 Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
Before the  
Federal Communications Commission  
Washington, D.C. 20554 
 
In the Matter of  
 
Shared Use of the 42- 42.5 GHz Band  
 Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For 
Mobile Radio Services  
 
 ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
 
WT Docket No. 23-158 
 
GN Docket No. 14-177 
  
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING  
 
Adopted:  June 8, 2023  Released:  June 9, 2023 
 Comment Date:  30 days after Federal Register publication 
Reply Comment Date:  60 days after Federal Register publication 
 
By the Commission:  Chairwoman Rosenworcel issuing a statement.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Heading Paragraph #  
I. INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND  .................................................................................................................................... 2 
III. DISCUSSION  ........................................................................................................................................ 7 
A. Potential Benefits of Shared Licensing  ............................................................................................ 7 
B. Shared Licensing Approaches ........................................................................................................ 12 
C. Buildout Requirements .................................................................................................................. 25 
D. License Term and Applicability of Part 30 Technical Rules ......................................................... 29 
E. Band Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 32 
F. Protecting RAS Services at 42.5-43.5 GHz ................................................................................... 34 
G. Costs and Benefits and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ............................................................... 40 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................ 42 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES  ....................................................................................................................... 48 
APPENDIX A – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis  
APPEND IX B – List of Commenters to 3rd  FNPRM  
 I. INTRODUCTION  
1. In order to bring next generation services to consumers, support expanding access for 5G, 
and prepare for 6G and beyond, we seek ways to ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and effectively.  
As more  advanced, spectrum -intensive technologies develop, finding new ways to increase access to 
spectrum will only become more important.  Innovative, non- exclusive spectrum access models have the 
potential to provide solutions in this evolving space.  This Not ice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Notice ) seeks 
comment on how such models might be deployed in the 42 GHz band (42- 42.5 GHz) to provide increased 
access to high -band spectrum,
1 particularly by smaller wireless service providers, and to support efficient, 
 
1 High -band spectrum is generally defined as above 24 GHz .  See GAO Report, 5G Deployment: FCC Needs 
Comprehensive Strategic Planning to Guide Its Efforts , GAO 20 -468, at 4 (2020), 
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao- 20-468.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
2 intensive use of the band.  We also seek comment on how potential sharing and licensing regimes might 
lower barriers to entry for smaller or emerging wireless service providers,  encourage competition, and 
prevent spectrum warehousing.  
II. BACKGROUND  
2. As part of a multiyear effort to enable deployment of advanced wireless services such as 
5G, t he Commission has made 4.95 gigahertz of spectrum above 24 GHz available on a n exclusively-
licensed  geographic area basis.2  The Commission has already established service and licensing rules for 
the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands, all of which are available on either a county or a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis.
3  The  Commission has held three auctions to award 
licenses in these bands, the most recent of which was completed in 2020.4 
3. The Commission also has made available a significant amount of high- band spectrum for 
unlicensed use.  The rules for unlicensed device u se at 57 -64 GHz were expanded in 2016 to include 64-
71 GHz, bringing the total amount of high- band spectrum available on an unlicensed basis to 14 
gigahertz.5 
4. The 42 GHz band is currently allocated to non- Federal Fixed and Mobile services on a 
primary basis; there is no Federal allocation in the band.6  Although the Commission sought comment 
previously on proposed service rules for this band among other bands above 24 GHz, none are currently in place, and the band has no incumbent licensees.
7  The lower adjacent 40 -42 GHz band has been 
designated for satellite use.8  The upper adjacent 42.5- 43.5 GHz band is allocated to radio astronomy 
 
2 47 CFR §§ 30.4, 30.5.   
3 See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al ., Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8154, para. 403 (2016); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For 
Mobile Radio Services, et al., Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 10988 (2017); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al ., Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd. 5576 (2018); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al. , Fourth Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 12168 (2018) .  See also 47 CFR §§ 30.4, 30.5.  
When citing to the Report and Order  portions of the 2016 or 2018 documents, we will refer to the First R&O or 
Third R&O , respectively .  When citing to the Memorandum Opinion and Order portion of the 2018 document, we 
will refer to the MO&O .  When citing to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of the 2016 or 2018 
document, we will refer to the First FNPRM  or Third FNPRM , respectively.   
4 See Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 
GHz Bands for Next -Generation Wireless Services Closes, AU Docket No. 19 -59, Public Notice, DA 20- 253 (OEA -
WTB 2020).  
5 First R&O , 31 FCC Rcd at 8062- 66, paras. 125 -131. 
6 47 CFR §  2.106.  
7 See First NPRM , 31 FCC Rcd  at 8153- 55, paras. 400- 407, Third NPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5595 -5600, paras. 47 -57.  
Nine  experimental licenses are authorized for testing using this frequency range .  Pursuant to the Commission’s 
rules, operation of an expe rimental radio station is permitted only on the condition that harmful interference is not 
caused to licensees.  If harmful interference to an established radio service occurs, upon becoming aware of such harmful interference the Experimental Radio Service licensee must  immediately cease transmissions .  See 47 CFR § 
5.84.  
8 See Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed- Satellite Services in the 37.5 -38.5 GHz, 40.5- 41.5 GHz and 
48.2- 50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and  Mobile Allocations in the 40.5 -42.5 
GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9 -47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0- 38.0 GHz and 40.0 -40.5 GHz for Government Operations , Second Report and 
Order,  18 FCC Rcd 25428, 25434, para. 14 (2003) ( V-Band Second Report and Order ).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
3 services (RAS) on a primary basis for Federal and non -Federal use and to the Federal fixed, fixed- satellite 
(Earth -to-space), and mobile —except aeronautical mobile —services on a primary basis.9 
5. The Commission previously sought comment on a proposal to authorize flexible fixed 
and mobile operations in the 42 GHz band under the new part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible  Use Service 
(UMFUS) rules, but only on the condition that adjacent channel RAS  at 42.5- 43.5 GHz could be 
protected.10  Specifically, the Commission sought comment and detailed information on what protections 
should be established for this adjacent band —for example, whether out -of-band emission limits into the 
42.5- 43.5 GHz band should be established or whether it was necessary to create a guard band below 42.5 
GHz.11  The Commission also sought comment on the appropriate band plan for the 42 GHz band, 
including whether the band should be licensed as a single channel, split into two channels, or split into 
multiple 100 megahertz channels.12  The Commission proposed licensing the band geographically using 
PEAs.13 
6. Pursuant to the directives in the MOBILE NOW A ct,14 the Commission later included in 
the Third FNPRM requests for further comment on a regulatory framework to enable licensed and/or 
unlicensed uses of the 42 GHz band.15  The Commission received 17 comments and six reply comments  
to the Third FNPRM  relating to the 42 GHz band ; a list of these filers and ex parte  participants addressing 
the 42 GHz band is contained in Appendix B.16    
III. DISCUSSION  
A. Potential Benefits of Shared Licensing  
7. Millimeter wave17 transmissions have a shorter propagation range than l ower -frequency 
spectrum and are blocked by walls and other obstacles, making it easier to reuse the same band or channel within a smaller geographic area.  Technological advances such as MIMO (multiple- input multiple -
output) and beamforming antennas offer additional possibilities for reuse between multiple operators.  
Given that the Commission already has offered both traditionally- licensed spectrum (on a geographic 
basis) and made spectrum available on a flexible basis for unlicensed devices in the millime ter wave 
bands, and that the characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum lend themselves to sharing and reuse, we seek to explore how novel approaches to shared licensing may support increased efficiency and intensity 
of use among a wider range of users wi thin this millimeter wave spectrum.   
 
9 47 CFR §  2.106.  Footnote US211 urges applicants for airborne or space stations assignments in the 40.5- 42.5 GHz 
band to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy obs ervations in the 42.5- 43.5 GHz band from harmful 
interference.  47 CFR §  2.106 n.US211.  
10 First NPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154, para. 403.   
11 First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154, para. 405.  
12 First  FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd  at 8154, para. 406.  
13 First  FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd  at 8154, para. 403.  
14 MOBILE NOW Act, Pub. L. No. 115 -141, Div. P, tit. VI, 132 Stat. 1097 (2018), §  604(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) (codified 
at 47 U.S.C. §  1503) (requiring the Commission to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider service 
rules to aut horize mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including for advanced mobile service operations, 
in the 42 GHz band).  
15 Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd  at 5595 -5600, paras. 47 -57. 
16 When citing comments to the Third FNPRM , we will use the short name of th e commenter contained in Appendix 
B, followed by the words “Comments” or “Reply Comments.”  When citing comments to the 2016 FNPRM , we will 
use the short name of the commenter followed by “First FNPRM Comments” or “First FNPRM Reply Comments.”  
Similarly, for ex parte filings, we will use the name of the commenter along with the date the ex parte was filed as 
listed in ECFS (this date may be different from the date on the actual ex parte letter).  
17 Generally, spectrum between 30 GHz and 300 GHz.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
4 8. Unlike many other millimeter wave bands, the 42 GHz band has no existing operations, 
either federal or non -federal.18  This “greenfield” spectrum gives the Commission greater flexibility in 
designing a shared licensing scheme that may be optimized for future use and can take advantage of new 
developments in technology more easily than a band with existing deployments.  W e therefore believe 
that consideration of alternatives to exclusive geographic area licensing in the 42 GHz band is 
appropriate.  
9. Although the Commission has previously sought comment on licensing the 42 GHz band 
on the same geographic area basis as the UMF US bands  such as the 37/39 GHz bands,19 those two ranges 
are separated by the 40 -42 GHz satellite- only band.20  This separation means that there appear to be fewer 
potential synergies to using the same licensing approach in both bands than if the two could be combined 
into a single continuous band.  
10. The benefits of potential unlicensed use of the 42 GHz band also appear to be limited.  
No commenter previously supported making this band available on an unlicensed basis, and de Vries 
suggested that unlicensed  use of the band would not provide adequate protection against harmful 
interference.21  This latter point is significant given the importance of protecting RAS operations in the 
adjacent 42.5- 43.5 GHz band.  Harmful interference from unlicensed devices wou ld likely be more 
difficult to resolve, given the additional difficulty relative to licensed operations of identifying the 
specific interferer.  
11. In light of these considerations, we seek comment on applying a shared approach to the 
42 GHz band.  We ask comm enters to enumerate the benefits or drawbacks of this approach, as compared 
with either an exclusive -use licensed22 or unlicensed approach.  
B. Shared Licensing Approaches  
12. In this section, we discuss a variety of potential approaches to licensing the 42 GHz band 
on a shared basis.  These approaches may have different costs and benefits in different situations, and 
some may facilitate certain uses better than others.  We seek  comment on these approaches and on any 
alternatives that might better promote our goals of more efficient spectrum use and lower barriers to 
spectrum access compared with traditional exclusive -use licensing in this band.   
13. Nationwide non- exclusive licensi ng.  Under this approach, currently in use in the 
70/80/90 GHz bands,23 operators would first obtain a nationwide non- exclusive license from the 
Commission, and then coordinate specific deployment sites with a third- party database.  This approach 
would likely require advance work in identifying and setting up a database administrator but could 
facilitate quick and efficient site registration once established.  OTI, focusing on point -to-multipoint 
service, supports this licensing regime for the 42 GHz band ( as well as for the Lower 37 GHz band), and 
 
18 As of Mar ch 31, 2023, nine experimental licenses are authorized for testing using this frequency range; however, 
as noted above, these licenses are issued on a noninterference basis.  See 47 CFR § 5.84.  
19 Some commenters supported this approach.  See AT&T Comments at 4 -5; CCA Comments at 2 -4; CTIA 
Comments at 11- 12; Ericsson Comments at 9; Nokia Comments at 2; Qualcomm Comments at 14; T -Mobile 
Comments at 3 -5; U.S. Cellular Comments at 6 -7.  See also Verizon First FNPRM Comments at 3.  
20 Third R&O , 33 FCC Rcd at 5595- 5600, paras. 47- 57, 47 CFR § 2.106.  
21 de Vries Comments at 2.  
22 We note that the Commission has already established a record on an exclusive -use licensed approach for the 42 
GHz band.  See Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5599, para. 54; see also  Appendix B (identifying the commenters 
addressing the 42 GHz band, in response to the Third FNPRM ). 
23 47 CFR §§ 101.1501, 101.1523.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
5 it argues that such a system would reduce costs and facilitate entry and coexistence between licensees.24  
Charter also supports this approach for the Lower 37 GHz band, in order to promote greater efficiency.25 
14. We seek comment on the potential use of this nationwide non- exclusive licensing 
approach for the 42 GHz band.  Would this model best facilitate efficient use of this spectrum?  Would it 
lower barriers to entry as compared with either traditional exclusive -use licensing, or the other shared 
licensing approaches discussed in this Notice?  Commenters advocating such an approach should also 
provide information regarding any limitations that should be placed on users.  For example, should all 
licensees operating in a common area have access to the full 500 megahertz or only a portion to preserve 
the ability of other licensees to operate in that same area?  Should there be limitations on the size of a service area that could be registered with a database to promote coexistence and enable access by other 
licensees?  Should the Commission simply make the band available and require licensees to cooperate in 
the selection and use of frequencies in the band ?  What are the costs and benefits of taking this approach?  
We n ote that OTI’s proposal focuses on fixed point -to-multipoint service.
26  Would it be possible to use 
this approach to license mobile service as well?  What would be the costs or obstacles associated with 
identifying and establishing a database administrato r?  We seek comment on these issues and any other 
considerations involved with a nationwide non- exclusive model for this band.  
15. Site-based licensing.  Alternatively, the Commission could license the 42 GHz band on a 
site-by-site basis directly, without the use of a nationwide non -exclusive license regime or a third -party 
database.  This approach might provide greater transparency than the use of third- party databases, because 
information for each licensed site —including , for example, construction notifications demonstrating 
whether buildout requirements have been met —would be publicly available in the Commission’s 
Universal Licensing System (ULS).  This would also allow the Commission to be more responsive to 
potential disputes, and facilitate easier administration and enforcement of buildout requirements, without 
needing to communicate with the third- party database manager as part of this process.   
16. We seek comment on a potential site- based licensing approach in this context.  Would 
licensing each individual site directly be overly burdensome on licensees?  Would adopting a site -based 
licensing approach facilitate the easier enforcement of buildout requirements as compared to using a third 
party database registrar, and therefore contribute to greater efficienc y and less warehousing of this 
spectrum?  To what extent would the lack of a third -party database administrator result in logistical 
hurdles that might increase costs or decrease efficiency of licensees’ operations, or would it be a benefit 
to have license issues addressed directly with the Commission?  Would prospective licensees be able to 
access this spectrum more quickly and easily under a third -party database approach, versus licensing each 
site with the Commission?  Would there be additional or differ ent technical or operational rules needed 
under either approach, for example specific rules for resolving coexistence issues under site -based 
licensing versus relying on the database for this purpose in a third- party registration approach?  We seek 
comment  on these and any other considerations relating to this licensing model.  
17. Technology -based sensing.  In the context of the Lower 37 GHz band, Qualcomm 
proposes that the Commission adopt a technology- based long- term sensing mechanism for millimeter 
wave spe ctrum.  Qualcomm suggests that this approach would allow “multiple licensees each using any 
air interface, to share on a licensed basis the entire…band in the same location, on the same frequencies, and at the same time, by taking advantage of the highly directional nature of millimeter wave 
communications.”
27  This proposal, which describes technology- based sensing using a geographic area 
licensing regime, would require that licensees coordinate among themselves a measurement window 
 
24 OTI Feb. 27, 2022 Ex Parte at 1 -2. See also  OTI Comments at 2 -3. 
25 Charter Mar. 4, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2-3. 
26 OTI Feb. 27, 2 022 Ex Parte at 1.  
27 Qualcomm Mar. 18, 2022 Ex Parte at 1 (emphasis removed).  See also  Qualcomm Oct. 2, 2021 Ex Parte  at 2.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
6 during which all licens ees (except for a priority user in each channel) cease transmissions for a given time 
period in order to use long-term sensing to detect any active receivers, and then transmit afterwards only 
in directions where no such receivers are detected.28  Qualcomm  suggests that, if properly implemented, 
this system would provide priority licensees with more reliable protection than other sensing-based systems such as Listen Before Talk, and would also allow indoor operation across the entire band without disrupting priority or outdoor operations, and without requiring a database.
29 
18. We seek comment on applying this potential approach to the 42 GHz band, and the 
attendant costs and benefits of adopting a technology- based sensing framework.  Because Qualcomm 
designed t his proposal for the Lower 37 GHz band, are there changes that would need to be made to make 
it suitable for the 42 GHz band?  For example, would this proposal be viable without a priority user in a 
given channel?  Similarly, given that Qualcomm’s proposal demonstrates how technology- based sensing 
operates using geographic license areas, would adjustments need to be made to the proposal for a 
different type of licensing regime?  Further, would the measurement and sensing requirements mean that 
users of the 42 GHz band could not take advantage of the equipment ecosystems of existing millimeter-
wave bands?  If so, would it increase equipment costs or increase barriers to entry for smaller or emerging 
operators?  Are there other long- term sensing systems that s hould be considered?  We seek comment on 
what steps the Commission or industry should take to ensure that, if adopted, any technology- based 
sensing protocols are non-proprietary/open- source or widely available to maximize use and drive 
innovation.  We seek comment on these and any other considerations for this approach. 
19. Coordination mechanism.  We assume that any shared licensing regime will require a 
coordination mechanism to protect all licensees from harmful interference.  Examples of potential 
coordinat ion mechanisms include the third -party database queries used in 70/80/90 GHz,30 the Spectrum 
Access Systems (SAS) used in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service to manage access to spectrum by 
different classes of licensed users in the 3550- 3700 MHz band,31 the Automated Frequency Coordination 
(AFC) system recently established in 6 GHz to facilitate coexistence of unlicensed devices with incumbent operations and radio astronomy observatories,
32 and equipment -based long-term sensing like 
the approach proposed by Qualcomm for the Lower 37 GHz band.33  We seek comment on these and 
other potential coordination mechanisms.34  What are the costs and benefits of each model?  Which model 
would work best for each potential licensing regime?  Are there concerns specific to the 42 GHz band that 
might recommend one coordination mechanism over another?  
20. Other Considerations.   We seek general comment on the sharing and licensing 
mechanisms described above, as applied to the 42 GHz band.  Which model would be most conducive to 
the intensive and efficient use of this spectrum?  Which model would yield the greatest benefits, at the least cost?  What are the potential barriers to deployment, operation, or equipment availability under each 
model?  We also seek comment on which type s of services might be accommodated by these shared 
licensing regimes.  OTI suggests the Commission also allow for point- to-multipoint service in this 
 
28 Qualcomm Mar. 18, 2022 Ex Parte at Attach. 8 -9. 
29 Qualcomm Mar. 18, 2022 Ex Parte  at Attach. 8 -10. 
30 47 CFR §  101.1523.  
31 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550- 3650 MHz Band, 
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959 (2015); 47 CFR § 96.59.  
32 See 6 GHz Report and Order , 35 FCC Rcd 3852, para.  22; 47 CFR § 15.407(k) (Automated Frequency 
Coordination (AFC) system for 6 GHz devices).  
33 See Qualcomm Mar. 16, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2-3, Attach. 8 -10. 
34 See, e.g., Michael DiFrancisco et al., Incumbent Informing Capability (IIC) for Time -Based Spectrum Sharing 
(2021), https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/iic_for_time -based_spectrum_sharing_0.pdf .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
7 context.35  Would it be possible to accommodate both point -to-point and point -to-multipoint services in 
the 42 GHz band?  Would it also be possible to accommodate mobile service?  Are there specific 
licensing or sharing mechanisms that would better facilitate multiple services in the band?  Are there 
specific technical or licensing requirements or coordinatio n mechanisms that would better facilitate the 
inclusion of mobile service?  
21. We seek comment on whether first -in-time protections36 are necessary or appropriate for 
each of the shared licensing regimes discussed above, and if so, what form they should take.  Charter 
argues that the use of time division duplex (TDD) synchronization would enable multiple operators to 
coexist in exactly the same area.37  Would requiring TDD synchronization be sufficient to enable such 
reuse?  If so, would such a system render first -in-time protections moot?  To what extent would the 
certainty provided by a first -in-time guarantee be necessary to encourage  deployment in this band?  
Would the lack of such a guarantee deter investment by potential licensees?  Do the answers to these 
questions depend on which shared licensing regime we adopt?  Are there licensing mechanisms (such as 
technology- based sensing) f or which a first -in-time guarantee would be unnecessary, or more burdensome 
than beneficial?  If we do not adopt first -in-time protections, what other mechanisms might resolve 
situations of congestion or harmful interference in a particular area?  We seek general comment on this 
issue, including on any other potential costs or benefits not mentioned here.  
22. We also seek comment on the appropriate coordination requirements for site- based 
licensing or site -based registration (in conjunction with a nationwide li cense), should we adopt it.  OTI 
suggests that site -based licensing (or registration) should require coordination not only on a site -by-site 
basis, but on a sector -by-sector basis, to increase spectrum reuse, avoid warehousing, and encourage 
competition.38  Would this level of specificity be feasible from a deployment perspective?  Would it be 
unduly burdensome on licensees who might wish to license or register multiple sectors at the same site?  
How prevalent are deployment scenarios in which operators use  only a subset of sectors?  Would access 
to one sector (or some subset of a full arc) at a particular site provide smaller or later -deploying operators 
with a greater opportunity to deploy alongside other licensees?  If we do incorporate sector -level licen sing 
or registration, what would the appropriate sector size be?  Is it 30- degree sectors, as OTI suggests?39  
Should we allow licensees or registrants to specify a sector size when applying or registering?  If sector -
based licensing is not appropriate in the 42 GHz band, is there some other way of licensing or registering 
sites that might facilitate greater spectrum reuse while still providing licensees with adequate spectrum 
access?  
23. We also seek comment on whether there would be any potential synergies in the instant 
context with approaches being considered for the Lower 37 GHz (37- 37.6 GHz) band.  In 2016, the 
Commission adopted rules to permit fixed and mobile terrestrial operation across the 37 GHz band (37-38.6 GHz) and made the Lower 37 GHz band avail able for coordinated co- primary sharing between 
Federal and non- Federal users, with the non- Federal users licensed by rule.
40  The Commission indicated 
that both Federal and non- Federal users would access the band by registering individual sites through a 
coordination mechanism and sought comment on the details of that coordination mechanism and what 
 
35 OTI Feb. 27, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2. 
36 We could, for example adopt a first -come- first-served licensing or registration scheme in which the first actual 
users that a re licensed/registered have a right to interference protection (provided they deploy their systems within 
the requisite time period) , but they have  no right to exclude other users . 
37 Charter Mar. 4, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2. 
38 OTI Feb. 27, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2 (“F or example, coordination could be by sector (e.g., 30- degree sectors), since 
directional antennas can accommodate multiple deployments in an area”).  
39 OTI Feb. 27, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2. 
40 First R&O , 31 FCC Rcd at 8057, 8059, 8060, paras. 105, 111, 113.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
8 functions it should perform.41  In 2018, the Commission sought comment on several specific proposals for 
this coordination mechanism, including first -come -first-served site- based licensing or registration in 
conjunction with several different types of potential licenses.42  In addition to OTI, Charter, and 
Qualcomm, whose proposals are discussed above, several commenters suggest that Commission base its 
rules fo r Lower 37 GHz on those adopted for the 70/80 GHz bands.43  We seek comment on whether we 
should adopt a shared licensing approach for the 42 GHz band that mirrors the Commission’s approach to 
the Lower 37 GHz band.44  What would be the benefits or costs t o doing so?  Are there other ways to 
leverage the potential of these bands together?  We note that unlike the 42 GHz band, the Lower 37 GHz 
band must accommodate sharing and coordination between Federal and non- Federal users.  
24. Finally, we also seek comment on any other model or mechanism for non- exclusive 
licensing not discussed here which may be better suited for the 42 GHz band, or any other relevant 
considerations for these or other shared licensing regimes.  Commenters suggesting alternative 
approaches should do so with as much specificity as possible, including discussing the potential costs and 
benefits of their proposed option as compared with the approaches above and either an exclusive- use 
licensed or unlicensed approach.  We also seek comment on whe ther we could enable secondary 
operations in the 42 GHz band, while still ensuring primary licensees protection from harmful 
interference.45 
C. Buildout Requirements  
25. In traditional exclusive -use geographic area licensing regimes, the Commission typically 
sets buildout requirements in terms of service coverage of a given percentage of the population of the 
license area.46  For licensing regimes not tied to a particular license area, or where a license area is shared 
among multiple licensees, however, this metric may not be suitable or feasible.  Our overarching goal is 
to adopt a buildout metric that ensures in each circumstance that spectrum is meaningfully being put to use in practice.  To this end, we seek comment on the appropriate buildout requirements for potential 
licensees under the various approaches described above.  
26. One buildout approach could be to require licensees to begin operations within a 
specified time.  OTI has proposed that an appropriate timeframe would be 12 months or less from site 
registra tion, after which a licensee would lose any first -in-time protections for that site.
47  We seek 
comment on this proposal, including any alternative timeframes.  We also seek comment on whether this 
approach would be better suited to certain sharing and lic ensing regimes, and, conversely, whether it 
might be unsuitable or inapplicable to certain others.  Recognizing that we seek comment above on whether we should adopt first -in-time protections for this band,  if we ultimately do not adopt such 
protections a s part of the shared licensing regime here, what other consequence for failing to meet a build -
out deadline might be appropriate?  Would any consequence for failure to build out in a timely manner be 
necessary in such circumstances?  
27. We also seek general co mment on the appropriate buildout metrics for potential 
technology- based sharing regimes.  If we ultimately adopt a sharing mechanism where the equipment 
itself determines access to spectrum, should we impose any buildout requirement at all, or is the 
inherently non- exclusive nature of such a regime sufficient to ensure efficient use and prevent spectrum 
 
41 First R&O , 31 FCC Rcd at 8060, para. 113; First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8170, paras. 448- 49. 
42 Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5602, 5604- 5, paras. 65, 69- 73.   
43 Ericsson Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 3- 4.   
44 See NCTA Jun. 1, 2023 Ex Parte . 
45 See Kuiper May 31, 2023 Ex Parte . 
46 See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 30.104.  
47 OTI Feb. 27, 2022 Ex Parte  at 2.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
9 warehousing?  We seek comment on these and any other considerations for buildout requirements under 
sharing regimes based on technology- based long- term sen sing, including any potential solutions not 
discussed here.  
28. We also seek comment on any other potential buildout requirement metrics or levels 
suitable for the sharing mechanisms discussed in this Notice.  Additionally, to the extent that commenters 
have s uggestions for other potential sharing or licensing mechanisms, we encourage them to include 
suggestions for corresponding buildout requirements, or other methods of ensuring efficient spectrum use 
and preventing spectrum warehousing.  
D. License Term and Appl icability of Part 30 Technical Rules  
29. The Commission previously sought comment on licensing the 42 GHz band under the 
part 30 UMFUS licensing and technical rules.48  Although we are not proposing to adopt an exclusive -use 
licensing regime, we do propose to adopt a ten- year license term for licenses in this band, similar to other 
part 30 services.  We seek comment on this proposal, and ask whether there are additional considerations 
in adopting a ten- year license term under a shared licensing approach.  
30. The mi llimeter wave bands the Commission has previously licensed are all governed by 
the technical rules found in part 30.49  This uniform treatment facilitates development of a common 
equipment ecosystem and easier operator deployment, and is supported generall y in the underlying record 
in this proceeding.50  Inclusion in this uniform technical regime might allow these benefits to also accrue 
to the 42 GHz band.  If this band is made available under a licensing scheme  significantly different from 
the other part 30 bands, however, it is possible that those benefits might be diminished, or costs or other 
inefficiencies incurred.   
31. We seek comment on the applicability of the part 30 technical rules to the 42 GHz band 
as licensed under the various potential sharing r egimes outlined above.  Should we apply these existing 
technical rules for the 42 GHz band, regardless of the licensing regime we ultimately adopt?  Are there 
changes to the technical rules might be appropriate or necessary to accommodate shared licensing?  Are 
there different costs or benefits that may be associated with the existing part 30 technical rules in this 
context, which we have not previously considered?  
E. Band Plan  
32. In the Third FNPRM , the Commission proposed to license the 42 GHz band as five 100 
megahertz channels.51  Most commenters supported the Commission’s proposal.52  They noted that a 100 
megahertz channel is a building block for millimeter wave mobile equipment, and that this channel size is 
consistent with 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) standards in the millimeter wave bands.53 
Several commenters also asserted that 100 megahertz block sizes would facilitate the deployment of 5G 
services.54  A few commenters advocated using 200 MHz channels.  For example, TIA argues that wider 
 
48 FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154, para. 403.  
49 47 CFR §§ 30.201 -.209.  
50 See, e.g., CTIA First FNPRM Comments at 11 -12, Verizon First FNPRM Comments at 9.  No comment ers 
oppose the inclusion of 42 GHz in these technical rules, or suggest specific variations.  
51 Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5600, para. 57.  
52 AT&T Comments at 4; CCA Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 12; Ericsson Comments at 9; Nokia Comments 
at 2; T -Mobile Co mments at 6; U.S. Cellular Comments at 7 -8. 
53 T-Mobile Comments at 6 ; see also U.S. Cellular Comments at 7.  
54 CTIA Comments at 12.  See also AT&T Comments at 3; CCA Comments at 4; U.S. Cellular Comments at 2 -3.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
10 channels will better support 5G services.55  In response to the First FNPRM , Qualcomm also supported a 
band plan with two 200 megahertz channels.56   
33. We again propose to license the 42 GHz band in five 100 megahertz channels and seek 
comment on this proposal in the context of the new proposals under consider ation here.  Would the 
benefits previously noted by commenters supportive of 100 megahertz channels still apply under the 
sharing regimes discussed above?  Would the increased flexibility of a non- exclusive licensing regime 
benefit more from 100 megahertz channels, or from another channel size?  Are there particular sharing or 
licensing regimes that would benefit most from a different channel size?  
F. Protecting RAS Services at 42.5 -43.5 GHz  
34. As noted above, in the First FNPRM , the Commission proposed to author ize flexible 
mobile and fixed operations in the 42 GHz band, provided that RAS could be protected in the adjacent 
42.5- 43.5 GHz band.57  The Commission sought comment on the forms that such protection should take, 
e.g., whether it should establish special out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits into the 42.5- 43.5 GHz band 
or create a guard band below 42.5 GHz.58  After noting the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on 
Radio Frequencies (CORF) and T -Mobile’s agreement that RAS bands could be protected by limi ting 
UMFUS operations near an RAS observatory, the Commission renewed its call in the Third FNPRM for 
interested parties to provide detailed technical analysis of the coexistence of RAS with terrestrial mobile 
operations that fully supported any proposed m ethodology.59  Specifically, we asked whether our rules 
should be based on the International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector (ITU -R) 
RA.769 parameters, or alternate protection criteria, and  sought comment on whether to establish 
coordina tion zones around relevant RAS facilities.60 
35. CORF has asserted that frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821, 43.122, and 43.424 GHz are of 
the greatest importance for the detection of strong silicon monoxide maser emissions from stars and star 
forming regions, w hich facilitates the measurement of stellar temperature, density, wind velocity and 
other parameters.61  The 42 GHz band also is one of the preferred bands for measuring continuum 
observations.62  RAS observations are currently made at a limited set of obs ervatories around the United 
States.63  Additionally, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine, the Next Generation Very Large Array (ngVLA) is a top priority for U.S. astronomy in the coming decade and would inc lude new sites predominantly near the current VLA, but also throughout 
New Mexico and adjacent states with long baseline stations in close proximity to existing VLBA 
 
55 TIA addressed this issue in its comments to  a separate Further Notice.  See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz 
For Mobile Radio Services , GN Docket 14 -177, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 7674 
(2018) (Fourth FNPRM).   See TIA Fourth FNPRM Comments at 5- 6, Table 1, 11.  
56 Qualc omm First FNPRM Comments at 9.  
57 First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154, para. 405.  The adjacent band, 42.5 -43.5 GHz, is allocated for federal and 
non-federal RAS operations and federal fixed, earth -to-space satellite and mobile services.  47 CFR § 2.106.  
58 First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154, para. 405.  
59 Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5599 -5600, para. 56.  
60 Third FNPRM , 33 FCC Rcd at 5600, para. 56.  
61 CORF First FNPRM Comments at 8 n.6; CORF Mar. 14, 2016 NPRM Reply Comments at 8- 9. 
62 CORF First FNPRM Comments at 9.  
63 RAS observations in this band are currently made at various U.S. observatories: Green Bank Telescope (GBT), 
WV; VLA Socorro, NM; Westford, MA (Haystack); Brewster, WA; Fort Davis, TX; Hancock, NH; Kitt Peak, AZ; 
Los Alamos, NM; Mauna Kea, HI; North Libert y, IA; Owens Valley, CA; Pie Town, NM; St. Croix, VI.  CORF 
FNPRM Comments at 9 & n.7 ( citing 47 CFR § 2.106, n.US131).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
11 stations .64  Because a typical radio telescope receives less than 1 percent of one- billion th of one- billionth 
of a watt (10-20 W) from a typical cosmic object, the telescope is particularly vulnerable to in -band 
emissions, spurious out-of-band emissions, and emissions producing harmonics, making protection 
important.65  CORF has represented tha t the detrimental levels for continuum and spectral line radio 
astronomy observations for single dishes are -227 dBW/m2/Hz and -210 dBW/m2/Hz, respectively, for the 
average across the full 1 gigahertz of the 42.5 -43.5 GHz band and the peak level in any single 500 kHz 
channel, as based upon ITU-R RA.769, Tables 1 and 2, respectively.66  For observations using the entire 
VLBA, CORF represented that the corresponding limit is -175 dBW/m2/Hz).67  T-Mobile agreed that the 
ITU PFD limits are appropriate to addres s potential interference to RAS.68   
36. Proponents of using the 42 GHz band for flexible terrestrial wireless use have generally 
agreed that various practical methods may be effective at protecting RAS, including use of exclusion zones, coordination zones, and aggregate emissions limits —particularly because RAS sites are remotely 
located.
69  None provide detailed information or examples showing how these proposed methods would 
work in practice.70  Regarding whether it is necessary or appropriate to establish a guard band below 42.5 
GHz in order to protect RAS, CORF stated that a guard band of 200 MHz within the radio horizon around radio astronomy sites would meet the ITU-R RA.769 protection criteria.
71  T-Mobile argued that a guard 
band is unnecessary and the ITU protection threshold can be met with minimum exclusion distances.72  In 
respons e to the First FNPRM , some commenters asserted that a guard band would narrow the usable 
aspects of the 42 GHz band.73  TIA argued it should be possible to craft UMFUS operating rules that 
protect adjacent RAS services via geographic coordination or otherw ise, making guard bands 
unnecessary, especially since they interfere with the Commission’s channel block plans.74    
 
64 See National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and 
Astrophysics for the 2020s S -34, § 7.6.1.4 (2021), https://doi.org/10.17226/26141 .   
65 CORF Comments at 3.  See also CORF First FNPRM Comments at 3.     
66 CORF Comments at 6; CORF First FNPRM Comments at 9.  See also First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154,  para. 
405 (citing CORF Mar. 14, 2016 NPRM Reply Comments at 8- 9). 
67 CORF Comments at 6; CORF First FNPRM Comments at 9.  See also First FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8154,  para. 
405 (citing CORF Mar. 14, 2016 NPRM Reply Comments at 9).  
68 T-Mobile Comments at 8.  See also T- Mobile First FNPRM Comments at 13 -14 & Appendix B (citing ITU -R 
RA.769).   
69 See AT&T Comments at 6 -7; CORF Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at 12- 13; Ericsson Comments at 10; Nokia 
Comments at 2; T -Mobile Comments at 7 -8; U.S. Cellular Comments at 6; CORF Reply Comments at 14; U.S. 
Cellular Reply Comments at 4.  See also T- Mobile First FNPRM Comments at 13 -14; TIA First FNPRM Comments 
at 7; AT&T First FNPRM Reply Comments at 7; CTIA First FNPRM Reply Comments at 16; Qualcomm First 
FNRPM Reply Comments at 4; T -Mobile First FNPRM Reply Comments at 25.   
70 Although they provide no new studies, Nokia and others direct the Commission to T -Mobile’s RAS sharing study, 
produced for the 32/47/50 GHz bands and assert thi s study is well -suited to also calculating protection zones for 
RAS sites operating adjacent to the 42 GHz band.  See Nokia Comments at 2; Ericsson Comments at 10, n.33; CTIA 
Comments at 12- 13.  CORF agrees this study could be applicable for calculating coordination distances.  CORF 
Reply Comment at 14 & n.52.  We do not find this study sufficient to establish coordination distances because it is 
based on an analysis done with respect to different systems in the 32 GHz band.   
71 CORF Comments at 8 -9. 
72 T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6- 8. 
73 FWCC First FNPRM Comments at 5; TIA First FNPRM Comments at 7.  FWCC urges that any guard band 
adopted should be limited to fixed- only operations subject to full fixed service frequency coordination to control 
emissions i n the direction of RAS sites.  FWCC First FNPRM Comments at 6.  
74 TIA First FNPRM Comments at 7.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
12 37. We agree with CORF and T -Mobile that RAS bands can probably be protected by 
limiting 42 GHz operations near a RAS facility to reduce the ri sk of terrestrial interference.  Because we 
believe that geographic separation of 42 GHz licensed operations and RAS facilities will provide 
sufficient protection of RAS facilities, we do not propose to impose out -of-band emissions limits on 
licenses in th e 42 GHz band that are tighter than out -of-band- emissions limits on UMFUS licenses in 
other millimeter wave bands.  Furthermore, we do not propose to establish coordination zones around RAS facilities because we believe that compliance with the limits we p ropose today will be sufficient to 
protect RAS observations.  The  record  to date  does not contain sufficient information to determine 
whether, and if so, at what distances, coordination zones would be appropriate, but we invite the 
submission of such infor mation from commenters.   
38. We propose to require 42 GHz licensees to limit emissions into the 42.5- 43.5 GHz 
passive band at those relatively few locations where RAS observatories make observations in this band.  
We propose to adopt the parameters established by ITU -R RA.769 as the i nterference protection criteria 
for RAS operations, as suggested by CORF and T -Mobile.  While we believe that these parameters are 
extremely conservative, no one has previously submitted studies suggesting alternative criteria, and the 
ITU’s analysis indicates compliance with those criteria are likely to protect the RAS facilities from 
harmful interference.  Given that the observatories are mostly located in remote areas and signals in this 
frequency range are significantly attenuated by terrain and clutter , we expect that adopting these 
conservative criteria would have only a small impact on 42 GHz licensed operations.  
39. Therefore, for all 42 GHz licensees operating near designated RAS facilities, we propose 
that:  (1) the spectral power flux density receive d at the RAS sites at the Haystack Observatory (Westford, 
MA), the Green Bank Telescope (Green Bank, WV) and the Very Large Array (Socorro, NM) averaged 
over the entire 42.5- 43.5 GHz frequency range must not exceed - 227 dBW/m
2/Hz; (2) the spectral power 
flux density received within any 500 kHz channel within the 42.5- 43.5 GHz frequency range for the three 
sites noted above must not exceed - 210 dBW/m2/Hz; and, (3) the spectral power flux density within the 
42.5- 43.5 GHz frequency range for the Very Long Base line Array (VLBA) Stations must not exceed -175 
dBW/m2/Hz.  We propose to list the relevant sites in a new footnote to the United States Table of 
Frequency Allocations  for clarity.  We believe that these limits are sufficient to protect RAS operations in 
the adjacent band without establishing a guard band within the 42 GHz band.  We emphasize that our 
proposal to adopt these limits is based on the specific factors present in the 42 GHz band and would not 
necessarily control future decisions we make regardin g other frequency bands subject to note US342.  In 
addition to these requirements, the existing requirements for coordination in the National Radio Quiet 
Zone will be maintained .75  We seek comment on this proposal.  
G. Costs and Benefits and Diversity, Equity , and Inclusion  
40. We invite comment generally on the costs and benefits associated with the various 
approaches discussed in this Notice.  Are there any aspects of the above issues that the Commission has not considered?  Are there any studies, efforts, or an alyses that we should consider?  If so, we ask that 
commenters identify them and explain why they should be considered.   
41. Digital Equity and Inclusion.  Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all,
76 including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in 
rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
 
75 47 CFR § 1.924.  
76 Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that the FCC “regulat[es] interstate and 
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, to 
all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or 
sex.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
13 affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity- relate d considerations77 and 
any potential benefits that may be associated with the various approaches and issues discussed herein.  
Specifically, we seek comment on how the various approaches that the Commission may consider may 
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the 
Commission’s relevant legal authority.  
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  
42. Filing of Comments and Replies.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document.78  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).79 
• Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing 
the ECFS: https://www.fcc.g ov/ecfs/filings . 
• Paper Filers:  
o Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of 
this proceeding, filers must s ubmit two additional copies for each additional 
docket or rulemaking number. 
o Filings can be sent 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 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 
20701.  
o U.S. Postal Service first -class, Express, and  Priority mail must be addressed to 45 
L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554. 
o Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer 
accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure 
taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID -19.
80 
• Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the 
substantive arguments raised in the pleading.  Comments and reply comments must also 
 
77 The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, 
and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have 
been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indi genous and Native American persons, Asian Americans 
and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural are as; and persons 
otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.  See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009, 
Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 202 1). 
78 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419.  
79 See FCC, Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (May 1, 1998).  
80 See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand- Delivery Policy, Public 
Notice , 35 FCC Rcd 2 788 (OMD 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc -closes -headquarters -open- window -and-
changes -hand- delivery -policy .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
14 comply with s ection 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission’s rules.  
We direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the 
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.  All parties are encouraged to 
use a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission.  We also strongly 
encourage parties to track the organization set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in order to facilitate our internal review process. 
43. People with Disabilities .  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e -mail to fcc504@fcc.gov
 or call 
the Consum er and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 -418-0530. 
44. Ex Parte Rules.  The proceeding that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates shall 
be treated as a “permit -but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.81  
Persons maki ng 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 c itations to such data or arguments in the 
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 section 1.1206(b).
82  In proceedings governed by 
section 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.  
45. Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
83 
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.”84  Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes proposed in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on small entities.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.  Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA.  Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice indicated 
on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA.   
46. Initial Paperwork Reduc tion Act  of 1995 Analysis .  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
may contain proposed new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 ( PRA).85  If the Commission adopts any new or modified information collection requi rements, 
they will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) for review under section 3507(d) 
 
81 47 CFR §  1.1200 et seq.  
82 Id. § 1.1206(b).  
83 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.   The RFA, 5 U.S.C. § 601 –612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  
84 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).  
85 Pub. L. No. 104 -13.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
15 of the PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in these proceedings.  In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,86 we seek specific comment on how we might “further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”87 
47. Further Information.  For further information on this proceeding, contact Catherine 
Schroeder of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1956, or 
Catherine.Schroeder@fcc.gov . 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES  
48. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 
309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, and 309, Section 604 of the MOBILE NOW Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1503, and Section 1.411 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY ADOPTED.  
49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau,  Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this 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  
 
86 Pub. L. No. 107 -198. 
87 44 U.S.C. §  3506(c)(4).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
16 APPENDIX A  
 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies an d rules proposed in this  
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Notice) .  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 
in the N otice .  The Commission will send a copy of th e Notice , including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the Notice  and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3   
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules  
2. In the Notice , we propose to increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile 
broadband by adopting rules for fixed and mobile services in the 42- 42.5 GHz band.  We propose to 
license this spectrum on a shared, non- exclusive basis .  This additional spectrum for mobile use will help 
ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless networks keeps pace with the 
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.  It will also make possible new types of ser vices for consumers 
and businesses.  We seek comment on the specific types of licenses under which we should make this 
spectrum available, including non- exclusive nationwide licensing, site- based licensing, and technology-
based sensing.  We seek comment in  particular on what licensing models might best facilitate entry and 
participation by smaller and emerging entities as well as comments that provide options for potentially 
lowering barriers to entry for smaller or emerging wireless service providers, enco urage competition, and 
avoid spectrum warehousing.    
3. Until recently, the millimeter wave ( mmW ) bands were generally considered unsuitable 
for mobile applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW 
signals to pr opagate around obstacles.  As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower bands and 
carriers have resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in order to re- use the available spectrum, the 
industry is taking another look at the mmW bands and beginning  to realize that at least some of the  
presumed disadvantages can be turned to advantage s.  For example, short transmission paths and high 
propagation losses can facilitate spectrum re- use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of 
interference between adjacent cells.  Furthermore, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short 
wavelengths of mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly 
focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW 
signals also make it possible to build multi -element, dynamic beam -forming antennas that will be small 
enough to fit into handsets —a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer -wavelength 
frequencies below 6 GHz whe re cell phones operate today.   
B. Legal Basis  
4. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 
309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 301, 302a, 
303, 304, 307, and 309, Section 604 of the MOBILE NOW Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1503, and Section 1.411 of 
the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.411.  
 
1 See 5 U.S.C. §  603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  
2 See 5 U.S.C. §  603(a).  
3 See id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
17 C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply  
5. 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 
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operat ed; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7 
6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions .  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, 
at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.8  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the reg ulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the Small Business Administration’s ( SBA) Office of Advocacy , in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.9  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million 
businesses.10 
7. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”11  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.12  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 sma ll exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.13 Finally, the 
 
4 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).  
5 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).  
6 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small -business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  
7 15 U.S.C. § 632.  
8 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) -(6). 
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions , “What is a small bu siness?,” 
https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small -Business- FAQ -2021.pdf . (Nov 2021).  
10 Id. 
11 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).  
12 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction .  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number  of 
small organizations in this small entity description.   See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990- N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/annual -
electronic -filing -requirement -for-small -exempt -organizations -form -990-n-e- postcard .  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or dominant in its field . 
13 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “ CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/exempt -organizations -business -master -file-extract -eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax -
exempt/non- profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
18 small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less 
than fifty thousand.”14  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments15 indicate there 
were 90,075 l ocal governmental jurisdictions consisting of general  purpose governments and special 
purpose governments in the United States.16  Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose 
governments (county,17 municipal, and town or township18) with populations of less than 50,000 and 
12,040 s pecial purpose governments —independent school districts19 with enrollment populations of less 
than 50,000.20  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdiction s.”21 
8. Fixed Microwave Services.   Fixed m icrowave services include common carrier,22 private-
operational fixed,23 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.24  They also include the Upper Microwave 
(Continued from previous page)   
BMF data for businesses for the tax year  2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1- Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2- Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3 -Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840)  that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.  
14 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).  
15 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Government s survey  is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Government s, https://www.census.gov/programs -
surveys/cog/about.html .  
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 201 7 Census of Governments  – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 20 17 [CG1700ORG0 2], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).   See also tbl. 2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.   
17 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05] ,  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) government s.   
18 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General -Purpose Governments by Population- Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.  
19 See id. at tbl. 10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment -Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special -Purpose Local 
Governments by State  Census Years 1942 to 2017 [ CG1700ORG04 ], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017 . 
20 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.  
21 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with  populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of s pecial purpose governments - 
independent school districts  with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040) , from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10. 
22 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.  
23 See id . Subparts C and H.  
24 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
19 Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),25 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),26 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),27 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),28 24 GHz Service,29 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),30 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),31 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non -common carrier sta tus.32  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except  Satellite)33 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA  small  size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or  fewer employees .34  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.35  Of this number , 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.36  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission  
estimates that a majority of f ixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.  
9. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave 
services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction  of licenses for the 
various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services.  When bidding credits are adopted for the 
auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands , such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and  entrepreneur) pursuant to 
the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in Part 101 of the Commission’s rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency bands.
37    
10. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction , the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
(Continued from previous page)   
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.  
25 See 47 CFR Part 30 . 
26 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.  
27 See id. Subpart L.  
28 See id. Subpart G.  
29 See id. 
30 See id. Subpart O. 
31 See id. Subpart P.  
32 See 47 CFR §§  101.533, 101.1017.  
33 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers  (except 
Satellite ),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312 . 
34 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112) . 
35 See U.S. Census Bureau,  2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.   
36 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
37 See 47 CFR §§ 101.538(a)(1) -(3), 101.1112(b) -(d), 101.1319(a)(1) -(2), and 101.1429(a)(1) -(3).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
20 data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.    
11. 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.38  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting an d receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.
39  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies busi nesses 
having 1,250 employees or less  as small .40  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.41  Of this number, 624 firms  had fewer than 250 
employees.42  Thus, under the SBA size st andard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.  
12. Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasti ng industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”
43  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small .44  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry o perated for the entire year.45  Of this number , 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.46  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report , 
as of December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services.
47  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
 
38 See U.S. C ensus Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, ” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220 .  
39 Id. 
40 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
41 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.   
42 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.    
43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input= 517410&year=2017&details=517410 . 
44 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS C ode 517410.    
45 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 5 17410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
46 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more pr ecise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see  https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices . 
47 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021 ), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC -379181A1.pdf .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
21 48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.48  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard , a little more than  half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
13. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.49  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
50  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.51  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.52  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.53  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services.
54  Of these provide rs, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.55  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
14. All Other Telecommunications.  Th is industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.
56  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.57  Providers of Internet services (e.g. di al-up ISPs) or V oice over Internet P rotocol 
(VoIP) services, via client -supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.58  
The SBA small business size standard for  this industry  classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 milli on 
or less as small .59  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year.60  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.61  Based on this 
 
48 Id. 
49 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “ 517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers  (except 
Satellite) ,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312 . 
50 Id. 
51 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS C ode 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112) . 
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.   
53 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
54 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal  Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC -379181A1.pdf . 
55 Id. 
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition , “517919 All Other Telecommunications ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919 . 
57 Id. 
58 Id. 
59 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS C ode 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810) .  
60 See U.S. Census Bureau,  2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
22 data, the Commission estimates tha t the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.  
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and O ther Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities  
15. We expect the proposed rules in the Notice will impose new or additional reporting or 
recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities as well as other licensees and 
applicants.  At this time however, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted, 
our proposals and the matters upon which we seek comment will require small entities to hire 
professionals to comply and cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the potential rule changes 
discussed herein.     
16. Depending on the licensing model we ultimately adopt for the 42 GHz band, appli cants 
for licenses may be required to coordinate their proposed operations with other licensees and applicants.  
Under the relevant licensing models, such coordination would be necessary to ensure that neighboring 
operations will not interfere with each ot her.  The Commission seeks comment on the cost to small 
entities for this potential coordination with operations.   
17. Small entities and other applicants  in the 42 GHz  band  may be  required to meet buildout 
requirements.  Depending on the type of buildout requirement we ultimately adopt, licensees may be 
required to provide information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed, the nature of the service they are prov iding, and the extent to which they are providing coverage in their license or 
registered site area.  Any performance or buildout requirements we adopt will be structured to ensure that 
spectrum is being put into use  and to encourage rapid deployment of ne xt generation wireless services, 
including 5G, which would benefit small entities and the industry as a whole.  The Commission seeks comment as to the potential equipment, operational and implementation costs to small entities working 
towards complying with these buildout requirements. 
E. Steps Taken  to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered  
18. The RFA requires an agency to describe  any significant, specifically small business, 
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 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 a ny part thereof, for such small entities.”
62   
19.  We believe the potential licensing models on which we seek comment would facilitate 
access to spectrum by small businesses and a wide variety of other entities.  However, to assist in the 
Commission’s evaluat ion of the economic impact on small entities as a result of actions that have been 
proposed in the Notice , and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought 
comment from the parties.  Of particular interest are those comments provid ing insight as to whether any 
of the costs associated with any potential performance or buildout requirements can be alleviated for 
(Continued from previous page)   
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
61 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that  
meet the SBA size standard .  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see  https://www.census. gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices . 
62 5 U.S.C. §  603(a)(1) -(4).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51  
 
23 small businesses.  The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives 
for small entities fol lowing the review of comments filed in response to the Notice .  
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules  
20. None.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
24 APPENDIX B  
 
List of Commenters to Third FNPRM  Addressing 42 GHz  
 
Comments  
5G Americas  
AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T)  
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)  
The National Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) 
CTIA  
Ericsson  
Intel Corporation and Cisco Systems, Inc. (Intel/Cisco) Nokia 
Petri Mähönen, Ljiljana Simić and Pierre de Vries (de Vries)  
Qualcomm  Incorporated (Qualcomm) 
Samsung Electronics America (Samsung) 
SES Americom, Inc. and its affiliate O3b Limited (SES)  
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T- Mobile)  
United States Cellular Corporation (U.S. Cellular)  
 
 
Reply Comments  
AT&T  
CTIA  
TIA 
T-Mobile 
U.S. Cellular  
 
 
Ex Parte  Filers   
Kuiper Systems, LLC (Kuiper) 
NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)  
Open Technology Institute (OTI)  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -51 
25 STATEMENT OF  
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL  
 
Re: Shared Use of the 42 -42.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 23- 158; Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 
GHz For Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177 (June 8, 2023)  
 
I spent the first half of this week in Sharm El -Sheikh, Egypt at a gathering of the International 
Telecommunication Union.  It was a whirlwind of a trip.  But it was worth every minute.  Because in 
these international fora the United  States can make clear to our counterparts around the world that we 
intend to lead on spectrum policy.   
So much of what i s creative in wireless happened here first, on our shores.  And this agency 
played no small part in making this true .  We were the first to borrow the academic ideas of Ronald Coase 
and reimagine the distribution of airwaves with auctions.  More than three  decades later we have raised 
$233 billion using this tool —one we need Congress to continue.  We were also the first to take a handful 
of underused frequencies known as “garbage bands” in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz range and do 
something radical—giv e the public access to these airwaves.  It worked because this is the unlicensed 
spectrum where Wi -Fi was born.  More recently, we blazed a trail for incentive auctions— again, the first 
to do this in the world.  We also created an innovative structure with  a hierarchy of rights in the 3.5 GHz 
band combined with new systems to support dynamic spectrum access.   
Our goal today is to continue that creative streak.  This time we are going to do it with a 
millimeter wave band.  When I took over at the Federal Communications Commission, I believed the 
agency had overinvested in millimeter wave auctions at the expense of moving to market the mid -band 
spectrum essential for nationwide 5G service.  So we pivoted —fast.  With the help of my colleagues, we 
quickly launc hed auctions in the 3.45 GHz band and 2.5 GHz band.  With those successful mid- band 
efforts in the rear -view mirror, we are now turning back to millimeter wave.  But this time we want to 
consider something different.   
In Egypt, so many of my global counte rparts are wrestling with the same thing.  They look at the 
wireless future and wonder what to  do with high- band airwaves that have so much capacity but such 
limited propagation.  In the United States, we have already auctioned nearly five gigahertz of thi s 
spectrum for traditional exclusive use.  I believe now it’s time for something new.   
In the 42 GHz band we have 500 megahertz of greenfield airwaves with no federal or commercial 
incumbencies.  So we are putting out ideas.  We are exploring non- exclusive access models.  This could 
entail using a technology- based sensing mechanism to help o perators actively detect and avoid one 
another.  It could involve non- exclusive nationwide licenses that leverage a database to facilitate co -
existence.  It could also entail site- based licensing.  To get even more out of this effort we ask if our 
approach es could be combined with shared -used models in other spectrum bands, like the lower 37 GHz 
band.   
Our goal here is to come up with a new model to lower barriers, encourage competition and 
maximize the opportunities in millimeter  wave spectrum.  In short,  it’s time to be creative.  I look forward 
to the record that develops —and then look forward to sharing our creativity with the world.  
I want to thank the staff responsible for getting this effort underway: John Lockwood, Susan 
Mort, John Schauble, Blaise Scinto, Catherine Schroeder, Joel Taubenblatt, and Jennifer Tomchin from 
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Bahman Badipour, Michael Ha, Ira Keltz, Nicholas Oros, Ron 
Repasi, and Dana Shaffer from the Office of Engineering and Technology; Judith Demps ey, Evan 
Kwerel, Paul Lafontaine, Catherine Matraves, Giulia McHenry, Gary Michaels, Martha Stancill, and Don 
Stockdale from the Office of Economics and Analytics; Karl Kensinger and Troy Tanner from the Space 
Bureau; Deborah Broderson, Doug Klein, and Wil liam Richardson from the Office of General Counsel; 
and Michael Gussow, Joy Ragsdale, and Chana Wilkerson from the Office of Communications Business 
Opportunities.  