy equipment consistent with the technical rules and capable of communicating to an 
SAS).
1161
  To the extent grandfathered links are protected, we propose to require the links to be 
operational and in service, and seek comment on requiring incumbent licensees to certify their 
construction and operational status with the Commission.  We also seek comment on the 
appropriate means for protecting Federal incumbents, including whether we should modify the 
existing system or utilize a more automated system (like a sensor-based system).  Finally, we 
seek comment on the extent to which Federal users could expand their service area and gain 
protected status under the incumbent tier.
? Priority Access:  As in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, we propose to create a Priority 
Access Tier in which we would make PALs available for geographic license areas.  We propose 
to authorize PALs within census tracts, with one-year, non-renewable license terms.  We believe 
that this approach will provide licensees with the certainty required to promote investment while 
maximizing efficient use of the spectrum and incentivizing a variety of innovative deployment 
models.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
? General Authorized Access:  We propose to create a GAA tier, and seek comment on whether the 
tier should be licensed by rule or subject to a “licensed light” regime similar to the existing 
structure for the 70/80 GHz band (non-exclusive nationwide licenses with individual sites 
authorized).  We seek comment on whether the GAA tier should have access to a set channels, 
(i.e., there would be some first-in-time right that would provide some level of certainty) or if we 
should require (or allow) the SAS to dynamically maximize the number of GAA sites in a given 
area.  Finally, we seek comment on whether we should defer authorizing GAA users until the 
conclusion of initial Priority Access license terms.
? Protection Methodology:  We invite comment on the appropriate technical methodologies for 
protecting licensees that are entitled to protection, including but not limited to the following 
alternatives:
a. Require SAS to calculate expected aggregate interference at each incumbent or Priority 
Access receiver, based on their positions and the technical parameters of their equipment, 
together with the corresponding parameters of intruding transmitters.
b. Establish a maximum aggregate received signal level within Priority Access license 
areas, which would be measured in terms of power flux density (PFD) per megahertz of 
bandwidth at specified heights above the ground.
c. Implement an alternate protection scheme whereby the SAS would protect operator-
defined contours around Priority Access base stations to a protection level at a specified 
dBm per megahertz of bandwidth anywhere within the contour.
? Technical Rules:  We propose to establish two classes of licenses for point-to-point operations in 
these bands that will be subject to the technical requirements described below.  
a. Class A licenses would be authorized only for operations at a minimum specified height 
above ground level, would be authorized to use comparatively high power levels, and 
would be required to use tight-beamwidth antennas.  Class B point-to-point licenses 
would be authorized transmit at streetlamp level, with somewhat relaxed beamwidth 
requirements in order to accommodate smaller antennas.  We invite comment on the 
                                                     
1161
See 47 CFR § 90.1338 (discussing grandfathering of existing 3650-3700 MHz operations during transition of 
band to Citizens Broadband Radio Service).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
154
appropriate height limits, power levels, and beamwidth constraints that would be 
appropriate for these purposes.  
b. We propose to authorize dynamic beamforming antennas to provide in-band backhaul so 
long as they conform to the same beamwidth requirements, height limitations, and other 
requirements that apply to conventional antennas used for point-to-point links.
c. We propose to authorize the same dynamic beamforming antennas to serve mobile user 
equipment, with further relaxation of beamwidth requirements, provided that they are 
situated no higher than streetlamp level and provided further that their antennas are 
inclined downward at a minimum specified angle when they are communicating with 
mobile user equipment.  We invite comment on appropriate beamwidths, inclination 
angles, power levels, and height constraints for these purposes.
d. We propose to require that Class A license equipment be professionally installed but that 
non-professionals be allowed to install Class B license equipment and mobile base station 
equipment, provided that the installer is equipped with the necessary geo-location 
equipment or that the equipment itself is capable of ascertaining its location and its 
orientation.
e. We invite comment on technical requirements that would be appropriate for different 
kinds of user equipment in these bands, differentiating between point-to-point, handheld 
mobile equipment, and mobile equipment that will typically be situated more than 20 
centimeters away from people.  We propose to require that user equipment be allowed to 
transmit only when it is locked onto a serving base station, with the possible exception of 
brief pilot or sounding signals.
f. We propose to require SAS to maintain and verify information from registered base 
stations and Fixed Service transmitters and receiver equipment under their coordination, 
and we invite comment on the minimum geographic positioning accuracy that we should 
require, including accuracy with respect to altitude as well as latitude and longitude.  We 
also seek comment on requiring licenses to update registration information if the location 
or operational status of registered base station equipment changes.  We do not propose to 
require SAS to maintain position awareness of mobile user equipment.
g. We propose to establish OOBE limits for all equipment authorized to operate in these 
bands, and we invite comments on the appropriate technical parameters to apply for that 
purpose.
? Indoor Use:  We invite comments on the feasibility of authorizing unlicensed, indoor-only 
operations, subject to Part 15 of our rules.  We have decided not to adopt the NPRM’s proposal to 
authorize unlicensed indoor-only operations in the 37 GHz band, but we believe that the 
comparative amount of signal leakage through windows could be much lower in the 71-76 GHz 
and 81-86 GHz bands, and consequently would be less likely to interfere with outdoor 
operations.
1162
  We seek further information on that issue, especially from commenters that have 
performed relevant tests or have access to the results of such tests.  We note that Part 15 already 
provides technical rules for indoor-only operation in the 92-95 GHz band that are similar to the 
rules in the existing 57-64 GHz band,
1163
but require that these devices be AC-powered in order to 
                                                     
1162
We note that in response to the NPRM, and as discussed supra, a number of parties requested the Commission to 
permit indoor use of the 72.5-76 GHz band by unlicensed devices.  These parties also requested unlicensed 
operation (both indoors and outdoors) in the 64-72.5 GHz band, (instead of the narrower 64-71 GHz band as the 
Commission proposed in the NPRM,) which the Commission denied.  See supra, Section IV.D (64-71 GHz). 
1163
47 CFR § 15.257.  We also note that thus far, there has been no unlicensed equipment authorized under these 
rules.  See https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
155
ensure that they only operate indoors.
1164
  If we allow unlicensed operation at 71-
76 GHz/81-86 GHz, should similar technical rules apply?  What additional restrictions should be 
added to ensure that this type of equipment will not interfere with authorized services, as 
indicated above, that are currently operating in these bands?  Alternatively, would registered 
indoor GAA use be a better mechanism for facilitating indoor use of these bands?  We seek 
comment on this and any other relevant issue regarding unlicensed and indoor operations within 
this spectrum.
? We propose to extend the same requirements and privileges to all parts of the United States, but 
we also invite comment on the alternative of establishing a separate regulatory framework for the 
16 counties that are heavily registered with incumbent users.
1165
? We propose to require SAS to be capable of performing the following operations:
a. Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic location and assign them to 
PAL and/or GAA licensees;
b. Determine the maximum permissible transmission power level for incumbent, PAL, and 
GAA licensees at a given location and communicate that information;
c. Register and authenticate the identification information and location of incumbent, PAL 
and GAA licensees;
d. Enforce Exclusion and Protection Zones, including any future changes to such Zones, to 
ensure compatibility between non-Federal users of spectrum in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 
GHz bands and incumbent Federal operations;
e. Ensure that PAL and GAA licensees protect non-Federal incumbent users consistent with 
the rules;
f. Protect Priority Access Licensees from impermissible interference from other users;
g. Facilitate coordination between GAA users to promote a stable spectral environment;
h. Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between the SAS, ESC, and PAL 
and GAA licensees;
i. Provide any ESC that we might approve with any sensing information reported by PAL 
and GAA licensees if available;
j. Facilitate coordination and information exchange with other SASs and exchange 
information, as needed, with NTIA.
We also seek comment on alternative methods of authorizing additional access to these 441.
bands, including exclusive use licensing and unlicensed.  As discussed, authorizing new flexible use 
operations in these bands is difficult given the incumbent fixed commercial and Federal operations.  How 
would an exclusive use licensing or unlicensed access models work?  How would incumbents be 
protected and be permitted to expand?  Could the Commission auction overlay licenses that allow the 
auction winner to negotiate with the incumbents in the area for their rights?  How could unlicensed 
operations sufficiently protect incumbents?  Have circumstances changed since the Commission declined 
                                                     
1164
47 CFR § 15.257(a)(1) requires that “devices operating under the provisions of this section, by the nature of 
their design, must be capable of operation only indoors. The necessity to operate with a fixed indoor infrastructure, 
e.g., a transmitter that must be connected to the AC power lines, may be considered sufficient to demonstrate this.” 
1165
As of June 10, 2016 the sixteen counties that have a site density of  more than one transmit or receive site per 
square mile include Hudson, NJ; San Francisco, CA; New York, NY; Union, NJ; Essex, NJ; Bergen, NJ; Kings, 
NY; Middlesex, NJ; Richmond, NY; Passaic, NJ; Bronx, NY; Dupage, IL; Queens, NY; Suffolk, MA; Washington, 
DC; Cook, IL.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
156
to allow unlicensed operations in these bands in 2003?  We seek comment on these and other issues 
implicated in any alternative licensing or authorization scheme.
8. Bands Above 95 GHz
In the NPRM we noted that several parties expressed support for making additional 442.
spectrum available in the upper reaches of the spectrum, particularly above 95 GHz.
1166
  We invited 
parties to submit proposals for use of this spectrum, including proposals for authorizing use under our 
Part 15 rules for unlicensed devices.  Commenters generally did not respond to this request, but we 
recognize that the NPRM explored many spectrum issues and commenters may have chosen to focus on 
the specific proposals for the frequency bands below 95 GHz.  Moreover, we are aware that operations 
above 95 GHz involve nascent technology that is being developed by small companies that may not be 
accustomed to participating in FCC proceedings.  Nevertheless, we are committed to developing a record 
that will provide a basis for proposing rules that will encourage the introduction of new services and 
devices above 95 GHz.
The spectrum from 95 to 275 GHz has been allocated for a variety of different types of 443.
Federal and non-Federal radio services.  In addition, the international Table of Frequency Allocations has 
been extended from 275 to 1,000 GHz for specific services and, in a separate proceeding, we are 
considering how to amend the United States table.
1167
  The bands above 95 GHz have already been 
identified for services that typically involve the reception of extremely weak signals, such as radio 
astronomy, space research, and Earth Exploration Satellite.  All of the bands, with some minor 
exceptions, are allocated on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.
We recognize that signals in the frequency bands above 95 GHz will attenuate rapidly, 444.
intuitively tending to minimize the risk of harmful interference to other radio services.  However, this 
does not by itself provide a basis for proposing to allow use of any spectrum above 95 GHz.  We believe 
the process of facilitating technology above 95 GHz can best be advanced by identifying specific 
frequency bands rather than attempting to address all parts of the spectrum above 95 GHz.  Accordingly, 
we take this opportunity to solicit information on the specific parts of the spectrum that would be most 
attractive from the standpoint of technology development while successfully coexisting with the types of 
radio communications services that operate under the existing allocations.
1168
In identifying specific frequency bands, we ask commenters to provide specific analyses 445.
to justify any claims that there are no risks of harmful interference to other radio services.   Which bands 
should be made available for licensed or unlicensed use?  Is there sufficient information to identify where 
and on what frequencies both existing and planned radio astronomy, space research, Earth Exploration 
Satellite, and similar users will actually operate?  What technical rules may be appropriate?  For parties 
supporting unlicensed use, will it be necessary to control the locations of operation to prevent harmful 
interference to radio astronomy, space research, Earth Exploration Satellite, or other services?  If so, how 
could the areas of permissible operations be controlled under the unlicensed rules?  For bands that 
commenters believe should be made available on a licensed basis, should the new Part 30 rules or other 
                                                     
1166
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11955, paras. 89-91.
1167
See supra para. 2. The Commission has proposed to expand the Table of Frequency Allocations up to 3,000 
GHz and not to allocate spectrum above 275 GHz to any service. See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97 and 101 
of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication 
Conference (Geneva, 2012), ET Docket No. 15-99, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4269-70. In 
making this proposal, the Commission stated that it is premature to establish an allocation in this frequency range 
and tentatively concluded that “it is necessary to avoid spectrum use restrictions and maintain flexibility in our 
spectrum allocation decisions to support the development of new uses in the future.” Id.
1168
As noted in the NPRM, we will consider a petition for rulemaking filed by Battelle Memorial Institute in our 
Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-153.  See NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 11907, para. 91; Petition for 
Rulemaking, Battelle Memorial Institute, RM-11713 (filed Feb. 6, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
157
service rules apply?  How would we create a licensing scheme for signals that generally propagate over 
very short distances?  Should we permit both mobile and fixed service?  What technical rules should 
apply?  We encourage parties to file comments addressing these matters.
B. Federal Sharing Issues - 37 GHz band (37-38.6 GHz)
Background.  In the Report and Order, we adopt rules to enable Federal and non-Federal 446.
co-primary geographic sharing. The licensing approach divides the 37 GHz band into two segments, a 
lower band segment from 37-37.6 GHz and an upper band segment from 37.6-38.6 GHz, with differing 
licensing rules.  By adopting this licensing scheme we have accomplished two goals.  First, we developed 
an effective sharing paradigm between Federal and non-Federal users throughout the band that ensures 
both are able to use the band now and in the future.  Second, by applying the same licensing and technical 
rules to the upper band segment and the 39 GHz band, we have created 2,400 megahertz of contiguous 
spectrum that will give commercial operators the flexibility to combine or pair this spectrum to suit their 
own needs.  We find that the sharing scheme in the lower band segment will facilitate expanded access 
for next generation wireless services; make spectrum available for both important Federal missions and 
wireless broadband needs; and create an environment establishing robust Federal and non-Federal sharing 
on a coordinated and flexible basis that could be applied in other bands to further enhance sharing 
generally and specifically Federal and non-Federal sharing.  
Discussion.  As we indicated in the Report and Order, FCC staff will – in coordination 447.
with NTIA, DOD, and other Federal and non-Federal stakeholders – further define the sharing framework 
by more fully developing the coordination mechanisms we adopt for the lower band segment.  We also 
seek comment on adopting methods for shared (Federal and non-Federal) access of the upper band 
segment, including through a use or share requirement, and how to facilitate coordination for potential 
future Federal access across the licensed portions.  Thus we seek comment on the issues described below.  
1. Coordination Mechanism for the Lower Band Segment  
As explained above in the Report and Order, the lower band segment is available for 448.
coordinated coequal sharing between Federal fixed and mobile users and non-Federal fixed and mobile 
users.  Non-Federal fixed and mobile users, which we will identify as Shared Access Licensees (SALs), 
will be authorized by rule.  Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users will access the band by 
registering individual sites through a coordination mechanism.  The Report and Order explained that FCC 
staff will work with stakeholders, both Federal and non-Federal, to help develop the details of the 
coordination process.  Here, we seek comment on the coordination mechanism – that is, the regulatory, 
technical, or procedural tool necessary to actually facilitate coordinated access.  Our expectation is that 
some of the issues raised here may be further developed through the collaborative process between the 
FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other Federal users set out in the Report and Order, as well as through comments 
in response to this FNPRM.  
We believe that a robust coordination mechanism is essential to ensuring that both 449.
Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users have effective coordinated access to the lower band 
segment.  The coordination mechanism will authorize a particular user to use a particular bandwidth of 
spectrum at a particular location.  To do so efficiently and effectively, it must be able to obtain 
information about the type of equipment used, the signal contour from the coordinated location, and the 
bandwidth requested compared with the bandwidth available.  As discussed below, it must also be 
capable of regularly updating the status of a coordinated location (on/off or authorized/unauthorized).  
Moreover, it will have to incorporate this type of information for both Federal and non-Federal fixed and 
mobile uses.  Here, the sharing environment is relatively straight forward – there are limited incumbent 
uses that need to be protected, and Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users will have coequal 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
158
rights to the band.  We also believe that the propagation characteristics of this band might help minimize 
the complexity of the coordination mechanism.
1169
We note that historically the Commission has used manual frequency coordination 450.
managed by third party frequency coordinators.  Recently however, the Commission finalized the rules 
for the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service, which relies not on a static frequency coordination 
mechanism, but on a dynamic mechanism known as a Spectrum Access System (SAS) that coordinates 
uses among different tiers of users, rather than on an individual basis.  We seek comment on the most 
appropriate mechanism for the lower band segment.  Should we rely on static, manual frequency 
coordination, a dynamic SAS-type mechanism, or something in between?  For instance, would the 
advanced capabilities of automated coordination from SAS present advantages over other types of 
coordination?  Is a full SAS implementation, consistent with the Part 96 requirements, appropriate here?
We also seek comment on the protection or operation contours necessary for the 451.
coordination mechanism to reserve a quantity of spectrum at a location for a user.  In the Report and 
Order, we establish technical rules for operation in the lower band segment, which are consistent with the 
rules adopted for the 28 GHz band, the 39 GHz band, and the upper band segment of the 37 GHz band.  
Based on this technical information, should we establish a maximum protection contour for coordinated 
sites?  Alternatively, should we allow the coordinated party to request less or more protection?
1170
  
Although non-Federal fixed and mobile users must follow the coordination requirements 452.
that we adopted in the Report and Order to protect the Federal sites listed in Section 30.205 of our 
rules,
1171
  we seek comment on how to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal fixed and 
mobile users.  Ideally, Federal fixed and mobile uses would comply with the same or similar technical 
requirements as non-Federal fixed and mobile uses.  For instance, NTIA might establish in its Manual of 
Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management
1172
a set of technical rules for 
operations in this band, there could be a notation in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, or we could 
rely on some other means.  We seek comment on these and other mechanisms.  Absent consistent (or 
known) technical rules governing Federal operations, how should the coordination mechanism account 
for their protection or operational area of these operations? 
Finally, we seek comment on how best to coordinate Federal access.  Is it feasible for 453.
Federal users rely on the same coordination mechanism as non-Federal?  How should the coordination 
mechanism address information security issues particular to Federal users?  We seek comment on the 
means of achieving information security, including ways for the information to be masked, e.g., by having 
Federal users coordinate through a Federal intermediary that interfaces with the non-Federal coordination 
mechanism, such as the existing mechanism in the 70/80/90 GHz band.
2. Channelization of the Lower Band Segment  
As discussed in the Report and Order, the lower band segment consists of 600 megahertz 454.
of spectrum from 37-37.6 GHz.  Although we adopt a channelization plan for the upper band segment, we 
did not do so for the lower band segment.  Thus, we propose to guarantee users in the lower band segment 
a minimum channel size.  Specifically, we propose to establish a 100 megahertz minimum channel size.  
We also propose, however, to allow users to aggregate 100 megahertz channels into larger channel sizes, 
up to the maximum of 600 megahertz where available (subject to use requirements as described below).  
                                                     
1169
See generally para. 6, supra.
1170
We note that in the 3.5 GHz band, the Commission established a two-pronged approach wherein licensees are 
able to report their own protection contour, up to a technically defined maximum.
1171
See supra Section IV.E.2 (Federal Sharing Issues; 37-38.6 GHz).  See also Appendix D, infra.  
1172
NTIA’s Redbook, or Manual of Regulations and Procedure for Federal Radio Frequency Management, governs 
Federal spectrum allocation and use.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
159
We also find that our proposal to adopt a minimum channel size of 100 megahertz strikes 455.
the right balance between providing enough spectrum for a diversity of wireless uses with helping to 
minimize the complexity of the coordination mechanism.  We note that while most commenters in this 
proceeding generally favor channel sizes of 200 megahertz or greater, other commenters suggest that 
smaller channel sizes can still facilitate robust wireless broadband services.
1173
  By permitting users to 
aggregate up to 600 megahertz channels, we find that we have enabled maximum flexibility for a variety 
of use cases involving a variety of channel sizes.  We seek comment on these proposals.  We also seek 
comment on alternative approaches, including whether we should adopt 100 megahertz or a larger 
minimum channel size.  In addition, we seek comment on whether we should refrain from setting a 
minimum channel size and instead require the coordination mechanism to attempt to maximize the 
number of users in a given area.
3. Authorization Expiration/Construction Requirement for the Lower Band 
Segment  
To achieve a robust and efficient sharing environment and prevent spectrum 456.
warehousing, we propose that registered non-Federal sites must be put into service within seven days of 
coordination and that registered and coordinated sites must reassert their registration every seven days.  
For example, if we rely on a database for coordination, a user could query the database for available 
frequencies at a location, and reserve those frequencies for seven days.  Within seven days, it would need 
to activate a device that is capable of notifying the database that it is active on the channel.  That device 
would then check in with the database (or receive and respond to a message from the database) at least 
once every seven days.  If the device fails to check in within the seven day period, its authorization would 
lapse.  We seek comment on this proposal.  Are these time frames appropriate?  Are there other tools to 
ensure the spectrum is put to use consistent with the public interest?  
4. Priority Access for Federal Users of the Lower Band Segment  
We recognize that Federal users’ needs are not necessarily commensurate with non-457.
Federal users’ needs.  The use cases will likely differ, the level of certainty and protection or a use related 
to a critical defense or national security mission may vary.  We therefore seek comment on whether we 
should make a portion of the lower band segment available for priority access by Federal users.  For 
instance, should we allow Federal users to claim priority access to up to 200 megahertz of the 600 
megahertz lower band segment?  Could the coordination mechanism statically reserve this space or 
dynamically make it available when requested?  For instance, if the entire band is in use, could the 
database reconfigure the channels or clear the necessary channel size?
5. Interference Mitigation in the Lower Band Segment  
We seek comment on any necessary enforcement mechanism in the lower band segment 458.
to help identify and rectify interference events.  Because we propose to require users in the lower band 
segment to coordinate on a site-basis, it may be easier to identify and rectify any interference issues that 
may arise.  We recognize, however, that there may be users and uses, both Federal and non-Federal, for 
which any interference may be significantly problematic.  Therefore, we seek comment on any additional 
interference mitigation and enforcement mechanisms that might be necessary.
6. Secondary Market Policies for the Lower Band Segment
Finally, we seek comment on whether and how to apply secondary market rules to the 459.
lower band segment.  As proposed, the band will be made available on a site-by-site basis.  Partitioning 
and disaggregation generally do not apply in site-based licensing circumstances.  Should they apply here, 
and if so, how?  Should we apply our leasing rules?  What are the benefits to secondary market rules for 
the lower band segment relative to other ways to gain access to the spectrum? 
                                                     
1173
See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 7 (supporting further consideration of 29.1-29.25 GHz band), XO Comments 
at 15-16 (same).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
160
7. Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing in the Upper Band Segment
As described above in the Report and Order, the upper band segment, 37.6-38.6 GHz, is 460.
divided into five channels each 200 megahertz wide.  The upper band segment will be available on a 
geographic basis (with protected Federal sites) via auction.  The technical and service rules we adopt 
allow continuity between the upper band segment and the 39 GHz band, which provides 2400 megahertz 
of contiguous spectrum under the same licensing and technical rules.  Given the types of uses that may be 
deployed in the 37 GHz band and the flexible build out requirements that we adopt in the Report and
Order, there may be significant unused spectrum in in the upper band segment at any given time.  To 
improve the spectrum efficiency and provide an opportunity for Shared Access Licensees and Federal
users to expand in a manner that does not impact geographically licensed uses, we propose to permit 
shared access of the unused portions of the five channels in the upper band segment, under certain 
conditions.  We also seek comment on establishing a process by which Federal users could coordinate 
with licensees for future expanded access in the upper band segment.
We note that the Commission has found spectrum sharing to be an effective tool to 461.
maximize spectrum efficiency.  In the 700 MHz band, the Commission adopted a performance 
requirement that results in the licensee losing its unconstructed license area.  In the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service, Priority Access License areas that are not in use must be made available for General 
Authorized Access use.  Moreover, in the Report and Order, to meet the applicable performance 
requirements, licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band may choose to share access to their licensed 
spectrum.  Furthermore, we believe that the prospect of future shared access (on a coordinated and non-
interference basis) to the remainder of the band may create incentives for investment and innovation in 
the shared channel.
We understand that upper band segment licensees may make reasonable business 462.
decisions to not serve particular parts of a licensed area, and that these decisions may change over time. In 
an environment where these unserved areas are shared, it is important to be able to both accurately 
identify the areas in use and enable the geographic area licensees to expand or contract their coverage as 
necessary.  Under our proposal, the upper band segment licensee would retain the primary right to 
construct and provide service anywhere within its license area at any time, and any operations undertaken 
on a shared basis would be subject to displacement by the primary licensee.  We therefore propose to 
require licensees to provide information about the extent of their operations at some future point in order 
to enable shared access.
We also seek comment on when we should phase in shared access.  Would it be 463.
appropriate to phase in shared access at the end of the initial license term, or would it be appropriate to 
adopt a sharing requirement at an earlier time (e.g., 5 years from the date the upper band segment 
geographic area license is granted).  We seek comment on the scope of the information that the incumbent 
licensee must provide to the coordinating mechanism.  Would a map with simple protection contours be 
sufficient, or would additional information be necessary?  We also seek comment on the appropriate 
mechanism for dealing with multiple requests to share the same spectrum in the same location.  Should 
we adopt a first-come, first-served approach, require multiple parties to share unused spectrum amongst 
themselves, or adopt some other mechanism?
In the Report and Order, we established coordination zones around three Space Research 464.
Service sites and 14 military sites that apply across the entire 37 GHz band, including the upper band 
segment.  As we envision non-Federal users being able to coordinate for access on within the 14 military 
sites, we seek comment on additional circumstances and methods under which the upper band segment 
can be made for expanded future Federal use, in addition to the shared access scheme described above.  
For example, should we establish a required coordination process under which Federal users could 
formally request coordinated access from a licensee?  If we establish such a process, how do we properly 
balance the respective rights and interests of Federal users and non-Federal licensees?  How would we 
ensure co-existence between deployed commercial systems (or planned systems) and the Federal system 
that is seeking coordinated access?  Should we impose an obligation on UMFUS licensees to consider in 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
161
good faith such coordination requests from Federal users?  What standards should we establish for 
consideration of such coordination requests?  Are there alternative ways of ensuring that Federal users 
can take advantage of their co-primary fixed and mobile allocations while protecting the rights of non-
Federal licensees?  Are there lessons and recommendations that we can incorporate form the ongoing 
work within the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee?
1174
  We seek comment on all 
issues relating to Federal access to the upper band segment.
C. Performance Requirements
1. Additional Metrics  
In the above Report and Order, we adopt a list of performance metrics for measuring 465.
sufficient use of a license to qualify for renewal.
1175
  We acknowledge that this list is not exhaustive, and 
in particular, does not contain metrics designed to accommodate new and innovative services that may 
develop in the millimeter wave bands.  We therefore seek comment on additional performance metrics 
that will better accommodate these new services while fulfilling our statutory obligation to encourage 
productive use of spectrum and avoid warehousing and speculation.  
In particular, we seek comment on an appropriate metric to evaluate the deployment and 466.
performance of an “Internet of Things” type service, which is designed primarily to facilitate machine-to-
machine communication.  Such services may or may not be deployed in areas of substantial residential 
population, and may or may not be designed to serve unaffiliated customers.  Examples of this type of 
service would include the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems described by 
Southern Co.
1176
  Because of the unique characteristics of these machine-to-machine services, we propose 
to develop a distinct metric by which to measure the deployment of such services, rather than attempting 
to modify a population coverage approach for this purpose.  We seek comment on this proposal, including 
specific suggestions for what aspects of such services should be measured, how they should be measured, 
and what specific levels would constitute an acceptable level of service.
Several commenters suggested that we measure performance for all services in the 467.
millimeter wave bands on the basis of actual use of the service, including number of devices connected, 
volume of data transmitted, or number of sessions initiated on the network.
1177
  We seek further comment 
on these metrics, including specific numbers for the levels of devices, sessions, and data volume that 
commenters believe would be appropriate milestones.  Would one of these metrics be the most 
appropriate way to measure deployment of an Internet of Things or machine-to-machine type service?  
We also seek comment on whether and how it would be practical to implement this type of usage-based 
requirement.  How could the Commission verify information provided by licensees?  Should all kinds of 
devices, sessions, and/or data be counted equally?  How should such a requirement be structured to ensure 
that it both measures and encourages meaningful service, rather than gamesmanship?  
As some commenters note, licensees in these bands may seek to provide service to areas 468.
with high daytime or transient populations but low or no residential populations, such as corporate 
campuses, interstate highways, or event venues.
1178
  We seek comment on how to define such locations 
for the purposes of evaluating service coverage.  We also seek comment on the appropriate framework for 
                                                     
1174
See Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Federal Access to Non-Federal 
Bands, “Subcommittee Update:  Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands,” (June 8, 2016), available at
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_subcommittee_federal_access_to_non_federal_bands_-_6-8-
16_update.pdf.
1175
See supra Section IV.F.7 (Performance Requirements).
1176
Southern Co. Reply at 3.
1177
5G Americas Comments at 9-11, TIA Comments at 25-28.
1178
XO Comments at 21-22.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
162
incorporating coverage of such locations into an overall performance metric.  Would a venue per 
population metric be appropriate, similar to the current treatment for fixed links?  Should the applicable 
milestone be based on the daytime or transient population served by such venues or traffic corridors?  
How should such population be measured?
We also seek comment on any other types of service being contemplated by potential 469.
providers, as well as metrics that would be appropriate to measure performance or build-out of those 
services.
Finally, in the Report and Order we explain that licensees may demonstrate combinations 470.
of fixed and mobile deployments in order to meet their performance requirement, and that we intend to 
review the showings on a case-by-case basis.
1179
  Here, we seek comment on whether to establish clear 
benchmarks or even guidance for the amount of buildout that might be adequate in these combined 
showings.  For instance, should we establish a scale with levels showing acceptable combinations of 
mobile and fixed deployment, where either mobile or fixed is increased relative to the other?  Or should 
we establish variations depending on the population density of a given license area, the land mass of the 
area, or some other factor?  We seek comment on any other means to provide flexibility and clarity in 
how we may measure combined showings, or whether we should continue to review the showings on a 
case-by-case basis as contemplated in the Report and Order.
2. Sharing Mechanisms
Background.  In the NPRM, we proposed a “use-or-share” rule that would supplement 471.
performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is put to efficient and productive use.
1180
  Mechanisms 
for sharing unused spectrum are currently present in other bands licensed by the Commission, including a 
“keep what you use” regime in the 700 MHz band,
1181
and a three-tier shared access system in the 3.5 
GHz band that makes geographically licensed spectrum available opportunistically.
1182
  These and other 
mechanisms can be effective tools to allow licensees to construct networks consistent with their 
deployment plans and business models, and also make spectrum that a licensee has chosen not to use 
available for other users.  
Some commenters support a more intensive sharing regime, including OTI and Public 472.
Knowledge, Facebook, Microsoft, and Federated Wireless.
1183
  These commenters argue that adopting a 
SAS-driven sharing approach similar to that in 3.5 GHz would allow otherwise fallow spectrum to be 
productively used, and support that development of innovative uses of spectrum in these bands.
1184
    
Many commenters, however, generally oppose any use or share regime.
1185
  These commenters provide 
very little concrete detail in their discussion of the proposal, and generally do not address our specific 
questions relating to how we might implement this kind of sharing regime. Other than objecting to the 
                                                     
1179
See supra Section IV.F.7 (Performance Requirements).
1180
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11941, para. 215.
1181
47 CFR § 27.14(h).  WCS licensees with REAG authorizations in Block C and Block C2 must meet construction 
requirements for each EA within the REAG.  Authorization terminates automatically at the end of the license term 
for any EA in which the licensee has not met the construction requirements.
1182
47 CFR §§ 96.15 – 96.38.
1183
Facebook Comments at 6-7, Federated Wireless Comments at 20-21, Microsoft Reply at 12-13, OTI and Public 
Knowledge Comments at 5.
1184
Federated Wireless Comments at 20-21, Microsoft Reply at 12-13, NCTA Comments at 10-11, OTI and Public 
Knowledge Comments at 20-21.
1185
AT&T Comments at 20-21, CTIA Comments at 26-27, HTSC Comments at 5, Intel Comments at 20-23, Mobile 
Future Comments at 16, NCTA Comments at 10-11, Nokia Comments at 20, Qualcomm Comments at 14, TIA 
Comments at 26 n.56, Verizon Comments at 20-21.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
163
burden of providing deployment information to a database or SAS, commenters also do not address what 
the specific costs of a use-or-share system might be.
1186
  Opposition was primarily in the form of general 
objections to increased uncertainty,
1187
lower flexibility,
1188
and increased potential for interference.
1189
  
Some commenters also argue that a use-or-share system is premature given the state of both the 
technology in these bands and technologies that would support sharing.
1190
In the NPRM, the Commission posited that the relatively short propagation characteristics 473.
of the bands above 24 GHz enable significant spectrum reuse, which makes these bands good candidates 
for sharing.
1191
In addition, the record suggests one use case for UMFUS spectrum is targeted, 
geographically-limited coverage, instead of traditional cellular-like deployment.
1192
  To the extent that this 
type of small-cell bandwidth augmentation or geographically limited (in terms of area covered) use cases 
proliferate, additional methods beyond traditional performance requirements, like shared access of unused 
spectrum, may help ensure that we meet our statutory obligation to prevent the warehousing of 
spectrum.
1193
Discussion.  Given the relatively limited record on the substantive issues regarding 474.
mechanisms for sharing unused portions of UMFUS licenses, we seek further comment on the possibility 
of implementing a use-or-share regime in the UMFUS bands.  We continue to believe that a use-or-share 
regime may have the potential to enhance the efficiency and productivity of spectrum, if properly 
implemented.  In particular, given the propagation characteristics, and high potential for re-use, of the 
mmW spectrum, we seek comment on whether such a regime could maximize the efficient use of these 
spectrum bands.  We further seek comment on the costs and benefits of adopting mechanisms for sharing 
unused UMFUS spectrum, as well as on the incentives that particular sharing regimes will create.  In 
addition, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring UMFUS licensees to share unused 
portions of their license in addition to, or in lieu of, meeting specific construction requirements, 
particularly in geographically licensed bands such as 28 GHz and 39 GHz.
In crafting an effective mechanism to share unused spectrum, there are two governing 475.
considerations:  first, ensuring the licensee has exclusive use of the areas in which it is using the 
spectrum; and second, creating an efficient mechanism that both makes unused spectrum available and 
protects the licensee from interference.  There are a variety of potential options for enhanced sharing 
mechanisms that address these considerations.  We seek comment generally on the following 
opportunistic sharing mechanisms:  a fully dynamic sharing solution, facilitated by a SAS or other third-
party database; a modified shared access system that would be less dynamic but simpler; an unlicensed 
shared access approach, similar to white spaces, and other alternatives.  
We seek comment on variations of a use it or share it mechanism.  A potential drawback 476.
of a keep what you use mechanism is that the Commission must reclaim, and later re-auction, the unused
portions of the band, which takes time and minimizes a licensee’s ability to decide later to deploy in an 
area (which is also a feature of the approach because it incentivizes maximum initial deployment).  Use or 
share mechanisms permit a licensee to retain control of its license area, but require the licensee to share 
with other entrants in portions of the license area in which it is not operating.  A use or share mechanism 
                                                     
1186
XO Comments at 29-32.
1187
AT&T Comments at 20-21, HTSC Comments at 5, Qualcomm Comments at 14, Nokia Reply at 4.
1188
Mobile Future Comments at 16. 
1189
AT&T Comments at 20-21, XO Comments at 29-32.
1190
AT&T Comments at 20-21, CCA Reply at 10-12, CTIA Comments at 26-27, Intel Comments at 20-23.
1191
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11941, para. 215.
1192
CTIA May 24, Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.
1193
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
164
may be less administratively burdensome than keep what you use, and may also allow a greater number of 
users to access the shared spectrum.  There are a number of possible variations of use or share, all of 
which share characteristics of basic frequency coordination. 
One option would be to automate shared access to enable dynamic opportunistic sharing.  477.
In a dynamic sharing solution, licensees would have some initial period of time to build out their 
networks.  After this period, information about the extent of licensees’ deployment would be made 
available, and other entities would be free to deploy outside of the area used by the licensee’s operations 
on a coordinated basis, subject to further expansion by the licensee.  We seek comment on whether an 
automated dynamic use or share mechanism would be appropriate in the mmW bands.  Generally, these 
shared users would need to operate similar technologies subject to the same technical rules as the licensee 
to maximize spectrum efficiency and economies of scale with respect to equipment.  We seek comment 
on whether the propagation characteristics of these bands might facilitate shared access with slightly 
different technical rules.  With respect to the sharing mechanism, what types of information, and what 
level of detail, would be required to facilitate dynamic sharing?  Should opportunistic users be authorized 
on a license-by-rule basis, or by some other method?  Should opportunistic users be afforded some level 
of interference protection from each other, and if so what should that level be?  
Another option is to rely on more traditional frequency coordination, typically used in 478.
point-to-point microwave, shared millimeter wave bands, and other services today.  Under a simple 
frequency coordination process, the licensee’s operations would be protected around a contour, and new 
sites would be individually coordinated into the license area.  While a database could further automate 
this process, it may not be necessary given the relatively simple sharing regime.  We seek comment on 
whether a sharing mechanism based on traditional frequency coordination would be appropriate for the 
mmW bands.
Yet another option is to established pre-defined geographic areas that will be available 479.
for shared access, depending on a licensee’s construction.  For instance, if a licensee meets its 
performance requirement, we could find that any county (or other unit of geographic area) in which it has 
any operation is unavailable for sharing.  For example, a licensee of a PEA might deploy heavily in some 
counties but not others; the heavily-deployed counties would then be deemed “in use,” while the counties 
with no deployment would be available for opportunistic use in undeployed areas.  We seek comment on 
the appropriateness of this mechanism as a whole, and on the specific details.  What level of subdivision 
would best accommodate both licensee certainty and sharing opportunity?  Should we stop at the county 
level, or should we further subdivide into census tracts or census blocks?  What level of deployment in 
each subdivision should qualify that area for “used” status?  How should we enable sharing – through a 
database, individual coordination, or some other method?
Finally, we also seek comment on implementing unlicensed shared access, similar to TV 480.
white spaces, in the unused portions of the UMFUS bands.  In this case, opportunistic users would 
operate on an unlicensed basis at lower power in any area where the licensee was not actually deployed.  
We seek comment on whether and how to implement such a system in the millimeter wave bands.  Would 
this system require a third-party database, similar to the dynamic sharing solution described above?  How 
should we draw the contours around licensee deployments?  Should we use a fixed radius, or an 
interference contour at a certain level, or some other metric?  Would this method be preferable to a 
dynamic sharing solution where the opportunistic users and the licensee followed the same technical 
rules?  Are there technical benefits to this approach?  Will there be sufficient scale to drive more special-
purpose equipment development?
To the extent that we implement any variation of a use it or share it mechanism in the 481.
mmW bands, certain key aspects of that mechanism must be defined.  Most importantly, we seek 
comment on how to define a licensee’s “use” of its licensed spectrum.  Should “use” be defined 
geographically, either by the service area of a network or by a defined radius or contour around deployed 
equipment?  In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission recently adopted an engineering 
metric to determine the extent to which Priority Access Licenses are in use.  Licensees can define the area 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
165
of use subject to an objective maximum.
1194
  Should we follow this model?  Should “use” be defined 
differently for different types of deployments, for example mobile vs. fixed links?  Additionally, we seek 
comment on how best to allow the licensee room to expand beyond its area of actual deployment (or its 
“used” spectrum, however ultimately defined).  For example, should we define a contour for an additional 
protected area?  If so, on what basis and how often should we do so?  Should we set some level at which a 
subdivision of a license area would be declared “used” in its entirety, and off-limits to opportunistic use?  
If so, what subdivisions and what level of deployment would be appropriate (e.g., 40% of the geographic 
area of a census tract)?  Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate level of protection for licensees at 
the boundaries between “used” and “unused” areas.  Should the level of cross-border interference 
protection be the same as that between two licensees, or would some other limit, either higher or lower, 
be more appropriate?
In addition to the inquiries above, we seek comment on any other mechanisms of 482.
opportunistic sharing that could enhance spectrum efficiency in the UMFUS bands, as well as any other 
aspects of such a system that would be required to ensure it could be reliably and effectively 
implemented.  We especially seek comment from any entity interested in using spectrum on an 
opportunistic basis in these bands.  What technologies or business cases would lend themselves to this 
type of spectrum access?  Which sharing mechanism, described above or otherwise, would best 
accommodate that use?
D. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
As discussed above, today we adopt an ex ante spectrum aggregation limit of 1250 483.
megahertz that will apply to licensees acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands 
through competitive bidding.
1195
  By helping to ensure that multiple providers have access to the spectrum 
we make available today, the spectrum aggregation policies we adopt support our overarching goals of 
facilitating competition, innovation, and the efficient use of the spectrum.  We seek comment below on 
additional mobile spectrum holdings issues related to how to implement the spectrum aggregation limit; 
the appropriate holding period; and whether a spectrum aggregation limit would be appropriate as 
additional “frontier” spectrum bands become available.
1. Implementation of a Spectrum Aggregation Limit at Auction
Accounting for Existing Holdings and Geographic License Area in Determining 484.
Eligibility to Bid.  As noted above, of the 986 designated license areas in the 28 GHz band, 412 areas 
have active licenses, which cover about 75 percent of the U.S. population,
1196
while the 37 GHz band is 
not yet licensed, and in the 39 GHz band, current licensed areas cover about 49 percent of the U.S. 
population.
1197
  Further, in terms of geographic licensed areas, the 28 GHz band will be licensed on a 
county basis across the U.S., while the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands will be licensed by PEA.
1198
For purposes of assessing eligibility to bid across the three spectrum bands, as noted 485.
above, any given entity cannot hold more than 1250 megahertz of this spectrum in total.  Taking into 
                                                     
1194
Amendment to the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, 
Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, GN Docket 12-354, FCC 16-66, at para. 174 (rel. May 2, 
2016).
1195
We also adopt a spectrum threshold of 1250 megahertz for proposed secondary market transactions, and note 
that while this 1250 megahertz threshold would help identify those markets that provide particular reason for further 
competitive analysis, our consideration of potential competitive harms would not be limited solely to those markets.  
See supra Section IV.F (Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues).
1196
See supra Section IV.A (28 GHz Band (27.5-28.35 GHz)).
1197
See supra Section IV.B (39 GHz Band (38.6-40 GHz)). 
1198
See supra Sections IV.A (28 GHz Band (27.5-28.35 GHz)); IV.B (39 GHz Band (38.6-40 GHz)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
166
account existing incumbents’ holdings in the 28 GHz band and the 39 GHz band, as well as different 
geographical license areas, we put forward and seek comment on two alternative methodologies for 
assessing bidding eligibility.  We ask for comment on which methodology is more appropriate, and why.  
We also ask that interested parties comment on the likely costs and benefits associated with each 
methodology.  Are there additional methodologies beyond the two alternatives set out below that would 
be more appropriate to adopt?  If so, we invite interested parties to present their alternatives.  Which 
methodological approach should we use and how best would we implement?
The first methodology that we invite comment on is the “maximum county-to-PEA” 486.
option.  Under this option, if any incumbent licensee in the 28 GHz band, for example, holds such 
spectrum, its spectrum holdings at the county level would be counted at the PEA level when determining 
eligibility to bid on 37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum.  For instance, if an incumbent licensee currently holds 
two licenses, or 850 megahertz of spectrum, in the 28 GHz band in any county within a PEA, then that 
licensee’s 28 GHz spectrum holdings would be counted as 850 megahertz for the PEA as a whole.
1199
  In 
addition, that same licensee’s 39 GHz holdings, if any, would be added on to its 28 GHz holdings of 850 
megahertz.  That licensee would then be able to acquire a maximum of an additional 400 megahertz of 
spectrum across the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands if it so chose (this maximum of 400 megahertz assumes it 
has no current holdings in the 39 GHz band).  Similar calculations would apply in the 39 GHz band.  For 
instance, for those licensees that currently hold more than 400 megahertz of spectrum in the 39 GHz band 
in any county in a given PEA, such entities would be unable to bid on both licenses in the 28 GHz band 
but potentially could still bid for one license in the 28 GHz band, as well as on 37 GHz spectrum and 
additional 39 GHz spectrum.  To determine bidding eligibility across the three bands for those entities 
who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz band, we would similarly count maximum 
spectrum holdings in counties at the PEA level.  The “maximum county-to-PEA” option is a simple way 
to calculate spectrum holdings in which the licensing areas of each band have varied geographies, and we 
seek comment on this first methodology for determining eligibility to bid.
The second methodology that we invite comment on is the “population-weighted-487.
average” option.  This option involves calculating an entity’s current spectrum holdings on a county-by-
county basis within a PEA in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and then constructing a population weighted 
average for that PEA as a whole.  For incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, we would 
sum the product of county spectrum holdings and county population within the PEA (using U.S. Census 
2010 population data), and then divide that sum by the total population of the PEA.  This would provide 
us with the population-weighted amount of 28 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum held by that incumbent in that 
PEA.  The entity would then be able to bid on 28 GHz spectrum (by county, and any winning bid would 
be weighted by the county population divided by the PEA population), and 37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum 
(by PEA or partial PEA), up to the population-weighted limit of 1250 megahertz.  To determine eligibility 
to bid for those entities who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands, we would also 
calculate prospective holdings based on a population-weighted average within the PEA.  Overall, any 
entity would not be able to bid on certain spectrum if, across the three bands, it would hold 1250 
megahertz or more on a population-weighted basis.  We seek comment on this second methodology for 
determining eligibility to bid.
2. Holding Period
In addition to the decisions made today, we seek comment on our proposal to adopt a 488.
holding period that would preclude certain proposed secondary market transactions for licensees that 
acquire certain amounts of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz spectrum at auction.  In the Mobile Spectrum 
Holdings Report and Order, the Commission established a six-year holding period, which represented the 
interim buildout period for 600 MHz licensees, restricting certain proposed secondary market transactions 
                                                     
1199
We note that with respect to those PEAs in the 28 GHz band in which the incumbent already has certain county-
wide holdings, incumbents would still be able to bid on any remaining counties in the PEA.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
167
for 600 MHz band licensees.
1200
  The Commission determined that establishing a holding period best 
balanced its goals of preserving the integrity of the market-based spectrum reserve it had established 
while still permitting some flexibility in secondary market transactions.
1201
We propose to adopt a holding period for licensees acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 489.
GHz, and/or 39 GHz bands.  In particular, we seek comment on our proposal to adopt a holding period 
that would restrict certain proposed secondary market transactions for mmW licensees necessary to 
support the spectrum aggregation policies we adopt today as well as our objective of ensuring that 
multiple providers will be able to access mmW spectrum as it becomes available.  
We propose a period of three years, given the nascent nature of the frontier spectrum in 490.
the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands and the likely rapid development of multiple use cases for this 
spectrum.  While we could establish a holding period tied to the length of the license term or build out 
period for licensees in these bands, a shorter three-year holding period that is half of the buildout period 
we establish for incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands may best serve the public interest 
by allowing flexibility while still preventing entities from undermining our ex ante spectrum aggregation 
policies.  We seek comment on our proposal.  To the extent commenters support a longer holding period, 
we seek comment on how a longer holding period would better help the Commission achieve its 
objectives for the use of this spectrum.  If a longer holding period is warranted, how long should it be?  
For example, should the length of the holding period be based on the 10 year license term and 
performance benchmarks for new licensees that we adopt today or would a different holding period be 
appropriate?  We ask commenters to address how the Commission can best balance its general policy of 
promoting flexibility in secondary market transactions with our goals of encouraging competition and 
facilitating the deployment of new services and innovation to the benefit of consumers.
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits For Additional Spectrum Bands
As discussed above, we determined that grouping spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 491.
39 GHz bands together for purposes of applying these mobile spectrum holdings policies is appropriate in 
view of the similar technical characteristics and potential uses of spectrum in these bands.
1202
  We seek 
comment on the proposal to apply spectrum aggregation policies generally in the bands we propose 
making available in this Further Notice.  The objective of the spectrum aggregation polices we adopt 
today is to promote competitive conditions and help ensure that multiple providers have the ability to 
acquire mmW spectrum as it becomes available, while avoiding the excessive concentration of licenses.  
Further, to the extent these bands to be made available have similar technical characteristics and potential 
uses as the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, we propose to use the approximately one-third threshold 
of the total amount of spectrum as our starting point but recognize that the Commission’s understanding 
of the appropriate approach for these bands is developing and that other thresholds may be appropriate.  Is 
the approximately one-third threshold appropriate or are there alternative thresholds that the Commission 
should consider?  What are the likely benefits and costs of our proposed threshold?  We ask interested 
parties to provide us with any alternative approaches to the appropriate spectrum aggregation policies for 
these bands as they become available.
E. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits
Background.  In the V-Band Second Report and Order, the Commission determined that 492.
Fixed Service use of the 37.5-40 GHz band would be primarily for high density FS operations
1203
while 
                                                     
1200
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6212-13, paras. 196-200.
1201
Id. at 6212, para. 197.
1202
See supra Section IV.F (Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues).
1203
See V-band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25438, para. 23.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
168
Fixed-Satellite Service use of that band would be for gateway earth stations.
1204
The Commission defined  
high density FS as follows:
High density systems and usages in the fixed service are generally characterized by 493.
applications requiring the ability to:  (1) operate on a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint basis, or a 
combination of both; (2) flexibly achieve, over short periods of time, a concentration of links on the same 
channel(s) within an area; (3) increase frequency reuse; and (4) decrease terminal size and cost of 
equipment.  The term "high density fixed service" does not refer to a particular application or band in the 
fixed service, but does describe the phenomena of maximized deployment densities, spectrum reuse and 
spectral efficiencies realized by concentrated deployments.  Often these deployment density, spectrum 
reuse and spectral efficiency factors become more pronounced in the higher bands.
1205
To accommodate FS in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band and FSS in the 40.0-42.0 GHz band, the 494.
Commission adopted what it called a “soft segmentation” approach by implementing power flux density 
(PFD) limits on FSS at a level 12 dB lower in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band than in the 40.0-42.0 GHz 
band.
1206
The Commission stated that it was making higher power levels available for satellite operations 
in the 40.0-42.0 GHz band in order to motivate high density FSS (HDFSS) to use that band rather than the 
37.5-40.0 GHz band, and that it was setting satellite PFD limits at a lower level in the 37.5-40.0 GHz 
band in order to protect ubiquitously deployed high density FS stations from interference from satellite 
signals.
1207
  The Commission proposed to allow satellites to raise the power levels of their spot beams 
during rain storms,
1208
but the agency has not yet adopted a rulemaking order to implement that 
proposal.
1209
The NPRM in this proceeding sought to refresh the record by inviting comments on the 495.
terms and conditions under which satellite operators should be allowed to increase their PFDs in the 37.5-
40 GHz band to overcome rain-fade conditions, as the Commission proposed earlier in the V-Band Third 
FNPRM.
1210
  The Commission invited commenters to propose means by which satellite operators might 
be able to discern the conditions under which terrestrial operations would be shielded by the same rain 
storms that are affecting satellite earth stations and, thus, would not necessarily experience interference if 
a satellite operator were to raise its PFD.
1211
  It also sought to identify means by which satellite operators 
could discern when the affected terrestrial operators would not be shielded from increased satellite PFD 
and would experience elevated levels of interference, asking if satellite operators might be able to use 
weather radar data to determine when satellite PFD adjustments are needed and when terrestrial systems 
would also be affected by rain fade.  The Commission also asked if commercially available equipment 
                                                     
1204
See V-band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25442, para. 33.
1205
  In the Matter of Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Additional Spectrum to the Inter-
Satellite, Fixed, and Mobile Services and to Permit Unlicensed Devices to Use Certain Segments in the 50.2-50.4 
GHz and 51.4-71.0 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 25264 at _, para. 24, n. 46 (2000).
1206
See V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15675, para. 31, citing V-Band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 25438, para. 23, and 47 CFR § 25.208(q)-(t) (PFD limits for FSS).
1207
See V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15675, para. 31.
1208
See V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15674-15683, paras. 30-55.
1209
47 CFR §§ 25.208(q)(2) and (r)(2) provide language that would allow satellite operators to raise PFD levels 
during rain conditions, but both subsections are followed by notes stating, “The conditions under which satellites 
may exceed the power flux-density limits for normal free space propagation . . . to compensate for the effects of rain 
fading are under study and have therefore not yet been defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits 
can be exceeded will be the subject of a further rulemaking by the Commission on the satellite service rules.”
1210
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11927, para. 165, citing V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15674-15683, paras. 30-
55.
1211
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11927, para. 165.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
169
could enable terrestrial operators to determine when they are experiencing elevated levels of interference 
from satellite signals, and to differentiate that source of interference from the rain-fade conditions that 
might be causing nearby satellite earth stations to request increased PFD from the satellite.  The NPRM 
further requested comment on the feasibility of establishing automatic, real-time linkages between 
satellite and terrestrial operators so that their equipment can coordinate their strategies to overcome 
interference from natural causes and from each other.
1212
FiberTower, Straight Path, and T-Mobile oppose any increase in satellite PFD levels; 496.
Nokia says that the interference impact should be carefully assessed before the Commission adopts any 
changes.
1213
Straight Path provides the most detailed critique, noting that mobile units’ beamforming 
antennas will typically be angled upward at a slight angle to receive signals from mobile base stations, 
and that mobile units will have only a limited ability to suppress interference from satellite signals.
1214
  
Straight Path estimates that allowing three satellites to operate at the higher PFD level would result in a 
coverage area reduction between 15 and 80 percent, depending on the terrestrial use.
1215
  Satellite interests 
generally favor increasing satellite PFD limits in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
1216
  Boeing argues that satellite 
systems can be configured to produce ‘no significant impact’ on terrestrial systems even if the satellites 
operate at the higher PFD level.
1217
Discussion.  We do not believe the current record is sufficient for us to conclude that 497.
authorizing satellites to operate at the higher PFD of -105 dBW/m
2
/MHz would be consistent with 
terrestrial use of the 37.5-40 GHz band.  In theory, the same rain storm that impairs satellite reception 
might be able to shield earth stations if the satellite raises its power level; the problem is that rain will 
rarely be uniformly present throughout a spot beam’s footprint, leaving at least some terrestrial stations 
unshielded or inadequately shielded by rain and, hence, vulnerable to any increase in the spot beam’s PFD 
level.  Unlike with respect to the 28 GHz band, the issue of satellite-terrestrial coexistence in the 39 GHz 
band has received relatively little attention.
At the same time, we recognize that Boeing has submitted a study which shows that 498.
coexistence is possible, even at the higher PFD level.  Boeing’s presentation suggests that terrestrial 
mobile units might be able to suppress interfering signals from satellites if the satellite signals arrive at 
sufficiently high angles of elevation.
1218
  On the other hand, Boeing assumes a maximum distance of 200 
meters between mobile units and base stations.
1219
  We believe the record would benefit from further 
development on this issue.
Accordingly, we seek further comment on whether there are any circumstances under 499.
which allowing FSS satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to operate at a higher PFD level than permitted 
under the existing rules would be consistent with terrestrial use of the 37.5-40 GHz band.  If a higher PFD 
limit would be appropriate, what limit should we adopt?  Commenters should provide detailed technical 
studies that explicitly list the assumptions they made concerning both terrestrial and satellite operations. 
Studies should study both fixed and mobile terrestrial operations.  If a commenter believes a study 
submitted by another commenter is not valid, it should list the specific assumptions or analysis that it 
                                                     
1212
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11927, para. 165.
1213
Fiber Tower Comments at 7, Nokia Comments at 25, Straight Path Comments at 33-35, and T-Mobile 
Comments at 18; FiberTower Reply at 6 and Straight Path Reply at 21.
1214
See Straight Path Comments at 34.
1215
Straight Path Comments at 35, Appendix B.
1216
See, e.g., ViaSat Comments at ii, 10, 20; SIA Reply at 13.
1217
Boeing May 9, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 5.  See also Boeing June 17, Ex Parte Letter.
1218
See Boeing May 9, Ex Parte Letter.  See also Boeing June 17, Ex Parte Letter.
1219
Boeing May 9, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 5.  See also Boeing June 17, Ex Parte Letter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
170
believes are not valid and provide its own assumptions or analysis.  Ultimately, we believe the burden is 
on FSS interests to show that the higher PFD level is consistent with terrestrial use.  Terrestrial interests 
do have an obligation to provide sufficient information concerning the nature of their systems to allow 
other parties to analyze the interference impact of a higher PFD level.
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment
Background.  Currently, satellite earth station facilities in the 37.5-40 GHz band may not 500.
be ubiquitously deployed and may not be used to serve individual consumers.
1220
  ViaSat proposes 
allowing satellite user equipment in this band on a secondary basis.
1221
  It argues that allowing user 
equipment would have no impact on terrestrial operations because earth stations receive in this band and 
because the user equipment would have to accept interference from terrestrial operations.
1222
  Boeing 
suggests that satellite receivers offer high isolation and may be able to share with terrestrial mobile and 
base stations, although it admits that further study and consultation with the wireless industry is 
required.
1223
  Straight Path, on the other hand, claims that prohibiting satellite user equipment “is an 
essential part of the regulatory structure to preserve the 37.5–40 GHz band for terrestrial services.”
1224
Discussion.  We seek comment on the possibility of repealing the prohibition on satellite 501.
user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.  Initially, we ask satellite interests to provide further 
information concerning the need and demand for user equipment in that band.  We note that FSS user 
equipment can receive in the 40-42 GHz band, which is not licensed for terrestrial operations.  Are there 
uses for which access to the 40-42 GHz band is insufficient?  We ask FSS providers to provide specific 
examples and data demonstrating the need for user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
Assuming a need exists, we seek comment on the appropriate manner of authorizing 502.
satellite user equipment.  We agree with ViaSat’s observation that because user equipment in this band 
would be receiving, it would not cause interference to terrestrial operations.  One option would be to 
adopt ViaSat’s proposal to allow FSS user equipment purely on a secondary basis at their own risk.  If we 
adopted that proposal, we emphasize that the equipment would truly be on a secondary basis and that FSS 
user equipment would have no expectation of interference protection.  A variation on that option, based 
on the analysis Boeing has done, would be to require terrestrial operators to provide information on their 
deployments to FSS providers through a database, which the FSS providers could then use to determine 
where user equipment could operate without interference.  We ask other parties to comment on Boeing’s 
technical analysis.  To the extent Boeing relies on erroneous data concerning the nature of technical 
operations, we ask terrestrial operators and equipment manufacturers to provide a specific analysis in 
response, with an explanation for the specific parameters used in their analysis.  We also seek comment 
on whether the benefit to FSS operators of enhancing the ability to operate user equipment in the band 
outweighs the burden to UMFUS licensees of providing information on their deployments.  We ask both 
FSS operators and terrestrial operators to provide specific data on the relative costs and benefits.
F. Digital Station Identification
Currently, AM/FM/TV broadcasters are required to announce their call signs, as are land 503.
mobile station operators.  Adopting a similar requirement for millimeter wave band operations could 
make it easier to identify and monitor signals, which in turn could make it easier to find sources of 
interference to these systems.  Accordingly, we seek comment on requiring a digital identification (digital 
ID) for the millimeter wave band systems under consideration in this proceeding.  Specifically, should 
                                                     
1220
47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.3.
1221
ViaSat Comments at 21.
1222
ViaSat Comments at 21.
1223
See Boeing June 6, Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 19 -20.
1224
Straight Path Comments at 31.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
171
operators be required to transmit an ID that is readily observable and decipherable by the Commission
and/or other users that could be used to identify the operator/licensee of an unknown and/or interference 
source?
If so, we seek comment on the details of such a digital ID requirement.  For example, 504.
should the ID requirement apply to all millimeter wave band services, or be limited to licensed services, 
non-licensed services, or fixed operations?  Alternatively, should it apply to all transmissions above a 
certain power limit or antenna height, or be limited to transmissions with some other technical parameter?  
If so, what should those technical parameters be?  If there is an ID requirement for unlicensed equipment, 
what should the content of the ID be?  Should unlicensed equipment authorization holder or equipment 
user be required to register in a nationwide database that would allow either the FCC and/or anyone to 
search an ID for operator contact information?  Should the ID be continuously broadcast, similar to 
consumer Wi-Fi routers, only when the transmitter is operational, or only at regular intervals?  Finally, 
should there be a labeling (or software screen display) requirement for the equipment itself that identifies 
the owner/operator?  If so, should the requirement apply to all millimeter wave band equipment, or only 
to fixed or mobile equipment, only to outdoor equipment, or only to some other subset of millimeter wave 
band equipment?
G. Technical Issues
1. Antenna Height
Background.  In the NPRM, we sought comment on antenna height limits.  One of the 505.
questions asked in the NPRM was “Should lower transmission power limits be applied to unusually high 
antennas?” This question received little comment on the record.  However, we believe that further 
consideration of antenna height and power limits may be warranted as an additional measure to mitigate 
interference between licensees and promote sharing among services.  Straight Path believes that the 1,000 
foot height limit will be sufficient to mitigate the risk of harmful interference from high-elevation 
transmitters in the mmW bands
1225
.  T-Mobile also generally supports the Commission’s proposal to 
follow its PCS and AWS rules for base station power limits and antenna heights. The current Part 27 rules 
require the reduction of the transmit power limit as the height is increased (above 305 meters).
1226
Discussion.  We seek further comment on whether antenna height limits are appropriate 506.
and, if so, what thresholds and corresponding reductions in power should apply at higher antenna heights.   
Considering what future wireless networks are envisioned to be, are the antenna height thresholds and 
corresponding power reductions in the existing Part 24 (PCS)
1227
or Part 27
1228
rules appropriate for future 
mmW mobile base stations? Based on what has been presented on the record, mobile mmW base stations
in this band may be more likely deployed at street lamp post height, and will not be deployed at the 
heights of traditional mobile base station deployments. In that context is the 305 meter threshold 
currently in Part 27 valid or would lower thresholds be appropriate?  Is there an alternative maximum 
height that should be considered?  Conversely, given the existing PFD limits that we have adopted to 
control interference at market boundaries and at the edge of an earth station contour, are additional 
antenna height restrictions and corresponding power reductions even necessary?  We tentatively propose 
to adopt antenna height and power limits similar to those in our Part 27 rules.   However, we seek 
comment on whether power limits based on antenna height are necessary and/or whether any 
modifications should be made to either the height thresholds or the power limits at specific heights that 
we have proposed.  We also seek comment on whether there would there be any benefit in requiring 
antenna downtilt for antennas above a certain height?
                                                     
1225
Straight Path Comments at 43.
1226
See 47 CFR § 27.50(b).
1227
See 47 CFR § 24.232(a)(4)
1228
See 47 CFR § 27.50(e)(4)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
172
2. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power 
Levels
Background.  In the rule we adopt for the base station power limits we scale the 507.
maximum power over a 100 MHz band width.  Part 27 mobile devices do not have band width scaling 
factor requirements such as the base stations whose power levels are typically measured over channels 
band widths ranging from 5 megahertz to 10 megahertz.  In the context of future wireless networks such 
as those envisioned for 5G, it seems reasonable to consider an overarching 5G umbrella network that 
resides over multiple disparate subnetworks, some of which might operate with bandwidths scaled much 
smaller than the 100 MHz band width factor for which the maximum power adopted in the Report and 
Order for base stations is to be applied across.  Additionally a band width scaling factor for mobiles 
stations and transportable stations was not contemplated in the NPRM.
Discussion.  For applications and technologies that operate under the umbrella of the next 508.
generation of wireless networks, is it worth considering a sub-set of networks that might operate with 
band widths less than 100 megahertz and how the maximum power limits adopted should be evaluated?  
What minimum band width should be established for base stations, transportable station, and mobile 
station classes of equipment?  Is there value in establishing these bandwidth scaling limits for mobile and 
transportable classes such as we did for base stations?  If so what should the minimum band width scaling 
factors be for these classes of equipment based on the power levels we adopt in the Report and Order?  
What is the minimum bandwidth that should be established for these two classes of equipment in relation 
to the adopted transmit power limits?  Should the establishment of these limits be comparable to the rules 
that currently exist for part 27 frequency bands?
3. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point 
Operations
Background. In the Report and Order, we recognize that the unique characteristics of 509.
traditional fixed point-to-point deployments warrant different market border limits and coordination 
requirements than base/mobile operations and in-band backhaul using the same equipment.  We adopt a 
PFD at the border for base/mobile operations and in-band backhaul, but retain the existing Part 101 
coordination requirements for traditional fixed point-to-point deployments. Under the existing rules, 
fixed point-to-point operations within 16 kilometers (in the 38.6-40 GHz band) or 20 kilometers (in the 
27.5-28.35 GHz band) of a licensee’s market boundary must coordinate with co-channel licensees in 
adjacent market areas.  We also adopt rules that modified the size of the market areas for 28 GHz and 39 
GHz band.  Specifically, we adopt counties as the license market area for the 28 GHz band and PEAs as 
the market area for the 39 GHz band.   
Discussion. In the context of the newly adopted rules, in particular with smaller licensed 510.
areas, we recognize that the existing coordination distances of 16 km for 39 GHz and 20 km for 28GHz 
result in coordination zones that encompass a large part of many license areas.  In fact, in the context of 
28 GHz county based licenses, the entire market area is subject to the coordination requirement in many 
cases.  In adopting market border limits and coordination requirements our goal is to ensure that there is a 
mechanism in place to mitigate interference between adjacent area licensees without creating an 
unnecessary burden on licensees.  While we recognize that under our rules adjacent area licensees are 
able to negotiate and agree to mutual terms and criteria that deviate from the market border and 
coordination limits imposed in our rules, we also believe that the changes that we adopt to market sizes 
warrants re-examination of the market boundary coordination requirements that were originally 
developed in the context of larger market sizes. Therefore, we now seek to create a record with an eye 
toward reducing the coordination burden on licensees.  We note that in its comments in response to the 
NPRM, Sprint recommends that the Commission require an operator proposing to initiate new fixed 
operations to coordinate those operations with the adjacent block operator when a new fixed transmitter 
would be located within 3 km and within +/- 10 degrees of the receive azimuth of an existing fixed 
receiver, or a new fixed transmitter would be within 1 km of an existing fixed receiver, but outside the +/-
10 degree receive antenna main lobe, in order to avoid adjacent channel OOBE interference or brute force 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
173
receiver overload.
1229
  While Sprint’s comments were in relation to adjacent channel interference a similar 
approach might be appropriate for co-channel coordination.  We seek comment first on whether the 
existing coordination distances for traditional fixed point-to-point operations are still appropriate given 
smaller market area sizes.  We also seek comment on whether the coordination distance should 
incorporate other technical criteria into factoring the distance.  For example, should the coordination 
distances be dependent on the orientation of the fixed point-to-point antenna relative to the market 
boundary?  Should the coordination distance be reduced in cases where a directional antenna is pointed 
away from the market boundary?  Should the coordination distance be dependent on other technical 
factors such as the EIRP of the transmitting station, gain of the antenna, or other factors?  We request 
comment on these issues.  We request that commenters support any proposal with technical analysis.
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
Background. In the NPRM the Commission solicited comment on issues pertaining to 511.
spectrum sharing analysis and modeling.
1230
  In particular we asked for comment on a sharing analysis 
framework for fixed, mobile, and satellite systems as well as between active and passive services in the 
millimeter bands.  We specifically requested technical information on transmitter, receiver, and antenna 
characteristics, operational assumptions including antenna orientation and practical use cases.  We also 
requested information on appropriate propagation models that would assist in evaluating the interference 
potential for each sharing use case, including aggregate effects, as applicable.  We received limited 
comments on this topic
1231
therefore we are soliciting further comment in this FNPRM.  
Discussion. The wireless industry, standards groups, government organizations, and 512.
academia are currently engaged in developing propagation models for millimeter wave bands.  The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the European Commission’s 5G partnership 
with industry have active study groups looking at millimeter wave propagation modeling.
1232
  Academia 
have published papers describing several models such as the Close In (CI) and alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) 
free space reference distance models.
1233
  We seek comment on whether these or other models are 
appropriate propagation models to apply when analyzing inter-service interference between terrestrial-
based transmitters and receivers of different services.  There are several factors that are common to the 
interference effects in both directions to and from 5G stations, including antenna beam forming, the 
location and height of antennas, and the propagation distance and environment between other systems and 
the 5G stations.  Lower gain 5G antennas that are mostly indoors in cluttered environments and at lower 
heights will reduce the degree of RF coupling in both directions, and therefore reduce the propagation 
path loss required to meet interference threshold limits.  Which millimeter wave propagation models are 
most appropriate for sharing analyses where the interfering emitters may be assembled from a group of 
indoor and outdoor emitters?  When applying transmitter or receiver isolation factors such as antenna 
directionality, should a degree of statistical probability be associated with the factor versus the 
assumption of worse case interference?  We ask parties to submit propagation analysis and path loss 
models of 5G deployment in both indoor and outdoor environments for use in determining interference 
impact and potential mitigation.  
                                                     
1229
See Sprint Reply at 5.
1230
  See generally NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11970.
1231
See Vubiq Comments at 6-7.
1232
See 5GPPP: The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership, https://5g-ppp.eu/mmmagic/, National Institute of 
Science and Technology, 5G Millimeter Wave Channel Alliance, http://www.nist.gov/ctl/wireless-
networks/5gmillimeterwavechannelmodel.cfm.
1233
See, e.g., Shu Sun et. al., Propagation Path Loss Models for 5G Urban Micro- and Macro-Cellular Scenarios, in 
2016 IEEE 83
rd
Vehicular Technology Conference (May 2016) (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.07311.pdf).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
174
If the terrestrial receiver or transmitter is fixed at a specific location then a terrain-based 513.
propagation loss model can be employed; what terrain based propagation models are most appropriate for 
millimeter wave analyses?  When the terrestrial receiver is not at a known location, what are the most 
appropriate millimeter wave models to apply?  How much isolation could one typically assume due to 
antenna beam forming techniques?  What other interference mechanism, such as clutter, should be 
considered when modeling inter-service interference in millimeter wave bands? Generally, we seek 
further comment on millimeter wave propagation models appropriate for spectrum sharing studies 
between fixed, mobile and satellite systems, as well as active and passive services.
5. Part 15 Operation On-board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band
Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission did not propose to allow 60 GHz operation 514.
on-board aircraft, but stated it believed that the prohibition on operation on-board aircraft of 60 GHz 
devices may be revisited. To compile a comprehensive record on this issue, the Commission sought 
technical studies and interference analyses demonstrating whether transmissions in the 57-71 GHz band 
should be permitted on aircraft over the entire band, or potentially limited to a narrower portion of the 
band to minimize impact to the radio astronomy observations.
1234
  In the Report and Order portion of this 
item, we determined that the record thus far did not reflect a clear perspective of the types of unlicensed 
applications envisioned on-board aircraft that would provide an adequate assessment of their harmful 
interference potential to passive sensor services.
1235
  
Discussion.  We are seeking further technical analyses and sharing studies, specifically 515.
with respect to the various types of unlicensed applications envisioned on-board aircraft, the priority/order 
of their planned introduction, as well as their associated potential harmful interference profile with respect 
to passive sensor services.  For example, is the intent to provide only for applications that are used by the 
aircraft itself to reduce weight by replacing cabling and wiring with radio for applications, such as for 
connecting inflight entertainment systems, seatback display consoles, or connecting with sensors used to 
monitor the health of the aircraft structure and its critical systems in wireless avionics intra-
communication (WAIC)?
1236
  Or is the intent to provide for the direct streaming of movies/news/internet 
service from ceiling-mounted access points to portable electronic devices carried aboard the aircraft by 
passengers in nearby seats?  Are there additional inflight applications that commenters further envision?  
What harmful interference profile could be expected from each of these various types of 516.
on-board aircraft provisions of 60 GHz transmitters?  How much difference would the type of aircraft 
body make in providing additional protection to passive sensor services from operation of these 
transmitters?  Should we propose, as a first cautious step, to allow WiGig transmissions on-board aircraft 
only for certain applications, such as inflight entertainment provision beaming from seatback display to 
user-provided devices, because such transmissions would be at a very short distance (1-2 feet, or 30 to 
60 cm), in a direct line-of-sight between each seatback display and user-provided device, with little risk of 
escaping through cabin windows?
1237
  If we were to prohibit the first WiGig channel (57.24-59.4 GHz) as 
                                                     
1234
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11966, para. 304.
1235
See discussion in Section V.G.5 (Technical Rules for Part 15 Operation in the 57-71 GHz Band) at para. 332, 
supra.
1236
WAIC systems provide radio communication between two or more stations on a single aircraft and constitute 
exclusive closed on-board networks required for the operation of an aircraft.  Examples of WAIC applications that 
could benefit from the high-data rate provided by 60 GHz transmitters are flight deck and cabin crew 
communications, still-frame and video imagery, high-data rate engine sensors, or avionics data bus communications 
throughout the aircraft.  High-data rates WAIC applications could also encompass external structural sensors or 
external cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft structure to monitor the taxi, take-off, landing, cruise, etc. 
phases of aircraft operation.  WAIC systems do not provide air-to-ground, air-to-satellite or air-to-air 
communications.  See Technical characteristics and spectrum requirements of Wireless Avionics Intra-
Communications systems to support their safe operation, ITU-R Report M.2283-0 (November 2013), at 6.  
1237
Note that not all existing aircraft provide seatback displays at each seat or row of seats.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
175
CORF suggested to protect EESS,
1238
would this limitation ameliorate in any way the need to protect 
RAS, as WiGig devices will be using the rest of the spectrum from 59.4 GHz to 71 GHz?  How would 
RAS and EESS be protected from potential WAIC applications using external structural sensors or 
cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft structure to monitor the performance of the aircraft during 
various phases of aircraft operation (taxi, take-off, landing, cruise, etc.)?
1239
  Commenters should provide 
detailed technical analyses, with possible real-world transmission scenarios on aircraft, including 
expected signal leakage in this particular frequency band through unshielded cabin windows for the 
various types of inflight applications (e.g., entertainment provisions, WAIC provisions, etc.) in different 
aircraft body structures if the fuselage type and cabin window placements make a difference in signal 
shielding, etc., and any other additional harmful interference considerations involving use of 60 GHz 
transmitters on-board aircraft.
1240
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules,
1241
this FNPRM shall be treated 517.
as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
1242
Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda 
or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or 
her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers 
where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  
Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 
1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must 
be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in 
their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).  Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
B. Comment Period and Procedures
Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 518.
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).
                                                     
1238
CORF Reply at 7.
1239
See Technical characteristics and spectrum requirements of Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications systems to 
support their safe operation, ITU-R Report M.2283-0 (November 2013), at 15-16.
1240
Note that cabin window placements are very different in a wide-body aircraft than in a small 
single/quad-passenger aircraft.  WAIC systems would also greatly benefit a small passenger aircraft by reducing its 
weight due to cabling and wiring, and providing enhanced flexibility and safety. 
1241
47 CFR § 1.1200(a).
1242
47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
176
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.  
? 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 12
th
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 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
? U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 519.
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
1243
the Commission has 520.
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Report and Order.  The analysis is found in 
Appendix E. 
In addition, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) regarding 521.
the significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, which is found in Appendix G.  We request written public comment on the 
IRFA.  Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to 
the FNRPM and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document contains new and proposed information collection requirements. The 522.
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and 
the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained 
in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
                                                     
1243
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
177
E. Further Information
For further information, contact John Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications 523.
Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha of the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or Michael.Ha@fcc.gov, or 
Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or
Jose.Albuquerque@fcc.gov.
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 524.
225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 
1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 
310, 316, 319, 332, 336, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
§ 1302, and Section 1.411 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.411, that this Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY ADOPTED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED 525.
as set forth in Appendix A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME 526.
EFFECTIVE 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, except for those rules and 
requirements which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by 
the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and WILL BECOME 
EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval 
and the relevant effective date.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 527.
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rulemaking filed by the Fixed Wireless 528.
Communications Coalition (RM-11664) IS DENIED with respect to the 42-42.5 GHz band.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report 529.
and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
178
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR 
parts 1, 2, 15, 25, and 101 and adds a new part 30 as follows:
PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 
1452, and 1455.
2. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions for “Wireless Radio Services” and 
“Wireless Telecommunications Services” to read as follows:
§ 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 
95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
Wireless Telecommunications Services. Wireless Radio Services, whether fixed or mobile, that meet the 
definition of “telecommunications service” as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended, and are therefore 
subject to regulation on a common carrier basis.  Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio 
services authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 30 of this chapter. In addition, Wireless
Telecommunications Services include Public Coast Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, common carrier fixed 
microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, 
and Citizens Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this chapter.
3. Section 1.1307 is amended by adding an entry for “Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service (part 30)” above the entry for “Radio Broadcast Services (part 73)” in Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) 
and revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental 
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
179
(b) * * * 
(1) * * *
Table 1—Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation 
Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if:
* * * * * * * * * *
Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service (part 30)
Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to 
lowest point of antenna <10 m and power >1640 W EIRP.
Antennas are mounted on buildings.
* * * * * * * * * *
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services 
pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; 
the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite 
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) pursuant to part 80 of 
this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 MHz Wireless 
Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), 
or the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this chapter; or 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine 
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 
2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *
4. Section 1.9001 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1.9001 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of part 1, subpart X is to implement policies and rules pertaining to spectrum leasing 
arrangements between licensees in the services identified in this subpart and spectrum lessees. This 
subpart also implements policies for private commons arrangements. These policies and rules also 
implicate other Commission rule parts, including parts 1, 2, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 80, 90, 95, and 101 of 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
180
title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * *
5. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraphs (hh) through (kk) and adding 
paragraph (ll) to read as follows:
§ 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(hh) The Multipoint Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101 of this chapter);
(ii) The 700 MHz Guard Bands Service (part 27 of this chapter);
(jj) The ATC of a Mobile Satellite Service (part 25 of this chapter);
(kk) The 600 MHz band (part 27 of this chapter); and 
(ll) The Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30 of this chapter).
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
7. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:
a. Pages 55, 57, 58, and 61 are revised.
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, footnote US151 is added.
c. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG63 is added.
§ 2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
* * * * *
181
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                                   27-34.7 GHz (SHF/EHF) Page 55
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
27-27.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.536
MOBILE
27-27.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536  5.537
MOBILE
27-27.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
27-27.5
Inter-satellite  5.536 RF Devices (15)
27.5-28.5
FIXED 5.537A
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.484A  5.516B  5.539
MOBILE
5.538  5.540
27.5-30 27.5-29.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)   
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Satellite 
   Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible 
   Use (30)
Fixed Microwave (101)28.5-29.1
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.484A  5.516B  5.523A  5.539
MOBILE
Earth exploration-satellite (Earth-to-space)  5.541
5.540
29.1-29.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.516B  5.523C  5.523E  5.535A  5.539  5.541A
MOBILE
Earth exploration-satellite (Earth-to-space)  5.541
5.540
29.5-29.9
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.484A  5.516B  5.539
Earth exploration-satellite
   (Earth-to-space)  5.541
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.540  5.542
29.5-29.9
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.484A  5.516B  5.539
MOBILE-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite
   (Earth-to-space)  5.541
5.525  5.526  5.527  5.529  5.540
5.542
29.5-29.9
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.484A  5.516B  5.539
Earth exploration-satellite
   (Earth-to-space)  5.541
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.540  5.542
29.5-30
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)
Satellite 
   Communications (25)
29.9-30
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.484A  5.516B  5.539
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite (Earth-to-space)  5.541 5.543
5.525  5.526  5.527  5.538  5.540  5.542 5.525  5.526  5.527  5.529  5.543
30-31
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.338A
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.542
30-31
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
G117
30-31
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
182
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                            34.7-46.9 GHz (EHF) Page 57
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
34.7-35.2
RADIOLOCATION
Space research  5.550
5.549
34.7-35.5
RADIOLOCATION
34.7-35.5
Radiolocation Private Land Mobile (90)
35.2-35.5
METEOROLOGICAL AIDS
RADIOLOCATION
5.549 US360  G117 US360
35.5-36
METEOROLOGICAL AIDS
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (active)
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
5.549  5.549A
35.5-36
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
  (active)
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
US360  G117
35.5-36
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Radiolocation
Space research (active)
US360
36-37
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.149  5.550A
36-37
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US342  US550A 
37-37.5
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)
5.547
37-38
FIXED
MOBILE 
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)
   
US151
37-37.5
FIXED
MOBILE
US151
Upper Microwave Flexible 
   Use (30)
37.5-38
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.547
37.5-38
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
   NG63
MOBILE
US151
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible 
   Use (30)
38-39.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.547
38-38.6
FIXED
MOBILE
38-39.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
   NG63
MOBILE  NG17538.6-39.5
39.5-40
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.547
39.5-40
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
   US382
G117
39.5-40
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
   NG63
MOBILE  NG175
US382
183
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite
   (space-to-Earth)
G117
40-40.5
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Satellite Communications (25)
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-
   Earth)  5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-
   Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211  G117
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Fixed
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211
41-42.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
41-42.5 41-42
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
US211
42-42.5
FIXED
MOBILE
5.547  5.551F  5.551H  5.551I US211 US211
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
5.149  5.547
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US342
42.5-43.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US342
43.5-47
MOBILE  5.553
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
43.5-45.5
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
G117
43.5-45.5
45.5-46.9
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
RF Devices (15)
5.554 Page 58 
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                            59-86 GHz (EHF) Page 61
184
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s) 
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353
RF Devices (15)
59.3-64
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138
59.3-64
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138  US353
59.3-64
FIXED
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138  US353
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
64-65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.547  5.556
64-65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
64-65
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RF Devices (15)
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
5.547
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
66-71
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
US389
Fixed Microwave (101)
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.561
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
RF Devices (15)
Fixed Microwave (101)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
185
UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
US151   In the band 37-38 GHz, stations in the fixed and mobile services shall not cause harmful 
interference to Federal earth stations in the space research service (space-to-Earth) at the following sites: 
Goldstone, CA; Socorro, NM; and White Sands, NM.  Applications for non-Federal use of this band 
shall be coordinated with NTIA in accordance with 47 CFR 30.205. * * * * *
NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
NG63 In the band 37.5-40 GHz, earth station operations in the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth) 
shall not claim protection from stations in the fixed and mobile services, except where individually 
licensed earth stations are authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 25.136.
* * * * *
8. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text to read as 
follows:
§ 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this 
chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal 
Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services 
pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 
27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the 
Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized 
Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; 
and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine 
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if:
* * * * *
9. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
186
§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this 
chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite 
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 
80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz 
Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service 
(WMTS) and the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), pursuant to subparts H and I 
of part 95 of this chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII 
devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under §§ 15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 
15.407(f) of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are 
subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.
* * * * *
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
10. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
11. Section 15.255 is amended by revising the section heading, paragraph (a)(2), the 
introductory text to paragraph (b), paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c)(1);
removing paragraph (d); redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through (g); revising
newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2); and adding new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 15.255 Operation within the band 57-71 GHz.
(a) * * * 
(1) * * * 
(2) Field disturbance sensors, including vehicle radar systems, unless the field disturbance sensors are 
employed for fixed operation, or used as short-range devices for interactive motion sensing. For the 
purposes of this section, the reference to fixed operation includes field disturbance sensors installed in 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
187
fixed equipment, even if the sensor itself moves within the equipment.
(b) Within the 57-71 GHz band, emission levels shall not exceed the following equivalent isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP):
(1) Products other than fixed field disturbance sensors and short-range devices for interactive motion 
sensing shall comply with one of the following emission limits, as measured during the transmit interval:
(i) The average power of any emission shall not exceed 40 dBm and the peak power of any emission shall 
not exceed 43 dBm; OR
(ii) For fixed point-to-point transmitters located outdoors, the average power of any emission shall not 
exceed 82 dBm, and shall be reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. The 
peak power of any emission shall not exceed 85 dBm, and shall be reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the 
antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. 
(A) The provisions in this paragraph for reducing transmit power based on antenna gain shall not require 
that the power levels be reduced below the limits specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. 
(B) The provisions of § 15.204(c)(2) and (4) that permit the use of different antennas of the same type and 
of equal or less directional gain do not apply to intentional radiator systems operating under this 
provision. In lieu thereof, intentional radiator systems shall be certified using the specific antenna(s) with 
which the system will be marketed and operated. Compliance testing shall be performed using the highest 
gain and the lowest gain antennas for which certification is sought and with the intentional radiator 
operated at its maximum available output power level. The responsible party, as defined in § 2.909 of this 
chapter, shall supply a list of acceptable antennas with the application for certification. 
(2) For fixed field disturbance sensors that occupy 500 MHz or less of bandwidth and that are contained 
wholly within the frequency band 61.0-61.5 GHz, the average power of any emission, measured during 
the transmit interval, shall not exceed 40 dBm, and the peak power of any emission shall not exceed 43 
dBm. In addition, the average power of any emission outside of the 61.0-61.5 GHz band, measured during 
the transmit interval, but still within the 57-71 GHz band, shall not exceed 10 dBm, and the peak power 
of any emission shall not exceed 13 dBm.
(3) For fixed field disturbance sensors other than those operating under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
188
of this section, and short-range devices for interactive motion sensing, the peak transmitter conducted 
output power shall not exceed ?10 dBm and the peak EIRP level shall not exceed 10 dBm.
(4) The peak power shall be measured with an RF detector that has a detection bandwidth that 
encompasses the 57-71 GHz band and has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz. The average emission 
levels shall be measured over the actual time period during which transmission occurs.  
(c) * * *
(1) The power density of any emissions outside the 57-71 GHz band shall consist solely of spurious 
emissions. 
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Peak transmitter conducted output power shall be measured with an RF detector that has a detection 
bandwidth that encompasses the 57-71 GHz band and that has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz.
* * * * *
(h) Measurement procedures that have been found to be acceptable to the Commission in accordance with 
§ 2.947 of this chapter may be used to demonstrate compliance.
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
12. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and 721 of the 
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 721, 
unless otherwise noted.
13. Add § 25.136 to read as follows:
§ 25.136 Earth Stations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz bands.
(a) FSS is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band.  
Notwithstanding that secondary status, an earth station in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band that meets one of the 
criteria listed below may operate consistent with the terms of its authorization 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
189
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;
(2) The FSS earth station was authorized prior to July 14, 2016; or
(3) The application for the FSS earth station was filed prior to July 14, 2016 and has been subsequently 
granted; 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 27.5-28.35 GHz band 
within the county where the proposed earth station is located  that meet the criteria contained in either 
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), or (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 authorized pursuant to section (a) of this rule, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than 0.1 
percent of the population of the county within which the earth station is located;
(iii) 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 does not contain any major event venue, arterial 
street, interstate or U.S. highway, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port; and 
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within 
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 with respect to existing facilities constructed and in 
operation by the UMFUS licensee.  In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the 
applicable processes contained in § 101.103(d) of this part.
(b) Applications for earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band shall provide an exhibit describing the zone 
within which the earth station will require protection from transmissions of Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service licensees.  For purposes of this rule, the protection zone shall consist of the area where 
UMFUS licensees may not locate facilities without the consent of the earth station licensee.  The earth 
station applicant shall demonstrate in its application, using reasonable engineering methods, that the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
190
requested protection zone is necessary in order to protect its proposed earth station.
(c)  The protection zone (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section) shall comply with the following 
criteria.  The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(1)  There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band within 
the Partial Economic Area within which the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria 
contained in paragraph (c) 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;
(2)  The protection zone, together with the protection zone of other earth stations in the same Partial 
Economic Area authorized pursuant to this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than 0.1 
percent of the population of the Partial Economic Area within which the earth station is located;
(3) The protection zone does not contain any major event venue, arterial street, interstate or U.S. 
highway, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port; and 
(4)  The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within 
the protection zone with respect to existing facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS 
licensee.  In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the applicable processes 
contained in § 101.103(d) of this part.
(d) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 37. 5-40 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.
14. Section 25.202 is amended by revising footnotes 1 and 7 to the table in paragraph (a)(1) 
to read as follows:
§ 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
1 
Use of this band by the Fixed-Satellite Service is limited to individually licensed earth stations.  Satellite 
earth station facilities in this band may not be ubiquitously deployed and may not be used to serve 
individual consumers.
* * * 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
191
7
The Fixed-Satellite Service is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service authorized 
pursuant to 47 CFR part 30, except for FSS operations associated with earth stations authorized pursuant 
to 47 CFR § 25.136.
* * * * *
15. Part 30 is added to read as follows:
PART 30 – UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
Subpart A – General
Sec.
30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Eligibility.
30.4 Frequencies.
30.5 Service areas.
30.6 Permissible communications.
30.7   37-37.6 GHz Band – Shared Coordinated Service
30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements
Subpart B – Applications and Licenses
30.101 Initial authorizations.
30.102 Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-38.6 GHz band.
30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution service and 39 GHz licenses.
30.104 License term.
30.105 Construction requirements.
30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
30.107 Discontinuance of service.
Subpart C – Technical Standards
30.201 Equipment authorization.
30.202 Power limits.
30.203 Emission limits.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
192
30.204 Field strength limits.
30.205 Federal coordination requirements.
30.206 International coordination.
30.207 RF safety.
30.208 Operability.
30.209  Duplexing.
Subpart D – Competitive Bidding Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
Subpart E - Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-to-Multipoint Hub Stations, 
and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint User Stations
30.401  Permissible service
30.402  Frequency tolerance
30.403  Bandwidth
30.404  Emission limits
30.405  Transmitter power limitations
30.406   Directional antennas
30.407 Antenna Polarization
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
§ 30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service, scope and authority.
As of [effective date of final rule], Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses for the 27.5-28.35 
GHz band, and licenses issued in the 38.6-40 GHz band under the rules in part 101 of this chapter shall be 
reassigned to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses 
in bands other than 27.5-28.35 GHz shall remain in that service and shall be governed by the part 101 of 
this chapter applicable to that service.
§ 30.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
193
Authorized bandwidth. The maximum width of the band of frequencies permitted to be used by a station. 
This is normally considered to be the necessary or occupied bandwidth, whichever is greater. (See § 2.202 
of this chapter).
Authorized frequency. The frequency, or frequency range, assigned to a station by the Commission and 
specified in the instrument of authorization.
Fixed satellite earth station. An earth station intended to be used at a specified fixed point.
Local Area Operations.  Operations confined to physical facility boundaries, such as a factory.
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio station that provides one-way or two-
way communication with fixed Point-to-Multipoint Service User Stations.
Point-to-Multipoint User Station. A fixed radio station located at users' premises, lying within the 
coverage area of a Point-to-Multipoint Hub station, using a directional antenna to receive one-way 
communications from or providing two-way communications with a fixed Point-to-Multipoint Hub 
Station. 
Point-to-Multipoint Service. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio service consisting of point-to-multipoint 
hub stations that communicate with fixed point-to-multipoint user stations.
Point-to-point station. A station that transmits a highly directional signal from a fixed transmitter location 
to a fixed receive location.
Portable device. Transmitters designed to be used within 20 centimeters of the body of the user. 
Prior coordination. A bilateral process conducted prior to filing applications which includes the 
distribution of the technical parameters of a proposed radio system to potentially affected parties for their 
evaluation and timely response.
Secondary operations. Radio communications which may not cause interference to operations authorized 
on a primary basis and which are not protected from interference from these primary operations
Transportable Station. Transmitting equipment that is not intended to be used while in motion, but rather 
at stationary locations. 
Universal Licensing System. The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is the consolidated database, 
application filing system, and processing system for all Wireless Radio Services. ULS supports electronic 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
194
filing of all applications and related documents by applicants and licensees in the Wireless Radio 
Services, and provides public access to licensing information.
§ 30.3 Eligibility.
Any entity who meets the technical, financial, character, and citizenship qualifications that the 
Commission may require in accordance with such Act, other than those precluded by Section 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to hold a license under this part.
§ 30.4 Frequencies.
The following frequencies are available for assignment in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service:
(a) 27.5 GHz – 28.35 GHz band - 27.5-27.925 GHz and 27.925-28.35 GHz.
(b) 38.6-40 GHz band:
(1) New channel plan:
Channel Number Frequency band limits (MHz)
1 38,600-38,800
2 38,800-39,000
3 39,000-39,200
4 39,200-39,400
5 39,400-39,600
6 39,600-39,800
7 39,800-40,000
(2) Pending transition to the new channel plan, existing 39 GHz licensees licensed under part 101 
of this chapter may continue operating on the following channel plan:
Channel Group A Channel Group B
Channel No. Frequency band limits 
(MHz)
Channel No. Frequency band limits 
(MHz)
1-A 38,600-38,650 1-B 39,300-39,350
2-A 38,650-38,700 2-B 39,350-39,400
3-A 38,700-38,750 3-B 39,400-39,450
4-A 38,750-38,800 4-B 39,450-39,500
5-A 38,800-38,850 5-B 39,500-39,550
6-A 38,850-38,900 6-B 39,550-39,600
7-A 38,900-38,950 7-B 39,600-39,650
8-A 38,950-39,000 8-B 39,650-39,700
9-A 39,000-39,050 9-B 39,700-39,750
10-A 39,050-39,100 10-B 39,750-39,800
11-A 39,100-39,150 11-B 39,800-39,850
12-A 39,150-39,200 12-B 39,850-39,900
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
195
13-A 39,200-39,250 13-B 39,900-39,950
14-A 39,250-39,300 14-B 39,950-40,000
(c) 37-38.6 GHz band:  37,600-37,800 MHz; 37,800-38,000 MHz; 38,000-38,200 MHz; 38,200-38,400 
MHz, and 38,400-38,600 MHz.  The 37,000-37,600 MHz band segment shall be available on a site-
specific, coordinated shared basis with eligible Federal entities.
§ 30.5 Service areas.
(a)  Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and except for the shared 37-37.6 GHz band, 
the service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are Partial Economic Areas.
(b)  For the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, the service areas shall be counties.
(c)  Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Stations licensed in the 38.6-40 GHz bands 
licensed with Rectangular Service Areas shall maintain their Rectangular Service Area as defined in their 
authorization.  The frequencies associated with Rectangular Service Area authorizations that have 
expired, cancelled, or otherwise been recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the 
applicable county licensee.
(d) In the 37.5-40 GHz band, Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees shall not place facilities 
within the protection zone of Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations authorized pursuant to § 25.136 of part 
25 of this chapter, absent consent from the Fixed-Satellite Service earth station licensee.
§ 30.6   Permissible communications.
(a) A licensee in the frequency bands specified in § 30.4 may provide any services for which its frequency 
bands are allocated, as set forth in the non-Federal Government column of the Table of Frequency 
Allocations in § 2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
(b)  Fixed-Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 of this chapter.
§ 30.7   37-37.6 GHz Band – Shared Coordinated Service.
(a)  The 37-37.6 GHz band will be available for site-based registrations on a coordinated basis with co-
equal eligible Federal
entities.
(b) Any non-Federal entity meeting the eligibility requirements of § 30.3 of this part may operate 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
196
equipment that complies with the technical rules of this part pursuant to a Shared Access License.
(c) Licensees in the 37-37.6 GHz band must register their individual base stations and access points prior 
to placing them in operation.
§ 30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements.
(a) Statement.  Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee is required to submit to the 
Commission a Statement describing its network security plans and related information, which shall be 
signed by a senior executive within the licensee’s organization with personal knowledge of the security 
plans and practices within the licensee’s organization. The Statement must contain, at a minimum, the 
following elements:
(1) Security Approach.  A high-level, general description of the licensee’s approach designed to safeguard 
the planned network’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with respect to communications from:
(i) A device to the licensee’s network; 
(ii) One element of the licensee’s network to another element on the licensee’s network; 
(iii) The licensee’s network to another network; and 
(iv) Device to device (with respect to telephone voice and messaging services).
(2) Cybersecurity Coordination.  A high-level, general description of the licensee’s anticipated approach 
to assessing and mitigating cyber risk induced by the presence of multiple participants in the band.  This 
should include the high level approach taken toward ensuring consumer network confidentiality, integrity, 
and availability security principles, are to be protected in each of the following use cases: 
communications between a wireless device and the licensee’s network; communications within and 
between each licensee’s network; communications between mobile devices that are under end-to-end 
control of the licensee; and communications between mobile devices that are not under the end-to-end 
control of the licensee;
(3) Cybersecurity Standards and Best Practices.  A high-level description of relevant 
cybersecurity standards and practices to be employed, whether industry-recognized or related to 
some other identifiable approach;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
197
(4) Participation with Standards Bodies, Industry-Led Organizations.  A description of the extent to which 
the licensee participates with standards bodies or industry-led organizations pursuing the development or 
maintenance of emerging security standards and/or best practices;
(5) Other Security Approaches.  The high-level identification of any other approaches to security, unique 
to the services and devices the licensee intends to offer and deploy; and
(6) Plans with Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations.  Plans to incorporate relevant outputs 
from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee’s security 
architecture.  Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any 
use of anticipated standards for ISAO-based information sharing.
(b) Timing. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee shall submit this Statement to the 
Commission within three years after grant of the license, but no later than six months prior to deployment.
(c) Definitions.  The following definitions apply to this section:
Confidentiality: the protection of data from unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in 
transit.
Integrity: the protection against the unauthorized modification or destruction of information.
Availability: the accessibility and usability of a network upon demand.
Subpart B – Applications and Licenses
§ 30.101   Initial authorizations.
Except with respect to in the 37-37.6 GHz band, an applicant must file a single application for an initial 
authorization for all markets won and frequency blocks desired.  Initial authorizations shall be granted in 
accordance with § 30.4.  Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be accepted, except 
where required for environmental assessments, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this 
chapter.
§ 30.103   Transition of existing local multipoint distribution service and 39 GHz licenses.
Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in the 27.5 – 28.35 GHz band issued on a Basic Trading 
Area basis shall be disaggregated into county-based licenses and 39 GHz licenses issued on an Economic 
Area basis shall be disaggregated into Partial Economic Area-based licenses on [effective date of final 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
198
rule].  For each county in the Basic Trading Area or Partial Economic Area in the Economic Area which 
is part of the original license, the licensee shall receive a separate license.  If there is a co-channel 
Rectangular Service Area licensee within the service area of a 39 GHz Economic Area licensee, the 
disaggregated license shall not authorize operation with the service area of the Rectangular Service Area 
license.
§ 30.104   License term.
Initial authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of initial issuance or renewal.
§ 30.105   Construction requirements.
(a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees must make a buildout showing as part of their 
renewal applications.  Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service to demonstrate that they 
are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at least 40 percent of the population within the 
service area of the licensee, and that they are using facilities to provide service in that area either to 
customers or for internal use.  Licensees relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate that they have 
four links operating and providing service, either to customers or for internal use. If the population within 
the license area is equal to or less than 268,000.  If the population within the license area is greater than 
268,000, a licensee relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate it has at least one link in operation 
and providing service for each 67,000 population within the license area.  
(b) Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of service will be evaluated on a case-by-case 
basis.
(c) If a licensee in this service is also a Fixed-Satellite Service licensee and uses the spectrum covered 
under its UMFUS license in connection with a satellite earth station, it can demonstrate compliance with 
the requirements of this section by demonstrating that the earth station in question is in service, 
operational, and using the spectrum associated with the license.  This provision can only be used to 
demonstrate compliance for the county in which the earth station is located. 
(d) Failure to meet this requirement will result in automatic cancellation of the license.  In bands licensed 
on a Partial Economic Area basis, licensees will have the option of partitioning a license on a county basis 
in order to reduce the population within the license area to a level where the licensee’s buildout would 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
199
meet one of the applicable performance metrics.
(e) Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees shall be required to make a showing pursuant to this rule by 
June 1, 2024.
§ 30.106    Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
(a)  Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation shall request from the Commission an 
authorization for partial assignment of a license pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter.  Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service area or 
disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses. 
(b) Technical standards—(1) Partitioning. In the case of partitioning, applicants and licensees must file 
FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on a schedule to the 
application. The geographic coordinates must be specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest 
second of latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83).
(2)  Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
(3)  The Commission will consider requests for partial assignment of licenses that propose combinations 
of partitioning and disaggregation.
(4)  For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, part 30 systems must be designed so as not to exceed 
the signal level specified for the particular spectrum block in § 30.204 at the licensee's service area 
boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a different signal level. 
(c)  License term. The license term for a partitioned license area and for disaggregated spectrum shall be 
the remainder of the original licensee's license term as provided for in § 30.104.
(d)(1)  Parties to partitioning agreements must satisfy the construction requirements set forth in § 30.105 
by the partitioner and partitionee each certifying that it will independently meet the construction 
requirement for its respective partitioned license area. If the partitioner or partitionee fails to meet the 
construction requirement for its respective partitioned license area, then the relevant partitioned license 
will automatically cancel.
(2)  Parties to disaggregation agreements must satisfy the construction requirements set forth in § 30.105 
by the disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifying that it will independently meet the construction 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
200
requirement for its respective disaggregated license area. If the disaggregator or disaggregatee fails to 
meet the construction requirement for its respective disaggregated license area, then the relevant 
disaggregated license will automatically cancel.
§ 30.107   Discontinuance of service.
(a)  An Upper Microwave Flexible Use License authorization will automatically terminate, without 
specific Commission action, if the licensee permanently discontinues service after the initial license term.
(b)  For licensees with common carrier regulatory status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined 
as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is 
not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee in the individual license area. For licensees 
with non-common carrier status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days 
during which a licensee does not operate.
(c)  A licensee that permanently discontinues service as defined in this section must notify the 
Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license 
cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if 
service is permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a licensee fails to file the required 
form requesting license cancellation.
Subpart C – Technical Standards
§ 30.201   Equipment authorization.
(a)  Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section, each transmitter utilized for operation under 
this part must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure.
(b)  Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request 
equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 
Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station 
authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
(c) Unless specified otherwise, transmitters for use under the provisions of subpart E of this part for fixed 
point-to-point microwave and point-to-multipoint services must be a type that has been verified for 
compliance.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
201
§ 30.202   Power limits.
(a)  For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile systems, the average power of the 
sum of all antenna elements is limited to an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) density of 
+75dBm/100 MHz. For channel bandwidths less than 100 megahertz the EIRP must be reduced 
proportionally and linearly based on the bandwidth relative to 100 megahertz.
(b)  For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum 
EIRP of +43 dBm.
(c)  For transportable stations, as defined in § 30.2, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements 
is limited to a maximum EIRP of +55 dBm.
(d) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see § 30.405.
§ 30.203   Emission limits.
(a)   The conductive power or the total radiated power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency 
block shall be -13 dBm/MHz or lower.  However, in the bands immediately outside and adjacent to the 
licensee's frequency block, having a bandwidth equal to 10 percent of the channel bandwidth, the 
conductive power or the total radiated power of any emission shall be -5 dBm/MHz or lower.
(b)(1)  Compliance with this provision is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a 
resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. 
(2)  When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency shall be adjusted as close to the 
licensee's frequency block edges as the design permits.
(3)  The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or average values.
(c) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see § 30.404.
§ 30.204   Field strength limits.
(a) Base/Mobile Operations: The predicted or measured Power Flux Density (PFD) from any Base 
Station operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at any location 
on the geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -76dBm/m
2
/MHz (measured at 1.5
meters above ground) unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD. 
(b) Fixed Point-to-point Operations: 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
202
(1) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility in the 27,500-28,350 MHz band where 
the facilities are located within 20 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, the 
licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with the procedures specified in § 101.103 
(d)(2) of this chapter with respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its operations.
(2) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility in the 37,000 – 40,000 MHz band where 
the facilities are located within 16 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area, the 
licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with the procedures specified in § 101.103
(d)(2) of this chapter with respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its operations.
§ 30.205   Federal coordination requirements.
(a) Licensees in the 37-38 GHz band located within the zones defined by the coordinates in the tables 
below must coordinate their operations with Federal Space Research Service (space to Earth) users of the 
band via the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  All licensees 
operating within the zone defined by the 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below must 
coordinate all operations.  Licensees operating within the area between the zones defined by the 60 dBm 
and 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below must coordinate all operations if their base 
station EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100 MHz or if their antenna height exceeds 100 meters above ground 
level.  Licensees operating outside the zones defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the 
tables below are not required to coordinate their operations with NTIA.
Table 1: Goldstone, California Coordination Zone
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.69217/-115.6491 34.19524/-117.47963 34.69217/-115.6491 34.19524/-117.47963
35.25746/-115.32041 34.24586/-117.36210 35.25746/-115.32041 34.24586/-117.36210
36.21257/-117.06567 35.04648/-117.03781 36.11221/-116.63632 34.21748/-117.12812
36.55967/-117.63691 35.04788/-117.00949 36.54731/-117.48242 34.20370/-116.97024
36.66297/-118.31017 34.22940/-117.22327 36.73049/-118.33683 34.12196/-116.93109
36.06074/-118.38528 34.20370/-116.97024 36.39126/-118.47307 34.09498/-116.75473
35.47015/-118.39008 34.12196/-116.93109 36.36891/-118.47134 34.13603/-116.64002
35.40865/-118.34353 34.09498/-116.75473 35.47015/-118.39008 34.69217/-115.6591
35.35986/-117.24709 34.19642/-116.72901 35.40865/-118.34353 34.69217/-115.6491
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
203
35.29539/-117.21102 34.64906/-116.62741 35.32048/-117.26386
34.67607/-118.55412 34.44404/-116.31486 34.63725/-118.96736
34.61532/-118.36919 34.52736/-116.27845 34.55789/-118.36204
34.91551/-117.70371 34.76685/-116.27930 34.51108/-118.15329
34.81257/-117.65400 34.69217/-115.6591 34.39220/-118.28852
34.37411/-118.18385 34.69217/-115.6491 34.38546/-118.27460
34.33405/-117.94189 34.37524/-118.24191
34.27249/-117.65445 34.37039/-118.22557
Table 2:Socorro, New Mexico Coordination Zone
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.83816/-107.66828 33.44401/-108.67876 33.10651/-108.19320
34.80070/-107.68759 33.57963/-107.79895 33.11780/-107.99980
34.56506/-107.70233 33.84552/-107.60207 33.13558/-107.85611
34.40826/-107.71489 33.85964/-107.51915 33.80383/-107.16520
34.31013/-107.88349 33.86479/-107.17223 33.94554/-107.15516
34.24067/-107.96059 33.94779/-107.15038 33.95665/-107.15480
34.10278/-108.23166 34.11122/-107.18132 34.08156/-107.18137
34.07442/-108.30646 34.15203/-107.39035 34.10646/-107.18938
34.01447/-108.31694 34.29643/-107.51071 35.24269/-107.67969
33.86740/-108.48706 34.83816/-107.66828 34.06647/-108.70438
33.81660/-108.51052 33.35946/-108.68902
33.67909/-108.58750 33.29430/-108.65004
33.50223/-108.65470 33.10651/-108.19320
Table 3: White Sands, New Mexico Coordination Zone
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude 
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
33.98689/-107.15967 31.78455/-106.54058 31.7494/-106.49132 32.88382/-108.16588
33.91573/-107.46301 32.24710/-106.56114 32.24524/-106.56507 32.76255/-108.05679
33.73122/-107.73585 32.67731/-106.53681 32.67731/-106.53681 32.56863/-108.43999
33.37098/-107.84333 32.89856/-106.56882 32.89856/-106.56882 32.48991/-108.50032
33.25424/-107.86409 33.24323/-106.70094 33.04880/-106.62309 32.39142/-108.48959
33.19808/-107.89673 33.98689/-107.15967 33.21824/-106.68992 31.63664/-108.40480
33.02128/-107.87226 33.24347/-106.70165 31.63466/-108.20921
32.47747/-107.77963 34.00708/-107.08652 31.78374/-108.20798
32.31543/-108.16101 34.04967/-107.17524 31.78322/-106.52825
31.79429/-107.88616 33.83491/-107.85971 31.7494/-106.49132
(b) Licensees in the 37-38.6 GHz band located within the zones defined by the coordinates in the table 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
204
below must coordinate their operations with the Department of Defense via the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Table - Coordination Areas for Federal Terrestrial Systems
Location Agency Coordination Area
(Decimal Degrees)
China Lake, CA Navy 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 35.59527 and longitude -117.22583
30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 35.52222 and longitude -117.30333
30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 35.76222 and longitude -117.60055
30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 35.69111 and longitude -117.66916
San Diego, CA Navy 30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 32.68333 and longitude -117.23333
Nanakuli, HI Navy 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 21.38333 and longitude -158.13333
Fishers Island, NY Navy 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 41.25 and longitude -72.01666
Saint Croix, VI Navy 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 17.74722 and longitude -64.88
Fort Irwin, CA Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 35.26666 and longitude -116.68333
Fort Carson, CO Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 38.71666 and longitude -104.65
Fort Hood, TX Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 31.11666 and longitude -97.76666
Fort Bliss, TX Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 31.8075 and longitude -106.42166
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 32.48333 and longitude -114.33333
Fort Huachuca, AZ Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 31.55 and longitude -110.35
White Sands Missile Range, NM Army 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 33.35 and longitude -106.3
Moody Air Force Base, GA Air Force 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 30.96694 and longitude -83.185
Hurlburt Air Force Base, FL Air Force 30 kilometer radius centered on 
latitude 30.42388 and longitude -86.70694
§ 30.206   International coordination.
Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6, and 38.6-40 GHz bands are subject to existing and future 
international agreements with Canada and Mexico.
§ 30.207   RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency radiation exposure requirements specified 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
205
in §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for equipment 
authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a statement 
confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this 
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
§ 30.208  Operability.
Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 
the 37-40 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands.
§ 30.209  Duplexing.
Stations authorized under this rule part may employ frequency division duplexing, time division 
duplexing, or any other duplexing scheme, provided that they comply with the other technical and 
operational requirements specified in this part.
Subpart D – Competitive Bidding Procedures
§ 30.301   Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for Upper Microwave Flexible User Service licenses are subject to 
competitive bidding.  The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this 
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
§ 30.302   Designated entities and bidding credits.
(a)   Eligibility for small business provisions.  (1) A small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, have average gross revenues 
that are not more than $55 million for the preceding three (3) years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the 
preceding three (3) years.
(b)  Bidding credits.  A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business, as defined in this section, or a 
consortium of small businesses may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) 
of this chapter.  A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a 
consortium of very small businesses may use a bidding credit of 25 percent, as specified in § 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
206
1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(c)  A rural service provider, as defined in § 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter, who has not claimed a small 
business bidding credit may use a bidding credit of 15 percent bidding credit, as specified in § 
1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter.
Subpart E - Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-to-Multipoint Hub Stations, 
and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint User Stations
§ 30.401   Permissible service.
Stations authorized under this subpart may deploy stations used solely as fixed point-to-point stations, 
fixed point-to-multipoint hub stations, or fixed point-to-multipoint user stations, as defined in § 30.2 of 
this part, subject to the technical and operational requirements specified in this subpart.   
§ 30.402   Frequency tolerance.
The carrier frequency of each transmitter authorized under this sub-part must be maintained 
within the following percentage of the reference frequency (unless otherwise specified in the 
instrument of station authorization the reference frequency will be deemed to be the assigned 
frequency):
Frequency (MHz) Frequency tolerance (percent) 
27,500 to 28,350 0.001 
38,600 to 40,000 0.03 
§ 30.403   Bandwidth.
(a) Stations under this sub-part will be authorized any type of emission, method of modulation, and 
transmission characteristic, consistent with efficient use of the spectrum and good engineering practice. 
(b) The maximum bandwidth authorized per frequency to stations under this sub-part is set out in the 
table that follows. 
Frequency band (MHz) Maximum authorized bandwidth
27,500 to 28,350 850 MHz
38,600 to 40,000 200 MHz
1
1
For channel block assignments in the 38,600-40,000 MHz bands when adjacent channels are aggregated, 
equipment is permitted to operate over the full channel block aggregation without restriction.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
207
§ 30.404   Emission limits.
(a) The mean power of emissions must be attenuated below the mean output power of the transmitter in 
accordance with the following schedule: 
(1) When using transmissions other than those employing digital modulation techniques: 
(i) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 
100 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 25 decibels; 
(ii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent up to and including 
250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 35 decibels; 
(iii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized 
bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (mean output power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the 
lesser attenuation. 
(2) When using transmissions employing digital modulation techniques in situations not covered in this 
section: 
(i) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more 
than 50 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: As specified by the 
following equation but in no event less than 11 decibels: 
A = 11 + 0.4(P?50) + 10 Log10 B. (Attenuation greater than 56 decibels or to an absolute power of less 
than ?13 dBm/1MHz is not required.) 
(ii) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more 
than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (the mean output power in watts) 
decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation. The authorized bandwidth includes the 
nominal radio frequency bandwidth of an individual transmitter/modulator in block-assigned bands. 
Equipment licensed prior to April 1, 2005 shall only be required to meet this standard in any 4 kHz band. 
(iii) The emission mask in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section applies only to the band edge of each block 
of spectrum, but not to subchannels established by licensees. The value of P in the equation is the 
percentage removed from the carrier frequency and assumes that the carrier frequency is the center of the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
208
actual bandwidth used. The emission mask can be satisfied by locating a carrier of the subchannel 
sufficiently far from the channel edges so that the emission levels of the mask are satisfied. The emission 
mask shall use a value B (bandwidth) of 40 MHz, for all cases even in the case where a narrower 
subchannel is used (for instance the actual bandwidth is 10 MHz) and the mean output power used in the 
calculation is the sum of the output power of a fully populated channel. For block assigned channels, the 
out-of-band emission limits apply only outside the assigned band of operation and not within the band.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 30.405   Transmitter power limitations.
On any authorized frequency, the average power delivered to an antenna in this service must be the 
minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communications desired. Application of this 
principle includes, but is not to be limited to, requiring a licensee who replaces one or more of its 
antennas with larger antennas to reduce its antenna input power by an amount appropriate to compensate 
for the increased primary lobe gain of the replacement antenna(s). In no event shall the average equivalent 
isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the following:
Maximum allowable EIRP
Frequency band (MHz) Fixed (dBW)
27,500-28,350
1
+ 55
38,600-40,000 + 55
1
For Point-to-multipoint user stations authorized in these bands, the EIRP shall not exceed 55 dBw or 42 
dBw/MHz.
§ 30.406   Directional antennas.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized upon specific request by the applicant, each station authorized under the 
rules of this sub-part must employ a directional antenna adjusted with the center of the major lobe of 
radiation in the horizontal plane directed toward the receiving station with which it communicates: 
provided, however, where a station communicates with more than one point, a multi- or omni-directional 
antenna may be authorized if necessary. 
(b) Fixed stations (other than temporary fixed stations) must employ transmitting and receiving antennas 
(excluding second receiving antennas for operations such as space diversity) meeting the appropriate 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
209
performance Standard A indicated below, except that in areas not subject to frequency congestion, 
antennas meeting performance Standard B may be used. For frequencies with a Standard B1 and a 
Standard B2, in order to comply with Standard B an antenna must fully meet either Standard B1 or 
Standard B2. Licensees shall comply with the antenna standards table shown in this paragraph in the 
following manner:
(1) With either the maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points requirement or with the minimum antenna gain 
requirement; and
(2) With the minimum radiation suppression to angle requirement.
Frequency 
(MHz)
Category
Maximum 
beamwidth to 3 dB 
points
1
(included 
angle in degrees)
Minimum 
antenna gain 
(dbi)
Minimum radiation suppression to angle 
in degrees from centerline of main beam 
in decibels
5° 
to10°
10° 
to 
15°
15° 
to 
20°
20° 
to 
30°
30° to 
100°
100° 
to 
140°
140° 
to 
180°
38,600 to 
40,000
2 A n/a 38 25 29 33 36 42 55 55
   B n/a 38 20 24 28 32 35 36 36
1
If a licensee chooses to show compliance using maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points, the beamwidth 
limit shall apply in both the azimuth and the elevation planes.
2
Stations authorized to operate in the 38,600-40,000 MHz band may use antennas other than those 
meeting the Category A standard. However, the Commission may require the use of higher performance 
antennas where interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.
§30.407 Antenna polarization.
In the 27,500-28,350 MHz band, system operators are permitted to use any polarization within its service 
area, but only vertical and/or horizontal polarization for antennas located within 20 kilometers of the 
outermost edge of their service area.
PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
16. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: 
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.  
§101.17 [Removed and Reserved]
17. Remove and reserve § 101.17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
210
§101.56 [Removed and Reserved]
18. Remove and reserve § 101.56.
19. Section 101.63 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 101.63 Period of construction; certification of completion of construction.
(a) Each Station, except in Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service, and the 24 GHz Service, authorized under this part must be in operation within 18 
months from the initial date of grant.
* * * * *
§ 101.101 [Amended]
20. Section 101.101, the table, is amended by removing the entries “27,500-28,350” and 
“38,600-40,000.”
21. Section 101.103 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1) and by removing paragraph (i) 
as follows:
§101.103 Frequency coordination procedures.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1)  When the transmitting facilities in a Basic Trading Area (BTA) are to be operated in the bands 
29,100-29,250 MHz and 31,000-31,300 MHz and the facilities are located within 20 kilometers of the 
boundaries of a BTA, each licensee must complete the frequency coordination process of paragraph (d)(2) 
of this section with respect to neighboring BTA licensees that may be affected by its operations prior to 
initiating service.  In addition, all licensed transmitting facilities operating in the bands 31,000-31,075 
MHz and 31,225-31,300 MHz and located within 20 kilometers of neighboring facilities must complete 
the frequency coordination process of paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to such authorized 
operations before initiating service.
* * * * *
§101.107 [Amended]
22. Section 101.107 is amended by removing the entry “27,500 to 28,350” from the table 
following paragraph (a).
23. Section 101.109 is amended by removing the entries “27,500 to 28,350” and “38,600 to 
40,000” in the table following paragraph (c) and revising footnote 7 to the table.
The revision reads as follows:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
211
§101.109 Bandwidth.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
7
For channel block assignments in the 24,250-25,250 MHz band, the authorized bandwidth is equivalent 
to an unpaired channel block assignment or to either half of a symmetrical paired channel block 
assignment. When adjacent channels are aggregated, equipment is permitted to operate over the full 
channel block aggregation without restriction.
* * * * *
§ 101.113 [Amended]
24. Section 101.113 is amended by removing the entries “27,500-28,350” and “38,600 to 
40,000” in the table following paragraph (a).
§ 101.115 [Amended]
25. Section 101.115 is amended by removing the entry “38,600 to 40,000” in the table 
following paragraph (b)(2) and redesignating footnote 15 as footnote 14.
26. Section 101.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (t) and removing and 
reserving paragraph (v).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 101.147 Frequency assignments.
(a) Frequencies in the following bands are available for assignment for fixed microwave services.
928.0-929.0 MHz (28)
932.0-932.5 MHz (27)
932.5-935 MHz (17)
941.0-941.5 MHz (27)
941.5-944 MHz (17) (18)
952.0-960.0 MHz (28)
1,850-1,990 MHz (20) (22)
2,110-2,130 MHz) (1) (3) (7) (20) (23)
2,130-2,150 MHz (20) (22)
2,160-2,180 MHz (1) (2) (20) (23)
2,180-2,200 MHz (20) (22)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
212
2,450-2,500 MHz (12)
2,650-2,690 MHz 
3,700-4,200 MHz (8) (14) (25)
5,925-6,425 MHz (6) (14) (25)
6,425-6,525 MHz (24)
6,525-6.875 MHz (14) (33)
6,875-7,125 MHz (10), (34)
10,550-10,680 MHz (19)
10,700-11,700 MHz (8) (9) (19) (25)
11,700-12,200 MHz (24)
12,200-12,700 MHz (31) 
12,700-13,200 (22), (34)
13,200-13,250 MHz (4) (24) (25)
14,200-14,400 MHz (24)
17,700-18,820 MHz (5) (10) (15)
17,700-18,300 MHz (10) (15)
18,820-18,920 MHz (22)
18,300-18,580 MHz (5) (10) (15)
18,580-19,300 MHz (22) (30)
18,920-19,160 MHz (5 (10) (15)
19,160-19,260 MHz (22)
19,260-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
19,300-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
21,200-22,000 MHz (4) (11) (12) (13) (24) (25) (26)
22,000-23,600 MHz (4) (11) (12) (24) (25) (26)
24,250-25,250 MHz 
29,100-29,250 MHz (5), (16)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
213
31,000-31,300 MHz (16)
42,000-42,500 MHz
71,000-76,000 MHz (5) (17) 
81,000-86,000 MHz (5) (17) 
92,000-94,000 MHz (17) 
94,100-95,000 MHz (17) 
* * * * *
(t)  29,100-29,250; 31,000-31,300 MHz. These frequencies are available for LMDS systems. Each 
assignment will be made on a BTA service area basis, and the assigned spectrum may be subdivided as 
desired by the licensee.
* * * * *
§ 101.149 [Removed and Reserved]
27. Remove and reserve § 101.149.
28. Section 101.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 101.1005 Frequencies available.
(a) The following frequencies are available for assignment to LMDS in two license blocks:
Block A of 300 MHz
29,100-29,250 MHz
31,075-31,225 MHz
Block B of 150 MHz
31,000-31,075 MHz
31,225-31,300 MHz
(b) In Block A licenses, the frequencies are authorized as follows:
(1) 29,100-29,250 MHz is shared on a co-primary basis with feeder links for non-geostationary orbit 
Mobile Satellite Service (NGSO/MSS) systems in the band and is limited to LMDS hub-to-subscriber 
transmissions, as provided in §§ 25.257 and 101.103(h) of this chapter.
(2) 31,075-31,225 MHz is authorized on a primary protected basis and is shared with private microwave 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
214
point-to-point systems licensed prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in § 101.103(b).
* * * * *
Subpart N — [Removed and Reserved]
Remove and reserve subpart N, consisting of §§101.1201 through 101.1209
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
215
APPENDIX B
Population Densities of Cities with Long-Haul Internet Nodes
Sources:
U.S. Census Bureau
1
Demographia, http://www.demographia.com/db-uscity98.htm.
University of Wisconsin at Madison, Internet Atlas Project (www.internetatlas.org)
2
Location of Long-Haul 
Internet Node
Population 
Density per 
Square Mile
Notes
Pine, Arizona 61.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Manchester, California 75.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Nassau, New York 107.6 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Parker, Arizona 140.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Sun Valley, Idaho 142.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Camp Verde, Arizona 255.2 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Shelbyville, Tennessee 257.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Payson, Arizona 263.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Mammoth Lakes, California 330.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Santa Teresa, NM 387.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi; 
Internet Atlas lists this as Santa Teresa, TX, but 
the city is actually in New Mexico near its 
border with Texas.
Coudersport, Pennsylvania 446.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Bishop, California 505.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Helena, Montana 512.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Truckee, California 522.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Sedona, Arizona 522.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Rocky Mount, North 
Carolina
525.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fairfax, South Carolina 613.6 Unweighted population density per sq mi
                                                     
1
Wherever available, the chart shows population-weighted densities, which the U.S. Census Bureau considers to be 
a more accurate representation than raw population density.   "Population-weighted density is derived from the 
densities of all the census tracts included within the boundary of the CBSA [Core Based Statistical Area]. A metro 
or micro area’s population-weighted density can be thought of as the average of every inhabitant’s census tract 
density. It was calculated using the formula D=?(Pidi)/?Pi, where D is the population-weighted density of a metro 
or micro area, and Pi and di are the population and density of the ith census tract, respectively." U.S. Census Bureau, 
Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 (Sept. 2012) at 23.
2
R. Durairajan, P. Barford, J.Sommers and W. Willinger. InterTubes: A Study of the US Long-haul Fiber-optic 
Infrastructure. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 2015; R. Durairajan, S. Ghosh, X. Tang, P. Barford, and B. 
Eriksson. Internet Atlas: A Geographic Database of the Internet. In Proceedings of ACM HotPlanet, 2013.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
216
Kingsport, Tennessee 633.5 Population-weighted density of Kingsport-
Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
Bristol, Tennessee 633.5 Population-weighted density of Kingsport-
Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
Chesapeake, Virginia 652.2 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Bullhead City, Arizona 665.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Manchester, Tennessee 687.2 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Staunton, Virginia 706.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Danville, Virginia 794.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Spartanburg, South Carolina 799.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lynchburg, Virginia 808.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Ocala, Florida 824.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fort Smith, Arkansas 832.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Johnson City, Tennessee 879.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Stratford, Texas 1,008.5 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Macon, Georgia 1,049.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bandon, Oregon 1,095.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Augusta, Georgia 1,098.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Chattanooga, Tennessee 1,126.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bentonville, Arkansas 1,127.8 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Lake Havasu City, Arizona 1,143.6 Population-weighted density of Lake Havasu 
City-Kingman, AZ
Kingman, Arizona 1,143.6 Population-weighted density of Lake Havasu 
City-Kingman, AZ
Battle Creek, Michigan 1,179.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Winston-Salem, North 
Carolina
1,202.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Wilmington, North Carolina 1,232.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
St. Cloud, Minnesota 1,260.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Greenville, South Carolina 1,264.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Jackson, Mississippi 1,277.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Birmingham, Alabama 1,314.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Redding, California 1,334.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 1,345.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Flagstaff, Arizona 1,348.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bellport, New York 1,389.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Little Rock, Arkansas 1,404.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Columbia, South Carolina 1,428.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Eureka, California 1,439.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Cottonwood, California 1,441.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Winter Haven, Florida 1,462.8 Population-weighted density of Lakeland-
Winter Haven, FL
Lakeland, Florida 1,462.8 Population-weighted density of Lakeland-
Winter Haven, FL
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
217
Pensacola, Florida 1,471.9 Population-weighted density of Pensacola-Ferry 
Pass-Brent, FL
Ferry Pass, Florida 1,471.9 Population-weighted density of Pensacola-Ferry 
Pass-Brent, FL
Brent, Florida 1,471.9 Population-weighted density of Pensacola-Ferry 
Pass-Brent, FL
Roanoke, Virginia 1,483.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Greensboro-High Point, 
North Carolina
1,507.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Wichita Falls, Texas 1,526.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
New London, Connecticut 1,529.2 Population-weighted density of Norwich-New 
London, CT
Shreveport, Louisiana 1,566.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Youngstown, Ohio 1,569.8 Population-weighted density of Youngstown-
Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
Warren, Ohio 1,569.8 Population-weighted density of Youngstown-
Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
Boardman, Pennsylvania 1,569.8 Population-weighted density of Youngstown-
Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
Topeka, Kansas 1,595.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1,603.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Kalamazoo, Michigan 1,603.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Mobile, Alabama 1,659.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Princeton, New Jersey 1,682.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Bozeman, Montana 1,691.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fayetteville, North Carolina 1,694.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Nashville, Tennessee 1,695.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Springfield, Illinois 1,719.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bowling Green, Kentucky 1,730.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Waco, Texas 1,743.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 1,747.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania 1,753.5 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Owatonna, Minnesota 1,761.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Abilene, Texas 1,771.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Savannah, Georgia 1,811.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi
West Palm Beach, Florida 1,813.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Cheyenne, Wyoming 1,817.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Indiana, Pennsylvania 1,833.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Raleigh, North Carolina 1,850.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Roachdale, Indiana 1,852.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Durham, North Carolina 1,860.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Harrisonburg, Virginia 1,861.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Green Bay, Wisconsin 1,869.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
218
Daytona Beach, Florida 1,871.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Brookhaven, New York 1,874.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Gastonia, North Carolina 1,881.3 Population-weighted density of Charlotte-
Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
Charlotte, North Carolina 1,881.3 Population-weighted density of Charlotte-
Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
San Angelo, Texas 1,905.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fort Myers, Florida 1,911.3 Population-weighted density of Cape Coral-Fort 
Myers, FL
Charleston, South Carolina 1,926.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Medford, Oregon 1,939.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Tallahassee, Florida 1,964.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Tulsa, Oklahoma 1,980.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Eagan, Minnesota 1,987.8 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Casper, Wyoming 2,003.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Grand Junction, Colorado 2,015.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
South Bend, Indiana 2,015.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Charlottesville, Virginia 2,050.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lebanon, Pennsylvania 2,053.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Burlington, Vermont 2,053.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
McAllen, Texas 2,083.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Billings, Montana 2,109.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Chico, California 2,144.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Titusville, Florida 2,152.9 Population-weighted density of Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL
Melbourne, Florida 2,152.9 Population-weighted density of Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL
Jacksonville, Florida 2,158.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Atlanta, Georgia 2,173.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Richmond, Virginia 2,175.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Rome-Utica, New York 2,186.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Greeley, Colorado 2,212.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Dayton, Ohio 2,243.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Wichita, Kansas 2,265.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Indianapolis, Indiana 2,285.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
San Luis Obispo, California 2,293.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
York, Pennsylvania 2,306.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Boise, Idaho 2,310.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Poughkeepsie, New York 2,319.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Kansas City, Kansas 2,326.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Gainesville, Florida 2,330.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Grand Rapids, Michigan 2,330.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fredericksburg, Virginia 2,335.2 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Memphis, Tennessee 2,372.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
219
Des Moines, Iowa 2,375.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Sarasota, Florida 2,390.2 Population-weighted density of North Port-
Bradenton-Sarasota, FL
Akron, Ohio 2,412.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Troy, Michigan 2,417.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Altoona, Pennsylvania 2,428.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 2,446.0 Population-weighted density of Harrisburg-
Carlisle, PA
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 2,446.0 Population-weighted density of Harrisburg-
Carlisle, PA
Louisville, Kentucky 2,477.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Ashburn, Virginia 2,559.5 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Middletown, Kentucky 2,563.6 Population-weighted density of Cincinnati-
Middletown, OH-KY-IN
Cincinnati, Ohio 2,563.6 Population-weighted density of Cincinnati-
Middletown, OH-KY-IN
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2,568.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Amarillo, Texas 2,591.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Midland, Texas 2,684.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Toledo, Ohio 2,701.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fort Collins-Loveland, 
Colorado
2,711.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Palo Alto, California 2,717.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Framingham, Massachusetts 2,721.8 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Southfield, Michigan 2,738.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi
St. Louis, Missouri 2,742.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Syracuse, New York 2,749.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fargo, North Dakota 2,770.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Orlando, Florida 2,774.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Eugene, Oregon 2,787.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bryan, Texas 2,804.2 Population-weighted density of College Station-
Bryan, TX
Harlingen, Texas 2,842.9 Population-weighted density of Brownsville-
Harlingen, TX
Spokane, Washington 2,861.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Worcester, Massachusetts 2,885.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 2,889.1 Population-weighted density of Scranton--
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Scranton, Pennsylvania 2,889.1 Population-weighted density of Scranton--
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Rochester, New York 2,909.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lexington-Fayette, 
Kentucky
2,918.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Ogden, Utah 2,937.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
220
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 2,940.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Troy, New York 2,944.9 Population-weighted density of Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, NY
Schenectady, New York 2,944.9 Population-weighted density of Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, NY
Albany, New York 2,944.9 Population-weighted density of Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, NY
Salem, Oregon 2,958.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2,990.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lubbock, Texas 3,077.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Colorado Springs, Colorado 3,092.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Boca Raton, Florida 3,102.6 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Round Rock, Texas 3,131.5 Population-weighted density of Austin-Round 
Rock-San Marcos, TX
Austin, Texas 3,131.5 Population-weighted density of Austin-Round 
Rock-San Marcos, TX
Omaha, Nebraska 3,138.1 Population-weighted density of Omaha-Council 
Bluffs, NE-IA
Council Bluffs, Iowa 3,138.1 Population-weighted density of Omaha-Council 
Bluffs, NE-IA
Harbour Pointe, Washington 3,164.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi of 
Mukilteo, WA
Springfield, Massachusetts 3,184.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Columbus, Ohio 3,186.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Frederick, Maryland 3,198.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Corpus Christi, Texas 3,204.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Tucson, Arizona 3,213.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lansing, Michigan 3,222.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Hartford, Connecticut 3,250.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Erie, Pennsylvania 3,298.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Tampa, Florida 3,323.0 Population-weighted density of Tampa-St. 
Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Saint Petersburg, Florida 3,323.0 Population-weighted density of Tampa-St. 
Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Clearwater, Florida 3,323.0 Population-weighted density of Tampa-St. 
Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Edison, New Jersey 3,343.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Minneapolis, Minnesota 3,383.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
San Antonio, Texas 3,475.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Madison, Wisconsin 3,502.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Albuquerque, New Mexico 3,518.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Plano, Texas 3,629.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Boulder, Colorado 3,650.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lompoc, California 3,658.1 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
221
Bakersfield, California 3,711.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Reno, Nevada 3,714.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Lincoln, Nebraska 3,748.0 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Livonia, Michigan 3,800.4 Population-weighted density of Detroit-Warren-
Livonia, MI
Detroit, Michigan 3,800.4 Population-weighted density of Detroit-Warren-
Livonia, MI
Orange County, California 3,805.6 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Mentor, Ohio 3,808.4 Population-weighted density of Cleveland-
Elyria-Mentor, OH
Elyria, Ohio 3,808.4 Population-weighted density of Cleveland-
Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland, Ohio 3,808.4 Population-weighted density of Cleveland-
Elyria-Mentor, OH
Allentown, Pennsylvania 3,889.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Fort Worth, Texas 3,909.3 Population-weighted density of Dallas-Fort 
Worth-Arlington, TX
Dallas, Texas 3,909.3 Population-weighted density of Dallas-Fort 
Worth-Arlington, TX
New Haven, Connecticut 4,007.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Dearborn, Michigan 4,022.7 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Norfolk, Virginia 4,084.1 Population-weighted density of Virginia Beach-
Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
Sugar Land, Texas 4,109.6 Population-weighted density of Houston-Sugar 
Land-Baytown, TX
Houston, Texas 4,109.6 Population-weighted density of Houston-Sugar 
Land-Baytown, TX
Baytown, Texas 4,109.6 Population-weighted density of Houston-Sugar 
Land-Baytown, TX
Niagara Falls, New York 4,129.4 Population-weighted density of Buffalo-Niagara 
Falls, NY
Buffalo, New York 4,129.4 Population-weighted density of Buffalo-Niagara 
Falls, NY
Fresno, California 4,216.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Provo, Utah 4,270.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
San Bernardino, California 4,299.6 Population-weighted density of Riverside-San 
Bernardino-Ontario, CA
Riverside, California 4,299.6 Population-weighted density of Riverside-San 
Bernardino-Ontario, CA
El Paso, Texas 4,318.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Modesto, California 4,322.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
State College, Pennsylvania 4,366.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
New Orleans, Louisiana 4,370.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
222
Vancouver, Washington 4,372.6 Population-weighted density of Portland-
Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Portland, Oregon 4,372.6 Population-weighted density of Portland-
Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Hillsboro, Oregon 4,372.6 Population-weighted density of Portland-
Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Phoenix, Arizona 4,394.9 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Sacramento, California 4,538.5 Population-weighted density of Sacramento-
Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Roseville, California 4,538.5 Population-weighted density of Sacramento-
Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Auburn, California 4,538.5 Population-weighted density of Sacramento-
Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Arden-Arcade, California 4,538.5 Population-weighted density of Sacramento-
Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Salt Lake City, Utah 4,563.5 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Reading, Pennsylvania 4,656.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Tacoma, Washington 4,721.6 Population-weighted density of Seattle-
Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Seattle, Washington 4,721.6 Population-weighted density of Seattle-
Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Bellevue, Washington 4,721.6 Population-weighted density of Seattle-
Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Providence, Rhode Island 4,763.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Denver, Colorado 4,803.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Stockton, California 4,889.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Bridgeport, Connecticut 5,122.2 Population-weighted density of Bridgeport-
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Stamford, Connecticut 5,122.4 Population-weighted density of Bridgeport-
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Norwalk, Connecticut 5,122.4 Population-weighted density of Bridgeport-
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Hollywood, Florida 5,156.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 5,257.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Laredo, Texas 5,300.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Towson, Maryland 5,435.7 Population-weighted density of Baltimore-
Towson, MD
Baltimore, Maryland 5,435.7 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Deerfield Beach, Florida 5,598.4 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Grover Beach, California 5,720.0 Unweighted population density per sq mi
White Plains, New York 5,801.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Trenton, New Jersey 5,864.6 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Santa Barbara, California 6,242.8 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Washington DC 6,388.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
223
Salinas, California 6,402.3 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Las Vegas, Nevada 6,527.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Anaheim, California 6,752.3 Unweighted population density per sq mi
San Diego, California 6,920.5 Population-weighted density of San Diego-
Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
Carlsbad, California 6,920.5 Population-weighted density of San Diego-
Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
Pompano Beach, Florida 7,395.3 Population-weighted density of Miami-Fort 
Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Miami, Florida 7,395.3 Population-weighted density of Miami-Fort 
Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 7,395.3 Population-weighted density of Miami-Fort 
Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 7,773.2 Population-weighted density per sq mi
San Mateo, California 7,967.8 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Boston, Massachusetts 7,980.1 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Sunnyvale, California 8,417.7 Population-weighted density of San Jose-
Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
San Jose, California 8,417.7 Population-weighted density of San Jose-
Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
Chicago, Illinois 8,613.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Newark, New Jersey 11,644.5 Unweighted population density per sq mi
Santa Ana, California 12,113.9 Population-weighted density of Los Angeles-
Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Los Angeles, California 12,113.9 Population-weighted density of Los Angeles-
Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
San Francisco, California 12,144.9 Population-weighted density of San Francisco-
Oakland-Fremont, CA
Oakland, California 12,144.9 Population-weighted density of San Francisco-
Oakland-Fremont, CA
New York, New York 31,251.4 Population-weighted density per sq mi
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
224
APPENDIX C
Sources and Methods for Geographic Depressions Suitable for Terrain Shielding
This image depicts depressions that might provide suitable locations for gateway earth stations.   With 
advice and guidance from Daniel Doctor and John Young of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 
Commission staff identified these depressions using geographic information system (GIS) analytical tools 
available in ESRI’s ARCGIS software to analyze USGS 90-meter digital elevation data from NASA’s 
Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission.   More specifically, Commission staff used the ARCGIS Spatial 
Analyst Hydrology Toolset Fill tool.   The Hydrology toolset simulates water flow and thereby provides a 
method for identifying depressions that meet specific elevation criteria.   In this case the staff specified 
parameters that would result in depressions with a minimum depth of 30 meters.     The initial depressions 
that were identified were compared with GIS information about water features to eliminate depressions 
that are filled with water, and were further filtered to eliminate depressions that were less than 20,000 
square meters.    The remaining dry locations are completely surrounded by terrain that would create 
natural shielding and, therefore, might be ideal locations for earth stations, including ones required to 
point in any direction in order to track non-geosynchronous satellites.   This method demonstrates one 
possible strategy for identifying suitable earth station locations that would minimize the potential impact 
on terrestrial services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
225
APPENDIX D
Coordination Contours for NASA and NSF sites in the 37-38.6 GHz band
Goldstone, CA  
Table 4: Goldstone Coordination Zones
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (yellow) 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (blue)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.69217/-115.6491 34.19524/-117.47963 34.69217/-115.6491 34.19524/-117.47963
35.25746/-115.32041 34.24586/-117.36210 35.25746/-115.32041 34.24586/-117.36210
36.21257/-117.06567 35.04648/-117.03781 36.11221/-116.63632 34.21748/-117.12812
36.55967/-117.63691 35.04788/-117.00949 36.54731/-117.48242 34.20370/-116.97024
36.66297/-118.31017 34.22940/-117.22327 36.73049/-118.33683 34.12196/-116.93109
36.06074/-118.38528 34.20370/-116.97024 36.39126/-118.47307 34.09498/-116.75473
35.47015/-118.39008 34.12196/-116.93109 36.36891/-118.47134 34.13603/-116.64002
35.40865/-118.34353 34.09498/-116.75473 35.47015/-118.39008 34.69217/-115.6591
35.35986/-117.24709 34.19642/-116.72901 35.40865/-118.34353 34.69217/-115.6491
35.29539/-117.21102 34.64906/-116.62741 35.32048/-117.26386
34.67607/-118.55412 34.44404/-116.31486 34.63725/-118.96736
34.61532/-118.36919 34.52736/-116.27845 34.55789/-118.36204
34.91551/-117.70371 34.76685/-116.27930 34.51108/-118.15329
34.81257/-117.65400 34.69217/-115.6591 34.39220/-118.28852
34.37411/-118.18385 34.69217/-115.6491 34.38546/-118.27460
34.33405/-117.94189 34.37524/-118.24191
34.27249/-117.65445 34.37039/-118.22557
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
226
White Sands, New Mexico
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (yellow) 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (blue)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude 
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
33.98689/-107.15967 31.78455/-106.54058 31.7494/-106.49132 32.88382/-108.16588
33.91573/-107.46301 32.24710/-106.56114 32.24524/-106.56507 32.76255/-108.05679
33.73122/-107.73585 32.67731/-106.53681 32.67731/-106.53681 32.56863/-108.43999
33.37098/-107.84333 32.89856/-106.56882 32.89856/-106.56882 32.48991/-108.50032
33.25424/-107.86409 33.24323/-106.70094 33.04880/-106.62309 32.39142/-108.48959
33.19808/-107.89673 33.98689/-107.15967 33.21824/-106.68992 31.63664/-108.40480
33.02128/-107.87226 33.24347/-106.70165 31.63466/-108.20921
32.47747/-107.77963 34.00708/-107.08652 31.78374/-108.20798
32.31543/-108.16101 34.04967/-107.17524 31.78322/-106.52825
31.79429/-107.88616 33.83491/-107.85971 31.7494/-106.49132
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
227
Socorro, New Mexico
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP (yellow) 75 dBm/100 MHz 
EIRP (blue)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.83816/-107.66828 33.44401/-108.67876 33.10651/-108.19320
34.80070/-107.68759 33.57963/-107.79895 33.11780/-107.99980
34.56506/-107.70233 33.84552/-107.60207 33.13558/-107.85611
34.40826/-107.71489 33.85964/-107.51915 33.80383/-107.16520
34.31013/-107.88349 33.86479/-107.17223 33.94554/-107.15516
34.24067/-107.96059 33.94779/-107.15038 33.95665/-107.15480
34.10278/-108.23166 34.11122/-107.18132 34.08156/-107.18137
34.07442/-108.30646 34.15203/-107.39035 34.10646/-107.18938
34.01447/-108.31694 34.29643/-107.51071 35.24269/-107.67969
33.86740/-108.48706 34.83816/-107.66828 34.06647/-108.70438
33.81660/-108.51052 33.35946/-108.68902
33.67909/-108.58750 33.29430/-108.65004
33.50223/-108.65470 33.10651/-108.19320
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
228
APPENDIX E
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 1.
Commission incorporated an 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 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).  No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  Because we amend the 
rules in this Report and Order, we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
which conforms to the RFA.
2
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the attached Report and Order, we increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum for 2.
mobile broadband by adopting rules for fixed and mobile services in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz 
band), the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), and the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band).  We also 
authorize unlicensed operation pursuant to Part 15 of our rules in the 64-71 GHz band.  These bands are 
known collectively as the “mmW bands.”  
Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered unsuitable for mobile 3.
applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to 
propagate around obstacles.  As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower bands and carriers have 
resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is 
taking another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least some of its presumed 
disadvantages can be turned to advantage.  For example, short transmission paths and high propagation 
losses can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference 
between adjacent cells.  Furthermore, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of 
mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams 
with enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it 
possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into 
handsets—a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz 
where cell phones operate today.  
In the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands, we create a new radio service in a new rule part 4.
that will authorize fixed and mobile services – the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  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 service rules we adopt make additional spectrum available for flexible use.  In 5.
creating service rules for these bands, which include technical rules to protect against harmful 
interference, licensing rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes, and 
performance requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance toward enabling rapid and efficient 
deployment.  We do so by providing flexible service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this 
spectrum, except where special provisions are necessary to facilitate shared use with other co-primary 
users.
For the 28 GHz 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, we propose to assign licenses by 6.
competitive bidding using counties as the area for geographic area licensing in the 28 GHz band and in a 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
229
portion of 37 GHz band (37-37.6 GHz).  We will award PEA-based licenses by competitive bidding for 
the 39 GHz and the upper portion of the 37 GHz band (37.6-38.6 GHz).  In the 37-37.6 GHz band, we 
have created a 600 MHz shared access space with rule-based, non-interfering Shared Access Licenses 
(SALs) which will share the band with Federal fixed and mobile operations.  SAL licensees are not 
guaranteed spectrum access or interference protection from individual licensees.  We believe this system 
at 37 GHz will create 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 small businesses in particular – to 
experiment with new technologies in the mmW space and innovate.
At the same time, because the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands are shared with 7.
satellite services, we have taken steps to facilitate sharing with satellite uses in ways that are consistent 
with fixed and mobile use of the bands.  Specifically, we conclude we will authorize a limited number of 
satellite earth stations to operate on a co-primary basis – one in each county for the 28 GHz band and one 
in each PEA in the 37.5-40 GHz band – on a first-come, first-served basis.  In the 28 GHz band we will 
grandfather pre-existing satellite earth stations in any county into a local interference zone with the right 
to operate under the terms of their existing authorizations.  These FSS earth stations must comply with 
certain enumerated conditions to obtain an authorization for their specific locations, including 
coordinating their operations with any existing mmW licensees to ensure non-interference between the 
services.  Additional earth stations can be located if the FSS operator acquires a Part 30 license, reaches a 
contractual agreement with the Part 30 licensee, or agrees to operate on a secondary basis.
Overall, the new provisions we are adopting are designed to allow licensees to choose 8.
their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile and fixed use in this 
spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment 
will be able to develop through the application of flexible rules.  The market-oriented licensing 
framework for these bands will 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. Summary of Significant Issues raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.9.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission 10.
is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a 
result of those comments.
3
  The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed 
rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 11.
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.
4
  The 
RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 
“small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
5
  In addition, the term “small business” has 
                                                     
3
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
4
5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
230
the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
6
  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.
7
  
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our 12.
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
8
  First, nationwide, 
there are a total of approximately 28.2 million businesses, 99.7 percent of which are small, according to 
the SBA.
9
  In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
10
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.
11
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is 
defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
12
  Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there
were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
13
  We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
14
  Thus, we estimate that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).  The appropriate size standard 13.
under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
15
  Census Bureau data for 2012, show that 
there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 955 had employment 
of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
                                                     
6
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7
15 U.S.C. § 632.
8
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
9
See U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf.
10
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
11
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
12
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
13
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427. 
14
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 small governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,125. If we make the same 
assumption about special districts and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, 
township, and school districts, in 2007 there were 37,381 special districts. Therefore, of the 89,476 small 
governmental organizations documented in 2007, as many as 89,506 may be considered small under the applicable 
standard.  This data may overestimate the number of such organizations that has a population of 50,000 or less. U.S. 
CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited 
therein are from 2007).
15
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
231
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our action.
16
Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,
17
private-14.
operational fixed,
18
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.
19
  They also include the Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),
20
the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),
21
the 39 GHz Service 
(39 GHz),
22
the 24 GHz Service,
23
and the Millimeter Wave Service
24
where licensees can choose 
between common carrier and non-common carrier status.
25
  At present, there are approximately 61,970
common carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,349 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39 GHz licenses, and 
five 24 GHz licenses, and 408 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.
26
  The Commission 
has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  For purposes of the FRFA, the 
Commission will use the SBA’s definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small.
27
  Under that size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
28
  Census Bureau data for 2012, show that 
there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 955 had employment 
of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed 
action.
29
  The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of 
licensees.  The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding 
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
                                                     
16
See United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table. 
17
See 47 CFR Part 10, Subpart I.
18
Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them 
from common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
19
Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 and Part 78 of Title 47 of the Commission’s rules. Available 
to licensees of broadcast stations, cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave 
stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points 
such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
20
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart L.
21
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart G.
22
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart N.
23
See id.
24
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
25
See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
26
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
27
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
28
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
29
See United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
232
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.  Two economic census 15.
categories address the satellite industry.  The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 
million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.
30
  The second also has a size standard of 
$32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
31
The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily16.
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.”
32
  Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 333 Satellite 
Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year.  Of this total, 275 firms had annual receipts of 
under $10 million, and 58 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
33
  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by our action.
The second category, i.e., “All Other Telecommunications,” comprises “establishments 17.
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.”
34
  For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1442
firms that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 1400 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.
35
  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be 
affected by our action.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 18.
Manufacturing.  The proposed rules relating to Part 15 operation pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed 
communications devices.  The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment.  Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and 
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.”
36
   The SBA 
has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is:  all such firms having 
750 or fewer employees.   According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 
establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year.  Of this total, 784 had less 
                                                     
30
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
31
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
32
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications.” 
33
See United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
34
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517919 All Other Telecommunications.”
35
See United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
36
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 334220, available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SA1&prodTyp
e=table.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
233
than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 employees.
37
   Thus, under this size standard, the 
majority of firms can be considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance 
Requirements
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements proposed in 19.
the Report and Order will apply to all entities in the same manner.  The revisions the Commission adopts 
should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for 
gaining access to wireless spectrum.
Any applicants for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses will be required to 20.
file license applications using the Commission’s automated Universal Licensing System (ULS).  ULS is 
an online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool, one that enables 
potential licensees to research applications, licenses, and antenna structures.  It also keeps the public 
informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a telecommunications 
glossary.  Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service applicants that must submit long-form license 
applications must do so through ULS using Form 601,
38
FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the 
Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602,
39
and other appropriate forms.
40
  
Licensees in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service will be subject to performance 21.
requirements based on a series of metrics, tailored to each type of service a licensee may offer.  
Accordingly, mobile services will be required to provide service to 40 percent of the population of their 
license area by the end of their initial license terms.  Geographic area licensees providing Fixed Service in 
the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz will be required to construct and operate at least 15 links per million 
persons in the population.  Satellite operators will be able to meet their build-out requirement by 
deploying an operational earth station in the license area that provides service.  Licensees deploying a mix 
of such services will be able to choose which performance metric – or combination thereof – they desire 
to meet.  Performance will be assessed on a license area basis, regardless of license area size.  For the 28 
GHz band, licenses will terminate automatically if a licensee fails to meet the applicable performance 
requirements.  For geographic area licenses in the 37 and 39 GHz bands, licensees will have the option of 
partitioning their licenses on a county basis to come into compliance with the relevant performance 
metric.  Licensees 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, to both facilitate sharing with other authorized services and to enable 
accurate assessment of their performance.  Incumbent licensees will be granted time to transition to these 
new performance requirements. FSS operators will have to coordinate their operations with any existing 
mmW licensees to ensure non-interference between the services.  
New licensees will also be required, within three years after receiving their licenses but 22.
no later than six months prior to deployment, to file with the Commission a security statement signed by a 
senior licensee executive with personal knowledge of the licensee’s security plans and practice, which
must include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) a high-level, general description of the licensee’s 
security approach designed to safeguard the planned network’s confidentiality, integrity, and availability 
with respect to communications from: a device to the licensee’s network; one element of the licensee’s 
network to another element on the licensee’s network; the licensee’s network to another network; and 
device to device (with respect to telephone voice and messaging services); (2) a high-level, general 
description of the licensee’s approach to assessing and mitigating cyber risk induced by the presence of 
                                                     
37
See id.
38
47 CFR § 1.913(a)(1).
39
47 CFR § 1.919.
40
47 CFR § 1.2107.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
234
multiple participants in the band.  This should include the high level approach taken toward ensuring 
consumer network confidentiality, integrity, and availability security principles, which are to be protected 
in each of the following use cases:  communications between a wireless device and the licensee’s 
network; communications within and between each licensee’s network; communications between mobile 
devices that are under end-to-end control of the licensee; and communications between mobile devices 
that are not under the end-to-end control of the licensee; (3) a high-level description of relevant 
cybersecurity standards and practices to be employed, whether industry-recognized or related to some 
other identifiable approach; (4) a description of the extent to which the licensee participates with 
standards bodies or industry-led organizations pursuing the development or maintenance of emerging 
security standards and/or best practices; (5) the high-level identification of any other approaches to 
security, unique to the services and devices the licensee intends to offer and deploy; and (6) plans to 
incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements 
of the licensee’s security architecture.  Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat 
information sharing..
All of the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the demands 23.
described above, including professional, accounting, engineering or survey services used in meeting these 
requirements will be the same for large and small businesses that intend to utilize these new UMFUS 
licenses, but as described below, several steps have been taken that will alleviate burdens on small 
businesses in particular.
F. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 24.
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
41
As noted above, the various construction and performance requirements and their 25.
associated showings will be the same for large and small businesses that license the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service bands.  To the extent the same cost of complying with these burdens is relatively 
greater for smaller businesses than for large ones, these costs are necessary to effectuate the purpose of 
the Communications Act, namely to further the efficient use of spectrum and to prevent spectrum 
warehousing.  Likewise compliance with our service and technical rules and coordination requirements 
are necessary for the furtherance of our goals of protecting the public while also providing interference 
free services.  Large and small businesses must therefore comply with these rules and requirements, but 
we have taken steps to alleviate the burden on small businesses that seek to comply with these 
requirements, as discussed below. 
The Report and Order provides that in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands, mmW 26.
licensees will have the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with their 
spectrum allocation.  This breaks with the recent past in which licensees were limited to only a single use 
licenses in these bands, and such new flexibility benefits small businesses by giving them more avenues 
for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.  In addition, licensees will be able to make a showing 
based on a combination of fixed and mobile service, simplifying this process for all licensees including 
small businesses.  The Commission has also extended the existing renewal deadlines for incumbent 
licensees in the 28 and 39 GHz bands, giving these licensees, including small businesses in these bands, 
additional time until 2024 to meet the performance requirements pertaining to their current licenses. 
                                                     
41
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
235
Furthermore, the license areas chosen in the Report and Order should provide spectrum 27.
access opportunities for smaller carriers by giving them access to less densely populated areas that match 
their footprints.  For example, the Report and Order transitions the 28 GHz band from being licensed on 
the Basic Trading Area (“BTA”) basis to a much smaller license area – counties.  Similarly, we transition 
the 39 GHz band from being licensed via Economic Areas (“EAs”) to the smaller Partial Economic Areas 
(“PEAs”).  We also use PEAs for the 37 GHz band, which will be newly licensed.  The Commission 
abandons its proposed “hybrid licensing scheme” in the 37 GHz band and has instead opted to use 
geographic area licensing with PEAs in the upper 37.6-38.6 GHz portion with county-based licensing in 
the lower band (37.0-37.6 GHz).  Finally, the Commission has created an unlicensed space in the 64-71 
GHz band.  However, the Report and Order also permits partitioning and disaggregation by licensees in 
the mmW bands.
42
  While PEAs and counties are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities 
for smaller carriers and PEAs could even be further disaggregated, these units of area also nest within and 
may be aggregated to form larger license areas.  Therefore, the benefits and burdens resulting from 
assigning spectrum in PEA and county license areas are equivalent for small and large businesses.  The 
400 MHz shared space the Commission has created in the lower 37 GHz band (37.0-37.6 GHz) should 
also provide ease-of-entry and plenty of space for opportunistic and innovative uses that could be 
developed by small businesses.  These rules should enable providers, or any entities large or small 
providing service in the mmW bands, to more easily adjust their spectrum holdings and build their 
networks pursuant to individual business plans.  We believe this should result in small businesses having 
an easier time acquiring or accessing spectrum.
Licensees may also adjust their geographic coverage through auction in those areas where 28.
we are permitting geographic area auctions or through the secondary markets.  The Report and Order
concludes it will auction licenses in the mmW bands in conformity with the general competitive bidding 
rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission’s rules, and substantially consistent with the 
competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in previous auctions.
43
  The procedures we have 
adopted contain provisions to assist small entities in competitive bidding.
44
The Commission will employ 
the Part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, 
application and payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain 
communications between auction applicants. Furthermore, qualifying “small businesses” – those with 
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $55 million – will be provided with a bidding 
credit of 15 percent, and “very small businesses” – those with average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $20 million – with a bidding credit of 25 percent.
45
  Providing small 
businesses and very small businesses with bidding credits will provide an economic benefit to small 
entities by making it easier for small entities to acquire spectrum or access to spectrum in these bands.
Furthermore, the Report and Order provides for licensing of this spectrum under market-29.
oriented rules.
46
  This includes applying the Commission’s secondary market policies and rules to all 
transactions involving the use of mmW bands, which will provide greater predictability and regulatory 
parity with bands licensed for mobile broadband service.  These rules should make it easier for mmW 
providers to enter secondary market arrangements involving use of their spectrum.  The secondary market 
rules apply equally to all entities, whether small or large.  As a result, we believe that this will provide an 
economic benefit to small entities by making it easier for entities, whether large or small, to enter into 
secondary market arrangements for mmW spectrum.
                                                     
42
See Section IV.F.9.a (Partitioning and Disaggregation).
43
See 47 CFR §§ 1.2101-1.2114.
44
See Report and Order, paras. 213-214.  
45
See id. at para. 249
46
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.1 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
236
The Report and Order also adopts an operability requirement such that any device designed 30.
to operate within the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands (37 – 40 GHz) must be capable of operating on all 
frequencies within those bands.  This operability requirement will ensure that devices developed for the 
geographic area licensed portion of the band will also operate in the innovation shared space, making it 
easier for smaller businesses with fewer resources to find equipment that can operate across multiple 
bands  The technical rules in the Report and Order will also allow licensees of the mmW spectrum to 
operate while protecting licensees in nearby spectrum from harmful interference, some of whom may be 
small entities
Finally, the proposals to facilitate satellite service in the 28 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz bands31.
should also assist small satellite businesses.
A. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
None.32.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
237
APPENDIX F
List of Commenters to Spectrum Frontiers NPRM
Commenters
5G Americas f/k/a 4G Americas (5G Americas)
Aeronet Global Communications, Inc. (Aeronet)
AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)
Avanti Communications Group PLC (Avanti)
The Boeing Company (Boeing)
Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA)
Comsearch
Consumer Technology Association f/k/a Consumer Electronics Association (CTA)
CORF - NAS Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF)
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)
Echodyne Corp. (Echodyne)
EchoStar, Hughes, and Alta (EchoStar)
EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA)
Ericsson
Facebook, Inc. (Facebook)
Federated Wireless, Inc. (Federated Wireless)
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC (FiberTower)
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)
Global VSAT Forum
Google, Inc. (Google)
High Tech Spectrum Coalition (HTSC)
Huawei Technologies, Inc. (USA), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei)
IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (IEEE 802)
Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC)
Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc. (Inmarsat)
Intel Corporation (Intel)
Interisle Consulting Group LLC (Interisle)
Iridium Communications, Inc. (Iridium)
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)
Mobile Future
Mobile Manufacturers Forum
National Cable & Television Association (NCTA)
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
Nokia
O3b Limited (O3b)
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Public Knowledge
PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA)
Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm)
Rockwell Automation (Rockwell)
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Research America (Samsung)
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
SES Americon, Inc. (SES Americom)
Skyriver Communications, Inc. (Skyriver)
Straight Path Communications Inc. (Straight Path)
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
238
Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon)
ViaSat, Inc. (ViaSat)
Vubiq Networks (Vubiq)
Wi-Fi Alliance
XO Communications, LLC (XO)
Reply Commenters
AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)
Avanti Communications Group PLC (Avanti)
The Boeing Company (Boeing)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA)
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)
EchoStar, Hughes and Alta (EchoStar)
EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA)
Ericsson
Federated Wireless, Inc. (Federated Wireless)
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC (FiberTower)
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)
IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society (GRSS) Technical Committee on Frequency Allocations 
in Remote Sensing (IEEE FARS)
Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC)
Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc. (Inmarsat)
Intel Corporation (Intel)
Iridium Communications, Inc. (Iridium)
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)
Mobile Future
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
Nokia
O3b Limited (O3b)
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Public Knowledge
Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm)
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Research America (Samsung)
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom)
Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern Co.)
Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
Straight Path Communications, Inc. (Straight Path)
Sunshine LMDS Network, Inc., Broadband One of California, Inc., Broadband One of the Midwest, Inc., 
Broadband One North, Inc., Broadband One of the Southeast, Inc., and Verso LMDS, LLC (Joint LMDS 
Licensees)
TechFreedom
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)
United States Cellular Corporation (US Cellular)
ViaSat, Inc. (ViaSat)
Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon)
Wi-Fi Alliance
The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
XO Communications, LLC (XO)
Zodiac Inflight Innovations (ZII)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
239
Ex Parte Filers
5G Americas f/k/a 4G Americas (5G Americas)
Aeronet Global Communications, Inc. (Aeronet)
Airbus
Akbar Sayeed
AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T)
Bartlett D. Cleland
The Boeing Company (Boeing)
Broadcom
CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
CORF-NAS Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF)
DISH Network Corporation (DISH)
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)
EchoStar, Hughes and Alta (EchoStar)
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation (EchoStar)
Ericsson
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC (FiberTower)
GigaNets Project (GigaNets)
Google, Inc. (Google)
Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC)
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc. (Inmarsat)
Intel Corporation (Intel)
Intelsat Corporation (Intelsat)
Iridium Communications, Inc. (Iridium)
Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin)
National Spectrum Management Association (NSMA)
Nextlink Wireless, LLC (Nextlink)
Nokia
O3b Limited (O3b)
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
PHAZR
Public Knowledge
Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm)
Reed Hundt
Samsung Electronics America (Samsung)
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom)
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)
Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
Starry, Inc. (Starry)
Straight Path Communications, Inc. (Straight Path)
Sunshine LMDS Network, Inc., Telepak Networks, Inc., Broadband One of California, Inc., Broadband 
One of the Midwest, Inc., Broadband One North, Inc., Broadband One of the Southeast, Inc., and Verso 
LMDS, LLC (Joint LMDS Licensees)
Telesat Canada (Telesat)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)
Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon)
ViaSat, Inc. (ViaSat)
Wi-Fi Alliance
WorldVu Satellites Ltd./OneWeb (OneWeb)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
240
APPENDIX G
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
47 CFR parts 2, 25, 30 and 101 as follows:
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by revising pages 54, 56, and 
58-62 to read as follows:
§ 2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
241
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150
24-24.05
5.150  US211
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150  US211
ISM Equipment (18)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION G59
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Radiolocation
5.150
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
Private Land Mobile (90)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.25-24.45
FIXED
24.25-24.45
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45 24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
5.533
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
24.75-25.25
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
MOBILE
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  NG535
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
Inter-satellite  5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
RF Devices (15)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.536B
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)  5.536C
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH
   (space-to-Earth)
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US258
25.5-27
Inter-satellite 5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US2585.536A Page 54
31-31.3
FIXED  5.338A  5.543A
31-31.3
Standard frequency and time
31-31.3
FIXED  NG60 Fixed Microwave (101)
242
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
Space research  5.544  5.545
5.149
   signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211  US342
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211  US342
31.3-31.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340
31.3-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY  US74
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Fixed
Mobile except aeronautical mobile
5.149  5.546
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Fixed
Mobile except aeronautical mobile
5.149 US246
31.8-32
FIXED  5.547A
RADIONAVIGATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)
5.547  5.547B  5.548
31.8-32.3
RADIONAVIGATION  US69
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)  US262
31.8-32.3
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)  US262
Upper Microwave
   Flexible Use (30)
32-32.3
FIXED  5.547A
RADIONAVIGATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)
5.547  5.547C  5.548 5.548  US211 5.548  US211
32.3-33
FIXED  5.547A
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.547  5.547D  5.548
32.3-33
INTER-SATELLITE  US278
RADIONAVIGATION  US69
5.548
32.3-33
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  US278
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION  US69
5.548
Upper Microwave
   Flexible Use (30)
Aviation (87)
33-33.4
FIXED  5.547A
RADIONAVIGATION
5.547  5.547E
33-33.4
RADIONAVIGATION  US69
US360  G117
33-33.4
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION  US69
US360
33.4-34.2
RADIOLOCATION
5.549
33.4-34.2
RADIOLOCATION
US360  G117
33.4-34.2
Radiolocation
US360
Private Land Mobile (90)
34.2-34.7
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earth-to-space)
5.549
34.2-34.7
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (Earth-to-space) US262
US360  G34  G117
34.2-34.7
Radiolocation
Space research (deep space)
   (Earth-to-space)  US262
US360 Page 56 
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
FIXED
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
40-40.5
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Satellite Communications (25)
243
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite
   (space-to-Earth)
G117
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-
   Earth)  5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-
   Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
5.547
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211  G117
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Fixed
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211
41-42.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
41-42
US211
41-42
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
US211
42-42.5
FIXED
MOBILE
42-42.5
FIXED
MOBILE
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
5.547  5.551F  5.551H  5.551I US211 US211
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
5.149  5.547
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US342
42.5-43.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US342
43.5-47
MOBILE  5.553
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
43.5-45.5
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
G117
43.5-45.5
45.5-46.9
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
RF Devices (15)
5.554 Page 58 
244
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                          46.9-59 GHz (EHF) Page 59
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
(See previous page) 46.9-47
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
46.9-47
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
47-48.2 47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Amateur Radio (97)
47.2-47.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
5.552A
47.2-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   US297
MOBILE
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
47.5-47.9
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552  (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
   5.554A
MOBILE
47.5-47.9
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
47.9-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
5.552A
48.2-48.54
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552  (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
   5.554A  5.555B
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.338A  5.516B  5.552
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  US156  US297
MOBILE  US264
48.54-49.44
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552
MOBILE
5.149  5.340  5.555
49.44-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.338A  5.552  (space-to-Earth)
   5.516B  5.554A  5.555B
MOBILE 5.149  5.340  5.555 5.555  US342
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US246
245
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.338A
MOBILE
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   US156
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
G117
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   US156
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
51.4-52.6
FIXED  5.338A
MOBILE
5.547  5.556
51.4-52.6
FIXED  US157
MOBILE
52.6-54.25
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340  5.556
52.6-54.25
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US246
54.25-55.78
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.556B
54.25-55.78
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Satellite Communications (25)
55.78-56.9
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED  5.557A
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.547  5.557
55.78-56.9
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED  US379
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353  US532
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.558A
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.547  5.557
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  G128
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US532
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US532
57-58.2
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.547  5.557
57-58.2
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US532
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
58.2-59
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.547  5.556
58.2-59
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353  US354
RF Devices (15)
Page 60
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                            59-86 GHz (EHF) Page 61
246
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s) 
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.556A
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
   (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353
RF Devices (15)
59.3-64
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138
59.3-64
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138  US353
59.3-64
FIXED
MOBILE  5.558
RADIOLOCATION  5.559
5.138  US353
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
64-65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.547  5.556
64-65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
64-65
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RF Devices (15)
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
5.547
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
66-71
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE  5.553  5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
US389
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.561
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
76-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
76-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
76-77
RADIO ASTRONOMY RF Devices (15)
247
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
5.149 US342
77-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
RF Devices (15)
Amateur Radio (97)
77.5-78
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149
77.5-78
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
77.5-78
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
78-79
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149  5.560
78-79
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.560  US342
78-79
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.560  US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
81-84
FIXED  5.338A
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149  5.561A
81-84
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  US297
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US161  US342  US389
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
84-86
FIXED  5.338A
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.561B
MOBILE
RADIO ASTRONOMY
5.149
84-86
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US161  US342  US389 Page 62 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and 721 of the 
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 721, 
unless otherwise noted.
4. Amend § 25.208 by revising paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as follows:
§ 25.208  Power flux density limits.
* * * * *
(q)  In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from 
a geostationary space station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following values:
?127 dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal 
plane;
?127 + 4/3 (??5) dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival ? (in degrees) between 5 and 20 
degrees above the horizontal plane; and
?107 + 0.4 (??20) dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival ? (in degrees) between 20 and 25 
degrees above the horizontal plane;
?105 dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal 
plane.
(r)  In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from 
a non-geostationary space station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following values:
?120 dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal 
plane;
?120 + 0.75 (??5) dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival ? (in degrees) between 5 and 25
degrees above the horizontal plane; and
?105 dB(W/m
2
) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal 
plane.
* * * * *
PART 30 – UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
5. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
6. Revise Section 30.4 by adding paragraphs (d) through (j) to read as follows:
§ 30.4 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(d) 24.25-24.45 GHz band;
(e) 24.75-25.25 GHz band:  24.75-25.00 GHz, 25.00-25.25 GHz;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
249
(f) 31.8-33.4 GHz band:
Channel Number Frequency
1 31,000-32,000
2 32,000-32,200
3 32,200-32,400
4 32,400-32,600
5 32,600-32,800
6 32,800-33,000
7 33,000-33,200
8 33,200-33,400
(g) 42-42.5 GHz band:
(h) 47.2-50.2 GHz band:
Channel Number Frequency
1 47,200-47,700
2 47,700-48,200
3 48,200-48,700
4 48,700-49,200
5 49,200-49,700
6 49,700-50,200
(i) 50.4-52.6 GHz band:
Channel Number Frequency
1 50,400-50,600
2 50,600-50,800
3 50,800-51,000
4 51,000-51,200
5 51,200-51,400
6 51,400-51,600
7 51,600-51,800
8 51,800-52,000
9 52,000-52,200
10 52,200-52,400
11 52,400-52,600
(j) The 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands shall be available on a shared basis pursuant to the rules in 
subpart F of this part.
7. Amend § 30.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 30.5 Service areas.
(a)  Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and except for the shared 37-37.6 GHz, 71-
76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, the service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
250
Partial Economic Areas.
* * * * *
8. Amend § 30.7 by adding paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as follows:
§ 30.7   37-37.6 GHz Band – Shared Coordinated Service.
* * * * *
(d) The minimum authorized channel bandwidth in this band is 100 megahertz.
(e) Registered non-Federal sites must be put placed service within seven days of coordination.
(f) Equipment in this band must be capable of notifying the database that it is active on the channel.  At 
least once every seven days, the equipment must be capable of notifying the coordination mechanism that 
the equipment is active and operating.  If the equipment fails to make such a notification, the registration 
to operate that equipment is automatically terminated.
(g) Federal licensees may claim access to 200 megahertz of spectrum in this area on a priority basis.
* * * * *
9. Amend § 30.202 by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and adding paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:
§ 30.202   Power limits.
(a)  For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile systems, the average power of the 
sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP)
density of +75dBm/100MHz , except as specified in paragraph (e) below.
(b)  For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum 
EIRP density of +43 dBm/100MHz
(c)  For transportable stations, as defined in § 30.2, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements 
is limited to a maximum EIRP density of +55 dBm/100MHz.
* * * * * 
(e) Antenna Height Limits
Antenna height (AAT) 
in meters (feet) 
Effective isotropic radiated power density (EIRP)
(dBm/ 100 MHz) 
Above 1372 (4500) 62
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
251
Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500) 63
Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000) 64
Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500) 65
Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000) 67
Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500) 69
Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000) 71
Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500) 73
Up to 305 (1000) 75
10. Add Section 30.210 to read as follows:
§ 30.210   Information sharing requirements in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band.
(a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or Mobile Service system in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band will make the 
technical information about its system listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section available to FSS 
operators by one or more of the following means:
(1) An online database operated by the Upper Microwave Flexible Use licensee;
(2) An online database operated by a third-party database manager, or 
(3) A continuously transmitted pilot signal receivable throughout the terrain within which a FSS facility 
could cause interference to or receive interference from the terrestrial system.
(b) All licensees deploying fixed systems in the48.2-50.2 GHz bands will make the following 
information about each such system available to FSS operators in those bands by one or more of the 
means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, effective isotropic radiated power, emission designator, and type 
of modulation (digital).
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, gain, and a radiation pattern provided or certified by the 
manufacturer.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
252
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above mean sea 
level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with respect to the horizon.
(9) Receiving station name.
(10) Receiving station coordinates.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and, if required, a radiation pattern provided or certified by the 
manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above mean sea 
level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with respect to the horizon.
(14) Path azimuth and distance.
(c) All licensees deploying mobile service base stations in the 48.2-50.2 GHz bands will make the 
following information about each such base station available to FSS operators by one or both of the 
means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, maximum effective isotropic radiated power, emission 
designator, and types of modulation.
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, maximum gain, and maximum extent of all possible radiation 
patterns provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above mean sea 
level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) maximum and minimum angles of elevation with respect to the 
horizon.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
253
(9) Transmitting antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or designation of 
omnidirectionality.
(10) Boundary of the area served by the base station for purposes of communication with mobile user 
equipment.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and maximum extent of all possible radiation patterns provided 
or certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above mean sea 
level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight maximum and minimum angles of elevation with respect to the 
horizon.
(14) Receiving antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or designation of 
omnidirectionality.
11. Add subpart F to part 30 to read as follows: 
Subpart F – Shared operation in the 71-76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
Sec.
30.501  Scope.
30.502  Authorization required.
30.503  Frequency assignments.
30.504  Technical rules.
30.505  Protection of Federal incumbents.
30.506   Priority Access Licenses.
30.507 General Access.
30.508 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality
30.509 Registration, authentication, and authorization of devices
§ 30.501   Scope.
(a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of devices in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz 
bands.  The operation of all equipment in this band shall be coordinated by one or more authorized 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
254
Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).
(b) Operations in this band include Priority Access and General Authorized Access tiers of service. 
Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to 
Incumbent Users and must accept interference from Incumbent Users. General Authorized Access Users 
must not cause harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and must accept interference from 
Priority Access Licensees.
§ 30.502   Authorization required.
(a) Devices must be used and operated consistent with the rules in this subpart.
(b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application, provided that the applicant is 
qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the 
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 
308, 309, and 310. The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, 
conditions, and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the provisions of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules and policies thereunder.
(c) Grandfathered registered fixed links are authorized to operate consistent with § 101.1529 of this 
chapter.
§ 30.503   Frequency assignments.
(a) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in use by a Priority Access Licensee may 
be utilized by General Authorized Access Users.
(b) An SAS shall assign authorized devices to specific frequencies, which may be reassigned by that SAS, 
consistent with this part.
§ 30.504   Technical rules.
Devices in these bands shall be subject to the technical rules in subpart C of this part.
§ 30.505   Protection of Federal incumbents.
Prior to commencing operation, all operations in these bands must complete coordination with Federal 
Government links according to the coordination standards and procedures adopted in Report and Order, 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
255
FCC 03-248, and as further detailed in subsequent implementation public notices issued consistent with 
that order.
§ 30.506   Priority Access Licenses.
(a) Applications for Priority Access Licenses must:
(1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an authorization;
(2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
(3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application forms;
(4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance with all applicable rules; and
(5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, in 
accordance with the provisions of § 1.65 of this chapter.
(b) Devices used for Priority Access must register with a Spectrum Access System and comply with its 
instructions pursuant to § 30.508.
(c) Records pertaining to PALs, including applications and licenses, shall be maintained by the 
Commission in a publicly accessible system.
§ 30.507   General Access.
(a) Devices used for General Authorized Access must register with the Spectrum Access System and 
comply with its instructions.
(b) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to use frequencies assigned to Priority Access 
Licenses when such frequencies are not in use, as determined by the Spectrum Access System.
(c) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access Use shall be made available on a shared 
basis.
(d) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of interference protection from other 
General Authorized Access Users operating in accordance with this part.
(e) General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to and must accept interference 
from Priority Access Licensees and Grandfathered Registered Links in accordance with this part.
§ 30.508   Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
256
The Spectrum Access System shall:
(a) Enact and enforce all policies and procedures developed by the SAS Administrator.
(b) Determine and provide to devices the permissible channels or frequencies at their location.
(c) Determine and provide to devices the maximum permissible transmission power level at their location.
(d) Register and authenticate the identification information and location of devices.
(e) Ensure that devices protect Grandfathered Register Links from harmful interference.
(f) Protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused by other Priority Access Licenses and from 
General Authorized Access Users.
(g) Resolve conflicting uses of the band while maintaining, as much as possible, a stable radio frequency 
environment.
(h) Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between the SAS and devices.
(i) Protect Grandfathered Registered Links consistent with § 101.1529 of this chapter.
(n) Implement the terms of applicable current and future international agreements.
§ 30.509   Registration, authentication, and authorization of devices.
(a) A Spectrum Access System must register, authenticate, and authorize operations of devices consistent 
with this part.
(b) Devices composed of a network of base and fixed stations may employ a subsystem for aggregating 
and communicating all required information exchanges between the SAS and devices.
(c) A Spectrum Access System must also verify that the FCC identifier (FCC ID) of any device seeking 
access to its services is valid prior to authorizing it to begin providing service.  A list of devices with valid 
FCC IDs and the FCC IDs of those devices is to be obtained from the Commission's Equipment 
Authorization System.
PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
12. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: 
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.  
13. Add § 101.1529 to read as follows: 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
257
§ 101.529 Grandfathered operation and transition to upper microwave flexible use service.
Links registered with a third party database administrator on or before [insert effective date of rules] that 
are constructed, in service, and fully compliant with the rules in part 101, subpart Q as of [insert date one 
year after effective date of rules] will be afforded protection from harmful interference caused by Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use users until the end of their license term.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
APPENDIX H
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 1.
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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).  Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines specified in the FNPRM for comments.  The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
3
  
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to authorize mobile operations in 2.
the 24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band), the 31.8-33.4 GHz band (32 GHz band), the 
42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band), the 47.2-50.2 GHz band (47 GHz band), the 50.4-52.6 GHz band (50 
GHz band) and the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands).  We are also seeking comment on 
possible uses of bands above 95 GHz.  Together with the bands that are the subject of our Report and 
Order – namely the 28, 37, 39 and 57-71 GHz bands, these bands are known as the “mmW bands”.  
Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered unsuitable for mobile applications 3.
because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate 
around obstacles.  As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower bands and carriers have resorted to 
smaller and smaller microcells in order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is taking 
another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least some of its presumed disadvantages 
can be turned to advantage.  For example, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can 
facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference between 
adjacent cells.  Furthermore, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW 
signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams with 
enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it 
possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into 
handsets—a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz 
where cell phones operate today.  
We propose to include the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz, 50 GHz and 70/80 GHz bands4.
in the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  We also propose to add a mobile allocation in the 
24 GHz and 32 GHz bands.  This additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, 
capacity, and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for 
mobile service.  It could also make possible new types of services for consumers and businesses.  
In proposing service rules for these bands, which include technical rules to protect against 5.
harmful interference, licensing rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes, and 
performance requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance toward enabling rapid and efficient 
deployment.  We do so by proposing flexible service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this 
spectrum, except where special provisions are necessary to facilitate shared use with other co-primary 
users.
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
259
For the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz and 50 GHz bands we propose to assign PEA-6.
based licenses through competitive bidding.  In the 48.2-50.2 GHz portion of the 47 GHz band, we 
propose to require licensees to provide information on their facilities to enable sharing with FSS user
equipment.  Finally, in the 71-76/81-86 GHz bands, we seek comment on various systems managed by 
database operators which will coordinate use as between mmW base stations, fixed point-to-point links 
used for backhaul, and Federal operations.
A portion of the 24 GHz band is allocated for satellite service but is limited to only feeder 7.
links for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS), and we have proposed to either retain existing 
coordination procedures or to adopt the sharing regime used for the 28 GHz band to manage interference 
between terrestrial and satellite operations.  Meanwhile, the 47 GHz band is also allocated for satellite and 
is intended to be used for FSS user equipment.  We have proposed that FSS operation at 47 GHz be 
limited to individually licensed earth stations subject to the same sharing framework we adopt today in 
the 28 GHz band except with SAS-based sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations.  Finally, 
although the 50 GHz band is also allocated for satellite, it contains no present satellite use and the 
Commission is exploring sharing mechanisms for the band in the future, including SAS.
Overall, these proposals are designed to provide for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing 8.
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.
In the FNPRM, we also seek comment on various proposals for refining the rules we have 9.
adopted in the Report and Order.  We seek comment on various ways of developing the shared access 
framework we have 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.  We propose to adopt additional performance requirement metrics for uses such as Internet 
of Things and machine-to-machine communications.  Adopting these additional metrics will allow 
licensees to use the mmW bands for innovative uses with the certainty that they can meet performance 
requirements and renew their licenses.  For example, we seek further comment on whether we should 
impose a “use-or-share” obligation on UMFUS licensees in order to efficiently make as much unused 
spectrum available as possible.  Such a “use-or-share” regime could take varying forms, such as a fully 
dynamic sharing solution whereby opportunistic users could indefinitely deploy outside a licensee’s 
geographic build-out area subject to the latter’s potential expansion - as coordinated by a third-party 
database administrator; a modified shared access system whereby meeting a defined level of deployment 
in a set of geographic areas would foreclose their opportunistic use; and, an unlicensed shared access 
approach whereby opportunistic users would operate wherever licensees were not actually deployed.
We seek comment on whether we can allow FSS satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to 10.
operate at higher power and transmit a higher power flux density at the Earth’s surface.  If we can allow 
such higher power without causing interference to terrestrial operations, this change could allow FSS 
operators to make greater use of the band.  We also ask whether we should repeal the prohibition on 
satellite (FSS) user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band and seek comment on whether terrestrial 
operators should have to divulge their deployments to FSS providers through a database in order to allow 
individual users to install their own receiving equipment without interfering with terrestrial operations.  In 
addition, we ask whether we should adopt a requirement that millimeter wave band systems transmit an 
ID identifying themselves to enable better identification and control of sources of interfering signals much 
the same way that TV, radio or even WiFi systems presently identify themselves.  Finally, we seek 
comment on revisions to the technical rules for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, including 
revising coordination criteria between adjacent licensees for point-to-point operations; establishing a 
minimum bandwidth and bandwidth scaling factor corresponding to various power levels; proposing a 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
260
reduction in transmit power limits responsive to increasing antenna height, and obtaining further 
information on millimeter wave propagation models, and whether Part 15 operations in the 57-71 GHz 
band can be allowed on board aircraft.  These portions of the FNPRM will help ensure that licensees have 
maximum flexibility to operate while not causing interference to other licensees.
C. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 11.
302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 
U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 
319, 332, 336 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules 
Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the 12.
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.
4
  The RFA 
generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 
“small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
5
  In addition, the term “small business” has 
the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
6
  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.
7
  
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our action 13.
may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, 
at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
8
  First, nationwide, there are a 
total of approximately 28.2 million businesses, 99.7 percent of which are small, according to the SBA.
9
  
In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
10
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 
1,621,315 small organizations.
11
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally 
as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”
12
  Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 
local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
13
  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506 
                                                     
4
5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
6
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7
15 U.S.C. § 632.
8
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
9
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf.
10
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
11
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
12
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
13
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
261
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
14
  Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).  The appropriate size standard under 14.
SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
15
  Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 
967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or 
fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our action.
16
Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,
17
private-15.
operational fixed,
18
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.
19
  They also include the Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),
20
the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),
21
the 39 GHz Service 
(39 GHz),
22
the 24 GHz Service,
23
and the Millimeter Wave Service
24
where licensees can choose 
between common carrier and non-common carrier status.
25
  At present, there are approximately 61,970
common carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,349 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39 GHz licenses, and 
                                                     
14
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 small governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,125. If we make the same 
assumption about special districts and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, 
township, and school districts, in 2007 there were 37,381 special districts. Therefore, of the 89,476 small 
governmental organizations documented in 2007, as many as 89,506 may be considered small under the applicable 
standard.  This data may overestimate the number of such organizations that has a population of 50,000 or less. U.S. 
CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited 
therein are from 2007).
15
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
16
See
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table. 
17
See 47 C.F.R. Part 10, Subpart I.
18
Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 CFR Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from 
common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
19
Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 and Part 78 of Title 47 of the Commission’s rules. Available 
to licensees of broadcast stations, cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave 
stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points 
such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
20
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart L.
21
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart G.
22
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart N.
23
See id.
24
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
25
See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
262
five 24 GHz licenses, and 408 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.
26
  The Commission 
has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  For purposes of the FRFA, the 
Commission will use the SBA’s definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small.
27
  Under that size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
28
  Census Bureau data for 2012, show that 
there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 955 had employment 
of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed 
action.
29
  The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of 
licensees.  The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding 
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.  Two economic census 16.
categories address the satellite industry.  The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 
million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.
30
  The second also has a size standard of 
$32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
31
The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged 17.
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.”
32
  Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 333 Satellite 
Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year.  Of this total, 275 firms had annual receipts of 
under $10 million, and 58 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
33
  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by our action.
The second category, i.e., “All Other Telecommunications,” comprises “establishments 18.
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.”
34
  For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1442
firms that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 1400 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
                                                     
26
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
27
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
28
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
29
See
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table. 
30
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
31
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
32
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications.” 
33
See
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
34
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517919 All Other Telecommunications.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
263
and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.
35
  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be 
affected by our action.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 19.
Manufacturing.  The proposed rules relating to Part 15 operation pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed 
communications devices.  The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment.  Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and 
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.”
36
   The SBA 
has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is:  all such firms having 
750 or fewer employees.   According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 
establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year.  Of this total, 784 had less 
than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 employees.
37
   Thus, under this size standard, the 
majority of firms can be considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance Requirements
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements proposed in the 20.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will apply to all entities in the same manner.  The revisions the 
Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and 
more options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.  
Any applicants for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses will be required to file 21.
license applications using the Commission’s automated Universal Licensing System (ULS).  ULS is an 
online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool, one that enables potential 
licensees to research applications, licenses, and antenna structures.  It also keeps the public informed with 
weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary.  Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service applicants that must submit long-form license applications must do so 
through ULS using Form 601,
38
FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602,
39
and other appropriate forms.
40
  
Applicants in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service will be required to meet buildout 22.
requirements at the end of their initial license terms.  In doing do, they will be required to provide 
information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed, the nature of the service they are 
providing, and the extent to which they are providing coverage in their license area.  
We also propose to require Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees to provide 23.
information on their proposed operations in order to facilitate sharing with other authorized services.  This 
may include the possibility that UMFUS licensees will have to digitally identify their stations in order to
help identify and eliminate causes of interference.  In the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, terrestrial licensees may 
                                                     
35
See 
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodT
ype=table.
36
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 334220, available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SA1&prodTyp
e=table.
37
See id.
38
47 CFR § 1.913(a)(1).
39
47 CFR § 1.919.
40
47 CFR § 1.2107.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
264
have to report their deployment information to FSS providers to facilitate the deployment of FSS user 
equipment.  We seek comment on the scope of the information to be provided and the manner in which it 
should be provided.
We expect that all of the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 24.
demands described above, including professional, accounting, engineering or survey services used in 
meeting these requirements will be the same for large and small businesses that intend to utilize these new 
UMFUS licenses, but we seek comment on any steps that could be taken to minimize any significant 
economic impact on small businesses.
F. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 25.
reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
41
  
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether any of burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements described above can be minimized for small businesses.  In particular, we seek 
comment on whether any of the costs associated with our construction or performance requirements in 
these bands can be alleviated for small businesses.
We intend to license the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, and 50 GHz bands on a PEA basis, but 26.
we will also permit partitioning and disaggregation by licensees in the mmW bands.
42
  As we noted above 
in the Report and Order, while PEAs are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for 
smaller carriers and PEAs could even be further disaggregated, PEAs also nest within, and may be 
aggregated to form, larger license areas.  Therefore, the benefits and burdens resulting from assigning 
spectrum in PEA license areas would be equivalent for small and large businesses.  Depending on the 
licensing mechanisms we adopt for these bands, licensees may adjust their geographic coverage through 
auction or through the secondary markets.  This proposal should enable providers, or any entities, whether 
large or small, providing service in the mmW bands to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their 
networks pursuant to individual business plans.  And we believe this ability to adjust spectrum holdings 
will make it easier for small entities to acquire or access spectrum.  We seek comment from the public 
concerning whether these license area determinations would indeed benefit the small businesses or 
whether there are other alternatives we should consider.
For UMFUS bands for which we accept mutually exclusive initial applications, we will 27.
resolve such applications by competitive bidding conducted pursuant to Part 1 Subpart Q of the 
Commission’s rules, including rules governing designated entity preferences.
43
  In the Report and Order, 
we adopted bidding credits for applicants for UMFUS licenses who qualify as small businesses.  An 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $55 million will 
qualify as a “small business” and be eligible to receive a 15 percent discount on its winning bid. An 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20 million will 
qualify as a “very small business” and be eligible to receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid.
44
  
The FNPRM seeks comment on whether to apply the these same small business definitions and associated 
bidding credits to the auction of licenses in the additional bands the FNPRM proposes, as well as any 
                                                     
41
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
42
See supra Section IV.F.9.a (Partitioning and Disaggregation).
43
See 47 CFR §§ 1.2101-1.2114.
44
See supra Section IV.F.11.b (Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
265
other spectrum bands we may subsequently decide to include in the UMFUS.  We believe providing small 
businesses and very small businesses with bidding credits, in addition to the protections built into the 
auction rules themselves should provide an economic benefit to small businesses by making it easier for 
them to acquire or access spectrum in these bands.  We seek comment on this assessment and on whether 
there are any alternative steps we could take to better assist small businesses.
In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted service rules that will permit licensees 28.
the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with their spectrum allocation. We 
propose that the same flexibility shall apply to the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands
and we seek comment concerning whether this flexibility will benefit small businesses by giving them 
more avenues for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.  Finally, as noted above, we are proposing 
to create a Spectrum Access System (SAS)-based regulatory framework in the 70/80 GHz band that will 
permit an innovative shared space in these bands.  The SAS serves as an advanced, highly automated 
frequency coordinator across the band, potentially allowing this shared space to be used by a wide variety 
of Federal and non-Federal users, by new entrants, by established operators, and small businesses in 
particular – to experiment with new technologies in the mmW space and innovate.  Our proposals require 
that small businesses register with an SAS and comply with the rules established for the service and in 
return they receive the ability to access spectrum currently unavailable to them.  We believe this should 
constitute a significant benefit for small businesses, and we seek comment on this proposal.
The technical rules we now propose will allow licensees of mmW band spectrum to operate 29.
while also protecting licensees of nearby spectrum, some of whom are small entities, from harmful 
interference, and we also seek comment on these proposals.
G. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
None.30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
266
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
On my first day as Chairman, I described the FCC as the nation’s “Optimism Agency.” Today’s 
Spectrum Frontiers Order is exactly what I had in mind when I made that statement. 
Our broadband networks – wired and wireless – will define what our world is going to be like. 
From job creation, to education, to healthcare, to energy and on down the line, these networks will 
unleash new innovations, making the impossible possible. We have the incredible privilege of helping to 
shape that connected future. Today, we take the most significant steps yet to enable the next generation of 
wireless connectivity.
Fifth-generation, or 5G, connectivity will likely be more than an incremental evolutionary step 
forward in wireless technology. It promises quantum leaps forward in three key areas: speeds resembling 
fiber that are at least 10 times and maybe 100-times faster than today’s 4G LTE networks; responsiveness 
less than one-thousandth of a second, which enables real-time communication; and network capacity 
multiples of what is available today.
Coupling this ultra-fast, low-latency, high-capacity connectivity with the almost unlimited 
processing power of the cloud will enable super fast wireless broadband, smart-city energy grids and 
water systems, immersive education and entertainment, and an unknowable number of innovations. In a 
5G world, the Internet of Everything will be fully realized; everything that can be connected will be 
connected. Most important, 5G will enable killer applications yet to be imagined. 
We are already seeing industry gearing up to seize this opportunity. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and 
Verizon are all moving forward with plans to test and develop 5G technologies. For example, last month, 
Sprint demonstrated 5G connectivity offering speeds up to 4 Gbps at the Copa America soccer 
tournament in Philadelphia. Verizon recently announced the completion of its 5G radio specification, 
which provides guidelines to test and validate 5G technical components. These efforts will help inform 
the standards process by putting stakes in the ground. And the first commercial deployments at scale are 
expected in 2020.
Without question, 5G is a national priority. The interconnected world of the future will be the 
result of decisions we make today.
With today’s Order, we are repeating the proven formula that made the United States the world 
leader in 4G: one, make spectrum available quickly and in sufficient amounts; two, encourage and protect 
innovation-driving competition; and three, stay out of the way of market-driven, private sector 
technological development.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
267
Today’s Order will make the United States the first country in the world to identify and open up 
vast amounts of high frequency spectrum for 5G applications. The big game-changer is that we are using 
much higher-frequency bands than previously thought viable for flexible uses, including mobile.
The ability to use this high-frequency spectrum opens much bigger chunks of spectrum. Current 
blocks of licensed low-band spectrum are usually 5 to 10 megahertz in width. With 5G, however, we are 
looking at blocks of at least 200 megahertz in width. This will allow networks to carry much more traffic 
per user – gigabits of throughput instead of megabits. We’re talking about fiber-like capacity to wireless 
users. 
By opening up these higher-frequency bands, we are making available over four times the total 
amount of licensed spectrum currently available for mobile. And we’re not done. We’re asking questions 
about opening up a significant number of other bands.
We are not prognosticating about the technology that has to be deployed in these bands.  We are 
setting flexible rules that will allow the market to best determine how the technology will evolve, without 
having to ask our permission.
The new high bands we are opening up will be woven with the existing mid and low bands into 
networks that will provide coverage and high capacity for consumers and businesses We aren’t going to 
say “this band is to be used for 3G, this band for 4G and this band is for 5G.”   Our strength is in 
providing the flexibility to use all of the spectrum resources in the way that provides the best services.  
And it’s not just licensed spectrum; unlicensed will continue to play a critical role in future 
networks, as will shared spectrum.  Today’s Order will add to an existing unlicensed band to create a 
massive 14 gigahertz unlicensed band.  Consider that – 14,000 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum, with 
the same flexibility that has allowed unlicensed to become a breeding ground for innovation.  It also 
provides 600 megahertz within the 37 GHz band for shared access between commercial users and federal 
users.  This band can provide access to spectrum where and when it’s needed, and it will serve as a 
proving ground for policy and technical innovations to enable new forms of spectrum sharing between 
commercial and federal users.
Opening up spectrum and offering flexibility to operators and innovators is the most important 
thing we can do to enable the 5G revolution, but it’s not the only thing.
We also needed to work out sharing issues between terrestrial and satellite operators. Sharing is 
essential for the future of spectrum utilization. Many of the high-frequency bands we are making 
available for 5G currently have some satellite users, or at least the possibility of future satellite users. Our 
rules strike a balance that offers flexibility for satellite users to expand, while providing terrestrial 
licensees with predictability about the areas in which satellite will locate. 
To live up to its potential, 5G networks must also be secure. Cybersecurity issues need to be 
addressed during the design phase for the entire 5G ecosystem, including devices. For the FCC's part, our 
policy approach will emphasize that industry must develop and communicate cybersecurity standards. We 
anticipate that a continuous dialogue between the FCC, industry, and standards bodies will stimulate 
industry development of a security framework for 5G and the Internet of Things that will evolve to 
accommodate new functions and security threats.
If we’ve learned anything in the generational march through wireless connectivity, it is that we 
have always underestimated the innovation that would result from new generations of wireless networks. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
268
Thank you to all the Commission staff who worked to craft this item and shape this next chapter in our 
wireless future. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
269
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
So I am about to ask a question that may seem odd coming from this side of the bench, 
particularly since this body stands minutes away from taking “a significant step towards securing the 
Nation’s future in the next generational evolution of wireless technology”:  Just what is 5G?  
Today’s vote is both a monumental step, as well as a perfect example of why I am so excited 
about the direction we are headed when it comes to spectrum policy.  Breaking away from the 
conventional model of exclusive, indefinite licenses; innovative sharing rules for bands, and in 
frequencies we never dreamed possible . . . all of this affirms just how serious we are about meeting the 
communications bandwidth needs of our citizens. 
But I am willing to bet that your answer to the question “what is 5G?” would be different from 
the person sitting next to you, and the next person, and the next.  Nonetheless, what we do know, and can 
all agree on, is that the next wireless evolution promises to fundamentally change the way we live, 
interact, and engage with our communities.  Indeed, there is seemingly no limit on how what we refer to 
as 5G could impact our everyday existence.  
A refrigerator that not only alerts you to a near empty egg carton, but automatically adds that item 
to a virtual shopping list, enabling a delivery to your door by week’s end, without any action from you.  
Or a piece of equipment in a factory that automatically pings a repair person at headquarters about a 
potential malfunction well before the machine shuts down.  Or remote surgery being performed in the 
Alaskan Bush by a preeminent surgeon thousands of miles away.  
Some of our cities already have smart technologies, such as New York City’s LinkNYC free 
public WiFi network, which I had the pleasure of seeing in May as part of my #ConnectingCommunities 
tour, or Boston’s solar powered benches, that not only charge gadgets, but also monitor air quality and 
sound levels – and all of this will become even more prevalent in a 5G world.  
But what is inspiring to many, and to me, are the possibilities we have yet to conceive . . . those 
truly extraordinary use cases that we are on the cusp of realizing.  What an exciting new frontier, and 
today’s Order provides a strong framework that promises to unleash more innovation, spur additional 
competition and incite boundless creativity.  And if that were not enough, what is even more thrilling, is 
the fact that America is leading the way.
Each of us has worked diligently to craft a regulatory regime that carefully balances the needs of 
all stakeholders invested in the future of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.  This Order also 
provides room for innovators to develop pioneering products in the 64-71 GHz unlicensed band, which 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
270
opens up a whole new range of possibilities.  And in the Further Notice, we identify 18 gigahertz of 
additional spectrum for 5G use cases, and seek comment on the use of bands above 95 GHz.
But in the midst of all this excitement and promise, as we collectively figure out just what 5G is, 
let us not forget that there are pockets in this nation, where people are still living in a 2G and 3G reality.  
They include the unserved and underserved who are just as anxious to reap the benefits of successful 
spectrum policies as you and me.  
When we think about what the goals of our next generation networks should be, ubiquity and 
affordability have to be a part of the success matrix, for we must be sure that we are not just giving those 
who already have the most even more, while doubling down and widening the digital divide for those 
with none or not enough because of a lack of forethought when setting the standards and business cases 
for 5G.  We need to be as creative, flexible and forward thinking on the community and opportunities 
inclusion fronts as we are on the technological innovations front.
There must be room for service offerings that benefit those in the urban high-rent district as well 
as those who are struggling on the rural prairies.  We must think of ways to leverage both fixed and 
mobile 5G for the currently un-connected, and make a solid commercial case for doing so.  America will 
only truly win the 5G race if all of our citizens benefit, and it is my sincere hope as we strive to ensure 
competitive opportunities that we deliver ubiquitous rewards to everyone.
I would like to thank Jon Wilkins, Julie Knapp, Mindel De La Torre and their staff at the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and International Bureau for their 
commendable work on this item, and a special thank you goes to Brian Regan and Jose Albuquerque.  I 
am grateful for your tireless efforts on this item, and ever more excited to discover, along with you, all the
cutting-edge innovations that await us in 2020 and beyond.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
271
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
Today, the United States leads the world in the deployment of the current generation of wireless 
technology—known as 4G.  While we are home to less than five percent of the globe’s population, we 
have one-third of all 4G subscriptions worldwide.
So far, so good.  But if we want our wireless future to be bold, we need to do more than rest on 
our 4G laurels.  We need to focus on what’s next.  5G services are poised to provide speeds more than 10 
times faster than today’s 4G networks.  The increased speeds of 5G service will change the way we 
communicate, multiplying the ways we use video—as images increasingly replace what is done today by 
text.  The reduced latency of 5G service will clear the way for augmented and virtual reality—creating 
new teaching tools and entertainment experiences.  And the lower energy demands of 5G service will lay 
the groundwork for new efficiency gains from the Internet of Things.  
The race to 5G is on.  The world’s wireless economies are busy planning for 5G.  South Korea 
and Japan have plans to deploy 5G services by the time they hold the Olympics in 2018 and 2020, 
respectively.  To meet this goal, carriers in these countries are already conducting field trials.  Earlier this 
year, the European Commission announced work on a 5G Action Plan in addition to work they are doing 
with China, where three of the nation’s ministries have jointly established a group to promote the 
development of 5G services.
So even though standardization is still underway and commercialization may not occur until the 
end of the decade—work is being done worldwide.  I saw some of this myself, in our own backyard, 
when I spent time at the National Institute of Standards and Technology last week.  We have cutting edge 
millimeter wave research that is taking place with assistance from both academia and industry.  We are 
making progress.  
But for 5G technology to takeoff, for the United States to win this race, we need spectrum—and 
lots of it.  So I am pleased to support our efforts today to authorize mobile use in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz 
bands.  Collectively, this represents over 3 gigahertz of spectrum that will become available for licensed 
use.  We also have a cut for unlicensed, or what I call the Wi-Fi dividend, in the 64-71 GHz band.  These 
airwaves can be combined with a swath of unlicensed spectrum that is nearby—meaning new and 
exciting possibilities for Wi-Gig innovation.  We also seek comment on opportunities in spectrum above 
95 GHz.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
272
At the same time, we take steps to protect incumbent satellite operations that rely on this high-
band spectrum.  We allow for their continued growth and commit to carefully monitoring the impact of 
terrestrial use on their operations.  This is important.  
However, we need to remember airwaves alone are not enough.  In wireless policy, spectrum gets 
all the glory—but if we want to be bold with 5G service, we need to focus our efforts on the ground as 
well as the skies.  
Here’s why:  Today, the bulk of our 4G wireless networks are built on spectrum frequencies from 
600 MHz to 3 GHz.  But our 5G future is going to look different—very different.  That’s because today 
we are busting through this old 3 GHz ceiling and developing opportunities in much higher-band 
airwaves.  This spectrum is way, way up there.  These are the airwaves that will take us to infinity and 
beyond.  But with these stratospheric frequencies we have propagation challenges.  While these super-
high signals carry a significant amount of data, they do not go far.  But we can turn this limitation into a 
strength by combining these frequencies with small cells packed close together, densifying networks at 
lower cost.  
This all works—if we come up with policies and practices that facilitate small cell deployment.  
In other words, with 5G networks small cells are a big thing.  So we need to think beyond traditional 
tower siting.  Already, we have taken steps to streamline our historic preservation and environmental 
review process for small cells.  We also have adopted rules to implement the parts of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that tighten the local review process for facilities that do not 
substantially change the dimensions of existing structures.  This is good—but more work is necessary.  
By law and tradition, we honor local control in this country.  At the same time we should reward 
communities that take steps to put in place the infrastructure we need for our 5G future.  
For outdoor deployments, we should work with communities across the country and help develop 
model practices.  We could also hold a contest—and reward the cities that put 5G infrastructure in place 
as part of the broader Smart Cities Initiative that was kicked-off last year.  
In addition, we need to look at the in-building equation.  I think the time has come for the 
broadband and wireless equivalent of LEED certification.  Because the market should reward buildings 
that have dense networks of small cells and fiber backhaul needed for 5G service.  New York City already 
has a similar program in place thanks to the efforts of Mayor Michael Bloomberg—who started a program 
to identify buildings with truly high-speed broadband.  We need to build on this idea and extend it to 
communities across the country. Because as we all know about the Big Apple, if you can make it there, 
you can make it anywhere.  
There are a lot of challenges ahead.  But we are on the cusp of cars that drive themselves, streets 
that can be safer, emergency services that are more effective, healthcare that is more personalized, and 
more capability across the board because we are more connected.  
Because while 4G technology brought the smartphone to pockets and purses everywhere, the 
benefits of 5G technology are bigger, bolder—and more diffuse.  They will be felt throughout the 
economy.  
How?  We are just getting started.  But there are possibilities everywhere.    
Imagine if we rewarded the city that cut commute times the most.  It would take sensors in 
streetlights, roadside architecture, and cars to see where traffic patterns could be more efficient, and 
public transportation more effective.  5G technology can make it happen.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
273
Imagine if we introduced cameras in the helmets of firefighters.  They could relay video back to 
colleagues outside who could direct a team of firefighters in real time, enhancing safety for first 
responders and those they rescue.  5G technology can make it happen.
Imagine if we monitored urban trees with sensors to help assess air quality and develop strategies 
for dealing with drought.  Los Angeles is already looking at this in a project called the Internet of Trees.  
And 5G technology can make it happen.  
That’s what the wireless future looks like.  It is so much more than the devices in our palms 
today.  To get there we need to do more than rest on our 4G laurels—and with our efforts here with 
millimeter wave spectrum—we do that today.  Because the race to 5G is on—and the future belongs to 
the connected.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
274
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
A decade ago, the smartphone didn’t exist.  Today, over 70% of American consumers cradle them 
in the palms of their hands, and an artist like Adele is subjected to intense scrutiny when she uses a flip 
phone to say “Hello” in a music video.
45
  Not long ago, cars, appliances, and other machines were analog 
islands unto themselves.  Today, we are at the dawn of the Internet of Things, with 15 billion Internet-
connected devices and 50 billion expected by 2020.  Many years ago, wireless was a fraction of all IP 
traffic, and only spectrum below 3 GHz was thought to be suitable for mobile.  Today, the forecast is that 
wireless devices will account for two-thirds of all IP traffic, and the vistas for spectrum extend up into the 
triple digits.  Changes like these are forcing everyone to rethink our wireless networks and to start 
planning for our 5G future.
Thankfully, American entrepreneurs and innovators are rising to meet the challenge of our highly 
interconnected world.  They are investing in the research and development necessary for the United States 
to extend its leadership in the mobile space to the next generation of wireless technologies.  I have seen 
these efforts firsthand—from Samsung’s 5G research lab near Dallas, Texas, to Intel’s demonstration of 
its millimeter wave technology here at the FCC’s headquarters.  And just this week, Verizon completed 
the technical specifications for its 5G deployment, which should help accelerate the technological push 
forward.
Today, the FCC does its part to pace the wireless revolution.  In this Order, we open up over 10 
GHz of high-band spectrum for innovative mobile use.  In the Further Notice, we start the process of 
bringing perhaps twice that much spectrum online.  And on many of the most important policy questions, 
we supply answers that should allow American consumers to continue to enjoy a mobile experience that 
is the envy of the world.
I want to highlight just a few of those decisions.
First, I’m glad that we’re including a number of additional spectrum bands in our Further Notice.  
In particular, I’m pleased that we now have the votes to examine the 12,500 MHz of spectrum in the 24 
GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 70 GHz, and 80 GHz bands.  Commissioner O’Rielly and I urged our colleagues 
to include those bands in last year’s Notice.  In our view, the Commission should have teed up as many 
                                                     
45
See, e.g., “11 people coming to terms with Adele using a flip phone in the Hello video,” Metro.co.uk (Oct. 23, 
2015), available at http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/23/11-people-coming-to-terms-with-adele-using-a-flip-phone-in-the-
hello-video-5459142/#ixzz4EKF4RPwD (“Adele’s stunning video for her comeback single Hello might have taken 
the world by storm – but it has left viewers with just one question: just why is she using a flip phone?”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
275
bands as possible and let innovators and entrepreneurs tell us what might work.  Happily, our persistence 
has paid off.  The Commission speaks with one voice today in promoting the potential of those 12,500 
MHz of spectrum for flexible, mobile use.
Likewise, I want to take a minute to thank my colleagues for agreeing to expand the Further 
Notice to include spectrum bands above 95 GHz.  Getting to this point was no small feat.  Petitioners 
asked the FCC to adopt service rules for these bands years ago.  (It shouldn’t have taken this long for us 
to move forward, especially since we have the duty under section 7 of the Communications Act to 
“determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public 
interest within one year after such petition or application is filed.”
46
)  In the meantime, other countries, as 
well as companies here in the United States, have been looking for ways to put this spectrum to more 
productive use.  I’ve been told that our lack of service rules might be holding us back.  Now, one might 
think that these bands are way out there (spectrally speaking), but that’s not a reason to artificially restrict 
their use.  Again, let’s get the spectrum out there and let the engineers help us decide.  I’m happy to report 
that we were able to reach a compromise that puts these bands on the table.
Second, I’m glad that we are now placing an even greater emphasis on fostering investment and 
innovation in the millimeter wave bands.  For instance, the Order abandons the so-called “hybrid” 
licensing scheme that the 2015 Notice proposed for the 37 GHz band.  In my view, that complex regime 
would have inhibited investment and innovation in the band.  We also appropriately leave behind the 
complicated performance metrics proposed in the 2015 Notice.  At the time, I urged my colleagues to 
include questions about more straightforward approaches.  The Order now adopts those simpler, well-
established methods of determining whether licensees are putting their spectrum to use.  We also adopt 
renewal expectancies for the licensed bands, which should help encourage investment.  And in another 
positive step, the Further Notice now seeks comment on whether we should apply our traditional 
licensing mechanisms to the additional spectrum bands, rather than experimenting with far more 
complicated regimes.
Third, I am glad that the relief we’re providing today is not limited solely to traditional mobile 
technologies.  Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting with Google’s Advanced Technology and 
Projects (ATAP) group.
47
  One of the most intriguing things they showed me was Project Soli.  Founder 
and team lead Ivan Poupyrev described how Project Soli has created a sensing technology that uses 
miniature radar to detect the smallest of hand gestures.  Imagine being able to control your smartphone, 
watch, or virtually any similar device with a slight movement of your clasped thumb and index finger.
48
  
Imagine the benefits that these technologies could bring to individuals with disabilities.  One testbed is in 
the 60 GHz band, which is technically well-suited for enabling machines to “see” subtle physical 
gestures.  So I’m glad that my colleagues agreed with my suggestion to take additional steps today that 
will make it easier for entrepreneurs at ATAP and elsewhere to experiment with joining the physical and 
digital worlds.
None of this is to say that I agree with every decision the Commission makes today.  Take the 
cybersecurity section of the Order.  We lack the expertise and authority to dive headlong into this issue, 
and I don’t think any agency should take a band-by-band approach to cyber.  These are issues that are 
better left for security experts to handle in a more comprehensive way.  However, I do appreciate that my 
colleagues revised portions of the cybersecurity discussion in light of some of my concerns.  Another area 
                                                     
46
Communications Act § 7(b).
47
See https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/684905286843248640.
48
See “Welcome to Project Soli,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0.  Developers are already 
thinking about more advanced use cases.  See, e.g., “Project Soli App Developers Showcase,” 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H41A_IWZwZI.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
276
where I would have taken a different approach is mobile spectrum holdings.  As I’ve emphasized, 
experience shows that markets distorted by preemptive government dictates don’t ultimately benefit 
consumers.  Nonetheless, because we could be years away from any high-band spectrum auctions, I hope 
that we’ll have time to correct course before these limits apply.  I also would have struck a slightly 
different balance when it comes to spectrum held by the federal government.  We must continue to be as 
aggressive as possible when it comes to identifying and freeing up spectrum bands that could serve 
American consumers.  But none of the concerns I’ve just expressed overshadow the merits of the broader 
compromise that we reached today, so I will be concurring with these portions of the decision.
Additionally, one observation.  Today, we put in place a key piece of the 5G puzzle.  But as 
important as it is, it is only one piece.  Another critical one, given the imperative for “densified,” higher-
capacity networks, is infrastructure.  Last year, I laid out my vision for a regulatory framework that will 
ensure our wireless leadership continues into the 5G future.
49
  In addition to opening up these spectrum 
bands, that plan includes removing the barriers to infrastructure deployment.  That means completing our 
small cell proceeding.  That means pressing ahead on the IP Transition.  And that means giving providers 
large and small the maximum incentive and flexibility to invest in fiber and other building blocks of 
tomorrow’s networks.  I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing just that.
Finally, I want to say a word about the professional staff of the FCC—the engineers, lawyers, and 
others who put in the countless hours necessary to move this proceeding forward.  You deserve 
tremendous credit.  It is one thing for us to pontificate; it’s quite something else for you to produce.  And 
produce you did:  In less than two years, you pushed this proceeding from a Notice of Inquiry to an 
Order, and this country from virtually no high-band, mobile spectrum to over 10 GHz of it.  In the 
regulatory context, that is moving at the speed of light.  I know that it took a lot of negotiating and a good 
deal of compromise with federal users, and I want to commend you for your efforts.  When the United 
States hopefully takes the worldwide lead in 5G technologies, it will be due in no small part to the 
incredible efforts you made—efforts that match the speed of change in the marketplace itself.  So thank 
you.  
Thank you to the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, including Simon Banyai, 
Stephen Buenzow, Chris Helzer, Tim Hilfiger, Paul Malmud, Charles Mathias, Catherine Matraves, 
Elizabeth McIntyre, Gary Michaels, Charles Oliver, Matthew Pearl, Paul Powell, Brian Regan, John 
Schauble, Jim Schlicting, Catherine Schroeder, Blaise Scinto, Christian Segura, Karen Sprung, Joel 
Taubenblatt, and Nancy Zaczek.
Thank you to the staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology, including Bahman Badipour, 
Martin Doczkat, Rashmi Doshi, Larry Frazier, Michael Ha, William Hurst, Ira Keltz, Ed Mantiply, 
Nicholas Oros, Barbara Pavon, Karen Rackley, Serey Thai, and Anh Wride.
Thank you to the staff of the International Bureau, including Jose Albuquerque, Chip Fleming, 
Nese Guendelsberger, Kal Krautkramer, Robert Nelson, and Troy Tanner.
Thank you to the staff of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, including Lisa 
Fowlkes, Jeffrey Goldthorp, Greg Intoccia, Ahmed Lahjouji, Theodore Marcus, and Dana Zelman.
Thank you to the staff in the Office of General Counsel, including William Richardson, Anjali 
Singh, and David Horowitz.
And thank you to the staff in the Enforcement Bureau, including William Davenport and Jeremy 
Marcus.
                                                     
49
Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai at 4G Americas’ Technology Symposium (Nov. 5, 2015), 
http://go.usa.gov/xxWu3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
277
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
After much hard work, the item before us is in fairly good shape.
While we are at the early stages of development, most industry participants believe that next 
generation, or 5G, networks will incorporate millimeter wave spectrum to achieve the capacity, speed and 
latency needs of Americans’ wireless usage.  Not only will these frequencies likely be used to provide 
data-intensive applications, such as advanced video downloads and gaming capabilities, but will also be 
used with our current 4G deployments to incorporate the vast and expanding Internet of Things and allow 
Americans to conduct business, communicate with loved ones, access the Internet and utilize apps 
wherever they may be.    
Today, the U.S. becomes the first country to allocate spectrum for next generation wireless 
networks.  I have stated repeatedly – and my colleagues agree – that we must maintain our position as the 
world leader in wireless innovation.  Other nations, such as South Korea, China and Japan, seek to 
challenge our status, but we are ideally situated to usher in the next wave of wireless technologies based 
on our preeminence and experience gained in deploying 4G technologies.  We are solidifying this 
leadership role by opening up the 28, 37, 39 and 64-71 GHz for mobile use.
I appreciate that the item, as promised to me, seeks comment, in the further notice, on seven new 
bands to open up for additional wireless uses.  However, I am sure that no one is surprised that I will 
continue to push for even more bandwidth.  I want to make it clear that I understand that we may not find 
all spectrum suitable, but this is a necessary exercise to ensure that our spectrum resources are being used 
efficiently and put to their best use.
This is why I sought to include more bands in the further notice, especially those that are being 
studied in preparation for the next World Radio Conference (WRC).  While I have been critical of the 
events that I witnessed at WRC-15 and its decision to not study certain frequencies, such as 28 GHz, this 
does not mean that we should ignore the spectrum they did identify.  While we do not include some of 
these bands today, we should move forward to consider such frequencies as 42.5-43.5 and 45.5-47 GHz to 
see if mobile services can be offered and global harmonization achieved.  We also should have inquired 
about the 40-42 GHz bands and the LMDS frequencies (29.1-29.25 and 31-31.3 GHz) outside of the 28 
GHz band, so that these licensees are not following two separate sets of rules.  
A main role of the Commission is to provide the necessary spectrum resources and then let the 
private sector release technology into the marketplace to meet consumer demand.  In the same vein, we 
must provide a regulatory environment that offers licensees with the necessary flexibility and certainty to 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-89
278
allow investment, innovation and deployment of next generation systems.  While I am supportive of the 
action we take today, there are several licensing issues that, in my opinion, would have benefitted from 
further consideration and that I suspect we will be revisiting in the future. 
For example, licensing 28 GHz by counties as opposed to larger market areas, such a PEAs, has 
been rejected by almost everyone in the record.  There is also opposition to the shared use of the lower 
600 MHz of the 37 GHz band between the federal government and multiple commercial users and 
concerns that the operability requirement for the 37-40 GHz band may slow down deployment.  Issues 
have also been raised about how Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations should be protected and how 
they should be sited going forward.  
I also have serious concerns about the potential direction of some of the sharing proposals raised 
in the further notice.  Going forward, I am unlikely to support any sharing mechanism that resembles the 
unproven 3.5 GHz experiment or the indoor “hybrid” approach that was proposed and rejected for the 37 
GHz band.  I also do not agree that any sharing paradigm with the federal government should be extended 
to the upper portion of the 37 GHz band, nor should the federal government obtain an allocation in the 42-
42.5 GHz band.  In fact, the further notice states that the government has access to the 47.2-50.2 and 50.4-
52.6 GHz bands, but is not using the spectrum. The federal government needs to decrease – not increase –
its footprint.  This is why I have been outspoken about the need for spectrum fees for federal users as one 
solution.
I must dissent, however, to the spectrum aggregation limits imposed in this order and the mobile 
spectrum holdings discussion in the further notice.  Generally, I oppose spectrum caps in favor of the free 
market but, in this case, it makes absolutely no sense to impose any limits.  We do not have a consensus 
definition of 5G, finalized standards, a full understanding of what services will be offered, or any idea of 
how much spectrum is needed to achieve the capacity, speed and latency goals for particular spectrum 
bands, but we adopt foolish policy anyway.  Moreover, this makes the proposal, in the further notice, of a 
potential holding period precluding certain secondary market transactions utterly preposterous.  
Transferability restrictions are used when small businesses or other favored entities have access to 
spectrum set asides, not when licensees pay full price for spectrum at auction. 
Although improvements have been made since the item was originally circulated, I also cannot 
support the security section of this order requiring a high-level statement of every licensee’s security 
plans.  While I fully support secure networks, wireless providers have every incentive to ensure the 
soundness of their networks.  A lack of security measures, or even worse a security breach, results in a 
loss of subscribers, which is not a successful business plan. Therefore, I don’t think that this reporting 
requirement is necessary or all that helpful.  Once again, this is the Commission gathering data for the 
purposes of monitoring, but it is really a means for the Commission to interfere in the design and 
operations of networks and the starting point for future regulation.  I also cannot support the delegation of 
authority to the Public Safety Bureau to release an NOI seeking comment on the “security implications 
and solutions in future 5G networks.”
Now that the Commission has identified spectrum for next generation networks, we must finish 
up the proceeding to further reduce regulatory burdens on small cell deployments.  I understand that we 
are getting close, and I commend the Bureau for its work.  Once this is done, we must refocus our energy 
on ensuring that localities cannot put unnecessary roadblocks in front of small cell siting.
I thank the Chairman for incorporating some of my edits and suggestions.  And, a special thanks 
to the multi-bureau and office team who worked tirelessly to get this item to us so quickly.  Although I 
may have made some different choices along the way, I recognize the amount of effort that went into this 
work product.