Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless
Microphone Operations
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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 14-166
ET Docket No. 14-165
Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive
Auctions 
Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of
Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 
MHz Band
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, Petition for 
Rulemaking Regarding Low Power Auxiliary 
Stations, Including Wireless Microphones, and the 
Digital Television Transition
Amendment of Parts 15, 74 and 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Low Power 
Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless 
Microphones
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 12-268
WT Docket No. 08-166
(Terminated)
WT Docket No. 08-167
(Terminated)
ET Docket No. 10-24
(Terminated)
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND 
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  July 13, 2017 Released: July 14, 2017
Comment Date:  [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:   Chairman Pai and Commissioners Clyburn and O’Rielly issuing separate 
statements.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ..................................................................................................... 4
A. Background...................................................................................................................................... 4
B. Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 8
1. Spurious Emission Limits for Licensed Wireless Microphones in Various Frequency 
Bands and for Unlicensed Wireless Microphones in the Television Bands and 600 
MHz Guard Band/Duplex Gap.................................................................................................. 9
2. Wireless Microphone Operations in the Television Bands and 600 MHz Guard Band 
and Duplex Gap....................................................................................................................... 17
a. Output Power Measurement ............................................................................................. 18
(i) Licensed Wireless Microphone Operations in the VHF TV Bands ........................... 18
(ii) Unlicensed Wireless Microphone Operations in the TV Bands................................. 22
b. Output Power Levels for Wireless Microphones in the 600 MHz Guard Band and 
Duplex Gap....................................................................................................................... 26
c. Unlicensed Wireless Microphones and the Part 15 Antenna Connector Rules ................ 31
d. Operations of Existing/Legacy Wireless Microphone Equipment after the End of 
the Transition Period......................................................................................................... 41
e. Reservation of TV Channels for Certain Unlicensed Wireless Microphone 
Operations......................................................................................................................... 52
3. 169-172 MHz Band – Channelization Plan............................................................................. 59
4. 1435-1525 MHz Band – Spectrum Availability...................................................................... 64
5. 941.5-944 MHz Band – Coordination with Federal Operations ............................................. 73
6. Updating Rules to Reflect the Close of the Incentive Auction................................................ 76
III. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING..................................................................... 77
A. Background.................................................................................................................................... 78
B. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 84
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 94
A. Paperwork Reduction Analysis...................................................................................................... 94
B. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................. 97
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ............................................................................................ 98
D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis........................................................................................... 99
E. Ex Parte Presentations ................................................................................................................. 100
F. Comment Filing Procedures ........................................................................................................ 101
V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX C – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX D – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In the Order on Reconsideration, we address the four petitions for reconsideration of the 
Wireless Microphones R&O concerning licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 
600 MHz “duplex gap,” and several other frequency bands, as well as three petitions for reconsideration 
of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O concerning unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
3
the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band.
1
  Because these petitions 
involve several overlapping technical and operational issues concerning wireless microphones, we 
consolidate our consideration of them in this one order.
2
    
2. Specifically, we make technical revisions to the spurious emission limits that the 
Commission had adopted for licensed wireless microphone operations in several frequency bands and for 
unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, and the 600 MHz guard band and duplex 
gap.
3
  With respect to licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 
MHz guard band and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band (during the post-auction transition 
                                                     
1
See Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Report 
and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 8739 (2015) (Wireless Microphones R&O); 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; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities 
of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket No. 14-165 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Report and Order, 30 
FCC Rcd 9551 (2015) (TV Bands Part 15 R&O).  When we use the term “wireless microphones” in these 
proceedings, we collectively refer to wireless microphones and related wireless audio devices such as cue and 
control communications, synchronization of TV camera signals, and in-ear monitors.  As discussed in the Wireless 
Microphones R&O, following the close of the broadcast television incentive auction, wireless microphones will be 
authorized to operate in the reconfigured TV bands (TV bands) which continue to be allocated for television 
services, and in the 600 MHz guard band(s) and duplex gap.  Wireless microphones also are permitted to operate 
under certain conditions, and only for a limited period of time, in the spectrum band that is reallocated for 600 MHz 
wireless services (600 MHz service band).  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8743, para. 7 & nn.16-
18.  
Audio-Technica, Sennheiser, Lectrosonics, and Shure filed petitions for reconsideration of the Wireless 
Microphones R&O (GN Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268), while Audio-Technica, Sennheiser, and 
Shure filed petitions for reconsideration of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O (ET Docket No. 14-165 and GN Docket No. 
12-268).  Audio-Technica and Sennheiser each filed a consolidated petition that addressed issues in both 
proceedings.  See Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition.  Lectrosonics filed a 
petition for reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O.  See Lectrosonics Petition.  Shure filed two different 
petitions, one in each proceeding.  See Shure Wireless Mics Petition and Shure Part 15 Petition, respectively.   
2
In addition to issues pertaining to wireless microphone operations, the TV Bands Part 15 R&O addressed a variety 
of issues on unlicensed operations in the TV Bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, the future 600 MHz 
band, and Channel 37.  See generally TV Bands Part 15 R&O.  Apart from the three petitions for reconsideration of 
the TV Bands Part 15 R&O that concern unlicensed wireless microphones, seven petitions for reconsideration 
address other issues in that order that focus generally on white space device operations.  These are the petitions filed 
by Carlson Wireless Technologies, Inc. and Cal.net, Inc. (Carlson); GE Healthcare (GEHC); Google, Inc. (Google); 
Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft); National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association (WISPA); and the WMTS Coalition (WMTS).  These latter petitions of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O will 
be addressed separately at a later date. We note that one of the issues raised in this proceeding concerned how 
quickly the white space databases would be required to register TV channels for licensed wireless microphones in 
order to provide them protection from interference by white space devices.  We intend to address this particular 
issue when we address the issues raised in these latter petitions.  
3
Under Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act), the duplex gap is 
deemed a guard band.  See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive 
Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6607-08, para. 89 (2014) (citing Spectrum 
Act, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6407, 126 Stat. 156, 231-32 (2012) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1454)) (Incentive Auction 
R&O); aff’d, Nat’l Assoc. of Broadcasters, et al v. FCC, 789 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2015).  For purposes of clarity, we 
distinguish here between the 600 MHz guard band that separates broadcast services from other services and the 
duplex gap between the 600 MHz service downlink and uplink.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
4
period),
4
we clarify the applicable output power measurements; clarify how certain antenna-related Part 
15 rules apply with respect to unlicensed wireless microphones; and revise and clarify the requirements 
for existing and legacy unlicensed wireless microphones during and after the post-auction transition 
period.  While we decline to permit wireless microphone users that operate on an unlicensed basis in these 
bands to register their operations in the white spaces databases to obtain interference protection from 
white space devices, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in which we 
propose to permit certain qualifying professional theaters, music, and performing arts organizations to 
obtain a Part 74 license that would allow them as licensees to obtain such interference protection in the 
TV bands and, when needed, also to operate in other spectrum bands available for licensed wireless 
microphone operations under Part 74.  In addition, with respect to licensed wireless microphone 
operations in other frequency bands, we adopt revisions to the channelization plan for licensed wireless 
microphone operations in the 169-172 MHz band, generally affirm but provide clarifications regarding 
the 30-megahertz limit placed on licensed wireless microphone users’ access to spectrum in the 1435-
1525 MHz band, and clarify coordination requirements and operational limitations for licensed wireless 
microphone operations in the 941.5-944 MHz band.  With these various revisions and clarifications, we 
finalize the technical rules for wireless microphone operations and, combined with the Further Notice, we 
promote our goal of accommodating wireless microphone users’ needs through access to spectrum 
resources following the incentive auction and reconfiguration of the TV bands. 
3. We also terminate proceedings begun in 2008 and 2010 that concerned various wireless 
microphone issues.
5
  All of the issues that remained in those proceedings have been subsumed in the 
proceedings addressed in the instant Order on Reconsideration.
6
II. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
A. Background
4. Through the years, the Commission has taken several actions to accommodate wireless 
microphone users’ needs by providing access to spectrum in various frequency bands, both on a licensed 
                                                     
4
Following the close of the broadcast incentive auction on April 13, 2017, the 600 MHz Band Plan is now finalized.  
It establishes the frequencies associated with the 600 MHz guard band, the 600 MHz service band, and the 600 MHz 
duplex gap.  In addition, the 39-month post-incentive auction transition period is now established, with the transition 
period ending on July 13, 2020.  Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice, AU Docket 
No. 14-252, GN Docket 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, MB Docket No. 16-306, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 1286
(MB/WTB rel. April 13. 2017) (Closing and Channel Reassignment PN).  Only one 600 MHz guard band is 
established next to Channel 37 under the adopted 600 MHz Band Plan, although there would have been more than 
one such guard band under other possible outcomes of the incentive auction. See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC 
Rcd at 6585-86, paras. 46-48.
5
Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band, Public 
Interest Spectrum Coalition, Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless 
Microphones, and the Digital Television Transition, Amendment of Parts 15, 74 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless Microphones, WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 
and ET Docket No. 10-24, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 643, 644-45, 
682-87, paras. 2, 81-90 (2010) (TV Bands Wireless Microphones R&O and Further NPRM); Revisions to Rules 
Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band, Public Interest Spectrum 
Coalition, Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless Microphones, and 
the Digital Television Transition, Amendment of Parts 15, 74, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Low 
Power Auxiliary Stations, WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24, Second Report and Order, 
29 FCC Rcd 6103 (2014) (TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O).  
6
Those remaining issues included codification of the rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV 
bands, whether to take steps to promote more efficient use of spectrum by wireless microphones, and whether to 
provide access to additional spectrum for wireless microphone operations outside of the TV bands. See TV Bands 
Wireless Microphones R&O and Further NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 645-46, 692-96, 702-04, paras. 4, 109-123, 145-
151.  The proceedings addressed in the instant Order on Reconsideration, begun in 2014, address these issues.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
5
and an unlicensed basis.
7
  Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other 
video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports 
events.  Many types of users employ wireless microphones – both licensed and unlicensed – in a variety 
of settings.  Wireless microphone operations range from professional uses, with the need for numerous 
high-performance microphones, to an individual consumer’s use of a handheld microphone at a 
conference or in a karaoke bar.  Wireless microphones enhance event productions in a variety of settings 
– including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, 
and Internet webcasts.  They also help create high quality content that consumers demand and value.
8
Most recently, in August 2015, the Commission adopted two related orders, the Wireless Microphones 
R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, that revised our rules, respectively, with regard to licensed wireless 
microphone operations in various different frequency bands and unlicensed wireless microphone 
operations in the TV bands and the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap.  
5. In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission took several actions to accommodate 
licensed wireless microphone users’ needs in various frequency bands.
9
  Generally, it sought to enable 
these wireless microphone users to have access to different spectrum bands to address the needs of the 
various types of wireless microphone users.
10
With respect to the TV bands, it revised our rules to 
provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone users to access spectrum by allowing greater 
use of very-high frequency (VHF) channels and providing for closer co-channel operation without the 
need for coordination where such use poses little risk of causing harmful interference to TV service.
11
  
The Commission also expanded eligibility for licensed use of the 600 MHz duplex gap to all entities now 
eligible to hold Part 74 Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) licenses for using TV band spectrum.
12
  It
required new wireless microphones operating on a licensed basis in the TV bands and in certain other 
bands to meet the stringent analog and digital European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 
technical standards pertaining to the applicable emission mask for wireless microphones, which will 
ensure more efficient use of the spectrum by these devices, and specified certain out-of-band emissions 
(OOBE) limits.
13
  In addition, the Commission addressed consumer education and outreach efforts to help 
wireless microphones transition out of the TV band spectrum that is repurposed for wireless services, and 
equipment certification procedures that will apply to wireless microphones in the future.
14
  Further, it took 
several additional actions with respect to other spectrum bands currently available for licensed wireless 
microphone operations to enable greater use of these bands to accommodate wireless microphone uses in 
the future.  Specifically, it adopted revisions to provide new opportunities for such use in the 169–172 
                                                     
7
The Commission has authorized wireless microphone operations in different spectrum bands to accommodate the 
growing use of these devices by different users.  The technical and operational rules for wireless microphone 
operations in these different bands have varied, depending on the band, and generally are designed to enable 
wireless microphone users to operate in shared bands along with other users.  See generally Promoting Spectrum 
Access for Wireless Microphone Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 
Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
29 FCC Rcd 12343, 12346-49, paras. 6-15 (2014) (general discussion of wireless microphones) (Wireless 
Microphones NPRM).
8
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8740, para.1.
9
See generally id., 30 FCC Rcd 8739.
10
Id. at 8744, para. 10.
11
Id. at 8745-51, paras. 16-28.
12
Id. at 8755-56, paras. 38-40. The 600 MHz duplex gap is the spectrum separating the 600 MHz service uplink and
downlink bands.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9553 n.4.
13
See, e.g., Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8752-53, paras. 29-32 (adopting ETSI standard for licensed 
wireless microphone operations under the Part 74 LPAS rules).
14
See id. at 8756-66, paras. 41-63.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
6
MHz band and the 944–952 MHz band.
15
  Finally, the Commission opened up portions of three other sets 
of spectrum bands – the 941-944 MHz and 952–960 MHz bands (on each side of the 944-952 MHz band), 
the 1435-1525 MHz band, and the 6875-7125 MHz band – for sharing with licensed wireless microphone 
operations under specified conditions.
16
6. In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, adopted concurrently with the Wireless Microphones 
R&O, the Commission established rules on a broad range of issues pertaining to unlicensed operations, 
under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules, in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, the 
600 MHz service band, and Channel 37.
17
  While most of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O addressed issues 
pertaining to unlicensed white space operations,
18
several portions focused on unlicensed wireless 
microphone operations and on licensed wireless microphone operations on a few overlapping issues (such 
as the technical rules for operations on a portion of the 600 MHz duplex gap
19
).  In particular, the 
Commission took actions to continue to accommodate unlicensed wireless microphone use in the TV 
bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band, while doing so in a 
manner that also protects licensed users from harmful interference. It codified unlicensed wireless 
microphones operations under Part 15 (in place of a waiver adopted in 2010), bringing these devices 
under the Commission’s general policy tenets for unlicensed devices (i.e., they are not entitled to 
interference protection and they must not cause harmful interference to authorized services). It
established various technical rules for low power operations of wireless microphones in these bands, and 
specified frequency and distance separations as needed to protect authorized services.
20
It also required 
that unlicensed wireless microphone users access the white space databases to identify frequencies 
available for their use in the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap and in the 600 MHz service band,
21
and eliminated the ability of certain unlicensed wireless microphone users to register in the white spaces 
databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices.
22
  Finally, it required 
unlicensed wireless microphone users to operate only properly certified equipment after a transition 
period.
23
7. In December 2015, Audio-Technica and Sennheiser each filed a consolidated petition for 
reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, Lectrosonics filed a 
petition for reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O¸ and Shure filed separate petitions for 
                                                     
15
See id. at 8768-72, paras. 70-84.
16
See id. at 8772-77, paras. 85-95 (portions of the 941-944 MHz and 952-960 MHz bands), 8779-86, paras. 105-122 
(1435-1525 MHz band), 8786-90, paras. 126-132 (6875-7125 MHz band).
17
As noted above, at the time this order was issued, it was not known whether there would be more than one 600 
MHz guard band (not including the duplex gap), which was dependent on the ultimate 600 MHz Band Plan 
established following the close of the incentive auction.  See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6585-86, paras. 
46-48.   
18
See generally TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd 9551.  In substantial part, the order concerned unlicensed 
white space device access to spectrum in the TV Bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, the 600 MHz 
service band, and Channel 37.  See generally id. 
19
The Commission adopted the technical rules for unlicensed and licensed wireless microphone operations in 
different portions of the 11-megahertz 600 MHz duplex gap, wherein the rules are designed to protect adjacent 
licensed services from harmful interference.  See id. at 9614-9617, paras. 151-156.  
20
Id. at 9587-93, paras. 94-111, 9607-17, paras. 136-156.
21
Id. at 9617-19, paras.157-162, 9628-31, paras.187-192.
22
Id. at 9658-61, paras. 260-269.
23
Id. at 9665-66, paras. 281-286. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
7
reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O.  Several parties 
commented on the petitions in these two proceedings that pertain to wireless microphones.
24
  
B. Discussion 
8. This Order on Reconsideration addresses petitions for reconsideration (including two 
consolidated petitions) that pertain to licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations under the 
rules adopted in August 2015 in the Wireless Microphones R&O and the related TV Bands Part 15 
R&O.
25
  We discuss these petitions and the issues they raise in the sections below.  First, we address 
issues raised concerning the spurious emission limit that applies with respect both to (1) licensed wireless 
microphones that operate pursuant to the Commission’s Part 74 LPAS rules in the TV bands and the 600 
MHz duplex gap, as well as in several other frequency bands (i.e., the 941.5-944 MHz band, 944-952 
MHz band, portions of the 952-960 MHz band, the 1435-1525 MHz band, and portions of the 6875-7125 
MHz band) and (2) unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and the 600 MHz guard 
band and duplex gap.  We then discuss issues that pertain to rules adopted for licensed and unlicensed 
wireless microphone operations in the TV bands and the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap.  We 
follow with a discussion of rules concerning licensed wireless microphone operations, respectively, in the 
169-172 MHz band and in the 1435-1525 MHz band.  In addition to addressing the petitions for 
reconsideration, we clarify the coordination procedures and operational limitations for licensed wireless 
microphone operations in the 941.5-944 MHz band.  
1. Spurious Emission Limits for Licensed Wireless Microphones in Various 
Frequency Bands and for Unlicensed Wireless Microphones in the 
Television Bands and 600 MHz Guard Band/Duplex Gap
9. Background.  To promote more efficient use of available spectrum by wireless 
microphones, the Commission adopted new emission mask rules in 2015 for licensed and unlicensed 
wireless microphones that operate in certain frequency bands.
26
  Specifically, in the Wireless 
Microphones R&O, it adopted the ETSI standard for emission masks for analog and digital wireless 
microphone devices that are certified to operate on a licensed basis under Part 74 LPAS rules in the TV 
bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap, and in several other frequency bands outside of these bands (i.e., the 
941.5-944 MHz Band, 944-952 MHz Band, portions of the 952-960 MHz Band, the 1435-1525 MHz 
Band, and portions of the 6875-7125 MHz Band).
27
  In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission 
                                                     
24
Parties commenting on the petitions concerning the Wireless Microphones R&O include the Aerospace and Flight 
Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC), Aerial Video Systems (AVS), Broadcast Sports International (BSI), 
CTIA, and the Madison Square Garden Company (MSGC),   Parties commenting on the petitions concerning 
wireless microphone issues decided in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O include CTIA, the Performing Arts and Theater 
Groups, Key Bridge, and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA).   
25
  See note 1 (identifying the petitioners and petitions). 
26
As noted above, wireless microphones operations are authorized in several different frequency bands, under 
different sets of rules, on a licensed or unlicensed basis.  The ETSI emission mask standard only applies to wireless 
microphone operations in certain of these bands. 
27
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8752-8753, para. 32 (TV bands); 8772, para. 83 (944-952 MHz 
band); 8776, para. 94 (941.5-944 MHz, 952.85-956.25 MHz, and 956.45-959.85 MHz bands); 8784, para. 116 
(1435-1525 MHz band); 8790, para. 132 (6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands).  The ETSI emission mask 
also applies to newly certified Part 74 devices that operate in the 600 MHz band (where operations are permitted 
during the 39-month post-auction transition period, but no longer).  The Commission also applied this ETSI standard 
to certain licensed wireless microphone operations in the 169-172 MHz band under Part 90.  Wireless Microphones 
R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8770, para. 76 (the ETSI standard applies to the extent that the wireless microphone 
bandwidth exceeded 54 kHz); see also 47 C.F.R. 74.861(d); 90.265(b)(3).  For licensed wireless microphones in the 
TV bands, the 600 MHz duplex gap, and the 944-952 MHz band, the new requirements apply nine months following 
release of the Channel Reassignment PN.  Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8752-8753, para. 32; for 
wireless microphones that operate on a licensed basis in the other, newly designated bands, the standard applies 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
8
adopted this same ETSI emission mask standard for unlicensed wireless microphones that are certified to 
operate under our Part 15 rules in the TV bands and the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap.
28
  It found 
that requiring wireless microphones to meet the ETSI emission mask, which is tighter than the 
Commission’s previously-existing emission mask, would protect authorized services in adjacent bands 
from harmful interference and would improve spectrum sharing by wireless microphones.
29
  In both of 
these proceedings, in addition to this ETSI emission mask standard, it also adopted a spurious emission 
limit that required, outside of the frequency range where the ETSI mask is defined (one megahertz above 
and below the wireless microphone carrier frequency), that wireless microphone emissions comply with 
the same limit as the edge of the ETSI masks, specifically 90 dB below the level of the unmodulated 
carrier (-90 dBc).
30
  
10. Petitions for reconsideration. Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, and Shure each 
submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to adopt a requirement that licensed 
and unlicensed wireless microphones meet a -90 dBc spurious emission limit outside of the frequency 
range where the ETSI masks are defined (one megahertz above and below the wireless microphone 
carrier frequency).  These petitioners argue that the Commission erred in adopting this particular limit and 
state that we should replace it with the spurious emission limits for wireless microphones that are set forth 
in ETSI EN 300-422-1.  Petitioners argue that the limit adopted beyond the edge of the ETSI mask is 
impractical, would be onerous to implement, had no record support, is unnecessary to protect against 
harmful interference to other operations, and is inconsistent with global standards that are appropriate for 
wireless microphones and reflected in ETSI standards.
31
  Audio-Technica and Shure argue that the 
Commission’s spurious emission limit, which is more stringent than that required under ETSI, would 
require redesign of wireless microphones, may be technically infeasible, and would impose unnecessary 
cost penalties on wireless microphone manufacturers.
32
Audio-Technica contends that wireless 
microphones sold in the United States already comply fully with the ETSI standard for emission masks, 
which we adopted, and the ETSI spurious emission limits, which have been implemented in Europe.
33
Lectrosonics argues that the difficulty in complying with the Commission’s limit is not in the vicinity of 
the ETSI emission mask but in the more distant frequency range where harmonics
34
of the carrier 
frequency fall.
35
  Shure asserts that by adopting a spurious emission limit that is relative to transmitter 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
upon the effective date of the Wireless Microphones R&O.  Id. at 8776-8777, para. 94.  For unlicensed wireless 
microphones, the standard applies upon the effective date of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 
30 FCC Rcd at 9590, para. 101 and 30 FCC Rcd at 9668, para. 295.  The emission mask is defined in Section 8.3 of 
ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
28
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9590, para 101.  The ETSI emission mask also applies to newly certified 
devices certified under Part 15 to operate in the 600 MHz band (where operations are permitted during the post-
auction transition period, but no longer).  
29
See, e.g., Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8752-53, para. 32 (adopting ETSI emission mask in TV 
bands); TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9590, para 101.
30
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8752-53, para. 32; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9590, 
para 101; see also TV Bands Part 15 R&O at 9608, para.141.
31
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 3-5; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 2-3; Sennheiser 
Consolidated Petition at 6-7 (spurious emission limit was never proposed, and adoption violates the Administrative 
Procedure Act); Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 4.
32
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 3-4; Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 6.
33
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 3-4.
34
Harmonics are emissions generated by a transmitter at integral multiples of the carrier frequency.  In a transmitter 
operating at 600 MHz, the second harmonic would occur at 1200 MHz, the third harmonic at 1800 MHz, the fourth 
at 2400 MHz, etc.
35
Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
9
power output rather than a fixed level, the Commission inadvertently adopted a limit that discourages 
spectral efficiency, penalizing lower powered transmitters that enable end users to reuse frequencies more 
efficiently and conserve battery life.
36
  Audio-Technica contends that the ETSI spurious emission limits 
have been proven in practice to protect adjacent services, including LTE, TV broadcast and others.
37
11. In its opposition, CTIA argues that the additional spurious emission limits that the 
Commission adopted for wireless microphones should not be revised or relaxed, claiming that these limits 
are less stringent than those that CTIA had determined through independent testing to be necessary to 
protect adjacent 600 MHz wireless broadband operations.
38
  CTIA also argues that wireless microphone 
manufacturers have not adequately justified their requests for reconsideration of adopted limits, asserting 
that manufacturers rely solely upon financial considerations and unsubstantiated claims of possible 
technical infeasibility while providing no technical information to demonstrate that we can relax these 
limits and still protect 600 MHz licensees from interference.  CTIA contends that if we were to consider 
any changes to spurious emission limits, we should instead strengthen the requirements to protect 600 
MHz wireless operations.
39
  AFTRCC, focusing on licensed wireless microphone operations in the 1435-
1525 MHz band, notes that any relaxation of the wireless microphone emissions limits outside of the 
ETSI mask would have to be taken into account, and could make it more difficult for AFTRCC to 
coordinate proposed wireless microphone uses in a manner that protects primary aeronautical mobile 
telemetry (AMT) operations in the band.
40
12. Audio-Technica, Sennheiser, and Shure each responded to CTIA, challenging its testing
and questioning the desirability and necessity of wireless microphones meeting the -90 dBc requirement.
41
These parties argue that the test report CTIA cites contains numerous erroneous technical assumptions 
and deficiencies such as an unrealistically low path loss, exaggerated sensitivity for wireless equipment, 
and a failure to recognize that numerous other radio frequency devices already are permitted to produce 
higher emissions than they claim are necessary.
42
Wireless microphone manufacturers argue that the 
spurious emission limit adopted is not necessary to prevent harmful interference, and that the ETSI 
standard for spurious emission limits as applied in Europe would be sufficient.
43
Audio-Technica states 
that the ETSI spurious emission limits have been used for years in Europe and proven in practice to be
sufficient to protect adjacent services.
44
Shure states that CTIA fails to address why wireless 
microphones should be subject to very restrictive spurious emission limits when cellular services co-exist 
with a multitude of Part 15 devices subject to less restrictive limits, and notes that wireless microphones 
produce emissions below the limits in Section 15.209 of the rules.
45
13. Discussion.  On reconsideration, we replace the spurious emission limits that were
adopted with the ETSI spurious emission limits for licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones.  
Specifically, we will require emissions more than one megahertz above and below a wireless microphone 
                                                     
36
Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 3.
37
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 5. 
38
CTIA Consolidated Opposition at 5.  CTIA states that that an OOBE limit of -89 dBm/100 kHz would be 
necessary to adequately protect LTE equipment from interference.
39
CTIA Consolidated Opposition at 5-6. 
40
AFTRCC Wireless Microphones Comments at 5.
41
Audio-Technica Consolidated Reply at 2-4; Sennheiser Consolidated Reply at 2-4; Shure Consolidated Reply at 
3-8.
42
Audio-Technica Consolidated Reply at 3; Sennheiser Consolidated Reply at 3; Shure Consolidated Reply at 5-6.
43
Sennheiser Opposition at 4; Sennheiser Reply at 2; Audio-Technica Reply at 2-3.
44
Audio-Technica Consolidated Reply at 2-3.
45
Shure Consolidated Reply at 5-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
10
carrier frequency (i.e., outside the defined ETSI mask) to comply with the limits in Section 8.4 of ETSI 
EN 300 422-1.  The limit in the majority of the TV bands, including the 600 MHz Band, is four nanowatts 
(-54 dBm) effective radiated power (ERP), the limit at all other frequencies below 1,000 MHz is 250 
nanowatts (-36 dBm) ERP, and the limit at frequencies above 1,000 MHz is 1 microwatt (-30 dBm).
46
  
We are persuaded that the Commission’s earlier specification of a -90 dBc limit at all frequencies more 
than one megahertz above and below the carrier frequency is not necessary to protect wireless services in 
adjacent frequency bands or in shared bands, and that the ETSI spurious emission limit will provide 
sufficient protection for these services.
47
In revising our rule to reflect the ETSI spurious emission limits, 
we also harmonize with the standards that apply to this industry in other countries.
14. We find that the ETSI spurious emission limits are more appropriate than the -90 dBc 
limit because they are independent of the wireless microphone power, whereas the -90 dBc limit is
relative, meaning lower power wireless microphones would have to meet a more stringent limit than 
higher power wireless microphones.
48
  While a relative emission limit is appropriate for defining a mask 
to ensure that wireless microphones use spectrum efficiently, our adoption of absolute emission limits 
outside this mask will ensure that all wireless microphones, regardless of power, are subject to the same 
limit to prevent harmful interference to authorized services.  Additionally, because the ETSI spurious 
emission limits are higher at frequencies outside of the TV bands, wireless microphone manufacturers 
will be able to more easily comply with these limits than with the -90 dBc limit at harmonics of the carrier 
frequency. 
15. We find that adopting the ETSI spurious emission limits will not result in harmful 
interference to services in adjacent frequency bands, including the 600 MHz service band, about which 
CTIA expresses concern, or in the other bands that could experience the harmonics of the wireless 
microphone carrier frequency.  In the 600 MHz band, the ETSI spurious emission limit for a 20 mW 
EIRP wireless microphone is slightly higher than the -90 dBc limit.
49
  However, we expect that as a 
practical matter, the spurious emissions that fall in the 600 MHz service band will not be significantly
higher than the current rule allows.  The reason is that wireless microphones must incorporate tight 
filtering to comply with the ETSI emission mask within one megahertz of the carrier frequency, so 
emissions at the edge of the mask will be at or below -90 dBc and will continue to roll off beyond the 
edge.
50
  The Commission recognized in its analysis in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O that such roll-off would 
                                                     
46
ETSI EN 300 422-1 at 28, Table 3.  The four nanowatt (-54 dBm) limit applies in the bands 47-74 MHz, 87.5-137 
MHz, 174-230 MHz, and 470-862 MHz, which includes all of the United States TV bands with the exception of 
channel 5 (76-82 MHz) and most of channel 6 (82-88 MHz). 
47
We disagree with Sennheiser that the Commission lacked notice to adopt the -90 dBc spurious emission limit.  TV 
Bands Part 15 NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at 12294, para. 155 (seeking comment on a -90 dBc spurious limit).  
48
Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 3. 
49
20 mW EIRP is equivalent to 13 dBm EIRP or 11 dBm ERP.  The emission level at the edge of the ETSI mask 
would be 11 dBm – 90 dB = -79 dBm ERP, measured in a 1 kHz bandwidth.  The ETSI spurious emission limit in
the 600 MHz band is 4 nanowatts (-54 dBm) ERP, measured in a 100 kHz bandwidth.  Assuming the energy of the 
spurious emission is spread uniformly throughout the measurement bandwidth, the limit is equivalent to -74 dBm 
measured in a 1 kHz bandwidth.  Thus, the ETSI spurious emission limit in this case would be 5 dB greater than the 
-90 dBc limit.
50
We note that, well beyond this edge, the emissions will increase again at the harmonics of the particular wireless 
microphone transmitter frequency.  While harmonics of the fundamental frequency of a transmitter tend to be higher 
than other spurious emissions, we do not expect any harmful interference to occur to other services.  The second 
harmonic of wireless microphone transmitters in the TV bands (whether in the VHF or UHF bands) do not fall 
within the new 600 MHz service band   For instance, the second harmonic for the lowest frequency of the UHF TV 
band is 940 MHz (470 MHz x 2), which falls well outside of the new 600 MHz service band and will not affect 
those operations.  We acknowledge that these harmonics could fall into bands used by other services, but under the 
revisions that we adopt here, the limits are still much more stringent than the spurious emission limits with which all 
wireless microphones under the long-standing LPAS Part 74 rules have had to comply (i.e., 43 + 10*log10P dB 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
11
occur, resulting in emissions even less than -90 dBc in the adjacent bands, although it chose not to include 
this factor in our analysis.
51
  Thus, we conclude that adopting the ETSI spurious emission limits will not 
result in any significant increase in the level of emissions that wireless microphones would emit in 
adjacent frequency bands due to the need for sharp filtering, and will therefore not significantly increase
the likelihood for harmful interference to 600 MHz band services.
52
  The Commission’s analysis in the TV 
Bands Part 15 R&O demonstrated that the distance at which harmful interference is likely to occur to 
adjacent channel wireless services due to spurious emissions from a 20 mW wireless microphone at a 
level of -90 dBc is extremely short, i.e., less than 0.1 meters (4 inches).
53
  From a practical standpoint, 
there is little likelihood that a person using a wireless microphone would be located this close to someone 
else using a wireless device.  Wireless microphone signals are subject to significant attenuation due to 
their operation in close proximity to a person’s body, in addition to other factors including antenna 
polarization mismatch and shadowing from walls, objects or other people.
54
  We also note that the
analysis of the potential for wireless microphones to interfere with 600 MHz band services was based on 
a scenario where a wireless handset is operating at a very low received signal level, but that handsets 
commonly operate at higher levels than assumed.
55
  For these reasons, even if there were a slight increase 
in wireless microphone spurious emissions due to our adoption of the ETSI limits, we find that the 
likelihood of this change resulting in harmful interference to wireless services in the 600 MHz band is 
extremely low. 
16. Similarly, we do not expect that adopting the ETSI spurious emission limits would result 
in any increased likelihood for harmful interference to other operations outside of the specific frequencies 
in the 1435-1525 MHz band on which particular wireless microphones operate.  The need for sharp 
filtering to meet the limits at the edge of the ETSI mask will ensure that emissions in adjacent frequency 
bands are generally below these limits.
56
  Further, as discussed above, the ETSI mask and spurious 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
below the mean output power or -13 dBm).  The spurious emission limits that we are adopting (-54 dBm in the TV 
and 600 MHz bands, -36 dBm at other frequencies below 1 GHz and -30 dBm at frequencies above 1 GHz) are 
lower (by 41 dB, 23 dB and 17 dB, respectively) than the limits that these existing wireless microphones were 
certified to meet, so we are confident that with the spurious emission limits that we are adopting, services on 
harmonic frequencies of wireless microphones will have a very low potential of receiving harmful interference.
51
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9608-09, para. 141.  The Commission chose not to assume a slope loss 
factor because it did not previously require applicants for certification of wireless microphones to show compliance 
with the ETSI emission mask.  However, based on its examination of several wireless microphone certification 
applications, it appeared that the equipment would comply with the ETSI mask and continue to roll off beyond the 
edge of the mask.
52
CTIA Consolidated Opposition at 3.
53
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9609, para. 142.  The analysis showed that these distances would be even 
shorter if we considered the expected emission roll-off beyond the edge of the emission mask.
54
Id. at 9608, para. 141.
55
Id. at 9598, para. 121, 9608, para. 141.  The Commission assumed a wireless handset sensitivity of -97 dBm, but 
noted that LTE receivers commonly operate with a higher receive level because wireless carriers design their 
networks to provide better coverage than the minimum signal levels at which equipment is expected to operate.  The 
Commission stated that it is not unreasonable to assume that a handset will typically operate at a level that is at least 
10 dB higher than the minimum.
56
Wireless microphones in the 1435-1525 MHz band are permitted to operate with up to 250 milliwatts.  A level of 
250 mW EIRP is equivalent to 24 dBm EIRP or 22 dBm ERP.  The emission level at the edge of the ETSI mask 
would be 22 dBm – 90 dB = -68 dBm ERP, measured in a 1 kHz bandwidth.  The ETSI spurious emission limit 
above 1000 MHz is 1 microwatt (-30 dBm) ERP, measured in a 1 MHz bandwidth.  Assuming the energy of the 
spurious emission is spread uniformly throughout the measurement bandwidth, the limit is equivalent to -60 dBm 
measured in a 1 kHz bandwidth.  Thus, the ETSI spurious emission limit in this case would be 8 dB greater than the 
-90 dBc limit.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
12
emission limits are tighter than the Part 74 limits under which licensed wireless microphones have been 
certified.  We therefore do not anticipate that adoption of the ETSI spurious emission limits for equipment 
operating in the 1435-1525 MHz band will have any impact on the coordination of wireless microphone 
operations by AFTRCC.
2. Wireless Microphone Operations in the Television Bands and 600 MHz 
Guard Band and Duplex Gap 
17. Petitioners focused on five issues that pertain to licensed and unlicensed wireless 
microphone operations in the TV bands and in the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap.  Specifically, as 
addressed below, these include: (1) the output power measurement for licensed wireless microphone 
operations in the VHF TV Band, and for unlicensed wireless microphone operations throughout the TV 
Bands (both VHF and UHF); (2) the output power levels for wireless microphone operations in the 600 
MHz guard bands and duplex gap; (3) the applicability of Part 15 antenna connector rules for unlicensed 
wireless microphone operations; (4) the operation of existing or legacy unlicensed wireless microphone 
equipment after the end of the post-auction transition period; and (5) whether certain wireless microphone 
users that operate on an unlicensed basis can reserve TV channels in the white spaces database to protect 
their operations from interference.  
a. Output Power Measurement 
(i) Licensed Wireless Microphone Operations in the VHF TV 
Bands 
18. Background.  In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission sought to provide 
more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone operations in the VHF TV band.  To do so, it revised 
the then-applicable 50 mW output power limits for licensed wireless microphone operations in the VHF 
band, historically specified in terms of conducted power, to specify those 50 mW limits, instead, in terms 
of effective isotropically radiated power (EIRP).  The Commission reasoned that revising the applicable 
power limits to 50 mW EIRP would be an effective way to allow wireless microphone manufacturers to 
adjust the conducted power output of wireless microphones to compensate for low antenna efficiency in 
the VHF band, and would enable greater use of this portion of the TV bands by reducing the need for a 
relatively large antenna, which could impede making productive use of this spectrum.
57
  It also noted that 
specifying the applicable power limit in terms of EIRP for licensed wireless microphone operations in the 
VHF band would provide uniformity in the VHF band for both licensed wireless microphone operations 
under Part 74 and unlicensed wireless microphone operations under Part 15, as the TV Bands Part 15 
R&O also specified the power limit in terms of EIRP (see discussion below).
58
19. Petitions for reconsideration.  Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, and Shure each submitted a 
petition for reconsideration regarding the revised rule specifying output power limits in the VHF band in 
terms of EIRP for licensed wireless microphone operations under Part 74.  While they agree that 
specifying the permitted output power limit in terms of EIRP is a positive step for enabling more use for 
certain types of wireless microphone applications in the VHF band, they request that the Commission also 
continue to permit wireless microphone manufacturers the option of measuring the output power on either 
a radiated (EIRP) basis or a conducted basis for different types of wireless microphone applications.
59
  No 
commenters oppose the petitioners on this issue.
                                                     
57
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8748-50, paras. 21-24.
58
Id. at 8749-50, para. 24; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9589, para. 99 (specifying that unlicensed 
wireless microphone operations at a power level of up to 50 mW EIRP would be permitted in both the VHF and 
UHF TV bands).
59
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7 (urging the Commission to permit the option of measuring power on 
either an EIRP or conducted basis in all bands); Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 3-4 (requesting that 
the limit be specified as 50mW conducted power or 50 mW EIRP, with the option to measure it either way in 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
13
20. Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, and Shure observe that an output power limit specified in 
terms of EIRP serves to facilitate and encourage the use of the VHF band for certain types of wireless 
microphone operations, such as where the transmitters typically are worn on the body and larger antennas 
are not practical.
60
  Petitioners note that when the power limit is specified in terms of EIRP, 
manufacturers are able to increase the conducted power output to compensate for some of the inherent 
antenna inefficiency issues that arise in the VHF band (when compared to the UHF band).
61
  At the same 
time, petitioners argue that permitting a conducted power measurement, as under the previous long-
standing rule, is more appropriate for a number of other types of uses in that band under the Part 74 LPAS 
rules. In applications such as interruptible foldback systems (IFBs)
62
and in-ear monitor devices (IEMs),
63
where the transmitter is a fixed location and the receiver is worn on the body, they argue that an EIRP 
limit is unnecessarily restrictive because it implies that an integral antenna must be used, and can limit 
optimal performance of the devices.
64
Petitioners therefore contend that wireless microphone 
manufacturers should have the flexibility to choose whether to use EIRP or conducted power in 
determining their compliance with the power limit.  Lectrosonics asserts that providing manufacturers the 
option of measuring the power in a conducted test raises no interference concerns because the previous 50 
mW conducted power limit was never a cause for concern in the past for VHF broadcasting.
65
Audio-
Technica also suggests that, if the Commission is concerned about the possible variation in transmit 
power that could result from a choice between EIRP and conducted power, we could look to the method 
for determining the output power specification for wireless microphones specified in the ETSI EN 300-
422-1 standard, which would provide for standardized measurements and compliance.
66
     
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
compliance testing); Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 11 (requesting that manufacturers have the flexibility 
to measure output power using either a radiated (EIRP) or conducted basis in the VHF bands, giving users the 
flexibility to use equipment certificated on either a radiated or conducted basis).  See also Letter from Laura Stefani, 
Counsel to Sennheiser, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No. 14-166, and 
GN Docket No. 12-268 (Sept. 26, 2016) at 1 (Sennheiser Consolidated Sept. 26, 2016 Ex Parte); Letter from 
Catherine Wang, Counsel for Shure, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No. 
14-166, and GN Docket No. 12-268 (October 4, 2016) at 5 (requesting clarification that manufacturers have the 
flexibility to use either conducted or radiated measurements) (Shure Consolidated Oct. 4, 2016 Ex Parte).
60
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 3; Shure Wireless 
Microphones Petition at 11.
61
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 3-4; Shure Wireless 
Microphones Petition at 11 (antenna efficiency can be very low in VHF band applications, making it difficult or 
impossible to replicate the performance of UHF band wireless microphones; measuring output power on an EIRP 
basis can help engineers design equipment that overcomes some of the inherent antenna inefficiency problems in the 
VHF band).
62
An IFB is a monitoring and cueing system used in television, filmmaking, video production, and radio broadcast 
for one-way communication from the director or assistant director to on-air personnel or to a remote location.
63
An IEM is a device used by musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles to listen to music or to hear a personal 
mix of vocals and stage instrumentation for live performance or recording studio mixing.
64
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 3-4 (EIRP is 
unnecessarily restrictive because it implies that transmitter antennas be integral (non-detachable), or use non-
standard connectors, which is impractical for these operations where the transmitter is enclosed in a rack or 
equipment closet and the antenna must be located elsewhere, connected by a co-axial cable). 
65
Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 3-4.
66
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 7; see ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Section 8 (Rated Output 
Power).  Under this section, manufacturers have the flexibility to submit measurements using either conducted 
power or EIRP.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
14
21. Discussion. To address petitioners’ concerns, we clarify that manufacturers may show 
compliance with the 50 mW EIRP limit for licensed wireless microphones operating in the VHF band by 
making either radiated or conducted measurements.
67
  For example, manufacturers may perform radiated 
emission measurements on equipment with a permanently attached antenna, or on equipment that uses a 
detachable antenna with the antenna connected to it, and determine the EIRP from the measurement 
results.
68
  Alternatively, manufacturers may measure the conducted power at the transmitter antenna port 
and then calculate the EIRP from the conducted power and the maximum gain of the transmit antenna in 
dBi.
69
  We agree with petitioners that permitting wireless microphone manufacturers the flexibility to 
certify equipment by determining power in either test configuration would best serve our goal of 
promoting opportunities for different types of licensed wireless microphone applications in the VHF 
band.  We do not intend to unnecessarily restrict use of this band for certain types of wireless microphone 
applications.  Permitting different options for measuring output power raises no interference concerns, 
because either method can be used to determine the EIRP of a wireless microphone.  Finally, because we 
also are clarifying that for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands (VHF and UHF) 
output power can be measured in either a conducted or radiated test configuration for comparison to the 
50 mW power limit, as discussed immediately below, our output power requirements for wireless 
microphone operations in the VHF band, whether for licensed or unlicensed operations, will be uniform.  
(ii) Unlicensed Wireless Microphone Operations in the TV 
Bands
22. Background.  In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O¸ the Commission adopted rules to permit 
unlicensed wireless microphone operations with a power level of up to 50 mW EIRP in the TV bands, 
both the VHF and UHF bands.
70
  In specifying the output power limit in terms of EIRP instead of 
conducted power, it noted that specifying the limit as EIRP would ensure uniformity in the maximum 
radiated power for all unlicensed wireless microphone operations, that the specification of EIRP instead 
of conducted power would be particularly useful in the VHF band for wireless microphone operations 
(because manufacturers could adjust the conducted power to partially compensate for low antenna 
efficiency), and that specification of EIRP is consistent with other Part 15 rules, which generally specify 
radiated emission limits in a form that considers both power and antenna gain (e.g., field strength, EIRP, 
or a combination of both).  It also indicated that specifying power limits for unlicensed wireless 
microphones only in terms of EIRP, rather than in terms of either EIRP or conducted power, could reduce 
the burden of compliance.
71
    
                                                     
67
In specifying the output power limits in terms of EIRP, the Commission did not state any intent to restrict the 
particular method for demonstrating compliance with that requirement.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC 
Rcd at 8749, para. 24.
68
The Office of Engineering and Technology published a bulletin that provides guidelines for determining the EIRP 
of an RF transmitting system.  Knowledge Database (KDB) Publication 412172, Determining ERP and EIRP, 
August 7, 2015.  This bulletin is available at http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp.   
69
KDB Publication 412172 describes how to determine EIRP from conducted measurements as well as from 
radiated measurements.  The gain of a transmit antenna may vary with both direction and frequency, so the 
maximum gain of an antenna must be used in determining compliance with the limit.
70
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9589, para. 99.  The 50 mW power limits for unlicensed wireless 
microphone operations in the TV bands differ in certain respects from the Part 74 rules for licensed operations in the 
TV bands, which in the UHF bands permit up to 250 mW, measured in terms of conducted power.  See 47 CFR § 
74.861(e)(1).  Unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction 
transition period are allowed to operate at power levels permitted by the 2010 waiver, which allowed use of power 
levels measured in terms of conducted power instead of EIRP.  See TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9630, 
n.484.
71
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9589, para. 99.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
15
23. Petitions for reconsideration.  Audio-Technica and Shure each submitted a petition for 
reconsideration on this decision, requesting that manufacturers be permitted to make either conducted 
power or radiated emission measurements to determine compliance with the 50 mW output power limit 
for unlicensed wireless microphones.  Audio-Technica urges us to allow these options for the same 
reasons that it set forth with respect to licensed VHF wireless microphones (discussed above).
72
Shure 
observes that TV bands wireless microphones are used in a variety of ways that necessitate the use of 
various kinds of antennas (e.g., internal or external) according to the particular application, and that 
manufacturers should have the flexibility to make either conducted or radiated power measurements to 
determine compliance with the power limit for unlicensed wireless microphones.
73
  Shure also asserts that 
it is critical that the Commission not mandate separate testing procedures and requirements for licensed 
wireless microphones operations under Part 74, which continue to have a conducted power limit in the 
UHF band (albeit with higher permitted levels), and unlicensed wireless microphones.
74
  Shure requests 
that manufacturers be afforded the flexibility to use either conducted or radiated measurements as 
specified in Section 8 “Rated Output Power” of ETSI EN 300-422-1 regarding wireless microphones.
75
  
Additionally, Shure states that it is unaware of any commenter who supports a regulatory approach that 
would require output power to be measured solely on a radiated basis.
76
  Sennheiser supports these 
petitions for reconsideration on this issue.
77
  No commenter opposes what the petitioners propose.
24. Discussion.  On reconsideration, we address petitioners’ concerns by clarifying that 
wireless microphone manufacturers may show compliance with the 50 mW power limit for unlicensed 
wireless microphones operating in the VHF or UHF band by making either conducted or radiated 
measurements.
78
  As discussed above for licensed wireless microphones in the VHF TV band, 
manufacturers may perform radiated emission measurements on equipment and determine the EIRP from 
the results, or may measure the conducted power at the transmitter antenna port and then determine the 
EIRP from the conducted power and the maximum gain of the transmit antenna in dBi.  We agree with 
petitioners that permitting wireless microphone manufacturers the flexibility to determine compliance 
with the limit through either conducted or radiated emission measurements would best serve our goal of 
promoting opportunities for different types of unlicensed wireless microphone applications.  
25. We recognize that there is a difference in how the power limits are specified in the rules 
for licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones in the UHF TV band (conducted power vs. EIRP), but 
find that the flexibility that we allow to make either conducted or radiated measurements to meet the 
respective limits will allow wireless microphone manufacturers to use the same test methodology to 
demonstrate the compliance of both licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones.
79
  This will ensure 
                                                     
72
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7.  
73
Shure Part 15 Petition at 11.
74
Id. As noted above, under Part 74 rules, licensed wireless microphone operations are permitted up to 250 mW 
conducted power. See 47 CFR § 74.861(e)(1).
75
Shure Part 15 Petition at 11; see also Shure Consolidated Oct. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 5 (clarifying that Shure was not 
seeking adoption of specific language in ETSI, but instead the flexibility to use either).
76
Shure Part 15 Petition at 11.
77
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition and Response at 6.
78
In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission did not evince an intent to limit the method that manufacturers 
can use for establishing compliance with the EIRP power limit.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9589, para. 
99.  And, as discussed above, existing procedures already allow manufacturers the flexibility of showing compliance 
through either radiated or conducted measurements.  See supra paragraph 21 & n.68 (citing KDB Publication 
412172. 
79
In the case in which a wireless microphone manufacturer chooses to make conducted power measurements, it can 
calculate the EIRP of the wireless microphone by adding the antenna gain.  Alternatively, if a manufacturer chooses 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
16
that manufacturers can continue to make the same equipment for both licensed and unlicensed use (except 
insofar as licensed users are permitted to operate at higher power in the UHF TV band).  Either 
measurement approach can reliably establish compliance with the EIRP limits for wireless microphones.  
Finally, while we are not specifically requiring the use of the ETSI EN 300-422-1 output power 
measurement procedures, we recognize that this standard allows the option of either conducted or radiated 
power measurements for wireless microphones.  Thus, the flexibility that we allow a wireless microphone 
manufacturer in choosing the method of power measurements is consistent with the method employed in 
other countries in the global marketplace.  This flexibility also is consistent with the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.10-2013 measurement procedure that the Commission uses for testing 
Part 15 intentional radiators, as well as Office of Engineering and Technology published guidance for 
measurements relating to EIRP limits.
80
b. Output Power Levels for Wireless Microphones in the 600 MHz 
Guard Band and Duplex Gap
26. Background.  In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission provided for unlicensed 
wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz guard bands and in one portion of the duplex gap under 
specified technical rules, and provided for licensed wireless microphone operations under the same 
technical rules in another portion of the duplex gap.
81
  In these bands, it limited all wireless microphone 
operations to an output power level of 20 mW EIRP.  It noted that wireless microphone power limits in 
the guard band(s) would be lower than the levels permitted under the existing Part 74 rules (50 mW 
conducted power in the VHF TV band and 250 mW conducted power in the UHF TV band) or under the 
Part 15 waiver that had been in place for unlicensed wireless microphone operations (50 mW conducted 
power in both TV bands), and that this lower power level was necessary in order to protect adjacent band 
wireless downlink services from harmful interference.
82
  It also noted that many wireless microphones 
operate at power levels between 10 and 20 mW, and that limiting the power of wireless microphones to 
20 mW EIRP in both the guard bands and duplex gap can help enable coexistence between those 
microphones and white space devices by making the power levels of that equipment more comparable.
83
  
The Commission explained that we were specifying the power limit in terms of EIRP – rather than 
conducted power as proposed in the Notice – to be consistent with our treatment of unlicensed wireless 
microphones in the TV bands.
84
  Moreover, it noted that specifying wireless microphone power in terms 
of EIRP would benefit wireless microphone manufacturers by ensuring that they can design equipment 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
to make radiated measurements to determine the EIRP of a wireless microphone, it can calculate the conducted 
power output by subtracting the antenna gain.
80
The Commission uses the ANSI C63.10-2013 measurement procedure to determine the compliance of Part 15 
intentional radiators with the technical requirements.  47 CFR § 15.31(a)(3).  As noted above, Office of Engineering 
and Technology KDB Publication 412172 describes how to determine EIRP using either conducted or radiated 
measurements. The Commission will accept data which have been measured in accordance with: (1) procedures set 
forth in bulletins or reports prepared by the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology; (2) procedures 
acceptable to the Commission and published by national engineering societies; or (3) any other measurement 
procedure acceptable to the Commission.  47 CFR § 2.947(a).
81
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9607-11, paras. 139-144, 9613, paras. 148-49 (guard bands), 9614-17, 
paras. 151-56 (duplex gap). As noted above, the guard bands are between wireless downlink services and the TV 
band, and the duplex gap is between wireless downlink services and wireless uplink services.
82
Id. at 9593, para. 111.  
83
Id. at 9607-08, para. 139.  White space devices are limited to 40 mW EIRP in these bands.
84
Id. at 9593, para. 111, 9607-11, paras. 139-144.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
17
that operates with a maximum radiated power of 20 mW, even if the equipment requires the use of a less 
efficient antenna, i.e., one with a gain of less than 0 dBi.
85
27. Petitions for reconsideration.  Audio-Technica and Shure each filed a petition for 
reconsideration regarding the output power levels for wireless microphone operations in these bands.  In 
addition to requesting that the output power measurements be measured in terms either of EIRP or 
conducted power in these bands (for the reasons articulated above),
86
they also contend that 20 mW of 
power is insufficient for effective wireless microphone operations, and that the Commission should 
instead establish power limits of 50 mW.
87
Audio-Technica focuses on the duplex gap, arguing that 20 
mW is not enough power to operate effectively in what is likely to be compromised spectrum where the 
noise floor will be high and there will be significant ambient noise. Audio-Technica asserts that requiring 
a 20 mW power level will force the complete re-design of all wireless microphone models, and 
recommends a 50 mW power level to allow current designs to remain in place.
88
  Shure agrees with this 
recommendation, arguing that body attenuation reduces a wireless microphone signal by 8 to 18 dB, so 
that 50 mW wireless microphones can coexist with white space devices in both the guard band(s) and 
duplex gap.  Shure maintains that wireless microphone power of 20 mW in these bands is insufficient, as 
this spectrum will be subject to interference from both much higher power adjacent channel wireless 
operations and higher power co-channel white space devices.
89
  
28. CTIA opposes the petitions on the grounds that permitting wireless microphone 
operations at power levels of 50 mW would weaken the technical rules that restricted operations to 20 
mW EIRP in order to protect licensed 600 MHz systems from harmful interference.  CTIA contends that 
wireless microphone manufacturers have provided no technical data to support their assertions that they 
will be forced to redesign all wireless microphone models and/or design a new wireless microphone 
model for operation in the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap.  CTIA also asserts that wireless 
microphone manufacturers have failed to offer data in support of their assertion that wireless microphones 
can operate at higher power levels and still comply with the Spectrum Act, and that they are simply 
restating arguments already considered and rejected by the Commission.
90
  In its opposition comments, 
however, Sennheiser supports these petitions, stating that wireless microphones have operated for decades 
at power levels up to 250 mW when adjacent to other services, and that 20 mW is insufficient power for 
wireless microphone operations to obtain an adequate carrier-to-noise ratio in these bands.  It also 
contends that wireless microphone operations operating at 50 mW would not cause harmful interference 
to 600 MHz band wireless licensees, especially considering the 1 megahertz buffer separating wireless 
microphone operations from the 600 MHz band downlinks.
91
  Sennheiser asserts that the 20 mW limit 
was adopted without any evidence that it is necessary to protect wireless handsets.
92
29. Discussion.  We deny the requests to increase the 20 mW EIRP power level of wireless 
microphones that will operate in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap.  The Commission chose this 
power level to avoid interference to licensed wireless services in the adjacent bands based on a detailed 
                                                     
85
Id. at 9607-08, para. 139.
86
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 6-7 (measuring power limits in term of conducted power should be 
permitted in “all bands”); Shure Part 15 Petition at 11 (either conducted or EIRP power measurements should be 
permitted for Part 15 wireless microphones). 
87
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 7-8; Shure Part 15 Petition at 8-9.  
88
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 7-8.
89
Shure Part 15 Petition at 8-9.  
90
CTIA Consolidated Opposition at 6-7.  
91
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition at 5; Sennheiser Consolidated Reply at 5.
92
Sennheiser Consolidated Reply at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
18
technical analysis described in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O.
93
  No party provided an analysis 
demonstrating that the maximum power could be increased without causing harmful interference to 
licensed wireless services.  The fact that some wireless microphones can operate at higher power levels 
(50 mW or 250 mW) adjacent to occupied TV channels or services in other bands does not, by itself, 
demonstrate that wireless microphones can operate at the same power level next to wireless services that 
will be adjacent to the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap without causing harmful interference.  We 
recognize Shure’s arguments about the significant attenuation of signals from hand-held and body-worn 
wireless microphones.
94
  However, it previously made these arguments in this proceeding and the 
Commission included the attenuation factors recommended by Shure in our analysis in the TV Bands Part 
15 R&O.
95
  That analysis also took into consideration the one megahertz frequency separation between 
wireless microphones and wireless services that Sennheiser raised in its petition.
96
  
30. As the Commission previously noted, many existing wireless microphones operate at 
power levels of 20 mW EIRP or less, and we believe that this level will therefore be useful in the 600 
MHz guard band and duplex gap.
97
  Our equipment authorization records indicate that a number of 
wireless microphones have been approved for operation in the TV bands at this power level.  Further, we 
note that operating in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap is only one of several options for wireless 
microphone users.  Users that may need more power for their various applications can use available 
spectrum in the TV bands where a maximum of 50 mW and 250 mW are permitted on an unlicensed and 
licensed basis, respectively.  Consistent with our actions discussed above for licensed wireless 
microphones in the VHF band and for unlicensed wireless microphones in the UHF and VHF TV bands, 
we will allow manufacturers of licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the 600 
MHz guard band and duplex gap the option to demonstrate compliance with the 20 mW EIRP power limit 
through either conducted power or radiated measurements.    
c. Unlicensed Wireless Microphones and the Part 15 Antenna 
Connector Rules
31. Background.  In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission codified the rules for 
unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands under Section 15.236 of our Part 15 rules,
98
and provided for a transition period after which these unlicensed users may only use Part 15-certified 
wireless microphones.
99
  Prior to the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period, unlicensed 
wireless microphone users are allowed to continue to operate wireless microphones that have been 
certified as LPAS devices under Part 74, pursuant to the waiver granted unlicensed users in the 2010 TV 
Bands Wireless Microphones R&O and Further NPRM, so long as the unlicensed users comply with 
other operational requirements that apply to unlicensed wireless microphone use.
100
  
                                                     
93
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9607-11, paras. 139-144.
94
Shure Part 15 Petition at 9.
95
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9608, 9610, paras. 141, 143.
96
Id. at 9607-08, paras. 139-140.
97
See id. at 9607, para. 139.
98
Id. at 9665, para. 281; 47 CFR § 15.236.  
99
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9665, para. 281.
100
Id.; Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band,
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including 
Wireless Microphones, and the Digital Television Transition, Amendment of Parts 15, 74 and 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless Microphones, WT Docket Nos. 
08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 
FCC Rcd 643, 682-87, paras. 81-90 (2010) (TV Bands Wireless Microphone R&O and Further NPRM) (establishing 
a waiver to permit unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands).   The 2010 waiver required that 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
19
32. In codifying the rules for unlicensed wireless microphones under the Part 15 rules in the 
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, there was no discussion with respect to the general restrictions set forth in other 
Part 15 rules that pertain to antenna connectors and antenna types, including those specified in Sections 
15.203 and 15.204.  In particular, Section 15.203 provides that an intentional radiator be designed to 
ensure that no antenna other than that furnished shall be used with the device.  The use of a permanently 
attached antenna or an antenna with a unique connector will comply with these requirements, while the 
use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited.
101
  Section 15.204(c) provides that an 
intentional radiator may be operated only with the antennas with which it is authorized, and that an 
intentional radiator may be authorized with multiple antenna types (including those with different antenna 
gain).
102
  Because these rules are generally applicable to Part 15 intentional radiators, they apply to 
unlicensed wireless microphones operating under Section 15.236 absent an exclusion in the rules. 
33. Petitions for reconsideration/clarification.  Audio-Technica, Sennheiser, and Shure 
request that the Commission clarify that the general restrictions on the use of standard antenna connectors 
with Part 15 devices do not apply to wireless microphones that are authorized to operate on an unlicensed 
basis under Section 15.236 of the Part 15 rules.
103
  They note that licensed wireless microphones in the 
TV bands operating under Part 74 have long made use of standard antenna connectors for various types of 
operations, and that these same types of operations, if on an unlicensed basis under Part 15, would be 
unnecessarily prohibited if Section 15.203 of the Commission’s rules, or related requirements under 
Section 15.204, were deemed applicable.
104
  Audio-Technica and Sennheiser point out that when first 
authorizing unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands in 2010, the Commission 
effectively waived the Part 15 antenna connector restrictions in permitting use of wireless microphones 
certified under Part 74 rules, which have no such restrictions, and that in proposing to codify unlicensed 
operations under the Part 15 rules the Commission gave no indication that the Part 15 restrictions relating 
to antenna connectors would be applied to wireless microphones that operated on an unlicensed basis.
105
  
34. Each petitioner notes particular wireless microphone operations in the TV bands that 
make use of antenna connectors of various types, and that wireless microphones are functionally unique 
when compared to general Part 15 consumer products.
106
  Audio-Technica asserts that antenna combiners 
in multi-channel setups, use of omnidirectional or unidirectional antennas, and readily available 
replacements are necessary in order to accomplish satisfactory wireless microphone performance 
depending on the particular situation.
107
  Shure states that the distinct performance requirements and use 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
unlicensed wireless microphone users operate the devices consistent with the rules ultimately adopted for unlicensed 
wireless microphone operations under Part 15 rules in the broadcast television bands.  Id. at 682, para. 81.  These 
rules, in turn, ultimately were adopted in 2015 in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O. See TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC 
Rcd at 9666, para. 285.
101
47 CFR § 15.203.  
102
47 CFR § 15.204(c). If an antenna is marketed with the intentional radiator, it shall be of a type which is 
authorized with the intentional radiator.  Id.
103
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 8-10; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 9-10; Shure Part 15 Petition 
at 3-7.  Each petitioner styles its filing as a “reconsideration” but specifically requests “clarification” regarding this 
issue.  For example, Shure “requests reconsideration as appropriate, or in the alternative, clarification that limitations 
on the use of standard antenna jacks and electrical connectors (‘connectors’) applied to transmitters regulated under 
Part 15 rules have not been inadvertently extended to unlicensed wireless microphones operating in the TV bands.”  
Shure Part 15 Petition at 3.    
104
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 8-10; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 9-10; Shure Part 15 Petition 
at 3-7.  
105
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 8-9; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 9.
106
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 9; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 9-10.
107
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 9-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
20
models for these devices, which include common use of antenna connectors, means that the Commission 
should regulate unlicensed wireless microphones in the same manner as Part 74 LPAS devices.  Shure 
also expresses specific concerns regarding in-ear monitor devices, which differ from handheld or 
bodypack wireless microphones.  In the case of in-ear monitors, Shure states that external transmitters are 
used to increase the spectrum efficiency over that of standalone systems.  It notes that in venues where 
several co-located in-ear monitor transmitters are used, intermodulation distortion can be created if 
multiple transmitters are operated together in the same rack with individual antennas, that external 
transmitter combiners are used to combine the transmitter signals with far-reduced levels of 
intermodulation distortion to make more efficient use of the spectrum, and that typical signal combiners 
are operated with coaxial cable inputs from transmitter systems.
108
  Thus, petitioners contend that 
restricting the use of antenna connectors in accord with Part 15 rules would cause an unnecessary burden 
on wireless microphone manufacturers and unlicensed wireless microphone operations without providing 
human safety benefits or meaningful spectral efficiency gains, and that specifying different technical rules 
for unlicensed wireless microphone operations under Part 15 that differ from licensed operations under 
Part 74 is inconsistent with the Commission’s policy of harmonizing those rules to the extent possible.
109
  
Petitioners also contend that exempting unlicensed wireless microphone operations from the Part 15 
restrictions on standard antenna connectors would raise no concerns about potential harmful interference 
to other operations since wireless microphones have operated in these bands for years under Part 74 
without causing such interference.
110
  We received no comments on these petitioners’ requests on this 
issue.
35. In subsequent submissions, Shure provides additional explanation for its request for 
exemption from Sections 15.203 and 15.204(c) requirements, discussing its different concerns based on 
the particular use scenarios for wireless microphone operations (e.g., handheld wireless microphones, in-
ear monitors).  Shure asserts that the Section 15.203 prohibition on standard antenna jacks and connectors 
would be problematic because they perform important circuit design (e.g., antenna impedance matching) 
and product application functions.  Focusing on handheld and bodypack wireless microphones, Shure 
states that these wireless microphones are practically restricted from utilizing high-gain antennas and 
need to operate with as little power as possible to maximize battery life and minimize intermodulation 
distortion between transmitters in multi-channel setups to allow for maximum frequency reuse.  It further 
states that handheld and bodypack wireless microphone constraints, user mobility, and battery life 
requirements preclude the addition of external amplifiers that could otherwise inadvertently expose users 
or third parties to levels of energy exceeding the safe limits for human exposure, or could create 
interference to other services.
111
  With regard to its request for exclusion from Section 15.204(c) 
requirements, Shure focuses on in-ear monitor applications.  It argues that applying Section 15.204(c) to 
in-ear monitors, which typically involve the use of directional antennas with the transmitters, would 
require that all combinations of the in-ear monitor transmitter, antenna combiners, coaxial cables, and 
transmitting antennas be tested, approved and certified at one time, resulting in dozens of 
configurations.
112
  Shure believes that, based on years of incident-free operation by both licensed and 
                                                     
108
Shure Part 15 Petition at 5.
109
Id. at 3-6.
110
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 9-10.
111
Letter from Catherine Wang, Counsel to Shure, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-
165, GN Docket No. 14-166, and GN Docket No. 12-268, at 2 (filed Oct. 4, 2016) (Shure Oct. 4, 2016 Ex Parte).  
See also Letter from Catherine Wang, Counsel for Shure, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-
165, GN Docket No. 14-166, and GN Docket No. 12-268 (June 29, 2016) (Shure Consolidated June 29, 2016 Ex 
Parte).
112
Shure Oct. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 4. Shure states that application of Sections 15.203 and 15.204 to unlicensed
wireless microphones is problematic in light of increasing interference to wireless microphones from LED video 
walls at many venues, particularly to in-ear monitoring systems. It states that to combat this interference, users 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
21
unlicensed operators, specific instructions in user manuals and other technical documentation regarding 
proper combinations of antennas, combiners, and cables will ensure compliance with the Part 15 rules.
113
In sum, Shure argues that unlicensed wireless microphones should be exempted from Sections 15.203 and 
15.204(c) to permit wireless microphones, including in-ear monitor systems, to utilize the same hardware, 
whether certified under Part 74 or Part 15 of the rules.
114
  
36. Discussion.  Upon consideration of these petitions, we exempt unlicensed wireless 
microphones operating under Section 15.236 from the antenna connector restrictions set forth in Section 
15.203.  We are persuaded by petitioners that certain types of wireless microphones, whether for licensed 
or unlicensed operations, need detachable antennas to function effectively in the field, and that imposing a 
unique connector requirement is not necessary to prevent harmful interference to authorized services.
115
  
Requiring unique antenna connectors for wireless microphones certified under Part 15 is impractical 
because they have different application requirements when compared with other consumer products 
authorized under Part 15.  For example, wireless microphones may be used with antenna combiners that 
combine the outputs of multiple wireless microphones for transmission through a single antenna.  Users 
also may need the ability to quickly swap an antenna for a different type (e.g., omnidirectional or 
unidirectional), and have readily available replacements when necessary (e.g., for a broken antenna).  
Such applications, which require the use of detachable antennas and may be critical for operating wireless 
microphones, could be inhibited if each make or model of wireless microphone used different connectors.  
We believe that exempting Part 15 wireless microphones from the requirements of Section 15.203 is not 
likely to result in harmful interference since wireless microphones with standard antenna connectors have 
been approved for use for many years under Part 74 of the rules, and the Commission has permitted 
unlicensed use of such equipment since 2010 with no demonstrated cases of abuse (e.g., adding high-gain 
antennas or external amplifiers) resulting in harmful interference to other services.
116
  
37. Because the licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the TV bands 
generally are the same devices (though higher power is permitted in the UHF band for licensed wireless 
microphones), we expect that many unlicensed wireless microphones will also be certified under Part 74, 
which does not require permanently attached antennas or unique antenna connectors.  Also, many of the 
same types of entities that operate wireless microphones on a licensed basis under Part 74 (e.g., theater 
groups, musical productions) will operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis under Part 15, 
either because they do not meet the threshold for Part 74 licensing eligibility, or because certain 
frequency bands (the 600 MHz guard band and a portion of the duplex gap) are available only for 
unlicensed use. In addition, as Shure notes, wireless microphone manufacturers have an incentive to 
produce small equipment with small antennas and low power consumption to satisfy the requirements of 
users, and users have no incentive to install larger, higher-gain antennas or to use high-gain amplifiers 
that increase power consumption.
117
  For the reasons stated above, we find that we should exempt 
unlicensed wireless microphones from the requirement in Section 15.203 that the device must incorporate 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
locate an in-ear monitor transmitting antenna as close to a performer as possible. Because the in-ear monitor 
transmitter is typically located offstage, the transmitting antenna is connected with a long run of coaxial cable, 
which may typically be 50-200 feet with a signal loss of approximately 6-15 dB at 600 MHz. Shure states that to 
make up for the 6-15 dB loss of signal and simultaneously direct the ear-monitor signal at the performer, directional 
antennas are typically used with an ear-monitor transmitter.
113
Id.
114
Letter from Catherine Wang, Counsel to Shure, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-
165 and 166 at 4 (filed Oct. 4, 2016) (Shure Oct. 4, 2016 Ex Parte).
115
See Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 9; Shure Part 15 Petition at 6-7; Shure June 29, 2016 Ex Parte
Letter at 2.
116
Shure June 29, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 3-4.
117
Id. at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
22
a permanently attached antenna or a unique antenna connector.  By doing so, we can harmonize the Part 
15 and 74 rules in this respect, which will foster efficiency in the design and manufacture of wireless 
microphones.   
38. We are not exempting unlicensed wireless microphones from the requirements of Section 
15.204 because these requirements are necessary to ensure that manufacturers provide information about 
the types of antennas and cables that may be used with a device to ensure compliance with the EIRP 
limits applicable to unlicensed wireless microphones (as discussed above).
118
  We acknowledge Shure’s 
concerns about the procedures for certifying in-ear monitors since this type of equipment is often used in 
different configurations than other wireless microphones, involving the use of a high gain directional 
antenna and a long cable connecting the transmitter to a remote antenna, where the length of the 
connecting cable (and the associated cable loss) can differ depending on the particular use scenario (e.g., 
staging, set up, intermodulation issues) at each location.
119
    We find that the current equipment 
authorization rules and procedures, described in more detail below, are not overly burdensome and 
provide sufficient flexibility to address Shure’s concerns with respect to the certification of in-ear 
monitors.
39. As a general matter, applicants for certification must test equipment for compliance in the 
worst case configuration as determined by the manufacturer, e.g., using the highest gain of each antenna 
type as required by Section 15.204(c) and, where use of a cable is involved, the lowest loss cable 
associated with each antenna type, to ensure that the system is operated at radiated power output levels in 
compliance with the rules.  Operators of certified equipment must use an antenna with the same or lower 
gain, and a cable with the same or higher loss, than was approved with the system.  We do not believe that 
this approach is burdensome for equipment manufacturers or users since it does not require testing of 
every possible antenna and cable combination, and it gives users the ability to use different antennas or 
cable lengths within the limits of what the equipment certification allows.  
40. We recognize that, in practice, the length of the cables used for particular scenarios can 
differ.  For instance, in cases where a cable that is significantly longer than the one with which the 
equipment was certified must be used, the higher cable loss could reduce the EIRP significantly below the 
maximum permitted by the rules.  We believe that the majority of entities using in-ear monitors in the 
situations that Shure describes are professional users,
120
and many – if not most – of these users are 
eligible for Part 74 licenses because they operate at large venues that use more than 50 wireless 
microphones on a regular basis.
121
  However, we also expect that Shure and other manufacturers may seek 
to certify in-ear monitors under Part 15 because there are some wireless microphone users who are not 
eligible for a Part 74 license and may need to use in-ear monitors in varying configurations that Shure 
describes, and because certain frequency bands are available for unlicensed use only (e.g., the 600 MHz 
guard band and a portion of the duplex gap).  To the extent that Part 15 certified equipment will be 
professionally installed, existing procedures allow the installer to configure the equipment in accordance 
with the manufacturer’s instructions to ensure that the equipment will comply with the Part 15 rules in the 
                                                     
118
47 CFR § 15.204(c).  A device may be certified with multiple antenna types and must be tested with the highest 
gain antenna of each type to ensure the device complies with the limits.
119
Because unlicensed wireless microphone power limits are specified in terms of EIRP, the transmitter conducted 
power, cable loss and antenna gain must all be considered in determining compliance with the EIRP limit. EIRP is 
the transmitter conducted power output minus the cable loss plus the antenna gain.
120
See Shure Part 15 Petition at 5 (the majority of cases involving distinct performance requirements and use models 
involve operations in “demanding professional audio environments”).
121
We also note, below, that entities that can establish that they have similar professional needs for Part 74 licenses 
may seek to obtain a waiver to obtain Part 74 licenses.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
23
configuration in which it will be used.
122
  The professional installer can thus compensate for factors such 
as higher cable loss to ensure that the equipment operates at up to, but no greater than, the power levels 
permitted by the rules.
123
  While an applicant for certification of equipment that will be professionally 
installed must submit certain additional information (e.g., a justification for professional installation and a 
description of instructions to installers), we do not believe these requirements are overly burdensome on 
applicants.
d. Operations of Existing/Legacy Wireless Microphone Equipment 
after the End of the Transition Period  
41. Background.  In both the Wireless Microphones R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 
the Commission established a cutoff date for the certification, manufacture, and marketing of both 
licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones that do not comply with revised Part 74 rules (for licensed 
operations) and new Part 15 rules (for unlicensed operations).
124
  In particular, it provided that wireless 
microphone manufacturers could no longer submit applications for certification of wireless microphone 
devices that did not comply with the new rules – which include new bands of operations (i.e., 
reconfigured TV bands and the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap, but not the 600 MHz service band) 
at specified power levels – beginning nine months after the release of the Channel Reassignment PN
(which was released on April 13, 2017, and identifies the frequencies for the TV bands, 600 MHz guard 
band and duplex gap, and 600 MHz service band).
125
  It also required that manufacture and marketing of 
any licensed or unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the repurposed 600 MHz service band 
must cease no later than 18 months after release of the Channel Reassignment PN.  Further, it established 
transition rules that require that licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz 
service band cease no later than the end of the post-auction transition period, i.e., 39 months after the 
issuance of the Channel Reassignment PN (or cease earlier where 600 MHz service band licensees have 
commenced operations).
126
  Through these provisions, the Commission sought to ensure an orderly 
                                                     
122
The instructions could address factors such as the appropriate cabling, antennas, or power adjustments necessary 
to ensure compliance with the rules.  Guidance for software configuration of equipment is provided in KDB 
Publication Number 594280 D01, available at https://www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
123
An applicant for certification of equipment that will be professionally installed must provide a justification for 
the use of professional installation.  The grant of certification is conditioned on the use of professional installation 
for the equipment.  The Office of Engineering and Technology’s Laboratory can provide further guidance to 
applicants on the equipment certification procedures.
124
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8764-65, paras. 58-60; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 
9666-69, paras. 284-288.
125
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8764, para. 59; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9665, 
para. 281; Closing and Channel Reassignment PN, 32 FCC Rcd at 2793, para 15.  However, we will require that 
applications to certify wireless microphones that would operate in the repurposed 600 MHz service band be filed no 
later than 24 months after the effective date of the new rules, if that date precedes nine months after release of the 
Channel Reassignment PN.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8764, para. 59; TV Bands Part 15 
R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9665, para. 281.
126
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8764-65, para. 60; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9630-31, 
para. 192; 47 CFR §§ 15.236(c)(2); 74.802(f).  Subsequent to issuance of the Wireless Microphones R&O and the 
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission defined when and in what areas 600 MHz service licensees are deemed to 
“commence operations” for the purpose of establishing when wireless microphone users must cease operating in 
areas of the 600 MHz service band, and it also required that secondary and unlicensed users (including wireless 
microphone operations) must cease operations in areas where the 600 MHz service licensees are conducting their 
first field application testing.  See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through 
Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, 300 FCC Rcd 12025 (2015) (Commencing Operations R&O).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
24
transition to gradually phase out older microphones and introduce new ones that that are compliant with 
the new technical rules for licensed and unlicensed operations.
127
42. In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission also established certain specific 
requirements concerning the equipment operated by unlicensed wireless microphone users following the 
auction.
128
  It permitted unlicensed users to operate wireless microphone equipment previously certified 
under Part 74 (under the conditions permitted under the waivers already in place for unlicensed wireless 
microphone operations) in the TV bands, and in the 600 MHz service band as well until operations must 
cease (i.e., no later than 39 months after release of the Channel Reassignment PN).  It concluded that 
unlicensed users’ continued use of these wireless microphones during the post-auction transition period is 
unlikely to cause harmful interference to licensed users.
129
  It also stated that unlicensed wireless 
microphone users could not continue to operate wireless microphone equipment that can operate in any 
portion of 600 MHz service band after the specified cutoff dates, even if it could be tuned to operate 
outside of the 600 MHz service band.
130
  It found this appropriate because of our concern that some 
unlicensed wireless microphone users would not be aware of the need to retune such microphones to 
operate on permissible frequencies, and that failure to do so could cause harmful interference to new 600 
MHz wireless services.
131
43. Petition for reconsideration.  Shure filed a petition for reconsideration of the 
Commission’s decision to prohibit unlicensed wireless microphones users from operating equipment if it 
is certified to operate in any part of the 600 MHz service band, even if it could be tuned to operate outside 
of this band.  Shure contends that this rule imposes a significant burden on these users, and would compel 
them to discard working equipment well before the end of its useful life.
132
  Specifically, Shure requests 
that unlicensed wireless microphone users be allowed to continue to use this equipment to the extent that 
any existing labels for the particular wireless microphones provide specific frequency information, or 
wireless microphone manufacturers provide supplementary information to users, that will help these users 
identify operating frequencies available to them outside of the 600 MHz service band that would enable 
them to be compliant with the new rules. Shure asserts that such information can be effectively provided 
to end users in a number of ways, such as printed guides for distribution at retail outlets, on 
manufacturers’ web sites, or by relabeling retuned equipment to show operating frequencies.
133
  
44. Sennheiser voices support for Shure’s petition, and focuses on the financial hardship that 
would be imposed if wireless microphones that can operate in portions of the 600 MHz service band 
would have to be prematurely discarded.  Sennheiser also argues that wireless microphone users have 
successfully avoided operations on occupied channels for many years, preventing interference to TV and 
land mobile services, and that there is no reason that wireless microphones cannot successfully be 
operated so as to avoid the incoming 600 MHz service wireless licensees.
134
In subsequent submissions, 
                                                     
127
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8764, para. 58; TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9666, para. 
284.
128
See generally TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd 9551.
129
Id. at 9666, para. 285.
130
Id. at 9666, para. 286; 47 C.F.R. § 15.37(i) (transition rules applicable to unlicensed wireless microphones).  We 
noted that this approach would allow use of the FCC identification (ID) number to identify the wireless microphones 
that could be operated.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9666, para. 2283 & n.694.  In the Wireless 
Microphones R&O, the Commission did not establish a similar obligation for licensed users that operate wireless 
microphones in the TV bands under Part 74.  
131
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9667-68, para. 288.
132
Shure Part 15 Petition at 12.
133
Id. at 13.
134
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition at 6-7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
25
both Shure and Sennheiser indicate that some existing wireless microphone equipment that operates in the 
600 MHz service band can be modified in the field by software to make these devices compliant with the 
new rules applicable for wireless microphone operations.
135
  No party filed an opposing comment to 
Shure’s or Sennheiser’s submissions on this issue. 
45. Discussion.  We clarify the applicable rules for unlicensed wireless microphone users 
with regard to continued operation of Part 74-certified equipment during the post-auction transition period 
and after the end of this period.  We also discuss procedures by which existing/legacy equipment that has 
been certified under Part 74, such as that which has been designed to operate in portions of the 600 MHz 
service band, can be modified in the field by the manufacturers for use under the new Part 15 rules, and 
the conditions under which unlicensed wireless microphone users may continue to use any existing/legacy 
Part 74-certified equipment.  
46. First, we clarify that, under the waiver in place at the time we adopted the TV Bands Part 
15 R&O, unlicensed wireless microphone users can continue to operate equipment that had been certified 
under Part 74, including equipment that can operate in portions of what becomes the 600 MHz service 
band following the auction, until the end of the 39-month post auction transition (provided other 
conditions for operation are met).
136
  After this transition period, however, unlicensed wireless 
microphone users are only authorized to operate wireless microphone equipment that has been certified 
under our Part 15 rules, either as new equipment or as existing/legacy Part 74-certified equipment that 
now complies with the Part 15 rules (and thus would not be capable of operating in the 600 MHz service 
band, and instead would be designed to comply with the applicable technical rules, including authorized 
output power levels, for unlicensed operations in the TV bands or in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex 
gap).  We conclude that this approach will achieve an orderly transition following the auction that 
balances the needs of current unlicensed wireless microphone users, who otherwise could incur unduly 
burdensome costs in discarding equipment that can effectively be modified to comply with the applicable 
Part 15 requirements, and the needs of the future 600 MHz service band licensees that will be providing 
wireless service in the coming years.  We note that, during the 39-month post-auction transition period, 
unlicensed wireless microphone users must check the white spaces databases, prior to operating in the 600 
MHz service band, to identify the channels available for use at their particular locations, which is a 
requirement designed to protect any 600 MHz service licensee that commences operations or conducts 
first field application (FFA) testing during this period.
137
47. We also revise our requirements concerning the use by unlicensed wireless microphone 
users of existing/legacy equipment that was originally certified under Part 74 and designed to operate on 
frequencies that include frequencies in the 600 MHz service band.  Specifically, to the extent that such 
equipment can be, and is, effectively modified (e.g., through software changes) and certified as compliant 
with the new Part 15 rules, we will permit unlicensed wireless microphone users to continue to use the 
modified equipment, which will only operate on frequencies permitted for their use, after the end of the 
post-auction transition period.  We agree with Shure and Sennheiser that unlicensed wireless microphone 
users should not have to have to discard existing or legacy equipment simply because it originally had 
been designed to operate, at least in part, on frequencies that become repurposed for the 600 MHz 
wireless services following the auction.  As discussed above, these manufacturers have represented that 
many wireless microphone models, which have been certified under Part 74, have the capability to be 
                                                     
135
Shure Consolidated Ex Parte filed May 12, 2016 at 1-2 (discussing “infield” modifications to the wireless 
microphone equipment); Sennheiser Consolidated Ex Parte filed May 18, 2016 at 1.
136
See TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9666, para. 285.  We will revise section 15.37 to clarify this 
requirement.    
137
Id. at 9630-31, para. 192, 9659, para. 263; see Commencing Operations R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 12028-35, paras. 7-
20 (secondary and unlicensed users must cease operations in areas where the 600 MHz service licensee commences 
operations or conducts first field application testing).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
26
modified in the field to change the frequency range of operations to match the reconfigured band plan 
determined in the incentive auction (with respect to the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard band and duplex 
gap, and the 600 MHz service band) and comply with the applicable technical rules for wireless 
microphone operations under the revised Part 74 and/or new Part 15 rules.
138
  Accordingly, we will allow 
manufacturers to modify this existing Part 74-certified wireless microphone equipment so that the 
equipment is no longer capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band and can be certified under the 
Part 15 rules (for operation in the TV bands and the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap under 
prescribed rules, including compliance with the applicable output power limits and ETSI emission 
mask).
139
  If, for instance, these modifications can be accomplished through software changes to devices 
that remain in the field (e.g., through downloaded software changes), then we will permit manufacturers 
to obtain approval through the permissive change process, and indicate under the existing FCC ID number 
for that device that, with the modification, the device would be Part 15 compliant.
140
Similarly, for any 
existing/legacy Part 74-certified equipment that originally was designed to operate only in parts of the 
current TV bands that remain available for unlicensed wireless microphone operations but would not 
otherwise be compliant with the new Part 15 rules, we allow wireless microphone manufacturers to 
modify such equipment to make necessary changes (e.g., modifications to comply with the specified 
lower output power limits in the guard bands and duplex gap) so that it can comply with the Part 15 rules 
for such use.  To the extent that no equipment modification or hardware changes are necessary (e.g., the 
existing/legacy equipment operates only on reconfigured TV band spectrum) and the equipment meets the 
other technical requirements for Part 15 operations (e.g., maximum output power levels and ETSI 
emission mask), then the manufacturer can file the necessary application for permissive change to 
establish this, and the record associated with the FCC ID number for this previously certified Part 74 
device can be updated to reflect that the device is compliant with the Part 15 rules.
141
  After the end of the 
post-auction transition period unlicensed wireless microphone users will be permitted to operate 
existing/legacy wireless microphone equipment provided that the necessary steps have been taken so that 
it has been certified as compliant with the applicable Part 15 rules.
142
                                                     
138
Shure Consolidated Ex Parte filed May 12, 2016 at 1-2; Sennheiser Consolidated Ex Parte filed May 18, 2016 at 
1.
139
If the necessary changes require any hardware changes to the device, then the manufacturer can make those 
changes to the equipment, and we would issue a new FCC ID number certifying the device as compliant with the 
new Part 15 rules for unlicensed wireless microphones.    
140
The permissive change process is set forth under our rules in Section 2.1043 regarding changes in certificated 
equipment.  47 C.F.R. § 2.1043.  This section defines three classes of changes that may be made to a certified device 
without obtaining a new grant of equipment certification and labeling the equipment with a new FCC ID.  Id.  The 
OET Laboratory guidance KDB Publication 178919 (available at www.fcc.gov/labhelp) provides the types of 
changes which are permitted to equipment that previously has been approved.   If a manufacturer proposes to use a 
procedure not included in the current Commission guidance, a pre-approval guidance for the change procedure can 
only be obtained following an inquiry.  The grant of authorization for the modified device will specify under which 
rule parts the device has been authorized to operate. 
141
Wireless microphone manufacturers are invited to make inquiries to the OET Laboratory for guidance on any 
questions that arise on this process.  Inquiries can be made online through the portal at www.fcc.gov/labhelp.
142
We note, of course, that wireless microphone manufacturers similarly are allowed to modify existing/legacy Part-
74 compliant devices to make any necessary changes (e.g., eliminating the capability of operating in the 600 MHz 
service band; meeting the output power limits in the licensed portion of the duplex gap), so that they can establish 
that particular legacy equipment can be made compliant with the revised Part 74 rules.  As with unlicensed 
microphones (discussed above), if these modifications can be accomplished through software changes to devices 
that remain in the field (e.g., through downloaded software changes), then we will permit manufacturers to obtain 
approval through the permissive change process, and indicate under the existing FCC ID number for that device that, 
with the permissible modification, the device would be Part 74 compliant.  To the extent that no equipment 
modification or hardware changes are necessary, and the equipment meets the other technical requirements for Part 
74 operations (e.g., maximum output power levels and ETSI emission mask), then the manufacturer can file the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
27
48. If, however, the existing equipment that operates in the 600 MHz service band cannot be 
modified to comply with the Part 15 rules, the unlicensed wireless microphone users will continue to be 
prohibited from operating that device after the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period.  This 
requirement is consistent with our general Part 15 requirement that unlicensed equipment must be 
constructed such that controls readily accessible to the user cannot cause the equipment to operate in 
violation of the technical rules.
143
  While we agree with Shure that providing additional frequency labeling 
or other supplementary material may be beneficial in helping unlicensed wireless microphone users select 
appropriate operating frequencies, such as operations on available 600 MHz frequencies during the post-
auction transition period, we disagree that those steps alone are a sufficient alternative to the requirements 
that we have discussed above.  We find that, after the end of the post-auction transition period, requiring 
unlicensed wireless microphone users to operate equipment that has been certified as compliant with the 
Part 15 rules (e.g., equipment that necessitated modification with respect to elimination of operations in 
the 600 MHz service band, or equipment that meets the output power limits of 20 mW EIRP if operating 
in the guard band or unlicensed portion of the duplex gap) is an appropriate and balanced approach that 
achieves our goal of ensuring that unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the future will not cause 
harmful interference to new 600 MHz wireless services or to broadcast licensees operating in the TV 
bands.
144
49. Wireless microphone manufacturers will have a critical role to play with respect to 
ensuring that unlicensed users can determine whether they can continue to use existing/legacy devices 
after the end of the post-auction transition period.
145
  Wireless microphone manufacturers have the 
requisite knowledge about their respective companies’ wireless microphone devices.  To meet their 
obligations, unlicensed users seeking to operate existing/legacy equipment will need to know whether 
their particular devices can be, and ultimately are, certified as Part 15 compliant.  Accordingly, we expect 
that all wireless microphone manufacturers make the necessary information available about their 
existing/legacy models so that users can determine what is required of them in order to meet their 
respective obligations.
146
  This information should include information on their companies’ particular 
devices, including (1) which devices will need to be modified, through hardware and/or software changes, 
to comply with Part 15 requirements in order to be certified as Part 15-compliant, and the process by 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
necessary application for permissive change to establish this, and the record associated with the FCC ID number for 
this previously certified Part 74 device can be updated to reflect that the device is compliant with the revised Part 74 
rules.  And, as with unlicensed wireless microphones discussed above, to the extent that hardware changes are 
necessary for existing/legacy Part 74-certified equipment to be compliant with the revised Part 74 requirements, we 
would issue a new FCC ID number certifying the device as compliant with the revised Part 74 rules for licensed 
wireless microphones.  Finally, we note that wireless microphone manufacturers may be able to establish that 
particular equipment complies with the requirements of both Part 74 and Part 15 rules, and can be so certified.
143
47 C.F.R. § 15.15(b).
144
In keeping with this requirement, Part 74 licensees seeking to operate wireless microphones in the 600 MHz 
guard band or in the duplex gap after the end of the post-auction transition period may only operate equipment that 
has been certified as compliant with the Part 15 rules for operations in guard bands and unlicensed portion of the 
duplex gap, and compliant with the new Part 74 requirements for operations in the licensed portion of the duplex 
gap.   
145
We anticipate that in many cases the unlicensed wireless microphone user may not have the information, 
knowledge, or ability to determine whether their existing/legacy devices comply with the Part 15 rules following the 
incentive auction.   
146
This consumer outreach is consistent with, and will supplement, the consumer outreach discussed in the Wireless 
Microphones R&O regarding expectations that wireless microphone manufacturers make significant efforts to 
inform wireless microphone users of the need to clear the 600 MHz service band of wireless microphone operations 
by no later than the end of the post-auction transition period.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd 8762, 
paras. 51-53.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
28
which the manufacturers and the unlicensed users will achieve this; (2) which devices will not need to be 
modified to comply, but will be certified as compliant with the Part 15 rules during the transition period; 
and (3) which devices will not comply, and cannot be certified as compliant with Part 15 requirements 
(and accordingly cannot be used after the end of the post-auction transition period).  Providing this 
information can be achieved in different ways, such as posting the necessary information on websites, 
ensuring that customer helplines can help inform users, or contacting known customers directly, 
depending on the situation.
50. Unlicensed wireless microphone users with existing/legacy Part 74-certified equipment 
also must do their part by examining their various devices and taking any necessary actions to ensure that, 
after the end of the post-auction transition, they only operate such microphones that comply with Part 15 
requirements.  They should be in contact with the manufacturer(s) of their wireless microphones to obtain 
information on their particular devices, the extent to which they can be made to comply with the Part 15 
requirements, and the steps they should take to modify any devices to bring them into compliance.  
Unlicensed wireless microphone users must ensure that any existing/legacy device that they plan to use 
complies with the Part 15 requirements and has been so certified (either because it has been modified, 
where necessary, or otherwise has been certified as compliant with the Part 15 requirements with respect 
to the particular frequencies on which it operates), and that they cease operating any other wireless 
microphone devices that do not comply with the Part 15 requirements.  We note that, as wireless 
microphone manufacturers develop new devices that comply with the Part 15 rules for operations in the 
TV bands, the 600 MHz guard band, and the duplex gap, unlicensed wireless microphone users who need 
to replace particular existing/legacy wireless microphones will be able to obtain new Part 15-compliant 
microphones before the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period to access the spectrum 
available for such operations.    
51. Finally, we remind manufacturers, and entities that sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease 
wireless microphones, that marketing of any unlicensed or licensed wireless microphones that do not 
comply with the Part 15 or revised Part 74 rules (respectively) must cease no later than 18 months after 
release of the Channel Reassignment PN (i.e., October 13, 2018).
147
  Thus, to the extent that 
existing/legacy wireless microphones that were originally designed to operate on any frequencies that will 
no longer be available for use (e.g., devices that are capable of operating on portions of the 600 MHz 
service band) as a result of the incentive auction, such devices cannot be sold or leased unless the device 
subsequently has been modified to comply with the new Part 15 and/or the revised Part 74 requirements 
for wireless microphone operations.  We direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), 
working with the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (WTB), to include discussion of these issues associated with the use of existing and legacy 
wireless microphones as part of its overall consumer outreach efforts pertaining to the transition of 
unlicensed and licensed wireless microphone operations that will follow the incentive auction and 
reconfiguration of the existing TV bands.
148
e. Reservation of TV Channels for Certain Unlicensed Wireless 
Microphone Operations 
52. Background.  Under our rules, licensed wireless microphone users operating in the TV 
bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period) are permitted to register 
their operations on available channels at specified locations and times, in the white spaces databases in 
order to protect their operations from potential interference from unlicensed white space devices.
149
  In 
                                                     
147
See discussion in paragraph 41, above.
148
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8762, paras. 51-53.
149
47 CFR § 15.713(h)(8). The Commission affords these licensees protection from interference just as it affords 
other licensed users in the TV bands protection from interference from unlicensed white space devices. 47 CFR §§ 
15.713(a)(1), 15.713(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
29
codifying rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations under Part 15 in the TV Bands Part 15 
R&O, the Commission eliminated the rule adopted in 2010
150
that had permitted certain qualifying 
unlicensed wireless microphone users also to register their operations for such protection.
151
  It
determined that their unlicensed operations should be subject to the same general conditions as apply to 
unlicensed white space devices (i.e., they may not cause interference to authorized services and must 
accept any interference from other unlicensed devices) as it sought to balance the interests between the 
licensed and unlicensed entities’ access to the spectrum in the reconfigured TV bands.
152
53. In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission noted that, in permitting registration of 
unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands in 2010, the Commission had made clear in 
the TV Bands White Spaces Second MO&O that such registration would be limited to venues or 
productions that needed large numbers of microphones that could not be sufficiently accommodated when 
making use of the vacant TV channels that were not available for white space device use (i.e., the two TV 
channels “reserved” for wireless microphone operations near Channel 37, plus any other vacant TV 
channels that could not be used by white space devices).
153
  The Commission further observed that in the 
2014 TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O the Commission had expanded eligibility for Part 74 
wireless licenses to include professional sound companies and owners and operators of large venues that 
routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones where the use of such devices is an integral part of major 
events or productions, and that this decision would enable many of the unlicensed wireless microphone 
users that had qualified to register for protection in the white spaces database now to register their 
operations as Part 74 licensees.
154
  The Commission also noted that unlicensed wireless microphone users 
would likely be able to access some portions of 600 MHz guard band spectrum that would be 
                                                     
150
See Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 
900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band, ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 
FCC Rcd 18661, 18674-75, paras. 31-32 (2010) (TV Bands White Spaces Second MO&O); 47 CFR § 15.713(h)(9).
151
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9660, para. 266 (eliminating 47 CFR § 15.713(h)(9).    
152
Id. at 9659-60, paras. 262-266 (deciding not to provide interference protection to one unlicensed user over 
another, and to maintain the distinction between licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone users).     
153
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9658, para. 260 & n.656.  Beginning in 2010, the Commission had
permitted parties operating large numbers of wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis to register their operating 
locations in the white space database under certain circumstances. See TV Bands White Spaces Second MO&O, 25 
FCC Rcd at 18674-75, paras. 31-32; 47 CFR § 15.713(h)(9). In particular, unlicensed users would have to establish 
that they qualified for registration by first filing requests with the Commission and obtaining approval to register.  
TV Bands White Spaces Second MO&O, 25 FCC Rcd at 18674-75, paras. 31-33.  Registration was limited to venues 
of events, productions, and shows that used large numbers of microphones that could not otherwise be
accommodated on the two TV channels then “reserved” for wireless microphone operations and on the other TV 
channels that were not available for white space device use at a specified venue. See Office of Engineering and 
Technology and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announce the Initial Launch of Unlicensed Wireless 
Microphone Registration System, ET Docket No. 04-186, Public Notice, DA 12-1514, 27 FCC Rcd 11163, 11164
(OET/WTB 2012); Office of Engineering and Technology and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announce 
Nationwide Launch of Unlicensed Wireless Microphone Registration System, ET Docket No. 04-186, Public Notice, 
DA 12-1957, 27 FCC Rcd 15102, 15103-04 (OET/WTB 2012).
154
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9659, para. 264.  See generally Revisions to Rules Authorizing the 
Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 698-806 MHz Band, Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, Petition 
for Rulemaking Regarding Low Power Auxiliary Stations, Including Wireless Microphones, and the Digital 
Television Transition, , Amendment of Parts 15, 74, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Low Power 
Auxiliary Stations, WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24, Second Report and Order, 29 
FCC Rcd 6103 (2014) (TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
30
interference-free from white space device operations and thus exclusively available for wireless 
microphone operations.
155
  
54. Petition for reconsideration.  Shure requests reconsideration of the Commission’s 
decision to no longer permit certain unlicensed wireless microphone users to register operations on 
available TV channels to obtain interference protection from white space devices, which protect such 
operations in the TV bands as well as in the 600 MHz service band during the post-action transition 
period.  In particular, Shure recommends that we reinstate a reservation system for certain unlicensed 
wireless microphone users or, alternatively, provide a more limited reservation system that would make 
registration protection available in special circumstances requiring a high degree of reliability for a user 
that does not typically use 50 or more microphones.
156
  While Shure applauds the Commission’s 2014 
action in the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O to expand the eligibility for licensed wireless 
operations to include professional sound companies and owners and operators of large venues that 
routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones where the use of such devices is an integral part of major 
events or productions,
157
Shure maintains that our decision in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O means that 
important professional productions in the civic, cultural, religious, corporate, education, and 
entertainment sectors that routinely use fewer than 50 wireless microphones are now without interference-
free wireless microphone operations that they claim is warranted.
158
  Shure also notes that, with the 
elimination of two “reserved” TV channels for wireless microphones following the incentive auction, 
along with the decision in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O to open up more of the TV bands to 
personal/portable white space devices by allowing them to operate on vacant TV channels 14-20, 
unlicensed wireless microphone users have access to fewer vacant TV channels that would be free from 
interference from white space devices.
159
     
55. Sennheiser, the Performing Arts and Theater Groups, and Key Bridge support Shure’s 
request.
160
  Sennheiser asserts that the 50 microphone license eligibility requirement excludes hundreds of 
                                                     
155
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9660, para. 267 (depending on the auction results and the final band 
plan, there likely will be spectrum segments in the 600 MHz guard bands that will accommodate wireless 
microphone use but not white space devices).
156
Shure Part 15 Petition at 13-15. 
157
Id. at 14.  See generally TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107-12, paras. 10-24.
158
Shure Part 15 Petition at 14.
159
Id.  In the 2014 Incentive Auction Report and Order, the Commission decided to eliminate the two vacant TV 
channels near Channel 37 available for wireless microphone operations.  See Expanding the Economic and 
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, Report and Order, 29
FCC Rcd 6567, 6701-02, paras. 309-310 (2014); Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of 
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, Second Order on Reconsideration, 30 FCC Rcd 
6746, 6803-05, paras. 126-128 (2015) (affirming decision to eliminate the two vacant TV channels near Channel 37 
previously available for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands).  In the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the 
Commission revised the Part 15 rules to expand the vacant TV channels where personal/portable white space 
devices could operate to include TV channels 14-20, which previously may only have been available for wireless 
microphone operations.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9585-86, paras.87-90. 
160
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition and Response at 7; Performing Arts and Theatre Groups Part 15 Reply at 2-
3; Key Bridge Part 15 Reply at 2 (agreeing that the Commission should make some accommodation of unlicensed 
wireless microphone use in special circumstances). The Performing Arts and Theater Groups include – the Actor’s 
Equity, the Alliance of Resident Theaters/New York, the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, the Broadway 
League, Dance/USA, the Educational Theater Association, the League of American Orchestras, OPERA America, 
the Performing Arts Alliance, the Recording Academy, SAG-AFTRA, and Theater Communications Group.  Id. at 
1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
31
unlicensed performing arts companies, many of which stage highly sophisticated productions.
161
  The 
Performing Arts and Theater Groups – a diverse group of professional non-profit theater, music, and 
performing arts organizations – state that they regularly present stage productions that use fewer than 50 
wireless microphones in the TV bands for high-quality sound for their audiences, and contend that they 
should be able to register their operations in the white space databases to prevent interference and 
disruption to the performances.
162
  They also note that theaters and performance venues throughout the 
country have invested in assistive listening devices for those with diminished hearing.
163
  WISPA, 
however, opposes Shure’s petition to permit unlicensed wireless microphone users to reserve vacant TV 
channels, arguing that the Commission appropriately balanced the interests of licensed and unlicensed 
entities’ access to spectrum in reconfigured TV bands that would have fewer vacant channels available 
for use.
164
  
56. Discussion.  While we agree that professional theater, music, and performing arts 
organizations that operate unlicensed wireless microphones to deliver high quality sound for their 
audiences serve important needs, we nonetheless decline here to grant Shure’s petition insofar as it 
requests that we to revise our new Part 15 rules to permit unlicensed wireless microphone users to register 
their unlicensed operations for protection from other unlicensed operations in the TV bands.  We 
conclude that allowing these unlicensed users to obtain interference protection would be inconsistent with 
their unlicensed status.  We instead seek to address the concerns raised in the petition through the further 
notice of proposed rulemaking (Further Notice) set forth in Section III below. 
57. In the several actions that the Commission has taken related to the incentive auction and 
the reconfiguration of the TV bands, it has sought to balance different users’ needs for access to spectrum.  
In the Commission’s considerations regarding wireless microphones, it has recognized that following the 
incentive auction there will be fewer channels in the TV bands available for both wireless microphone 
and white space device operations.  In expanding the eligibility for Part 74 wireless microphone licenses 
in 2014 to include professional sound companies and owners and operators of large venues that routinely 
use 50 or more wireless microphones in major events or productions, the Commission sought to address 
the needs of many unlicensed wireless microphone users that have similar needs to the other Part 74 
wireless microphone licensees to provide high quality audio services for large scale performances and 
events.
165
  And, in codifying the rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations under Part 15 in the 
TV Bands Part 15 R&O in 2015, the Commission concluded it best, from a regulatory policy standpoint, 
to place all unlicensed users – whether wireless microphone or white space device users – under the same 
general unlicensed status vis-a-vis both unlicensed and licensed operations (i.e., unlicensed users may not 
cause harmful interference to authorized services and must accept any interference from other unlicensed 
devices).  We continue to view this as the best approach for unlicensed wireless microphone users that 
operate under the Part 15 rules for unlicensed operations.
58. Although we are denying the petition insofar as Shure requests that the Commission 
permit wireless microphone users that operate on an unlicensed basis to register for interference 
protection, we understand that some entities that currently operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed 
                                                     
161
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition and Response at 7-8. Sennheiser also states that if the wireless microphones 
at these smaller venues are subject to harmful interference, this could affect the sound quality that is fed into 
assistive listening systems required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the hearing and visually 
impaired.  Id.  
162
Performing Arts and Theatre Groups Part 15 Reply at 2-3.  
163
They also note that theaters and performance venues throughout the country rely on wireless microphones as the 
source of high quality sound for assistive listening devices that they provide for those with diminished hearing.  
Performing Arts and Theatre Groups Part 15 Reply at 3-4.  
164
WISPA Part 15 Opposition at 4-5.
165
TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107-12, paras. 8-24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
32
basis may have needs identical or similar to the professional sound company/large venues that qualify for 
Part 74 wireless microphone licenses for operation in the TV band spectrum.  As the Commission 
concluded when expanding the Part 74 license eligibility in 2014 for operation in the TV band, the routine 
use of 50 microphones is a “reasonable threshold” for identifying those entities that are more likely to 
require interference protection in order to ensure high-quality audio services for their productions.
166
  No 
party sought reconsideration of this particular threshold established in that proceeding, and we cannot 
revisit that threshold absent additional notice.
167
  We do, however, believe that some number of entities 
with identical or similar needs may be able to demonstrate to the Commission, on a case-by-case basis, 
that they may merit obtaining a Part 74 license for operations on vacant TV channels at particular venues 
at specified times, such that they should be permitted to register available TV channels for that purpose.  
These entities may use fewer wireless microphones but otherwise have the same needs as licensees that 
operate on TV channels, or the wireless microphones may be needed for major events or productions at a 
location with very limited spectrum availability.  In the Further Notice set forth in Section III, below, we 
propose a path that will enable such qualifying entities to obtain a license under our Part 74 LPAS rules.  
Considering that the phased broadcast station transitioning to the repacked TV bands begins next year,
168
we intend to act quickly to issue an order addressing the proposal set forth in the Further Notice.  
3. 169-172 MHz Band – Channelization Plan
59. Background.  In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission sought to promote 
more expansive use of spectrum in the 169-172 MHz band for licensed wireless microphone operations, 
which are authorized on a secondary basis, and to do so in a manner that does not interfere with the 
primary Federal operations or other secondary non-Federal services operating in the band.
169
  Wireless 
microphone operations are not protected from, and must not cause harmful interference to, Federal 
operations or to other licensed non-Federal operations in the band, which include operations on 36 
specified frequencies between 169.425 and 171.925 MHz for the purpose of transmitting hydrological or 
meteorological data (hydro channels), operations on nine frequencies between 170.425 MHz and 172.375 
MHz for forest firefighting and conservation purposes (forest firefighting channels), and operations on 
frequency 170.150 MHz for public safety purposes and broadcast remote pickup stations in certain parts 
of the country.
170
  Historically, wireless microphones operations have been limited to eight 54-kilohertz 
channels in the band (i.e., 169.445 MHz, 169.505 MHz, 170.245 MHz, 170.305 MHz, 171.045 MHz, 
171.105 MHz 171.845 MHz, and 171.905 MHz), which are available for use by a wide variety of users.
171
  
In this proceeding, wireless microphone manufacturers requested that the Commission make as much of 
                                                     
166
Id. at 6108-09, para. 16. 
167
That proceeding included a substantial record on different options for expanding Part 74 license eligibility that 
were evaluated at that time.  Those options are not currently before us here.
168
See Closing and Channel Reassignment PN, 32 FCC Rcd at 2806, para. 64 (the first phase of the broadcast 
transition provides that the Phase 1 testing period starts on September 14, 2018).
169
Id. at 8768-70, paras. 70-77.
170
See 47 CFR §§ 90.265(a)(listing specified hydro channels); 90.265(c) (forest firefighting channels); 90.265(d) 
(public safety); 74.402(e)(8) (remote pickup stations). The other non-Federal operations in the band operate on 12.5 
kilohertz channels.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8768, para. 71.
171
47 CFR § 90.265(b).  The eight frequencies were identified by the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration as suitable for non-Federal wireless microphone use.  See Allocation of Frequencies to Operate Low 
Power Wireless Microphones on a Secondary Non-Interference Basis in the 169-172 MHz Band, 49 Fed. Reg. 
20505, para. 1 (1984).  Entities eligible to operate wireless microphones under the Part 90 rules include a variety of 
users, including those eligible to hold LPAS licenses under Part 74 as well as many other entities, such as state and 
local government entities; commercial entities in general; educational, philanthropic or ecclesiastical institutions; 
clergy; and hospitals, clinics, and medical associations.  47 CFR §§ 90.20(a), 90.35(a).  While all entities eligible for 
a license under Part 74 are also eligible under Part 90, the inverse is not true:  many entities eligible under Part 90 
are not eligible under Part 74.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8768, n.180.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
33
the band as possible available for wireless microphone use by allowing operations with bandwidths of up 
to 200 kilohertz, subject to appropriate technical or geographic limitations.
172
  In the Wireless 
Microphones R&O, the Commission revised the rules to permit wireless microphones to operate on four 
channels that have bandwidths of up to 200 kilohertz, creating channel centers for these new operations 
between the existing neighboring pairs of 54-kilohertz channels (i.e., 169.475, 170.275, 171.075, and 
171.875 MHz) in order to prevent overlap with federal forest firefighting channels.
173
  Under the 
applicable rules, wireless microphone license applications are subject to Government coordination.
174
60. Petition for reconsideration.  In its petition for reconsideration, Sennheiser states that the 
specific center frequencies designated by the Commission for the four new 200-kilohertz wireless 
microphone channels, which are placed between existing neighboring pairs of 54-kilohertz channels, pose 
the potential for interference between operations on these channels, including interference caused by third 
order intermodulation (IM) products that constrain use of the band for professional wireless microphone 
operations.
175
  Sennheiser further notes that the four neighboring pairs of 54-kilohertz channels also suffer 
from these same intermodulation effects.
176
  It proposes that the Commission amend the rules to shift two 
of the neighboring 54-kilohertz channel pairs, along with two of the 200-kilohertz channels that would be 
between them, to different center frequencies in order to address the intermodulation issues, improve 
access to all of the wireless microphone frequencies in the band (both narrowband and broadband), and 
facilitate flexible and cost-effective wireless microphone designs.
177
  In particular, Sennheiser proposes 
shifting the two 54-kilohertz channels centered at 169.445 MHz and 169.505 MHz to 169.545 MHz and 
169.605 MHz, with the corresponding 200-kilohertz channel shifted to be centered at 169.575 MHz 
(moved from 169.475 MHz), and shifting the two 54-kilohertz channels centered at 170.245 MHz and 
170.305 MHz to 169.995 MHz and 170.055 MHz, with the corresponding 200-kilohertz channel shifted 
to be centered at 170.025 MHz (moved from 170.275 MHz).
178
  It notes that under these revisions the 
proposed channels do not overlap the federal forest fighting channels or the public safety operations at 
170.150 MHz.
179
  
61. Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, and Shure each agree that the current rules make full use 
of the available channels susceptible to IM products, and support revising existing center frequency 
assignments to enable interference-free operations that increase opportunities for wireless microphone use 
in the band.
180
Audio-Technica and Lectrosonics also support Sennheiser’s specific proposal.
181
  No others 
commented on the proposed revisions.  
                                                     
172
See id. at 8769, para. 72.
173
See id. at 8769-8770, paras. 75-76.
174
47 CFR § 90.265(b)(4).
175
Third order intermodulation products result from the combination of the fundamental frequencies of three 
transmitters, or the fundamental frequency of one transmitter with the second harmonic frequency of another.  These 
products appear as spurious emissions that can cause interference if they fall on a frequency that is in use by another 
transmitter.
176
See Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 8.
177
Id. at 8-9.
178
Id. at 9 & n.25.
179
Id. at 8.
180
Audio-Technica Wireless Microphones Comments at 1 (proposal would allow use of the designated frequencies 
simultaneously in the same area); Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Comments at 1 (new wideband channels are 
not coordinated to be intermodulation free, and proposed shift of some of the frequency pairs corrects the situation); 
Shure Wireless Microphones Comments at 9 (agrees that rules for 200-kilohertz channels may be susceptible to 
interference related to IM products, reducing their utility for professional operations and subsequent product 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
34
62. Discussion.  We agree with Sennheiser and other wireless microphone manufacturers that 
we should take steps to increase the usefulness of the 169-172 MHz band for wireless microphones by 
permitting wireless microphone operations under a different channel plan, one that eliminates 
intermodulation effects and thereby enables full use of the 54- and 200-kilohertz (narrowband and 
broadband) channels throughout the band.  In revising our rules, we promote the goals set forth in the 
Wireless Microphones R&O to find additional ways to accommodate wireless microphone operations 
while protecting other licensed operations in the 169-172 MHz band, such as operations on forest fighting 
channels.  In particular, we revise our rules as follows:  we revise the center frequencies associated with 
two of the 200-kilohertz channels, shifting the authorization to operate on channels centered at 169.475 
MHz and 170.275 MHz to 169.575 MHz and 170.025 MHz, and we permit 54-kilohertz operations on 
four new channels that would correspond with these 200-kilohertz channels, specifically authorizing such 
wireless microphone operations on frequencies centered at 169.545 MHz, 169.605 MHz, 169.995 MHz, 
and 170.055 MHz.
182
  We do not, however, revise our rules to eliminate the current authorizations to 
operate 54-kilohertz wireless microphones on the channels centered at 169.445 MHz, 169.505 MHz, 
170.245 MHz, and 170.305 MHz.  These channels will remain available for licensees that do not choose 
to obtain wireless microphones designed to operate on the newly-available channels.  As we noted above, 
the 169-172 MHz band historically has permitted operations on these channels for various entities, 
including: state and local government entities; commercial entities in general; educational, philanthropic 
or ecclesiastical institutions; clergy; and hospitals, clinics, and medical associations.  The approach we are 
taking serves to provide additional opportunities for wireless microphone licensees that purchase new 
equipment that can make full and efficient use of the band, whether for professional-quality 200-kilohertz 
microphones or for 54-kilohertz wireless microphones, while at the same time continues to allow other 
licensees to operate 54-kilohertz wireless microphones on any of the current 54-kilohertz channels.  
63. We note that certain of the 54-kilohertz channels under our existing rules may overlap 
with one of the revised 200-kilohertz channels, and that operations on some of the existing 54-kilohertz 
channels potentially could continue to create intermodulation effects that could limit the full use of the 
169-172 MHz band for wireless microphone operations.
183
  Under existing requirements, all wireless 
microphone applicants and licensees must cooperate in the selection and use of frequencies in order to 
reduce interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities.
184
  And, considering that 
wireless microphone users will be operating devices that operate at low power and transmit only short 
distances, and that the other operations in the band are not likely in the same areas, we do not anticipate 
that interference issues are likely to arise as a practical matter.  In any event, we expect that different 
licensees that potentially could suffer or cause interference to one another to cooperate and resolve any 
potential problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements.
185
  
4. 1435-1525 MHz Band – Spectrum Availability  
64. Background.  In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission authorized limited use 
of the 1435-1525 MHz band for licensed wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis in the 
band, provided that certain conditions and safeguards designed to protect the primary Aeronautical 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
development investments; supports further examination of alternative center frequencies to enable interference-free 
operations).
181
Audio-Technica Wireless Microphones Comments at 1; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Comments at 1.
182
We revise the Table of Allocations footnote US 300 to reflect these changes, and to include the four channels that 
will be available for 200 kilohertz wireless microphone operations.
183
We note that, under our existing rules, applications for 169-172 MHz wireless microphone frequencies need not 
be accompanied by evidence of frequency coordination. 47 CFR § 90.175(j)(2).
184
47 CFR § 90.173(b).
185
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
35
Mobile Telemetry (AMT) services in the band are met.  It observed that the Commission’s experience 
through the Special Temporary Authority (STA) process demonstrates that, under proper conditions, 
wireless microphones will be able to operate in this band without interfering with AMT operations.
186
The Commission limited eligibility to professional users licensed under our Part 74 LPAS rules, and 
emphasized that it was not opening up this band either for widespread use or for itinerant uses throughout 
the nation.  It restricted use to specific fixed locations, such as large venues where there is a need to 
deploy large numbers of microphones (typically 100 or more) for specified time periods and indicated 
that access to the band is intended for situations in which the other available spectrum resources are 
insufficient.
187
  It underscored that protection of the primary service is of paramount importance, required 
that wireless microphone use in the 1435-1525 MHz band be coordinated with the non-governmental 
coordinator for assignment of flight test frequencies in the band (i.e., AFTRCC) to permit authentication 
and location verification before a coordinated wireless microphone begins operation, and further required 
that wireless microphones be tunable across the entire 1435-1525 MHz band to facilitate coordination 
with incumbent users.  In addition, it authorized “all wireless microphones operating in a particular area” 
to access no more than 30 megahertz in the band, which it stated would facilitate co-existence in the band 
by ensuring that wireless microphones could coordinate operations around AMT operations and by 
promoting the development of spectrally efficient technologies (e.g., digital technologies).
188
  The 
Commission again emphasized that the STA process remains available to address extraordinary situations 
or special events requiring access to additional spectrum in the band for wireless microphone 
operations.
189
65. Petitions for reconsideration.  Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, and Shure filed 
petitions requesting that we reconsider the decision to limit wireless microphone operations in a particular 
area to access no more than 30 megahertz of the 90 megahertz in the 1435-1525 MHz band.
190
  They 
assert that this limitation conflicts with the Commission’s stated goal of providing access to this band to 
accommodate large numbers of wireless microphones (e.g., 100 or more) that may be needed at fixed 
locations or large venues at specified times, and that the Commission should not limit access to the entire 
band at particular locations where needed.
191
  Petitioners contend that there was no notice, and no basis in 
the record, for the 30 megahertz limitation.
192
  They further assert that the limitation is not necessary to 
protect the primary AMT users in the band since interference protection will be achieved through the 
coordination process with AFTRCC and the use of equipment that incorporates electronic safeguards on 
                                                     
186
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8779-8780, para. 105, 8784, para. 116 (discussing STA process).
To accommodate this limited use, a new footnote, US84, was added to the Table of Frequency Allocations to 
explicitly permit secondary wireless microphone use in the 1435-1525 MHz band.  Id.  See also id. at 8785, para. 
121 (discussing the secondary allocation, and noting that licensees would bear the future costs should there be 
regulatory changes affect authorized operations in the band).  
187
Id. at 8784, para. 117.  As the Commission noted, this limitation to situations in which other spectrum resources 
are not sufficient is similar to our practice of limiting the issuance of STAs for wireless microphone operations to 
situations in which an entity represents that the other spectrum resources available to the requesting entity are 
insufficient for providing the desired level of coverage for the particular scheduled event.  Id. at 8784 n.313 (citing 
id. at 8780 n.279).  
188
Id. at 8784-85, para. 118; 47 CFR § 74.803(d).
189
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8784-85, para. 118.
190
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 5-6; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 4-5, Sennheiser 
Consolidated Petition at 3-6, Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 7-10. 
191
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 5; Lectrosonics Wireless Microphones Petition at 4-5; Sennheiser 
Consolidated Petition at 3-4; Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 7-8.
192
Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 4-5; Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
36
the specified frequencies, locations, and times of operation.
193
  Audio-Technica states that operating more 
than 100 wireless microphones on 30 megahertz is not possible using current technology, and Shure 
asserts that some contemporary large-scale and “super-scale” events can employ upwards of 500 wireless 
microphones in certain areas with high-density microphone deployments (e.g., Broadway or the Las 
Vegas Strip), and may even involve significantly more.
194
  Finally, Shure recommends that we cease our 
current policy of accommodating wireless microphones and wireless video operations in the 1435-1525 
MHz band pursuant to STAs once the certificated wireless microphone equipment (incorporating 
electronic safeguards) is available, asserting that the STA process is inefficient and burdensome for 
wireless microphone licensees and AFTRCC alike.
195
66. Aerial Video Systems (AVS), Broadcast Sports International (BSI), and CTIA oppose 
removing the 30-megahertz limitation on the amount of spectrum available in a given area for licensed 
wireless microphone operations in this band.
196
  AVS and BSI, each of which provide high-quality audio 
and video production services of broadcast, cablecast, and other video delivery systems, state that they are
dependent on the use of STAs in the 1435-1525 MHz band in providing video production of large scale 
news, sporting, and entertainment events.
197
  While concerned about the constraints placed on licensed 
wireless microphone operations with the reconfiguration of the TV bands, and the potential need for 
wireless microphone access to spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band for large-scale events, they also 
want to ensure that sufficient spectrum access in the band is maintained for video production through the 
existing STA process.  They contend that the 30-megahertz limitation for wireless microphones was 
premised in part on the concerns that the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) had earlier expressed 
that the STA process be preserved for video productions as well, and assert that the Commission’s 
limitation serves to balance these competing uses.
198
  Finally, AVS and BSI object in particular to Shure’s 
call for ending the STA process altogether.
199
  For its part, CTIA maintains that the 30-megahertz limit on 
wireless microphone operations in this band would facilitate coexistence in the band when coordinating 
around AMT operations, and contends that the record provides support for the limitation, which is 
consistent with the Commission’s stated policy objectives of promoting spectral-efficient and frequency-
agile wireless microphones. CTIA also points out that in the Wireless Microphones R&O we stated that 
we envision only limited wireless microphone use of the 1435-1525 MHz band and did not intend to open
the band for either widespread or itinerant wireless microphone use throughout the nation.  Finally, CTIA 
cites the STA process as providing flexibility, should 30 megahertz be insufficient, for addressing 
extraordinary situations or special events requiring more spectrum access.
200
67. The Madison Square Garden Company (MSGC) and AFTRCC filed comments on the 
petitions.
201
MSGC, which owns and operates several professional sports franchises and venues, contends 
that the 30 megahertz restriction would place an unreasonable burden on the type of large, professional 
entertainment productions that the Commission indicated it was seeking to accommodate with access in 
                                                     
193
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 5-6; Sennheiser Consolidated Petition at 6; Shure Wireless 
Microphones Petition at 8-9.
194
Audio-Technica Consolidated Petition at 5; Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 8.
195
Shure Wireless Microphones Petition at 9-10 (requesting sunset of this policy after three years). 
196
AVS Wireless Microphones Opposition at 1-11, BSI Wireless Microphones Opposition at 1-11, CTIA 
Consolidated Opposition at 8-9. 
197
AVS Wireless Microphones Opposition at 1-2, 9; BSI Wireless Microphones Opposition at 1-2, 9. 
198
AVS Wireless Microphones Opposition at 3-8; BSI Wireless Microphones Opposition at 2-7.
199
AVS Wireless Microphones Opposition at 8-11; BSI Wireless Microphones Opposition at 8-10.
200
CTIA Consolidated Opposition at 8-9. 
201
MSGC Wireless Microphones Comments at 1-3; AFTRCC Wireless Microphones Comments at 1-3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
37
the 1435-1525 MHz band.
202
  MSGC states that certain events (e.g., the Radio City Christmas 
Spectacular), which currently depend on fully utilizing vacant TV band channels (including channels in 
the 600-698 MHz band), employ over 500 wireless microphones, and that having the flexibility post-
auction to access up to 90 megahertz in the 1435-1525 MHz band is needed; it contends that requiring the 
company to request STAs for access to more than 30 megahertz would be burdensome and a costly waste 
of time and resources for the company, Commission staff, and AFTRCC.
203
  AFTRCC, in turn, states that 
it does not oppose the petitioners’ request for increased access to the 1435-1525 MHz band, indicating
that, regardless of the amount of wireless microphone spectrum requested (e.g., whether for 30, 60, or 90 
megahertz), AFTRCC will have to determine whether the coordination could be successfully 
accomplished depending on the specific circumstances of the request and the AMT operations in the area 
during the time requested.
204
In comments, Sennheiser asserts that the STA option to accommodate 
wireless microphone requests for more than 30 megahertz of spectrum in a given situation adds 
complexity and cost to the 1435-1525 MHz band coordination process.
205
In reply comments, Shure 
responds to AVS and BSI by clarifying that it supports consolidation of wireless microphone operations 
in the 1435-1525 MHz band under Part 74 rules – rather than via the STA process – but that it recognizes 
that we may continue to authorize video transmissions on an event-by-event basis under an STA 
process.
206
68. Discussion.  On reconsideration, we affirm the decision establishing a 30 megahertz limit 
on the amount of spectrum available for wireless microphone operations in the 1435-1525 MHz band at a 
particular location.  We do, however, provide clarifications regarding how this limitation applies with 
respect to different wireless microphone users and to particular areas of operations, which should help 
accommodate more wireless microphone users that operate in the same general area and have a need for 
access to spectrum in this band.  In those few extraordinary instances in which a particular licensed 
wireless microphone user can demonstrate that access to more than 30 megahertz of this band for a 
specified event is merited, the STA process remains available for addressing those needs. 
69. In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission stated that “all wireless microphones 
operating in a particular area” would be limited to access to no more than 30 megahertz in the 1435-1525 
MHz band.
207
  In affirming the decision to place a limit on the amount of spectrum available for wireless 
microphone use in a particular area, we clarify that this 30-megahertz limit will be applied to each 
licensed wireless microphone user seeking access to spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band for its own 
wireless microphone operations at a particular location or venue.  We conclude that the 30 megahertz 
                                                     
202
MSGC states that it is a leading provider of live sports and entertainment, and has a portfolio that includes sports 
terms (e.g., the New York Knicks, the New York Rangers), entertainment productions, and venues (e.g., Madison 
Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, Beacon Theater, the Chicago Theater), and hosts or presents a broad array of 
events.  MCGC Wireless Microphones Comments at 1-2.
203
Madison Square Garden Company Wireless Microphones Comments at 1-2. 
204
AFTRCC Wireless Microphones Comments at 3.  In its July 6, 2017 ex parte, AFTRCC requests that the 
Commission clarify that, when wireless microphone licensees seek to obtain STAs for wireless microphone 
operations, they must adhere to the various equipment requirements set forth under Section 74.803(d).  Letter from 
Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr., Counsel for AFTRCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-166 and 
ET Docket No. 14-165, at 2-3 (filed July 6, 2017) (AFTRCC July 6 Ex Parte).  We do not consider this ATFTRCC 
request because it is beyond the scope of the petitions for reconsideration.  In addition, no interested party has had 
an opportunity to comment on AFTRCC’s recently requested clarification.  Finally, as AFTRCC notes, any STA 
would have to be coordinated with AFTRCC in advance, which ensures that there is no danger of harmful 
interference.  AFTRCC July 6 Ex Parte at 2-3.
205
Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition and Response at 3. 
206
Shure Consolidated Reply at 10-11. 
207
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8785, para. 118; 47 CFR § 74.803(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
38
limitation as clarified is reasonable and consistent with the Commission’s goals associated with 
operations in this band.  We disagree with petitioners who argue there was insufficient notice or basis in 
the record for adopting a 30-megahertz limitation in the first place.  In the Wireless Microphones NPRM, 
the Commission proposed only limited use of the 1435-1525 MHz band for wireless microphone use, 
stated that it was not proposing to open the band to widespread use,
208
and noted its overarching goal of 
promoting efficient use of spectrum when accommodating wireless microphone operations.
209
  In 
response to the notice, and as discussed in the Wireless Microphones R&O, some commenting parties 
expressed concerns that accommodation of wireless microphones in the band not limit other secondary 
uses of the band (i.e., video services that access the band through the STA process), or objected to the 
Commission making the entire 90 megahertz available for wireless microphone use.
210
  While the 
Commission did not specifically propose a 30-megahertz limit, the Commission made clear that in 
addition to its proposal regarding potential limits (e.g., restricting operations to specific, fixed locations at 
specific times
211
) it would consider “alternative proposals” on “any other regulatory or technical issues 
relevant to consideration” of whether to authorize wireless microphone operations in the 1435-1525 MHz 
band.
212
  As evidenced by commenter objections to making the entire 90 megahertz in the band available 
for wireless microphone use, this guidance was sufficient to apprise interested parties that the 
Commission might consider additional limitations for wireless microphone operations (like the 30-
megahertz limitation) on the amount of spectrum that a licensee could access under a given license. As 
such, the Commission’s decision to adopt the 30-megahertz limitation was, at a minimum, a logical 
outgrowth of the proposals made in the Wireless Microphones NPRM, and thus complied with notice 
requirements.
213
70. Moreover, the record contains ample basis to support the balance that the Commission 
sought to achieve when establishing the 30-megahertz limitation for operations in this band – i.e., 
accommodating wireless microphone operations through access to spectrum in this band along with other 
bands, while also promoting efficient spectrum use.  The Commission’s decision to limit spectrum access 
for wireless microphone operations in this band must be considered in the context of the access it 
provided to spectrum in several other bands.  When authorizing access to spectrum in this band in the 
Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission explained that access in the 1435-1525 MHz band is 
intended only for those situations where other available spectrum resources are insufficient, and that in 
providing access it was  seeking to promote development of spectrally efficient wireless microphone 
technologies.
214
  In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission took several actions to promote the 
availability of other spectrum resources for licensed wireless microphone operations in the reconfigured 
TV bands, the 600 MHz duplex gap, the 900 MHz band (i.e., portions of the 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 
                                                     
208
Wireless Microphones NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at 12391, para. 182.  
209
See generally id. at 12356-59, paras.50-67 (“Promoting Technological Advances”).
210
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8782-83, para. 111 (citing BSI, SBE, and CTIA comments); 8783-
84, para. 115 (citing CTIA ex parte).
211
See Wireless Microphones NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at 12391, para. 182.
212
Id. at 12393, para. 190.  Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may satisfy notice 
requirements by providing “a description of the subjects and issues involved.”  5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).  And while the 
notice “’must be sufficient to fairly apprise interested parties of the[se] issues,’ it need not specify ‘every precise 
proposal which (the agency) may ultimately adopt as a rule.’” Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 564 F.2d 
458, 470 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (first quoting S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 258 (1946), and second quoting 
California Citizens Band Association v. U.S., 375 F.2d 43, 48 (9
th
Cir. 1967)).  See also Agape Church, Inc. v. FCC, 
738 F.3d 397, 411 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle, 604 F.2d 239, 248 (4
th
Cir. 1978).
213
See Covad Communications Co., v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 548 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holding that a final rule “need only 
be a ‘logical outgrowth’ of its notice”).
214
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8784, para. 117.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
39
MHz, and 952-960 MHz bands), and other bands.
215
  These other spectrum resources are likely to 
accommodate a significant number of wireless microphones, which should be sufficient to address most 
licensed wireless microphone users’ needs in most situations, without any need for access to additional 
spectrum resources in the 1435-1525 MHz band.  To the extent the available spectrum in these other 
bands may not be sufficient, access to as much as 30 megahertz in this band (i.e., one third of the 
spectrum in the band) would allow a user to use of a significant number of wireless microphones (e.g., as 
many as 100 according to Audio-Technica) in addition to the many wireless microphones likely to be 
accommodated through use of the other spectrum resources already available in other bands.  By limiting 
a particular operator to access to no more than 30 megahertz of the spectrum in this band, we also 
promote our goals concerning efficient use of the spectrum in this band, and we help ensure that other 
licensed wireless microphone users can access portions of this spectrum for their needs as well.  As 
pointed out by AVS and BSI, this limitation also can help users of video production services that at times 
seek access spectrum in this band through STAs, and thus serves to balance competing uses of this band.  
While there may be extraordinary situations or special events in which access to 30 megahertz in this 
band may be insufficient, for which the STA process remains available (as discussed below), we are not 
persuaded by petitioners that we should remove the general limitation and instead provide a particular 
user with general access to all 90 megahertz of spectrum in the band.  In sum, we conclude that a 30-
megahertz limitation is balanced and reasonable, particularly with the clarification that follows regarding 
implementation of this limitation.
71. We also clarify how this general limitation will apply to different licensed wireless 
microphone users that may operate in the same general area or location.  We recognize, as noted by the 
petitioner and commenters above, that in some areas of the country the spectrum available for licensed 
wireless microphone operations may be quite constrained (e.g., the theater district in New York City, or 
the Las Vegas strip).  We also recognize that different users in that same general area or location may be 
seeking to access portions of the same general spectrum resource for their respective wireless microphone 
operations at a particular venue.  While we are limiting each wireless microphone user’s operations in a 
particular area or venue to access to no more than 30 megahertz in the band (i.e., one-third of the 
spectrum in the band), as discussed above, we clarify that different users in the same general area can 
each access up to 30 megahertz of the spectrum in the band for their respective wireless microphone 
operations.  Licensed wireless microphone users seeking access would first need to coordinate with 
AFTRCC, which would have to determine whether to permit access to the 1435-1525 MHz band in that 
area during the specified period and to indicate whether any specific frequencies in the 90 megahertz of 
spectrum in the band is unavailable for use.
216
  All licensed users that have successfully coordinated with 
AFTRCC for access to the 1435-1525 MHz band for operations at their locations at specified times and 
circumstances would then be obligated, to the extent necessary, to coordinate their particular access to 
and use of up to 30 megahertz (one-third) of this available spectrum with the other licensed users in the 
same general area so as to minimize the potential for interference between and among the different 
operations.
217
  
                                                     
215
See generally id. (providing additional access for licensed wireless microphone operations in several different 
spectrum bands).
216
In its comments, AFTRCC indicates that its coordination of access to spectrum in a particular area turns on the 
specific circumstances of the request and the AMT operations in the area at the time of the request, regardless of the 
amount of spectrum requested (e.g., whether for 30, 60, or 90 megahertz) by a licensee.  AFTRCC Wireless 
Microphones Comments at 3. 
217
Wireless microphone licensees have secondary, non-exclusive rights to access the spectrum.  To the extent that 
two or more licensees are authorized to access spectrum following coordination with AFTRCC and need to operate 
in the same area, they would be required to select frequencies or schedule operations in a manner so as to avoid 
mutual interference, consistent with their non-exclusive rights to the spectrum.  See 47 CFR § 74.803(a) (requiring 
LPAS licensees to select frequencies to avoid interference when operating in the same area). In the Wireless 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
40
72. As discussed above, there may be extraordinary situations for which a licensed wireless 
microphone user may need access to more than 30 megahertz of spectrum in the band for a specific event 
at a particular location or area.  This could include the “super-scale” type of event referenced by Shure or 
the seasonal “spectacular” discussed by MSGC above.
218
  For any such extraordinary event, the STA 
process remains available to meet these needs.
219
  In keeping with existing requirements for obtaining an 
STA, the wireless microphone licensee would need to demonstrate that all of the spectrum resources 
available to it for that event are insufficient to meet its needs.  As discussed above, AVS, BSI, and others 
also are dependent on the use of STAs for operating in the 1435-1525 MHz band when providing video 
production services for certain large scale events.  We agree with AVI and BSI that these types of STAs 
can serve the public interest in specified situations, and that they and similar entities should continue to be 
able to avail themselves of STAs on an as-needed basis in appropriate situations.  Accordingly, we reject 
Shure’s request that we eliminate use of STAs in this band for either wireless microphone or video 
production operations.  We recognize that, for particular events, both professional wireless microphone 
users and professional video production services may seek access to spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz 
band through STAs in the same general location or area.  To the extent that these different entities may 
seek access to the 1435-1525 MHz band at the same location and time for scheduled events, we expect 
these users to coordinate their audio and video operations.    
5. 941.5-944 MHz Band – Coordination with Federal Operations 
73. Background.  In the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission revised our rules to 
provide new opportunities for licensed wireless microphone operations in the bands adjacent to the 944-
952 MHz band, which has long been available for wireless microphone operations under the 
Commission’s Part 74 LPAS rules.
220
  With regard to the 941.5-944 MHz band, it permitted licensed 
wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis – thereby requiring that incumbent users be fully 
protected from harmful interference from such operations – and applied the same technical rules (e.g., the 
same power limits, maximum bandwidth) and coordination requirements applicable to LPAS operations 
in the 944-952 MHz band.
221
  It noted that the 941.5-944 MHz band is licensed on a primary basis for 
Private and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Services and to fixed Aural Broadcast Auxiliary Services 
under Part 74,
222
and that these operations are fixed point-to-point links that are typically used for long 
distance, low data-rate links that have a line of sight capability, and employ directional antennas and 
operate with a fairly high effective isotropic radiated power.  In addition to these primary non-Federal 
incumbent services, Federal fixed services also operate in this band on a co-primary basis pursuant to 
similar technical rules.
223
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Microphones R&O, the Commission required that wireless microphones operating in this band must be tunable 
across the entire 1435-1525 MHz band.  Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8785, para. 118.
218
See paragraphs 65 and 67, above.
219
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8784, para. 118, 8786, para. 122. 
220
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8772-77, paras. 85-95.
221
Id. at 8776, para. 94; 47 CFR § 74.803(c)(secondary status).
222
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8772, para. 85.  The Private Operational Fixed Service (including 
business industrial and public safety) and Common Carrier Fixed Microwave Service are authorized under Part 101 
(Subparts H and I), and the Fixed Aural Broadcast Auxiliary Services (Aural Studio to Transmitter links (STL) and 
fixed Aural Intercity Relay Links stations (ICR)) are authorized under Part 74 (Subpart E).  See id.  
223
See 47 CFR § 2.106 (United States Table of Frequency Allocations) (listing Federal and non-Federal Fixed 
services as primary services in the allocation for the 941-944 MHz band); Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 22, 74, and 94 
of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Service and Technical Rules for Government and non-Government Fixed 
Service Usage of the Frequency Bands 932-935 MHz and 941-944 MHz, GN Docket No. 82-243, Second Report 
and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2012, 2012 (1989) (establishing technical standards for non-Federal fixed service use of the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
41
74. Consistent with the coordination requirements for LPAS operations in the 944-952 MHz 
band, the Commission specified  that wireless microphone users seeking access to the 941.5-944 MHz 
band operate on a secondary basis vis-à-vis other incumbent uses and required that, prior to operation, 
they “consult local frequency coordination committees, where they exist, for information on frequencies 
available in the area.”
224
  While the local Society of Broadcasting Engineers (SBE) coordinator is the 
appropriate coordinator with respect to coordinating proposed wireless microphone operations with non-
Federal operations,
225
these coordinators do not coordinate proposed wireless microphone operations with 
the primary Federal incumbent users that may be affected.  Instead, because the Federal government and 
the Commission each has jurisdiction over spectrum use in shared non-Federal/Federal bands, the practice 
used generally in such shared bands applies, whereby the Commission works directly with the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to coordinate proposed non-Federal license 
applicants with Federal incumbents.
226
  Moreover, the specific procedures used for coordinating Federal 
and non-Federal operations in this shared band are well-established.
227
  Under these procedures, once the 
proposed non-Federal operations have been successfully coordinated among the non-Federal incumbent 
licensees, the applicant submits an application to the Commission, which then coordinates the proposed 
operations with the Federal Government.  Specifically, this coordination occurs through the application 
filing process, whereby the Commission forwards the relevant information about the proposed operations 
(e.g., particular frequencies, power levels, area/location), set forth in the application, to NTIA and its 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to enable NTIA/IRAC to assess the compatibility of 
the proposed operations with the incumbent Federal use.
228
75. Discussion.  Given the need to coordinate the wireless microphone operations with the 
various incumbent primary Federal fixed services that may operate at different frequencies and locations 
throughout the 941.5-944 MHz band, we provide the following guidance.
229
  After coordination of 
proposed wireless microphone operations with incumbent non-Federal users through the local SBE 
coordinator, the applicant will file its application for an LPAS license with the Commission.
230
  In 
addition to the basic technical information (such as the particular frequencies and maximum power levels 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
941-944 MHz band on a co-primary basis with Federal fixed service use, and noting that “the technical standards  . . 
. for both [types of] users are similar to those currently in use in non-Government private operational fixed bands”).
224
47 CFR § 74.803(c). 
225
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8776, para. 94.
226
See Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (NTIA, September 2015 
Revision), Chapter 4.1.2 (in the case of bands shared by Federal and non-Federal services, frequency assignments 
therein shall be subject to coordination between NTIA, via the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, and the 
Commission).
227
Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 22, 74, and 94 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Service and Technical Rules 
for Government and non-Government Fixed Service Usage of the Frequency Bands 932-935 MHz and 941-944 
MHz, GN Docket No. 82-243, Second Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 2012 (1989) (establishing procedures for 
sharing in the 941-944 MHz band among fixed Federal and fixed non-Federal usage on a co-primary basis) (1989 
Federal-Non-federal Sharing Second R&O); Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency 
Management (NTIA, September 2015 Revision), Chapter 4.3.14 (“Channeling Plan for Assignments in the Fixed 
Service in the Bands 932.4-935 MHz and 941.4-944 MHz”).
228
See 1989 Federal-Non-federal Sharing Second R&O.
229
We are making modifications in the rules to reflect more explicitly the status in the band of the wireless 
microphone users and the Federal incumbents – i.e., updating the table of allocations located at 47 CFR § 2.106 to 
reflect that low power auxiliary stations are permitted to operate on a secondary basis in this band, and adding to 47 
CFR § 74.803(c) an express statement that such stations are secondary to Federal operations in the band.
230
Applications for LPAS licenses are filed using FCC Form 601 (“FCC Application for Radio Service 
Authorization”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
42
that the applicant proposes to use), the applicant is required to provide a description of the proposed 
location and area(s) of operation.
231
  To facilitate the Commission’s coordination of the proposed wireless 
microphone operations with incumbent Federal users, each application should provide sufficient 
specificity regarding the proposed location(s) (e.g., venues) of the wireless microphone operations for 
which the applicant seeks authorization, and limit its request only to the area(s) necessary to meet its 
particular communications needs.
232
  Providing such specificity is consistent with the approach used for 
coordinating co-primary non-Federal fixed service applications with Federal fixed operations in the band, 
and also is consistent with the approach taken with regard to secondary licensed wireless microphone 
operations in the 1435-1525 MHz band.
233
  Finally, we note that, under the applicable LPAS rules, 
wireless microphone licensees are not granted exclusive frequency assignments for their secondary 
operations.
234
  Accordingly, the grant of a LPAS license to one entity for wireless microphone operations 
at a specified location (e.g., a venue) does not preclude the grant of additional LPAS licenses to other 
entities at the same location following successful coordination of their proposed operations with the 
primary users of the band.
235
6. Updating Rules to Reflect the Close of the Incentive Auction 
76. As discussed above, the broadcast television incentive auction closed on April 13, 
2017.
236
  As a result, the 600 MHz Band Plan is now finalized, and the specific frequencies associated 
with the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz guard band, and the 600 MHz duplex gap are now 
established.
237
  Accordingly, we are updating various rule parts in Part 15 (affecting unlicensed wireless 
microphone operations) and Part 74 (affected licensed wireless microphone operations) to reflect the 600 
MHz Band Plan.
238
  In addition, we update these rules to reflect specific calendar dates for compliance 
                                                     
231
See Instructions to Form 601, Schedule D, Items 3 and 4.
232
There are a variety of ways in which an applicant can describe its proposed area of operation with a sufficient 
degree of specificity to enable the Commission to engage in an effective coordination process with NTIA.  One is 
describing the proposed area of operation as a Kilometer Radius (KMRA) around a fixed location or center point.  
This approach provides the kind of specificity that, we believe, would serve to increase the chances for successful 
coordination among any fixed non-Federal or Federal incumbents around a proposed location.  Limiting the radius 
of operation around each specific location only to that necessary to meet the applicant’s specific communications 
requirements will minimize the potential for interference with any non-Federal or Federal incumbents and increase 
the likelihood of successful coordination.    
233
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8784-85, paras. 116-118 (restricting use to specific fixed locations 
such as large venues; prohibiting itinerant operations of wireless microphones).
234
See 47 CFR § 74.802(d).
235
Under these existing LPAS rules, if two or more wireless microphone licensees are authorized to operate in the 
same area, the licensees are obligated to select frequencies and schedule operations in a manner as to avoid mutual 
interference between their operations.  47 CFR § 74.803(a).  
236
See Closing and Channel Reassignment PN, 32 FCC Rcd 2786.
237
Id. at para. 15. The incentive auction resulted in a 600 MHz Band Plan in which 84 megahertz is repurposed 
pursuant to the 84-megahertz scenario discussed in the Incentive Auction R&O.  Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC 
Rcd at 6586, para. 47.
238
Various rule provisions under our Part 15 and Part 74 rules relating to wireless microphones include “notes” that 
indicate that the specific frequencies will be established by a future public notice in the broadcast incentive auction 
proceeding (GN Docket No. 12-268), or effective dates that will be established with release of the Closing and 
Channel Reassignment PN.  Now that this public notice has been released, we take the opportunity in this Order to 
update the rules by replacing these descriptive references with the specific frequencies and dates described by those 
references.  As this is essentially a mechanical process of inserting specific information into rules in accordance with 
their existing terms, we find, for good cause, that the notice and public procedure specified in the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) are unnecessary, and that following such processes in this case would be contrary to the public 
interest because it would waste resources and delay making these perfunctory regulatory updates, with no 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
43
with various requirements that attach based on the date of release of the Closing and Channel 
Reassignment PN and the establishment of the post-auction transition period.
239
  Finally, we also take this 
opportunity to reinsert part of a rule provision that had been inadvertently deleted with the rule changes 
adopted in the Wireless Microphones R&O.
240
  
III. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
77. In this Further Notice, we propose to permit certain professional theater, music, 
performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and 
that meet certain criteria to obtain a Part 74 license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service 
band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces 
databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their 
events/productions are performed.  In addition, we propose to permit these same users, based on 
demonstrated need, also to obtain a Part 74 license to operate on other bands available for use by Part 74 
wireless microphone licensees provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those 
bands.  
A. Background
78. Petitioner’s request.  As an alternative to its request for reinstatement of a reservation 
system for those unlicensed wireless microphone users (which we deny for the reasons discussed 
above
241
), Shure requests that we provide a more limited reservation system that would make registration 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
countervailing benefit.   See 5 U.S.C § 553(b)(B) (providing that notice and comment requirement of the 
Administrative Procedure Act does not apply when agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public 
procedure [for rulemaking action] are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest).
239
As discussed above, the Commission determined in the 2014 Incentive Auction R&O that various actions and 
compliance dates associated with the results of the incentive auction would be established with the release of the 
Closing and Channel Reassignment PN announcing the closing of the incentive auction.  For wireless microphone 
operations, these include the final 600 MHz Band Plan, the dates that attach to the post-auction transition period, and 
the dates concerning compliance with the new technical requirements relating to wireless microphones.  
240
Among the actions taken in the Wireless Microphones R&O, the Commission authorized licensed wireless 
microphone operations, on a secondary basis, in the 1435-1525 MHz band.  See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 
FCC Rcd at 8784-85, paras. 116-118 & n.314.  However, when seeking to reflect this new authorization in the rules, 
the Commission inadvertently replaced the entire text of Section 87.303(d)(1) of the rules – which included a full 
paragraph addressing the use of frequencies in the 1435-1525 MHz band, as well as the 2360-2395 MHz and 2345-
2360 MHz bands, for aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) and associated telecommand operations for flight testing 
of aircraft and missiles – with one sentence that provided that “[f]requencies in the band 1435-1525 MHz are also 
available for [licensed wireless microphone] use on a secondary basis.” See id. at 8803 (Appendix A, paragraph 
15). The Commission’s clear intent in the Wireless Microphones R&O had only been to add language in Section 
87.303(d) to reflect the newly adopted authorization of licensed wireless microphone use of the 1435-1525 MHz 
band on a secondary basis, and not otherwise revise this rule; neither the Wireless Microphones R&O nor the 
underlying notice of proposed rulemaking in that proceeding had included any discussion of revisions to the existing 
rules for AMT or telecommand operations in the 1435-1525 MHz or other bands.  Accordingly, in order to avoid 
any potential uncertainty regarding the applicable rule for AMT and telecommand operations in the 1435-1535 MHz 
and the other bands, we find, for good cause, that it is in the public interest to (a) restore the inadvertently deleted 
text of Section 87.303(d)(1) that contained the applicable rule provisions authorizing certain AMT and telecommand 
services in these bands, and (b) to include the one-sentence rule adopted by the Commission in the Wireless 
Microphones R&O authorizing licensed wireless microphone use of the 1435-1525 MHz band on a secondary basis 
as subsection (d)(4).  See 5 U.S.C § 553(b)(B) (under the “good cause” exception, the APA notice and comment 
requirement does not apply when agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest).
241
See Section II.B.2.e, above.  As discussed above, Shure also petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission’s 
2015 decision in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O to eliminate the rules adopted in 2010 in the TV Bands White Spaces 
Second MO&O that had permitted certain types of unlicensed wireless microphone users, upon case-by-case 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
44
for interference protection for wireless microphone users in the TV bands available in special 
circumstances requiring a high degree of reliability for a user that does not typically use 50 or more 
microphones.
242
  As Shure points out, the elimination of two “reserved” TV channels for wireless 
microphones in the TV bands following the incentive auction, combined with the decision in the TV 
Bands Part 15 R&O to open up more of the TV bands to personal/portable white space devices by 
allowing them to operate on vacant channels 14-20 in the repacked TV bands, results in unlicensed 
wireless microphone users having access to fewer vacant TV channels that would be free from 
interference from white space devices.
243
      
79. Limited expansion of eligibility in 2014 for licensed wireless microphone operations 
under Part 74.  Under the Commission’s Part 74 LPAS rules, licensed operations of wireless 
microphones are permitted on the TV band frequencies on a secondary, non-exclusive basis,
244
with 
license eligibility restricted to a limited set of specified entities.
245
  Prior to 2014, eligibility was restricted 
to licensees of radio and broadcast television stations, broadcast television network entities, certain cable 
television system operators, and motion picture and television program producers.
246
  In 2014, in the TV 
Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, the Commission provided for a limited expansion of 
eligibility under Part 74, Subpart H, to include professional sound companies and venues that routinely 
use 50 or more wireless microphones for major events/productions where use of such devices is an 
integral part of these events/productions.
247
  When using frequencies in the TV bands, these licensed 
wireless microphone users may also register with the white spaces databases to receive interference 
protection from unlicensed white space devices in the TV bands at specified locations when these 
events/productions are performed.
248
  
80. In providing for this limited expansion of license eligibility, the Commission explained 
that these particular entities share the need of the other eligible entities for regular and reliable high 
quality audio services that are free from interference, and often require a large number of wireless 
microphones to meet their needs.  In particular, the Commission concluded that professional sound 
companies and venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones at events/productions generally 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
demonstration of particular need, to register TV channel operations in the white spaces databases to obtain 
interference protection from white space devices during specified major events/productions.  Id.
242
Shure Part 15 Petition at 13-15. As discussed earlier, Shure’s request is supported by Sennheiser, the Performing 
Arts and Theater Groups, and Key Bridge, who agree that the 50 microphone license eligibility requirement 
excludes many unlicensed performing arts companies that stage highly sophisticated productions and that 
professional non-profit theater, music, and performing arts organizations that regularly present stage productions 
that use fewer than 50 wireless microphones in the TV bands need high-quality sound for their audiences and should 
be able to register their operations in the white space databases to prevent interference and disruption to the 
performances. See Sennheiser Consolidated Opposition and Response at 7-8; Performing Arts and Theatre Groups 
Part 15 Reply at 2-3; Key Bridge Part 15 Reply at 2 (agreeing that the Commission should make some 
accommodation of unlicensed wireless microphone use in special circumstances).
243
Id.  See paragraph 54, above.
244
In addition to permitting operations in the television broadcasting bands, the LPAS rules also permit wireless 
microphone operations at 26.100-26.480 MHz, 161.625-161.775 MHz (except Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands), and 
944.000-952.000 MHz.  47 CFR § 74.802.
245
See TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107-08, paras. 8-14.
246
Id.; see 47 CFR § 74.832(a)(1)-(6).  
247
See TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd 6103; see 47 CFR § 74.832(a)(7)-(8),
248
See Unlicensed Operations in the TV Broadcast Bands and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 
900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380, Second Report and Order and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16807, 16876, para. 198 (2008) (TV Bands White Spaces Second MO&O).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
45
have the same needs for interference protection as existing Part 74 wireless microphone licensees, 
particularly given the spectrum requirements associated with use of a large number of wireless 
microphones. It explained that this limited expansion provided a meaningful benefit to entities that 
require the protection that a license affords without unduly reducing the amount of spectrum available for 
other uses in the television bands.
249
  The Commission explained that the eligibility threshold it adopted 
was limited to professional sound companies and venues that have the sophisticated knowledge and 
capability to manage use and coordination of a large number of wireless microphones, register qualifying 
events in the TV broadcast database, and comply with the applicable rules, including technical rules, for 
licensed wireless microphone operations.  The Commission found that these types of professional users 
have experience in coordinating wireless microphone uses among themselves at venues or events, even in 
congested markets, and have similar needs to existing Part 74 wireless microphone licensees.
250
81. The Commission provided guidance on what constituted an eligible venue under the 
revised eligibility rule.
251
  The Commission explained that an eligible venue does not have to own or 
operate the wireless microphones itself to qualify for the LPAS license but must routinely host large-scale 
productions that require 50 or more of these devices.
252
  The Commission determined that licenses issued 
to venue owners or operators are specific to a single venue and authorize operation only at that venue, but 
noted that such a venue could be comprised of more than one theater or stage area at the same location.
253
  
It concluded that routine use of 50 microphones was a reasonable threshold for identifying entities that are 
more likely to require interference protection in order to ensure high quality audio services.
254
  The 
Commission also found that the number of wireless microphones used is, as a general matter, an indicator 
of the complexity of productions and the need to ensure interference-free high audio quality.  It further 
noted that interference protection is important for large, live performances because audiences expect 
performances of the highest caliber, and interference should not hinder such performances.
255
As for the  
location of the venue, the Commission noted that it could include indoor or outdoor seated facilities 
(including auditoriums, amphitheaters, arenas, stadiums, theaters, and houses of worship), as well as 
indoor or outdoor venues without fixed seating (including convention centers, conference locations, 
amusement parks, fairgrounds, entertainment complexes, athletic facilities, educational centers, and 
government locations).
256
82. Recent revisions concerning licensed wireless microphone operations under Part 74.  As 
discussed above, in the Wireless Microphones R&O the Commission adopted various revisions in 2015 
                                                     
249
TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107, para. 9; see id. at 6106, para. 6 (noting than 
any “broad” expansion of eligibility could significantly reduce the amount of spectrum for other users of the TV 
bands, including white space devices).  
250
Id. at 6107, para. 10.
251
Eligible venues were limited to those that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones for major 
events/productions.  Id. at 6107-08, paras. 12-13.  The Commission also explained what constituted a professional 
sound company.  Id. at 6107, para. 11.  A professional sound company is defined as an entity that provides audio 
services that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones and where the use of such devices is an integral part of 
major events or productions.  Services by a professional sound company may include the provision of equipment, as 
well as engineering expertise and frequency coordination.  A production company that provides its own audio 
services, such as a touring theater company or performer, also could be eligible for licensing under this definition.  
Id.
252
Id. at 6107-08, para. 12.  
253
Id. at 6108, para. 13.
254
Id. at 6108-09, para. 16.  The record had shown that large events and programs regularly utilize a substantial 
number of wireless microphones.  Id.  
255
Id. 
256
Id. at 6107, para. 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
46
with regard to licensed wireless microphone operations under the Part 74 LPAS rules.  With respect to the 
TV bands, it revised the rules to provide more opportunities for licensed wireless microphone users to 
access spectrum by allowing greater use of very-high frequency (VHF) channels, and by providing for 
closer co-channel operation without the need for coordination where the licensed wireless microphone 
user determines that the TV signals fell below a specified threshold (such that wireless microphone 
operations would pose little risk of causing harmful interference to TV service).
257
  The Commission also 
expanded eligibility for licensed use of the 600 MHz duplex gap to all entities eligible to hold Part 74 
wireless microphone licenses for using TV band spectrum.
258
  In addition, outside of the TV bands the 
Commission opened up additional portions of the 900 MHz band (portions of the 941-944 MHz and 952–
960 MHz bands on each side of the 944-952 MHz band), as well as portions of the 1435-1525 MHz band 
(with special equipment and coordination requirements) and the 6875-7125 MHz band, to permit use by 
licensed wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis under specified conditions.
259
83. Remaining available spectrum following the close of the broadcast television incentive 
auction and the repurposing/repacking of the TV bands. On April 13, 2017, the broadcast television 
incentive auction closed, thereby (1) establishing the revised TV bands that will be repacked and will 
continue to be available for use by wireless microphones on a secondary licensed or an unlicensed basis, 
and (2) the 600 MHz Band Plan, which includes the limited spectrum that will be available for wireless 
microphone operations in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap after the end of the post-auction 
transition period.
260
  As a result of the repurposing of 84 megahertz of TV bands spectrum in the incentive 
auction, the spectrum in the revised and repacked TV bands (channels 2-36) available for licensed and 
unlicensed wireless microphone use will be substantially reduced in the coming years, although the 
specific amount of spectrum that remains available will vary depending on the particular locations of the 
users’ wireless microphones operations.  After the end of the post-auction transition period, the 600 MHz 
spectrum (what has been TV channels 38-51) available for wireless microphone operations will only 
include spectrum in the 600 MHz duplex gap (four megahertz for licensed wireless microphone 
operations, and six megahertz for unlicensed wireless microphones shared with white space devices) and 
the 600 MHz guard band (an additional two megahertz for unlicensed wireless microphone operations,
261
which would be free from interference because the spectrum is not available for use by white space 
devices).       
B. Discussion
84. We agree with Shure and commenters supporting its petition that certain unlicensed 
wireless microphone users that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold nonetheless have identical or 
similar needs for interference protection at their events/productions as do entities that currently qualify for 
Part 74 wireless microphone licenses.
262
  In many instances, the 50 microphone threshold is unnecessarily 
                                                     
257
Wireless Microphone R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8745-51, paras. 16-28; see 47 CFR § 74.802(b)(2).
258
Wireless Microphone R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8755-56, paras. 38-40. The 600 MHz duplex gap is the spectrum 
separating the 600 MHz service uplink and downlink bands.  TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9553 n.4.
259
See Wireless Microphone R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8772-77, paras. 85-95 (portions of the 941-944 MHz and 952-
960 MHz bands), 8779-86, paras. 105-122 (1435-1525 MHz band), 8786-90, paras. 126-132 (6875-7125 MHz 
band).
260
See Closing and Channel Reassignment PN, 32 FCC Rcd at 2793, para. 15 (600 MHz Band Plan).
261
TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 9607-08, para. 139 (unlicensed wireless microphones may operate in the 
600 MHz guard band, with a maximum power of 20 mW EIRP, provided that there is a one megahertz frequency 
separation from the 600 MHz wireless services downlink band); 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.236(c)(5), (d)(2).
262
We note that the Commission recently received four ex parte comments relating to whether the Commission 
should take steps to provide interference protection for certain wireless microphone users that do not currently 
qualify for a Part 74 license.  See Letter from Paul Margie, Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-166 and ET Docket No. 14-165 (filed July 3, 2017); Letter from Peter 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
47
restrictive as it excludes many entities that have the need for professional high-quality audio for their 
events/productions.  Therefore, we propose and seek comment on how best to accommodate these 
wireless microphone users to the extent that, based on demonstration of particular need, they should 
qualify for a license at their events/productions.  
85. We recognize that the 50 microphone threshold is a proxy for the need for professional, 
interference-free high-quality audio events/productions.
263
  Therefore we propose to allow certain theater, 
music, and performing arts organizations
264
that do not meet this threshold but are otherwise able to 
demonstrate they have these “professional” needs and capabilities to obtain a Part 74 license to operate in 
the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap.  This would address the specific concerns raised in the 
petition by allowing these users to register for interference protection from white space devices when 
operating in the TV bands.  In addition, recognizing that under the revised/repacked TV bands and the 
particular 600 MHz Band Plan adopted there may only be a very limited amount of spectrum available on 
a protected basis in these bands at some locations, we also propose to allow such users access to other 
spectrum bands available to Part 74 wireless microphone licensees, including portions of the 900 MHz, 
1435-1525 MHz, and 7 GHz band spectrum where the need and requisite capabilities are demonstrated.  
Furthermore, we seek comment on whether there also may be certain other, similar types of organizations 
that use wireless microphones for productions where professional-level high-quality audio service is 
required and these needs cannot otherwise be met, such that the organization also may merit such 
protection for the same reasons.  
86. To fully account for these certain wireless microphone users with professional needs, we 
propose to revise the definition of both “large venue owner or operator” and “professional sound 
company” under our rules.  We propose to define these terms to include either (a) wireless microphone 
users that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones where the use is an integral part of major events
or productions (as provided under existing rules) or (b) wireless microphone users that otherwise can 
demonstrate a particular need for, and the capability to provide, professional, high-quality audio that is 
integral to their events or productions.  We seek comment on how best to identify and define this new 
class of theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that would qualify for a Part 74 license 
under this second prong.  We note in order to be eligible for a venue license, the venue licensee would not 
have to own or operate the wireless microphones so long as those who operate the wireless microphones 
for events/productions at its venue would meet the requisite professional capabilities.
265
  How should the 
Commission take into consideration “mixed-use” venues, where particular events would merit licensed 
and protected access to spectrum (e.g., professional-level stage productions), while other events generally 
would not merit interference protection and are more appropriate for unlicensed access? With respect to 
the proposal for revising the eligibility for professional sound companies, we seek comment on how we 
would determine what types of entities would qualify.  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Tannenwald, Counsel for CP Communications, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-166 
and ET Docket No. 14-165 (filed July 5, 2017); Letter from Joe Ciadelli, Director, Spectrum Affairs, Sennheiser, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-166 and ET Docket No. 14-165 (filed July 5, 2017); Letter 
from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Program, Open Technology Institute, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-166 and ET Docket No. 14-165 (dated July 7, 2017).  These filings will be 
included in the record for consideration, together with further comments on our proposals.
263
See supra paragraph 80.  See also TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107, para. 16.  
The Commission stated that the routine use of 50 microphones is a “reasonable threshold” for identifying those 
entities that are more likely to require interference protection in order to ensure high quality audio services for their 
productions.  Id. (citing the example of live performances where audiences expect performance of the highest 
caliber). 
264
Such organizations could be non-profit or for-profit organizations.
265
See supra paragraph 81; TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107-07, para 12 (an 
eligible venue does not have to own or operate the wireless microphones itself to qualify for the LPAS license).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
48
87. To demonstrate a need for high-quality audio during events/productions under prong (b), 
an applicant for a Part 74 license would be required to show that its needs for high-quality audio services 
for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current Part 74 licensees.  Among other 
things, an applicant should address the nature of the venue(s) and its wireless microphone operations, the 
need for professional, high caliber audio quality and reliability for its particular types of 
events/performances, the particular amount of spectrum access it needs, and its ability to comply with the 
licensee’s responsibilities.  We seek comment on what this demonstration would look like, and how the 
Commission would determine whether there is actual need for a license and that the spectrum would be 
used in a spectrally efficient manner. We seek comment on this approach and any proposed clarifications 
or modifications consistent with the goals we have enunciated.  
88. Furthermore, to demonstrate the requisite capability to provide professional high quality 
audio under prong (b), an applicant for such a Part 74 license would need to demonstrate that it has the 
professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its responsibilities associated with 
holding a license (e.g., coordination responsibilities, technical capabilities,
266
and registration 
capabilities
267
).  This criterion is meant to encompass users that have capabilities that are identical or 
similar to the professional sound companies/large venues that currently qualify for Part 74 licenses, but 
that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold.  When providing for a limited expansion of Part 74 license 
eligibility in the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O to include professional sound companies 
and major venues, the Commission emphasized that the entities that were newly eligible must have 
sophisticated knowledge and capability to manage use and coordination of their microphones, register 
specific channels at designated times for qualifying events/productions in the white spaces databases, and 
comply with the applicable rules for licensed wireless microphone (LPAS) operations.
268
  We propose the 
same approach here.  What would applicants need to demonstrate to establish that they have these 
requisite capabilities for complying with these various licensee responsibilities?  Should a newly eligible 
entity need to have an employee with such expertise, or would it be sufficient to hire a contractor or 
company with such expertise?  We seek comment on this approach and any further clarifications or 
modifications that may be helpful or appropriate.
89. As in the TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, we are only proposing a limited 
expansion of eligibility that strikes an appropriate balance in expanding licensee eligibility where there is 
a clear need for professional high-quality audio for particular events/productions, while ensuring that 
spectrum is shared effectively with existing wireless microphone licensees and remains available for other 
uses, such as by white space devices.
269
  Commenters should discuss the effect that the proposed 
expansion of eligibility for wireless microphone licenses would have on other users of the spectrum. We 
                                                     
266
These include the technical capability to tune the device, as necessary, so as not to cause harmful interference to 
other licensed users in the bands allocated for broadcasting, or in the 600 MHz band during the post-auction 
transition period.  See 47 CFR § 74.802(f).
267
See 47 CFR § 15.713(j)(8).
268
TV Bands Wireless Microphones Second R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6107, paras. 9-10; id. at 6104-05, para. 3 (reciting 
various requirements associated with licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands).  Wireless 
microphone licensees are permitted to register in the white spaces databases for protection on specified channels at 
the location and designated times of the events/productions.  See TV Bands White Spaces Second R&O, 25 FCC Rcd 
at 18675-76, para. 33; 47 CFR §§ 15.712(f), 15.713(h)(8).
269
Id. at 6110, para. 20. Wireless microphone technology has improved substantially in recent years, and use of 
more spectrally-efficient wireless microphones for particular applications may be part of the solution in the 
spectrum-constrained environment.  In earlier proceedings, the Commission noted that 6-8 high-fidelity analog 
wireless microphones operated on a six-megahertz TV channel, whereas in more recent years such analog 
microphones may allow twice that many on a channel.  See Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone 
Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN
Docket Nos. 14-166 and 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 12343, 12356, para. 54 (2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
49
note that these wireless microphone users also have access to additional spectrum in the TV bands and 
600 MHz guard band where unlicensed white space devices cannot operate,
270
as well as in various other 
bands that can be used to meet their particular needs.
271
  .
90. In addition to proposing to permit professional theater, music, and performing arts 
organizations that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold but meet the two-part test above to obtain a 
Part 74 license in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap, we also propose to permit these entities to 
qualify for a license in portions of the 900 MHz band, as well as in the 1435-1525 MHz and 6975-7125 
MHz band, that also are available for Part 74 wireless microphone licensees, upon demonstrated need and 
ability to meet the necessary coordination and other requirements pertaining to each particular band.  As 
we discuss above, under the revised/repacked TV bands and the particular 600 MHz Band Plan adopted, 
there may be some locations where the spectrum available to these qualifying users on a protected basis 
remains insufficient for their particular needs.  With the adoption of the Wireless Microphones R&O in 
2015, the Part 74 wireless microphone licensees were provided access to unused spectrum in significant 
portions of the 900 MHz band (i.e., 941.5-944 MHz band, 944-952 MHz band, the 952.850-956.250 
MHz, and 956.450-959.850 MHz bands) on a secondary basis, so long as they would not cause harmful 
interference to the primary point-to-point licensees in the band.
272
  As concluded in that order, we believe 
that any risk of wireless microphone operations causing harmful interference to these primary licensees is 
low considering that wireless microphones operate at relatively low power over short ranges.
273
  
Providing this additional access to 900 MHz band spectrum may well be sufficient to address the needs of 
those newly eligible to the extent that they use only a limited number of wireless microphones at their 
venues.  In 2015, the Commission also provided Part 74 wireless microphone licenses access to portions 
of the 1435-1525 MHz band, though it restricted such access only to highly professional users with 
specially designed equipment, and it imposed particularly stringent coordination requirements given the 
critical importance of preventing potential interference to primary aeronautical mobile telemetry users.
274
  
Finally, the Commission provided access to portions of the 6975-7125 MHz provided applicable 
coordination requirements could be met.
275
  We seek comment on whether we should authorize access to 
each of these bands and whether there is any reason to deny newly licensed Part 74 wireless microphone 
licensees access to those bands so long as they can demonstrate compliance with the coordination and 
other requirements of those bands.  We ask that commenters explain their reasons for the approach they 
propose on this issue.  
                                                     
270
At any particular location, there may be vacant TV channels that are available for wireless microphone operations 
but not available for white space device operations (based on applicable operational rules for white space device 
operations), and thus free from the potential for interference from white space devices.  In addition, with the 
establishment of the 3-megaherz 600 MHz guard band above channel 37, there is additional spectrum available for 
wireless microphone operations that cannot be used by unlicensed white space devices.  See Closing and Channel 
Reassignment PN, 32 FCC Rcd at 2793, para. 15.
271
As discussed in the Wireless Microphones R&O, unlicensed wireless microphone operations are permitted in 
several other frequency bands (e.g., the 902-928 MHz band, the 1920-1930 MHz band, and the 2.4 GHz band).  
Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8742, para. 5 & n.9. 
272
See generally id. at 8770-77, paras.78-95 (discussion of the required coordination of proposed operations at 
particular locations to ensure that harmful interference would not result. Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd 
at 8776-8777, para. 94.  See further discussion of the 941.5-944 MHz band, above.  As concluded in that order, we 
believe that any risk of wireless microphone operations causing harmful interference to these primary licensees is 
low considering that wireless microphones operate at relatively low power over short ranges. Id. at 8776-8777, para. 
94.  
273
Id. at 8776-77, para. 94.  
274
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8784-86, paras. 116-122; see 47 CFR § 74.803(d).
275
See Wireless Microphones R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 8789-90, paras. 131-132.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
50
91. We seek any additional comment on this proposed case-by-case approach.  Would this 
approach effectively address the needs of entities that use wireless microphones at a professional level 
and merit licensed access to spectrum for their events and productions?  We seek any further comment on 
how the Commission should administer the proposed case-by-case approach, discussed in detail above.  
We also seek comment on the various advantages or disadvantages (e.g., the benefits or costs) of the 
proposed approach.  Would this approach effectively serve the Commission’s goal of promoting efficient 
use of spectrum, and spectrally efficient wireless microphones, in the bands that would made available for 
this expanded class of wireless microphone licensee?  
92. Finally, we seek comment on possible alternatives to the proposed case-by-case approach 
discussed above.  Is there a reasonable and appropriate alternative metric or standard that the Commission 
should use to accommodate those unlicensed wireless microphone users that merit a license and access to 
the additional spectrum resources?  Are there other approaches that should be considered?  For instance, 
would reducing the current 50 wireless microphone threshold to a lower number (e.g., 30 or 20) be a
reasonable or appropriate approach?  What are the advantages or disadvantages of possible alternative 
approaches?  How would any proposed approach address the various policy concerns and goals 
enunciated above with respect to providing for only limited expansion of licensee eligibility (e.g., the 
need for high-quality audio services, the requisite capabilities for complying with licensee 
responsibilities, the efficient use of spectrum)?  Commenting parties proposing alternative approaches 
should explain the rationale for the metric or standard that they propose, address how it would be a 
reasonable and appropriate way of identifying the class of wireless microphone users that merit a license, 
and provide sufficient data and other information supporting such an approach.  
93. Through the limited expansion of licensee eligibility discussed herein, we believe that the 
needs of qualifying organizations that are not currently eligible for Part 74 wireless microphone licenses 
can effectively be accommodated.      
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
94. This Order on Reconsideration contains new information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 
and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
95. With regard to the Order on Reconsideration, we have assessed the effects of various 
changes and clarifications to the Wireless Microphones R&O and TV Bands Part 15 R&O that might 
impose information collection burdens on small business concerns, and find that those changes and 
clarifications facilitate licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone use of various frequency bands and 
provide wireless microphone manufacturers with greater flexibility in designing products to meet market 
demands.  We anticipate no adverse impacts on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
96. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also contains proposed new information 
collection requirements.  We invite the general public and OMB to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA.  In addition, pursuant to the 
SBPRA, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Congressional Review Act
97. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration 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 FCC 17-95
51
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
98. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, 
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”  
According, we have prepared Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning the possible impact of the 
Order on Reconsideration on small entities.  The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in 
Appendix B. 
D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
99. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of 
the proposals addressed in this FNPRM.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D.  Written public comments 
are requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines 
for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA.  The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA.
276
E. Ex Parte Presentations
100. This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with 
the Commission’s ex parte rules.
277
  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.
F. Comment Filing Procedures
101. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  
Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
? Electronic Filers.  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
? Paper Filers.  Parties who file by paper must include an original and four copies of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
                                                     
276
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
277
47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
52
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.
o All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s 
Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
Street, 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 must 
be disposed of before entering the building.  
o 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.
o U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 
12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
? Persons with Disabilities.  To request materials in accessible formats for persons with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
102. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 302, 303(f), 303(g), 
and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 
301, 302a, 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), and Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C § 553(b)(B), this Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED.
103. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 2, 15, 74, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. Parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.
104. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME 
EFFECTIVE 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, except for Section 74.803(c) of 
the rules, which contains a new information collection requirement that requires approval by the OMB 
under the PRA, which WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the 
Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.  
105. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.429, the 
Petitions for Reconsideration of the Report and Order in GN Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-
268, filed by Audio-Technica, U.S., Inc., Sennheiser Electronic Corporation, Lectrosonics, Inc., and 
Shure Incorporated, and the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 14-
165 and GN Docket No. 12-268, filed by Audio-Technica, U.S., Inc., Sennheiser Electronic Corporation,
and Shure Incorporated ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent described 
herein.
106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 302(a), 
303(f), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
157(a), 301, 302a, 303(f), and 332, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is ADOPTED.  
107. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j) of the Communications 
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and (j), and Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission rules, 47 
C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, that WT Docket Nos. 08-166 and 08-167 and ET Docket No. 10-24 ARE 
TERMINATED.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
53
108. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this  Order on Reconsideration, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
54
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 
parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read 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 as follows:
a. Page 32 is revised.
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, footnotes US84 and US300 are revised.
§ 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions read as follows:
* * * * *
55
5.323 5.325 5.327 941-944
FIXED
941-944
FIXED Public Mobile (22)
Aural Broadcast Auxiliary (74E)
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
Fixed Microwave (101)
942-960
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical
   mobile  5.317A
BROADCASTING  5.322
942-960
FIXED
MOBILE  5.317A
942-960
FIXED
MOBILE  5.317A
BROADCASTING
US268  US301  G2 US84 US268  US301  NG30  NG35
944-960 944-960
FIXED
5.323 5.320 NG35
960-1164
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)  5.327A
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.328
960-1164
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)  5.327A
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.328
US224
Aviation (87)
1164-1215
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.328
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)  5.328B
5.328A
1164-1215
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.328
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
5.328A  US224
1215-1240
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (active)
RADIOLOCATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)  5.328B  5.329  5.329A
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
5.330  5.331  5.332
1215-1240
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (active)
RADIOLOCATION G56
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
   (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space) G132
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
5.332
1215-1240
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Space research (active)
1240-1300
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (active)
RADIOLOCATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)  5.328B  5.329  5.329A
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
Amateur
5.282  5.330  5.331  5.332  5.335  5.335A
1240-1300
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (active)
RADIOLOCATION  G56
SPACE RESEARCH (active)
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
5.332  5.335
1240-1300
AERONAUTICAL 
   RADIONAVIGATION
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Space research (active)
5.282
Amateur Radio (97)
1300-1350
RADIOLOCATION
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 5.337
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
5.149  5.337A
1300-1350
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
   5.337
Radiolocation  G2
US342
1300-1350
AERONAUTICAL
   RADIONAVIGATION   5.337
US342
Aviation (87)
1350-1400
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIOLOCATION
1350-1400
RADIOLOCATION  5.338A
1350-1390
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIOLOCATION  G2
5.334  5.339  US342  US385  G27  G114
1350-1390
5.334  5.339  US342  US385
1390-1395 1390-1395
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Wireless Communications (27)
5.149  5.338  5.338A  5.339 5.149  5.334  5.339
5.339  US79  US342  US385 5.339  US79  US342  US385  NG338A
1395-1400
LAND MOBILE (medical telemetry and medical telecommand)
5.339  US79  US342  US385
Personal Radio (95)
Page 32
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
56
* * * * *
UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
US84  In the bands 941.5-944 MHz and 1435-1525 MHz, low power auxiliary stations may be
authorized on a secondary basis, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in 47 CFR part 74, subpart 
H.
* * * * *
US300  The frequencies 169.445, 169.505, 169.545, 169.575, 169.605, 169.995, 170.025, 170.055, 
170.245, 170.305, 171.045, 171.075, 171.105, 171.845, 171.875, and 171.905 MHz are available for 
wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis to Federal and non-Federal operations.  On center 
frequencies 169.575 MHz, 170.025 MHz, 171.075 MHz, and 171.875 MHz, the emission bandwidth shall 
not exceed 200 kHz.  On the other center frequencies, the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 54 kHz.
* * * * *
Part 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
3. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 554a, and 549.
4. Section 15.37 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and (k) to read as follows:
§15.37   Transition provisions for compliance with the rules.
* * * * *
(i) Effective December 26, 2017, wireless microphones for which an application for certification 
is filed must comply with the requirements of §15.236. Manufacturing and marketing of wireless 
microphones that would not comply with the rules for operation in § 15.236 must cease no later than 
September 24, 2018. Only wireless microphones certified for operation under this part may be operated 
under this part as of July 13, 2020.
* * *
(k) Disclosure requirements for unlicensed wireless microphones capable of operating in the 600 
MHz service band.  Any person who manufactures, sells, leases, or offers for sale or lease, unlicensed 
wireless microphones that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band, as defined in this part, 
on or after July13, 2017, is subject to the following disclosure requirements:
(1) ***
* * * * *
5. Section 15.203 is revised to read as follows:
§15.203   Antenna requirement.
An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the 
responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an 
antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply 
with the provisions of this section. The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
57
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited. This 
requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of 
§15.211, §15.213, §15.217, §15.219, §15.221, or §15.236. Further, this requirement does not apply to 
intentional radiators that must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems and some 
field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators which, in accordance with §15.31(d), must be 
measured at the installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for ensuring that the proper 
antenna is employed so that the limits in this part are not exceeded.
6. Section 15.236 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)-(4), (c)(1), (c)(3)-(5), (d)(2), and (g) to read 
as follows:
§ 15.236 Operation of wireless microphones in the bands 54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 
470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.
* * * * *
(a)(2)  600 MHz duplex gap.  An 11 megahertz guard band at 652-663 MHz that separates part 27 
600 MHz service uplink and downlink frequencies.
(a)(3)  600 MHz guard band.  Designated frequency band at 614-617 MHz that prevents interference 
between licensed services in the 600 MHz service band and channel 37.
(a)(4)  600 MHz service band.  Frequencies in the 617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz bands that are 
reallocated and reassigned for 600 MHz band services under part 27.
(a)(5)  ***
(b) ***
(c) Operation is permitted on the following frequency bands.
(1) Channels allocated and assigned for the broadcast television service.  
(2)  ***
(3)  The 657-663 MHz segment of the 600 MHz duplex gap.
(4)  [Reserved]
(5)  The 614-616 MHz segment of the 600 MHz guard band.
(6) ***
(d) ***
(2)  In the 600 MHz guard band and the 600 MHz duplex gap:  20 mW EIRP.
* * * 
(g) Emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier 
frequency shall comply with the emission mask in Section 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 V1.4.2 (2011-08), 
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz 
to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement.  Emissions 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
58
outside of this band shall comply with the limits specified in Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 V1.4.2 
(2011-08).
7. Section 15.711 is amended to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§15.711 Interference avoidance methods.
* * * 
(a) Geolocation required.White space devices shall rely on a geolocation capability and 
database access mechanism to protect the following authorized service in accordance with the 
interference protection requirements of §15.712: Digital television stations, digital and analog 
Class A, low power, translator and booster stations; translator receive operations; fixed broadcast 
auxiliary service links; private land mobile service/commercial radio service (PLMRS/CMRS) 
operations; offshore radiotelephone service; low power auxiliary services authorized pursuant to 
§§74.801 through 74.882 of this chapter, including licensed wireless microphones; MVPD 
receive sites; wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS); radio astronomy service (RAS); and 
600 MHz service band licensees where they have commenced operations, as defined in §27.4 of 
this chapter.  In addition, protection shall be provided in border areas near Canada and Mexico in 
accordance with §15.712(g).
(b) ***
* * * * *
8. Section 15.713 is amended to revise paragraph (j)(9) to read as follows:
§ 15.713  White space database.
* * * * *
(j)(9)  [Reserved]
(i)* * *
* * * * * 
Part 74 – EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
9. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:  
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.
10. Section 74.801 is amended by revising the definitions of the 600 MHz duplex gap, the 600 MHz 
guard bands, and the 600 MHz service band , and deleting the definition described as “NOTE TO
DEFINITIONS OF 600 MHz DUPLEX GAP, 600 MHz GUARD BANDS, AND 600 MHz 
SERVICE BAND” to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
59
§ 74.801  Definitions
600 MHz duplex gap.  An 11 megahertz guard band at 652-663 MHz that separates part 27 600 MHz 
service uplink and downlink frequencies.
600 MHz guard band.  Designated frequency band at 614-617 MHz that prevents interference 
between licensed services in the 600 MHz service band and channel 37. 
600 MHz service band.  Frequencies in the 617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz bands that are 
reallocated and reassigned for 600 MHz band services under part 27. 
* * * * * 
11. Section 74.802 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)to read as follows:
§ 74.802  Frequency assignment.
(a)(1) Frequencies within the following bands may be assigned for use by low power auxiliary 
stations:
26.100-26.480 MHz
54.000-72.000 MHz
76.000-88.000 MHz
161.625-161.775 MHz (except in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands)
174.000-216.000 MHz
450.000-451.000 MHz
455.000-456.000 MHz
470.000-488.000 MHz
488.000-494.000 MHz (except Hawaii)
494.000-608.000 MHz
614.000-698.000 MHz
941.500-944.000 MHz
944.000-952.000 MHz
952.850-956.250 MHz
956.45-959.85 MHz
1435-1525 MHz 
6875.000-6900.000 MHz
7100.000-7125.000 MHz
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1):  Frequency assignments in the 614.000-698.000 MHz band are 
subject to conditions established in proceedings pursuant to GN Docket No. 12-268.  This band is being 
transitioned to the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz guard band, and the 600 MHz duplex gap during 
the post-incentive auction transition period (as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter), which began on April 
13, 2017.  Low power auxiliary stations must comply with the applicable conditions with respect to any 
assignment to operate on frequencies repurposed for the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz guard band, 
and the 600 MHz duplex gap, respectively.  This rule will be further updated, pursuant to public notice or 
subsequent Commission action, to reflect additional changes that implement the determinations made in 
these proceedings.
(2) The 653.000-657.000 MHz segment of the 600 MHz duplex gap may be assigned for use by low 
power auxiliary service.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
60
12. Section 74.803 is amended by revising subsections (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 74.803  Frequency selection to avoid interference.
* * * * *
(c)  In the 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 6875.000-
6900.000 MHz, and 7100.000-7125.000 MHz bands low power auxiliary station usage is secondary to 
other uses (e.g. Aural Broadcast Auxiliary, Television Broadcast Auxiliary, Cable Relay Service, Fixed 
Point to Point Microwave) and must not cause harmful interference.  In the 941.5-944 MHz band, low 
power auxiliary station usage also is secondary to Federal operations in the band.  In each of these bands, 
applicants are responsible for selecting the frequency assignments that are least likely to result in mutual 
interference with other licensees in the same area.  Applicants must consult local frequency coordination 
committees, where they exist, for information on frequencies available in the area. In selecting 
frequencies, consideration should be given to the relative location of receive points, normal transmission 
paths, and the nature of the contemplated operation.  
(d)  In the 1435-1525 MHz band, low power auxiliary station (LPAS) authorizations are limited to 
operations at fixed locations, and only to the extent that applicable requirements have been met for the 
proposed operations at those specified locations.
(1)  Each authorization is limited to specific events or situations for which there is a need to deploy 
large numbers of LPAS for specified time periods, and use of other available spectrum resources at that 
particular location is insufficient to meet the LPAS licensee’s needs.   
(2)  The access to spectrum in the band must be coordinated with the frequency coordinator for 
aeronautical mobile telemetry, the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Committee (AFTRCC) 
prior to operations at the specified location and period of time, with AFTRCC indicating whether any 
specific frequencies in the band are unavailable for use.  LPAS devices must complete authentication and 
location verification before operations begin, employ software-based controls or similar functionality to 
prevent devices in the band from operating except in the specific channels, locations, and time periods 
that have been coordinated, and be capable of being tuned to any frequency in the band.  
(3)  LPAS users may have access to no more than 30 megahertz of spectrum (one third of the 1435-
1525 MHz band) for their operations at the specified locations.  Different users in the same general area 
each can access up to 30 megahertz of spectrum for their respective operations.  All licensees that have 
successfully coordinated with AFTRCC for access to the 1435-1525 MHz band for operations at their 
specified locations in the same general area must, to the extent necessary, coordinate their particular 
access to and use of spectrum with other licensees to minimize the potential for interference between and 
among the different operations.
13. Section 74.831 is amended to read as follows:
§ 74.831 Scope of service and permissible transmissions.
The license for a low power auxiliary station authorizes the transmission of cues and orders to 
production personnel and participants in broadcast programs, motion pictures, and major events or 
productions and in the preparation therefor, the transmission of program material by means of a wireless 
microphone worn by a performer and other participants in a program, motion picture, or major event or 
production during rehearsal and during the actual broadcast, filming, recording, or event or production, or 
the transmission of comments, interviews, and reports from the scene of a remote broadcast. Low power 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
61
auxiliary stations operating in the 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 
MHz, 6875-6900 MHz, and 7100-7125 MHz bands may, in addition, transmit synchronizing signals and 
various control signals to portable or hand-carried TV cameras which employ low power radio signals in 
lieu of cable to deliver picture signals to the control point at the scene of a remote broadcast.
14. Section 74.832 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 74.832 Licensing requirements and procedures.
* * * * *
          (d) Cable television operations, motion picture and television program producers, large venue 
owners or operators, and professional sound companies may be authorized to operate low power auxiliary 
stations in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting, the 653-657 MHz band, the 941.5-944 MHz band, the 
944-952 MHz band, the 952.850-956.250 MHz band, the 956.45-959.85 MHz band, the 1435-1525 MHz 
band, the 6875-6900 MHz band, and the 7100-7125 MHz band.  In the 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 
MHz bands, entities eligible to hold licenses for cable television relay service stations (see § 78.13 of this 
chapter) shall also be eligible to hold licenses for low power auxiliary stations.
* * * * *
15. Section 74.851 is amended to revise paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) to read as follows:
§ 74.851  Certification of equipment, prohibition on manufacture, import, sale, lease, offer for sale 
or lease, or shipment of devices that operate in the 700 MHz or the 600 MHz Band; labeling for 700 
MHz or 600 MHz band equipment destined for non-U.S. markets; disclosures.
* * * * *
(i)  Effective January 13, 2018, applications for certification shall no longer be accepted for low power 
auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service 
band or the 600 MHz guard band, or for low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 
600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the 653-657 MHz segment.
(j)  Effective October 13, 2018, no person shall manufacture, import, sell, lease, offer for sale or lease, or 
ship low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 
MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power auxiliary stations that are capable of 
operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the 653-657 MHz segment. 
This prohibition does not apply to devices manufactured solely for export.
(k)  Effective October 13, 2018, any person who manufacturers, sells, leases, or offer for sale or lease low 
power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are destined for non-U.S. markets and that 
are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power 
auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless such operations are 
limited to the 653-657 MHz segment, shall include labeling and make clear in all sales, marketing, and 
packaging materials, including online materials, relating to such devices that the devices cannot be 
operated in the United States.
(l)  Disclosure requirements for low power auxiliary stations and wireless video assist devices capable of 
operating in the 600 MHz service band.  Any person who manufactures, sells, leases, or offers for sale or 
lease low power auxiliary stations or wireless video devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz 
service band on or after July 13, 2017, is subject to the following disclosure requirements:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
62
(1) * * *   
* * * * *
16. Section 74.861 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4)(i)-(iii), and (e)(7) to read as follows:
§ 74.861 Technical requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3)  For the 26.1-26.480 MHz, 161.625-161.775 MHz, 450-451 MHz, and 455-456 MHz bands, the 
occupied bandwidth shall not be greater than that necessary for satisfactory transmission and, in any 
event, an emission appearing on any discrete frequency outside the authorized band shall be attenuated, at 
least, 43+10 log
10
(mean output power, in watts) dB below the mean output power of the transmitting 
unit. The requirements of this paragraph shall also apply to the applications for certification of equipment 
for the 944-952 MHz band until January 13, 2018.
(4) (i) For the 653-657 MHz, 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-
959.85 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, analog emissions within the 
band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the 
emission mask in Section 8.3.1.2 of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 
422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless 
microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of 
measurement.  Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply 
with the limits specified in Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(ii) For the 653-657 MHz, 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 
MHz, and 1435-1525 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one 
megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in Section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 4) 
of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), 
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz 
to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement.  Beyond one 
megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply with the limits specified in 
Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(iii) In the 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one 
megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in 
Section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 5) of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 
v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless 
microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of 
measurement.  Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply 
with the limits specified in Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(iv) * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
63
(7) Analog emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the 
carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in Section 8.3.1.2 of the European 
Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic 
compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz 
frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement.  Digital emissions within 
the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the 
emission mask in Section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 4) of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI 
EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); 
Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and 
methods of measurement.  Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall 
comply with the limits specified in Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).  The 
requirements of this section (e)(7) shall not apply to applications for certification of equipment in these 
bands until nine months after release of the Commission’s Channel Reassignment Public Notice, as 
defined in § 73.3700(a)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Part 87 – AVIATION SERVICES
17. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307(e) unless otherwise noted.
18. Section 87.303(d) is amended by revising (d)(1) and by adding (d)(4) to read as follows:
§ 87.303 Frequencies
* * * * *
(d)(1)  Frequencies in the 1435-1525 MHz and 2360-2395 MHz bands are assigned in the mobile service 
primarily for aeronautical telemetry and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of aircraft 
and missiles, or their major components. Until January 1, 2020, the 2345-2360 MHz band is also 
available to licensees holding a valid authorization on April 23, 2015 for these purposes on a secondary 
basis. Permissible uses of these bands include telemetry and associated telecommand operations 
associated with the launching and reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, as well as any incidental orbiting 
prior to reentry, of objects undergoing flight tests. In the 1435-1525 MHz band, the following frequencies 
are shared on a co-equal basis with flight telemetering mobile stations: 1444.5, 1453.5, 1501.5, 1515.5, 
and 1524.5 MHz. In the 2360-2395 MHz band, the following frequencies may be assigned for telemetry 
and associated telecommand operations of expendable and re-usable launch vehicles, whether or not such 
operations involve flight testing: 2364.5, 2370.5 and 2382.5 MHz. All other mobile telemetry uses of the 
2360-2395 MHz band shall be on a non-interfering and unprotected basis to the above uses.
* * *
(d)(4)  Frequencies in the bands 1435-1525 MHz are also available for low power auxiliary station use on 
a secondary basis.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
64
Part 90 – PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
19. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:  
AUTHORITY:  Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
20. Section 90.265 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 90.265 Assignment and use of frequencies in the bands allocated for Federal use.
* * * * *
(b)  The following frequencies are available for wireless microphone operations to eligibles in 
this part, subject to the provisions of this paragraph:
Frequencies (MHz)
169.445
169.505
169.545
169.575
169.605
169.995
170.025
170.055
170.245
170.305
171.045
171.075
171.105
171.845
171.875
171.905
(1)  On center frequencies 169.575 MHz, 170.025 MHz, 171.075 MHz, and 171.875 MHz, the 
emission bandwidth shall not exceed 200 kHz.  On the other center frequencies listed in paragraph (b), the 
emission bandwidth shall not exceed 54 kHz.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
65
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Wireless Microphones NPRM), Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, GN 
Docket No. 14-166, and Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum through 
Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268;
2
and an IRFA was also incorporated in the companion TV 
Bands Part 15 NPRM.
3
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Wireless 
Microphones NPRM and TV Bands Part 15 NPRM, including comment on the IRFAs.  No comments 
were received in response to either IRFA.  The Commission then set forth a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) in the Report and Order in each proceeding (Wireless Microphones R&O and TV Bands 
Part 15 R&O).
4
   No petitions for reconsideration were received in response to either FRFA.  This present 
FRFA conforms to the RFA.
5
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order on Reconsideration
2. This Order on Reconsideration responds to four petitions for reconsideration of the 
Wireless Microphones R&O, as well as three petitions for reconsideration of the TV Bands Part 15 R&O
concerning unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and 
duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band.
6
  In response to these petitions, the Order takes the following 
actions: (1) replaces the spurious emission limits adopted in the Wireless Microphones R&O for licensed 
and unlicensed wireless microphones with the European  Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) 
spurious emission limits set forth in Section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1; (2) clarifies that wireless 
microphone manufacturers may show compliance with the 50 mW effective isotropically radiated power 
                                                     
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 Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 12343, 12403-18 (2014).
3
See 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; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET 
Docket No. 14-165 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 12248, 12330-34 
(2014).
4
See Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Report 
and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 8739 (2015) (Wireless Microphones R&O); 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; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities 
of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket No. 14-165 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Report and Order, 30 
FCC Rcd 9551 (2015) (TV Bands Part 15 R&O).    
5
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
6
See 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; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, ET Docket 
No. 14-165 and GN Docket No. 12-268, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9551 (2015) (TV Bands Part 15 R&O).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
66
(EIRP) limit adopted in the Wireless Microphones R&O for licensed wireless microphones operating in 
the VHF band by making either radiated or conducted measurements; (3) clarifies that wireless 
microphone manufacturers may show compliance with the 50 mW EIRP power limit adopted in the 
Wireless Microphones R&O for unlicensed wireless microphones operating in the VHF or UHF band by 
making either conducted or radiated measurements; (4) allows manufacturers of licensed and unlicensed 
wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz guards band and duplex gap the option to demonstrate 
compliance with the 20 mW power EIRP limit adopted in the Wireless Microphones R&O through 
conducted power measurements, as an alternative to EIRP measurements;    (5) amends Section 15.203 of 
the Commission’s rules to specify that the requirements of this section to use either a permanently 
attached antenna or a unique antenna connector do not apply to unlicensed wireless microphones 
operating under Section 15.236 of those rules (as codified in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O); (6) clarifies 
that, under the waiver in place at the time the Commission adopted the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, 
unlicensed wireless microphone users can continue to operate equipment that had been certified under 
Part 74, including equipment that can operate in portions of what becomes the 600 MHz service band 
following the incentive auction, until the end of the 39-month post auction transition; (7) describes a 
process by which certain professional theaters, music, and performing arts organizations that operate on 
an unlicensed basis may be able to obtain interference protection for their operations by applying for and 
obtaining a waiver of Part 74 license eligibility restrictions; (8) revises the center frequencies associated 
with two of the 200-kilohertz licensed wireless microphone channels in the 169-172 MHz band, and 
permits 54-kilohertz operations on four new channels that would correspond with these 200-kilohertz 
channels; and (9) clarifies how the 30 megahertz limit imposed by the Wireless Microphones R&O on 
licensed wireless microphone access to the 1435-1525 MHz band in a given geographic area applies with 
respect to different wireless microphone users and to particular areas of operations, to help accommodate 
more wireless microphone users that operate in the same general area.
3. Additionally, the Commission clarifies that applicants for LPAS licenses to operate 
wireless microphones on frequencies in the 941.5-944 MHz band are required to have their proposed 
operations successfully coordinated with Federal users prior to operating, consistent with the 
requirements that currently apply to the other non-Federal applicants and licensees that operate in this 
band.
4. The objectives of the Order on Reconsideration are to clarify and modify the 
Commission’s rules so as to better facilitate licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone use of various 
frequency bands, and to ensure that wireless microphone use of those bands can take place on a non-
interference basis to other users of those bands. 
B. Statement of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the 
IRFA or Previous FRFA
5. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed 
in either the Wireless Microphones NPRM IRFA or the TV Bands Part 15 NPRM IRFA or that 
specifically addressed the rules and policies adopted in either the Wireless Microphones R&O FRFA or 
the TV Bands Part 15 R&O FRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
6. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
67
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
7
  The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response
to either the proposed rules or the adopted rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 
Apply
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
8
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
9
In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
10
  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 Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
11
  
8. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our 
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
12
  First, 
nationwide, there are a total of 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
13
  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.”
14
  Nationwide, as of 2012, there were approximately 2,300,000 
small organizations.
15
  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.”
16
  Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that there were 90,056 local 
governments in the United States.
17
  In that year, the Census Bureau also estimates that the U.S. 
population was 313,998,379.
18
  Thus, each local government represented an average population of well 
under 50,000 (dividing 313,978,379 by 90,056 yields approximately 3,500), and we can conclude that 
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
                                                     
7
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
8
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
9
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
10
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.”
11
15 U.S.C. § 632.
12
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
13
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf (last visited June 7, 2017; figures are from 2011).
14
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
15
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHARITABLE STATISTICS, THE NONPROFIT ALMANAC (2012).
16
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
17
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION SUMMARY REPORT: 2012 (rel. Sep. 26, 2013), 
http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf (last visited June 7, 2017). 
18
https://www.census.gov/popclock.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
68
9. Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) Licensees.  Existing LPAS operations are 
intended for uses such as wireless microphones, cue and control communications, and synchronization of 
TV camera signals.  These low power auxiliary stations transmit over distances of approximately 100 
meters.
19
  The appropriate LPAS size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  The size standard for that category is that a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
20
  For this category, census data for 2012 show that there were 
967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees.
21
Thus, based on this data, we estimate that a majority of wireless firms can be considered 
small.  There are more than 1,400 active LPAS licenses in all bands and more than 800 active LPAS 
licenses in the UHF spectrum,
22
and we are confident that the great majority have employment of 999 or 
fewer employees.
10. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment, including unlicensed devices. Examples of 
products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television 
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, radio and 
television studio and broadcasting equipment.
23
The Small Business Administration has established a size 
standard for this industry of 750 or fewer employees. According to Census data for 2012, there were a 
total of 841 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 819 
establishments had employment of less than 500. Under this size standard the majority of such 
manufacturers can be considered small.
11. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.  The Census Bureau defines this 
category as follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless 
communications equipment).”
24
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Other 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is:  all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.
25
  
According to Census Bureau data for 2012, there were a total of 383 establishments in this category that 
operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 379 establishments had employment below 500.
26
  Thus, under 
this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
12. Television Broadcasting.  This Economic Census category “comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television 
                                                     
19
47 CFR. § 74.801.
20
13 CFR. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517210).
21
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table.
22
FCC, Universal Licensing System (ULS), available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home (last 
visited June 7, 2017).
23
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
24
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=334290&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).
25
13 CFR. § 121.201, NAICS code 334290.
26
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTy
pe=table.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
69
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”
27
  
The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms:  those 
having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.
28
The SBA has created the following small business size 
standard for Television Broadcasting firms:  those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.
29
  The 
2012 Economic Census reports that 1,975 television broadcasting establishments operated during that 
year.  Of that number, 1,975 establishments had annual receipts of less than $10 million per year.  Based 
on that Census data we conclude that a majority of establishments that operate television stations are 
small.
30
13. The Commission, based on its own research, has estimated the number of licensed 
commercial television stations to be 1,388.
31
  In addition, according to Commission staff review of the 
BIA Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of 
an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 
million or less.
32
  We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small 
entities.
14. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under 
the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.
33
  Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.  In addition, an 
element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation.  
We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on 
this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
15. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.
34
   These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered 
to be small entities.
35
16. There are also 2,414 low power television stations, including Class A stations and 4,046 
television translator stations.
36
  Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these 
entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
                                                     
27
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 515120 Television Broadcasting, (partial definition),
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515120&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).
28
13 CFR. § 121.201 (NAICS code 515120) (updated for inflation in 2010).
29
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515120.
30
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ1&pro
dType=table.
31
  See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 2014), 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf.
32
We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given.
33
“[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other 
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 21.103(a)(1).
34
  See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 2014), 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 
35
See generally 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4), (6).
36
See FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2013 (rel. January 8, 2014), 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
70
17. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small 
business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, a “small 
cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.
37
  Industry data indicate that of 
approximately 4,600 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.
38
  In 
addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers.
39
  Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide.
40
  Of this total, 3,900 
cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, 
based on the same records.
41
  Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small 
entities. 
18. Cable System Operators.  The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 
a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.”
42
  The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
43
  Industry data indicate that of 
approximately 1,100 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.
44
  We note 
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,
45
and therefore we are unable to 
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size 
standard.   
19. Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service.  DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” 
antenna at the subscriber’s location.  DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA’s broad economic 
census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
46
which was developed for small wireline firms.  
Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
47
  
                                                     
37
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
38
Industry Data, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (last 
visited June 7, 2017); R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2010, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” p. 
C-2 (data current as of December, 2008).
39
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).  
40
The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing 
System (COALS) database on Aug. 28, 2013.  A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend.
41
August 5, 2015 report from the Media Bureau based on its research in COALS. See www.fcc.gov/coalsBureau.
42
47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn.1-3.
43
  47 CFR. § 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable 
Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).
44
R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data 
current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of 
Cable Systems in the United States,” pp. D-1805 to D-1857.
45
The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR. § 76.909(b).
46
See 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS code 517110).
47
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
71
To gauge small business prevalence for the DBS service, the Commission relies on data currently 
available from the U.S. Census for the year 2012.  Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms 
that operated that year.  Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, 
the majority of these firms can be considered small.
48
  Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, 
which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and EchoStar Communications 
Corporation (“EchoStar”) (marketed as the DISH Network).
49
  Each currently offers subscription services.  
DIRECTV
50
and EchoStar
51
each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small 
business.  Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as 
defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
20. Cable and Other Subscription Programming.  This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or 
fee basis.  The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as 
news, sports, education, or youth-oriented).  These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming.  The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.
52
  The SBA size standard 
for this industry establishes as small any company in this category which receives annual receipts of 
$38.5 million or less.
53
  Based on U.S. Census data for 2012, a total of 725 establishments operated for 
the entire year.
54
  Of that number, 13 establishments operated with annual receipts of $25 million or less.
55
Based on this data, the Commission estimates that a small minority of establishments operating in this 
industry are small.
21. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor 
vehicles, and public address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are video cassette recorders, televisions, stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-
type video cameras, jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address systems.
56
The 
SBA has classified the manufacturing of audio and video equipment under in NAICS Codes classification 
scheme as an industry in which a manufacturer is small if it has fewer than 750 employees.
57
Data 
contained in the 2012 U.S. Census indicate that 466 establishments operated in that industry for all or part
                                                     
48
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5.
49
See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Fifteenth Annual Report, MB Docket No. 12-203, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10507, para. 27 (2013) (“15th Annual 
Report”).
50
As of June 2012, DIRECTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD, serving an estimated 
19.8% of MVPD subscribers nationwide.  See 15th Annual Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 687, Table B-3.
51
As of June 2012, DISH Network is the second largest DBS operator and the third largest MVPD, serving an 
estimated 13.01% of MVPD subscribers nationwide.  Id.  As of June 2006, Dominion served fewer than 500,000 
subscribers, which may now be receiving “Sky Angel” service from DISH Network.  See id. at 581, para. 76.
52
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 515210 Cable and Other Subscription Programming, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515210&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).
53
See 13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS code 515210).
54
See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ1, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007 (NAICS code 515210), 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ1.
55
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ1&pro
dType=table. 
56
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 
57
13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS code 334310).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
72
of that year.  In that year, 465 establishments had fewer than 500 employees.
58
  Thus, under the applicable 
size standard, a majority of manufacturers of audio and video equipment may be considered small.
22. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).  The Census Bureau defines 
this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.  Establishments in this 
industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, 
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.”
59
  This industry also includes 
Personal Radio Services, which provide short-range, low power radio for personal communications, radio 
signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services.  The Personal Radio Services 
include spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules.
60
  These services include Citizen Band Radio 
Service (“CB”), General Mobile Radio Service (“GMRS”), Radio Control Radio Service (“R/C”), Family 
Radio Service (“FRS”), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”), Medical Implant 
Communications Service (“MICS”), Low Power Radio Service (“LPRS”), and Multi-Use Radio Service 
(“MURS”).
61
  The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.
62
  For this category, census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the 
entire year.
63
  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 1,000 or less.
64
  Similarly, according to 
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (“SMR”) Telephony services.
65
  Of these, 
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.
66
  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be 
considered small.  Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be 
considered small.
23. However, we note that many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus 
are not small entities.  In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized 
in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base a more specific 
estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by our 
action.
24. Motion Picture and Video Production.  The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in producing, or producing and 
                                                     
58
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SA1&prodT
ype=table. 
59
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).
60
47 CFR Part 95.
61
The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio 
Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio 
Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H, 
subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of part 95 of the Commission’s rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 
95.
62
13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS code 517210).
63
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table. 
64
Id.
65
See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
66
See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
73
distributing motion pictures, videos, television programs, or television commercials.”
67
  The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such businesses having $30 
million dollars or less in annual receipts.
8.023
had annual receipts of $24,999,999 or less.
68
  Thus, under 
this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small entities.
25. Radio Stations.  The SBA defines a radio station as a small business if such station has 
no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts.
69
  Business concerns included in this industry are those 
“primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.”
70
  Census data for 2012 show 
that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.  Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual 
receipts of less than $25 million per year.
71
According to review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master 
Access Radio Analyzer Database as of November 26, 2013, about 11,331 (or about 99.9 percent) of 
11,341 commercial radio stations have revenues of $35.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition.  The Commission notes, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
72
must be included.  This 
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
26. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be 
dominant in its field of operation.  The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria 
that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, 
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent.  Also, as 
noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently 
owned and operated.  The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the 
context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive 
to this extent.
27. Electronics Stores.  The Census Bureau defines this economic census category as 
follows:  “This U.S. industry comprises: (1) establishments known as consumer electronics stores 
primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-type electronic products such as 
televisions, computers, and cameras; (2) establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-
type electronic products; (3) establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new electronic products 
in combination with repair and support services; (4) establishments primarily engaged in retailing new 
prepackaged computer software; and/or (5) establishments primarily engaged in retailing prerecorded 
audio and video media, such as CDs, DVDs, and tapes.”
73
  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Electronic Stores, which is:  all such firms having $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
74
  
                                                     
67
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 512110 Motion Picture and Video Production, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=512110&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).
68
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&pro
dType=table. 
69
13 CFR § 121.201, 2012 NAICS code 515112.
70
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions: 515112 Radio Stations, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515112&search=2012 (last visited June 7, 2017).  
71
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=tabl12
72
See n.14.
73
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 443142 Electronics Stores, http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=443142&search=2012 NAICS Search (last visited June 7, 2017).
74
13 CFR. § 121.201, NAICS code 443142.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
74
According to Census Bureau data for 2012, there were 15,254 firms in this category that operated for the 
entire year.
75
  Of this total, 15,165 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
76
  Thus, the majority of 
firms in this category can be considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
28. In the Wireless Microphones R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, the Commission set 
forth the impact of its rule changes on wireless microphone users and manufacturers. The Order on 
Reconsideration in general provides these users and manufacturers increased flexibility with regard to 
measuring compliance with the applicable output power levels and clarifies how users can make greater 
use of the available spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band, all of which should prove beneficial with no 
additional reporting, record keeping, or compliance requirements.  However, the Order’s clarification that 
applicants for LPAS licenses to operate wireless microphones on frequencies in the 941.5-944 MHz band 
are required to have their proposed operations successfully coordinated with Federal users prior to 
operating will result in some LPAS applicants having to document their coordination with Federal users, 
if such users are operating in the same geographic area. 
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in developing 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 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than 
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.”
77
30.   While the Order on Reconsideration generally upholds the rules adopted in the Wireless 
Microphones R&O and the TV Bands Part 15 R&O, it makes the changes and clarifications specified in 
Section A, paragraphs 2-3, supra, to those rules.  These changes and clarifications facilitate licensed and 
unlicensed wireless microphone use of various frequency bands by permitting more flexibility in meeting 
the technical requirements relating to emission limits, more efficient use of the 169-172 MHz band, 
increased access to the 1435-1525 MHz band, and the possibility of interference protection for certain 
professional unlicensed wireless microphone users; resolving uncertainties in the rules regarding power 
requirements, when unlicensed microphones can continue to operate equipment certified under Part 74, 
and when wireless microphone applicants must coordinate; and providing wireless microphone 
manufacturers with greater flexibility in designing products to meet market demands.  The Commission 
anticipates no adverse economic impact on small entities because, with one exception, the changes 
provide these entities benefits previously unavailable to them, as opposed to mandating new requirements 
on them.  That exception involves the clarification that applicants for LPAS licenses to operate wireless 
microphones on frequencies in the 941.5-944 MHz band are required to have their proposed operations 
successfully coordinated with Federal users.  However, the Commission believes that this requirement 
will impose only a de minimis burden.  Significant alternatives considered include making no changes to 
the rules adopted in the Wireless Microphones R&O and in the TV Bands Part 15 R&O or making more 
extensive changes to those rules.  However, the Commission finds that the relatively limited number of 
                                                     
75
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_44SSSZ4&pro
dType=table.  
76
Id.  
77
5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
75
changes made in the Order and specified in Section A, paragraphs 2-3, supra, best balances the needs of 
wireless microphone users and manufacturers and other entities that use the same frequency bands by 
providing wireless microphone users and manufacturers increased flexibility to meet their requirements in 
those bands without impairing other entities’ access to the bands.  
G. Report to Congress
31. The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, 
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.
78
  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order including the 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
79
                                                     
78
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
79
See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
76
APPENDIX C
Proposed Rules
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 74 as follows:
Part 74, Subpart H – LOW POWER AUXILIARY STATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 309, 336, and 554.
2. Section 74.801 is amended by renaming the definition of “Large venue owner or operator” as “Venue 
owner or operator,” and by amending the definitions “Professional sound company” and “Venue 
owner and operator” to read as follows:
§ 74.801  Definitions
* * * * *
Professional sound company. Professional sound company refers to a person or organization that provides 
audio services that (a) routinely use 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices, where the use of such 
devices is an integral part of major events or productions, or (b) can otherwise demonstrate a particular 
need for, and the capability to provide, professional high-quality audio through use of low power 
auxiliary station devices, where the use is an integral part of events or productions. Routinely using 50 or 
more low power auxiliary station devices means that the professional sound company uses 50 or more 
such devices for most events or productions.
* * *
Venue owner or operator.  A venue owner or operator refers to a person or organization that owns or 
operates a venue that (a) routinely uses 50 or more low power auxiliary station devices, where the use is 
an integral part of major events or productions, or (b) can otherwise demonstrate a particular need for, and 
the capability to provide, professional high-quality audio through use of low power auxiliary station 
devices, where the use is an integral part of events or productions.  Routinely using 50 or more low power 
auxiliary station devices means that the venue owner or operator uses 50 or more such devices for events 
or productions.
* * * * * 
3. Section 74.832 is amended to revise subsection 74.832(7) to read as follows:
§ 74.832  Licensing requirements and procedures
* * * * *
(a)(7)  Venue owners or operators as defined in § 74.801.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
77
APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this 
present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further 
Notice).
1
  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of this 
Further Notice.  The Commission will send a copy of this Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In addition, the Further 
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. This proceeding is initiated to explore whether certain professional theater, music, 
performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and 
meet certain criteria should be permitted to: (1) obtain Part 74 licenses in the TV bands to enable them to 
register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices that 
operate in those bands, and to access the portion of spectrum available to licensed wireless microphone 
users in the 600 MHz duplex gap (specifically, the 653-657 MHz portion); and (2) obtain Part 74 licenses 
to operate in other bands available for use by Part 74 licensed wireless microphone licensees, including 
portions of the 900 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, and 6975-7125 MHz bands, provided that they meet the 
applicable requirements for operating in those bands.  We observe that use of unlicensed wireless 
microphones by these organizations significantly enhances event productions in a variety of settings, but 
recent actions by the Commission to repurpose portions of the TV bands for the 600 MHz wireless 
services (most frequencies corresponding to TV channels 38-51, which has been available for use by 
unlicensed wireless microphones) will reduce the frequencies available to these organizations.
B. Legal Basis
3. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a) 301, 302(a), 303(f), 
307(e), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
157(a), 301, 302(a), 303(f), 307(e), and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
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 
                                                     
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 id.
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 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant 
to the RFA, 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 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
78
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
  
5. Low Power Auxiliary Station (LPAS) Licensees. The proposals set forth in the Further 
Notice will apply to certain theater, music production, and performing arts, and similar organizations that 
currently use wireless microphones on an unlicensed – rather than licensed – basis to meet their audio 
service needs because they fail to meet the 50 microphone license eligibility requirement to be a “large 
venue or operator” or “professional sound company” under the Commission’s Rules for Part 74 Low 
Power Auxiliary Stations.
8
If the proposals are adopted, certain of these organizations would qualify for 
LPAS licenses, whose operations are intended for uses that include not only wireless microphones, but 
also cue and control communications and synchronization of TV camera signals.  These low power 
auxiliary stations transmit over distances of approximately 100 meters.
9
  The appropriate LPAS size 
standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  
The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
10
  For this 
category, census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees.
11
Thus, based on this data, we estimate that 
a majority of wireless firms can be considered small.  There are more than 1,400 active LPAS licenses in 
all bands and more than 800 active LPAS licenses in the UHF spectrum.
12   
6. We anticipate that only a small percentage of all theater, music production, performing 
arts, and similar organizations that use unlicensed wireless microphones in their productions will qualify 
for Part 74 venue licenses and thus become LPAS licensees.  Specifically, we estimate that the number of 
qualifying organizations will be fewer than 500 nationwide.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
7. Under the proposal set forth in the Further Notice, and consistent with the Commission’s 
general approach to permitting limited registration by certain qualifying unlicensed wireless microphone 
users, an unlicensed wireless microphone applicant for a Part 74 license to operate in the TV bands would 
be required to establish that: (1) it has identified all of the vacant TV channels in the repacked TV bands 
and the spectrum in the 600 MHz guard band available for unlicensed wireless microphone operations 
that is not shared with white space devices at its location, (2) it is already making full use of this available 
spectrum in these bands for its unlicensed wireless microphone operations, and (3) access to more 
spectrum in these bands is needed for its major events or productions, based on a showing of its particular 
needs at that specified location.  Additionally, an unlicensed wireless microphone applicant for a Part 74 
license to operate in the TV bands would be required to demonstrate in its application that its needs for 
high-fidelity audio services for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current Part 
74 licensees, and that it has the professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its 
responsibilities as a licensee.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
7
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).
8
47 CFR § 74.801.
9
Id.
10
13 CFR § 121.201 (NAICS code 517210).
11
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prod
Type=table.
12
FCC, Universal Licensing System (ULS), available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home (last 
visited June 7, 2017).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
79
8. Similarly, an unlicensed wireless microphone applicant to obtain a Part 74 license to 
operate in other bands would be required to demonstrate that additional spectrum may be needed for its 
events/productions at its particular location. For instance, under the Commission’s specific rules for 
operating wireless microphones in portions of the 900 MHz band and 6975-7125 MHz bands, wireless 
microphone licensees are required to coordinate their proposed operations to ensure that harmful 
interference would not result, and there are distinct equipment requirements and special coordination 
requirements that apply to any operation in the 1435-1525 MHz band.  Accordingly, as an additional 
requirement for obtaining a Part 74 license for operation in the particular bands outside of the TV bands, 
an applicant for a Part 74 LPAS license would be required to demonstrate that it could meet these 
coordination requirements or other requirements (e.g., technical compliance) with respect to its proposed 
location of operation.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
9. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): 
(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance 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.
13
10. In the Further Notice, we are attempting to satisfy a request from the wireless 
microphone industry that would afford certain unlicensed wireless microphone operators the opportunity 
to obtain licensed use of the TV bands, 600 MHz guard band, and portions of other bands.  Accordingly, 
our proposal is intended to benefit those operators, rather than to impose new requirements on them.  
However, we need to ensure that this new licensed use can take place without preventing other uses of 
those bands, and also ensure that harmful interference is not caused to other users by those operators; e.g., 
by operating in close proximity to those other users. Thus, we have proposed what we believe are the 
minimum necessary coordination and other requirements on those operators to ensure that their proposed 
use of those bands will not impair access to those bands by other users.  We are unaware of any
alternative approaches that would provide the benefits of licensed use to those operators in a manner that 
would reduce the compliance burden on them, while also not impairing use of the bands proposed to be 
made available to them.  However, we solicit comment on any such alternatives.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule
11. None.
                                                     
13
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
80
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, GN Docket No. 14-166; 
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Band, 
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, ET Docket No. 14-165; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268
One of the popular tropes of our time is the so-called mic drop.  But what’s not so popular is a 
wireless mic-drop—one in which the sound cuts out during a critical moment.  That’s because wireless 
microphones serve important purposes, such as enabling broadcasters and other video programming 
networks to meet the needs of consumers by covering breaking news and other live events.  These 
microphones are also critical tools for businesses and productions across the country.
That’s why our action today clarifies and finalizes the Commission’s technical rules for wireless 
microphone operations.  Our decision will allow this technology to continue to effectively serve America’s 
theaters, music venues, and live events following the incentive auction and reconfiguration of the TV bands.
Additionally, we recognize that there are certain small professional theaters, music, and performing 
arts or similar organizations (especially in rural areas) that have the same needs for interference protection 
as existing wireless microphone licensees, but that don’t meet our current license requirements.  So we 
propose in the Further Notice a limited expansion of licensee eligibility based on a user’s demonstrated 
need for and capability of providing high-quality audio during productions, regardless of the number of mics 
that user typically employs.
Here’s how this would work.  Imagine that a small professional theater decides to put on a 
production of the hit show Hamilton.  But the performance only requires the use of 30 wireless 
microphones.  Under our current rules, this theater couldn’t get interference protection from white space 
devices operating in the same bands, so the actors’ carefully crafted performance could be interrupted by a 
competing unlicensed device.  Not only would this affect the consumer experience, but Alexander Hamilton 
would risk “throwing away [his] shot!”  Our limited expansion would accommodate the needs of wireless 
mic users like this one.
I want to thank the Commission staff who worked so diligently on this item.  From the Office of 
Engineering & Technology, thank you to Rashmi Doshi, Ira Keltz, Julie Knapp, Geraldine Matise, Paul 
Murray, Rodney Small, and Hugh Van Tuyl.  From the Wireless Bureau, thank you to Steve Buenzow, 
Nese Guendelsberger, John Schauble, and Scot Stone.  And finally, from the Office of General Counsel, 
thanks to David Horowitz and Keith McCrickard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
81
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, GN Docket No. 14-166;
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, ET Docket No. 14-165; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268.
A newscaster reporting on location during a threatening summer storm, the riveting performance 
at this year’s most talked about play, live updates during must-see prime-time sporting events – these 
moments are all enhanced by the use of wireless microphones.  In recognition of the growing and 
important role wireless mics play, the Commission has, over the years, taken numerous steps to provide
operational flexibility to the industry as well as access to the spectrum necessary for us to be better 
informed and entertained.  
In today’s Order on Reconsideration, the Commission addresses many of the issues raised in 
petitions for reconsideration of two 2015 orders.  The technical revisions and clarifications made in this 
Order will provide manufacturers much-needed certainty as they continue to bring products to market.  
Moreover, in the Further Notice the Commission recognizes that certain unlicensed wireless mic 
users that are not eligible for a Part 74 license, may nonetheless have a need for interference protection at 
their events.  Accordingly, we seek comment on how best to accommodate the needs of these users.
This item reflects the hard work of the staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology and the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, as well as many others throughout the Commission.  I thank you 
all for your work on this item and your ongoing efforts in these proceedings.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
82
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, GN Docket No. 14-166; 
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Band, 
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, ET Docket No. 14-165; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268.
From the time that the Commission commenced the broadcast incentive auction proceeding, we 
knew that the wireless mics operating in the TV band were going to present quite a challenge.  Post 
auction, full-power broadcasters would be repacked and all other users of the band would have to do more 
with less.  This led the Commission to initiate a series of inquiries on how we could accommodate the 
need for wireless mics, including opening up new spectrum bands.  
The Commission also decided that entities using 50 or more mics could obtain licenses and 
register for interference protection from other unlicensed users. In doing so, it tried to strike a balance 
between protecting the operations of professional sound companies or venues that have a need for a large 
number of mics and high-quality sound, and ensuring that spectrum is shared effectively with other 
licensed mic users and unlicensed use, such as TV white space devices.
Admittedly, the selection of 50 microphones as a proxy for those users who were likely to require 
interference protection and high-quality sound never really appeared to be supported by any data.  Fifty 
seemed to be picked because it was reasonable that most large professional events, such as Broadway 
shows, concerts at the Verizon Center, and the largest sporting events, would need a lot of mics.  This is 
not exactly the best way to make policy.  Because this number was not based on solid data, I generally 
support reopening this issue.  
I do wonder, however, about the possible direction we are headed in the further notice.  It 
proposes that we should replace the objective number-based metric, with a rule that would permit, on a 
case-by-case basis, certain theater, music, performing arts organizations, and possibly others to obtain a 
license if they demonstrate a professional need for high-quality mics.  I have stated repeatedly that I am 
not necessarily a fan of case-by-case determinations, because they can leave important decisions to the 
whims of the Commission or staffer reviewing the request at the time. 
Putting this fundamental concern aside, such an approach also requires a perpetual line drawing 
exercise that may be quite burdensome.  Wireless mics are used not only in large arenas, stadiums, 
convention centers and theaters, but also schools, colleges, churches, and karaoke bars.  Under today’s 
proposal, all of these entities and more can come to the Commission to argue that their business has a 
need for high-quality sound.  This could result in an unmanageable number of petitions and some likely 
inconsistent decisions.   
Additionally, we must give a lot of thought about how this proposal will affect the other users in 
the TV and 600 MHz band.  Every additional entity that is provided protection means that there may be 
another wireless mic licensee in the area, such as a broadcaster, cable TV operator or the latest pop star’s 
concert, that may not be able to reserve the resources it needs.  Additionally, it means less spectrum will 
be available for TV white spaces, something we have heard quite about recently for good reason. 
We also should think about whether this promotes the efficient use of spectrum and the use of 
spectrally efficient microphones.  When we started this proceeding, I warned that wireless mics users 
should contemplate exiting the TV bands.  Spectrum is already in short supply, and I would predict in the 
coming years another broadcast incentive auction is more than likely than not.  This could result in mics 
having to relocate once again.  For this reason, we should encourage fewer, not more, wireless mics in the 
600 MHz and TV bands.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-95
83
Regardless of these concerns, I will support the reconsideration of this issue, especially since 
questions were added, at my request, that will elicit a dialogue on some of these various issues.  
Additionally, a paragraph was added seeking comment on alternatives to the proposed case-by-case 
approach.  I thank the Chairman for taking my concerns into consideration.