 Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission  
Washington, D.C. 20554  
 
 
In the Matter of  
 
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band  
 
Expanding Use of the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band for 
Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use  ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
  
 
WT Docket No. 20-443 
 
GN Docket No. 22 -352 
 
REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND  
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER  
 
Adopted:  May 18, 2023 Released:  May 19, 2023 
 
Comment Date:  30 days after  date of publication in the Federal Register  
Reply Comm ent Date:  60 days after  date of publication in the Federal Register  
 
By the Commission:  Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Starks and Simington issuing separate 
statements.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Heading  Paragraph #  
I. INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND  .................................................................................................................................... 4 
A. 12.2 GHz Band —500 megahertz  ..................................................................................................... 4 
B. 12.7 GHz Band —550 megahertz  ..................................................................................................... 9 
III. REPORT AND ORDER IN WT DOCKET NO. WT 20 -443 .............................................................. 11 
A. 5G Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band  ............................................................................................... 11 
1. 5G Interference to DBS  ........................................................................................................... 17 
2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS  ................................................................................................ 27 
B. MVDDS Construction Filings  ....................................................................................................... 45 
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN WT DOCKET NO. 20 -443 ................... 48 
A. Expanded Licensed and Unlicensed Fixed Terrestrial Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band  ............... 48 
B. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion  ........................................................................................ 57 
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN GN DOCKET NO. 22 -352 ....................................... 58 
A. Expanded Use of the 12.7- 13.25 GHz Band  .................................................................................. 58 
1. Repurposing for Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use  ................................................. 58 
2. Future Licensing of Incumbent Services  ................................................................................. 67 
3. Transition of Incumbent Operations  ........................................................................................ 68 
B. Alternative Approaches for Sharing the Band ............................................................................... 87 
C. Licensing and Operating Rules  ...................................................................................................... 95 
1. Part 27  ..................................................................................................................................... 95 
2. 12.7 GHz Band Plan  ................................................................................................................ 97 
3. Spectrum Block Sizes for New Licenses ................................................................................. 98 
4. Geographic License Area Sizes  ............................................................................................. 100 
5. License Term and Renewal  ................................................................................................... 103 
6. Performance Requirements  ................................................................................................... 104 
7. Open Eligibility  ..................................................................................................................... 111  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
2 8. Mutually Exclusive Applications for New Licenses  ............................................................. 112 
9. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies  ...................................................................................... 113 
D. Technical Rules  ............................................................................................................................ 117 
1. Power Limits  ......................................................................................................................... 117 
2. Out-of-Band Emissions (OOBE) Limits  ............................................................................... 122 
3. Field Strength Limits/Market Boundaries  ............................................................................. 128 
4. Antenna Height Limits  .......................................................................................................... 130 
5. Canada and Mexico Coordination  ......................................................................................... 131 
6. General Part 27 Rules ............................................................................................................ 132 
7. Protection of Federal Operations ........................................................................................... 133 
E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion  ...................................................................................... 142 
VI. ORDER IN GN DOCKET NO. 22 -352 ............................................................................................. 143 
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 148 
A. Ex Parte Presentations .................................................................................................................. 148 
B. Comment Period and Filing Procedures  ...................................................................................... 149 
C. People with Disabilities  ............................................................................................................... 150 
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act ........................................................................................................... 151 
E. Paperwork Reduction Act  ............................................................................................................ 152 
F. Congressional Review Act  ........................................................................................................... 154 
G. Further Information ...................................................................................................................... 155 
VIII.  ORDERING CLAUSES  .............................................................................................................. 156 
APPENDIX A – Proposed Rules in GN Docket No. 22 -352 
APPENDIX B – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in WT Docket No. 20 -443 
APPENDIX C – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in GN Docket No. 22-352  
 
I. INTRODUCTION  
1. Today’s  actions put us on the path towards expanding the beneficial use of up to 
1,050 megahertz of mid -band spectrum by a diverse set of terrestrial (licensed and possibly unlicensed) 
and satellite communications systems, promoting technological innovation, and bolstering the growth of 
the nation’s economy.  In this item, we take steps to ensure current and future satellite services relied upon by millions of people across the country are preserved and protected in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz band)
1 while continuing to develop a pipeline of mid-band spectrum for mobile broadband or 
other expanded uses essential for connecting everyone, everywhere in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band (12.7 
GHz band).2   
2. In the 12.2 GHz band Report and Order , we find that authorizing t wo-way, high -powered 
terrestrial mobile service in the 12.2 GHz band would impose a significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent services in the band, including satellite services.  Such interference could 
undermine investments made by incumbent licensees and jeopardize their potential to provide new 
services to underserved communities, including rural communities.  Although we decline to authorize two-way, high -powered terrestrial mobile use in these frequencies, in the 12.2 GHz band F urther Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking we further investigate the potential to expand terrestrial fixed use or to permit 
unlicensed use in these 500 megahertz of mid -band spectrum.  
 
1 In order to distinguish references to the bands in this item, we refer to the 12.2 -12.7 GHz band as the 12.2 GHz 
band throughout.  See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band, WT Docket Nos. 20 -443 et al., Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rc d 606 (2021) (12.2 Notice ). 
2 In order to distinguish references to the bands in this item, we refer to the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band as the 12.7 GHz 
band throughout.  See In the Matter of Expanding Use of the 12.7- 13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other 
Expanded Use , GN Docket No. 22 -352, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 22 -80, 2022 WL 16634851 (Oct. 28, 2022) ( 12.7 
NOI).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
3 3. To further our  efforts to make spectrum available for terrestrial mobile service, in the 
12.7 GHz band Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to repurpose some or all of the 550 
megahertz of mid -band spectrum for mobile broadband or other expanded  use.  The record demonstrates 
substantial support for repurposing these mid-band frequencies for next -generation wireless technologies 
including 5G, 5G Advanced, and 6G services that will depend  on extremely high data rates, and the 
reliability, low latency, and capacity tha t the 12.7 GHz band spectrum can provide.3  Accordingly, in this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on various proposed means for transitioning some or 
all of the 12.7 GHz band to mobile broadband and other expanded use, as well as on alternat ive changes 
to the Commission’s rules that could promote use of the band on a shared basis.  To improve the data on 
which to base our decisions regarding the future structure of the 12.7 GHz band, we adopt a 12.7 GHz 
band Order directing fixed and mobile B roadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Cable Television Relay 
Services (CARS) licensees that use the 12.7 GHz band to certify the accuracy of the information reflected 
on their licenses.  
II. BACKGROUND  
A. 12.2 GHz Band —500 megahertz 
4. The 12.2 GHz band is allocated  on a primary basis for non-Federal use for  Broadcasting 
Satellite Service (BSS) (referred to domestically as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)), Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to -Earth) limited to non -geostationary orbit systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed  
Service.
4  While the three services are co -primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are allocated on a non -
harmful interference basis to DBS.5  Currently there are three services operating in the band:  DBS 
providers operating under the primary BSS allocation,  NGSO FSS licensees operating under the co -
 
3 See Ericsson Comments at 5 ; Qualcomm Comments at 3, 7. Qualcomm notes that next generation technology 
advancements such as active Antenna Systems (AAS) and Giga -MIMO will compensate for attenuation in such high 
frequency bands.  Qualcomm Comments at 5; see also Nokia Comments at 2 -3. 
4 See 47 CFR § 2.106, United States Table of Frequency Allocations, non -Federal Table for the band 12.2- 12.7 
GHz.  NGSO FSS (space -to-Earth) operations are authorized pursuant to international footnote 5.487A, which 
provides additional allocations including in Region 2 as follows:   
[The 12.2- 12.7 GHz is] allocated to the fixed -satellite service (space- to-Earth) on a primary basis, limited 
to non -geostationary systems and subject to application of the provisions of [ITU Radio Regulations] No. 
9.12 for coordination with other non -geost ationary -satellite systems in the fixed -satellite service.  Non -
geostationary -satellite systems in the fixed -satellite service shall not claim protection from geostationary -
satellite networks in the broadcasting -satellite service operating in accordance wi th the Radio Regulations, 
irrespective of the dates of receipt by the [ITU Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete coordination 
or notification information, as appropriate, for the non -geostationary -satellite systems in the fixed -satellite 
service and o f the complete coordination or notification information, as appropriate, for the geostationary -
satellite networks, and [international footnote] No. 5.43A does not apply.  Non -geostationary -satellite 
systems in the fixed -satellite service in the [12 GHz ban d] shall be operated in such a way that any 
unacceptable interference that may occur during their operation shall be rapidly eliminated.   
47 CFR § 2.106, n.5.487A.  When an international footnote is applicable without modification to non- Federal 
operation s, the Commission places the footnote on the non -Federal Table.  See 47 CFR § 2.105(d)(5).  
5 See 47 CFR § 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote).  In Region 2, in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz band, existing and future 
terrestrial radiocommunication services shall no t cause harmful interference to the space services operating in 
conformity with the broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2 contained in Appendix 30.  “Harmful Interference” is 
defined under the Commission’s rules as “[i]nterference which endangers the fu nctioning of a radionavigation 
service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication 
service operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations.”  47 CFR § 2.1(c).   See also Annex to the 
Constitution of the ITU , 1003 (defining harmful interference).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
4 primary NGSO FSS allocation , and Multi -Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) 
licensees operating under the co -primary Fixed Service allocation.6 
5. While DBS service began in 1994, and NGSO FSS systems were authorized in the early 
2000s,  the Commission permitted MVDDS to operate in the 12 .2 GHz band starting in 2004 under 
technical rules to ensure that MVDDS station s do not cause harmful interference to DBS  or earlier-in -
time NGSO FSS fixed subscriber receivers.7  To that end, MVDDS service was limited to a relatively low 
power, one-way , digital fixed non-broadcast service, including one -way direct -to-home/office wireless 
service with each proposed transmitter subject to detailed prior coordination requirements .8  In April 
2016, a coalition  of MVDDS licensees filed a Petition for Rulemak ing requesting reforms to the 12.2  
GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS licensees to use the band for two -way mobile broadband 
services.9 
6. Later in 2016, the International Bureau opened a processing round to accept NGSO FSS 
applications and petitions  for market access in several frequency bands10 and the Commission reformed 
its NGSO FSS rules.11  In 2017, the Commission granted the first of the new generation NGSO FSS 
requests—a petition for market access by WorldVu Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a planned Low Earth 
Orbit (LEO) NGSO  FSS satellite system of 720 satellites authorized by the United Kingdom in the 10.7-
12.7 GHz Band (in addition to several other bands).12  The Commission concluded that “the pendency of 
the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition fo r Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason to delay or deny the se 
request s to use the band under the existing NGSO FSS allocation and service rules.”13  In granting this 
request, however, t he Commission conditioned access to the 12 GHz band on the outcome of  the 
 
6 47 CFR § 101.147(a) n .31.   
7 See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku -Band Fr equency Range , Amendment of the Commission’s 
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees 
and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite R eceivers, 
Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98 -206, First Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4177, para. 213 (2000) ( First Report and Order and 
FNPRM).  
8 See 47 CFR § 101.140 7 (two -way services can be provided using spectrum in other bands for the return link).  See 
also Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku -Band Fre quency Range , Memorandum Opinion and Order 
and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) ( MVDDS Second Report and Order ) (aff’d Northpoint 
Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC , 414 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).   
9 Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking , RM -11768 (filed Apr. 26, 2016),  https://www.fcc.gov/  
ecfs/document/60001658886/1  ( MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition).  See also Petition for Rulemakings Filed , Public 
Notice, Report No. 3042 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice).   
10 See Satellite Policy Branch Information; OneWeb  Petition Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No. SAT -LOI-
20160428- 00041), Cut- Off Established for Additional NGSO -Like Satellite Applications or Petitions for Operations 
in the 10.7- 12.7 GHz, 14.0 -14.5 GHz, 17.8 -18.6 GHz, 18.8 -19.3 GHz, 27.5 -28.35 GHz, 28.35-2 9.1 GHz, and 29.5-
30.0 GHz Bands , Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15, 2016).    
11 In September 2017, the Commission adopted the NGSO FSS Report and Order , updating several rules and 
policies governing NGSO FSS systems.   See Update to Parts 2 and 25  Concerning Non- Geostationary, Fixed-
Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters , Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , 32 
FCC Rcd 7809 (2017) (NGSO  FSS Report and Order ). 
12 See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory R uling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the 
OneWeb NGSO FSS System , Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017) ( OneWeb Order ).   
13 Id. at 5369, para. 6.     Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
5 MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition and any other rulemaking initiated on the Commission’s own motion.14  
The Commission also agreed with comments of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that MVDDS should not have 
to protect any NGSO FSS earth stations in motion operatio ns in the band, if authorized in the future, 
because such operations had  not been contemplated under the longstanding first -in-time MVDDS/NGSO 
FSS sharing approach.15  The NGSO FSS Report and Order adopted, among other things, spectrum 
sharing rules and a more flexible milestone schedule for NGSO FSS systems.16  The Commission 
subsequently granted five additional NGSO FSS requests to use bands that include  the 12.2 GHz band 
(among others) .17   
7. NGSO FSS systems have continued to deploy.  In particular, SpaceX received modified 
authority for its first generation (Gen 1) system to decrease the altitude from the 1,100-1,300 km to the 
540-570 km range for 2,814 satellites as well as approval of its updated orbital debris mitigation plan.18  
To da te, SpaceX has deployed approximately 4,000 satellites.19  We also recently  issued a partial grant  to 
SpaceX to begin deploying its second generation (Gen 2) system, with a grant approving up to 7,500 
satellites  to operate in the Ka- and Ku -frequency bands .20  OneWeb also recently received modified 
authority for its constellation21 and, to date, it has deployed over 580 satellites.22  On June 30, 2022, the 
 
14 Id. at 5378, para. 26 (“This grant of U.S. market access and any earth station licen ses granted in the future are 
subject to modification to bring them into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the Commission in the 
future.”).  See also  id. at 5369 , para. 6 (“Accordingly, any investment made toward operations in this band by 
OneWeb in the United States assume the risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or requirements 
as a result of such Commission actions.”).   
15 Id. at 5370, para. 8 . 
16 See NGSO FSS Report and Order , 32 FCC Rcd at 7821 -31, paras. 37 -68. 
17 Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the Arctic Satellite 
Broadband Mission, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space Norway Order ); Karousel 
Satellite LLC, Application for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non -Geostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System in 
the Fixed Satellite Service , Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 ( 2018)  (Karousel 
Order ), Space Exploration Holdings, LLC Application For Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating 
Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System , Memorandum Opinion Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 
3391 (2018)  (SpaceX Order ), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruli ng to Grant Access to the 
U.S. Market for Kepler's NGSO FSS System , Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11453, (2018)  (Kepler Order ), Theia Holdings A, 
Inc. Request for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non- Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed -Satellite 
Service, Mobile -Satellite Service, and Earth -Exploration Satellite Service , Memorandum, Opinion and 
Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 3526 (2019) ( Theia Order ). 
18 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,  Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite  
System , Order and Authorization, 36 FCC Rcd 7995 (2021).  
19 See, e.g. , Mike Wall , SpaceX launches 56 Starlink satellites, lands rocket at sea, space.com (“SpaceX has now 
lofted more than 4,200 Starlink satellites overall, according to astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan 
McDowell. ”) (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.space.com/spacex -starlink -group-5- 10-launch#:~:text=  
SpaceX%20launched%20another%20big%20batch,p.m.%20EDT%20(2001%20GMT) .   
20 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC , Request for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 
NGSO Satellite System , IBFS File No. SAT -LOA- 20200526 -00055 and SAT -AMD- 20210818- 00105, Order and 
Authorization, FCC 22-91, 2022 WL 17413767, at *54, para. 135(ii) (Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order ) (stating 
that the “authorization is subject to modification to bring it into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by 
the Commission in the future . [And, that]… any investments made toward operations in the bands authorized [by 
the] Order by SpaceX in the United States assume the risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or 
requirements as a result of any future Commission actions …[including , but not limited to ]…any conditions or 
requirements resulting from any action in the proceedings associated with …WTB Docket 20 -443…”).  
21 WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Modify the U.S. Market Access Grant for the 
OneWeb Ku -band and Ka- Band NGSO FSS System , Order and Declaratory Ruling, DA 22 -970 (IB, rel. Sept. 16, 
(continued….)  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
6 International Bureau authorized SpaceX and Kepler to serve earth stations in motion (ESIMs) in the 12. 2 
GHz band on an unprotected, non-harmful interference basis.23   
8. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( 12.2 
Notice ) to allow interested parties to address whether it could add a mobile allocation and make other 
chan ges to expand terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent 
licensees and, if so, whether such action would promote or hinder the delivery of next -generation services 
in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing and emer gent services offered by incumbent licensees.24   
B. 12.7 GHz Band —550 megahertz 
9. In the United States, the 12.7 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non -Federal 
use to Fixed Service (FS), FSS (Earth -to-space), and the Mobile Service (MS).25  The band is shared 
among Fixed Microwave Services (FS —part 101), fixed and mobile BAS (part 74), fixed and mobile 
CARS(part 78), and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS—part 25).26  The 12.75-13.25 GHz band has only 
limited Federal use.  Specifically, the National Aerona utics and Space Administration (NASA) operates a 
(Continued from previous page)   
2022) (petition to modify grant of U.S. market access granted in part and deferred in part to approve minor 
adjustments to number of satellites per plane without exceeding previously- approved total of 720 satellites).   
22 See, e.g. , Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites 
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No s. 20-443 et al. at 1 (filed Mar. 20, 2023 ); 
https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb -confirms -successful- deployment -40-satellites -launched -spacex -1 (“OneWeb 
confirms successful deployment of 40 satellites launched with SpaceX.  Launch 17 brings the total OneWeb constellation to 582 satellites.  Third launch  with SpaceX makes penultimate mission to achieving global 
coverage.”).  
23 SpaceX Services, Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of Next - Generation Ku- Band Earth Stations in Motion 
et al.; Kepler Communications Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of Ku -Band Earth Stations on Vessels , Order 
and Authorization, DA 22- 695 (IB June 30, 2022) ( ESIMs Authorizations ).  DISH and RS Access had argued that 
granting these applications would constrain the Commission’s decision -making in the instant 12.2 GHz band 
rulemaking proceeding by injecting new ESIM encumbrances into the 12.2 GHz band.   ESIMs Authorizations  at 11 -
12, para. 22.  DISH and RS Access also argued that authorizing ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis would 
likely result in primary users in the band being required to assume the costs to prevent service interruptions to SpaceX customers.  Id . at 11, para. 18.   The International Bureau found that granting the applications served the public 
interest but also recognized that the introducti on of a potentially significant number of additional end users in 
motion could affect the 12 GHz spectrum environment.  Therefore the Bureau imposed conditions to ensure grant of 
those applications would not materially impact the outcome of the 12 GHz rule making proceeding.  ESIMs 
Authorizations  at 12 -13, paras. 23 -27.  The Bureau imposed conditions on the grants related to the 12.2 GHz band 
including: (1) requiring operations to be on a non -interference basis; (2) subjecting the operations to the outcome o f 
any future rulemaking including the instant 12.2 GHz band GHz proceeding, with the understanding that the 
presence of ESIMs is not anticipated to materially affect the analysis therein, and subject to modification to conform to any rules or policies adopted, including in the instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding, and assumption of this risk; 
(3) subjecting the grant to the applicants’ representations, including that their NGSO systems have been engineered 
to achieve a high degree of flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other authorized satellite and terrestrial 
systems.  Id.  In addition, the Bureau explained that its case -by-case analysis was limited to the applications before it 
and have no broader applicability.  See id . 
24 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2 . 
25 47 CFR § 2.106.  The international and domestic allocations are similar for the 12.75 -13.25 GHz band in most 
respects.  However, space- to-Earth transmissions are permitted at 12.7- 12.75 GHz in ITU Regions 1 and 3 but not in 
Region 2.  47 CFR § 2.106, International Table.  Domestically, Footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table precludes most 
GSO FSS systems from using the band for domestic services and limits the deployment of FSS earth stations in the band.  Id. at n.NG52.  
26 See 47 CFR pt. 25 (§§ 25.101- 25.702), pt. 74 (§§ 74.600 -74.690), pt. 78 (§§ 78.1- 78.115), pt. 101 (§§ 101.1-
101.1527).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
7 receive-only earth station for its Deep Space Network (DSN) at Goldstone, California, that is authorized 
to receive transmissions across the entire 12.75 -13.25 GHz band.27   
10. On October 28, 2022, the Commissi on released its 12.7 GHz  Notice of Inquiry (12.7 NOI ) 
to broadly seek information on the current use of the 12.7 GHz band, how the Commission could encourage more efficient and intensive use of the band, and whether the band is suitable for mobile 
broadband or other expanded use.
28  In response to the 12.7 NOI , very few parties have argued that the 
current balance of incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band should be left unchanged and that the band should 
remain untouched, and a significant number argue that the band should be used for exclusive, fixed or 
mobile, flexible high -powered use.  Accordingly, in today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , we seek 
comment on various proposed means for transitioning some or all of the 12.7 GHz band to mobile 
broadband and other expanded use.  We also seek comment on changes to the Commission’ s rules that 
could promote expanded use of the band on a shared basis.   
III. REPORT AND ORDER IN WT DOCKET NO. WT 20 -44329 
A. 5G Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band  
11. By this Report and Order, we find that it is not in the public interest to add a mobile 
allocation to pe rmit a two -way terrestrial 5G service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.  
We find that a new ubiquitous terrestrial 5G service introduced throughout the band would create a 
significant risk of harmful interference to DBS and NGSO FSS operato rs.  Although we decline to 
authorize two -way, high-powered terrestrial mobile use we seek  further comment in the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on how best to maximize use of this 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum .  We 
take these actions with resp ect to the 12.2 -12.7 GHz band today in conjunction with our related action to 
issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22 -352, proposing to expand the use of the 
12.7-13.25 GHz band for mobile broadband or other expanded use.30   
12. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, which included eleven of the twelve MVDDS 
licensees at that time, filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting  reforms to the 12 .2 GHz band rules,31 
including permitting MVDDS licensees to use the band for two -way mobile 5G broadba nd services.32  In 
support of the Petition, t he Coalition also provided two Coexistence Studies that it claimed illustrate d that 
a new 5G service could coexist with  DBS operators in the band but would be incompatible with NGSO 
FSS.33  Subsequently, however , some members of the MVDDS 5G Coalition suggested the possibility of 
5G terrestrial use and NGSO FSS sharing in the band .34   
 
27 See 47 CFR § 2.106 & n.US251 .  See also infra  note 210.   
28 See 12.7 NOI.  In the order portion of the 12.7 NOI , the Commission extended a temporary freeze on 12.7 GHz 
band applications pending the outcome of GN Docket No. 22 -352.  See, e.g., infra  para. 67.  When applicable, we 
refer to the order portion of the 12.7 NOI  as the 12.7 Freeze  Extension Order .   
29 In sections III and IV, record references and citations refer to WT Docket No. 20 -443, unless otherwise noted.  
30 See infra  section V.   
31 See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition.  See also  Petition for Rulemakings Filed , Public Notice, Report No. 3042 
(May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice).   
32 For brevity and convenience, we refer  to terrestrial, 2 -way, high- power mobile operations herein as “5G.”   
33 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice  Comments, Attach. 1, MVDDS 12.2 -12.7 GHz Co -Primary Service 
Coexistence (Coexistence 1) and MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice  Reply, Appx. A, MVDDS 12.2 -12.7 
GHZ Co -Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence 2) (collectively, Coexistence Studies).  
34 See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, at 2 (filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020 Ex Parte ); Letter from Trey 
Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch,  Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, at 2 -3 (filed Sept. 21, 
2020) (RS Access Sept. 21, 2020 Ex Parte ); Letter from Jeffrey Blum, Executive Vice President, External and 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
8 13. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released its 12.2 Notice  to allow interested parties 
to address whether it could add a mobile allocation and make other changes to expand terrestrial use of 
the 12.2 GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees and, if so, whether such 
action would promote  or hinder the delivery of next -generation services in the 12.2 GHz band given the 
existing and emergent services offered by incumbent licensees.35  In the 12.2 Notice , the Commission 
stated that it would proceed mindful of the significant investments made by incumbents and that it valued 
the public interest benefits that could flow from investments made to provide satellite broadband services, 
particularly in rural and  other underserved  communities that might be more expensive to serve through 
other technologies.  The Commission initiated the instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding to allow interested 
parties to address whether additional operations can be accommodated in the band while protecting 
incumbent operations from harmful interference and to provide an opportunity for  the Commission to 
assess the public interest considerations associated with adding a new mobile allocation.36  In particular, 
the Commission sought infor mation on the status of technologies that have been developed or are 
currently in development that would allow for two-way mobile communications in the 12.2 GHz band; whether standards have been set related to such technologies; whether there are any inter national 
agreements on a band plan or air interface for the 12.2  GHz band; and the impact (if any) on international 
rights for U.S. -licensed systems that might be affected as a result of the U.S. providing for expanded 
shared use of the band.
37  Comments were due May 7, 2021, reply comments were due July 7, 2021, and 
interested parties have added many ex parte filings to the rulemaking dockets since the comment 
deadlines.38 
14. In response to the 12.2 Notice , several of the MVDDS licensees, and one DBS  provider  
that is also a major MVDDS licensee, contend that 5G terrestrial and incumbent services can coexist in 
the band, the other DBS provider and the NGSO FSS commenters contend that such coexistence is not 
yet technically feasible.  Multiple technical analyses were submitted into the record that purport to model 
the potential interference between a new 5G mobile terrestrial service and incumbent satellite services in the band.
39  These models rely on various technical assumptio ns about which the parties greatly  disagree.   
(Continued from previous page)   
Legislative Affairs, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, at 4 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) 
(DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte ) (stating that “since the 2016 studies, developments in the satellite industry indicate 
that NGSO FSS constellations possess geostationary -like functions and properties that could prove more compatibl e 
with 5G services in the 12 GHz Band than the last -generation NGSO earth stations.”).  
35 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2 . 
36 See, e.g. , id.  Additionally, the Commission explained that Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority 
to provide  for flexible use operations only if: “(1)  such use is consistent with international agreements to which the 
United States is a party; and (2) the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that (A) 
such an allocation would be in the public interest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications 
services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use would not result in harmful interference among 
users.”  Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105- 33, 111 Stat 251, 268- 69 sec. 3005 Flexible Use of 
Electromagnetic Spectrum (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)).  See also 47 CFR §§  2.106, 27.2, 27.3.  
37 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd  at 616, para. 21 , n.67  (citing  Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite 
Policy, S paceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary , FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Attach. A, Questions Necessary to 
Balance the 12 GHz NPRM , at 3 -4 (filed Jan. 6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte )).   
38 See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, et al. , WT Docket No. 20 -443, et. al, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 
6534 (WTB 2021); Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, et. al. , WT Docket No. 20 -443, et. al., 
Order, 36 FCC Rcd 9531 (WTB 2021); see generally WT Docket No. 20 -443 and GN Docket 17 -183. 
39 RS Ac cess Comment, Appendix A, Assessment of Feasibility of Coexistence between NGSO FSS Earth Stations 
and 5G Operations in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, at 6 (filed May 7, 2021) ( RS Access Comment RKF Study I) ; Letter 
from Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Attach. A, 
The Effect of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink Operations in the 12.2 -12.7 GHz Band (filed May 19, 2022) 
(RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II); Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director, Satell ite Policy, Space 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
9 15. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial 
mobile service cannot coexist with DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk of 
harmful interference.  We are not persuaded by the  assurances of one of the two nationwide DBS 
providers that DBS will be protected,40 particularly  given that the other nationwide DBS provider raises 
significant concerns.41  We find that the study submitted by the 5G advocates is based on unsupported 
assumptions that undermine its reliability.  As explained below, the 5G proponents have not demonstrated 
that a new 5G service will be able to meet the Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits required to 
protect DBS receivers in the 12.2 GHz band.  Also, we find that the 5G proponents have not adequately 
addressed the issues raised both in the 12.2 Notice  and by commenters regarding the applicability of 
burden-shifting protection obligations, lower earth -station elevation angles, power limits, EPFD limits 
and receiver location information.   
16. Further, we also find that ubiquitous two -way mobile broadband 5G service is likely to 
create a significant risk of harmful interference to ubiquitous NGSO FSS operations.  The 5G terrestrial advocates’ analysis rests on  the speculative assumption that 5G and NGSO FSS operations will not be 
geographically near each other (i.e., 5G advocates offer studies that assume NGSO FSS will largely serve 
rural areas, and 5G will serve urban/suburban markets) without pointing to any basis for this assumption.  
We find that this unsupported assumption, which is not in line with current deployment practices and plans, renders the technical studies offered by the 5G advocates unpersuasive, and therefore such studies 
cannot serve as a basis on which to conclude that the public interest would be best served by allowing a new, ubiquitous 5G service into the band at this time.  The Commission specifically asked whether 
geographic sharing could allow higher -power terrestrial operations in cert ain areas, and if so, how such 
geographic sharing should be structured.
42  But apart from studies based on non-binding, hypothetical 
assumptions, we note that 5G proponents did not offer any rules to limit their proposed 5G operations to 
less than all of t he geographic areas authorized by their MVDDS licenses.   
(Continued from previous page)   
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20- 443, Attach. A, SpaceX 
Analysis of the Effect of Terrestrial Mobile Deployment on NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the 
12.2- 12.7 GHz Band ( filed June 21, 2022) (SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis); Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, 
RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Attach. A, Analysis of Starlink 
Submission Regarding the Effect of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS (fi led July 15, 2022) (RS Access July 15, 2022 
RKF Response Study); Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Attach. A, 12 GHz Co -Frequency Interference from Terres trial 
Mobile into DBS (filed July 18, 2022) (DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis); Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, 
Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Annex, Monte Carlo Analyses of the Potential Impact of an Expanded Terrestrial 
Service on NGSO FSS Systems in the 12 GHz Band (filed July 11, 2022) (OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses); Letter 
from David Goldman , Senior Director, Satellite Policy , Space Exploration Te chnologies Corp. , to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Exh. A, Evaluation of SpaceX Study Related to 12 GHz 
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into Starlink (filed Oct. 4, 2022) (SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report).  
40 DISH states tha t the presence of higher -power two -way mobile and fixed services at 12 GHz are possible and 
fully consistent with protecting DBS in the band .  See DISH Comment at 1.  
41 AT&T has argued on behalf of DirecTV that RKF has not established that expanded terrestr ial mobile operations 
could be added without causing harmful interference to DBS operations – a service which RKF’s Study completely 
ignores, and a factor which alone, it argues, should nullify the study.  See AT&T Reply at 14.  AT&T asserts 
exclusion and/ or coordination zones are neither practical nor feasible in the 12 GHz band as a means of protecting 
DBS because millions of DBS receivers are spread throughout the U.S. and are constantly being added, moved, or 
relocated .  See id.  at 26.  AT&T states its concerns are not lessened just because DISH is not concerned about the 
possibility of harmful interference posed by terrestrial mobile operations.  See id. at 22.    
42 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
10 1. 5G Interference to DBS  
17. As a threshold matter, we find that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot 
coexist with DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk of  harmful interference.  
As noted above, pursuant to the Table of Allocations, both terrestrial and NGSO FSS services are 
obligated to protect DBS from harmful interference.43  The Commission has long recognized the public 
interest benefits that incumbent DBS services provide to millions of subscribers, and has required the 
other co -primary services in 12.2 GHz band to operate on a non- harmful interference basis with respect to 
DBS.44  Congress , too, sought to ensure that DBS would not be subject to harmful interference from any 
new terrestrial service by requiring that the Commission “provide for an independent technical 
demonstration of any terrestrial service technology proposed by any entity that has filed an application to 
provide terrestrial service in the direct broadcast satellite frequency band to determine whether the terrestrial service technology proposed to be provided by that entity will cause harmful interference to any 
direct broadcast satellite service.”
45  The Commission ultimately adopted rules for MVDDS based on the 
extensive record of a multi -year rulemaking proceeding,46 which included the statutory mandates to avoid 
harmful interference to DBS47 and an independent analysis48 of potential MVDDS interference to DBS.49  
These rules include detailed frequency coordination procedures that require an MVDDS licensee to 
ensure that the EPFD50 from a proposed transmitting antenna does not exceed the applicable EPFD limit51 
at any DBS receiving antenna of a “customer of record.”52  The MVDDS rules also include other 
limitations on signal emissions, transmitter power levels, and transmitter locations.53  When an MVDDS 
 
43 See supra  para. 4. 
44 See generally MVDDS Second Report and Order.    
45 See Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services , Pub. L. No. 106 -553, App. B. Title. X,  
§ 1012, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A -128, 2762A -141 (2000) ( LOCAL TV Act § 1012 ); see also  Rural Local Broadcast 
Signal Act, Pub. L. No. 106 -113, App. I., Title II, § 2002, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A -544 (1999).   In December 2018, 
however, this provision the LOCAL TV  Act was stricken. P ub. L. 106- 553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265- 66 sec. 1012 
Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, stricken by  Pub. L. 115- 334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-
78 sec. 6603 Amendments to Local TV Act.  
46 See ET Docket No. 98 -206.    
47 See LOCAL TV Act  § 1012(a) .   
48 Id.   
49 See, e.g.,  MVDDS  Second R eport and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9635 , para.  56 (citing MITRE Corporation, 
“Analysis of Potential MVDDS Interference to DBS in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band” (Apr. 18, 2001) ( MITRE Report )).   
50 The EPFD is the power flux density produced at a DBS receive earth station, taking into account shielding effects 
and the off -axis discrimination of the receiving antenna assumed to be pointing at the appropriate DBS satellite(s) 
from the transmitt ing antenna of a MVDDS transmit station.  See 47 CFR  § 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).  
51 The Commission established different EPFD limits in four regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR §  101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), 
mainly due to differences in rainfall in each region.  See, e.g. , MVDDS Second Report and Order , 17 FCC Rcd at 
9691 , para.  197.   
52 See 47 CFR § 101.105(a)(4)(ii) (referencing the procedures listed in 47 CFR  § 101.1440).  Among other things, an 
MVDDS licensee must conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transm itting antenna site to determine the 
location of all DBS customers of record that may potentially be affected by the introduction of its MVDDS service 
and must coordinate with DBS.  See 47 CFR  § 101.1440(a) -(d).   
53 See, e.g. , MVDDS  Second R eport and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9634 -9664,  paras.  53-125; 9690 -9695 , paras. 196-
209; 47 CFR §§  25.139 (NGSO FSS coordination and information sharing between MVDDS licensees in the 12.2 
GHz to 12.7 GHz band); 25.208(k); 101. 103; 101.105; 101.111; 101.113; 101.129; 101. 1409; 101.1440.  Notably, 
the rules limit the EIRP for MVDDS stations to 14 dBm per 24 megahertz.  See 47 CFR  §§ 101.113(a) note 11; 
101.147(p).  In the MVDDS  Second Report and Order, the Commission explained that  
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
11 licensee proposes a new station, coordination with DBS is necessary to  demonstrate that the relevant 
EPFD limit will not be exceeded at the DBS antenna of any DBS subscriber of record.54  Once an 
MVDDS station has been successfully coordinated, however, the burden to ensure that DBS subscribers 
do not suffer interference fro m that MVDDS station shifts to the DBS operator —immediately for new 
subscribers55 and after one year for customers of record.56  The FCC determined that shifting this burden 
to DBS from MVDDS —only after successful coordination by the MVDDS operator in the first 
instance— was reasonable in light of the one -way, relatively low -power limit on MVDDS.   In doing so, 
the Commission did not alter its previous finding that allowing two -way MVDDS operations in the band 
“would unnecessarily complicate the sharing scenario” and “significantly raise the potential for instances of interference among the operations” sharing the band.
57   
18. In its 2016 Petition  for Rulemaking, the MVDDS 5G Coalition proposed that a new 5G 
mobile terrestrial service could also share with existing DBS in the 12.2 GHz band.58  The Coalition 
provided two Coexistence studies that —through careful selection of mobile deployment areas, 
adjustments to radio  frequency design parameters, use of geographic separation, clutter  loss, and 
transmitter power constraints on terrestrial operations—purported to show  that sharing with DBS would 
be possible .59  In the first Coexistence Study, which studied three potential 5G use cases including point -
to-point communications, mobile broadband, and indoor mobile use, the Coalition asserted that these 
potential uses could be engineered such that terrestrial users would not exceed the existing EPFD limit for 
MVDDS.60  In its subsequent Coexistence 2 study, the Coalition studied a different building environment 
(Continued from previous page)   
placing a limit on MVDDS EIRP will ensure  that DBS entities are not unduly hindered in their ability to 
acquire customers in areas in close proximity to MVDDS transmit facilities.  Thus, we are not permitting 
higher powers over areas containing mountain ridges or over presently unpopulated regions because the higher power may cause too great of an exclusion zone for future DBS and NGSO FSS subscribers.  We 
recognize that a higher power benefit for MVDDS providers would not offset the potential constraints 
placed on other service subscribers in the  12 GHz band.  MVDDS Second Report and Order , 17 FCC Rcd at 
9691 -92, para.198.  
See also  id. at 9653, para. 88 (discussing the EIRP limit as a factor in adopting DBS mitigation obligations because 
“this power limit will not inhibit the introduction of new DBS customers [near] the MVDDS transmitting system, i.e., later -installed DBS receive antennas can be properly sited and shielded from the MVDDS signal”).  
54 “DBS customers of record are those who had their DBS receive antennas installed prior to or within t he 30 day 
period after notification to the DBS operator by the MVDDS licensee of the proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site.” 47 CFR § 101.1440(a).     
55 “DBS licensees are responsible for providing information they deem necessary for those entities who install all 
future DBS receive antennas  on its system to take into account the presence of MVDDS operations so that these 
DBS receive antennas can be located in such a way as to avoid the MVDDS signal.  These later installed DBS 
receive antennas shall have  no further rights of complaint against the notified MVDDS transmitting antenna(s).”  
47 CFR § 101.1440(e).  
56 Once the new MVDDS station is coordinated and begins operating, the MVDDS licensee must satisfy all 
complaints of interference to DBS customers of record received during a one -year period.  47 CFR § 101.1440(g).  
57 MVDDS Second  Report and Order, 17 FCC  Rcd at 9668, para. 137.   
58 See supra  note 9. 
59 See, e.g. , Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs , DISH, to 
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, at 3 (filed Sept. 22, 2020) ( DISH Sept. 22, 2020 Letter).  
See also  Coexistence 1  at 35 (finding that “coexistence between MVDDS 5G operations and DBS receivers is 
possible with modest adjustments to MVDDS site locations and radiofrequency design parameters”); Coexistence 2 (revalidating the original coexistence study in different topological use -cases); Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition for 
Petition to  Deny, WT Docket No. 10 -112, Exh. 1 , MVDDS 12 .2‐12.7 GHz NGSO Coexistence Study (filed Aug. 
15, 2016 ), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1
 (Coexistence 3  Aug. 15, 2016  Study).  
60 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4 -6.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
12 to show that even in a “more challenging” sharing environment, a new 5G service could protect DBS up 
to the level it “enjoys today from MVDDS licensees.”61  In the 12.2 Notice , the Commission sought 
comment on whether the approach proposed by the MVDDS 5G Coalition in the 2016 Coexistence 
studies was feasible and the costs and benefits of such an approach.62  The Commission sought comment 
on whether, and to what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s proposals to license two -way, mobile 
operations in the band, and to eliminate the EIRP limit, would substantially redefine the scope of DBS operators’ obligations and potential burdens under the current regime.
63  Additionally, the Commissio n 
asked how other factors— such as geographic separation, transmitter power constraints on terrestrial 
operations, and other siting parameters for flexible -use base stations—could minimize the risk of 
interference to DBS users.64 
19. The advocates for a new 5G service in the band  did not directly address the 12.2  Notice  
questions but instead continue d to rely on the 2016 Coexistence studies.   Specifically, DISH stated that 
“the feasibility of sharing between DBS and 5G is demonstrated by two studies commissioned  by the 
MVDDS 5G Coalition and prepared by [ an] expert satellite engineer .”65  Similarly, RS Access stated that , 
“the coexistence studies submitted in the petition for rulemaking proceeding demonstrated that 
coexistence between DBS and terrestrial 5G is possible, even under a worst -case scenario .”66 
20. Opponents of the Coalition’s proposals responded to the 12.2 Notice  by criticizing the 
Coexistence studies.  AT&T, which owned DIRECTV, the only current DBS operator that does not hold 
MVDDS licenses, argued tha t the 2016 Coexistence studies, “ too narrowly and simplistically defined the 
areas in which a DBS receiver could establish a direct line-of -sight path with DBS satellite orbital 
locations. ”67  Moreover, AT&T argued that  “these studies made inaccurate baseline assumptions 
regarding the nature of deployments and relied upon cherry-picked use cases that are not representative of real-world deployments. ”
68  Subsequently, DIRECTV , which AT&T spun off in 2021,69 argued that the 
2016 Coexistence studies are “ outdated or irrelevant, and thus do not accurately reflect the characteristics 
of either a ubiquitous, modern, high- power terrestrial mobile service or DIRECTV’s DBS service. ”70  
Moreover, SAVID LLC  (SAVID), an engineering firm that  DIRECTV hired to analyze 5G -DBS 
coexistence, found that, even if it made favorable assumptions of the terrestrial mobile systems, 5G 
service in the band would “ cause extensive harmful interference to DIRECTV receivers, exceeding the 
limits currently in place to protect DBS customers by a factor of 100 to 100,000 over areas extending well beyond the intended coverage area of the mobile base stations. ”
71 
21. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial 
mobile service canno t coexist with DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk of 
 
61 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply at 8 -9. 
62 See 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd  at 616- 617, para. 24.  
63 See 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd  at 616, para. 23.  
64 See 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.  
65 DISH Comment at 3.  
66 RS Access Comment at 45.  
67 AT&T Reply at 11.  
68 AT&T Comment at 8.  
69 See AT&T, AT&T & TPG Close DIRECTV Transaction  (Aug. 2, 2021), https://about.att.com/story/2021/  
att_directv.html; AT&T, A T&T Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV  (July 24, 2015), 
https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_acquisition_of_directv.html .  
70 DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.  
71 DIRECTV July 18, 202 2 DBS Analysis at 1.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
13 harmful interference to the DBS operations.  In particular, 5G advocates have not shown how such new 
mobile operations could meet or exceed the metric upon which the Commission based regional EPFD 
limits (ranging from −172.1 to −168.4 dBW/m2/4kHz) that the FCC adopted to protect DBS from a fixed, 
lower power MVDDS service at every existing DBS  subscriber’s dish.  In addition, because MVDDS is a 
fixed service, the rules were able to take advantage of the discrimination between southern facing DBS 
antennas and MVDDS antennas; a mobile service does not provide for such accommodations and results 
in a much more challenging interference environment than MVDDS.  Moreover, to me et the existing 
EPFD limits, it appears that a mobile terrestrial service would need to be restricted to such low power 
levels that it is unlikely that any given base station could provide substantial geographic coverage or 
significant 5G service.72  Accor ding to the Coexistence 1 study, 5G services could meet these EPFD 
limits only when using “newly available spectrum planning tools, and careful engineering of MVDDS 
systems” to isolate them from DBS receivers, either through geographic separation or terrai n blocking.73  
Given the careful and exacting engineering that would be needed to meet these conditions, it is not 
apparent that terrestrial mobile systems, if installed, could be expanded by adding new base station 
locations in the future to meet increase d consumer demands without significantly impacting DBS service.  
It is not reasonable to assume that ubiquitous two -way 5G mobile terrestrial service would meet these 
conditions consistently with respect to ubiquitous DBS which serves millions of customers  in all areas of 
the United States where the location of 5G mobile units could be anywhere in the operator’s service area, 
including right next to the DBS antenna.74   
22. When DIRECTV commissioned a study from SAVID using what it deemed more 
reasonable assump tions than those of the 5G advocates, that study found that at power levels of 69 
dBm/100 MHz75 “mobile operations in the band would cause extensive and harmful interference to 
DIRECTV receivers.”76  DISH raises several criticisms of the SAVID study,77 but even the MVDDS 5G 
Coalition’s own study found that at 48 dBm/100 MHz in certain small areas actual harmful interference 
could occur if a DBS receive antenna were present .78  We note that the power levels used in the 
Coexistence studies are substantially l ower than the 62 dBm/MHz (82 dBm/100 MHz) generally 
permitted in most other terrestrial mobile bands which operate at lower frequencies with more favorable 
propagation characteristics and even less than the maximum 47 dBm/10 MHz (57 dBm/100 MHz) 
 
72 See, e.g. , DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6.  Largely to protect DBS receivers installed after an 
MVDDS transmitter is successfully coordinated with DBS, the MVDDS transmit power limit is 14 dBm/24 MHz 
(or 20 dBm/100 MHz).  By  comparison, the 2016 MVDDS 5G Coalition coexistence study assumed two -way 
terrestrial operations at 48  dBm/100 MHz, and the most recent RKF Study assumed a new 5G system would operate 
at 65 dBm/100 MHz, however, 5G advocates have not proposed any rules re garding power limits that they would 
deem reasonable to provide 5G service while still protecting incumbent DBS subscribers.  We note that a 28- 45dB 
higher transmit power for the proposed 5G service would make meeting the regional EPFD limits to existing D BS 
subscribers much more challenging and would significantly increase the burden on DBS operators to protect new or modified DBS subscriber receivers.   
73 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4 -6. 
74 See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis a t 1 (the assumptions made by the Coexistence Studies “do not 
accurately reflect the characteristics of either an ubiquitous, modern, high -power terrestrial mobile service or 
DIRECTV’s DBS service.” ). 
75 The base station EIRP is 75 dBm/100 MHz but the base s tation EIRP density is reduced by the base station TDD 
activity factor of  75% to 69dBm/100 MHz.  See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 4 -5. 
76 DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.  
77 See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to Marlene  H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 
20-443, at 2-3 (filed August 8, 2022) (DISH Aug. 8, 2022 Letter).  Among other things, DISH questioned SAVID’s 
assumptions about 5G transmit power and DBS dish location; its decision to “ignore” the potential for h orizon 
nulling and time variability; and its failure to use LIDAR data to accurately account for clutter loss.  Id. at 2-3.  
78 Coexistence 1 at 21.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
14 permitted in the CBRS service designed specifically for small cell coverage.  While the Coexistence 
studies and the SAVID study do not reach identical conclusions due to differing assumptions, collectively 
they illustrate that two -way mobile terrestrial 5G operation s could not ubiquitously meet the regional 
EPFD limits that the FCC adopted to protect DBS.  As DBS receivers may be located anywhere (and can 
be either roof -mounted or installed on the ground), and as the Coalition’s own Coexistence studies shows 
the pote ntial for harmful interference from 5G into DBS in some instances, we find that a new 5G service 
cannot adequately protect incumbent DBS operators in the band from a significant risk of harmful interference.  Moreover, we note that DISH and other 5G advocates have not proposed or agreed to rules 
or limits on 5G operations (such as horizon nulling) that DISH suggests might reduce some risk of 
harmful interference into DBS.  However, even if the 5G advocates agreed to use advanced techniques for 
interference mitigation, that would not solve the underlying problem that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial 
service poses a significant risk of harmful interference to DBS given the ubiquitous nature of both the existing DBS service and the proposed 5G service.   
23. The 5G advocates do not address the increased coordination and DBS interference 
mitigation burdens that would be placed on D IRECTV and its tens of millions of subscribers if we were 
to permit mobile 5G operations in the 12.2 GHz band .
79  The original Coexistence study propos ed to 
eliminate the MVDDS EIRP limit as duplicative of the EPFD limits , suggesting that keeping terrestrial 
signals below the applicable EPFD limit at all DBS antenna locations generally could avoid harmful 
interference to existing DBS subscribers regardless of the EIRP or whether the terrestrial operations were 
fixed or mobile, or one - or two -way.80  However , the proposal to eliminate the EIRP limit would 
substantially redefine the scope of the burden on  DBS  operators, particularly for the deployment of 
additional DBS antennas in the future .  While the current rules place the burden to ensure that new DBS 
subscrib ers do not suffer interference from previously coordinated MVDDS stations on DBS operators,  
we are not convinced that similarly shifting this burden from 5G to DBS, going forward, would be 
reasonable because protecting DBS receivers installed in the future from previously coordinated higher -
power, two -way, 5G base and mobile stations would be significantly more burdensome —and in some 
scenarios impossible—than protecting new DBS receivers from previously coordinated, one -way, low-
power, fixed MVDDS transmitt ers.  Due to the mobile nature of the proposed 5G service, the location of 
devices cannot be determined and therefore cannot be avoided through coordination.  Also, a two-way service requires the DBS operator to consider both incoming and outgoing signals.   Finally, at higher 
powers, even using advanced techniques, a DBS receiver might not be able to coordinate operation near a 
5G base station.   
24. Additionally, given that all DBS earth stations look toward the southern sky for 
communication with geostationar y orbit (GSO) space  stations orbiting at the equatorial plane, and given 
that high -gain antennas are necessary for base stations, the 12.2 Notice  sought comment on whether base 
station location or antenna orientation can be adjusted to provide greater prot ection to DBS earth 
 
79 See Letter from Michael P. Goggin, Assistant Vice President – Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, Appx. A, AT&T Response to the MVDDS 5G Coalition Technical 
Studies, at 4 (filed June 14, 2018) (AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte ) (arguing that eliminating the EIRP limit would 
render the EPFD analysis impossible to mo del and have the effect of shifting the burden of interference mitigation 
from MVDDS licensees to DBS licensees because the EIRP limits were established specifically to mitigate the 
potential impact of MVDDS operations on future DBS customers).  
80 See MVDD S 5G Coal ition Petition at 19 ; MVDDS 5G Coalition Comments at 6,  n.21 (citing Coexistence 1 at 4).  
AT&T had argued that there may be potential statutory issues including whether proposed two -way, mobile use of 
the band would require an independent technical analysis showing that DBS would be protected.  AT&T Opposition 
at 2, n.4 (citing Section 1012 of the LOCAL TV Act).  In December 2018, however, this provision of the LOCAL 
TV Act was stricken.  Pub. L. 106- 553, 114 Stat. 2762 , 265- 66 sec. 1012 Prevention of Interference to Direct 
Broadcast Satellite Services , stricke n by Pub. L. 115- 334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777 -78 sec. 6603  Amendments to Local 
TV Act .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
15 stations.81  The 5G advocates did not address this issue in their comments, replies, or additional studies, 
though DIRECTV, in its SAVID study, pointed out that lower earth -station elevation angles generally 
increase the potential for h armful interference from line -of-sight terrestrial transmitters while higher 
angles generally result in off -axis attenuation.82  5G terrestrial advocates did not address how DBS 
subscribers in the far northern U.S. could be protected from 5G interference, given the relatively low 
elevation angles required for subscriber dishes in these regions to point at DBS GSO satellites over the 
equator.  For example, to point a dish in Fairbanks, AK, at a DIRECTV satellite at 95.1° W, an elevation angle of 6.47° is req uired.  Even if the Commission excluded Alaska (as it did in addressing the 3.7 GHz 
band), an elevation angle of 12.21° is required to point a customer’s dish in Bangor, ME, at a DISH 
satellite at 129°W, and an elevation angle of 17.67° is required in Seat tle, WA, to point at a DISH satellite 
at 72.7°W.  That failure of the 5G advocates to acknowledge or address the challenge of adequately 
protecting DBS customers whose location may render them uniquely susceptible to interference from 5G 
adds weight to our  conclusion that the record does not support a finding that 5G can coexist with 
ubiquitous DBS dishes.   
25. RS Access and DISH contend that concerns about interference to DBS should be given 
little weight because DISH is one of the country’s two DBS providers  and one of the advocates of a new 
5G terrestrial service in the band.  As such, RS Access and DISH state, “DISH would not join a proposal 
that endangers its own service to about 14 million households.”
83  Admittedly, DISH expresses 
willingness to accept any resultant increase in coordination and DBS interference mitigation burdens in 
return for new authority to use its 82 MVDDS licenses for two-way mobile broadband.84  This is not a 
case, however, where we can conclude—as with DISH’s position as the sole l icensee with respect to both 
services in connection with AWS -4 service—that the concerns about harmful interference are capable of 
resolution by one party.  Here, as previously noted, DISH is not the only DBS provider in the band.85  
DISH’s support for a n ew 5G service in the band does not address the potential for harmful interference to 
DIRECTV’s tens of millions of subscribers.   For instance, we note that DISH and DIRECTV dishes may 
 
81 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 617, para. 25.   
82  See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6 (noting SAVID’s Study assumed that all DBS antennas were 
pointed toward DI RECTV’s central orbital location at 101° W.L. —an assumption that ensures high elevation angles 
and does not, like the Peters Studies, seek out the worst possible angle over the full range of DBS orbital locations 
available); see also DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 3 (noting its deployments were modeled at Orlando, 
FL, which has  high elevation angles to DBS satellites, adding conservatism  to the analysis by tending to reduce 
indicated interference levels) . 
83 MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 4.   
84 AT&T Jun e 14, 2018  Ex Parte  at 5-6 (arguing that because DISH holds MVDDS licenses in most of the major 
markets and has developed an alternative means of video distribution that does not require DBS capabilities, DISH 
may have less incentive to protect DBS operati ons than it once did).  “At a minimum, DISH would now balance the 
impact of the Coalition’s proposals on its existing and future DBS subscriber base against the advantages – arguably 
very profitable ones for existing MVDDS licensees —that would flow to its other services if the request is granted.”  
Id. at 6.  The Coalition responds that “DISH would have never been member of the Coalition if 5G terrestrial mobile 
services posed a meaningful risk of harmful interference to its DBS operations.”  Letter from MVDDS 5G Coalition 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -11768, at 3 -4 (filed Aug. 29, 2018) (MVDDS 5G Coalition 
Aug. 29, 2018 Ex Parte ). 
85 In the 12.2 GHz band, as one of two DBS providers, DISH is in a different position than in the 2000 -2020 and 
2180 -2200 GHz bands, where in 2011 it became the only Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) authorization holder.   See 
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless  Services in the 2000 -2020 MHz and 2180 -2200 MHz Bands , WT Docket 12 -
70, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16109 -16110, para. 14  (2012).   In 
that context, despite concerns that multiple satellite and terrestrial operators could not coexist in the same frequency 
band without interference,  the Commission granted DISH authorization to use the 2 GHz MSS bands for terrestrial 
mobile operations, reasoning that a single operator could manage potential interference between two different 
systems in the band.  See id.  at 16165- 16167,  paras. 164 -168.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
16 not have an equal susceptibility to harmful interference  in any given locale, because their respective 
subscribers may use different types of dishes (e.g., varying in size) aimed at one or several satellites at 
different orbital slots in the GSO arc.   In short, DISH’s DBS system architecture and structure, not to 
mention its m otivations and business plans, may be very different from DIRECTV’s.  Thus, DISH’s lack 
of concern about and/or willingness to work around potential harmful interference from 5G service in the 
band cannot be viewed as probative of the question of likely interference to DBS service.86  
26. Finally , DISH argues that DIRECTV does not use the 12.2 GHz band extensively and 
mostly relies on other spectrum bands to provide service to its customers.  Specifically, DISH claims that 
“[a] review of DIRECTV’s satellites an d orbital slots suggests that DIRECTV has more bandwidth 
outside the 12 GHz band than DISH has in the 12 GHz band.”87  DISH goes on to claim that DIRECTV 
serves its customers mainly using the Ka -band and Reverse Band working Broadcasting-Satellite Service 
payloads on its satellites at 99 °, 101°, and 103°  W.L. slots.88  DIRECTV responds to this claim by 
pointing out that it “continues to rely heavily on the 12 GHz band” for delivery  of its video service to a 
majority of its DBS customers throughout all fifty states, including customers receiving services on 
aircraft, boats and RVs, as well as through set -top boxes.89  The record reflects that DIRECTV continues 
to use the 12.2 GHz band, having deployed a “12 GHz payload on a relatively new T16 satellite at 101° W.L.”
90  Similarly, we find DISH’s arguments about the recent decline of DBS subscribers— both DISH 
and DIRECTV —unavailing.91  Regardless of overall subscription trends, each DBS operator continues to 
add new subscribers that can be located anywhere in the United States, and there continue to be millions 
of existing DBS customers whose service is entitled to protection from harmful interference.   
2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS  
27. We also find that ubiquitous two -way mobile broadband 5G service is likely to create a 
significant risk of harmful interference to ubiquitous and increasing NGSO FSS operations.92  While 
deployment o f NGSO FSS service in the 12.2 GHz band is still developing, terrestrial 5G service in the 
band is hypothetical.  For this reason, the 5G advocates supported their arguments by submitting Monte 
Carlo simulation analyses that attempt to model the coexistence of the  two services.93  However, 5G 
advocates did not then use the assumptions underlying their models as a basis for proposing specific rules that would enable coexistence.  NGSO FSS operators responded by submitting their own Monte Carlo 
analyses which  sought to correct various assumptions they claim to be erroneous.  While the studies 
 
86 See AT&T Reply at 22 (“ the fact that DISH may not worry about harmful interference from terrestrial, mobile, 
flexible -use operations does not lessen AT&T ’s concerns .”). 
87 Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. D ortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -
443, at 1 (filed Apr. 4, 2022); DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.  
88 DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.  
89 Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT  Docket No. 20 -443, at 2 (filed May 3, 2022).  
90 DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 8.  
91 DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 6 -7. 
92 See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses  at 2 (“Regardless of the assumptions made with respect to NGSO FSS and 
two-way terrestrial deployments, ha rmful interference from the proposed terrestrial service will not only exceed the 
existing interference envelope for MVDDS in the 12 GHz band, but will cause additional harmful interference”); 
See also SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2  (“Yet even with …fa vorable assumptions, SpaceX customers could 
expect to experience harmful interference in the 12 GHz band the vast majority of the time, which would essentially 
preclude a consumer -oriented commercial satellite service in the band”).  
93 A Monte Carlo (probab ilistic) analysis is a simulation that uses random sampling and statistical modeling to 
estimate mathematical functions and mimic the operations of complex systems.  RS Access Comment  RKF Study I 
at 3, n.8 (citation omitted) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
17 provided by the opposing sides contain many contradictory assumptions, ultimately they all agree on the 
fundamental point that there will be a significant risk of harmful  interference to NGSO FSS operations 
without some geographic separation between a new two -way mobile broadband 5G service and NGSO 
FSS.  The 5G advocates, however, do not propose to limit such new 5G terrestrial service geographically, nor is it clear how such limitations could be consistent with the nature of the 5G service for which they 
seek authorization.  Neither are the authorizations granted to existing NGSO FSS operators limited to specific geographic areas.  We therefore find it would not be in the public interest to allow for a new 5G 
service in the band as it would cause a significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS where these services are deployed ubiquitously.  
28. Significantly, we note that initially, the MVDDS 5G Coalition (i.e. the petitioners for a 
new 5G service in the 12.2 GHz band) argued that coexistence with NGSO FSS was not possible.  Specifically, the Coexistence stud ies concluded that 5G terrestrial operations and NGSO FSS operations 
could not co- exist in the 12.2 GHz band and t herefore,  the MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition proposed to 
delete or demote the NGSO FSS allocation to a lower regulatory status with respect to 5G.
94  5G 
advocates subsequently shifted their argument to claim that co -existence is possible with the new 
generati on of NGSO FSS systems.95  When the Commission issued the 12.2 Notice  in response to the 
Petition, it noted the public interest in protecting the significant investments made by NGSO FSS 
operators in the band.  To determine whether NGSO FSS operations coul d coexist with a new 5G service, 
the 12.2 Notice  sought comment on what technical criteria would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS 
from harmful interference from high -powered, two -way mobile operations.96  Specifically, the 12.2 
Notice  asked which maximum p ower levels could be granted to new terrestrial operations with in a 
framework of service-rule sharing that would still protect incumbents from harmful interference .97  The 
12.2 Notice  further inquired as to whether applying the existing MVDDS interference criteria98 to new 
terrestrial systems would be sufficient  to protect NGSO FSS operations.99  Notably, it specifically 
inquired about whether subscribers of satellite services were typ ically located in more rural areas, the 
propagation characteristics and cell coverage areas that could be expected from 5G base stations in the 
band, and whether smaller -sized cells could mitigate potential interference from terrestrial services into 
DBS and NGSO FSS services.100  
29. In response to the questions raised in the 12.2 Notice , RS Access commissioned RKF, a 
systems engineering firm, to conduct a nationwide simulation of how NGSO FSS and terrestrial 5G 
systems might interact.101  Ultimately, RKF provided two studies, both probabilistic Monte Carlo analyses 
meant to show that terrestrial 5G can coexist with NGSO FSS.  In its first  study, submitted in May 2021, 
 
94 The earlier MVDDS 5G Coaliti on studies found “MVDDS and NGSO [FSS] cannot effectively share the [12] 
GHz band, either under the current rules or under any new rules that may be added in response to the Coalition’s 
petition.”  See Coexistence  3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study at 18.  
95 See supra  paras . 6-7 for a discussion of NGS O FSS systems authorized by the Commission in recent years.  
96 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 619 -620, para. 30. 
97  See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 42.  
98 See 47 CFR §§ 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p) .  See also 47 CFR § § 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limi ting the PFD level 
beyond 3 km from an MVDDS station to −135 dBW/m2 in any 4 kHz  measured and/or calculated at the surface of 
the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any qualifying NGSO 
FSS receiver absent mutual agreement of the licensees).  
99 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd  at 619- 620, para. 30.  
100 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.  
101 RS Access Comment at 33.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
18 RKF used  the 406 P artial Economic Area (PEA) geographic license areas102 in the contiguous United 
States (“CONUS”) to define where the 5G network will be deployed, and broke these into urban, 
suburban, and rural based on their population density thresholds.103  Because the May 2021 RKF Monte 
Carlo analysis assumed the new 12.2 GHz terrestrial 5G service was likely to be deployed in the most 
densely populated areas with high demand for broadband service, RKF modeled deployment of 5G in 
census tracts with a population density greater than 7,500 people per square mile in each PEA.  It 
explained, however, that if deployment in these “urban” density census tracts did not result in deployment 
to areas that encompassed 10% of a market’s population, it added the most densely populated census 
tracts in each PEA until the area of deploymen t covered 10% of the market population.104  RKF’s 
terrestrial model assumed a 5G network of 49,997 terrestrial macro -cell base stations, 105 89,970 fixed 
small -cell base stations,106 1,949,760 simultaneously active mobile devices107 and 6,999 point -to-point 
backhaul links across CONUS.108 
30. RKF then modeled the distribution of only SpaceX’s NGSO FSS satellite terminals, 
although there are multiple NGSO FSS operators in the band.  RKF’s satellite model assumed SpaceX 
would deploy 2,500,000 satellite user terminals in both urban and rural areas,109 but for this model, it used 
a different definition of rural and urban areas than it did for modeling terrestrial 5G operations.110  RKF 
assumed the majority of NGSO FSS systems, or 1.6 5 million Starlink user terminals , would be dropped in 
random locations in non-metropolitan Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ( RDOF ) blocks111 either won by 
 
102 See Wireless Telecommunications  Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas , GN Docket No. 12 -268, 
Public Notice , 29 FCC Rcd 6491 (2014) . 
103 Urban has a population more than 7,500, suburban between 7,500 and 600, and rural fewer than 600.  RS Access 
Comment  RKF Study I at 6.  
104 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 26 -27. 
105 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 13. Macro cells were deployed by multiplying the capped total of almost 
50,000 macro cells by the ratio of the high population density area in a given PEA divided by the total such 
population in 12.2 GHz eligible areas in all PEAS – i.e., each PEA got a percentage of Macro -cell base stations 
equal to its proportion of the high population density areas across CONUS.  Id. at 31.  The model deployed Macro -
cell base stations in three consecutive waves of decreasing inter site distances between them ranging from 500 meters to 200 meters between base stations for urban areas and 1732 meters between base stations for rural areas.   
Id. at 32.  
106 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 34.  Small cell base stations were deployed in the same manner as the 
macro cell base stations but with smaller distances between these and other small -cell base stations and or macro -
cell base stations.   See id. at 34 -35.   
107 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 38.  The mobile devices were dropped uniformly but randomly within the 
base stations’ coverage areas, and 80% of the mobile devices were assigned as indoor and 20% as outdoor.  Id. at 37.  
Outdoor  mobile devices were assumed to have a height above ground level (HAGL) of 1.5m.  Id. at 37.  
108 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 39 .  The Study estimated that there were a total of 2,500 macro -cell base 
stations and 4,499 small -cell base stations without  fiber access and required microwave backhaul via the 12.2 GHz 
band, for a total of 6,999 links.  See id. at 39.  The Study assumed that in 2025, less than 5% of the cell -sites will use 
microwave backhaul in the 7 GHz to 40 GHz band and hence it distribute d such use so that 5% of rural macro- cell 
base stations, 5% of other macro -cell base stations and 5% of small -cell base stations all use microwave backhaul.  
See id.  at 38 -39. 
109 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 16-17. 
110 Compare RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 6 with id.  at 8.  RKF adopted the Census Bureau’s definition of 
metropolitan areas as “urban areas” which include both cities and surrounding suburbs and it assumed and weighted deployment of satellite terminals to whatever was not metropolitan but in stead a “rural” area.  RS Access Comment 
RKF Study I at 8.  
111 RDOF blocks are census blocks made available by the Commission’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction 
where no provider is offering, or has committed to offer service of at least 25/3 Mbps .  See FCC, Rural Digital 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
19 Starlink or won by another bidder,112 and that the remaining 850,000 Starlink terminals would be 
deployed in non-RDOF but also ‘rural areas.’113  Starlink terminals were allowed to be within 5 meters of 
5G base stations, and the possibility technically exists that RKF’s modeling could place NGSO FSS user 
terminals near 5G terrestrial base stations.114  However, such proximity appears unlikely because the 
study endeavored to separate terrestrial 5G and satellite equipment.   
31. In RKF’s study, the potential for harmful interference to NGSO FSS from multiple 
elements of 5G systems is aggregated.115  With res pect to each of the NGSO FSS terminals  modeled, RKF 
computed the aggregate interference power from all 5G emitters within 50 km, and compared the result to 
the interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) threshold to determine  the extent  to which the threshold would be 
(Continued from previous page)   
Opportunity Fund Auction Information, Fact Sheet, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904#:~:text=The%20Rural%20  
Digital%20Opportunity%20Fund%20will%20ensure%20that%20networks%20stand,applications%20as%20well%2
0as%20today's.   
112 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 17.  RKF states that for purposes of this analysis, the study assumes that 
SpaceX would have a penetration r ate of 60% in non- metropolitan RDOF areas (or 327,511 terminals) in which they 
won funding.   Id.  Likewise, the study assumes a 30% penetration rate in non -metropolitan RDOF areas (or 1.3 
million Starlink terminals) where another auction participant won fu nding.  Id.  For those metropolitan RDOF areas 
that SpaceX won, the study assumes a penetration rate of 15%, which amounts to an assumed 14,600 total Starlink terminals.  Id.  These assumptions, along with metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX did not win, r esulted in an 
assumed 1.65 million Starlink terminal deployments.   Id. 
113 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18.  In this case of NGSO FSS terminals dropped over “non- RDOF” rural 
areas, ‘rural’ is defined for NGSO FSS operations the same as for 5G terrestrial deployments – less than 600 people 
per square mile.  Id. at 17.  NGSO FSS terminals are placed using the GPW population density database  in 
proportion to the population density in more populous rural areas, which is similar to how the model sites 12 GHz terrestrial base stations.   Id.  In other words, the model’s siting methodology for Starlink terminals in non- RDOF 
regions is more likely to place terminals in the more populous census  tracts in rural areas, where they are deployed 
in proportion to the population therein using a population density database similar to the method used for siting terrestrial 5G equipment .  Id. at 17 -18, n.39.  
114 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18.  5G terrestrial base stations and NGSO  FSS user terminals could be near 
each other, for example if the latter were placed in ‘non- urban’ areas from a Census Bureau perspective but if these 
areas still had populations g reater than 7,500 persons and were “urban” under RKF’s standards and therefore also 
receiving terrestrial 5G equipment.  Id. at 11.  
115 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 13.  Each macro -cell base station beamforms a narrow beam toward each 
mobile device, and 5G transmissions are assumed to operate in time -division -duplex (TDD) mode with all the base 
stations coordinated such that uplink and downlink transmissions are synchronized.  Id.  The s tudy assumes 5G 
backhaul operates in frequency- division -duplex (FDD) mode, and both uplink and downlink paths transmit 
continuously.  Id.  The base station antenna has 256 elements with a peak gain of 27.7 dBi which beamforms toward 
each mobile device but is constrained by the minimum antenna down tilt levels designed so that the gain directed toward a mobile device at 1.5m HAGL at the edge of coverage of the cell is 10 dB below the peak gain —allowing 
service at the edge of coverage; smalls cells have a peak gain of 15 dBi.  RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 
11.  Starlink terminal selects a random pointing direction from the distribution of simulated pointing directions.  RS 
Access Comment RKF Study I at 13.  Then the aggregate interference from all sim ultaneously active macro base 
station beams and small -cells on the downlink or all active mobile devices on the uplink, as well as the point -to-
point backhaul uplink and downlink transmissions to each of the Starlink terminal receivers within 50 kilometers  is 
computed.  Id.  RKF states the model calculates the emissions from macro -cell base stations as they beamform a 
transmission path toward each mobile device within the coverage area of each base station.  Small -cell emissions are 
also calculated; these emissions are not beamformed to specific mobile devices, but are instead transmitted omnidirectionally with fixed down tilt and nulling.  RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9.  Then the model 
performs two separate aggregate interference power calculatio ns: (1) from all simultaneously active macro base 
station beams, all small cells on the downlink, and all point- to-point backhaul transmissions, which continually 
transmit in FDD mode in both directions; and (2) from all active mobile devices on the uplink  and all point -to-point 
backhaul transmissions.  Id. at 9-10.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
20 exceed ed.116  RKF asserted the objective of the simulation was to model a large number of statistically 
significant interference paths to evaluate the risk of interference to the Starlink terminals.117  Initially, 
RKF found that about 0.888% of Starlink user terminals over CONUS could experience an event that 
exceeded a nominal ITU threshold of - 8.5 dB.118 
32. NGSO FSS operators, especially SpaceX, criticized many of the assumptions underlying 
RKF’s 2021 study.  As a result, in May 2022, RS Access submitted a revised study from RKF that 
modified certain parameters and specific assumptions to respond to the criticism.119  RKF’s revised study 
still relied heavily on geographic separation to find that a new 5G service could avoid causing harmful 
interference to incumbent NGSO FSS operations.   The s tudy still assumed that new 12.2 GHz 5G 
deployment and satellite terminals would have  limited geographic overlap due to RKF’s assessment of 
their respective use-cases— namely, that 12.2  GHz 5G services will be deployed most  heavily  in denser  
population centers, while satellite services are most useful in lower density population centers.120  RKF ’s 
second study modeled the same number of base stations, mobile devices and point -to-point links,121 and 
reached the conclusion that there would be no impact to 99.85% of NGSO  FSS terminals by the terrestrial 
deployment it modeled.  In particular, it asserted its study now found  that only 0.15% of Starlink 
terminals which might hypothetically be deployed in the future throughout CONUS experience d an 
exceedance of the ITU’s I/N threshold of -8.5 dB I/N  from 5G operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz portion of 
the NGSO FSS downlink band.122  RKF asserted that several other factors contributed to the “highly 
favorable environment”  for the coexistence of NGSO FSS and 5G systems, including the large antenna 
discrimination resulting from NGSO FSS antennas pointing with high elevation angle and the 5G base 
stations down tilted; interference mitigation achieved through 5G base station s idelobe suppression and 
antenna nulling toward the horizon; and, relatively localized 5G coverage due to the 12.2 GHz band’s 
propagation characteristics.123   
 
116 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9 -10. 
117 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 10.  
118 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 2.  
119 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II  at 6. 
120 RS Access May 19, 2022 R KF Study II at iii.  
121 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 2 -3. 
122 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25.  RKF asserts that the exceedance threshold of -12.2 dB, suggested 
by some critics, would not materially affect this study’s findings.  Id. at 26.   Furthermore, it noted that any 
exceedance event that might occur would also affect no more than two of the up to eight available 250 -megahertz 
Ku-band NGSO FSS channels at 10.7- 12.7 GHz.  Id. at 5, 25.    
123 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 7.  There  are several additional differences from the May 2021 and 
2022 RKF Studies, albeit RKF emphasized three.  First, whereas in its 2021 Study, RKF assumed Starlink terminals 
would point at satellites with look angles or elevation angels between 55° and 85°, i n response to Starlink criticism, 
it assumes terminals will more frequently employ a lower elevation angle closer to the minimum authorized angle of 
25°.  Id. at 19.  Second, RKF has changed the height above ground level for Starlink terminals from 20% sited at 4.5 
meters and 80% at 1.5 meters, instead to 55% at 4.5 meters and 45% at 1.5 meters, in response to claims by Starlink 
that most users install their terminals “as high as possible.”  Id. at 20.  Third, in response to a Starlin k claim, a 
maximum off -axis antenna gain pattern from an ETSI standard for user terminals is used even though RKF asserts 
no party  expressly  claims  that Starlink  terminals  perform  at this standard and ETSI formulas results in a larger 
assumed off -axis gain , which in turn makes Starlink terminals more prone to exceedance events.  Id. at 21 -22.  Other 
differences between the two studies include changes in the macro -cell and small -cell base station antenna patterns 
used, the peak EIRP of the macro cells decreased from 75 dBm/100 MHz to 65 dBm/100 MHz with gain of 27.7 dBi (small -cell base stations likewise increased their EIRP from 45 to 48 dBm/100 MHz but with an increased gain of 18 
dBi and not 15 dBi which is accomplished through including horizon nulling an d beamforming technologies), and 
the application of end -point clutter loss at the UEs with an HAGL of less than 3m and at small -cell base stations 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
21 33. Both SpaceX and OneWeb submitted Monte Carlo analyses in response to the May 2022 
RKF study commis sioned by RS Access.   SpaceX’s Monte Carlo study modified certain key assumptions 
including basing buildout in an actual SpaceX market area in Las Vegas, Nevada upon its own asserted 
user data,124 and buildout requirement for terrestrial mobile services of 70 percent of population, among 
other assertions.125  SpaceX asserted its study showed an impact from interference from terrestrial mobile 
service that would degrade service to SpaceX’s Starlink broadband terminals operating in the 12.2 GHz 
band more than 77 percent of the time, resulting in full outages 74 percent of the time.126  Furthermore, 
SpaceX stated its study showed the impact of this harmful interference would extend at least 21 km (more 
than 13 miles) from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions even for best -case far -sidelobe -to-
far-sidelobe coupling.127  SpaceX used an antenna receiver pattern based upon the applicable ETSI 
standard (ETSI_EN_303_981 Class B WBES),128 and the SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240 
megahertz channels with 250 megahertz spacing from 10.95-12.7 GHz.129  OneWeb’s study similarly 
concluded that NGSO FSS user terminals cannot be deployed within the coverage area of a suburban macro -cell base station deployment without suffering from very high probability of harmful 
interference.
130 
34. While the analyses submitted by Spa ceX and OneWeb have very little accord with the 
RKF analyses, all of these analyses agree, on some level, on one point: NGSO FSS user terminals will 
suffer harmful interference if they are operating in close proximity to 5G transmissions in the 12.2 GHz 
band.  The RKF analyses come to this conclusion tacitly because rather than providing a calculation of the 
separation distance that would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS terminals from harmful emissions from 
5G transmitters, these RKF analyses simply assume that in most situations 5G and NGSO FSS services 
will not be used by consumers in the same locations.  Specifically, the RKF studies assume that 5G will most likely operate only in denser, more urban markets and NGSO FSS services will most likely serve 
only more rural subscribers.  Satellite operators, and other parties in the record, have provided more 
express analyses than RKF of the potential for harmful interference to NGSO FSS operations from 5G 
operations in close proximity.  For example, Google note d in its reply comments that although RKF’s 
report did not separately present the potential interfering impact of a single UE (handset) located in the 
vicinity of a satellite terminal—because it assumed it was unlikely a handset would be near a satellite terminal —Google’s calculations showed that when such a situation inevitably occurs, harmful 
interference can be expected out to a distance of as much as 0.2 -1 km under realistic propagation 
assumptions, and as far as 3 km under worst -case conditions.
131  For  its part, SpaceX asserted that satellite 
user terminals would be subjected to significant interference whenever located in the line of sight of a 5G base station.  Further, SpaceX states that even for best -case far -sidelobe -to-far-sidelobe coupling, the 
effect of harmful interference (I/N > -12.2dB) between these two operations will extend up to 21.4 km 
(more than 13 miles) from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions.
132  According to SpaceX, its 
(Continued from previous page)   
(typically deployed on poles in the vicinity of buildings), incorporating horizon nulling into macro cell bas e stations.   
Id. at 2.   
124 SpaceX June 21, 2022  Analysis at 3.    
125 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.  
126 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2.  
127 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.  
128 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.  
129 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.  
130 See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 8 -9. 
131 Google Reply at 14.  
132 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11.   SpaceX used RKF’s assumption that the macro base station has an input 
power of 41.3 dBW per 100 MHz per user and that the SpaceX user terminal has a -2 dBi far sidelobe gain and 200 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
22 satellite user terminal is about 16 dB more sensit ive to the interfering signal coming into its far sidelobes 
than the mobile UE is for its desired signal.133  As a result, if a SpaceX user terminal is located in an area 
where a mobile device can receive a signal from the base station, the interfering signal its terminal 
receives will be much stronger than the desired signal received by the user device.134  Because of their 
sensitivity, SpaceX states that even if its satellite terminal antennas are pointing only at high elevation angles so that terrestrial mobile signals are only received at large off -axis angles, interference will be 
overwhelming within the coverage area of a terrestrial base station.
135  SpaceX asserts that RKF 
recognized this point when it admitted that “Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage area typically suffered an exceedance.”
 136   
35. Although RKF did not provide specific analysis of the separation distances necessary to 
protect NGSO FSS user terminals from 5G transmissions, it argued that there would be a natural geographic separation between the two services, based on constraints on the number of user terminals an NGSO FSS system can deploy to one area.  For example, the RKF study asserted that while an NGSO 
FSS licensee can deploy terminals in metropolitan areas, such as New York City  or Los Angeles, satellite 
capacity constraints limit the total number of terminals NGSO FSS licensees can support in any one of 
these densely populated zones.
137  To illustrate this point, RKF has pointed to statements by Starlink’s 
CEO that its service is not well suited to urban areas.138  SpaceX does not directly address RKF’s capacity 
argument but it responds that in the very few areas where RKF does consider terrestrial and NGSO FSS 
systems operating in close proximity, its model finds I/N ratios of 50 dB or more.139  Furthermore, 
SpaceX argues that, by assuming only 1.07 percent of SpaceX user terminals would be deployed in urban 
areas, RKF significantly underestimated the effect of the proposed system on the existing Starlink customers.
140  OneWeb agrees that terrestrial separation of NGSO FSS and 5G terminals is an unrealistic 
assumption, 141 and states that it intends to focus its initial service on enterprise, government, and mobile 
(Continued from previous page)   
K system noise temperature.   SpaceX also assumed that the far sidelobe level of the macro base station is -2.3 dBi.  
RKF assumed a -30 dBi sidelobe performance for macro base stations. And, in its later Monte Carlo simulation , 
SpaceX used the same - 30 dBi sidelobe floor for an individual sector antenna pattern, although SpaceX states this 
value is highly optimistic.  Id.  
133 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.    
134 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.   SpaceX argues that even for a mobile UE with a very modest signal -to-
noise ratio of only 0 dB (i.e., at the UE noise floor) , for the SpaceX user terminal, this mobile signal becomes an 
interferer that is 16 dB above the noise floor of the user terminal (I/N = 16 dB) and completely wipes out the desired 
signal.  Id. 
135 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.    
136 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13 -14 (citing Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. 
Dortch , Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Attach. A, Bringing 5G to the 12GHz Band, at 11 (filed June 1, 
2022)).    
137 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.  
138 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25, n.65 (citing Jon Brodkin, Elon Musk: Starlink latency will b e good 
enough for competitive gaming, Ars  Technica (Mar. 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dUrbbu  (quoting Elon Musk: “The 
challenge for anything that is space -based is that the size of the cell is gigantic … it’s not good for high -density 
situations.  We’ll have some small number of customers in LA.  But we can’t do a lot of customers in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough.” )). 
139 SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 3, n.9 (citing RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II 
at 27 and Fig. 3-3 ). 
140 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.  SpaceX argues its actual distribution as based on the Las Vegas PEA is 
places 17% in urban areas, 37% in suburban areas and 46% in rural areas .  Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
23 network operator customers, which will require connectivity across metropolitan, suburban, and rural 
areas.142 
36. We find that the 5G proponents’ arguments that a ne w 5G service could adequately 
protect NGSO FSS operations from harmful interference rely too heavily on the unsupported assumption that there will be geographic separation between the services.  Neither the FCC’s rules governing NGSO 
FSS operations in the band nor the authorizations that the FCC has granted to NGSO FSS operators place any limitations of the sort assumed by 5G proponents on where these NGSO FSS services may operate.
143  
NGSO FSS systems are not restricted to rural areas; indeed, SpaceX is cur rently authorized to deploy 
satellites throughout CONUS and for an unlimited number of its second-generation user terminals anywhere within the United States.
144  At this time, satellite operators' plans for, and rollout of service 
using, this band are stil l in the early stages, and operators have stated their intentions to serve urban and 
suburban areas.145  Based on the current record, and our experience , we conclude that authorizing 
separate, ubiquitous satellite and terrestrial mobile systems in the same band would be significantly likely 
to result in harmful interference.   Although the technical analyses that 5G advocates submitted made a 
number of hypothetical assumptions about how both a new 5G service and NGSO FSS service would be 
deployed, including 5G operating parameters that could reduce or mitigate interference, 5G proponents 
did not propose or agree to be bound by any specific rules to codify these assumptions.  Given our conclusion that NGSO FSS terminals will experience harmful interference if p laced in close proximity to 
terrestrial 5G deployment, and the lack of apparent disagreement by 5G advocates, we decline to 
authorize a new terrestrial 5G service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.  
37. As noted, the Monte Carlo analyses provided by the 5G advocates incorporate a set of 
assumed operating parameters intended, in addition to geographic separation, to reduce the possibility of 
harmful interference to NGSO FSS user terminals.  These assumptions have become objects of criticism 
from NG SO FSS interests who argue that their adjustment can skew the interference picture away from 
showing the significant risk of harmful interference NGSO FSS systems would suffer.  Below, we discuss 
some of the major disagreements on assumptions the parties h ave raised in the record.  We caution, 
however, that these assumptions do not change our bottom -line decision declining to permit 5G 
operations in the 12.2 GHz band, due to the risks of harmful interference into NGSO FSS user terminals when the two services are in close proximity.  Accordingly, other than in a few instances where we have 
pointed out that certain debates about assumptions may be missing critical information, we decline to 
weigh in concerning the relative merits of particular assumptions.        
(Continued from previous page)   
141 OneWeb has argued that suburban macro -cell base station deployments will result in harmful interference to 
NGSO FSS User Terminals when considering real world deployment scenarios.  Letter from Brian D. Weimer, 
Counsel, OneWeb, to Marl ene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20 -443, Attach. B, 12 GHz NGSO FSS Earth station and 
Terrestrial Study, at 10 (filed Oct.7, 2022).  See also  OneWeb  July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3 (notes omitted) (“The 
principle defect of the [RKF Study attached to Comments of] RS Access] is the assumption of geographical 
separation: that NGSO FSS user terminals will be deployed with a heavy bias towards rural areas whil e mobile base 
stations and devices will be heavily skewed towards urban areas. There is no real world justification for this bias.”).  
142 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3, n.8.  
143 See, e.g.,  Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed -Satellite Service Systems and Related 
Matters , Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017), recon. pending 
(NGSO FSS Report and Order ).   
144 See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC , Application For  Approval for Orbital Deployment  and Operating 
Authority for the  SpaceX NGSO Satellite System , et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization , 33 
FCC Rcd 3391, para. 1 (2018) ; SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 14, n.41 (citing Radio Station Authoriz ation, Call 
Sign E210127 (issued Nov. 10, 2021) ).   
145 See, e.g., supra paras. 6-7.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
24 38. Ignoring Access to Other Bands and Other NGSO Deployments.   The RKF study 
assumed that Starlink is assigned eight 250 MHz channels from 10.7 -12.7 GHz.146  SpaceX argues its 
model did not incorporate use of the 10.7 -10.95 GHz portion of the band due to r egulatory constraints 
imposed to protect Radio Astronomy activity in the adjacent 10.6-10.7 GHz band.147  Accordingly, the 
SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240 MHz channels with 250 MHz spacing from 10.95 -12.7 GHz, 
whereas RKF appears to assume access to all bands.  RS Access argues SpaceX’s failure to incorporate 
the entire 10.7-12.7 GHz range into its cal culations, and its use of only the 12.2- 12.7 band for downlink 
increases the probability of interference exceedance experienced by Starlink terminals by a factor of four.  
RS Access finds this one of the most critical assumptions causing SpaceX’s interference results to differ 
from its own.  Furthermore, SpaceX argues RKF only models SpaceX terminal deployments and omits 
studies of any interference created by deployment of other NGSO FSS operations.148  
39. Height of Fixed Subscriber Antennas.   The height at whi ch users mount their SpaceX 
user terminals has a dramatic effect on the interference to which they are subject —higher placement also 
means that they are more likely to receive more direct interference from mobile  system base stations and 
UEs.149  The May 2021 RKF Study assumed a distribution of NGSO  FSS fixed subscriber terminals more 
heavily weighted toward ground installations —80% of Starlink terminals would have an HAGL at 1.5m, 
and 20% would have an HAGL of 4.5m.  RKF’s May 2022 study modified this assum ption and instead 
assumed that 45% of Starlink terminals would be installed near ground level with an HAGL of 1.5m, and 
55% of Starlink terminals would be installed on rooftops with an HAGL of 4.5m.150  In response, SpaceX 
argued this modification still failed to reflect that the majority of SpaceX’s customers deployed their 
antennas on rooftops to avoid obstructions , which significantly increases the likelihood of an 
unobstructed path for interference from a mobile service base station.151  SpaceX argued its own informal 
customer surveys showed that most consumers mounted their antennas on a roof, and accordingly, 
SpaceX argued that 10% of its user terminals would be deployed at a height of 1.5m and 90% would be 
deployed at a height of 4.5m.152  OneWeb agrees most NGSO FSS user terminals are expected to be 
deployed on rooftops and that such installation practices are consistent with decades of satellite 
infrastructure deployments.153 
40. Number of Macro Cells Deployed.   RKF’s May 2022 study models 49,997 5G macro 
base stations throughout CONUS, distributed in the most densely populated areas of each PEA, 
comprising at least 10% of the population of the PEA.154  SpaceX has criticized RKF’s 10% coverage,  
contending that R KF’s 10% minimum buildout assumption falls far below the 70% to 80% population 
coverage requirement the Commission has routinely applied to other recently allocated flexible use 
spectrum, and it asserts the lower percentage buildout results in less interference, thus skewing the results 
of RKF’s study.155  SpaceX assumed 3,215 macro base stations in the Las Vegas market in its study,156 
 
146 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 11.  Thus, a “fully loaded” 12 GHz sector can serve a maximum of 20 
mobile devices  simultaneously.   Id. 
147 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.  
148 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4. 
149 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 7. 
150 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 20.  
151 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.  
152 SpaceX June 21, 2022  Analysis at 8.  
153 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5.  
154 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 9.   
155 SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 2.  SpaceX has argued RKF’s 10% buildout is also 
inconsistent with the economic study submitted by terrestrial mobile proponents, which "assume the terrestrial 
mobile operations in the 12GHz band will be available ubiquitously"[...]and is also inconsistent with the public 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
25 which RKF criticized as being a vast overestimation of typical 5G deployment.157  However, SAVID,  
which SpaceX hired to review the RKF studies, later argued that the number of macro base stations 
assumed in the SpaceX analysis did not have a material impact on the interference analysis results.158  We 
note that looking at the UMFUS requirements for bands such as 24 GHz and above,  licensees may fulfill 
their performance requirements in various ways, including providing mobile service to 40% of the 
population of the license area or by demonstrating coverage of at least 25% of their license’s geographic area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or receiving on the licensed spectrum in at 
least 25% of census tracts within the license area.
159  Accordingly, the relevant percentage buildout that 
would be required at 12 GHz may be different than either side’s assumptions.160  
41. Technical Advancements.  SpaceX argues that the RKF studies incorporated unreasonable 
technical advancements into their models of 5G handsets, lowering the estimated interference received.  
For example, the May 2022 RKF study incorporated horizon nullin g into the performance of 5G macro -
cell base stations whereby 5G antennas can null the gain pattern at the horizon at all azimuth angles to 
mitigate ground-based interference to NGSO FSS terminals.161  SpaceX argued “[this] is a neat trick when 
the terrestr ial operator does not know where the NGSO FSS antennas are located.”162   
(Continued from previous page)   
interests claimed by members of its coalition that mobile services in 12 GHz band be required to serve rural 
customers, left be hind by other 5G deployments."  SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11 (notes omitted).  
156 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 15 . 
157 See RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response Study at 9- 10 (“If a 5G operator sought to meet Starlink’s 
assumptions and built -out a na tionwide 5G network that scaled the 540 POPs per cell Starlink modeled, the operator 
would have to deploy 610,000 base stations.  By contrast, AT&T  uses approximately 75,000 towers…to support a fully nationwide network….”).  However, RKF also modeled 89,970 fixed small -cell base stations . RS Access 
Comment RKF Study I at 34.  OneWeb notes that 12 GHz terrestrial mobile deployments, should they be allowed, 
would mostly be on small -cell base stations like the C -band and Ka -band flexible -use deployments for i n-fill where 
more capacity is desired, and according to CTIA, up to 800,000 small cells could be deployed within the next 5 
years.  See OneWeb Reply at 19 -20.  OneWeb  states that even if half of these projected small cells included the 12 
GHz band, it would represent a five -fold increase over the RKF study’s small -cell deployment assumptions , and the 
number of affected Starlink terminals could be 9 times higher than pr edicted for the small -cell base stations .  Id. at 
20-21. 
158 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 12.  
159 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, 8088,  para. 206 (2016) (stating that a licensee providing mobile 
service must provide coverage to 40 percent of the population of the license area); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 
GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al ., Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opini on and Order, and Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  33 FCC Rcd 5576, 5580, para. 8 (2018) (stating that licensees may fulfill 
the requirements of [the geographic area performance]  metric either by demonstrating mobile or point -to-multipoint 
cove rage of at least 25% of their license’s geographic area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or 
receiving on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts within the license area … maintain [ing]  parity 
with the 40% population cover age metric. ). 
160 See, e.g., infra section V.C.6  (Performance Requirements ) (seeking  comment on the appropriate coverage 
percentages for the 12.7 GHz band ).     
161 RS Access May 19 , 2022 RKF Study II at 12.  
162 SpaceX argues RKF assumptions about nulling technology rely on letters from NOKIA, Ericsson, and Samsung, 
but it states that first  none of these materials refer to any specific level of sidelobe suppression capability from 
nulling  and only Samsung mentions nulling at all, and only as a means of avoiding interference to other mobile user 
equipment .  SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 5, n.23 (discussing RS Access May 19, 2022 
RKF Study II at 12, n.40 (citing Letter from Jeffrey Marks, Vice President, Nokia, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18 -122 (filed Sept. 21, 2021); Letter from Mark Racek, Sr. Director of Spectrum Policy, 
Ericsson, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18 -122 (filed Sept. 13, 2021); Letter from Robert 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
26 42. Transmitter Power and Path Loss .  As noted previously, RKF changed its transmitter 
power from 75 dBm to 65 dBm in its second study.163  SpaceX has supplied its own engineering report 
arguing that ITU WP 5D which studied terrestrial mobile in the 10 -11 GHz bands also assumes 72.6 
dBm/100 MHz as a typical base station EIRP value, making 75 dBm the more likely number.164  OneWeb 
agrees that 75 dBm/100 MHz is more realistic.165  Furthermore , the OneWeb study uses the probabilistic 
clutter model found in Recommendation ITU -R P.2108, which provides a clutter assumption that is 
expected to be greater than predicted in 10% of the cases, and applies clutter only at the user terminals 
and only for those terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to those presumed to be clutter -free on 
rooftops).  Tailored in this manner, OneWeb can temper the recommendation’s potentially overly aggressive prediction of clutter losses, yet model expected clutter losses at a range of geographic locations.
166 
43. Furthermore , both the RKF and SpaceX analyses model path loss using 3GPP 
Specification 38.901,  applying the U rban Macro -Cell model for both urban and suburban macro-cells at 
30 meters to 1 km distance, the Rural Macro -Cell model for rural macro -cells at 30 meters to 5 km, and 
the Micro -Cell (“Umi”) model for small -cells at 30 meter to 1 km distance.167  However, SpaceX argues, 
RKF subtly understates the high interference line of sight cases in the 3GPP 38.901 model by using a single weighted average between NLOS (non -line of sight) and LOS (line of sight ) path loss to represent 
both cases.
168  SpaceX argues RKF’s approach of employing a weighted average to represent two 
distinctly different cases dramatically understates the line of sight cases that would actually occur under the 3GPP 38.901 model.
169  SAVID asserts that while the parties debate either -8.5 dB m or -12.2 dB m 
I/N, an alternative interference protection criterion based on the Power Flux Density (PFD) limit set by 47 CFR § 101.105(a)(4)15 should be considered.
170  In this regard, SAVID points out that the FCC 
specifically set the maximum PFD limit from an MVDDS service transmitting antenna in NGSO FSS 
(Continued from previous page)   
Kubik, Sr. Director, Samsung, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18 -122 (filed Sept. 20, 
2021)).  Second, SpaceX argues  these letters were filed in the C- band proceeding and that RKF provides no 
explanation to justify its approach to scaling for the much higher frequencies at 12 GHz.  SpaceX June 3, 2022 
Response to Revised RKF Report at 5.  Furthermor e, SpaceX notes there is no 12 GHz equipment and no ITU, 
3GPP, or other performance standard for 12 GHz and RKF does not explain how it came up with its assumptions for 
this band.  Id.  Third, SpaceX argues  the letters  from Ericsson and Samsung mention gra ting lobes, but RKF does 
not consider their effects in its model.  Id.  Fourth, even if nulling were feasible in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX argues 
it is expensive technology that operators are unlikely to deploy voluntarily —yet no one has proposed to make suc h 
technology a regulatory requirement, making RKF’s assumption that it will be deployed facially unreasonable.  Id. 
And SpaceX argues that, f ifth, RKF assumes that the macro base stations use a 256 -element antenna, while both 
Nokia and Ericsson indicate th at they contemplated the use of much smaller 96- element antennas, which would 
result in lower gain, wider beam width, worse sidelobes, and reduced nulling ability.   Id. 
163 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.  
164 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 4 (c iting Report on the 38th meeting of Working Party 5D (e -Meeting 7 -
18 June 2021), Annex 4.4 to Document 5D/716 -E, https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu -r/md/19/wp5d/c/R19 -WP5D -C-
0716!H4- N4.04!MSW -E.docx, T able 3 -1 entry 4.5 applicable to the 10- 11 GHz band refers to Table 10 entry 1.9 
which defines the typical values for antenna element input power of 22 dBm.  Using the array parame ters in Table 
10 results in a typical BS EIRP of 72.6 dBm (in 100 MHz) which is comparable to the 75 dBm/100 MHz maximum 
EIRP density used in this analysis based on the FCC limit defined in 47 CFR § 30.202(a)).     
165 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 6.  
166 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5 -6. 
167 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9-10. 
168 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis  at 10.  
169 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis  at 10.  
170 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID  Report at 5 -6.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
27 stations at 12.2 -12.7 GHz at -135 dBW/m2 in 4 kHz at 3 km, which is the equivalent of an I/N threshold 
of -10.8 dB .171  SAVID asserts this means that even for Starlink terminals in the most favorable location 
in the BS antenna pattern, there must be at least 25.5 dB of clutter loss to meet the FCC MVDDS PFD 
limit at 3 km separation.172 
44. The parties’ disagreements about t he above assumptions underlying how two-way 5G 
mobile broadband and NGSO FSS user terminals should be modeled does not change our fundamental 
conclusion that there will be a significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS where these services 
are depl oyed without adequate geographic separation.  Even if the parties could agree about the values 
that should be assigned to each of the models’ more minor assumptions, it would not change the models’ 
more fundamental flawed assumption that the 5G and NGSO FS S services will be geographically 
separated.  Rather, these disagreements present even more evidence of the difference in opinion between the parties as to the envisioned technical specifications  of their respective operations.  NGSO FSS 
continues to evolve and there is not enough data in the record on how these systems are currently 
configured and how the technical parameters will change over time as NGSO FSS systems add additional 
subscribers and continue to refine satellite technology.  Furthermore, this  band is not internationally 
harmonized for terrestrial 5G use and there is significant disagreement about what an operable 5G system 
would look like in this band.  5G terrestrial advocates have not demonstrated that it is in the public 
interest to restric t or impact NGSO FSS operations in urban/suburban markets —especially given that 
NGSO FSS systems are already serving customers.  At this time, we do not see a path forward for adding 
a terrestrial mobile allocation to the band that adequately protects the incumbent satellite operators.  
B. MVDDS Construction Filings  
45. While we decline to adopt service rules to allow 5G terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band 
as originally proposed by the MVDDS coalition, we recognize that many of the MVDDS licensees in the band have  filed the required buildout showings for the licenses they hold under the current framework.  In 
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  below, we seek comment, among other  things, on the 
possibility of changes to the existing framework.  We find it appropriate at this juncture to address any uncertainty as to the status of the existing MVDDS licenses under the current rules.   
46. Today, eight companies (10 legal entities) hold 191 MVDDS licenses: two DISH 
subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS Access, a subsidi ary of a Dell investment fund, holds 60 licenses; two 
Go Long Wireless entities hold a total of 25 licenses; and five smaller companies hold a total of 24 
licenses.
173  As a construction requirement, MVDDS licensees must make a showing of substantial service 
at the end of five years into the license period and ten years into the license period.174  We are aware of 
only one current commercial MVDDS deployment ,175 and most MVDDS licensees received two 
 
171 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID  Report at 6.   
172 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.  OneWeb stated it’s OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses uses the 
probabilistic clutter model found in Recommendation ITU -R P.2108, which provides a clutter assumption that is 
expected to be greater  than predicted in 10% of  the cases, and applies clutter only at the user terminals and only for 
those terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to those presumed to be clutter -free on rooftops).  OneWeb 
July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5- 6. 
173 The remaining 23 licenses automatically  terminated for failure to meet the buildout requirement.  See Requests of 
Three Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Extension of Time to 
Meet the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Service  under Section 101.1413 of the Commission’s 
Rules, Applications of Three Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution 
Service, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757  (WTB BD 2018), recon s. pending .  See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Cal l Sign 
WQAR709 (Terminated July 26, 2014).   
174 47 CFR § 101.14 13. 
175 The licensee uses one station that transmits towards the relatively distant urban market and surrounding suburbs 
from a unique site, geographically and topographically, that allowed the Co mmission to waive certain technical rules 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
28 extensions of the MVDDS buildout requirement , which resulted in final deadlines in 2019.176  All of the 
existing licensees have had buildout showings pending since 2019 for each of their licenses, which are 
available to view in the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS).177  In the 191 pending filings, 
each licensee reports that it met the 2019 buildout requirement for each license, mostly by satisfying the 
safe harbor that the Commission established for MVDDS in 2002 of operating at least four transmitters per one million pops in each license area.
178  The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff’s 
preliminary review of these construction filings is that they likely meet the safe harbor standard.  Accordingly, we direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to finalize the determination of whether 
the construction filings meet the safer harbor standard and if so to accept each of the pending MVDDS 
construction filings subject to the following condition: the Commission reserves the right to adopt additional buildout requirements for MVDDS if appropriate based on a ny revisions to the MVDDS rules 
adopted in response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .   
47. We further direct the Bureau to reconsider its denials of 2016 requests to extend buildout 
deadlines for 22 MVDDS licenses, and to extend the buildout deadl ines for these licenses for 18 months 
from the effective date of this item, subject to the same condition above.
179  We believe that the unique 
circumstances of this proceeding, namely the uncertainty  created by the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s request 
for 5G terre strial use, makes strict application of the buildout deadlines contrary to the public interest.180  
Eliminating the uncertainty over these 22 MVDDS licenses will best serve the public interest by 
promoting fuller participation in the record to be developed in response to the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking  as well as by providing additional certainty regarding the status of these MVDDS licenses.   
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN WT DOCKET NO. 20 -443 
A. Expanded Licensed and Unlicensed Fixed Terre strial Use of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz 
Band  
48. As described above, we decline to add a mobile  allocation or adopt service rules for 
expanded terrestrial, high -powered, two -way mobile operations in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz band.  However, we 
remain interested in potential expanded terrestrial use of the band.  Although the 12.2 Notice  focused on 
5G service coexistence with the incumbents in the band, the Commission also asked how it could facilitate more robust terrestrial operations if it chose to maintain the existing regulatory framework, 
(Continued from previous page)   
without increasing harmful interference to DBS or significantly increasing the area in which future NGSO FSS 
receivers would be precluded by this MVDDS transmitter.  See MDS Operations Inc., Request for Waiver of C ertain 
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules for One Station in Sandia Part, New Mexico, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7963, 7968 -69, paras. 13 -14 (WTB 2010).   From 2011 to 2013, a former MVDDS licensee 
offered fixed wireless broadband and voice service in Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties.  See, e.g., 
http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/cablevision -completes -omgfast -shutdown/271409
.    
176 See, e.g., Requests of Ten Licensees of 191 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for 
Waiver of the Five- Year Deadline for Providing Substantial Service , Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10097 (WTB 2010).   
177 See https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp .  Click on “Advanced Applica tion 
Search” and select the following: Radio Service Code: “DV,” Status: “2 -Pending,” Purpose: “NT.”   Scroll to bottom 
of page, Customize Your Results, and click on “Search.”  Ninety -five of the 191 filings were amended in 2020.   
178 See id.  See also MVDDS  Second Report and Order , 17 FCC  Rcd at 9684, para. 177.   
179 See Requests of Three Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for 
Extension of Time to Meet the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Servi ce under Section 
101.1413 of the Commission’s Rules, Applications of Three Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service , Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757  (WTB BD 2018), recon s. pending .   
180 See 47 CFR §1.925(b)(3)(ii).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
29 rather than permitting 5G in the band.181  Based on comments in response to this question, below we seek 
further comment on several potential approaches the Commission could take to facilitate such robust use.  
In their responses to these inquiries, we strongly encourage commenters to provide specific proposals and 
detai led technical data to support their proposals.  We note that several commenters suggest providing 
priority access to spectrum over Tribal lands to Tribal entities.182  For each of the possible scenarios 
below that could involve assigning new, initial licens es, we seek comment on such a suggestion.  
49. Expanded Licensed Use.  We seek comment on the potential to expand terrestrial fixed 
use of the 12.2 GHz band.  For example, should we consider permitting one -way, point -to-point or point -
to-multipoint fixed links  at a higher power  than the current MVDDS rules allow?  We seek comment on 
the following issues related to an updated one -way point -to-point or point -to-multipoint fixed link 
service.  Is sharing between point -to-point or point -to-multipoint fixed links possible with NGSO systems 
whose receivers, unlike those in the DBS service, are not pointed exclusively at the geostationary satellite arc?
183  What power limit would be appropriate to allow for better expanded terrestrial use of this band 
while still protec ting incumbent licensees?  Should such expanded terrestrial rights be conferred on the 
existing incumbent MVDDS licensees, or are there alternative approaches for expanding terrestrial use opportunities in this band, such as site -based, individually coordi nated operations relative to existing 
MVDDS operations?  How should these operations be licensed, what technical data should be collected, and what type of technical limits and coordination requirements should be considered to allow necessary 
protections a nd coexistence with incumbent services in the band?  Are there use cases or technologies that 
could be provided in a one -way point -to-multipoint type configuration, subject to higher power limits 
than MVDDS?  To what extent would potential deployments of t his type provide substantial benefits to 
the public?  What would be the benefits to consumers and businesses of expanded one -way use, as 
compared to the benefits of other types or potential expanded terrestrial use cases or architectures?   
50. We also seek co mment on the possibility of allowing for two -way, point -to-point fixed 
links at a standard p art 101 higher power limit.
184  Allowing this type of use could expand backhaul to 
 
181 See 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd  at 629, para. 60 ("If we maintain the current framework, should we make any 
revisions to the MVDDS technical rules within the existing regulatory framework so as to facilitate more robust 
terrestrial operation s without causing harmful interference to satellite operations in the band?”); id. at n.154 (citing , 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions of Seven Licensees for Waiver of Multichannel 
Video Distribution and Data Service Technical R ules, WT Docket No. 15 -218, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 9953  
(WTB BD 2015) (petitioners seek waivers of 47 CFR §§ 101.113 note 11, 101.147(p), 101.1407, and 101.1411(a) , 
to use the 12  GHz band for two -way, point -to-point operation at an EIRP up to 55 dBm )).   
182 See Letter from Joe Valandra, President & CEO, Tribal Ready, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 2 2-352 et al. (filed May 10, 2023 ) (Tribal Ready May 10, 2023 Ex Parte ) (“Tribal Ready respectfully 
requests that the 12 GHz band FNPRM, as well as any final rules for the band, provide for a set aside for Tribal 
entities to accelerate [fixed wireless broadband] on Tribal lands.  The Commission has previously recognized the 
value of Tribal set asides in promoting deployment as recently as the 2.5 GHz band. The 12 GHz band can and 
should also be an option to help Native Americans close the digital divide.").  See also  Letter from  Michael 
Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Pro gram, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Harold Feld, Senior 
Vice President, Public Knowledge, to  Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 2 2-352 et al. at 3 (filed 
May 10, 2023 ) (Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge May 10, 2023 Ex Parte ) (“our groups suggested 
that the Commission explicitly notice the possibility of opening a rural Tribal window in both the FNPRM and the 
NPRM. The Commission should ask whether to permit point -to-point or point -to-multipoint operations on triba l 
lands in 12.2 GHz on terms similar to those authorized to MVDDS licensees. This would require modification of the 
existing MVDDS licenses, but such modification would be a reasonable tradeoff for the expanded spectrum rights 
provided to the MVDDS license es.”).  
183 See Letter from Daniel C. H. Mah, SES Americom, Inc., W. Ray Rutngamlug, Associate General Counsel, 
Intelsat US, LLC, GN Docket No. 22 -352, at B -1 (filed May 12, 2023) (citing Coexistence Studies ). 
184 See, e.g., 12.2 Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 629, para . 60 (citing Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment 
on Petitions of Seven Licensees for Waiver of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules , 
WT Docket No. 15- 218, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 9953 (WTB 2015) (petitioners seek waivers of 47 CFR §§ 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
30 support advanced broadband capacity.  Should higher power two-way point -to-point t ype terrestrial rights 
be conferred on the existing incumbent geographic service area licensees?  Or should we consider 
alternative approaches, such as site-based, individually coordinated operations relative to existing 
MVDDS operations?  We note that sev eral other similar bands are shared between NGSO FSS and two -
way point -to-point operations, based on successful coordination of later -in-time operations.185  Given the 
nature of highly directional point -to-point two-way operations, we ask whether terrestrial operations may 
be able to successfully co -exist with new and incumbent DBS and NGSO FSS operations?  What would 
the interference protection status of NGSO FSS ESIMs be vis-à -vis these newly proposed services? 
Would it be manageable if rights were conferr ed on a first -in-time basis, since under the current 
authorization NGSO FSS ESIMs are not afforded protection?  As a baseline, would consideration of the 
current technical standards in similar part 101 bands (11 GHz, 13 GHz) provide a basis for technical r ules 
for two -way point -to-point operations in the 12.2 GHz band?  If not, to what degree should they be 
limited or modified?  How should two-way, point -to-point operations be licensed, what technical data 
should be collected, and what type of technical lim its and coordination requirements should be considered 
to allow necessary protections and coexistence with incumbent services in the band?  In particular, how 
should the burden of protecting new or modified DBS subscribers be assigned after a point -to-point link 
is successfully coordinated with existing DBS customers of record?  How would new or modified NGSO FSS earth stations be protected?  Additionally, should we consider the possibility of relocating 12.7 GHz 
band point -to-point operations to the 12.2 G Hz band and, if so, how would this best be accomplished?  
Alternatively, would allowing expanded opportunities for disaggregation and partitioning promote more 
intensive use of the spectrum?  Currently, the MVDDS rules do not allow disaggregation and limit  
partitioning to counties.
186  Should we revisit those rules to allow the option for 12.7 GHz point -to-point 
operators to lease spectrum larger in the 12.2 GHz band through partitioning and disaggregation?  
51. Further, we also seek comment on the possibility of allowing two -way point -to-
multipoint links. Specifically, we seek comment on the following issues related to an updated two -way 
point -to-multipoint fixed link service in the 12.2 GHz band.  What power limit would be appropriate to 
allow for better expanded terrestrial use of this band while still protecting incumbent licensees?  Should 
such expanded terrestrial rights be conferred on the existing incumbent MVDDS licensees, or are there 
alternative approaches for expanding terrestrial use oppo rtunities in this band, such as site -based, 
individually coordinated operations relative to existing MVDDS operations?  How should these 
operations be licensed, what technical data should be collected, and what type of technical limits and 
coordination requirements should be considered to allow necessary protections and coexistence with 
incumbent services in the band?  Is there any adjustment necessary for the interference protection criteria of PFD and EPFD?  If so, how should these metrics be calculated f or an updated two-way point -to-point 
or point -to-multipoint fixed link service?  Given that EPFD was originally conceived to promote sharing 
between NGSO FSS and GSO BSS and FSS systems,
187 is this the right metric for the present 
application?  Is it appropriate to reconsider the underlying free space propagation assumption regarding 
the interference protection criteria?  The Commission has previously determined that a combination of 
different propagation models is most appropriate for the determination of s haring metrics between fixed 
(Continued from previous page)   
101.113 note 11, 101.147(p), 101.1407, and 101.1411(a) , to use the 12  GHz band for two -way, point -to-point 
operation at an EIRP up to 55 dBm ) (MVDDS Waiver Notice)).  
185 See, e.g ., Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to  Enable GSO Fixed- Satellite Service (Space-
to-Earth) Operations in the 17.3- 17.8 GHz Band, to Modernize Certain Rules Applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS Space 
Stations, and to Establish Off -Axis Uplink Power Limits for Extended Ka -Band FSS Operations , IB Docket N os. 20 -
330 and 22 -273, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22- 63, 2022 WL 3138555 (Aug. 3, 
2022) .   
186 47 CFR § 101.1 415. 
187 See First Report and Order and FNPRM , 16 FCC Rcd at 11, para. 12 -14.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
31 microwave links and unlicensed devices.188  Given the terrestrial nature of both interferer and victim, is a 
combination of different propagation models more suitable than relying only on a free space model?  If 
so, what are the appropriate combinations of propagation models and their respective ranges of 
applicability? Please provide the necessary justification for use of the models. How is the definition of 
PFD and EPFD changed for the path-loss model other than the free space?189  Are there any other impacts 
to consider as a result of using models other than the free space propagation model?  For example, should we also consider changing the maximum EIRP allowed? If so, what is the maximum EIRP?  Please provide the necessary justification for use of higher EIRP. Should there be multiple categories for the 
maximum EIRP?  For example, should there be a maximum EIRP for the urban environment and another 
maximum EIRP for the rural environment?  Are there use cases or technologies that could be provided in a two -way point -to-multipoint type configuration, subject to higher power limits than MVDDS?  To what 
extent would potential deployments of this type provide substantial benefits to the public?  What would be the benefits to consumers and businesses of expanded two -way use, as compared to the benefits of 
other types or potential expanded terrestrial use cases or architectures?  
52. Alternatively, adding indoor -only underlay use of the band could allow for greater 
control and access assuran ces that could help stimulate IoT, private Long Term Evolution (LTE) or New 
Radio (NR) market in the band.
190  If we were to consider such expanded terrestrial authorization in the 
band, should that authorization be awarded to the existing incumbent MVDDS l icensees, or should this 
type of authorization be available to businessowners/landowners for the operation of private networks/IoT such as on physical campuses or industrial complexes?  If such authorizations were conveyed to businessowners/landowners, how would they intersect with the authorizations held by existing MVDDS 
incumbent licensees, and should the MVDDS authorizations also be expanded?  If such rights for a different type of terrestrial use were afforded to businessowners/landowners, should they be licensed -by-
rule?  What type of coordination mechanism might allow for such use, e.g. standard coordination 
notifying incumbent services within a specific distance of the proposed facilities of the planned technical 
parameters of the proposed operation?   What interference thresholds or limitations would such indoor -
only unlicensed operations need to observe to adequately protect MVDDS, DBS and NGSO FSS operations from harmful interference?  Should rights be conveyed to terrestrial licensees on a first-in -time 
basis, similar to those that currently exist in our rules, or with proposed modifications, in order to provide certainty for licensees that invest in and operate these systems?  
53. Unlicensed Use.  We seek comment on whether, and, if so, how, to permit unlicensed use 
of the 12.2 GHz band, a step that multiple parties advocate.
191  The unlicensed advocates claim that a low-
power, indoor -only unlicensed underlay in the 12.2 GHz band would create additional capacity for 
Internet of Things (IoT) uses.192  Part  15 sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, 
or incidental radiator may be operated without an individual license.193  Under the rules for unlicensed 
 
188 See Unlicensed use of the 6 GHz Band,  FCC20 -51A1_Rcd at 3874. Para. 63.  
189 PFD for general path -loss can be defined as  PFD =EIRP -PL+10*log10(4*π)-20*log10(λ). Also EPFD can be 
expressed in terms of PFD as EPFD = PFD* Ge(θe,φe) I Ge,max⁄  , where PFD is defined in the previous sentence.  
190 See 12.2 Notice , 36 FCC Rcd at 622, para. 39 (stating that in an underlay approach any additional terrestrial 
operations likely would need to be authorized at low power and would need to operate on an opportunistic basis, not 
causing harmful interference to —nor seeking protection from harmful interference by— the incumbent primary 
services in the band .). 
191 Boeing Reply at 10; NCTA Reply at 2; Letter from Chip Pickering , CEO , Incompas , and J oe Lockhart, Partner, 
Rational 360,  to Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners, FCC, Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, 
Ensuring U.S. Leadership in 5G, at 4 (filed Apr. 28, 202 1); Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comment at 6 -7; Federated 
Wireless Comment at 3 . 
192 Comments of Public Interest Organizations (New America’s Open Technology Institute, et. al.), at 2, 17.  
193 See 47 CFR § 15.1(a).    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
32 intentional radiators,194 the 10.6-12.7 GHz band is designated as “restricted.”195  Unless expressly 
permitted by rule or waiver, unlicensed devices are not allowed to intentionally radiate energy into a 
restricted band, in order to protect sensitive radio services from harmful interference.196  We seek 
comment on the benefits and costs of removing the 12.2 GHz band from the list of restricted bands.  What 
type of applications (e.g. IoT, local networking, etc.) and from what types of devices (e.g. indoor access 
points, mobile client devices, etc.)  would unlicensed operations  most benefit  in the 12.2 GHz band ? 
54. We invite commenters to discuss whether unlicensed use may be permitted within the 
12.2—12.7 GHz band under provisions that could be implemented under our part 15 rules.  Those rules 
require that unlicensed devices protect the licensed incumbent services197 which, in this case, includes 
DBS, NGSO FSS, and MVDDS.  We note that the Commission has rules for unlicensed low power 
indoor devices in the 6 GHz band that could serve as a model for unlicensed use in this band.  Under those rules,  the Commission found that low -power indoor devices could take advantage of building entry 
loss to protect incumbent fixed service users.
198  Would these rules provide an appropriate model for 
indoor devices in the 12.2 GHz band?199  Under the 6 GHz low power indoor rules , unlicensed access 
points may operate at 5 dBm/MHz EIRP while client devices are limited to -1 dBm/MHz.  The unlicensed 
access points must be supplied power from a wired connection, may not be weatherized, must use an 
integrated antenna, and must have a label indicating that use is restricted to indoors.  The client devices must operate only under the control of an access point.  If the Commission allowed indoor unlicensed use 
in the 12 .2 GHz band, what rules should be adopted to mitigate the risk of harmful interference from 
indoor unlicensed devices to incumbent  services ?  For example, would the same rules that we rely on to 
keep 6 GHz low-power indoor devices inside be replicated here to provide signal attenuation between 
indoor unlicensed devices and outdoor DBS, NGSO FSS, and MVDDS receive antennas?  Noting that the 
 
194 See 47 CFR part 15, subpart C.   
195 47 CFR § 15.205(a) (designates bands of operation in which only spurious emissions ar e permitted under part 
15).   
196 See, e.g. , Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing 
Radars in the Frequency Band 77 -81 GHz; Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish 
Regulations for Level Probing Radars and Tank Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Bands 5.925 7.250 GHz, 
24.05 29.00 GHz and 75 85 GHz , ET Docket No. 10 -23, Report and Order, (FCC 14 -2) 29 FCC Rcd 761, 773 para. 
26, n.73 (2014) (citing Revision of the Ru les Regarding Operation of Radio Frequency Devices Without an 
Individual License, First Report and Order, GEN Docket 87- 389, 4  FCC Rcd 3493 (1989), 47 CFR § 15.205(a)).  
197 47 CFR § 15.5(b).  
198 See Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band and Expanding Flexible Use in Mid -Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 
GHz, ET Docket No. 18- 295; GN Docket No. 17 -183, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3888, para. 96, et seq.  (2020), aff’d in part,  remanded in part sub nom.  AT&T  
Services, Inc. v. FCC , 21 F.4 th 841 (D.C. Cir. 2021).  
199 We note that in advocating for 5G authorization in the 12.2 GHz band, the MVDDS Coalition’s first Coexistence 
study argued that losses as signals in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz band travel through one or more building walls generally 
provide sufficient attenuation to ensure EPFD limits remain below current limits.   Coexistence 1 at 27.  Where 
building attenuation alone might prove insufficient, the Coexistence study stated that “ careful placement and power 
control can prevent the maximum EPFD levels from being exceeded outside of the building envelope to ensure 
protection of DBS receive antennas.”  Coexistence 1 at 27.  Specifically, the Coexistence study asserted that signals 
from base stations placed inside one interior wall would have 50 dB attenuation resulting from passing through an 
interior and exterior wall, while mobile units more likely to travel toward building edges would experience 30 dB.   
Coexistence 1 at 26.  Furthermore, the study  noted that 5G ne twork operators could manage interference through 
controlling t he transmission location of 5G mobile devices through “geofencing,” which involves the use of location 
information from the device to assign unit geographical boundaries to the permitted area o f operation.  
Coexistence  1 at 26 -27.  These mitigation techniques would allow the broadband operator to prevent 5G MVDDS 
mobile devices from venturing into areas that might offer insufficient attenuation to one or more DBS receivers outside of the building exterior.”   Coexistence 1 at 27.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
33 incumbent services are generally trying to receive a weak signal from a satellite, would the expected 
building entry loss be adequate to protect those  services?  What technical limitations such as power 
levels, bandwidth restrictions, or out-of -band emission limits would be appropriate in conjunction with an 
indoor -only requirement to protect the incumbent services?  Could we permit less restrictive unl icensed 
use (e.g., higher indoor power levels, outdoor use, etc.) with a label warning to alert consumers that  use 
near a DBS, NGSO FSS, or MVDDS receive site could result in harmful interference to the consumer 
device?  For example, this would allow DBS subscribers to decide about whether to use such a device in 
their homes knowing there is a potential interference risk.  Are there other  potential interference 
mitigation techniques or system design requirements we should consider to protect incumbent servi ces, 
such as geofencing capability?200  We invite commenters to submit engineering analysis or measurement 
data addressing the potential for such indoor unlicensed devices to cause harmful interference to DBS, NGSO FSS, and MVDDS receivers.  
55. Other Technology -based Sharing.  In addition, we seek comment on whether there may 
be opportunities to take advantage of technological advancements to accommodate expanded terrestrial 
capabilities in the 12.2 GHz band.  For example, could dynamic, database -driven coordina tion capabilities 
such as have been implemented in other frequency bands (e.g., 6 GHz unlicensed and 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service) be implemented in the 12.2 GHz band?  Would another type of frequency 
management system allow for a greater oppor tunity for expanded terrestrial services to develop within the 
band while affording protection to incumbent satellite and terrestrial services?  What technical data would 
need to be collected to support such a system?  DBS operators are currently required to maintain data on 
current subscriber locations; NGSO FSS operators have no similar requirement to track consumer terminal location data, and deployments in the band continue to increase.  Would additional technical data 
need to be collected or shared amo ng the licensees so that an advanced frequency management system 
could effectively manage shared use and prevent interference exceedance to the different services in the 
band?  What parameters should we put in place to ensure that any obligations for a new  managed sharing 
regime in the band would not be overly cumbersome, particularly to the DBS and NGSO FSS 
incumbents?  We seek comment on what type of frequency management system might be used to control 
access to, and manage potential interference in, the 12.2 GHz band.  Who should have ownership or 
oversight of such systems?  How should frequency management system or database operators be selected, 
and what should be the requirements for such roles?  Would there be any interest in operating such 
systems or  databases?  What type of testing requirements should there be on these types of systems?  How 
might the associated costs be addressed, and who should bear the burden of those costs?  For instance, 
should new terrestrial fixed services bear all the costs, or should part of this cost be shared by the NGSO 
FSS and DBS incumbents in the band?  
56. We specifically seek comment on the use of Automated  Frequency Coordination (AFC) 
systems, which were adopted for unlicensed outdoor deployments in the 6 GHz band based on several considerations that were specific to that band.  Accordingly, we seek comment on whether similar, or 
otherwise compelling, considerations would support use of an AFC system in the 12.2 GHz band, and 
also seek comment about the extent to which th ese considerations may also be applicable to other 
frequency coordination management and database system concepts.  Among the most relevant 
considerations are what types of propagation models are the most appropriate, considering the incumbents 
in this ban d, including DBS and NGSO FSS satellite systems?  What protection criteria would be required 
specific to each service, i.e., DBS, NGSO FSS, and MVDDS?  How can modelling of the incumbent services be adequately accomplished, particularly considering the pot ential complexity of NGSO FSS 
systems, and their associated Earth stations that track satellites that are in motion?  What device location 
information might be required, and what method would be appropriate to obtain such information? For 
instance, should the Commission consider requiring automated entry of some or all of the information, or 
permit manually entered information by a certified installer of the device?  How would AFC systems be 
 
200 Coexistence 1 at 26 -27.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
34 able to periodically verify frequency availability considering the  incumbent DBS and NGSO FSS satellite 
operators and the lack of information as discussed above?  Moreover, is a periodic re-check interval an 
appropriate method to determine changes in frequency availability information and, if so, what should be 
the maxim um permissible interval for verifying frequency availability?  If not, we seek comment on other 
alternatives that could identify frequency availability.  Should aggregate interference be calculated by an 
AFC system or is it sufficient to just consider individual devices?  How should devices be registered, and what collected information should be required?  Should an AFC system be able to give commands to shut 
down devices when changes in spectrum use occur?  What system security concerns would need to be 
addressed?  If this concept were to be considered sufficient, technical information would need to be 
available to such frequency management systems —specifically the technical information that is not 
currently sufficiently collected, or collected at all, from  DBS and NGSO FSS respectively.  If this concept 
was to be considered at what future date should DBS and NGSO FSS be required to provide the required 
data?  We seek comment on these possible alternatives.  
B. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusio n 
57. The Commiss ion, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all ,
201 
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  affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations202 and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.  Specifically, we seek comment on how our 
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the 
scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.   
V. NOTICE  OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN GN DOCKET NO. 22 -352203 
A. Expanded Use of the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band   
1. Repurposing for Mobile  Broadband or Other Expanded Use  
58. As noted above, on October 28, 2022, the Commission released its 12.7 NOI to broadly 
seek information on the current use of the 12.7 GHz band, how the Commission could encourage more 
efficient and intensive use of the band, and whether  the band is suitable for mobile broadband or other 
expanded use.204  The 12.7 GHz band has sev eral attributes that argue in favor of its repurposing for 
advanced services: it is  already allocated for terrestrial mobile service on a primary basis domestically , it 
is only lightly used by the Fixed (FS) and Fixed Satellite (FSS) and Mobile Services (M S), and there is 
only a single Federal incumbent  at one site.   
 
201 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] availa ble, 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.  
202 The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consist ent 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 Indigenous 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 areas; and persons 
otherwise adversely affected by pers istent 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, 2021).  
203 In sections V and VI, record references and citations refer to GN Docket No. 22 -352, unless otherwise noted.  
204 12.7 NOI at *1, para. 2.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
35 59. In the United States, the 12.7 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non -Federal 
use to FS, FSS (Earth -to-space), and the MS.205  The band is shared among Fixed Microwave Services 
(FS—pa rt 101), Broadcast Auxiliary Services ( fixed and mobile BAS —part 74), fixed and mobile Cable 
Television Relay Services (CARS —part 78), and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS—part 25).206  Based on 
the Commission’s licensing records, these services in the 12.7 GHz band include approximately 1,846  
terrestrial service call signs that authorize a total of approximately 2,070  fixed point -to-point paths, and 
approximately 400  licenses that authorize mobile TV pickup operations.207  There are also 27 call signs 
for FSS s pace stations and 43 call signs for FSS earth stations.208  Terrestrial and space services in the 
12.7 GHz band are subject to prior -coordination requirements to avoid interference.209  The 12.7 GHz 
band has only limited Federal use.  Specifically, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) operates a receive -only earth station for its Deep Space Network (DSN) at Goldstone, California, 
that is authorized to receive transmissions across the entire 12.7 GHz band.210   
60. Given the existing incumbent uses of the band, t he 12.7 NOI  sought comment on two 
potential options for making some or all of the band available for mobile broadband and other expanded 
uses: (1) repurposing some or all of the band for such use with sunset of some or all incumbent servi ces 
and relocation and cost -sharing requirements for new services,211 and (2) potential sharing methods 
among new and incumbent services.212  In connection with these potential options, the 12.7 NOI  asked 
about potential licensing approaches to facilitate deployment of new mobile broadband or other expanded 
use of the band.213  The 12.7 NOI also sought comment on an appropriate protection level that new 
operations in the 12.7 GHz band would have to provide incumbent services in the lower and upper 
 
205 47 CFR § 2.106.  The international and domestic allocations are similar for the 12.75 -13.25 GHz band in most 
respects.  However, space- to-Earth transmissions are permitted at 12.7- 12.75 GHz in ITU Regions 1 and 3 but not in 
Region 2.  47 CFR § 2.106, International Table.  Domestically, Footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table precludes most 
GSO FSS systems from using the band for domestic services and limits the deployment of FSS earth stations in the 
band.  Id. at n.NG52.  
206 See 47 CFR pt. 25 (§§ 25.101 -25.702), pt. 74 (§§ 74.600 -74.690), pt. 78 (§§ 78.1- 78.115), pt. 101 (§§ 101.1-
101.1527).  
207 Licensing data for fixed and mobile BAS under part 74 and Fixed Microwave under part 101 is in the Universal 
Licensing System (ULS) .  Licensing data for fixed and mobile CARS is in t he Cable Operations and Licensing 
System (COALS) .  T hese statistics are based on a review of ULS on April 26 , 2023.   There are also approximately 
65 fixed or mobile CARS call signs in COALS.  
208 FSS data are in the International Bureau Electronic Filing System (MyIBFS) .  These statistics are based on a 
review of MyIBFS on April 26 , 2023.  
209 See 47 CFR §§ 25.115(a)(6)(i), 101.21(f).  The administrative aspects of the coordination process are set forth in 
47 CFR § 101.103 for coordinating terrestrial stations with earth stations, and in 47 CFR § 25.203 for coordinating 
earth stations with terrestrial stations.  See also id. § 25.251(a).  The coordination procedures specified in 47 CFR § 
101.103 and § 25.203 are applicable for coordinating between earth stations and fixed microwave links , and the 
information provided during coordination is set forth in 47 CFR § 25.203(c)(2) and 101.103(d)(2)(ii).  
210 See 47 CFR  § 2.106 & n.US251 (“The band 12.75 -13.25 GHz is also allocated to the space research (deep space) 
(space -to-Earth) service for reception only at Goldstone, CA (35°20′ N, 116°53′ W).”).  For additional details 
concerning the domestic and international allocations, see 12.7 NOI at *2 -*3, paras. 4 -6.  For additional details on 
current uses , see 12.7 NOI at *2 -*5, paras. 4 -11 (II.B. Current uses of the 12.7- 13.25 GHz (12.7 GHz) Band).    
211 See 12.7 NOI at *5, *6-*9, *9 -*11, paras. 12, 14 -24, 25-30.   
212 See 12.7 NOI at *6 -*9, paras. 14 -24 (III.A.  Potential Methods for Sharing the Band), *9-* 11, paras. 25 -30 (III.B. 
Sunset of Incumbent Services, Relocation and Cost -Sharing for New Services).   
213 See 12.7 NOI at *11-*12, paras. 31-32 (III.C. Potential Licensing Approaches, Service and Technical Rules ),  
Specifically, the Commission asked whether to assign new licenses on an exclusive -use basis, through the issuance 
of new geographic -area overlay licenses or consider other licensing approaches, such as non -exclusive, site -based, 
or a tiered approach such as that used in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.  Id. at *11, para. 31.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
36 adjacent ban ds.214  The 12.7 NOI  also sought comment on the costs and benefits that should be  considered 
in deciding whether to promote new service opportunities in the band through repurposing/relocation or 
sharing as well as whether we should consider some combination of these methods.215 
61. In response to the 12.7  NOI, very few parties have argued that the current balance of 
incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band should be left unchanged and that the band should remain untouched.  
There is substantial support for repurposing these frequencies for mobile broadband or other expanded 
use and a significant num ber argue that the band should be used for exclusive, fixed or mobile, flexible 
high-powered use.216  Commenters assert that the next -generation wireless technologies underpinning 5G, 
5G Advanced, and 6G services will rely depend on extremely high data rates, and the reliability, low latency, and capacity that the 12.7 GHz band spectrum can provide .
217  In addition, standardization is 
already underway for 6G, and the 12.7 GHz band has considerable capacity and opportunity for channel 
reuse, making it a good f it for future 6G technologies,218 including high-speed, low-latency, bandwidth-
intensive applications, such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), telesurgery, and robotics.219 
62. Accordingly, we propose to repurpose some or all of the 12.7 GHz band f or mobile 
broadband and other expanded use and seek comment on this proposal.  We seek comment on the economic benefits of introducing mobile broadband or other expanded use in all or part of the 12.7 GHz 
band.  Commenters should consider the economic value of current and future use cases for each type of 
use, including benefits and opportunity costs to consumers and the Nation’s economy overall, as well as 
to unserved or underserved areas and specialized market segments (e.g., education, telemedicine, and 
manufacturing).  Commenters should also address the benefits of international harmonization both in 
terms of devices and network deployments.  In addition, we encourage commenters to consider the economic impact on consumers and businesses in rural communi ties and areas that are unserved or 
underserved by current broadband providers, as well as any economic impact on small businesses.   
63. The propagation characteristics of this frequency range will require operators to transmit 
at relatively high power to ach ieve meaningful coverage and capacity.
220  Parties that support mobile 
broadband use of the band argue that sharing regimes premised upon relatively low power operations 
 
214 See 12.7 NOI at *12- *14, paras. 34 (describing incumbent services in 12.2 -12.7 GHz band), 35 -38 (describing 
incumbent Federal services in 13.25 -13.4 GHz and 13.4- 13.75 GHz bands), 39 -40 (recognizing the need for servic es 
in these adjacent bands to continue providing service and seeking comment on whether provisions beyond the 
existing 12.7 GHz band fixed service protection levels for adjacent bands would be necessary for mobile broadband 
or other expanded -use operations  in the 12.7 GHz band to prevent harmful interference to operations in those 
adjacent bands).  
215 See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 12.   
216 See, e.g. , AT&T Comments at 4; Competitive Carriers Association Reply at 4 (CCA); CTIA Comments at 5; 
DISH Network Corp. Comme nts at 5  (DISH); Ericsson Comments at 10; Nokia Comments at 3; Qualcomm 
Comments at 7; T -Mobile USA, Inc. Comments at 3; U.S. Cellular Corp. Reply at 2 (UScellular); Verizon 
Comments at 1; 5G Americas Reply at 5; 5G for 12 GHz Coalition Comments at 3.  But see EIBASS Comments at 
1; Ovzon Comments at 1 .  Several commercial wireless interests note that m ore lower mid-band spectrum is needed 
and that the 12.7 GHz band should be viewed as a complement to lower mid- band spectrum —not a replacement.   
See AT&T Comments at 1; Ericsson Comments at 9; T -Mobile Comments at 14 ; 5G Americas Reply at 6.  
217 See Ericsson Comments at 5 ; Qualcomm Comments at 3, 7.  Qualcomm notes that next generation technology 
advancements such as active Antenna Systems (AAS) and Giga -MIMO will compensate for attenuation in such high 
frequency bands.  Qualcomm Comments at 5; see also Nokia Comments at 2 -3. 
218 Ericsson Comments at 6, 8.  
219 Consumer Technology Association Comments at 2  (CTA) . 
220 CTIA Comments at 9; Rural Wireless Association, In c. Comments at 2 -3 (RWA);  Verizon Comments at 9 ; T-
Mobile Reply at 4.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
37 would not provide the coverage needed to make investment worthwhile.221  Nokia argues th at fixed 
paths —both BAS/CARS, Fixed Microwave Services and Common Carrier and Operational Fixed 
Services (OFS) —are concentrated in major cities along the coasts and that allowing these operations to 
remain in the band would discourage investment in mobile broadband expansion in areas that would most 
benefit from it.222  Similar to fixed point-to -point links, current mobile use of the band is limited to 
BAS/CARS television pickup services generally licensed to operate “over an area defined by a point -
radius o r other wide -area basis,” including large, densely -populated areas with higher spectrum -use 
demands.223  Accordingly, parties favoring mobile deployment in the band opposed sharing with these 
incumbent systems.224   Some note that sharing should be used in situations where clearing the band is not 
possible, which is not the case in the 12.7 GHz band, where coordination, repacking and relocation are available.
225   
64. The record, as well as the Commission’s experience with other bands, reflects that this 
proposed repurposing will enable next -generation mobile and fixed broadband services in the 12.7 GHz 
band.  AT& T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Federated Wireless, Nokia, CTIA, Celona, 5G for 12 GHz Coalition, 
5G Americas, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, CCA, and DISH, all support bringing terrestrial mobile 
wireless services into the 12.7 GHz band.226  Based on the Commission’s well established success in 
repurposing other bands for new services, such as PCS and AWS, using exclusively assigned geographic -
area licenses,227 we agree with commenters that assigning exclusive licenses is most likely to foster the 
innovation necessary for  an equipment ecosystem to develop in the band and best facilitate the relocation 
and repacking of incumbents , which in turn will accelerate deployment of mobile broadband and other 
expanded services in the band.228  We seek comment on these proposals.  We also discuss below and seek 
comment on whether limited sharing in the band among different types of services is possible.   
65. The National Association of Broadcasters and the Society of Broadcast Engineers assert 
the 12.7 GHz band is generally not favored by BAS for long -distance high reliability links; however, both 
assert it is necessary for short distance links when no other frequencies are available due to congestion of 
 
221 Ericsson states that sharing methods based on dynamic sharing are not likely to optimize usage of the spectrum, 
and instead “will result in lower power levels, uncertainty regarding ac cess to the band, and limited investment and 
utility. ”  Ericsson Comments at  10.  5G Americas also argues that the Commission should relocate incumbents 
instead of creating a low -power sharing regime.  5G Americas Comments at 4 -5. 
222 Nokia Comments at 4.  
223 Nokia Comments at 5.   
224 See, e.g. , Nokia Comments at 4 -5. 
225 T-Mobile Reply Comments  at 6-7; Verizon Comments at 5 -6. 
226 See AT&T Comments at 3 -4; CTA Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 1, 6; DISH Comments at 1; Dynamic 
Spectrum Alliance Comments at 1 -2 (DSA); Ericsson Comments at 1, 8; Federated Wireless Comments at 1; NCTA 
Comments at 1; Nokia Comments at 2 -3; OneWeb Comments at 1; Qualcomm Inc. Comments at 6 (Qualcomm); T -
Mobile Comments at 1;  Verizon Comments at 1; 5G for 12 GHz Coalition Comments at 2 -3; CCA Reply at 2; 
Celona Reply at 2 -3; US  Cellular Reply at 2; 5G Americas Reply at 4 -5. 
227 See e.g. , infra  note 251 and accompanying text; accord Spectrum Frontier s 1st R&O and FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 
8027-28, paras. 29 -30, 8045-46, paras. 78-79.  
228 Indeed, the majority of the interests that advocate for expanded fixed or mobile uses argue aga inst sharing in the 
band and for repacking or relocation of incumbents.   See, e.g.,  CTIA Comments at 1,7;  Ericsson  Comments at  11; 
Nokia Comments at  4-6; Qualcomm Comments at 7; T -Mobile Comments at 10 -12.  5G Americas states that “ the 
Commission  should re locate incumbents to the greatest extent possible rather than apply a low -power sharing 
regime ” and that “[r]elocation expenses should be reimbursed from the pool of auctions proceeds for relocation 
pursuant to a concrete deadline and should be shared by all new 12.7 GHz entrants, on a pro rata  share. ”  See 5G 
Americas Reply Comments at 6 -7.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
38 the 2 GHz and 6 GHz bands.229  Accordingly, although broadcaster commenters oppose relo cation  of 
mobile BAS to other frequency bands, repacking to a discrete portion of the 12.7 GHz band remains not 
only possible, but a favorable outcome according to broadcasters, provided they are reimbursed and are 
adequately protected.230  We therefore pro pose to repack mobile BAS/CARS incumbents to a portion of 
the 12.7 GHz band.   
66. We acknowledge that some satellite industry commenters do not support opening the 
12.7 GHz band to terrestrial mobile use and would instead prefer rule changes to intensify satellite use of the band in the United States.
231  Other satellite companies, however, support examining whether the band 
can be opened to mobile or other expanded terrestrial use, but they also note their concern that the 
Commission take steps t o ensure that services in adjacent bands are not impacted by out -of-band 
emissions below 12.7 GHz.232  Furthermore, as T -Mobile notes, satellite operators themselves recognize 
that there has been limited use of the 12.7 GHz band in the U.S. for satellite op erations, which makes use 
of the band for mobile wireless operations feasible.233  As noted by Nokia, “of the total number of GSO 
satellites, only eight of the 23 space stations are in the arc of 132.85 WL to 30 WL,” and “[r]egarding 
non-GSO satellites, the  one operational system does not have any U.S. earth stations licensed in this band, 
another system is not operational, and a third has surrendered the Ku-band portion of the grant.”234  
Therefore, according to Nokia, “the sharing of the band with satellite service mostly refers to sharing with 
GSO FSS in the uplink direction (Earth -to-space),” and “[w]hile more detailed analysis taking into 
account the characteristics of both systems would be more conclusive, it is expected that the mobile broadband service  can share the band with [existing] GSO FSS uplink with no restrictive conditions.”
235  
We seek comment on our proposal that satellite systems in the band be conserved in their current state with no further expansion in FSS use in the band.
236  We also seek comment on the best method for 
mobile and fixed systems to share with these remaining satellite systems, while ensuring against harmful 
interference to such satellite incumbents.  
2. Future Licensing of Incumbent Services  
67. Effective September 19, 2022, the Int ernational, Public Safety and Homeland Security, 
Media, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus announced a 180 -day freeze on the filing of new or 
 
229 National Association of Broadcasters Comments at 3 (NAB); Society of Broadcast Engineers Comments at 2 -3 
(SBE).  
230 NAB  Comme nts at 2 ; NAB Reply at 4.   
231 Eutelsat Comments at 2 -3, 5-6; Intelsat/SES May 12, 2023 Ex Parte  at 2, B -1 (noting that FSS ability to operate 
in 12.7 GHz band is constrained by footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations limiting use of the 
band to international systems); Intelsat License LLC and SES Americom, Inc. Comments at 2 ; Hispasat Reply at 3 -4 
(arguing that relocating incumbent FSS services out of the 12.7 GHz band, as suggested by certain commenters, is 
not a viable option because satellite operators have made significant long -term investments, considering the 15 –20-
year lifespan of a GSO satellite, in reliance on existing frequency allocations).   
232 Kepler Communications Inc. Comments at 2 -3 (Kepler);  Space Exploration Holdings, LLC Co mments at 3 
(SpaceX); WorldVu Satellites Limited Comments at 4 (OneWeb).  
233 See T-Mobile Reply at 9 (citing Eutelsat Comments at 6, OneWeb Comments at 2 -3).  T -Mobile adds that given 
the restriction on satellite use of the 12.7 GHz band due to NG52 which re stricts the majority of the 12.7 GHz band 
in the U.S. to international systems, it would be unreasonable for satellite operators to claim a reliance interest in 
expanded use of the band for satellite operations.  T -Mobile Reply at 9.  
234 Nokia Comments at 6 citing 12.7 NOI  at para. 11 . 
235 Nokia Comments at 6.  
236 Our proposal would not preclude the possibility of a new U.S. -licensed satellite that would have no visibility into 
the United States, as defined in the Communications Act, i.e., states, territories, an d possessions.  47 U.S.C. § 153.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
39 modification applications for licenses or other authorizations in the 12.7 GHz band.237  The purpose of 
this temporary freeze was to preserve the current landscape of authorized operations  in the 12.7 GHz band 
pending the Commission’s consideration of actions in this proceeding.238  In light of the 12.7 NOI, the 
Commission extended the freeze pending the outcome of  GN Docket No. 22 -352.239  Because we propose 
to transition most of the band to exclusively assigned geographic -area licenses for  mobile broadband and 
other expanded uses, we propose to revise the Commission’s rules to, in essence, make the freeze 
permanent .  Accordingly, we propose rule revisions to dismiss any new space station license applications 
and new requests for access to the U.S. market through non -U.S.-licensed space stations, or those parts of 
any such applications and requests, that seek to oper ate in the 1 2.7 GHz band.   This would not apply to 
new applications for space stations limited to serving earth stations outside the United States, applications 
for modification of existing space station authorizations,240 relocations of existing space stat ions pursuant 
to the Commission’s fleet management policy,241 or to applications for replacement space stations.242  We 
propose rule revisions to dismiss applications, or those portions of applications, received for new earth 
station licenses, and modificati ons to earth stations currently authorized , to operate in the 12.7 GHz band.  
This would not apply to applications for renewal or cancellation of current earth station authorizations,243 
or modifications to correct location or other data required in the ear th station file .244  We also propose rule 
revisions to dismiss applications received for new or major modifications to fixed microwave, fixed or 
mobile BAS and CARS stations to operate in the 12.7 GHz band .  This change does not extend to 
applications for r enewal, cancellation  or applications to modify incumbent mobile BAS/CARS licenses to 
the mobile BAS/CARS repack band.  We seek comment on these proposals.  
3. Transition of Incumbent Operations  
68. In the 12.7  NOI, we inquire d whether any incumbent  services in this band should be 
sunset,245 with existing operations relocated from all or part of the band  and whether new exclusive, 
geographic -area-licenses should be required to protect or relocate incumbent operations before the sunset 
date.246  We inquired whether the Emerging Technologies (ET) framework could be applied to relocation 
of incumbents from this band and whether the relocation procedures need to differ for one or more 
incumbent uses.247  While we propose that FSS incumbents would not be subj ect to relocation or sunset,  
 
237 180-Day Freeze on Applications for New or Modified Authorizations for the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band , Public 
Notice, DA 22 -974, 2022 WL 4358635, at *1 (IB/PSHSB/MB/WTB Sept. 19, 2022).   
238 Id.  The Bureaus noted that t he Commission or the Bureaus might extend the freeze if doing so is deemed 
necessary to avoid undermining the purpose of the freeze.  Id. 
239 See 12.7 Freeze Extension Order , FCC 22 -80, at para. 44 (Commission extended freeze pending the outcome of 
GN Docket  No. 22- 352).  
240 47 CFR § 25.117.  
241 47 CFR § 25.118(e) (permitting the relocation of a GSO space station without prior authorization, but upon 
30 days prior notice to the Commission and any potentially affected licensed spectrum user, provided that the 
operator meets specific requirements, including a requirement that the space station will be relocated to a position 
within ±0.15° of an orbital location assigned to the same licensee).  
242 47 CFR §§ 25.158(a)(2), 25.165(e)(1),  (2). 
243 47 CFR § 25.121(e).  
244 See g enerally International Bureau Addresses Accuracy of Earth Station Location Information in IBFS , Public 
Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 9512 (IB 2017); 47 CFR § 25.117.  
245 The sunset is the date by which all incumbent operations cease to be protected from interference by new entrants.  
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.1253(a), 101.79(a).   
24612.7 NOI at *9 -*10, paras. 25 -26. 
24712.7 NOI at *10, para. 26 ; see, e.g. , Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 
3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
40 we propose to apply our ET procedures to relocate or repack incumbent terrestrial  licensees to introduce 
new services into a frequency band populated by incumbent licensees.  ET  procedures represent a broad 
set of tools that the Commission uses, revises, and updates to aid the process of making spectrum 
available for new uses.  Pursuant to these procedures, the Commission will set a “sunset date” for the terrestrial incumbents in this band —a date after which these licensees may  not cause harmful interference 
to new band entrants.
248  Prior to the sunset date, the new entrants may not cause harmful interference to 
terrestrial incumbents but will be allowed to enter into mandatory negotiations with these incumbents to gain early en try into the band and, if necessary, may relocate these terrestrial incumbents to comparable 
facilities.
249   Because new entrants may have to relocate some of these incumbents from a larger 
frequency range or greater geographic area than where the new entr ants will operate, the Commission 
may establishes a companion set of cost -sharing procedures.250  We seek comment on these proposals and 
(Continued from previous page)   
Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00 -258, Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4473, 
4484, para. 19 (2006) (requiring new entrants to relocate incumbents system -by-system rather than link -by-link due 
to the unique operations of incumbents’  systems); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band,  GN Docket 
No. 18122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2416, para. 182 (2020) ( 3.7 
GHz Ban d Report and Order ).  Some transitions were based on rules that called for negotiations when an ET 
licensee proposed to operate a base station before the sunset date that would interfere with an incumbent’s operation.  
See, e.g. , 47 CFR §§ 101.69 -101.81.  Other transitions had relatively short sunset dates.  See, e.g.,  47 CFR §§ 
101.83 -101.97.  In the Broadcast Incentive Auction Transition and for the 3.7- 4.2 GHz (3.7 GHz band) Transition, 
the Commission established cost catalogs  for relocation expenses.  See Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions , GN Docket No. 12 -268, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6820, para. 619 
(2014) (delegating authority to the Media Bureau “to . . . develop a final Cat alog of Eligible Expenses, and make 
other determinations regarding eligible costs and the reimbursement process.”); see also  Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Preliminary Cost Category Schedule for 3.7 -4.2 GHz Band 
Relocation Expenses , Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 4440 (WTB May 2020).  The D.C. Circuit has upheld the 
Commission’s authority to require new entrants to relocate incumbent systems to comparable facilities.  See, e.g. , 
Teledesic LLC v. FCC,  275 F.3d 75, 84- 87 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also Ass’n of Public -Safety Commc’n s Officials -
Int’l, Inc. v. FCC , 76 F.3d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding elimination of an exemption for public safety 
incumbents from a relocation regime in which new licensees would pay all costs associated with rel ocating 
incumbents to comparable facilities).  
248 The sunset is the date by which all incumbent operations cease to be protected from interference by new entrants. 
See, e.g. , 47 CFR §§ 27.1253(a), 101.79(a).  See infra  App. A , § 27.1712.  Regarding protectio n of incumbent 
microwave systems prior to sunset and the trigger for relocation, we seek comment on whether the references in 
§ 24.237(a) to TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10 –F, “Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems,” 
May 1994, (TSB10 –F), and Appendix I of Subpart E of Part 24 – A Procedure for Calculating PCS Signal Levels at 
Microwave Receivers), and § 24.237(d) Table 3 (Coordination Distance in Kilometers) need to be updated or adjusted to account for use in the 12.7 GHz band.  
249 See, e.g ., Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18 -122, Report and Order and 
Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020) ( 3.7 GHz Band Report and Order ), aff’d PSSI Global 
Services v. FCC , 983 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (permitt ing accelerated relocation of incumbent FSS space and earth 
stations by new wireless entrants); Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band , WT Docket 00 -
55, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
14969 (2004) (relocation of BAS, CARS, and LTTS incumbents by new, nationwide wireless entrant); Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies , ET 
Docket No. 92 -9, First Report and Ord er and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992) 
(relocation of FS incumbents by new wireless entrants). The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Commission’s authority to require new entrants to relocate incumbent systems to comparable facilities.   See, e.g., Teledesic LLC v. FCC , 275 
F.3d 75, 84 -87 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also Ass’n of Public Safety Communications Officials -Int’l, Inc. v. FCC , 76 
F.3d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding elimination of an exemption for public safety incumbents from a 
relocation regime in which new licensees would pay all costs associated with relocating incumbents to comparable 
facilities).  
250 See Amendment to the  Commission’s Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation , 
WT Docket No. 95-157, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 1923 (1995).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
41 ask commenters addressing them to outline how they would apply the ET framework to this band as 
discussed further below for each type of terrestrial incumbent.  
a. Fixed Service  
69. Based on our goal of making the 12.7 GHz band available for advanced communications 
services, and supported by the record, we propose to revise the Commission’s rules to make all incumbent 
point -to-point operations in the band under parts 74, 78, and 101 secondary to new mobile 
broadband/expanded use operations on a date certain.  We seek comment on whether this sunset date 
should be three, five, or ten years after the first license for such new operati ons is issued in the band.  
Should the sunset date differ based on the incumbent service?  Fixed microwave incumbent s have a long 
and successful history of relocation, including clearing the 1850-1990 MHz band for Personal 
Communications Service (PCS) and the 2110- 2200 MHz bands for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) 
bands .251  CTIA argues that most incumbent services currently operating in the 12.7 GHz band can be 
relocated to different media or spectrum bands without any loss of functionality.252  For example,  CTIA 
estimates that nearly 80 percent of the BAS licenses in the 12.7 GHz band are for fixed links that could be 
moved either to different fixed microwave service bands or to alternative media such as fiber.253 
70. Verizon notes  that the 12.7 GHz band “is home to approximately 1,697 Broadcast 
Auxiliary Service (BAS) call signs, 15 Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) licenses, and 224 call 
signs for p art 101 licensed point -to-point microwave links .”254  Verizon contends that “[s]uch 
technologies, which support public service and public safety among other functions, could be relocated 
(and upgraded)  consistent with the Commission’s  longstanding Emerging Technologies  principles .255 
Nokia believes that  we should relocate the limited number of fixed links operating in the 12.7 GHz 
band.256  Ericsson states that the Commission, “[ w]here possible, … should explore opportunities to  
relocate incumbents”  from the 12.7 GHz band or, in certain instances, consolidate, segment, and repack 
certain incu mbent users into a smaller portion of the band.257  5G Americas supports the relocation of 
incumbents from the 12.7 GHz band “ to the greatest extent possible. ”258   
71. The record reflects a strong consensus among parties that we utilize our Emerging 
Technologie s policies to transition and sunset all incumbent point -to-point licenses in the band under 
 
251 See CTIA Comments at 7 -8 & nn. 20,21 (citing Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New 
Personal Communications Services , GN Docket No. 90 -314, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7 700 (1993) ; 
Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services 
to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, 
Second Report and Order , 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000 -
2020 MHz and 2180- 220 MHz Band , Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 
16214, para. 304 (2012)) .  
252 CTIA Comments at 7.   
253 CTIA Comments at 8.  
254 Verizon Comments at 6 -7. 
255 Verizon Comments at 7.  
256 Nokia Comments at 4.  Nokia notes that  “[w]hile the  nationwide number of fixed point -to-point links is limited, 
BAS fixed links (1,172 fixed paths) are concentrated in major cities along the coasts ” and “[o]ther licensed fixed 
service links, such as Common Carrier and Operational Fixed Services (OFS) are c oncentrated in the West Coast 
cities and states. ”  Id.  Nokia recommends that the Commission relocate such services to other fixed microwave 
bands.  Id.  
257 Ericsson Comments 11.  
258 5G Americas Reply Comments 5.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
42 parts 74, 78, and 101.259  We agree that doing so wil l appropriately balance the operational needs of 
incumbents with the public interest benefits of expanded use of  the spectrum.  The transition of fixed 
links is relatively straightforward and entails the relocation of independent fixed  point -to-point 
microwave links which can proceed link -by-link basis consistent with our Emerging Technology policies.  
We therefore propose to apply sections 101.69, 101.73, and 101.75 and amend sections 74.690 and 78.40 
to govern relocation of incumbent fixed services from this band.260  We further propose that, three, five, 
or ten years after the first mobile broadband/expanded use  license is issued in the band, incumbent point -
to-point licenses in the band w ould become secondary (operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis) 
to new licensed operations.  We seek comment on this proposal including the appropriate sunset period 
for point -to-point licenses.  
b. Mobile BAS/CARS  
72. We seek comment on our proposal to repack incumbent mobile BAS/CARS licensees 
into a portion of the 12.7 GHz band to be designated for mobile BAS/CARS operations.  The 12.7 GHz 
band has appr oximately 450 BAS and CARS call signs that authorize land mobile television pickup 
stations.  These are effectively mobile news gathering technologies that operate over an area defined by a 
point -radius or other wide -area basis, making them the most likely  to potentially interfere with or receive 
interference from any new mobile broadband co-channel  entrants.  While these land mobile pickup 
transmitter licensees coordinate with each other and share the spectrum among multiple licensees in any 
given area,261 coordination among these incumbents and new mobile broadband or other expanded use 
operations is infeasible given that the former need to operate temporary fixed links or mobile transmitters 
anywhere in their market, often on short notice, and that the lat ter will be ubiquitous.  For this reason, the 
Commission asked in the 12.7  NOI if mobile BAS/CARS operations could be relocated to a portion of the 
band or else to a different band or technology.262   
73. Given the varied and widespread  nature of mobile BAS ( 403 call signs) and mobile CARS 
(50 call signs) operations, Verizon encourages the Commission to propose relocating these operations from the band.
263  Nokia also urges relocation of mobile BAS/CARS operations because t ransmitters in 
the television pickup ser vice are often licensed to operate over an area defined by a point -radius or other 
wide-area basis and across the entire frequency band , with large op erating areas that include major 
cities.264   
74. Significantly, NAB and Scripps Broadcasting recognize that it may be possible to repack 
broadcaster operations in the 12.7 GHz band into a smaller segment of the band, assuming the 
Commission adopts rules that will fully protect those broadcaster operations from harmful interference 
 
259 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; CTIA Comments  at 6-7; Nokia Comments at 3- 5; T-Mobile Comments at 3 -4; 
Competitive Carriers Association Reply Comments at 3 ; 5G Americas Reply Comments at 6 -7. But see Celona Inc. 
Comments at 1 -2 (noting that “Celona does not advocate sunsetting or relocating incumbent users, but instead 
supports coexisting with the incumbents through a DSMS model.”).   
260 See infra App. A , 47 CFR  §§ 74.690, 78.40, 101.69, 101.173, 101.75.   
261 See infra  App. A, 47 C FR pt. 74 (§§ 74.600 -74.690), pt. 78 (§§ 78.1 -78.115) . 
262 12.7 NOI at *14, para. 28. Ericson recognizes that mobile TV operations  “could make sharing the 12.7 GHz 
band with new terrestrial mobile broadband services more challenging ” and that “[o]pportuniti es to relocate 
incumbents or consolidate and segment the band should be prioritized, ” such as “repack [ing] certain existing uses 
into a smaller portion of the band. ”  Ericsson Comments at 10 -11.   
263 Verizon Comments at 7.  
264 Nokia Comments a t 5.  Nokia contends that  “mechanisms to enable coexistence with mobile incumbents are 
usually more complex than in case of fixed incumbents. ”  Id.  It also notes that “[r] estrictions on the mobile 
broadband deployments in such areas to allow sharing with mobile incumbents would decrease the value of the 
band. ”  Id. at 4.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
43 caused by new entrants and ensure that broadcaster do not bear any costs associated with relocation.265  
SBE cautions that the relocation of mobile BAS and other incumbent broadcast operations would be 
impractical  and expensive, because (1) there is no “clear alternative offering the flexibility necessary for 
mobile ENG and other broadcaster operations; and (2) “even if there were a clear alternative … relocation 
would “ render broadcasters’ incumbent mobile newsgathering equipment  obsolete —resulting in 
significant costs to replace and deploy new equipment (for use in other spectrum or within a newly 
reserved portion of existing spectrum), and for which broadcasters’ expenses would need to be 
compensated .”266  As CTIA observes, in 20 00 the Commission adopted rules to repack mostly mobile 
BAS/CARS operations, similar to those in the 12.7 GHz band, from the 1990-2110 MHz band to the 
2025- 2110 MHz band using more spectrally efficient equipment .264   
75. We propose to repack mobile BAS/CARS incumbents into a segment of the 12.7 GHz 
band to be designated for mobile BAS/CARS use, and we seek comment on this proposal.  We propose to retain 25 megahertz for mobile BAS/CARS operation and to repack existing  operations into this dedicated 
band.  Is 25 megahertz adequate to accommodate current mobile BAS/CARS incumbent operations in the 
12.7 GHz band?  If no, how much spectrum would be required for mobile BAS/CARS use after 
repacking?  Where within the 12.7 GHz ban d should these repacked operations be located?  Would 
locating the repack band at the top, bottom, or both ends of the 12.7 GHz band more effectively serve to mitigate potential interference, from new 12.7 GHz band mobile broadband or other expanded use 
operations, to operations in adjacent bands?  Are the existing provisions that reserved 13.15-13.2125 GHz 
for mobile BAS/CARS inside a 50 km radius of 100 television markets relevant to this question?
267  
Commenters should discuss advantages and disadvantages of different repacking options, included 
economic considerations.  
76. We seek comment on the typical use of this band by mobile BAS/CARS incumbent 
licensees.  For example, is this band typically used by BAS licensees for traditional ENG type operations 
from a mobile pickup van or truck back to the studio or central receiver site?  Or is this band used 
primarily for shorter more localized transmission from cameras or backpack transmitters to the ENG 
truck?  Are there other typical uses for mobile transmitters in this band?  Is equipment in this  band 
tunable within the band?  Is equipment in this band capable of scaling bandwidth to different sized channels?  How intensively is this band used in practice by incumbent licensees for mobile operations 
compared to other BAS bands such as 2 GHz and 6 GHz?  Is equipment currently being manufactured 
and marketed for mobile BAS/CARS operation in this band?  Can new 12.7 GHz band equipment used 
for studio-transmitter links be reconfigured for ENG or other mobile BAS/CARS uses?   
77. We seek comment on how our Emerging Technologies procedures should apply to 
incumbent use of  non-fixed or mobile operations in the band.  Whereas the transition of fixed links is 
relatively straightforward, in that it entails the relocation of inde pendent fixed point -to-point microwave 
links, and can proceed link- by-link on an as -needed basis, the integrated nature of mobile BAS and CARS 
operations makes link -by-link relocation infeasible.  It is further complicated by incumbent use of 
 
265 NAB Comments at 2, 7-8; Scripps Broadcasting Comments at 1, 5.  NAB emphasizes that, any relocation of 
broadcasters’ operations must be fully funded.  NAB Reply Comments at 5; see also  Scripps Broadcasting 
Comments at 5.  Broadcasters have made significant investments in 12.7 GHz operations, and the costs of relocation 
may be substantial. NAB Reply at 5 .  Even frequency changes within the 12.7 GHz band may require antenna 
replacements that are costly or impractical .  Id.; see also  Scripps Broadcasting Reply at 5. 
266 SBE Comments at 4 -5. 
267 See 47 CFR § § 2.106 note NG 53 , 74.602(a) note 2; 78.18(l).  See also Amendment of Part 101 of the 
Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wire less Backhaul and Other Uses and to Provide 
Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees , Report and 
Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order,  26 FCC Rcd 11614, 11626 
para. 24 (2011)  (Commission excluded FS from 13.150 -13.200 MHz nationwide because that spectrum was already 
reserved for TV pickup operations in 100 markets) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
44 frequency -agile, non -fixed or mobile stations.268  The Commission has previously required that the BAS 
and CARS operations be cleared from transitioning bands on a market -by-market basis before any new 
entrant could begin operations.269  It may also be necessary for a new entrant to relocate more non-fixed 
or mobile  BAS and CARS facilities than an interference analysis might indicate is technically necessary 
in order to meet the comparable facility requirement for relocating non-fixed or mobile BAS or CARS 
operations.270  Should a new entrant  therefore be obligated to relocate all incumbent non-fixed or mobile 
BAS and CARS operations in all affected BAS and CARS markets, including those markets where the 
new entrant provides partial, minimal, or even no service ?  We seek co mment on our proposals.  
78. Once incumbent mobile BAS/CARS have transitioned into a repacked band, should we 
consider whether to allow  the following to operate in some or all of the mobile BAS /CARS  repack band: 
incumbent fixed point -to-point ( PTP) BAS , or all incumbent fixed PTP (some of which may have tunable 
equipment ) so long as such fixed PTP links would not intersect with incumbent mobile BAS/CARS 
authorized mobile operating areas, and new mobile BAS/CARS operations ?271  If the repack band is 
reserved nationwide for mobile BAS/CARS (limited to incumbents during a transition period) a re there 
any scenarios in which we should consider permitting licensed expanded-use services to operate in 
portions of the repack band (spectral or geographical) af ter the transition period?   Could an automated 
spectrum management system at a later design date be needed in the mobile BAS/CARS repack band, or could shared access occur without the use of database managed sharing systems?
272  We seek comments 
on these issues.   
c. Fixed Satellite Service  
79. Space stations.   As noted in our 12.7 NOI, 27 space stations’ records specify use of the 
12.7 GHz band with all 27 specifying downlink (space -to-Earth) in the 12.7- 12.75 GHz band, 20 
specifying uplink (Earth-to -space) in all  or a segment of the 12.75- 13.25 GHz band, and four specifying 
uplink (Earth -to-space) in the 12.7 -12.75 GHz band and in all or a segment of the 12.75-13.25 GHz 
band.273  More generally, of the total number of GSO satellites, we noted in the 12.7 NOI  that o nly eight 
of the 23 space stations are in orbital locations with good visibility to all or significant portions of 
CONUS.274  Of the four satellite records associated with three non -geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, 
we noted that the one operational system does not have any U.S. earth stations licensed in this band, 
 
268 Further, while BAS  and CARS  mobile operations are licensed for specific geographic markets, in some cases 
they operate nationwide.  
269 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile 
Satellite Service , ET Docket No. 95 -18, Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 
FCC Rcd 23638 , 23653 -23660 paras. 29-42 (2003); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate 
Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless 
Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems , ET Docket No. 00 -258, Sixth Report and Order, Third 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20720, 20746- 20753 
paras. 57-73 (2004) ( AWS Sixth Report and Order ); 47 CFR §§ 74.690(e)(1), 78.40(f)(1).  
270 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915 -1920 MHz, 1995- 2000 M Hz, 2020 -2025 MHz and 
2175 -2180 MHz Bands , Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263, 19285 para. 52 (2006);  47 CFR §§ 
74.690(d), 78.40(d) -(e).  For example, operations of non -fixed or mobile BAS or CARS operations in an adjacent 
market may need to be relocated even though the  new entrant does not initiate operations in that adjacent market.  
271 See 47 CFR § 101.147(a) n.34.  
272 47 CFR §§ 96.53 -96.66 (Spectrum Access System fo r the Citizens Broadband Radio Service); id. §§ 15.713-
15.715 (White space database); id. § 15.407(k) (Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) system for 6 GHz 
devices).  No AFC system operators have yet been designated by the Commission.  
273 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.  
274 Id. (Commission noted that these eight space stations are in the arc of 132.85 WL to 30 WL.)     Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
45 another system is not operational, and a third has surrendered the Ku-band portion of the grant.275  We are 
not proposing to sunset or to require new entrants to relocate Fixed Satellite Service incumbents, which 
we propose to define as any Fixed Satellite Service space station or earth station authorized to serve or 
operate in the United States in accordance with the Table of Allocations based on an application or 
petition for market access filed before September 19, 2022.   
80. Verizon states, however, that “the Commission’s recent  action to open the band to new 
[NGSO] satellites has substantially changed the spectral landscape, despite the goal of the freeze on processing of new applications in thi s frequency range.”
276  According to Verizon, “the Commission 
should seek further comment on how new wireless operations can coexist with the substantial number of 
new NGSO FSS deployments.”277  In addition, Verizon states that “[t]o the extent FSS operation s are not 
relocated from the band, the Commission should seek comment on how it might leverage the prior -
coordination requirements for terrestrial and space services to facilitate coexistence among operations in the band.”
278  We seek comment accordingly.  We note, however, that SpaceX supports the Commission’s 
decision to explore use of the 12.7 GHz band rather than the 12.2 GHz band for terrestrial mobile broadband and other expanded use.  SpaceX asserts that “[w]hile [it] is licensed for both bands, it 
nonetheless joins the other commenters supporting the Commission’s shift in focus to the upper 12 GHz 
band.”
279  In any event, SpaceX’s “[o]perations of [NGSO] systems in the 12.75 -13.25 GHz (Earth -to-
space) frequency band with earth stations in the United St ates are restricted to individually licensed earth 
stations in accordance with footnote NG57 to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 CFR § 2.106, 
NG57.”280  Additionally, SpaceX’s “authorization is subject to modification to bring it into conformance  
with any rules  or policies adopted by the Commission in the future.281   
81. Earth stations .  As noted in the 12.7 NOI , 27 locations are associated with 43 incumbent 
earth stations.282  There are eight earth station authorizations for ESIM or temporary fixed operations that 
do not specify a specific set of geographic coordinates.283  Of the 35 remaining earth stations, there are 
 
275 Id. 
276 Verizon Comments at 8  & n.26  (citing  SpaceX Gen2 Order , FCC 22 -91, 2022 WL 17413767 , at *1 para. 1, *18, 
para. 42  (authorizing the construction, deployment, and authorization of up to 7,500 satellites (Earth -to-space) in the 
12.75- 13.25 GHz band, among other segments )).   
277 Id. 
278 See Verizon Comments at 7 -8. 
279 SpaceX Reply at 1.  See also  Letter from Kimberly M. Baum , Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, 
WorldVu Satellites Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 2 2-352 et al. at 2 (filed 
Mar.  20, 2023 ) (OneWeb March 20, 2023 Ex Parte ) (“OneWeb urged closing out the 12.2- 12.7 GHz procee ding and 
shifting the Commission’s focus to the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band which holds more promise for expanded terrestrial 
use.”). 
280 SpaceX Gen2 Order , FCC 22 -91 at para. 135(h)  (noting  that the licensing of earth stations (i.e. filed after Sept. 
19, 2022) for operations in the 12.75 -13.25 GHz will be subject to filing freeze on applications for new or modified 
authorizations for the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band.).   
281 SpaceX Gen2 Order , FCC 22 -91 at para. 135(hh) (stating that the “ authorization is subject to modification to 
bring it into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the Commission in the future . [And, that]… any 
investments made toward operations in the bands authorized [by the]  Order by SpaceX in the United States assume 
the risk that oper ations may be subject to additional conditions or requirements as a result of any future Commission 
actions …[including , but not limited to ]…any conditions or requirements resulting from any action in the 
proceedings associated with …GN Docket 22 -352…”) .   
282 See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.   
283 Id.  An ESIM is operated by remote control from a ground- based network and monitoring center that is specified 
in the authorization.  See 47 CFR § 25.271.   “Of the 20 earth station authorizations for uplink [ sic] (space -to-Earth) 
in the 12.7- 12.75 GHz band, eight are for Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) and may or may not involve operations 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
46 eight instances of co -location with other earth stations, resulting in the 27 locations.284  A majority (23) of 
those Earth stations are authorized for uplink transmission (Earth -to-space) in the 12.7 GHz band.285  
Additionally, 20 earth stations are authorized for downlink reception (space -to-Earth) in the lower 50 
megahertz of the band (i.e., 1 2.7-12.75 GHz), in many instances together with other frequencies in the 
lower -adjacent Ku -band.286  We also noted that, for FSS operations, downlink earth stations are more 
likely to suffer harmful interference from terrestrial systems than uplink earth st ations (where the victim 
receiver is at the space station far from the terrestrial systems).287 
82. We propose to grandfather the 23 incumbent earth stations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band 
that operate in accordance with the United States and ITU’s band allocation  for Region 2 by operating 
earth -to-space.  No additional earth stations would be authorized in the  12.7 GHz band.  We propose that 
non-conforming incumbent Earth stations that operate by receiving in the space -to-Earth direction in 
12.7-12.75 GHz in the United States may continue on a non-interference basis and have no right to 
protection from harmful interference.288  We seek comment on potential international implications of our 
proposal.  
d. Incumbent Status —Licensing Data  
83. We propose to define incumbent operations entitled to protection or relocation (until the 
sunset date), or for grandfathered status, based on the facilities authorized in the Commission licensing 
records.289  In the Order section of today’s item, we direct fixed and mobile BAS and CARS licensees 
under parts 74 and 78, for each of their authorizations to use the 12.7 GHz band, to certify the accuracy of 
all information reflected on each license, including whether the facilities are operating as authorized.  If a 
licensee is unabl e to make such a certification for a given license, it must cancel or modify the license in 
accordance with the Commission’s rules.  For BAS and CARS licenses, we propose to limit eligibility for incumbent status in the 12.7 GHz band to those licenses for which the licensee has timely filed the 
certification required in this Order in ULS or COALS, respectively .   
84. Although we do not require other incumbents to provide additional information on their 
existing operations at this time, in the Order we direct th e Bureaus, in coordination with the Office of 
Economics and Analytics, to consider whether additional information should be collected from some or 
all 12.7 GHz band incumbents.  In the event that additional information  is required from incumbents, we 
propose to limit eligibility for incumbent status to those incumbents that file such required certifications 
or data.  Because the Commission proposed to use these licensing data to inform our deliberations 
regarding the future use of the  12.7 GHz band, includi ng possible interference avoidance coordination or 
relocation of facilities, or grandfathered status that could require future licensees to accept harmful 
(Continued from previous page)   
in these frequencies in the United States. ”  12.7 NOI at n.28 (the 20 earth stations, and therefore the eight indicated 
for ESIM have a “downlink” designation.).  
284 See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.  In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) leases commercial satellite services 
in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band as end users.  Id. 
285 See 12.7  NOI at *5, para. 11.  
286 See 12.7  NOI at *5, para. 11.  
287 12.7 NOI at *10, para. 28.  
288 See Application of Fugro -Chance, Inc. , Order and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2860, 2860, para. 2 ( IB 1995) 
(stating that a waiver of section 2.106 —the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations —is  appropriate “when there is 
little potential for interference into any service authorized under the Table of Frequency Allocations and when the 
non-conforming operator accepts any interference from authorized services”).   
289 Licensing data for fixed and mobile BAS under part  74 and Fixed Microwave under part 101 is in ULS.   
Licensing data for fixed and mobile CARS is in COALS .  Licensing data for FSS stations is in MyIBFS.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
47 interference from existing operations, we encourage all licensees to timely submit their data and to update 
their information in the event of a change in any of the operational parameters.  
e. Cost -sharing  
85. When the Commission adopts a transition plan that involves the relocation of 
incumbents, new entrants sometimes have to relocate an incumbent  from a larg er frequency range  or 
greater geographic area than where the new entrant  will operate, thereby clearing the incumbent for the 
benefit of others.  In such cases, the Commission has often developed cost sharing requirements, so that all licensees that derive a benefit from a relocation action share the responsibility for the costs of that 
relocation, regardless of whether they are the first to deploy their system or deploy their systems after 
other licensees have already deployed and incurred spectrum -clearin g costs.
290  We seek comment on 
whether we should adopt cost -sharing procedures applicable to the relocation of incumbents in the 12.7 
GHz band.  If so, how should we apportion the expenses of a relocation among those new entrants that 
benefit from the relo cation?  What type of formula should be applied?  Would that formula differ for the 
reimbursement of relocated fixed microwave services and non -fixed or mobile BAS and CARS 
operations?  If so, how would it differ, and why?  For example, if we were to impos e an obligation on a 
new entrant to relocate all non -fixed and mobile BAS and CARS on a market -by-market basis prior to 
commencing operations, should we obligate all new entrants that are licensed to operate in a cleared market to pay a pro rata share of t hose costs?
291  What type of test should determine whether a new 
entrant has triggered a cost -sharing obligation for a relocated microwave link or one or more repacked 
mobile BAS/CARS systems authorized in any part of a new entrant's licensed area ?  For example, the 
Commission adopted a Proximity Threshold Test to determine whether an AWS licensee triggered a cost -
sharing obligation for relocated microwave links.292  If we were to adopt a similar Proximity Threshold 
Test here, how would the input data in Sect ion 27.1168(a)(3)(i) differ to reflect the higher band of 
microwave operations in the 12.7 GHz band?   
86. Would there be a need to designate one or more clearinghouses to administer the cost -
sharing plan and calculate the amount of each beneficiary’s reimbursement obligation  in accordance with 
any formula that would be set forth in our rules?293  Are there opportunities to incentivize the relocation of 
 
290 3.7 GHz Band Report and Order , 35 FCC Rcd at 2445, para. 250; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services 
H Block — Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 
1915 -1920 MHz and 1995 -2000 MHz Bands , WT Docket No. 12 -357, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 9548, 
para. 167 (2013); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile 
and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services , Including Third Generation 
Wireless Systems , ET Docket No. 00 -258, Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21  FCC Rcd 4473, 4478, para. 8 
(2006); Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, 
WT Docket No. 95- 157, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 13999, 14004, para. 10 
(2000).   
291 See AWS Sixth Report and Order , 19 FCC Rcd at 20753 paras. 72 -73 (stating the first entrant may seek 
reimbursement from subsequently entering licensees for a proportional share of the first entrant's costs in clearing 
BAS spectrum, on a pro rata  basis acco rding to the amount of spectrum each licensee is assigned); Improving 
Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band , WT Docket 02 -55, Fifth Report and Order, Eleventh Report 
and Order, Sixth Report and Order, and Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd13874 , 138 93 para. 42 (2010) ( 800 MHz 
Fifth Report and Order ) (stating that an AWS entrant will “enter the band” on the date that the grant of its long -form 
application becomes a final action  and any AWS entrant that enters the band prior to the sunset date will be required 
to reimburse an entrant that has relocated BAS incumbents a pro rata  share of the relocation costs).    
292 47 CFR § 27.1168.  In comparison, the Commission determined that an AWS licensee triggered a reimbursement 
obligation for relocated BAS opera tions in the 2 GHz band upon grant of its long -form application .  See 800 MHz 
Fifth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 13893, para. 42 (stating that an AWS entrant will “enter the band” on the 
date that the grant of its long -form application becomes a final action ). 
293 A cost -sharing clearinghouse is a third -party that is typically designated by the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau pursuant to delegated authority.  See Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band , GN Docket 18 -22, 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
48 some or all types of incumbents on an accelerated basis?294  Would some form of the accelerated 
relocation paym ent approach such as was used for the 3.7 -4.2 GHz band (3.7 GHz band)  be appropriate to 
accelerate clearing some or all incumbent services out of some or all of the 12.7 GHz band?295 
B. Alternative Approaches for Sharing the Band  
87. Here we explore the second alternative option raised in the 12.7 NOI for making the 12.7 
GHz band available for mobile broadband and other expanded use: implementation of certain sharing 
methodologies among incumbents and new entrants.  In the 12.7  NOI, the Commission  sought detailed 
proposals for promoting coexistence or sharing between potential new terrestrial mobile broadband or 
other expanded use and existing incumbent licensees in the 12.7 GHz band, rather than sunsetting or 
relocati ng incumbents , or repacking of the band.296  The Commission also  sought comment on sharing 
methodologies such as static or dynamic sharing, using a database or spectrum management system, 
adopting a  nonexclusive licensing system, or application of long-term sensing technolog y.297  The 
Commission  noted that, while an automated spectrum management system s have been proven to be 
effective for devices in the part 96 Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS ), for part 15 white space 
devices, and for 6 GHz unlicensed devices, there ar e several important differences between them.298  
Under the white space and 6 GHz unlicensed rules, devices must query a database system for a list of 
available frequencies and permissible operating power on a periodic basis, e.g., once per hour or once per  
day, and a device may select any available operating frequency and permissible power level from a list provided by the database .
299  The CBRS  Spectrum Access System s (SAS) have greater interactivity wit h 
managed  devices and may require devices to change frequency or power level or to cease operation 
within 60 seconds as necessary to prevent interference to incumbent services or devices with a higher 
spectrum access priority.300  The sharing methods that have been proven for white space devices and 
(Continued from previous page)   
Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 11859 (WTB 2020); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Designates Clearinghouses 
That Will Administer the 2 GHz PCS Relocation Cost -Sharing Plan , DA 96 -1522, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 10634 
(WTB 1996); see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Finds CTI A and PCIA Qualified to Administer the 
Cost-Sharing Plan for Licensees in the 2.1 GHz Bands,  WT Docket 02 -353, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 11265 
(WTB 2006).   
294 Based on the unique record presented for the 3.7 GHz band , the Commission adopted two Accelerated  Relocation 
Deadlines —a one year Phase I deadline and a three -year Phase II deadline—“for incumbent space station operators 
that voluntarily relocate on an accelerated schedule (with additional obligations and incentives for such operators).”   
3.7 GHz Band Report and Order , 35 FCC Rcd at 2413, para. 168.   
295 See id. at 2413- 14, paras. 168- 72 (accelerated relocation) .   
296 12.7 NOI at *6, para. 14.  
297 Id. at *6 -*8, para s. 16 -21.  
298 Id. at *7, para. 17.  
299 Id. at *7, para. 17  (citing 47 CFR §§ 15.711(h)(1) -(h)(2), 15.407(k)(8)(iv)) .  While the D.C. Circuit did remand a 
portion of the 6 GHz Report and Order to the Commission for further discussion, this limited remand concerned a 
commenter’s arguments regarding unlicensed devices operating without a spectrum management system rather than 
higher powered devices controlled by the 6 GHz band automated frequency coordination (AFC) system.  See 
Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 18 -295, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulem aking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020), aff’d in part and remanded in part , AT&T Servs. Inc., v. FCC , 21 F.4th 841, 
853-54 (D.C. Cir. 2021).    
300 12.7 NOI at *7, para. 17  (citing 47 CFR § 96.39(c)(2)) .  Relative to such sharing approaches, w e also seek 
comment on whether any third- party entity that manages, coordinates, or facilitates use of devices by those who are 
not individually licensed should be required to collect and maintain data documenting operation of devices, 
including the identity of those persons or entities operating such devices.  If so, how long should this data should be retained and made available to the Commission upon request?    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
49 CBRS , in conjunction with new or developing sharing technologies, may be used in the 12.7-13.25 GHz 
band to maximize the use of spectrum.  
88. Federated Wireless proposes a Dynamic Spectrum Management System (DSMS) as an 
effective and efficient way to maximize the use of the 12.7 GHz band, with new and innovative uses of 
spectrum, while protecting incumbent operations.301  The DSMS would operate by acquiring information 
about the incumbent’s spectrum use by several methods such as querying a database like the Universal 
Licensing System (ULS), receiving notifications through an automated portal system, sensing incumbent 
use, or a combination of two or more of these methods.302  Federated Wireless also proposes that the 
Commission adopt a multi -tiered licensing framework in the 12.7 GHz band, similar to the three-tiered 
regulatory framework used by the SAS in the CBRS band.303  The three-tier regulatory framework used 
by the CBRS band enables different classes of users while providing interference protection to 
incumbents in the 3550-3700 MHz band.304  Other comment ers, such as the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, 
NCTA, and the Open Technology Institute and Publ ic Knowledge, all support adopting a shared-licensing 
framework, emphasizing the benefits that have been achieved in the TV White Space, CBRS, and 6 GHz band.
305 
89. The Society of Broadcast Engineers claims that neither an database-driven spectrum 
management  system nor a spectrum -sensing approach to spectrum sharing will provide adequate 
protection for electronic news-gathering operations in the band.306  It adds that spectrum sensing is unable 
to detect the one -way transmission equipment used in mobile newsgathering, and database-driven systems 
like the an automated frequency coordination system will not precisely capture mobile BAS operations, 
which by definition do not have a fixed location found i n any database.307  In its comments, Verizon 
discourages the use of new and complex dynamic sharing methods or database coordination requirements 
that may limit investments and complicate new mobile broadband deployments into the 12.7 GHz band.308  
Instead, it recommend s the use of an exclusive -use, flexible -rights lice nsing framework, as well as 
coordination, repacking, and relocation that is better suited for incumbent operations.309   
90. We seek comment on using an automated spectrum management system such as the 
automated frequency coordination (AFC) systems used in the 6 GHz band or spectrum access systems 
used in CBRS as a method to enable spectrum sharing in the 12.7 GHz band as an alternative to relocating 
incumbents or repacking the band.  To determine whether a new mobile broadband device can operate at 
a particular  location on a given frequency, the device would be required to obtain either a list of 
permissible frequencies from an automated spectrum management system prior to transmitting  or a list of 
prohibited frequencies on which it cannot transmit.  We envision the automated spectrum management 
system to be a database that is simple to implement.  We seek comment on this alternative proposal.  
What capabilities should be incorporated into the automated spectrum management system?  Should it use 
a centralized mod el where all data and computations are done in a central location?  In this case, the 
device would establish a connection with the automated spectrum management system, provide its 
 
301 Federated Wireless Comments at 2.  
302 Federated Wireless Comments at  3. 
303 Federated Wireless Comments at 5.  
304 See 47 CFR § 96.11(a).  
305 DSA Comments at 2; NCTA Comments at 4; Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge Comments at 8 
(OTI & PK).  
306 SBE Comments at 5.  
307 SBE Comments at 5.  
308 Verizon Comments at  1-2, 5-6. 
309 Verizon Comments at  6.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
50 location and technical details, and the automated spectrum management system will communicate the list 
of permissible frequencies (or a list of prohibited frequencies) back to the device.  Or should the 
automated spectrum management system’s architecture be de-centralized where the device maintains a 
local database of incumbent o perations and performs the necessary computations to determine which 
frequencies and power levels can be used without causing harmful interference?  Under such a model, 
how would the local database within the device be kept up to date?  What are the trade-offs, including the costs and benefits, between a centralized versus a decentralized model in terms of efficiency, device 
complexity, and ability to protect incumbent licensee operations?  
91. Because BAS was not present in the portions of the 6 GHz band where the AFC systems 
manage access to spectrum, mobile BAS/CARS was not addressed in the 6 GHz band AFC implementation.  The mobile nature of these BAS/CARS operations makes it more difficult to manage 
spectrum access in real time.  Electronic news gathering tr ucks, while they are mobile by definition, 
operate in a fixed fashion and direct transmissions towards fixed receive sites when broadcasting from the 
location of scheduled sporting or news events.  Mobile BAS/CARS equipment may also be used for 
short -range  connectivity such as relaying signals from a camera to a news gathering truck.  For these 
types of itinerant mobile -fixed operation, a mobile BAS/CARS licensee could provide advanced notice of 
its planned operation to enable the automated spectrum managem ent system to protect the BAS 
operations from harmful interference.  We seek comments or proposals on whether these sorts of planned 
mobile operations can be accommodated on an AFC or SAS -like system.  We also seek comment on 
whether mobile BAS/CARS operat ions in this band are, in fact, similar to BAS use in the 6 GHz band, 
and if not whether there are additional considerations that an automated spectrum management would 
need to address specific to this band.  Could such a system be adapted to accommodate u nplanned, 
unscheduled news or other events?  
92. Should the automated spectrum management system determine frequency availability 
using the proposed permissible power limits for base stations, mobile stations, and transportable stations 
or should it instead det ermine frequency availability at power levels less than the maximum, and calculate 
a list of available frequencies and the maximum power permitted on each one?  If the automated spectrum management system calculates the maximum power for each frequency, ho w would it control the power 
levels of mobile broadband devices to ensure that they operate at permissible levels?  How should 
frequency availability information be reported to the devices?  Should the automated spectrum 
management system report availabili ty for discrete frequency bands, e.g., 10 or 20 megahertz channels, or 
should it simply report the range or ranges of available frequencies?  Alternatively, should the automated 
spectrum management system simply list the range or ranges of unavailable freq uencies?  
93. We seek comment on whether device registration with  the automated spectrum 
management  system  is necessary.  Under a registration requirement, a mobile broadband device would 
transmit identifying information along with its location to the automated spectrum management system 
before receiving a list of permissible frequencies.
310  Alternatively, a device under a centralized system 
architecture could provide only its location data and the automated spectrum management  system would 
provide it with the list of permissible channels for that location.  Under a decentralized system 
architecture, registration would not nec essarily be required as the device only needs periodic updates of 
the local fixed service operating environment.  
94. We seek comment on the types of security requirements that would be necessary for an 
automated spectrum management  system that manages mobile b roadband devices in the 12.7 GHz band.  
White space devices and databases, CBRS devices and the SAS, as well as 6 GHz AFC systems and 
unlicensed devices are required to incorporate security measures to ensure that devices communicate only 
 
310 Fixed white space devices and Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices are required to register certain 
information with the white space database or Spectrum Access System, including the device’s location, antenna 
height above ground, device identification information, and contact information for the device’s operator.  47 CFR 
§§ 15.713(g), 96.39(c).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
51 with authorized databases, that all communications and interactions between a database and devices are 
accurate and secure, and that unauthorized parties cannot access or alter a database, or the list of available 
frequencies sent to a device.311  Are similar requirements n ecessary or appropriate for devices and an 
automated spectrum management  system in the 12.7 GHz band?  Are any additional requirements 
necessary?  Do we need to specify security requirements for devices to ensure that the software within 
them cannot be easily modified to enable operation on frequencies other than those indicated as available by the automated spectrum management  system?  
C. Licensing and Operating Rules  
1. Part 27  
95. To encourage intensive investment in, and robust deployment  of, next -generation 
wireless networks, the Commission has adopted or proposed licensing approaches for other mid-band spectrum that are tailored to the unique characteristics of each band.  We propose and seek comment on 
service-specific rules for the 12.7 GHz band.  In addressin g these issues, commenters should discuss the 
costs and benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that commenters propose.  
96. We propose to license the spectrum under our flexible -use part 27 rules, which permit 
licensees to provide any fi xed or mobile service consistent with the permitted allocations, subject to rules 
necessary to prevent or minimize harmful interference.  With the exception noted below, under this 
proposal, new mobile broadband and other expanded use licensees in the 12.7 GHz b and would comply 
with licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all Part 27 services,
312 including flexible use,313 
regulatory status,314 foreign ownership reporting,315 compliance with construction requirements,316 
renewal criteria,317 permanent discontinuance of operations,318 partitioning and disaggregation,319 and 
spectrum leasing .320  We seek comment generally on this approach.  With respect to technical rules and 
perform ance requirements, we intend to adopt rules based on commenter concerns and our experience and 
expertise.  Finally, we propose to make our licensing, authorization, and  service rules governing the 12.7 
GHz band appl icable nationwide, i.e., within  the Contiguous United States (CONUS) as well as the non-
contiguous states, territories, and possessions.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
 
311 See 47 CFR §§ 96.39(f) , 15.407(k)(8)(v) , 15.713( l).  
312 See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal et al. , 
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8874 (2017) ( WRS 
Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNP RM) (amending several of the rules applicable to Part 27 services ). 
313 Sectio n 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to provide for flexibility of use if: “(1) such use is 
consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party; and (2) the Commission finds, after 
notice and opportunity for public com ment, that (A) such an allocation would be in the public interest;  (B) such use 
would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use 
would not result in harmful interference among users.”  Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105- 22, 111 Stat. 
251, 269 -69; 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).  See also 47 CFR §§ 27.2, 27.3.  
314 47 CFR § 27.10.  
315 47 U.S.C. § 310; 47 CFR § 27.12.  
316 47 CFR § 27.14(k) . 
317 Id. § 1.949.  
318 Id. § 1.953.  
319 Id. § 1.950.  
320 Id. §§ 1.9001 et seq .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
52 2. 12.7 GHz Band Plan  
97. The Commission’s goal in this proceeding is to make as much of the 12.7 GHz band 
available for mo bile broadband or other expanded uses as possible in order to facilitate next -generation 
uses of spectrum that are increasingly necessary in the modern, connected world.  To promote effective 
use of the 12.7 GHz band, we propose a technologically neutral policy for licensing the band.  That is, we 
do not make any technological choices or prohibitions, or prefer any particular kind of technology.  We do not propose a duplex gap, or distinct blocks for base and mobile that would presume or prohibit FDD or TDD deployments.  We seek comment on this proposal.  Are there interference issues that we are not 
currently anticipating that this regime would create?  We ask commenters to address interference concerns between FDD and TDD, explain how they could coexist in  the band, and discuss coordination 
and interference rules that must apply if both were to be permitted.  In section V.A.3.b above  (Mobile  
BAS/CARS ), we propose to set aside 25 megahertz to repack mobile BAS/CARS incumbents.     
3. Spectrum Block Sizes for New Licenses  
98. Currently, the 12.7 GHz band is licensed for satellite, BAS/CARS fixed and mobile use, 
and other fixed uses.  Under our band plan proposal, most of the 550 megahertz would be made available to new entrants for mobile or other expanded uses, with a small portion of the band set aside to accommodate repacked mobile B AS/CARS incumbents.  We seek comment on the appropriate block 
sizes for these new licenses to best promote efficient and robust use of the band for next -generation 
wireless technologies.  Several commenters note the importance of larger block sizes to the deployment of 
mobile broadband and other expanded uses; indeed, some commenters indicate that as broadband technologies evolve, operators will be required to have contiguous 100 megahertz blocks to deliver next -
generation broadband.
321  In light of this concern, we believe that 100 megahertz blocks will produce the 
best environment for 5G and future 6G deployments, as large block sizes support faster data speeds and better coverage for next -generation deployments.
322  Additionally, we believe 100 megahertz bl ocks will 
afford adequate flexibility to prospective licensees in terms of system design .  
99. We seek comment on this proposal  (100 MHz blocks) and on how to authorize any 
spectrum blocks less than 100 megahertz depending on the size of the mobile BAS/CARS repack band.  Commenters offering an alternative proposal should detail the advantages and disadvantages of their 
favored approach,  including any costs and benefits, based on what they know about the technical 
requirements of the respective technologies that  either use or could use the band.  We recognize that some 
commenters favor smaller blocks of 50 megahertz.
323  If we adopt smaller sized blocks, should we allow 
licensees to aggregate the use of these separate licenses into wider bandwidths while retaining the 
performance requirements of each individual license?  Would this approach help ensure that spectrum is put to use, as compared to larger block sizes?  Are there any additional considerations that we should take into account in determining the spectrum block sizes to be used for new licenses in this band? 
 
321 See, e.g.  AT&T Comments at 4 ; Qualcomm Comments at 7 (noting that a 5G base station with 100 MHz 
bandwidth provides sub- meter positioning accuracy, and that more bandwidth will allow for more precise 
positioning and improve overall network performance); Verizon Comments at 9; Ericsson Reply at 10 -11; 5G 
Americas Reply at 6.  
322 “[T]he Commission should prioritize large bandwidths such as 50 -megahertz or 100 -megahertz channel blocks, 
the latter which ‘have become international best practice and are implemented in the majority of 5G -leading 
markets.’”  Verizon Comments at 9 (quoting GSMA, 5G Spectrum: GSMA Public Policy Position, at 5 (June 2022), 
https://www.gsma.com/- spectrum/wp -content/uploads/2022/06/5G -Spectrum -Positions.pdf ).   
323 Competitive Carriers’ Association Reply at 5; T -Mobile Comments at 14; US  Cellular Reply at 5.  Some 
Commenters, suc h as T -Mobile, argue that 100 megahertz blocks would orphan a 50 megahertz block, or otherwise 
require the Commission to license the band with blocks of varying size. T -Mobile Comments at 14; US  Cellular 
Comments at 6.  We note that under our band plan proposal, some spectrum would be designated for repacking 
incumbent mobile BAS/CARS operations.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
53 4. Geographic License Area Sizes  
100. Consistent with our approach in several other bands used to provide fixed and mobile 
services, we propose to license the 12.7 GHz spectrum on an exclusive, geographic -area basis.324  
Geographic -area licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes efficient spectrum  use, and helps 
facilitate rapid assignment of licenses.  We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and 
benefits of adopting a geographic area li censing scheme.  In the event that a party does not support using 
geographic licensing, it should explain its position, describe what type of licensing scheme it supports , 
and identify the costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing proposal.   
101. In determining the appropriate geographic license size, the Commission considers several 
factors, including: (1) facilitating access to spectrum by both small and large providers ; (2) providing for 
the efficient use of spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers, 
especially those in rural areas and T ribal lands; and (4) promoting investment in and rapid deployment of 
new technologi es and services.325  In light of these statutory considerations, we propose to issue flexible 
use licenses on a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis.326  We ask commenters to discuss and quantify the 
economic, technical, and other public interest considerations  of licensing on a PEA basis.  We observe 
that the question of geographic license area sizes intersects with the question of whether to issue exclusive 
or shared licenses: those that favor exclusive licenses often prefer PEAs or larger, whereas those that 
favor shared licensing regimes prefer smaller areas, such as counties.327  Because we propose to license 
the band exclusively, we also propose PEAs.   In our judgment, this area size will also help promote rural 
deployments by facilitating access to spectrum  by small and regional service providers and beyond.328  
We seek comment on licensing the 12.7 GHz band on a PEA basis.  
102. Some commenters seek smaller areas, such as counties.329  They argue that these smaller 
areas help smaller businesses and rural areas.330  Could smaller license areas increase the possibility of 
interference between adjacent areas and complicate a licensee’s ability  to fully deploy services using their 
licensed spectrum in their service areas?331  If so,  are there other reasons that would nev ertheless support 
adopting smaller license areas such as promoting competition?332  Would smaller or larger areas promote 
or complicate cost -sharing for relocation of incumbents?  Are there any additional considerations that we 
should take into account when determining the geographic license areas sizes for new licenses in the 12.7 GHz band when weighing the factors listed above?  For example, could a smaller license area help 
 
324 See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 27.6 (h) , (i) (AWS -1 and AWS -4, respectively).  
325 See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands , Report and Order, 18 
FCC Rcd 25162, 25174, para. 31 (2003) ( AWS -1 Service Rules R& O).   
326 See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt.  A, Appx.  A – List of Partial Economic Areas with Corresponding Counties.  
327 But see  RWA Comments at 2 (arguing for counties and not PEAs for licensed area size).  
328 See, e.g. , US Cellular Reply at 7.  
329 RWA Comments at 2 -3; OTI & PK Comments at 7 ; WISPA Reply at 1 -2, 7; see also see Letter from Traci 
Biswese, Vice President & Associate Gen eral Counsel, NCTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 
No. 22 -352, at 3 (May 11, 2023) (NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex Parte)  
330 RWA points out that the propagation characteristics of the band warrant adoption of smaller -sized license areas. 
RWA Comments  at 3.  In proposing PEAs, we are making the judgement that it propagates sufficiently far to justify 
PEA -sized areas.   We also seek comment on this approach.  
331 See T-Mobile Reply at 6 . 
332 See NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex Parte  at 3.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
54 promote deployment in Tribal areas?  We note that several commenters suggest providing priority access 
to spectrum over Tribal lands to Tribal entities.333 
5. License Term and Renewal  
103. We propose to establish a 10 -year license term for new mobile broadband and other 
expanded use licenses in the 12.7 GHz  band.  We believe that a 10 -year term serves our goal of providing 
licensees with flexibility to develop this spectrum as the market demands and to employ innovative technologies which may not be available immediately upon licensing.   We acknowledge that the 
Commission has adopted license terms longer than 10 years to account for delays in relocating incumbent 
operations.  In this case, however, because the existing use of the band is relatively light, we are 
proposing our standard 10- year license term along with an additional year (relative to some services) to 
meet the proposed interim buildout requirement.  We also propose to apply our general renewal 
requirements for wireless radio service licenses.
334  We seek comment on these proposed license term and 
renewal requirements, as well as on the costs and benefits of these proposal s.335  Are there alternative 
license terms th at might be better suited for this band?336  If an alternative license term is better, what 
impact would it have on investment or deployment, particularly for smaller or rural entities , and how 
could we determine its costs and benefits? 
6. Performance Requirements  
104. The Commission establishes performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is 
intensely and efficiently used.  The Commission has applied different performance and construction requirements to different spectrum bands based on considerations relevant to those bands.
337  We continue 
 
333 See Open Technology Institute  and Public Knowledge May 10, 2023 Ex Parte  at 3 (“With regard to creating a 
rural Tribal window for any spectrum authorized for new licensees in the 12.7 GHz band, the success of the 2.5 GHz 
window demonstrates the enormous value to Tribes of creating the  opportunity for greater spectrum access on Tribal 
lands. This would also be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 11/23/2022.  Available at 
https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline -files/mou_esb46- 009818_doi -fcc-
ntia_electromagnetic_spectrum_on_tribal_lands_2022- 11-23_final_fcc_ntia_doi_signed_508.pdf  ” ).  See also Tribal 
Ready May 10, 2023 Ex Parte  (“The Commission has previously recognized the value of Tribal set asides in 
promoting deployment as recently as the 2.5 GHz band. The 12 GHz band can and should also be an option to help Native Americans close the digital divide.").   
334 See 47 CFR § 1.949 (Application for renewal of license).  The WRS Renewal 2nd R&O and FNPRM  adopted a 
unified framework for construction, renewal, and service continuity rules for flexible use geographic licenses in the Wireless Radio Services.  See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform 
License Renewal et al. , WT Docket No. 10 -112, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8874 (2017) ( WRS Renewal Reform 2
nd R&O and FNPRM ).  Accord , 
Expand ing Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band , GN Docket No. 18 -122, Report and Order and Order of 
Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2390, para. 106 (2020) ( 3.7 GHz Report and  Order ). 
335 The Communications Act does not specify a term limit for wireless radio services licenses.  The only statutory 
limit on license terms is eight years for licenses in the broadcast services.  See 47 U.S.C. §  307(c)(1); see also  47 
CFR § 73.1020(a).   
336 See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 27.14(k) (AWS -3 licenses have a 12 -year initial lic ense terms and 10 -year renewal terms), (l) 
(600 MHz band licenses have 12- year initial license terms and 10 -year renewal terms).  
337 See, e.g. , Service Rules for Advance d Wireless Services H Block —Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915 -1920 MHz and 1995 -2000 MHz Bands , Report and 
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 9558 -59, para. 195 (2013 ) (requiring 40 percent population coverage within four years of 
initial grant and 75 percent population coverage within 10 years of initial  grant) ; see also Amendment of the 
Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695 -1710 MHz, 1755 -1780 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz Bands , Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4659 -60, para. 135 (2014) (requir ing 40 percent population 
coverage within six years of initial grant and 75 percent population coverage within 12 years of initial grant); 
(continued….)  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
55 to believe that performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not 
lie fallow. 
105. In response to the 12.7 NOI ,338 AT&T, T-Mobile, Intelsat, Ericsson and others note tha t 
the 12.7 GHz band shares many characteristics with millimeter wave ( mmW ) spectrum .339  Despite these 
similarities, T-Mobile  and Intelsat  suggest that performance requirements for the 12.7 GHz band should 
not necessarily be similar to those that apply to t he mmW spectrum, given  the difficulties mmW bands 
have had fulfilling buildout requirements .340  Moreover, T -Mobile suggests that the Commission carefully 
consider buildout requirements and allow for flexibility based on the unique needs of the spectrum bei ng 
used and the geographic area being served.341 
106. As with other part 27 services, we propose to adopt specific quantifiable benchmarks for 
different types of operations.   For the 12.7 GHz band, we propose to require  licensees offering mobile or 
point -to-mult ipoint services to provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 30% to 45% of 
the population in each of their license areas within five years342 of the license issue date (interim 
performance benchmark), and to at least 60% to 80% of the population in each of their license areas within ten years from the license issue date (final performance benchmark).
343  We seek comment on this 
proposal including the specific population coverage percentage appropriate for the interim and final benchmarks.   We recognize that, relative to the recently established 3.45 GHz Service, which has buildout 
deadlines at years four and eight,
344 we are proposing an additional year for 12.7 GHz band licensees to 
meet the proposed first buildout requirement and an addit ional two years to meet the second buildout 
requirement.  We believe this additional time is warranted given the lack of industry standards and 12.7 
GHz band mobile broadband equipment.  We propose l icensees providing fixed  point -to-point  service 
would be required to  demonstrate within five years of the license issue date (interim performance 
benchmark) that they have four links operating and providing service, if the population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000.  If the population wi thin the license area is greater than 268,000, a 
licensee relying on point -to-point service would need to demonstrate that it has at least one link in 
operation and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a 
(Continued from previous page)   
Expanding the Economic and Innovat ion Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions , Report and Order, 
29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6877- 78, para. 764 (2014 ). 
338 See, e.g. , 12.7 NOI at *11, para. 31.    
339 AT&T Comments at 1 ; Ericsson Comments at 8 ; T-Mobile Comments at 14; Intelsat Reply at 11 -12. 
340 T-Mobile Comments at 14 -15 (citing an NTIA Study that examined outdoor propagat ion in the 37 -40 GHz band 
in Boulder, Colorado) ; Intelsat Reply at 11 ; T-Mobile Reply at 4 -5. 
341 T-Mobile Comments at 15.  
342 For AWS -4, AWS H Block, and 3.45 GHz Service, the first performance benchmark is 4 years from the date of 
the initial license and the second performance benchmark is 8 years from the date of the initial license for AWS -4 
and 3.45 GHz Service and 10 years for H Block.  For services with incumbent transitions, the first performance 
benchmark ranges from 6 years (AWS -3, 600 MHz) to 8 years (3.7 GHz Service) from the date of the initial license, 
and the second performance benchmark is 12 years (AWS -3, 600  MHz,  3.7 GHz Service).  See 47 CFR 
§ 27.14(q),(r),(s),(t),(v),(w).   
343 Our proposals and questions comport with actions taken for other licenses  taking into account the unique 
characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band, e.g., presence of incumbents and the location of this mid -band spectrum —
significantly higher than 3.7 GHz but significantly lower than mmW spectrum .  See, e.g. , 47 CFR § § 27.14( v)(1) 
(requiring a 3.7 GHz Service licensee providing mobile or point -to-multipoint service to cover 45% of population 
within eight years of initial grant and 80% population coverage within 12  years of initial  grant) ; 27.14(w)(1)(i) 
(requiring a 3.45 GHz Service li censee providing mobile or point -to-point service to cover 45% of population within 
4 years and 80% of population within 8 years of initial grant); 47 CFR §§ 30.103, 30.104(a ) (requiring a UMFUS 
licensee providing mobile or point -to-multipoint service to c over 40%  of population within ten years).   
344 See 47 CFR § 27.14(w)(1)(i).    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
56 license area.  We propose to require licensees relying on point -to-point service to demonstrate within ten 
years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark) that they have eight links operating and 
providing service, either to customers or f or internal use, if the population within the license area is equal 
to or less than 268,000.  If the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, we propose to 
require a licensee relying on point -to-point service to demonstrate it is providi ng service and has at least 
two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a license area.345   
107. We also propose alternate Internet of Things (IoT) performance requirements in order to 
allow for flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population coverage metric.  
Specifically, we propose that licensees providing IoT -type services would have flexibility to demonstrate 
that they offer geographic area coverage of at least 25% to  35% of the license area at the interim (five-
year) performance benchmark, and geographic area coverage of at least 50% to 65% of the license area at 
the final  (ten-year) performance benchmark.346  We seek comment on th is proposal including the specific 
geographic area coverage percentage appropriate for the interim and final benchmarks metrics appropriate 
in the 1 2.7 GHz band .  Commenters should discuss the appr opriate metric to accommodate such service 
offerings or other innovative services in the 12.7  GHz band, as well as the costs and benefits of an 
alternative approach.  We also seek comment on whether to adopt renewal -term performance obligations.   
108. Compliance Procedures.  We propose that to demonstrate compliance with these 
performance requirements, licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population or geographic area served on 
areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or 
other acceptable identifier) would be deemed served by the licensee only if it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the 
extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such areas may include only the populatio n or geographic area within the 
Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual license.  If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, the 
license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas within each license 
area not being served.  Each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its ser vice territory and the type of technology used to 
provide such service.  Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the 
 
345 See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(v)(1) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service licensee providing point -to-point service to 
demonstrate within 8 years and 12 years of initial grant that they are  operating four links and eight links, 
respectively, and providing service to customers or for internal use if the license area is equal to or less than 
268,000, and if the population is greater than 268,000, that they are operating at least one link withi n 8 years and at 
least two links within 12 years and providing service to customers or for internal use per every 67,000 persons 
within a license area); 27.14(w)(1)(ii) (requiring a 3.45 GHz Service licensee providing point -to-point service to 
demonstrate within 4 years and 8 years of initial grant that they are operating four links and eight links, respectively, 
and providing service to customers or for internal use if the license area is equal to or less than 268,000, and if the population is greater than  268,000, that they are operating at least one link within 4 years and at least two links 
within 8 years and providing service to customers or for internal use per every 67,000 persons within a license area); 
47 CFR §§ 30.103, 30.104(a ) (requiring a UMFUS licensee providing point -to-point service to demonstrate within 
10 years of initial grant that they are operating four links and providing service to customers or for internal use if the 
license area is equal to or less than 268,000, and if the population is greater than 268,000, that they are operating at 
least one link and providing service to customers or for internal use per every 67,000 persons within a license area).  
346 See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(v)(2) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service licensee providing I nternet of Things service to 
offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the license area within 8 years of initial grant and geographic area 
coverage of 65% of the license area within 12 years of initial grant); 27.14(w)(1)(iii) (requiring a 3.45 GHz Service  
licensee providing Internet of Things service to offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the license area within 4 
years of initial grant and geographic area coverage of 65% of the license area within 8 years of initial grant); 47 CFR 
§§ 30.103,  30.104(b) (requiring  a UMFUS licensee providing Internet of Things or other services deployed along 
non-traditional lines to offer geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area within 10 years of initial grant).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
57 coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable 
service with the licensee's technology.  
109. Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.   Along with performance 
benchmarks, we propose to adopt meaningful and enforceable penalties for failing to meet those benchmarks.  We propose that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the 
licensee’s final benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the final performance benchmark two years sooner (at 8 years into the license term) and reducing it s 
license term to 8 years.  If a licensee fails to meet the final performance benchmark for a particular license 
area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the performance requirement shall 
terminate automatically without Commission action.  We seek comment on this proposal and on which 
penalties will most effectively ensure timely buildout. 
110. We seek comment on how , in the event a 12.7 GHz band licensee’s authority to operate 
terminates, its spectrum rights should become availabl e for reassignment  pursuant to the licensing 
framework we adopt for this band.  We also seek comment on whether, consistent with the Commission’s rules for other part 27 licenses, we should require that any 12.7 GHz band flexible use licensee that 
forfeits  its license for failure to meet its performance requirements be precluded from regaining that 
license.  Finally, we seek comment on other performance requirements and enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure timely buildout.  
7. Open Eligibility  
111. We propose to adopt an open eligibility standard for licenses in the 12.7  GHz band, 
consistent with established Commission practice.
347  An open eligibility standard should encourage the 
development of new technologies, products, and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum.  We seek comment on this assumption.  We note that an open eligibility approach would not 
affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications that may apply under our rules.
348  
Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on competition, 
innovation, and investment.   
8. Mutually Exclusive Applications  for New Licenses  
112. As discussed above, we propose to use an exclusive geographic area licensing scheme for 
the 12.7 GHz spectrum, which will permit the filing of mutually exclusive applications.  The 
Commission’s statutory authority to resolve mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses through a system of competitive bidding has lapsed.  Accordingly, in the event we determine to adopt a mutually 
exclusive application approach, we seek comment on how the Commission should resolve mutually 
exclusive applications for new initial licenses in the 12.7 GHz band in light of the lapse in our authori ty to 
use competitive bidding.  In the event that the Commission’s statutory authority with respect to auctions 
is restored, we delegate authority to WTB and the Office of Economics and Analytics to seek comment on 
appropriate competitive bidding rules and procedures, consistent with prior Commission guidance.  
 
347 The Commission has determined in a number of services that eligibility restrictions on licenses may be imposed 
only when open eligibility would pose a significant likelihood of substantial harm to competition in specific markets 
and when an eligibility re striction would be effective in eliminating that harm.  This approach relies on market 
forces absent a compelling showing that regulatory intervention to exclude potential participants is necessary.  See, 
e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000- 2020 MHz and 2180- 2200 MHz Bands , Report and 
Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16193, paras. 241 -42 (2012); Service Rules for the 
698-746, 747- 762 and 777 -792 MHz Bands , WT Docket No. 06 -150 et al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 
15289, 15381, 15383- 84, paras. 253, 256 (2007) ( 700 MHz Second Report and Order ); Allocations and Service 
Rules for the 71 -76 GHz, 81 -86 GHz and 92- 95 GHz Bands , WT Docket No. 02 -146, Report and Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd 23318, 23346- 47, para. 70 (2003).  
348 Id. §§ 301, 308(b), 310.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
58 9. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies  
113. Spectrum  is an essential  input  for the provision of mobile  wireless services,  and ensuring 
access to and the availability of sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives 
innovation and investment.349  The Commission has held that the Communications Act requires a close 
examination of the impact of spectrum aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use of 
spectrum to ensu re that spectrum is allocated and assigned in a manner that serves the public interest, 
convenience and necessity, and avoids the excessive concentration of licenses.350  In this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, w e seek comment generally on whether to adopt l imitations on the aggregation of 
spectrum holdings in the 12.7 GHz band  in order to meet our statutory requirements and to ensure 
competitive access to the band .  We seek comment on whether the technical and market characteristics of 
the 12.7 GHz band warr ant such limitations and, if so, whether implementation of such limitations should 
be through the Commission’s total spectrum screen, a separate screen, a limit on initial licensing, or other means, as discussed below.
351 
114. Total Spectrum  Screen .  The Commiss ion examines the suitability and availability of 
spectrum to determine whether particular bands should be included within the total spectrum screen.352  
Suitability is determined by whether the spectrum is capable of supporting mobile service given its 
phys ical properties and the state of equipment technology, whether the spectrum is licensed with a mobile 
allocation and corresponding service rules, and whether the spectrum is committed to another use that 
effectively precludes its use for mobile services.353  Spectrum is considered “available” if it is “fairly 
certain that it will meet the criteria for suitable spectrum in the near term, an assessment that can be made 
 
349 Communications Marketplace Report , GN Docket No. 22 -203, Report, FCC 22 -103, at 64, para.  82 (Dec. 30, 
2022) ( 2022 Communications Marketplace Report ); see NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 2 (arguing for the 
importance of p romoting competition through avoiding excessive concentration).  
350 Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings Expanding the Economic Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 
Through Incentive Auctions , WT Docket No. 12 -269, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 6 137, para. 8 (2014) 
(Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order ). 
351 In 2004, the Commission established its framework for case -by-case review of spectrum aggregation (and market 
concentration), in which it established a total spectrum screen “trigger” of approximately one -third of the total 
suitable and available spectrum for commercial mobile radio services.  Applications of AT&T Wireless Inc. and 
Cingular Wireless Corporation For Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations , Memorandum 
Opinio n and Order , 19 FCC Rcd 21522, 21525, 21568- 69, paras. 4, 106-112 (2004) ( Cingular -AT&T Wireless 
Order ).  This screen was subsequently expanded and applied to mobile telephony/broadband services.  See, e.g. , 
Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon  Wireless and Atlantis Holdings LLC for Consent to Transfer 
Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Manager and De Facto Transfer Leasing Arrangements , WT 
Docket No. 08 -95, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 17444, 17469- 70, paras. 
45-46 (2008).  In 2008, the Commission determined that its case -by-case review would also apply to the initial 
licensing of spectrum acquired at auction, similar to the Commission’s analysis of secondary market transactions. 
Union Telephone Company and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Applications for 700 MHz Band 
Licenses, Auction No. 73 , Order,  23 FCC Rcd 16787, 16791 -92, 16796, paras. 9, 18 (2008).  In 2014, the 
Commission determined that it would treat as an “enhanced factor” in its case -by-case review any proposed increase 
in below -1-GHz spectrum holdings resulting in the acquiring entity holding approximately one -third or more of the 
suitable and available spectrum below 1 GHz.  Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6233, 
6240, paras. 267, 286- 88.  In 2016, the Commission adopted a separate mmW spectrum threshold that would apply 
to its case -by-case review of proposed secondary market mmW transactions.  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz 
For Mobile Radio Servic es, et al. , GN Docket No. 14 -177, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8081, 8083- 84, paras. 184, 189 (2016) ( Spectrum Frontier s 1st R&O and FNPRM ). 
352 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6169 -70, paras. 71 -75. 
353 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6169, para. 71.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
59 at the time the spectrum is licensed or at later times after changes in technology or regulation that affect 
the consideration.”354   
115. We seek comment on whether , for purposes of  the spectrum screen, the 12.7 GHz band 
will be “suitable” and “available” for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services shortly after the spectrum is assigned.  To the extent we find that the 12.7 GHz band is “suitable and available,” we 
seek comment on whether we should include the  band within our total spectrum screen or within a 
separate spectrum screen, such as the existing mmW threshold.
355  To that end, we seek comment on 
which bands are most similar in technical characteristics with the 12.7 GHz band.356 
116. Initial licensing .  Should there be a limit on the amount of 12.7 GHz band spectrum held 
by a single entity at the licensing stage?  If so, what should that limit be and why?  Should the 
Commission consider the factors set forth in the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order357 in 
determining if a limit at the initial licensing stage is appropriate?  Should the Commission ’s determination 
also be based on the extent to which competitors have opportunities to gain access to alternative bands 
that would serve the same purpose as the 12.7 GHz band.358   
D. Technical Rules  
1. Power Limits 
117. The Commission establishes power limits for wireless services to help limit the potential 
for harmful interference, among operators using the same frequency bands (for example, in neighboring 
geographic areas) as well as among operators using adjacent bands.  The determination of an appropriate 
power limit for a particular band is informed by the technical characteristics of the band, as well as the 
services expected to be deployed.359  Thus, section 30.202 of  the Commission’s rules restricts the power 
for fixed base stations operating in connection with mobile systems to a maximum equivalent isotropic 
radiated power (EIRP) density of +75dBm/100 MHz.360  Under section 30.202, mobile stations and 
transportable st ations are each limited to a maximum EIRP of +43 dBm and +55 dBm, respectively.361  
Since the adoption of these power limits, we have seen mmW wave deployments in various parts of the USA, chiefly in urban areas.  
118. Setting appropriate power limits for the 12.7 GHz band requires an understanding of what 
services may be deployed in the band.  It is important that new technologies and feasible visions for 
future wireless deployments are considered so that the appropriate power limits are set to advance 
wireless i nnovation.  Ericsson asserts that the characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band make it a good fit for 
future 6G technologies and smart -city applications, and that use of the 12.7 GHz band would complement 
 
354 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6169, para. 71 (internal quotation marks omitted) . 
355 See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report , FCC 22 -103, at 66, para. 85 and Fig. II.B.9.  
356 See, e.g. , Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al. , Third Report and Order, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576, 5612, para. 96 
(2018); Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100- 3550 MHz Band , WT Docket 19 -348, Second Report and Order, Order 
on Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd 5987, 6022 -23, para. 102 (2021) ( 3.45 GHz 
Second Report and Order ); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band , GN Docket No. 18 -122, Report and 
Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2382 -84, paras. 85 -88 (2020) ( 3.7 GHz Order ).  
357 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6192 -93, paras. 143- 44.   
358 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order , 29 FCC Rcd at 6193, para. 144.  
359 See, e.g.,  Spectrum Frontier s 1st R&O and FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8110 -12, paras. 276 -80. 
360 47 CFR § 30.202 (a).   
361 Id. § 30.202(b), (c).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
60 spectrum in the 3 -8 GHz range.362  Qualcomm states t he 12.7 GHz Band is ideal for the deployment of the 
latest 6G technological advances which  will offer coverage levels only available today in the lower mid -
band spectrum range; these technologies, such as Giga Multiple -Input Multiple -Output (MIMO), will 
overco me greater signal losses in this upper range through higher beam directionality and offer ubiquitous 
coverage, low latency , and high capacity.363  Qualcomm adds that increased data rates will support  
innovative use cases like deeper immersion into digital a nd virtual worlds with boundless  augmented, 
virtual, extended and mixed reality (AR/VR/XR/MR) applications and advanced  sensing, which will 
allow for real -time mapping of the physical world to a digital or virtual copy.364  Besides 6G operations, 
we seek comment on what other feasible new services or technologies are envisioned to be deployed in 
the band and whether they would require particular power level profiles.     
119. Based on the record in response to the 12.7 NOI, and our technical expertise, we propose 
to adopt the same power limits that are applied to UMFUS operations.365  Specifically, for base stations, 
mobile stations, and transportable stations, we propose to adopt an EIRP limit of +75 dBm/100 MHz (or 
+72dBm/50 MHz depending on the final channel size allocations ), +43 dBm, and +55 dBm, respectively.  
We believe these limits to be appropriate because we agree with commenters that RF characteristics in 
this band more closely resemble mmW transmissions than lower mid -band transmissions.366  Furthermore, 
we agree with commenters that higher frequencies are subject to greater signal attenuation.367  
Commenters from the terrestrial mobile wireless industry have submitted general feedback urging the 
Commission to  establish power limits in a way that does not hinder development and innovation in this 
band while providing sufficient coverage for the public.368  We seek comment on our proposed power 
limits for this band.  If beams incorporating higher directionality a re employed in this band, we seek 
comment on including provisions similar to section 101.145(c) to protect GSO satellites, particularly if 
we grandfather existing FSS operations . 
120. We seek comment on whether incumbent satellite services and new terrestrial m obile 
services can coexist if the latter will be subject to the power limits that we propose above.  Various 
satellite industry interests have expressed concerns that satellite operations cannot successfully co -exist 
with mobile terrestrial broadband networks in the 12.7 GHz band.369  Overall, they identify two chief 
sources of interference: FSS uplink transmissions can interfere with receiving terrestrial mobile stations, and aggregate emissions of high power terrestrial mobile stations can also interfere with the satellite 
antenna of an FSS system receiving in the band.
370  As noted above, Verizon also questions how any 
 
362 Ericsson Comments at 3, 8.  
363 Qualcomm Comments at 7.  
364 Qualcomm Comments at 3.  
365 See 47 CFR § 30.202 . 
366 See, e.g.,  AT& T Comments at 1; Ericsson Comments at 8; T-Mobile Comments at 14 ; Intelsat Reply a 11 -12.   
367 See CTIA Comments at 9 -10 (arguing that t he greater propagation loss at 12.7 GHz as compared to that at low 
mid-band spectrum will require even higher  power  levels to provide meaningful coverage range and capacity); 
Ericsson Comments at 2, 10;  Nokia Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 9 ( “The Commis sion should also 
promote standard -power deployments and further consider power levels greater than those contained in Part 27 of 
the Commission’s rules to compensate for the higher propagation losses in this frequency range. ”); CCA Reply at 1 -
2, (“[H]igh -powered use will provide the great est potential for innovation and will aid the wireless industry in 
serving American consumers .”); CCA Reply at 5 (“F or many CCA members who serve suburban and rural areas, 
low-power operations may be too costly because of t he number of cell sites needed to provide sufficient coverage. ”); 
accord 5G Americas Reply at 7.  
368 See, e.g.,  T-Mobile Reply at 9, 12; 5G Americas Reply at 7.  
369 See Eutelsat Comments at 4 -5; Hispasat Comments at 6 -8; Intelsat/SES Comments at 12 -14. 
370 Hispasat Comments at 6.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
61 incipient terrestrial mobile services would coexist with a substantial number of new NGSO FSS 
deployments in the band.371  CTIA asserts that coexistence is possible between new entrants and 
incumbent FSS, because FSS space stations will be protected based on the terrestrial service obligations contained in Radio Regulations Table 21-1, which includes a maximum equivalent isotropic radiated powe r (“EIRP”) of +45 dBW for a station in the fixed or mobile service.
372  We agree with CTIA that, as 
long as terrestrial mobile broadband operations do not exceed  the power limits that we propose, they 
should pose no danger of exceeding any aggregate interf erence level at any victim receivers on satellites 
operating in the band, but we seek comment on this observation.  Furthermore, proposed grandfathered 
FSS earth stations are not susceptible to harmful interference because they do not receive in this band.   
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether satellite services and terrestrial mobile services can coexist 
with power limits of section 30.202.  Is it appropriate to adopt these power limits for the 12.7 GHz band 
for base station, mobile station, and transportable stations?  Would it be useful to limit the power 
terrestrial transmitters may emit toward higher elevation angles to protect satellite receivers from 
aggregate emissions?  
121. We also received comments urging the Commission to conduct further technical studies 
before establishing power limits for 12.7 GHz band.373  Nokia recommends a detailed analysis regarding 
the EIRP limit for flexible use in the 12.7 GHz band.374  It states that such an analysis should consider 
“(1) the impact of relocating some incumb ent services from the 12.7 GHz band, and a potential relaxation 
of maximum EIRP requirements, (2) the coexistence scenarios involving incumbent services in the 12.7 
GHz band and in the lower and upper adjacent bands, and (3) receiver characteristics of incumbent users, 
including out -of-band receiver blocking performance.”375  Are there other comprehensive technical 
studies that could shed light on the appropriate power levels for this band?  What are the technical reasons that it is appropriate or not appropriate to adopt the part 30 power limits?  Are there alternative power 
limit proposals that would serve the public interest better and what are the technical data and analysis for 
these reasons?  Are there alternative metrics for controlling power in this b and?  We further seek 
comment on any additional considerations that should be included to provide adequate protection for 
services in the adjacent bands.   For any alternative or additional proposals, metrics, or considerations, 
commenters should include te chnical details, including any and/or all assumptions and parameters.  For 
example, how would the in-band requirements specified in various ITU documents, discussed above, 
translate to out -of-band requirements in the 12.7 GHz?  Is any further information or assumptions 
necessary, particularly concerning out -of-band receiver blocking performance for receivers in the adjacent 
bands?  Commenters advocating for particular technical rules to protect operations in adjacent bands , 
including DBS, NGSO FSS, MVDDS, a ctive spaceborne sensors, and ARNS,  should provide detailed 
information on the receiver, antenna, and operational characteristics for such services operating in the 
adjacent bands.   
 
371 Verizon Comments at 8 & n.26 (citing SpaceX Gen2 Order , FCC 22 -91 at para. 49 (authorizing the construction, 
deployment, and authorization of up to 7,500 satellites in the 12.75 -13.25 GHz band, among other segments) ); see 
supra  note 276 and accompanying text .   
372 EIRP power limits in ITU radio regulations Table 21 -1 does not specify a reference bandwidth, so this power 
limit is 45dBW (75dBm) regardless of the reference bandwidth, i.e. any reference bandwidth may be used for the 
power limit.  Therefore we maintain t hat our proposed limit of 75dBm/100MHz is at least as conservative as the  
ITU radio regulations power limit.  For example the ITU regulations would permit 75dBm/1MHz, which would be 
higher power than what we propose.  
373 Hispasat Comments at 13 -14; Nokia Co mments at 6.  
374 Nokia Comments at 7- 8. 
375 Nokia Comments at 7- 8.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
62 2. Out-of-Band Emissions (OOBE) Limits  
122. We seek comment on appropriate out -of-band emissions (OOBE) limits for base and 
mobile stations in the 12.7 GHz band.  Section 101.111(a)(2)(i) of the Commission’s rules establishes an 
emission limit for fixed stations operating with digital emissions in this band expressed as A = 35 + 0.8(P 
−50) + 10 Log10 B, where A is attenuation below the mean output power of the transmitter, B is the 
authorized bandwidth in megahertz, and P is the percentage by which the transmitter bandwidth is removed from the carrier frequency.
376  Under this provision,  attenuation greater than 80 decibels or to an 
absolute power of less than −13 dBm/1MHz is not required.377  This emission limit is defined in 
conducted fashion.378  These rules are intended to support various fixed microwave technologies with 
conventional a ntenna systems.   
123. For most mobile systems, the Commission has generally required licensees to attenuate 
their unwanted emission power below the transmission mean power (P) by a factor of at least 43 
+ 10log10(P), or -13 dBm/MHz for any emissions on frequencies outside the licensee’s authorized 
spectrum.379   These requirements take effect at the edges of the assigned frequencies (e.g., channel, 
block, or band), and may be used as a basis for developing further requirements that relate to transmitter 
performa nce by industry standard organizations.380  This limit is applied equally both to base stations and 
to mobile stations, and compliance with this limit in existing systems, where access to the RF port of the antennas is conveniently available, is based on co nducted measurement of transmission power at the 
output of the individual RF port.
381  
124. In response to the 12.7 NOI, a few commenters suggest specific criteria for out -of-band 
emission limits.  For example, 5G Americas and CTIA suggest that new broadband users should be 
subject to the same out -of-band emission limits that apply to the existing incumbents in the band.382  T-
Mobile and Ericsson suggest that the Commission consider adopting the same out -of-band emission limit 
of –13dBm/MHz that was adopted in the  Spectrum Frontiers proceedings for the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service in the upper mmW  spectrum  bands.383  T-Mobile argues that th is existing out -of-
band emission limit is sufficient to protect services in adjacent bands.384  Hispasat, Oneweb , Dish, and 
SpaceX suggest that further analysis should be conducted to determine whether the existing out -of-band 
emissions limit is , in fact, sufficient to protect users in adjacent bands.385  Due to the propagation 
characteristics in the 12.7 GHz band si gnal attenuation with distance is higher than at lower frequencies 
and to overcome those losses higher gain antennas are typically used, therefore we believe that 
deployments in this band are likely to use integrated multiple element antenna arrays that ha ve 
characteristics more similar to antennas in the UMFUS bands than those in the PCS and AWS bands.  As 
 
376 47 CFR § 101.111(a)(2)(i).  
377 Id. 
378 Id. 
379 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 22.359(a), 47 CFR § 27.53(a)(1)(i).  
380 Id. 
381 Id. 
382 See CTIA Comments at 13 ; 5G Americas Comments at 2.  
383 See Ericsson Comments at 11; T-Mobile Comments at 14 & n.47 (citing Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz 
For Mobile Radio Services , Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order,  32 FCC Rcd 10988, para. 34 (2017); Use of Spectrum 
Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, Fourth Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 12168, paras. 11 -12 
(2018)).  
384 See T-Mobile Reply at 10.  
385 See OneWeb Comments at 4 ; DISH Reply at 7;  Hispasat Reply at 1 3; SpaceX Reply at 6 .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
63 such, measurement of OOBE based on conducted measurements may be challenging, as was recognized 
to be the case for the mmW  bands.386  In order to achieve  higher antenna gain in the compact format 
necessary for mobile operation and beam steering necessary for base stations to track mobile devices, we expect that mobile and base stations in the 12.7 GHz band, much like the mmW  bands, will have tens of 
radiat ing elements with multiple power amplifiers.  Recognizing the potential measurement challenges 
posed by having a requirement based on conducted measurements, we propose to provide flexibility for 
the out -of-band emission limits to be measured either using conducted power or radiated power, and we 
seek comment on this proposal.   With lack of RF ports, the emission measurement needs to be made in 
radiated fashion, and the antenna gain must be characterized and subtracted from the radiated measurement if the emission limit is to be defined in conducted fashion.  Ericsson suggests that in order 
to support adaptive antennas, either the conductive power or the total radiated power of any emission 
outside a licensee's frequency block shall be −13 dBm/MHz or lower.
387   
125. In light of the discussion above, we propose to adopt a requirement that the conductive 
power or the total radiated power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be −13 dBm/MHz or lower and seek comment on this proposal.  We seek com ment on whether a radiated 
emission limit of – 13dBm/MHz can be supported by transmitters operating in the 12.7 GHz band.  In this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we also propose to retain a portion of the band either at the top or bottom edge of the band, or  both, to accommodate re -packed mobile TV pickup operations.  From the perspective 
of protecting services in adjacent bands from out -of-band emissions and harmful interference, does one of 
these alternatives offer more benefits than the others?  Should the out-of-band emissions limits be 
different if mobile services are adjacent to incumbent TV pickup operations, as opposed to being directly adjacent to the 12.7 GHz or 13.25 GHz band edges?  Should the out -of-band emissions limits be applied 
at the band edg e between new flexible use services and BAS, or is it necessary to define out -of-band 
emissions limits at the edges of the 12.7 and 13.25 GHz band, regardless of any buffer created by BAS 
repack bands? 
126. We note that out -of-band emissions and spurious emissi ons characterize the overall 
emission performance of a transmitter , and that the measurement procedures for spurious emissions at 
antenna terminals and the field strength of spurious radiation are described in the Commission’s rules.   
For bands higher tha n 1 GHz, for example PCS and AWS -1, compliance with the emission rule is based 
on a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater, except within the first 1 megahertz.
388  In the first 1 
megahertz band s immediately outside and adjacent to the channel block , a resolution bandwidth equal to 
at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed, provided that the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement 
bandwidth.
389  We seek comment o n whether we should apply this measurement methodology in this 
band; and if so, whether the 1 MHz resolution bandwidth is appropriate.  Alternatively, what resolution and frequency offset should be considered to define out -of-band emissions and spurious em issions? 
127. We request that commenters proposing specific out -of-band emissions criteria or 
alternative methods of defining or measuring the out -of-band emissions provide technical analysis 
describing how the proposed radiated emission limits would mitigate t he risk of harmful interference to 
operations by adjacent users.  We also seek comment on protection of Federal operations in adjacent 
bands in section V.D.7 below (Protection of Federal Operations).  
 
386 Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8117, para. 297 (discussing OOBE measurement 
challenges in the mmW  band).  
387 See Ericsson Comments at 7.  
388 See, e.g. , 47 CFR § 27.53(a)(5).  
389 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
64 3. Field Strength Limits/Market Boundaries  
128. The Commission’s rules for mobile services typically define field strength limits at the 
market boundaries in order to prevent interference or facilitate coordination between licensees in adjacent 
markets. For example, the p art 27 rules for the Advanced Wi reless Services  (AWS) specify that the 
predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the geographical border of a licens ee's 
service area shall not exceed 47 dBµV/m unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different field strength.
390  The part 30 rules for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) specify 
that the predicted or measured Power Flux Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 27.5-
28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at  any location on the geographical border 
of a licen see's service area shall not exceed −77.6 dBm/m 2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) 
unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.391  The part 101 rules for 
the M ultipoint Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) in the 12.2 -12.7 GHz band, directly 
adjacent to the band under consideration here, simply specify that licensees must coordinate their operations whenever the facilities have optical line-of -sight into other licensees' areas or are within the 
same geographic area.
392  While none of the commenters in response to the 1 2.7 NOI  suggested specific 
criteria for field strength limits at the market boundaries, several commenters do support an exclusive 
market -based licensing framework.393     
129. In section V.C above  (Licensing and Operating Rules ) of this NPRM , we propose to 
establish a framework for licensing this band using exclusive market based licenses with 100 or 50 
megahertz channel blocks.  Since we propose to license geographic areas on an exclusive basis we also 
propose to esta blish PFD limits at the market boundaries, consistent with the approach the Commission 
has used in the past for similar market -based services.  We believe that some criteria are necessary at 
market boundaries to manage interference and coordination between  adjacent area licensees.  We also 
believe that given the wide channel bandwidths and diversity of potential applications that might be 
deployed in these bands, any criteria that we propose should include a scaling factor for the bandwidth.  
In the Spectru m Frontiers proceeding the Commission  adopted a PFD of −77.6 dBm/m 2/MHz (measured 
at 1.5 meters above ground).394  We believe that deployments in this band are likely to use directional 
antennas that have characteristics more similar to those in the UMFUS bands than those in the PCS and AWS bands.  Therefore, we propose to adopt a requirement that the predicted or measured Power Flux 
Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 12.7 GHz band at any location on the geographical 
border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed −77.6 dBm/m 2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above 
ground) unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.  We seek comment on this proposal.  We seek comment on whether a PFD at the market boun dary is the 
appropriate metric for this band or whether there are advantages to using a different metric, such as a field 
strength limit, which is used for other mobile services under part 27?  Is the specific PFD value we 
propose appropriate for this frequency band taking into consideration factors like the typical receive 
antenna gain and receiver characteristics?  Would simple coordination criteria, such as those  currently in 
place for the MVDDS services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band , which require coordination for any facility that 
has optical line of sight to an adjacent market be more appropriate?  Given the potential flexible uses of 
the band, would it be appropriate to have different interference protection and/or coordination criteria 
 
390 See 47 CFR § 27.55(a)(1).  
391 See 47 CFR § 30.204(a).  
392 See 47 CFR § 101.1421(c).  
393 See CCA Reply at 4; AT&T Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 2, 6; Ericsson Comments at 2.  
394 See Spectrum Frontiers  1st R&O and FNPRM , 31 FCC Rcd at 8124 , para . 312.  We n ote that the final rule 
adopted by the Spectrum Frontiers  1st R&O and FNPRM  listed the incorrect value of –76 dBm/m2/MHz  as opposed 
to the –77.6 dBm/m2/MHz value referenced in the discussion of the item.  For clarity, in the instant 12.7 GHz  
NPRM , we are proposing the -77.6 dBm/m2/MHz value.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
65 depending  on the types of services (e.g ., fixed or mobile) that a licensee deploys?  Commenters who 
propose alternative metrics or criteria or for controlling interference or facilitating coordination between 
licensees in adjacent markets or adjacent channels within the same market should describ e their proposal 
in detail and support their proposal with engineering analysis.   
4. Antenna Height Limits  
130. We propose not to adopt limits on base station antenna height at this time because no 
commenters address the issue in response to the 12.7 NOI.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
Considering what future wireless networks are envisioned to be, are antenna height thresholds and 
corresponding power reductions applicable to certain part 27 bands395 appropriate for base or fix ed 
stations that will be used in the 12.7 GHz band to provide mobile broadband or for other expanded uses?  
Conversely, given the are proposing to control interference at license boundaries, are separate antenna height restrictions and corresponding power reductions even necessary?  We tentatively propose not to adopt antenna height and power limits similar to those in our part 27 rules for certain bands.  However, 
we seek comment on whether power limits based on antenna height are necessary and/or whether any 
modifications should be made to either the height thresholds or the power limits at specific heights that we have proposed.  We also seek comment on whether there would there be any benefit in requiring antenna downtilt for antennas above a certain height?  We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any alternatives.  For alternative proposals, commenters should provide technical support.  
5. Canada and Mexico Coordination  
131. Typically, the Commission’s rules provide  that fixed and mobile operations are subject to 
international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
396  We propose to apply the same limitation to the 
newly established rules for the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band.  Until such time as any adjusted agreements 
between the United States, Mexico, and/or Canada can be agreed to , operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz 
band must not cause harmful interference across any of our international borders, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force.
397  Currently, fixed use of the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band is covered 
by an existing arrangement between the United States and Canada.398  We note that further modification 
of the proposed rules might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico reg arding the use of this band.  We seek comment on this issue, including the costs and benefits 
of alternatives.   
6. General Part 27 Rules 
132. There are several additional technical rules applicable to all part 27 services, including 
sections 27.51 (equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (frequency stability), 27.56 (antennas structures; air navigation safety), and 27.63 (disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns).
399  
Given that we propose to designate mobile broadband and other expanded uses of the 12.7 GHz band as 
part 27 services, we propose to apply these general part 27 rules to all 12.7 GHz band licenses.  Further, 
we propose to apply these rules to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such aggregation).  We seek comment on our 
 
395 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 27.50( b)(1)-(5), (c)(1) -(4) (power and antenna height limits set forth in Tables 1 -4 of § 27.50 
applicable to certain 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands), (c)(1) -(4).   
396 See e.g. , 47 CFR §§ 27.5 7, 30.206, 101.147(r)(13), 101.509(d).   
397 See Agreement Concerning the Coordination and Use of Radio Frequencies Above Thirty Megacycles per 
Second, Ca. -U.S., Oct 24, 1962 13 UST 2418, https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can -nb/above30.pdf.   
398 See Agreement Concerning the Coordination and Use of Radio Frequencies Above Thirty Megacycles per 
Second, Ca. -U.S., Oct 24, 1962 13 UST 24 18, https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can -nb/above30.pdf .   
399 See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.51, 27.52, 27.54, 27.56, 27.63.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
66 proposals, including specific costs and benefits, and ask commenters to identify any aspects of our 
general part 27 rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band.  
7. Protection of Federal Operations 
a. In-Band 
133. Federal operations  in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band include the  Space Research Service (SRS) 
(space-to -Earth) and the use of commercial satellites in the Fixed Satellite Service  (Earth-to -space).  
NTIA filed comments in response to the 12.7 NOI raising concern s about interference to SRS operations 
at Goldstone, CA ground stations and other federal systems.
400  
134. With respect to Goldstone, NTIA has expressed  concern that ground stations maybe 
susceptible to interference from commercial network base stations and handheld mobile stations.401  Per 
footnote US251 of the Table of Allocation, the 12.75- 13.25 GHz  band is also allocated to the space 
research (deep space) (space-to -Earth) service for reception only at Goldstone, CA (35° 20' N, 116° 53' 
W).402  Goldstone is one of three ground station complexes around the world known as the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA)’s Deep Space Network (DSN) established for 
commanding, tracking and monitoring the health and safety of spacecraft at many distant planetary 
locales.  The DSN is also used to conduct powerful science investigations that examine the nature of 
asteroids and the interiors of planets and moons.403 
135. Additionally, NTIA raised  concerns about possible aggregate interference from a large 
population of terrestrial emitters to current and future commercial satellite receivers used by the DoD.404  
In light of this , NTIA suggest ed that the Commission consider a compatibility analysis between mobile 
broadband service and commercial GSO and N GSO satellites.405 
136. NTIA also raised concerns about possible interference to NASA and NSF passive radio 
astronomy observatories operating in the 12.7 GHz band.406  The sites at issue include very long b aseline 
interferometry (VLBI) stations for geodesy  and astrometry high accuracy reference frames.407  In its 
comments, NTIA notes that current coordination requirements exist for Green Bank Telescope within the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) for ground- based transmitters and that repurposing the 12.7 GHz 
band to allow terrestrial mobile broadband or other expanded use may require additional coordination zones and/or new coordination agreements and updated NRQZ coordination  requirements with the 
changes ben eficial for other U.S. radio astronomy observatories.
408 
137. Recognizing the importance of these Federal operations in the band, and the need to 
protect them from interference, we seek comment on establishing coordination zone and/or other criteria to protect G oldstone ground stations from possible harmful interference that might be caused by m obile 
 
400 See NTIA Comments at 2.   
401 NTIA Comments at 2.   
402 See supra  note 210 and accompanying text.  
403 For details, see 12.7 NOI at *3, para. 6 and NASA, What is the Deep Space Network  (Mar. 30, 2020)  (NASA’s 
Deep Space Network “is the largest and most sensitive scientific telecommunications system in the world.”), 
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/sca n/services/networks/deep_space_network/about .    
404 NTIA Comments at 2.  
405 NTIA Comments at 2 . 
406 NTIA Comments at 2.  
407  NTIA Comments at 2.  
408 NTIA Comments at 2 -3.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
67 broadband or o ther expanded u se intended for the 12.7-13.25 GHz band.  We seek comment on how to 
define such a coordination zone and on what interference protection levels should apply at the edge of the 
coordination zone.  We note that to protect Goldstone site, section 30.205 of the  commission rules defines 
two coordination zones with contours ‘coordinates tables corresponding to 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP and 
75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP respectively.  Under section 30.205, all licensees in the 37-38 GHz band located in the coordination zone must c oordinate with Federal Space Research Service (space to Earth) users of 
the band via the NTIA.  All licensees within the zone defined by the 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP must coordinate all operations; licensees operating within the area between the zones defined b y the 60 
dBm/100 MHz and 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP must coordinate all operations if their base station EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100 MHz or if their antenna height exceeds 100 meters above ground level; licensees operating outside the zones defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates are not required to coordinate their operations with NTIA.  Could a similar approach, based on a coordination agreement with NASA, be adopted for mobile broadband to ensure protection of the DSN?  
b. Adjacent Band  
138. Federal operations adjacent to the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band include both military and 
scientific operations in the upper  adjacent-band, 13.25-13.75 GHz.  This band can be divided into two sub 
bands, the 13.25-13.4 GHz band and the 13.4-13.75 GHz band, each with different federal allocations. The 13.25-13.4 GHz portion is allocated on a secondary basis for federal Earth exploration satellite 
services (EESS) (active), space research services (SRS) (active), and on a primary basis for aeronautical radionavigation services (ARNS).
409  The 13.25-13.4 GHz portion is allocated for federal EESS (active), 
SRS (active), and radiolocation services on a primary basis and standard frequency and time signal -
satellite (Earth -to-space) on a secondary basis.410   
139. In response to the 12.7 NOI , NTIA articulated several concerns related to adjacent band 
federal operations.411  First, NTIA noted that the 13.25-13.4 GHz band is used by the Department  of 
Defense (DoD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate airborne Doppler navigation 
radar  systems used to determine ground speed and drift angle of an aircraft with respect to  the ground.412  
NTIA believes those operations may be susceptible to performance degradation due to interference 
coming from 12.7-13.25 GHz.413  Future Unmanned aircraft d etect-and -avoid safety systems being 
developed in this band are also a source of concern for the NTIA.414  Although Recommendation ITU -R 
M.2008-1 provides characteristics and protection criteria for the 13.25 -13.4 GHz band used for airborne 
Doppler radars,415 NTIA believes that adjacent -band compatibility studies with representative commercial 
deployments may be  necessary to update Recommendation ITU-R M.2008-1 to reflect the characteristics 
of current and future airborne Doppler navigation radars airborne.416 
140. NTIA also noted that the 13.4 -13.75 GHz band is used for DoD operations of shipborne 
radars (search radars, tracking radars, and missile and gun fire-control radars), the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite operations in the Joint Satellite Oceanography Network 
(JASON), NASA’s active remote sensing (including the future Surface Water and Ocean Topography 
(SWOT) mission), Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) and Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) 
 
409 NTIA Comments at 3.  
410 NTIA Comments at 3.  
230 NTIA Comments at 3 -5. 
412 NTIA Comments at 4.  
413 NTIA Comments at 4.  
414 NTIA Comments at 4.   
415 NTIA Comments at 4.  
416 NTIA Comments at 4.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
68 operations, and the NSF continuum and spectral -line research (including as a calibration aid for the 
radionavigation satellite service) operations.417  NTIA is concerned that  aggregate interference from 
mobile base stations and ubiquitous handheld units may cause interference to NASA and NOAA’s 
satellite systems.418  Mobile broadband operations are also believed to be possible source of interference 
to military agencies radar s ystems.419  NTIA suggests that adjacent-band compatibility studies with 
representative commercial deployments are necessary to assess any possible degradation of federal 
operations in the 13.4- 13.75 GHz band.420 
141. We note that NTIA has set up a Technical Interchange Group (TIG) as a tool for 
implementation of electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) studies between 12.7 -13.25 GHz band m obile 
broadband or o ther expanded u se and  federal systems.421  NTIA TIG recommendations can be submitted 
in the record for the NPRM t o help inform the decisions in the  Report and Order (R&O).   In s ection 
V.D.2 above  (Out -of-Band Emissions (OOBE) Limits ), we propose to establish an out -of-band emissions 
limit of -13dBm/1MHz anywhere outside a licensee spectrum block and seek comment on that proposal.  
In this section we seek comment on whether that same out -of-band emission limit is adequate to protect 
Federal operations in the adjacent bands.  If the Commission relocates mobile BAS /CARS operations into 
a portion of the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band, could creating a buffer between base/mobile operatio ns and 
Federal operations alleviate some of the Federal concerns about interference?  Recognizing the 
importance of Federal operations in adjacent bands, we seek comment generally on how to protect federal 
operations in bands adjacent to the 12.7 -13.25 GHz  band.  
E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion 
142. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all,422 
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 affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations
423 and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.  Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.  
VI. ORDER IN GN DOCKET NO. 22 -352 
143. In the 12.7 NOI, the Commissio n noted that to the extent it considers relocation of 
incumbents, or even future sharing between incumbents and new entrants, it will be important to have 
 
417 NTIA Comments at 5.   
418 NTIA Comments at 5.  
419 NTIA comments at 5.  
420 NTIA Comments at 5.   
421 NTIA Comments at 5 -6. 
422 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, wi thout discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or 
sex.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.  
423 The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, 
and impartial treatment of all indiv iduals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have 
been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous 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 areas; 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, 2021).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
69 clear information about the nature and density of incumbent use.424  Accordingly, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to require incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band to submit information detailing their 
current use of the band, and if so, what such information it should require to be submitted.425 
144. Several commenters urge us to require incumbents to confirm  that they are actually 
operating in the band and to provide detailed information about their operations including transmitter and receiver characteristics.
426  For the 23 uplink Earth stations authorized in the band,  and for the fixed point -
to-point links authorized under parts 78 and 101,  the operator or licensee must file a separate renewal 
application for each authorization.427  All of the fixed links under part 101, however, were first authorized 
relatively recently (2017 or later) and typically consist  of paired transmitters and receivers providing a 
communications link between two fixed locations.  By contrast, many of the BAS and CARS incumbents 
were first authorized decades ago to use channels throughout the 12.7 GHz band over geographic areas 
for ope rations typically consist ing of a collection of receive sites, mobile equipment, and control 
equipment,428 which heightens the need to ensure that these authorizations in ULS and COALS still 
accurately reflect current operations.   
 
424 12.7 NOI at *9, para. 25.  
425 Id. (citing Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,  CTIA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22 -352, at 3 (filed Oct. 20, 2022)).  
426 See, e.g. , AT&T Comments at 4 ( asserting that to rationally assess how to protect non- Federal incumbents’ 
operations, the Commission  should require them  to provide detailed “technical and operational data about their 
services, including transmitter and receiver characteristics ”); Ericsson Comments at 12 ( “Ericsson supports the 
Commission  seeking information on incumbent use in the band to help assess how it can  optimize the introduction 
of mobile broadband in the 12.7 GHz band” ); NCTA Comments at 12 ( “NCTA applauds the Commission’s 
collection of more detailed and up -to-date information re garding incumbents to help facilitate consideration of  
‘sharing between incumbents and new entrants ’”) (quoting 12.7 NOI at *9, para. 25 ); Nokia Comments at 3 ( urging 
the Commission to “require incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band to provide relevant and accur ate data” and to use that 
data to conduct an ”in- depth evaluation of the sharing or coexistence conditions for the different incumbent uses  in 
the band” to determine more conclusively ”which incumbent services could share the band with mobile broadband, 
and which incumbent services should be relocated.”); Qualcomm Comments at 9 ( contending that ”licensing records 
.... do not fully reflect actual use or the intensity of that use” and that “ [a]ccurate and updated data on the uses of the 
band are instrumental” to evaluating possible expanded uses  and encouraging the Commission to ask incumbent 
licensees to (1) “confirm whether they are actually operating on the frequency band” ; (2) “provide data about their 
operations ”, and (3) provide “ the actual technical par ameters of such operations.”); T -Mobile Comments at 8 
(stating that as part of relocating incumbents, the Commission  could “require incumbent licensees to provide 
information about their operations, including certifying to their use, to ensure the accuracy of cost estimates related 
to their systems.”); Verizon Comments at 10 ( stating that the Commission  “should collect information about how 
much spectrum incumbent operators use to support their services , the breadth of geographic  use by licensees ,” and 
“should also establish a deadline for operators to provide this information so that stakeholders may be on notice 
regarding further action in this proceeding. ”); Letter from S arah Leggin, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory 
Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch , Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22 -352, at 2 (filed May 5, 2023 ) (urging the 
Commission to require CARS licensees to certify that the COALS  database accurately reflect s current operations  in 
the 12.7 GHz band) . 
427 See 47 CFR §§ 25.121(b)), 78.15(a), 78.29, § 101.5; see also id. § 1.949.   For the 12.7 GHz band  incumbents 
licensed under part 74, however, most BAS authorizations are associated with a parent broadcast license and 
renewed automatically upon renewal of the pa rent broadcast license.   See 47 CFR § 74.15(b),(e).  Although this 
streamlined process reduces paperwork burdens and avoids termination for non- renewal of BAS authorizations that 
support ongoing broadcast operations, it may also increase the probability of  inaccurate licensing and operational 
data in the Commission’ records.  
428 See. e.g., Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band , WT Docket 02 -55, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd. 4393 , 4408 para 44 (2008); 
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band , WT Docket 00 -55, Report and Order, Fifth Report 
and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
70 145. Accordingly, to improve the data that the public and the Commission have t o make 
informed comments and decisions about the proposals discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
above, we direct fixed and mobile BAS and CARS licensees under parts 74 and 78, to certify the accuracy 
of all information reflected on each license that includes authority to operate in the 12.7 GHz band, including whether the facilities are operating as authorized.  If a licensee is unable to make such a certification for a give n license, it must cancel or modify the license in accordance with the Commission’s 
rules.
429  We exempt from this Order BAS and CARS licensees that have filed separate applications, on 
or after January 1, 2021, for new or modified licenses in the 12.7 GHz band.  We  note that for purposes of 
implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), these certifications are not “information” collections that require approval from the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB).
430  We direct the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in coordination with the Media Bureau, to issue a Public Notice that will: (1) provide detailed instructions for BAS and CARS licensees to file certifications regarding existing information in ULS and COALS, respectively; and (2) establish a window for the filing of 
certifications.  We also direct the Bureaus, in coordination with the Office of Economics and Analytics,  to 
consider whether additional information should be collected from some or all 12.7 GHz band incumbents 
to seek comment regarding the need to initiate a n information collection if such additional information is 
necessary to supplement the information submitted in this proceeding, and to comply with all requirements associated with any such information collection under the PRA.
431 
146. We acknowledge that several comments recommend also seeking information from all 
incumbent licensees in the 12.7 GHz band , as well as in the bands adjacent to the 12.7 GHz band.432  As 
noted above, the Commission’s rules require all in-band incumbents to operate in accordance with their authorizations.  In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  above, we specifically seek detailed information on 
the receiver, antenna, and operational characteristics for services operating in the adjacent bands from incumbents in adjacent bands, including DBS, NGSO FSS, MVDDS, active spaceborne sensors, and 
ARNS , that contend that provisions beyond the existing 12.7 GHz band fixed service protection levels for 
adjacent bands would be necessary for mobile broadband or other expande d-use operations in the 12.7 
GHz band to prevent harmful interference to operations in those adjacent bands.
433   
 
429 47 CFR §§ 74.600- 74.690.  Based on ULS data, 1 2.7 GHz band BAS licenses for the following radio service 
codes (followed by the approximate number of such licenses in parentheses) are subject to this certification 
requirement: Aural Intercity Relay (1), TV Intercity Relay (1179), TV Pickup (403), TV St udio- Transmitter Link 
(485), TV Translator Relay (32).   
430 See 5 CFR §  1320.3(h)(1) (defining “i nformation” as not generally includ ing certifications) ; accord , 84 FR 
22733, 22734, n.12 (May 20, 2019) ( concluding that the certification requirement for Earth station incumbents in the 
3.7-4.2 GHz band was not considered “information” for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (citing 5 CFR 
§ 1320.3(h)(1)) ; Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, ICR Ref. No. 201811 –3060 –018 (Jan . 28, 
2019), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201811- 3060- 018; Federal 
Communications Commission, Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, 84 FR 13141, Apr. 4, 2019 .   
431 While the Commission has discretion to seek comment before undertaking an information collection, it has never 
taken the position that such comment, other than the comment sought a s part of the PRA process, is a necessary 
prerequisite.   Because the information collection adopted here is designed solely to obtain the information necessary 
to evaluate whether to adopt future Commission rules, it has no direct “future effect” and as su ch is not a rule 
requiring notice under the APA.   See 5 U.S.C. § 551(4) . 
432 See, e.g. , Nokia Comments at 8 ( contending that “the Commission  should require incumbents in the … lower and 
upper adjacent bands to provide relevant and accurate information about their deployments and receiver characteristics ”); Verizon Comments at 10 (quoting 12.7 NOI at *14, para. 40) ( stating that the Commission “should 
collect information on ‘detailed information on the receiver, antenna, and operational characteristics for ser vices 
operating in the adjacent bands. ’”).     
433 See supra para. 121.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
71 147. Although we do not require incumbents to provide additional information on their 
existing operations at this time, we propose in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking above to protect only 
those BAS and CARS stations licensed in ULS and COALS, respectively, for which the licensee timely 
files the certification required in this Order (to the extent they have not filed a new or modification 
application  in ULS or COALS for the station on or after January 1, 2021) and to protect FS incumbents 
based on licensing data.  For the 23 incumbent Earth stations in the band, we also propose in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to use IBFS data in defining the scope of the grandfathered status of these stations.  Because the Commission may use these data to inform its deliberations regarding the future use of the  
12.7 GHz band, including possible interference avoidance coordination or relocation of facilities, or grandfathered status that could require future licensees to accept harmful interference from existing 
operations, we encourage all licensees to timely submit their data and to update their information in the event of a change in any of the operational parame ters. 
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  
A. Ex Parte Presentations  
148. These proceedings shall be treated as “permit-but -disclose” proceeding s in accordance 
with the Commission’s ex parte  rules.
434  Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making 
oral ex pa rte 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 du ring the presentation.  If the presentation 
consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant 
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).  Participants in 
this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 
B. Comment Period and Filing Procedures  
149. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first 
page of this document.  For comments regarding the 12.2 GHz Further Notice, comments must be filed in 
WT Docket No. 20 -443.  For comments regarding the 12.7 Notice , comments must be filed in GN Docket 
No. 22-352.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings , 63 FR 24121 (1998).  
• All filings must be add ressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.  
• Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  https://www.fcc.go v/ecfs/
.   
• Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.  Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first -class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail.   
 
434 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
72 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.  
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or 
messenger delivered filing s.  This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and 
safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID -19.
435   
o After COVID -19 restrictions are lifted, the Commission has established that hand -carried 
documents are to be filed  at the Commission’s office located at 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.  This will be the only location where hand-carried paper 
filings for the Commission will be accepted.436 
• During the time the Commission’s building is closed to the general public and until further notice, 
if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are suff icient.  
C. People with Disabilities  
150. 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 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 -418-0530 (voice), 202-418 -0432 (tty).  
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act  
151. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
437 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.”438  In the Report and Order , the Commission declines to adopt rule changes and, therefore 
a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not bee n performed.  The Commission seeks comment on 
potential rule and policy changes contained in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  (Further 
Notice ), and accordingly, has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)  The IRFA for 
Docket 20 -443 is set forth in the Appendix B.   The Commission has also prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  (Notice ) in Docket 22-352 .  This IRFA is set forth in Appendix C.  
Written public comments are requested on both  IRFA s.  Comments must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the Further Notice and Notice  indicated on the first page of this document and must have a 
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  We remind commenters to file 
in the appropriate docket: WT Docket No. 20-443 for the Further Notice , and GN Docket No. 22 -352 for 
the Notice .  
E. Paperwork Reduction Act  
152. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 and the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22 -352 may contain proposed modified information collection 
 
435 See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand -Delivery Policy, Public 
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020) , https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc -closes -headquarters -open- window -and-
changes -hand -delivery -policy . 
436 See Amendment of the Commission ’s Rules of Practice and Procedure , Order, DA 20 -562 (OMD 2020).  
437 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 –612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104 -121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) . 
438 5 U.S.C. §§ 603,  605(b).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
73 requirements.  Therefore, we seek comment on potential new or revised information collections subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.  If the Commission adopts any new or revised information 
collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements,  as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107 -198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), we seek  
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.   
153. The Order in GN Docket No. 22 -352 does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to  the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.  In 
addition, therefore, the Order does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).  
F. Congressional Review Act  
154. The Commission will not send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C 801(a)(1)(A), because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).  
G. Further Information  
155. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Madelaine Maior of the Wireless 
Telecommunications B ureau, Broadband Division, at madelaine.maior@fcc.gov
 or 202- 418-1466; Simon 
Banyai of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at simon.banyai@fcc.gov  or (202) 418-1443;or Nick 
Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at nicholas.oros@fcc.gov  or (202) 418-2099.  
VIII.  ORDERING CLAUSES  
156. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 
and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, and section 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.411, this Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order  in the captioned 
dockets IS ADOPTED.   
157. The inquiry in Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7-24 GHz, GN 
Docket No. 17 -183, is TERMINATED as to the mid -band spectrum between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.   
158. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, inter ested parties may file 
comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 on or before the number of days shown on the first page 
of this document after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before the number of 
days shown on the first page of this document after publication in the Federal Register.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
74 159. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Office of the Secretary, Reference 
Information Center,  SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order , including the associated Supplemental Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to  the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.   
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  
 
 
 
 
      Marlene H. Dortch  
      Secretar y Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
75 APPENDIX A 
 
Proposed Rules in GN Docket No. 22 -352 
 
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 25, 27, 74, 78, and 101,  
as follows:  
 
1. The authority citation for p art 1 continues to read as follows:  
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.  
2. Amend § 1.907 by revising the definition of “Covered geographic licenses” to read as 
follows:  
§ 1.907   Definitions. 
* * * * *  
Covered geographic licenses.  Covered geographic licenses consist of the following services:  1.4 
GHz Service (p art 27, subpart I of this chapter); 1.6 GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and 
Digital Electronic Message Services (part 101, subpart G of this chapter); 218 -219 MHz Service (part 95, 
subpart F, of this chapter); 220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart T, of 
this chapter); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz Commercial Services (part 27, subparts F 
and H); 700 MHz Guard Band Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service 
(part 9 0, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz 
Broadband Service (part 27, subpart P); 3.45 GHz Service (part 27, subpart Q); 3.7 GHz Service (part 27, subpart O); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L ); 12.7 GHz Service (part 27, subpart 
R); Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart G, of this chapter); Broadband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart E, of this chapter); Broadband Radio 
Service (part 27, subp art M); Cellular Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart H); Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service (part 96, subpart C, of this chapter); Dedicated Short Range Communications Service, 
excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart M); Educational Broadband Service (part 27, subpart 
M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint Distribution Service (part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101, subpart P); Multilateration Location and 
Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart M); Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); 
Narrowband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and Radiotelephone Service 
(part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF Public Coast Stations, including Automate d Maritime 
Telecommunications Systems (part 80, subpart J, of this chapter); Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30 of this chapter); and Wireless Communications Service (part 27, subpart D of this chapter).  
3. Amend § 1.9005 by:  
a. Removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (nn);  
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (pp) and adding and “; and” in its place; and 
c. Adding paragraph (qq)  to read as follows:  
§ 1.9005   Included services.  
* * * * *  
(qq) The 12.7 GHz Service in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band (part 27 of this chapter).  
PART 2 —FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS  
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:  
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwi se noted   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
76 5. Amend § 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, as follows:  
a. Revise page 49 to read as follows:    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
77 Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                                               11.7-14.47 GHz (SHF)  Page 49  
International Table  United States Table  FCC Rule Part(s)  
Region 1 Table  Region 2 Table  Region 3 Table  Federal Table  Non-Federal Table  
11.2-11.45  
FIXED 
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.441  (Earth -to-space)  5.484  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  11.2-11.45  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  5.441  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  (See previous page)   
11.45 -11.7 
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484A  5.484B  (Earth -to-space)  
   5.484 
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  11.45 -11.7 
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  5.484A  5.484B  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  
11.7-12.5 
FIXED  
MOBILE except aeronautical  
   mobile  
BROADCASTING  
BROADCASTING -SATELLITE  
   5.492 11.7-12.1 
FIXED  5.486  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484A  5.484B  5.488  
Mobile except aeronautical mobile   
5.485  11.7-12.2 
FIXED  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  
BROADCASTING  
BROADCASTING -SATELLITE  5.492  11.7-12.2 11.7-12.2 
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to- 
   Earth)  5.485  5.488  NG143  
   NG527A   
Satellite  
   Communications (25)  
12.1-12.2 
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484A  5.484B  5.488   
5.485  5.489  5.487  5.487A  
5.487  5.487A  12.2-12.7 
FIXED  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  
BROADCASTING  
BROADCASTING -SATELLITE 5.492  12.2-12.5 
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484B  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  
BROADCASTING   
5.484A  5.487  12.2-12.75  12.2-12.7 
FIXED  
BROADCASTING -SATELLITE   
Satellite  
Communications (25)  
Fixed Microwave (101)  
12.5-12.75  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484A  5.484B (Earth -to-space)  5.487A  5.488  5.490  12.5-12.75  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (space- to-Earth)  
   5.484A  5.484B  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  
BROADCASTING -SATELLITE  5.493  5.487A  5.488  5.490  
12.7-12.75  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (Earth -to-space)  
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile  12.7-12.75  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (Earth -to-space)  
MOBILE 
 
NG53  NG57   
TV Broadcast Auxiliary  
   (74F)  
Cable TV Relay (78) 
Fixed Microwave (101)  
5.494  5.495  5.496  
12.75 -13.25  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (Earth -to-space)  5.441  
MOBILE  
Space research (deep space) (space -to-Earth)  12.75 -13.25  
 
 
 
 
 
US251  12.75 -13.25  
FIXED  
FIXED -SATELLITE (Earth -to-space)  
   5.441 
MOBILE 
 
US251  NG53   NG57   
Satellite  
   Communications (25)  
TV Broadcast Auxiliary  
   (74F)  
Cable TV Relay (78) 
Fixed Microwave (101)  
13.25 -13.4 
EARTH EXPLORATION -SATELLITE (active)  
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.497  
SPACE RESEARCH (active)  
 
 
 
5.498A  5.499  13.25 -13.4 
EARTH EXPLORATION - 
   SATELLITE (active)  
AERONAUTICAL  
   RADIONAVIGATION  5.497  
SPACE RESEARCH (active)   
5.498A  13.25 -13.4 
AERONAUTICAL  
   RADIONAVIGATION  5.497  
Earth exploration- satellite (active)  
Space research (active)   
Aviation (87)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
78 b. In the list of Non -Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, revise footnotes NG52, NG53, 
NG57, and NG118 to read as follows:  
NG52 -Except as provided for by NG527A, use of the band 10.7-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) by 
geostationary satellites in the fixed -satellite service shall be limited to international systems, i.e., other 
than domestic systems.   
NG53 The mobile BAS/CARS repack ban d(s) is reserved for eligible incumbent television 
pickup (TVPU) and cable television relay service (CARS) pickup stations (collectively, mobile 
BAS/CARS) that were licensed to operate in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band pursuant to applications filed 
before Septem ber 19, 2022.    
NG57 - In the band 12.7-13.25 GHz, the following provisions shall apply:   
(a) Except as provided in NG53 and in the paragraphs below, the band is designated for emerging 
technologies  under part 27 of this chapter . 
(b) Fixed S atellite S ervice incumbents .  Any Fixed Satellite Service space station or earth station 
authorized to serve or operate in the United States in accordance with the Table of Allocations based on a petition for market access or application filed before September 19, 2022, may continue such Earth-to -
space operations on a primary basis.  For such incumbent Fixed Satellite Service stations, the use of the band 12.75- 13.25 GHz by geostationary satellites is  limited to international systems, i.e., other than 
domestic systems; non -geostationary -satellite systems are limited to communications with individually 
licensed incumbent earth stations.  In the sub -band 13.15-13.2125 GHz, NGSO FSS gateway uplink 
transmissions shall be limited to a maximum e.i.r.p. of 3.2 dBW towards 0° on the radio horizon.  
(1) On or after September 19, 2022, petitions for market access or applications for new or 
modified Fixed Satellite Service space stations and earth stations are unacceptable for filing and shall be 
dismissed, with the following exceptions:   
(i) Space stations .  Applications for space stations limited to serving earth stations outside the 
United States, applications for modification of existing space station authorizations , see § 25.117 of this 
chapter, applications to relocate existing space stations pursuant to the Commission’s fleet management 
policy,  see 25.118(e) of this chapter,  and applications for replacement space stations.   
(ii) Earth stations .  Applications for renewal or cancellation of incumbent earth station 
authorizations, modifications to correct location or other data required in the incumbent earth station file, 
and modifications not requiring prior Commission authorization, see § 25.118(a) -(b) of this chapter.  
(c) Fixed Service and Mobile Service incumbents.  Licensees of Fixed Service or Mobile Service 
authorized based on an application filed before September 19, 2022, pursuant to parts 74, 78, or 101 of this chapter may continue to operate as authorized until the applicable sunset date.   
(1) On or after September 19, 2022, applications for new or modified Fixed Service or Mobile 
Service operations under parts 74, 78, and 101 are unacc eptable for filing and shall be dismissed, with the 
following exceptions:   
(i) Mobile BAS/CARS repack.  Applications for modification by incumbent mobile BAS/CARS 
licensees to relocate to the mobile BAS/CARS repack band (see NG53).   
(ii) Other:  A pplicat ions for renewal, cancellation, or minor modification ( if the incumbent 
licensee establishes that the modification would not add to any relocation costs ). 
NG118 In the bands 2025- 2110 MHz , and 6875-7125 MHz, television translator relay stations 
may be authorized to use frequencies on a secondary basis to other stations in the Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service that are operating in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations.  
PART 25  – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS  
6. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
79 Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise 
noted.  
7. Amend § 25.115 to add “12.7-13.25 GHz” to the heading of paragraph (e), add 
paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(4) as follows:  
§ 25.115   Applications for earth  station authorizations  
* * * * *  
(e) GSO FSS earth  stations in 12.7 -13.25 GHz and 17.8 –30 GHz  
(2) On or after September 19, 2022, applications for new or modified GSO FSS earth station 
licenses in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band are unacceptable for filing and shall be dismissed , with the exception 
of applications for renewal  or cancellation of incumbent e arth station authorizations, and modifications to 
correct location or other data required in the incumbent earth station file, and modifications not requiring 
prior Commission authorization, see § 25.118(a) -(b).   
(f) NGSO FSS earth stations in 10.7– 30.0 G Hz  
* * * * *  
(4) On or after September 19, 2022, applications for new or modified earth station licenses in the 
12.7-13.25 GHz band are unacceptable for filing and shall be dismissed , with the exception of 
applications for renewal or cancellation  of incumbent earth station authorizations, and modifications to 
correct location or other data required in the incumbent earth station file, and modifications not requiring prior Commission a uthorization, see § 25.118(a) -(b).  
PART 27 –  MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES  
8. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:  
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unl ess 
otherwise noted.  
9. Amend § 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(18) to read as follows:  
§ 27.1   Basis  and purpose. 
* * * * *  
(b) * * *  
(18) 12.7– 13.25 GHz.  
* * * * *  
10. Amend § 27.2 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:  
§ 27.2   Permissible  Communications. 
* * * * *  
(f) 12.7 -13.25 GHz band.  The 12.7- 13.25 GHz frequencies may not be used for downlink 
satellite transmission. 
* * * * *  
11. Amend § 27.4 by adding in alphabetical or numerical order the definition for “12.7 GHz 
Service” to read as fo llows:  
§ 27.4   Terms and definitions. 
12.7 GHz Service.   A radiocommunication service licensed under this part for the frequency 
bands specified in § 27.5( p) (12.7- 13.25 GHz band).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
80 * * * * *  
12. Amend § 27.5 by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:  
§ 27.5   Frequencies.  
* * * * *  
(p) 12.7-13.25 GHz band.   The 12.7 GHz Service is licensed as five individual 100 megahertz blocks 
[and one smaller block depending on resolution of mobile BAS/CARS repack band] available for 
assignment on a  Partial Economic Area basis, see § 27.6( o). 
13. Amend § 27.6 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:  
§ 27.6   Service areas.  
* * * * *  
(o) 12.7-13.25 GHz band.   Service areas in the 12.7 GHz Service are based on Partial Economic 
Areas (PEAs)  as defined by appendix A to this subpart.   
14. Amend § 27.11 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:  
§ 27.11   Initial authorization.  
* * * * *  
(n) 12.7-13.25 GHz band.  Authorizations for licenses in the 12.7 GHz Service will be based on 
Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), as specified in § 27.6(o), and the frequency blocks specified in §  27.5(p).  
15. Amend § 27.13 by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:  
§ 27.13   License period.  
* * * * *  
(p) 12.7-13.25 GHz band.  Authorization for the band will have a term not to exceed ten (10)  years 
from the date of issuance.  
16. Amend § 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a) and (k), and adding 
paragraph (x) to read as follows:  
§ 27.14   Construction  requirements.  
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees holding authorizations for the 
600 MHz band, Block A in the 698- 704 MHz and 728 -734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-
2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345- 2350 
MHz band, in the 3450-3550 MHz band, in the  3700-3980 MHz band, and in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, 
and with the exception of licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the 2000- 2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 
2155- 2180 MHz bands, must, as a performance requirement, make a showing of “substantial service” in 
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in § 27.13.   “Substantial service” is defined 
as service which is sound, favorable and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.  Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of 
the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.  
* * * * *  
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AW S authorizations in the spectrum blocks enumerated in 
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q),  (r), (s), (t), (v), (w), and (x)  of this section, including any licensee that 
obtained its license pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, s hall demonstrate 
compliance with performance requirements by filing a construction notification with the Commission,  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
81 within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable  benchmark, in accordance with the provisions set forth 
in § 1.946(d) of this chapter.  The licensee must certify whether it has met the applicable performance 
requirements. The licensee must file a description and certification of the areas for which it is providing 
service. The construction notifications must include electronic coverage maps, supporting technical documentation and any other information as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by 
public notice.  
* * * * *  
(x) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an authorization in the 12.7- 13.25 
GHz band:  
(1) Licensees relying on mobile or point -to-multipoint service shall provide reliable signal 
coverage and offer service within five (5) years from the dat e of the initial license to at least forty -five 
(45) percent of the population in each of its license areas (“First Buildout Requirement”).  Licensee shall 
provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within ten (10) years from the date of the initial license 
to at least eighty (80)  percent of the  population in each of its license areas (“Second Buildout 
Requirement”). Licensees relying on point -to-point service shall demonstrate within five years of the 
license issue date that they have four links op erating and providing service to customers or for internal 
use if the population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000 and, if the population is 
greater than 268,000, that they have at least one link in operation and providing service to customers, or 
for internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a license area (“First Buildout Requirement”).  Licensees 
relying on point -to-point service shall demonstrate within 10 years of the license issue date that they have 
eight links operating and providing service to customers or for internal use if the population within license area is equal to or less than 268,000 and, if the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, 
shall demonstrate they are providing service and have at least two links in operation per every 67,000 
persons within a license area (“Second Buildout Requirement”).  
(2) In the alternative, a licensee offering Internet of Things-type services shall provide geographic 
area coverage within five (5) years from the date of the initial license to at least thirty -five (35) percent  of 
the license (“First Buildout Requirement”).  A licensee offering Internet of Things-type services shall provide geographic area coverage within ten (10) years from the date of the initial li cense to at least sixty -
five (65)  percent of the license (“Second Buildout Requirement”).  
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First Buildout Requirement for a particular 
license area, the licensee’s Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced by two years. If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second Buildout Requirement for a particular 
license area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout 
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission makes the license available at a later date.  
(4) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, licensees shall use the most 
recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population or geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level.  
The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will be deemed 
served by the licensee only if it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within the specific 
Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable 
identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such areas 
may include only the population or geographic area within the Census Tract (or other acceptable 
identifier) towards meeting the performance requi rement of a single, individual license. If a licensee does 
not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, the license must provide a map that 
accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas within each license area not being served.  Each 
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its service territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the ass umptions used to create the coverage maps, including the  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
82 propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the l icensee's 
technology.  
17. Amend § 27.50 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:  
§ 27.50   Power limits and duty cycle.  
* * * * *  
(l) The following power  requirements apply to stations transmitting in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band:  
(1)  For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile systems, the average power 
of the sum of all antenna elements is limited  to an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) density 
of +75dBm/100 MHz. For channel bandwidths less than 100 megahertz the EIRP must be reduced 
proportionally and linearly based on the bandwidth relative to 100 megahertz.  
(2)  For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a 
maximum EIRP of +43 dBm.  
(3)  For transportable stations  (transmitting equipment that is not intended to be used while in 
motion, but rather at stationary locations), the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum EIRP of +55 dBm.  
(4) Equipment employed must be authorized in a ccordance with the provisions of § 27.51.  Power 
measurements for transmissions by stations authorized under this section may be made either in 
accordance with a Commission -approved average power technique or in compliance with paragraph (j)(5) 
of this section.  
(5) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of continuous transmission using 
instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage.  The measurement results shall be 
properly adjusted for any instrument limitations , such as detector response times, limited resolution 
bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, sensitivity, and any other relevant factors, so as to obtain a true peak measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of 
the chan nel. 
18. Amend § 27.53 by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:  
§ 27.53   Emission limits . 
* * * * *  
(p) 12.7 GHz Service. The following  emission limits apply to stations transmitting in the 12.7-
13.25 GHz band:  
(1)  For base station operations in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band, the conducted power or the total 
radiated power of any emission outside the licensee’s authorized bandwidth shall not exceed −13 
dBm/MHz.  Compliance with this paragraph  (p)(1) is based on the use of measurement instrumentation 
employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater.  However, in the 1 megahertz bands 
immediately outside and adjacent to the l icensee's frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least one 
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed.   
(2)  For mobile operations in the 12.7 -13.25  GHz band, the conducted power  or the total radiated 
power  of any emission outside the licensee’s authorized bandwidth shall not exceed −1 3 dBm /MHz.  
Compliance with this paragraph ( p)(2) is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a 
resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater.  
19. Amend § 27.55 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:  
§ 27.55   Power strength limits.  
* * * * *   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
83 (f) Power flux density for stations  operating in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band.  For base and fixed 
stations operation in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band in accordance with the provisions of § 27.50(j), the power 
flux density (PFD) at any location on the geographical border of a licensee’s service area shall not exceed 
−77.6 dBm/m2/MHz.  This power flux density will be measured at 1.5 meters above ground.  Licensees in 
adjacent geographic areas may voluntarily agree to operate under a higher PFD at their common 
boundary.  
20. Amend § 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:  
§ 27.57   International coordination.  
* * * * *  
(c) Operation in the 1695- 1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755- 1780 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155 -2180 MHz, 2180- 2200 MHz, 3450-3550 MHz, 
3700- 3980 MHz, and 12.7- 13.25 GHz bands is subject to international agreements with M exico and 
Canada.  
21. Add new s ubpart R to read as follows:  
Subpart R –  12.7 GHz Service (12.7-13.25 GHz)  
 
RELOCATION OF INCUMBENT OPERATIONS IN THE 12.7-13.25  GHZ BAND 
§ 27.17 11 Relocation of fixed microwave services, broadcast auxiliary services, and c able television 
relay services in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz b and  
Parts 27, 74, 78 and 101 of this chapter contain provisions governing the relocation of incumbent Fixed 
Microwave Services (FS) (see p art 101), Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) (see part 74), and Cable 
Television  Relay Services (CARS) (see part 78) in the 12.7-13.25 GHz bands.   The relocation of fixed 
microwave, BAS, and CARS are governed by parts 27 and 101.  The relocation of mobile BAS and 
CARS licensees are governed, respectively, by §§ 74.690 and 78.40.     
 
PROTECTION OF INCUMBENT OPERATIONS IN THE 12.7-13.25  GHZ BAND 
§ 27.1712 Protection  of fixed operations in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz b and under p arts 74, 78 and 101.  
All Emerging Technologies  (ET) licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station in 
the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band, must coordinate their frequency usage with co -channel and adjacent -channel 
fixed incumbents. Coordination shall be conducted in a ccordance with the provisions of § 24.237 of this 
chapter.    
§ 27.1713 Protection of federal government operations in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz b and 
The band 12.75-13.25 GHz is allocated to the space research (deep space) (space-to -Earth) service for 
reception only at Goldstone, CA (35°20′ N, 116°53′ W).  See § 2.106 note US251 of this chapter.  The 
12.7-13.25 GHz band includes a federal allocation for reception -only by a satellite ground station at the 
Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex (Goldstone Observ atory), operated by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).   
§ 27. 1714 Interference to Emerging Technologies l icensees in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band from Earth 
stations in the Fixed Satellite Service.  
An ET licensee in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band must accept or protect itself from interference from earth  
stations that were authorized to transmit (Earth -to-space) in the band based on an application filed before 
September  19, 2022.  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
84 COST-SHARING POLICIES  GOVERNING RELOCATION FROM THE 12.7-13.25  GHZ BAND 
 
§ 27. 1760  Cost -sharing  requirements for Emerging Technologies in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band . 
Frequencies in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band have been reallocated from Fixed Microwave Services (FS) (see 
Part 101), Broadc ast Auxiliary Services ( BAS) (see Part 74), Cable Television Relay Services ( CARS) 
(see Part 78), and Fixed Satellite Services ( FSS) (see Part 25) to use by Emerging Technologies (ET) (as 
reflected in § 2.106 of this chapter).  The relocation of fixed micr owave  links, including fixed BAS and 
CARS , are governed by Parts 27 and 101 and referred to as microwave licensee(s) in this section .  The 
relocation of mobile BAS and CARS operations are governed, respectively, by Sections 74.690 and 
78.40.   ET entities a re required to relocate an existing microwave licensee in these bands if interference to 
the existing microwave licensee would occur .  All ET entities that benefit from the clearance of this 
spectrum by other ET entities or by a volunta rily relocating micr owave incumbent must contribute to such 
relocation costs.  ET entities may satisfy their reimbursement requirement by entering into private cost -
sharing agreements or agreeing to terms other than those specified in § 27.17 62.  However, ET entities are 
required to reimburse other ET entities or voluntarily relocating microwave incumbents that incur 
relocation costs and are not parties to the alternative agreement.  In addition, parties to a private cost -
sharing agreement may seek reimbursement through the cl earinghouse (as discussed in § 27.1761) from 
ET entities that are not parties to the agreement.  The cost -sharing plan is in effect during all phases of the 
relocation.  If an ET licensee enters into a spectrum leasing arrangement (as set forth in part 1, subpart X 
of this chapter) and the spectrum lessee triggers a cost -sharing obligation, the licensee is the ET entity 
responsible for satisfying the cost -sharing obligations under §§ 27.1760– 27.1767.  
§ 27. 1761 Administration of the c ost-sharing plan. 
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, under delegated authority, will select one or more entities to 
operate as a neutral, not -for-profit clearinghouse(s).  This clearinghouse(s) will administer the cost -
sharing plan by, inter alia, determining the cost -sharing obligation of ET entities for the relocation of 
incumbents from the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band.  The clearinghouse filing requirements (see §§ 27.1763 -
27.1765) will not take effect until an administrator is selected.  
§ 27. 1762 The cost-sharing formula. 
An ET  relocator who relocates an interfering microwave link, i.e., one that is in all or part of its market 
area and in all or part of its frequency band or a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent, is entitled to 
pro rata reimbursement based on the followi ng formula:  
 
 
 
(a) RN equals the amount  of reimbursement.  
(b) C equals the actual cost of relocation. Actual relocation costs include, but are not limited to, 
such items as: Radio terminal equipment (TX and/or RX —antenna, necessary feed lines, MUX/Modems) ; 
towers and/or modifications; back -up power equipment; monitoring or control equipment; engineering 
costs (design/path survey); installation ; systems testing; FCC filing costs; site acquisition and civil works; 
zoning costs; training; disposal of old equi pment; test equipment (vendor required); spare equipment; 
project management; prior coordination notification under § 101.103(d) of this chapter; site lease 
renegotiation; required antenna upgrades for interference control; power plant upgrade (if required); 
electrical grounding systems; Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) (if required); alternate 
transport equipment; and leased facilities. Increased recurring costs represent part of the actual cost of 
relocation and, even if the compensation to the incumbent is in the form of a commitment to pay five 
years of charges, the ET relocator is entitled to seek immediate reimbursement of the lump sum amount  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
85 based on present value using current interest rates, provided it has entered into a legally binding 
agreement to pay the charges.  C also includes voluntarily relocating incumbent's independent third-party 
appraisal of its compensable relocation costs and incumbent transaction expenses that are directly attributable to the relocation, subject to a cap of two percent of the “hard” costs involved.  Hard costs are 
defined as the actual costs associated wi th providing a replacement system, such as equipment and 
engineering expenses.  C may not exceed $125,000 per link, with an additional $150,000 permitted if a 
new or modified tower is required.  
(c) N equals the number of ET entities that have triggered a cost -sharing obligation.   For the ET 
relocator, N = 1.  For the next ET entity triggering a cost-sharing obligation, N = 2, and so on.  In the case 
of a voluntarily relocating incumbent , N = 1 for the first ET entity triggering a cost-sharing obligation. 
For the next ET entity triggering a cost-sharing obligation, N = 2, and so on.  
(d) Tm equals the number of months that have elapsed between the month the ET relocator or 
voluntarily relocating incumbent obtains reimbursement rights for the link and the month in which an ET 
entity triggers a cost -sharing obligation.  An ET relocator obtains reimbursement rights for the link on the 
date that it signs a relocation agreement  with a n incumbent.  A voluntarily relocating incumbent obtains 
reimbursement rights for t he link on the date that the incumbent notifies the Commission that it intends to 
discontinue, or has discontinued, the use of the link, pursuant to § 101.305  of the Commission's rules , if 
applicable, or § 1.953 (Discontinuance of service or operations) of  this chapter . 
§ 27. 1763  Reimbursement  under the Cost -Sharing Plan  
(a) Registration of reimbursement rights . Claims for reimbursement under the cost -sharing plan 
are limited to relocation expenses incurred on or after the date when  the first ET license is issued in the 
relevant 12.7- 13.25 GHz band (start date).  If a clearinghouse is not selected by that date (see § 27.17 64) 
claims for reimbursement (see § 27.17 63) and notices of operation (see § 27.1765) for activities that 
occurred after the start date bu t prior to the clearinghouse selection must be submitted to the 
clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the selection date.  
(1) To obtain reimbursement, an ET relocator must submit documentation of the relocation 
agreement to the clearinghouse within 30 c alendar days of the date a relocation  agreement is signed with 
an incumbent.  In the case of involuntary relocation, an ET relocator must submit documentation of the 
relocated system within 30 calendar days after the end of the relocation.  
(2) To obtain reimbursement, a voluntarily relocating incumbent must submit documentation of 
the relocation of the link to the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days  of the date that the incumbent 
notifies the Commission that it intends to discontinue, or h as discontinued, the use of the link, pursuant to 
§ 101.305 of the Commission's rules.  
(b) Documentation of expenses. Once relocation occurs, the ET relocator, or the voluntarily 
relocating incumbent, must submit documentation itemizing the amount spent for items specifically listed 
in § 27.1762(b), as well as any reimbursable items not specifically listed in § 27.17 62(b) that are directly 
attributable to actual relocation costs.  Specifically, the ET relocator, or the voluntarily relocating 
incumbent must submit, in the first instance, only the uniform cost data requested  by the clearinghouse 
along with a copy, without redaction, of either the relocation agreement, if any, or the t hird party 
appraisal described in (b)(1) of this section, if relocation was undertaken by the microwave incumbent. 
ET relocators and voluntarily relocating incumbents must maintain documentation of cost -related issues 
until the applicable sunset date and p rovide such documentation upon request, to the clearinghouse, the 
Commission, or entrants that trigger a cost -sharing obligation.  If an ET relocator pays an  incumbent a 
monetary sum to relocate its own facilities, the ET relocator must estimate the costs associated with 
relocating the incumbent by itemizing the anticipated cost for items listed in § 27.17 62(b).  If the sum 
paid to the incumbent cannot be accounted for, the remaining amount is not eligible for reimbursement.  
(1) Third party appraisal . A voluntarily relocating incumbent, must also  submit an independent 
third party appraisal of its compensable relocation costs.  The appraisal should be based on the actual cost  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
86 of replacing the incumbent's system with comparable facilities and should exclude th e cost of any 
equipment upgrades or items outside the scope of § 27.17 62(b).  
(2) Identification of links .  The ET relocator or the voluntarily relocating  incumbent must 
identify the particular link associated with appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may not  be averaged over 
numerous links).  
(c) Full Reimbursement.  An ET relocator who relocates a microwave link that is either fully 
outside its market area or its licensed frequency band may seek full reimbursement through the 
clearinghouse of compensable costs, up to the reimbursement cap as  defined in § 27.1762(b).  Such 
reimbursement will not be subject to depreciation under the cost -sharing formula.  
(d) Good Faith Requirement .  New entrants and incumbent licensees are expected to act in good 
faith in satis fying the cost -sharing obligations under §§ 27.17 60 through 27.1767 .  The requirement to act 
in good faith extends to, but is not limited to, the preparation and  submission of the documentation 
required in paragraph (b) of this section.  
(e) Reimbursement f or Self -relocating Incumbents  in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band.  Where a 
voluntarily relocating incumbent relocates its own links, it is entitled to reimbursement from the first ET 
beneficiary for its actual costs for relocating the links, subject to the reimbur sement cap in § 27.1762 (b). 
This amount is subject to depreciation as specified in § 27.1762 (b).  An ET licensee who is obligated to 
reimburse relocation costs under this rule is entitled to obtain reimbursement from other ET beneficiaries 
in accordance wi th §§ 27.1762 and 27.1764.   For purposes of applying the cost -sharing formula relative 
to other ET licensees that benefit from the self -relocation, depreciation shall run from the date on which 
the clearinghouse issues the notice of an obligation to reimburse the voluntarily relocating microwave 
incumbent.  
§ 27. 1764  Triggering  a reimbursement obligation.  
(a) The clearinghouse will apply the following test to determine when an ET entity has triggered a 
cost-sharing obligation and therefore must pay an ET relocator  or a voluntarily relocating incumbent in 
accordance with the formula detailed in § 27.1762 : 
(1) All or part of the relocated microwave link was initially  co-channel with the licensed ET band 
of the ET entity;  
(2) An ET relocator or a voluntarily relocating incumbent has paid the relocation costs of the 
incumbent; and  
(3) The ET entity is operating  or preparing to turn on a fixed base station at commercial power 
and the fixed base station is located within a rectangle (Proximity Threshold) described as follows:  
(i) The length of the rectangle shall be x where x is a line extending through both nodes  of the 
microwave link to a distance of 48 kilometers (30 miles) beyond each node. The width of the rectangle 
shall be y where y is a line perpendicular to x and extending for a distance of 24 kilometers (15 miles) on 
both sides of x.  Thus, the rectangle is represented as follows:  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
87 
 
 
(ii) If the application of the Proximity Threshold Test indicates that a reimbursement obligation 
exists, the clearinghouse will calculate the reimbursement amount in accordance with the cost -sharing 
formula and notify the E T entity of the total amount of its reimbursement obligation.  
(b) Once a reimbursement obligation is triggered, the ET entity may  not avoid paying its cost -
sharing obligation by deconstructing or modifying its facilities.  
§ 27. 1765 Payment  issues.  
Prior to  initiating operations for  a newly constructed site or modified existing site, an ET entity is 
required to file a notice containing site -specific data with the clearinghouse.  The notice regarding the 
new or modified site must provide a detailed descriptio n of the proposed site's spectral frequency use and 
geographic location, including but not limited to the applicant's name and address, the name of the 
transmitting base station, the geographic coordinates corresponding to that base station, the frequencie s 
and polarizations to be added, changed or deleted, and the emission designator.  If a prior coordination 
notice (PCN) under § 101.103(d) of this chapter is prepared, ET entities can satisfy the site -data filing 
requirement by submitting a copy of their P CN to the clearinghouse.   ET entities that file either a notice 
or a PCN have a continuing duty to maintain the accuracy of the site -specific data on file with the 
clearinghouse.  Utilizing the site -specific data, the clearinghouse will determine if any reimbursement 
obligation exists and notify the ET entity in writing of its repayment obligation, if any.  When the ET 
entity receives a written copy of such obligation, it must pay directly to the relocator the amount owed within 30 calendar days.  
§ 27. 1766 Dispute Resolution Under the Cost -Sharing Plan.  
(a) Disputes arising out of the cost -sharing plan, such as disputes over the amount of 
reimbursement required, must be brought, in the first instance, to the clearinghouse for resolution.  To the 
extent that  disputes cannot be resolved by the clearinghouse, parties are encouraged to use expedited 
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, such as binding arbitration, mediation, or other ADR 
techniques.  
(b) Evidentiary requirement .  Parties of interest contesting the clearinghouse's determination of 
specific cost -sharing obligations must provide evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is 
reasonable and made in good faith.  Specifically, these parties are expected to exercise due diligence to 
obtain the information necessary to prepare an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question 
and to file the independent estimate and supporting documentation with the clearinghouse.  
§ 27. 1767 Termination of cost -sharin g obligations.  
The cost -sharing plan will sunset  for all ET entities on the same date on which the relocation obligation 
for the 12.7-13.25 GHz band terminates.  ET entrants that trigger a cost -sharing obligation prior to the 
sunset date must satisfy their  payment obligation in full.  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
88 PART 74 - EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL  BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES  
22. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:  
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and 554.  
23. Modify § 74.602(a) and note 2 of the Table to read as follows:   
§  74.602 Frequency  assignment.  
 (a) The following frequencies are available for assignment to television pickup, television 
STL, television relay and television translator relay stations.  Th e band segments 17,700-18,580 and 
19,260-19,700 MHz are available for broadcast auxiliary  stations as described in paragraph (g)  of this 
section. The band segment 6425-6525 MHz is available for broadcast auxiliary stations as described in 
paragraph (i)  of this section.  The bands 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz are co -equally shared 
with stations licensed pursuant to Parts 78 and 101 of the Commission's Rules.  Broadcast network-
entities may also use the 1990 -2110, 6425-6525 and 6875-7125 MHz bands for mobile television pickup 
only.  On or after September 19, 2022, applications for new or modified stations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz 
band under parts 74, 78, and 101 are unacceptable for filing and shall be dismissed, except for applications of eligible incumbent television pickup (TVPU) and cable television relay service (CARS) 
pickup stations (collectively, mobile BAS/CARS) licensees to modify incumbent authorizations to the 
repacked mobile BAS/CARS sub -band.   
* * * * *  
2 The mobile BAS/CARS repack ban d(s) is reserved for  mobile BAS/CARS licensees that were licensed 
to operate in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band pursuant to applications filed before September 19, 2022 that 
timely certified such authorizations as required in accordance with the procedures set -forth in GN Docket 
No. 22-352 . 
24. Modify § 74.690(a) -(d) and add new (f) to read as follows:  
§ 74.690  Transition of the 1990-2025 MHz and 12,700-13,250 MHz bands from the Broadcast 
Auxiliary Service to Emerging Technologies and Reimbursement and Cost -Sharing.  
(a) New Entrants are collectively defined as those licensees proposing to use emerging 
technologies to implement Mobile Satellite Services in the 2000 -2020 MHz band (MSS licensees), those 
licensees authorized after July 1, 2004 to implement new Fixed and Mo bile services in the 1990 -1995 
MHz band, those licensees authorized after September 9, 2004 in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 
MHz bands, and those licensees authorized under part 27 after in the 12,700-13,250 MHz band.  * * * 
New Entrants in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band are subject to the specific relocation procedures adopted in 
GN Docket No. 22 -352.  New Entrants may negotiate with Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees 
operating on a primary basis and fixed service licensees operating on a primary ba sis in the 12,700 -
13,250 MHz band (Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees) for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the 
Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band would relocate their authorized operation, 
if timely certified as required in accordance with the procedures set -forth in GN Docket No. 22-352, or 
discontinue use of the 12,700-13,250 MHz band.  
(b) An Existing Licensee and Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee will maintain primary status in the 
band until the operations of the Existing  Licensee  or Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee are relocated by a New 
Entrant, are discontinued under the terms of paragraph (a) of this section, or become secondary under the 
terms of paragraph s (e)(6) or (f)(6) of this section or the Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GH z Licensee 
indicates to a New Entrant that it declines to be relocated.  
(c) The Commission will amend the operating license of the Existing Licensee or Existing 
12.7 GHz Licensee, other than the mobile operations of an Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee that has b een 
transitioned to the repack band, to secondary  status only if the following requirements are met:   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
89 (1) The service applicant, provider, licensee, or representative using an emerging technology 
guarantees payment of all relocation costs, including all engineering, equipment, site and FCC fees, as 
well as any reasonable additional costs that  the relocated  Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensee might incur as a result of operation in another authorized band or migration to another medium;  
(2) The New Entrant completes all activities necessary for implementing the replacement 
facilities, including engineering and cost  analysis of the relocation procedure and, if radio facilities are 
used, identifying and obtaining, on the incumbents' behalf, new microwave or Local Television 
Transmission Service frequencies and frequency coordination.   
(3) The New E ntrant builds the replacement system and tests it for comparability with the 
existing system.  
(d) The Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee is not required to relocate until the 
alternative facilities are available to it for a reasonable time to make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless handoff.  If, within one year after the relocation to new facilities the 
Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee demonstrates that the new facilities are not comparable 
to the former facilities, the New Entrant must remedy the defects.  
* * * * *  
(f) Subject to the terms of this paragraph (f), the relocation of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees will 
be carried out by New Entrants in the following manner:  
(1) Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees and New Entrants may negotiate individually or collectively for 
relocation of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees to comparable facilities, as that term is used in § 101.73 of this chapter.  Parties may not decline to negotiate , though Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees may decline to be 
relocated.  
(i) New Entrants are required to relocate the fixed microwave links of Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensees prior to commencing operations if interference would occur.  A New Entrant must conform to 
the technical criteria specified in TIA  Bulletin TSB 10 -F, or procedures other than TSB 10-F that follow 
generally acceptable good engineering practices pursuant to Section 101.105(c) of the Commission’s 
rules, to determine if interference would occur such that  their relocation would be necessary before a New 
Entrant’s operations could commence.   
(ii) New Entrants must relocate the non -fixed and mobile operations of  all Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensees on a market -by-market basis in a Nielsen Designated  Market Areas (DMA), as such DMAs 
existed on September 19, 2022, in which it seeks to provide service prior to commencing operations, except those Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees that decline relocation.   
(iii) Such relocation negotiations shall be conducted as “mandatory  negotiations,” as that term is 
used in § 101.73 of this chapter.  If these parties are unable to reach a negotiated agreement prior to the 
expiration of the mandatory negotiation period, New Entrants may involuntarily relocate such Existing 
12.7 GHz Licen sees in accordance with procedures set -forth in § 101.75 of this chapter.  
(iv)  After the end of the mandatory negotiation period, an New Entrant may involuntary relocate 
any Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees with which  they have been unable to reach a negotiated agreement.  
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1) above, the non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 
GHz Licensees’ operations in an adjacent market may need to be relocated even though the New Entrant 
does not initiate operations in that adjacent  market.  A New Entrant undertaking clearing would be 
obligated to relocate all incumbent non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees in all 
affected markets, including those markets where the New Entrant provides partial, minimal, or ev en no 
service.  A New Entrant must conform to the technical criteria specified in TIA Bulletin TSB 10 -F, or 
procedures other than TSB 10-F that follow generally acceptable good engineering practices pursuant to Section 101.105(c) of the Commission’s rules,  to determine any additional market(s) where a New  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
90 Entrant would cause interference to the non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees, 
such that their relocation would be necessary before a New Entrant  commences operations.  
(3) The obli gations of a New Entrant to relocate an Existing  12.7 GHz Licensee will terminate on 
the sunset date for Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee to retain primary operations in the band.  On this date, all Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees will become secondary in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band with the exception of 
mobile BAS relocated to the repacked band.  Upon written demand by a New Entrant that intends to 
commence operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees that have not been 
relocated to the repacked band must cease operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band within six months.  
(4) The cost -sharing obligations of New Entrants for the relocation of the fixed microwave links 
of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees is governed by Sections 27.1760- 27.1767 of this chapter.  The cost -
sharing obligations of New Entrants for the relocation  of non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 
12.7 GHz Licensee is governed by this subparagraph (f)(4).  All New Entrants to the 12.7- 13.25 GHz 
band are required to bear a proportional shar e of the costs incurred in the relocation of the non -fixed or 
mobile operations of an Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees, on a pro rata  basis according to the amount of 
spectrum each licensee is assigned relative to the amount of 12.7 GHz spectrum that has been l icensed.  
New Entrants that incur relocation costs may seek reimbursement for compensable costs from other New 
Entrants that have been licensed to provide service in a relocated market prior to the sunset date, i.e., the 
date on which the relocation obliga tion terminates.  New Entrants that are licensed prior to the sunset date 
must satisfy their reimbursement obligations for relocated markets in full.  Because a New Entrant may be required to relocate the non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GH z Licensees in adjacent 
markets pursuant to (f)(2), the New Entrant may seek full reimbursement of compensable costs for the 
relocation of an adjacent market from New Entrants that have been licensed to provide service in the 
adjacent market.  Reimbursemen t of compensable costs for a relocated market is not subject to 
depreciation.  Compensable costs are limited to the actual costs of relocation and based on the definition 
set-forth in Section 27.1762(b), as adjusted to reflect mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees.  
New Entrants must maintain and, as requested, share documentation of relocation costs consistent with 
Section 27.1763(b), as modified to reflect mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees.  New 
entrants are expected to act in go od faith in satisfying the cost -sharing obligations.  P arties are encouraged 
to use expedited Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, such as binding arbitration, 
mediation, or other ADR techniques  to resolve d isputes arising out of reimbursement and cost-sharing, 
such as disputes over the amount of reimbursement required.  Parties of interest contesting cost -sharing 
obligations must provide evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is reasonable and made 
in good faith.  Specifically, these parties are expected to exercise due diligence to obtain the information 
necessary to prepare an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question and to file the independent estimate and supporting documentation with other affected parties and, if necessary, with the 
Commission.  
PART 78 –  CABLE TELEVISION RELAY SERVICE  
25. The authority citation for Part 78 continues to read as follows:  
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309. 
26. Modify §§ 78.18(b) and (l) to read a s follows:  
§ 78.18.  Frequency assignments.  
(b) On or after September 19, 2022, applications for new or modified stations in the 12.7- 13.25 
GHz band under parts 74, 78, and 101 are unacceptable for filing and shall be dismissed, except for 
applications of  eligible incumbent T elevision pickup (TVPU) and cable television relay service (CARS) 
pickup stations (collectively, mobile BAS/CARS)  to modify incumbent authorizations to the repacked 
mobile BAS/CARS sub -band.    
(l) The mobile BAS/CARS repack band(s) is reserved for  eligible incumbent that were licensed to 
operate in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band pursuant to applications filed before September 19, 2022.     Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
91 27. Delete § 78.18(m).  
28. Revise the heading of § 78.40 and paragraphs (a) -(e) and add paragraph ( g) to read as 
follows:  
§ 78.40 Transition of the 1990- 2025 MHz and 12,700-13,250 MHz bands  from the Cable Television 
Relay Service to Emerging Technologies and Reimbursement and Cost -Sharing in the 12,700 -
13,250 MHz band.  
(a) New Entrants are collectively defined as tho se licensees proposing to use emerging 
technologies to implement Mobile Satellite Services in the 2000 -2020 MHz band (MSS licensees), those 
licensees authorized after July 1, 2004 to implement new Fixed and Mobile services in the 1990-1995 
MHz band, those licensees authorized after September 9, 2004 in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 
MHz bands, and those licensees authorized after [date] in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band.  ***  New 
Entrants in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band are subject to the specific relocation pr ocedures adopted in GN 
Docket No. 22 -352.  New entrants may negotiate with Cable Television Relay Service licensees operating 
on a primary basis and fixed service licensees operating on a primary basis in the 12,700-13,250 MHz bands (Existing 12.7 GHz Lice nsees) for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the Existing 12.7 
GHz Licensees in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band would relocate their operations to the repacked band, to 
other authorized bands, or to other media; or, alternatively, would accept a shar ing arrangement with the 
New Entrants that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee's operations in the 12,700 -13,250 MHz band.  
(b) An Existing Licensee and Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee will maintain pr imary status in the 
band until the operations of the Existing License e or Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee are relocated by a New 
Entrant, or become secondary under the terms of paragraphs  (g)(3) of this section or the Existing Licensee 
or Existing 12.7 GHz Lice nsee indicates to a New Entrant that it declines to be relocated.  
(c) The Commission will amend the operating license of the Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 
GHz Licensee to secondary status only if the following requirements are met:  
(1) The service applicant, provider, licensee, or representative using an emerging technology 
guarantees payment of all relocation costs, including  all engineering, equipment, site and FCC fees, as 
well as any reasonable additional costs that the relocated  Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensee might incur as a result of operation in another authorized band or migration to another medium;   
(2) The New Entrant completes all activities necessary for implementing the replacement 
facilities, including  engineering and cost analysis of the relocation procedure and, if radio facilities are 
used, identifying and obtaining, on the incumbents'  behalf, new microwave or Cable Television Relay 
Service frequencies and frequency coordination.  
(3) The New Entrant builds the replacement system and tests it for comparability with the 
existing system.  
(d) The Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee is not required to relocate until the 
alternative facilities are available to it for a reasonable time to make ad justments, determine 
comparability, and ensure a seamless handoff.   
(e) If, within one year after the relocation to new facilities the Existing Licensee or Existing 12.7 
GHz demonstrates that the new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities,  the New Entrant 
must remedy the defect.  
* * * * *  
(g) Subject to the terms of this paragraph (g), the relocation of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees will 
be carried out by New Entrants  in the following manner:  
(1) Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees and New Entrants may negotiate individually or collectively for 
relocation of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees to comparable facilities, as that term is used in § 101.73 of this  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
92 chapter.  Parties may not decline to negotiate, tho ugh Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees may decline to be 
relocated.  
(i) New Entrants are required to relocate the fixed microwave links of Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensees prior to commencing operations if interference would occur.  A New Entrant must conform to 
the technical criteria specified in TIA Bulletin  TSB 10 -F, or procedures other than TSB 10-F that follow 
generally acceptable good engineering practices pursuant to Section 101.105(c) of the Commission’s 
rules, to determine if interference would occur such that  their relocation would be necessary before a New 
Entrant’s operations could commence.   
(ii) New Entrants must relocate all non -fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz 
Licensees on a market -by-market basis in a Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DM A), as such DMAs 
existed on September 19, 2022, where it seeks to provide service prior to commencing operations, except 
those Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees that decline relocation.   
(iii) R elocation negotiations shall be conducted as “mandatory negotiations,” as that term is used 
in § 101.73 of this chapter.  If these parties are unable to reach a negotiated agreement prior to the expiration of the mandatory negotiation period, New Entrants may involuntarily relocate such Existing 
12.7 GHz Licensees in acco rdance with procedures set -forth in § 101.75 of this chapter.  
(iv)  After the end of the mandatory negotiation period , an New Entrant may involuntary relocate 
any Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees with which they have been unable to reach a negotiated agreement.  
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1) above, the non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 
GHz Licensees’ operations in an adjacent market may need to be relocated even though the New Entrant 
does not initiate operations in that adjacent market.  A New Entrant undertaking clearing would be obligated to relocate all incumbent non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees in all 
affected markets, including those markets where the New Entrant provides partial, minimal, or even no 
service.  A New Entrant must conform to the technical criteria specified in TIA Bulletin TSB 10 -F, or 
procedures other than TSB 10-F that follow generally acceptable good engineering practices pursuant to Section 101.105(c) of the Commission’s rules, to determine any additional market(s) where a New 
Entrant would cause interference to the non -fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees, 
such that their relocation would be necessary before a New Entrant commences operations.  
(3) The obligations of a  New Entrant to relocate an Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee will terminate on 
the sunset date for Existing 12.7 GHz Licensee to retain primary operations in the band.  On this date, all 
Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees will become secondary in the 12.7 -13.25 GHz ban d with the exception of 
those relocated to the repacked band.  Upon written demand by a New Entrant that intends to commence operations in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band, Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees that have not been relocated to the 
repacked band must cease operations in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band within six months.  
(4) The cost -sharing obligations of New Entrants for the relocation of the fixed microwave links 
of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees is governed by Sections 27.1760– 27.1767 of this chapter.  The cost -
sharing  obligations of New Entrants for the relocation of non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 
12.7 GHz Licensee is governed by this subparagraph (g)(4).  All New Entrants to the 12.7- 13.25 GHz 
band are required to bear a proportional share of the costs incurred in the relocation of the non -fixed or 
mobile operations of an Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees, on a pro rata  basis according to the amount of 
spectrum each licensee is assigned relative to the amount of 12.7 GHz spectrum that has been licensed.  New Ent rants that incur relocation costs may seek reimbursement  for compensable costs from other New 
Entrants that have been licensed to provide service in a relocated market prior to the sunset date, i.e., the 
date on which the relocation obligation terminates.  New Entrants that are licensed prior to the sunset date 
must satisfy their reimbursement obligations for relocated markets in full.  Because a New Entrant may be required to relocate the non-fixed and mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees in adjacent 
markets pursuant to (g)(2), the New Entrant may seek full reimbursement of compensable costs for the 
relocation of an adjacent market from New Entrants that have been licensed to provide service in the 
adjacent market.  Reimbursement of compensable costs for a relocated market is not subject to  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
93 depreciation.  Compensable costs are limited to the actual costs of relocation and based on the definition 
set-forth in Section 27.1762(b), as adjusted to reflect mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz License es.  
New Entrants must maintain and, as requested, share documentation of relocation costs consistent with Section 27.1763(b), as modified to reflect mobile operations of Existing 12.7 GHz Licensees.  New entrants are expected to act in good faith in satisfying the cost -sharing obligations.  P arties are encouraged 
to use expedited Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, such as binding arbitration, 
mediation, or other ADR techniques  to resolve d isputes arising out of reimbursement and cost -sharing,  
such as disputes over the amount of reimbursement required.  Parties of interest contesting cost -sharing 
obligations must provide evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is reasonable and made in good faith.  Specifically, these parties are expected to exercise due diligence to obtain the information 
necessary to prepare an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question and to file the independent estimate and supporting documentation with other affected parties and, if necessar y, with the 
Commission.  
PART 101 - FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES  
29. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as follows:  
Authority :  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.  
30. Revise the undesignated center heading above § 101.69 and the introductory text, 
paragraph (a), an d the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (d) of § 101.69 to read as 
follows:  
Policies Governing Microwave Relocation From the 1850-1990, 2110-2200, and 12,700-13,250 MHz 
Bands  
§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2200, and 12,700-13,250 MHz bands from the fixed microwave services to personal communications services and emerging 
technologies.  
Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) in the 1850 -1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2200, and 12,700-
13,250 MHz bands have been all ocated for use by emerging technology (ET) services, including Personal 
Communications Services (PCS), Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), and Mobile Satellite Services 
(MSS).   The rules in this section provide for a transition period during which ET license es may relocate 
existing FMS licensees using these frequencies to other media or other fixed channels, including those in 
other microwave bands.  
(a) ET licensees may negotiate with FMS licensees authorized to use frequen cies in the 1850-
1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2200 MHz and 12,700-13,2500 MHz bands, for the purpose of 
agreeing to terms under which the FMS licensees would:  
* * * * *  
(d) Relocation of FMS licensees in the 2110-2150, 2160-2200, and 12,700-13,250 MHz band will 
be subject to mandatory negot iations only.   * * *  
31. Amend § 101.73 by revising paragraph (a) and the first sentence of the introductory text 
of paragraph (d) to read as follows:  
§ 101. 73  Mandatory negotiations.   
 (a) A mandatory negotiation period may be initiated at the option of t he ET licensee.  Relocation 
of FMS licensees by Mobile Satellite  Service (MSS) operators and AWS licensees in the 2110 -2150 MHz 
and 2160-2200 MHz bands or ET licensee in the 12,700-13,250 MHz band will be subject to mandatory 
negotiations only.  
* * * * *   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
94 (d) Provisions for Relocation  of Fixed Microwave Licensees in the 2110 -2150 , 2160- 2200 MHz, 
and 12,700- 13,250 MHz bands.  * * *  
32. Revise the heading of § 101.79 and para graph (a) to read as follows:  
§ 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees in the 1850 -1990 MHz, 2110- 2150 MHz, 2160-2200 MHz, 
and 12,700- 13,250 MHz bands. 
(a) FMS licensees will maintain primary status in the 1850 -1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, 2160 -
2200 MHz, and 12,700-13,250 MHz bands unless and until an ET licensee requires use of the spectrum.  
ET licensees are not required to pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset.  Once the relocation 
rules sunset, an ET licensee may require  the incumbent to cease operations, provided that the ET licensee 
intends to turn on a system within interfe rence range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA TSB 10 –F 
(for terrestrial -to-terrestrial situations) or TIA TSB 86 (for MSS satellite -to-terrestrial situations) or any 
standard successor.  ET licensee notification to the affected FMS licensee must be in  writing and must 
provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum.  After the six -month notice 
period has expired, the FMS licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into an agreement which allows the FMS licensee to continue to operate on a mutually 
agreed upon basis.  The date that the relocation rules sunset is determined as follows:  
* * * * *  
(3) For the 12,700-13,250 MHz band, the sunset date shall be three years after the first E T license 
is issued in the band . 
* * * * *   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
95 APPENDIX B 
 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  in WT Docket No. 20 -443 
 
1. As required by the  Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the 
Commission has prepared an  Initial Regulatory Flexibility  Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further No tice).  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 on the Further Notice .  The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice , including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the 
Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3 
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules  
2. Although the  Commission declines to add a mobile allocation or adopt service rules for 
expanded terrestrial, high -powered, two -way mobile operations in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz band ( 12.2 GHz 
band)  the Further Notice  seeks additional comment on other possible fixed terrestri al uses of the band.  
The Further Notice explores expanded licensed fixed uses as well as unlicensed opportunities in the band.   
The potential rule changes seek to facilitate more robust  terrestrial fixed or unlicensed use while 
protecting incumbent operat ions in the bands.   The Further Notice pursues the Commission’s joint goals 
of maximizing the use of these 500 MHz of spectrum , while balancing desired speed to the market, 
efficiency of use, and effectively accommodating incumbent operations in the band.   
3. In the United States, the 12.2 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis for non -Federal 
use for the Broadcasting  Satellite Service (BSS) (referred to  domestically in the band as Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS) ; the Fixed Satellite Service (space -to-Eart h) limited to non -geostationary orbit systems 
(NGSO FSS) ; and the Fixed Service .4  While these three services are co -primary, the NGSO FSS and 
 
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 5 U.S.C. §  603(a).  
3 Id. 
4 See 47 CFR § 2.106, United States  Table of Frequency Allocations, non -Federal Table for the band 12.2- 12.7 
GHz.  NGSO FSS (space -to-Earth) operations are authorized pursuant to international footnote 5.487A, which 
provides additional allocations including in Region 2 as follows :   
[The 12.2-12.7 GHz  is] allocated to the fixed -satellite service (space -to-Earth) on a primary basis, 
limited to non -geostationary systems and subject to application of the provisions of [ITU Radio 
Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other non -geostationar y-satellite systems in the fixed -
satellite service.   Non- geostationary- satellite systems in the fixed -satellite service shall not claim 
protection from geostationary -satellite networks in the broadcasting -satellite service operating in 
accordance with the Radio Regulations, irrespective of the dates of receipt by the [ITU 
Radiocommunication ] Bureau of the complete coordination or notification information, as 
appropriate, for the non -geostationary- satellite systems in the fixed -satellite service and of the 
complete coordination or notification information, as appropriate, for the geostationary -satellite 
networks, and [international footnote] No. 5.43A does not apply.  Non-geostationary -satellite 
systems in the fixed -satellite service in the [12 GHz  band ] shall be operated in such a way that any 
unacceptable interference that may occur during their operation shall be rapidly eliminated.    
47 CFR § 2.106, footnote 5.487A.  When an international footnote is applicable without modification to  non-Federal 
operation s, the Commission places  the footnote on the non- Federal Table.  See 47 CFR § 2.105(d)(5).    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
96 Fixed Service are allocated on a non -harmful interference basis with respect  to BSS.5  Currently there are 
three services authorized and operating in the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS 
allocation, Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) licensees operating on a non -
harmful interference basis to DBS un der the co -primary Fixed Service allocation, and NGSO FSS 
licensees operating on a non -harmful interference basis to DBS under the co -primary NGSO FSS 
allocation.  Th is proceeding is predic ated in part on the MVDDS 5G Coalition  petition for rulemaking,6 
however alternative uses for the band were raised by various commenters.  Incumbent NGSO and some 
DBS interests seek to continue to use the band without ceding rights to MVDDS licensees.  To facilitate further consideration of the various proposals in the F urther Notice the Commission seeks comments on 
how to weigh public interest considerations associated with allowing, prohibiting and prioritizi ng uses 
and on the costs and benefits of allowing new uses of the 12 GHz bands.  
4. Our rules currently  enable sharin g between co -primary NGSO FSS and MVDDS using a 
combination of technical limitations, information sharing, and first-in -time procedures.
7  While we 
decline to add a mobile allocation or adopt service rules for expanded terrestrial, high- powered, two -way 
mobile operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, we remain interested in potential expanded terrestrial use of 
the band.  We therefore seek comment on additional possible terrestrial uses of the 12.2 -12.7 GHz band 
including one -way, point -to-point or point -to-multipoint fixed links at higher powers than current 
MVDDS rules; two -way, point -to-point fixed links at standard part 101 power limits; two-way, point -to-
multipoint links; indoor only underlay on a licensed by rule basis; unlicensed use; and expanded use 
through technology- based share using Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC).  
5. By modifying our rules and implementing policies designed to provide for more robust  
use of the 12 GHz band, the Commission hopes to ensure that this spectrum is efficiently utili zed and will 
foster the development of new and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the growth 
and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately leading to greater benefits to consumers.  
B. Legal  Basis 
6. The proposed action is auth orized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 
309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, and section 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.411.  
C. Description and Estimate  of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply  
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.8  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
9  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
 
5 See 47 CFR § 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote).   In Region 2, in the band 12.2 -12.7 GHz , existing and future 
terrestrial radiocommunication services shall not cause harmful interference to the space services operating in 
conformity with the broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2 contained in Appendix 30.  
6 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition .  See also  Petition Public Notice .  In its most recent filing, the Coalition’s members 
were reported to be:  Cass Cable TV, Inc., DISH Network L.L.C., Go Long Wireless LTD., MDS Operations, Inc., 
MVD Number 53 Partners, Satellite Receivers, Ltd., SOUTH.COM LLC, Story Communications, LLC, and Vision 
Broadband, LLC.   See Letter from  MVDDS  5G Coalition , to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM -
11768, at 1 (filed May 28, 2019 ).  We note that MDS Operations subsequently assigned its remaining 60 MVDDS 
licenses to RS Access.  
7 See 47 CFR §§ 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p) .   
8 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).  
9 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
97 same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.”10  A “small business 
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
opera tion; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.11 
8. 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, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein .
12  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 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.
13  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million 
businesses.14 
9. 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.”15  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.16  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small 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.17  
10. Finally, the  small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts , or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”18  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 201 7 Census 
 
10 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small -business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business  applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency  and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  
11 15 U.S.C. § 632.  
12 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)- (6). 
13 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions , “What is a small business?,” 
https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp -content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small -Business -FAQ -2021.pdf . (Nov 2021).  
14 Id. 
15 5 U.S.C.  § 601(4).  
16 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 o n whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field . 
17 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 
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.  
18 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
98 of Governments19 indicate there were 90,075 l ocal governmental jurisdictions consisting of gener al 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.20  Of this number , there were 
36,931 g eneral purpose governments (county ,21 municipal , and town or township22) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040  special p urpose governments —independent school districts23 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.24  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.”25 
11. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers).   There are several 
analogous industries with an SBA small business size standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers.  
These industries are Fixed Microwave Services, Other Comm unications Equipment Manufacturing, Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.  A description of 
these industries and the SBA small business size standards are detailed below.  
12. Fixed Microwave Services.   Fixed mic rowave services include common carrier,26 private -
operational fixed,27 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.28  They also include the Upper Microwave 
 
19 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 Governmen ts, https://www.census.gov/programs -
surveys/cog/about.html .  
20 See U.S. Census Bureau, 201 7 Census of Governments  – Organization Table 2.  Local Govern ments by Type and 
State: 20 17 [CG1700ORG02] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of g eneral 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 Govern ments by Type and State_2017 .  
21 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017  [CG1700ORG05] ,  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/eco n/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) 
governments.   
22 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.  
23 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 p opulations 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. 
24 While the special purpose gov ernments 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.  
25 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 enrollm ent populations of less than 50,000 (12,040) , from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10. 
26 See 47 CFR part 101, subparts C and I.  
27 See id . subparts C and H.  
28 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the C ommission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter,  or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
99 Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),29 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),30 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),31 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),32 24 GHz Service,33 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),34 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),35 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.36  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite)37 is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small size standard for this industry 
classif ies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.38  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.39  Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.40  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small . 
13. 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 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.   
14. Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired communications networks.
41  Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a 
combination of technologies.  Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network 
facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband Internet services.
42  By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
 
29 See 47 CFR part 30 . 
30 See 47 CFR part 101, subpart Q.  
31 See id. subpart L.  
32 See id. subpart G.  
33 See id. 
34 See id. subpart O.  
35 See id. subpart P.  
36 See 47 CFR §§  101.533, 101.1017.  
37 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 . 
38 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).  
39 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.   
40 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise es timate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
41 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitio n, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers ,” 
https://www.census .gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311 .  
42 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
100 and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.43  Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.44  
15. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.45  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.46  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.47  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that  reported  they were engaged 
in the provision of fixed local services.48  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.49  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, 
most of these providers  can be considered small entities.    
16. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.50  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.
51  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees .52  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.53  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.54  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal  Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
 
43 Id. 
44 Fixed Local Service Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax 
CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non -Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared- Tenant Service Providers, 
Audio Bridge Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.   Local Resellers  fall into another U.S. Census 
Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is not included in this industry.   
45 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111) . 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017  Economic Census  of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https:/ /data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
47 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 . 
48 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (202 2), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 391070A1.pdf . https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
379181A1.pdf  
49 Id. 
50 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 . 
51 Id. 
52 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).  
53 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.   
54 Id.  The av ailable U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
101 wireless services.55  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.56  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.   
17. Satellite Telecommunications . This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the  telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”57  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 .58  U.S. Census Bureau data for 201 7 show that 275  
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.59  Of this number , 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.60  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.
61  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.62  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard , a little more than  half of these provider s can be considered small entities.  
18. All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.
63  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 rece iving  telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.
64  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial -up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client -supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.65  
The SBA small  business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small.66  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry 
 
55 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 391070A1.pdf . 
56 Id. 
57 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410 . 
58 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.    
59 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: EC170 0SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 5 17410 , 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
60 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 . 
61 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (202 1), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 379181A1.pdf .  
62 Id. 
63 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition , “517919 All Other Telecommunications ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details =517919 . 
64 Id. 
65 Id. 
66 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810) .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
102 that operated for the entire year.67  Of those firms, 1,0 39 had revenue of less than $25 million.68  Based on 
this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.  
19. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturi ng.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.69  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable televi sion equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.70  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or l ess as small.71  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.72  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.73  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in t his industry can be considered 
small.  
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities  
20. The Commission  expects the various proposals seeking to change rules to permit 
expanded fixed use of the 12.2 GHz band considered  in the Further Notice may impose new or additional 
reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities , as well as on other 
licensees and applicants if adopted.  In particular, potential rule changes  involving l icensing, registration, 
and coordination could increase recordkeeping , reporting, or other operational obligations for small 
entities and for other licensees and applicants.  There may also be new compliance obligations created by 
required equipment upgrad es.  As a result of these potential additional obligations, small entities may  
need to hire outside consulting or other professional services for compliance purposes and therefore, the 
Commission has requested cost -benefit analyses in the Further Notice.  The Commission expects to make 
a determination as to whether small entities will incur additional costs for complying with the rules upon its review of any comments filed . 
21. The Commission is  also considering adopting rules that will promot e shared access to the 
12.2 GHz band  that may lead to additional compliance requirements.  For example, should expanded 
terrestrial use be  authorized in the band, the Commission has requested  comment on whet her the burden 
 
67 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, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
68 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://w ww.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices . 
69 See U.S. Census 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 .  
70 Id. 
71 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
72 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 .  https://factfind er.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/31SG2//naics~334220  
73 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.     Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
103 of avoiding or correcting for interference to existing or future DBS subscribers should be revised, or 
whether new terrestrial operations should be subject to the same requirements for protecting DBS 
subscribers that currently apply to other  services in the band .  Another proposed approach for comment 
aimed at protecting incumbents raised in the Further Notice is whether new terrestrial operations should 
be required to disclose certain technical data to facilitate coordination , which would im pact small entities 
providing new service within the band.  
22. The Commission's assigning of new terrestrial service rights could also result in new or 
modified compliance obligations.  For example, the Commission seeks comment as to whether it should 
modify existing licenses using our section 316 authority to conform to new service rules designed to 
allow increased operational flexibility  when considering any new fixed service in the band. The 
Commission is also considering alternative approaches, such as sit e-based, individually coordinated 
operations relative to existing MVDDS operations, or whether to allow expanded opportunities for 
disaggregation and partitioning to promote more intensive use of the spectrum.  
23. Additionally, p otential approaches to facilitate sharing in the 12 .2 GHz band upon which 
the Commission seeks comment in the Further Notice —both expanded unlicensed use and technology-
based sharing approaches such as Automated Frequency Coordination—could also impact compliance 
obligations  if adopted.   For example, we invite small entity and other commenters to discuss whether 
unlicensed use may be permitted within the 12.2—12.7 GHz band under provisions that could be 
implemented under our part 15 rules.  We also seek comment as to whether we could permit less 
restrictive unlicensed use (e.g., higher indoor power levels, outdoor use, etc.) with a label warning to alert 
consumers that  use near a DBS, NGSO FSS, or MVDDS receive site could result in harmful interference 
to the consumer device.  Alternatively, we ask for comment as to whether dynamic, database-driven coordination capabilities such as have been implemented in other frequency bands (e.g., 6 GHz 
unlicensed and 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service) should be implemented in the 12.2 GHz band 
or if another type of frequency management system would allow for a greater opportunity for expanded 
terrestrial services to develop within the band.   
24. Other potential impacts to compliance obligations center around the maintenance of 
technical data as a means of supporting such a system.  For example, DBS operators are currently 
required to maintain data on current subscriber locations; NGSO FSS operator s have no similar 
requirement to track consumer terminal location data, and deployments in the band continue to increase.  
If this system were to be implemented, we seek comment as to whether additional technical data would 
need to be collected or shared among the licensees so that an advanced frequency management system 
could effectively manage shared use and prevent interference exceedance to the different services in the band.  In our discussion of these proposals in the Further Notice , we have requested  comments from the 
parties in the proceeding and requested cost -benefit analyses, which may help the Commission identify 
and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including any compliance costs and burdens that may result in the proceeding.    
E. Steps  Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered  
25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives for small businesses that it has considered in r eaching 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) th e 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for 
such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,  for such small entities.”
74   
 
74 5 U.S.C. §  603(c)(1) -(4).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
104 26. In the Further Notice , the Commission continue d to explore how to best protect  current 
usage of the 12.2 GHz band, while simultaneously seeking ways to increase innovation in the band by 
expanding further terrestrial uses that could benefit millions of people across the country, as well as small 
and other entities utilizing those services.  While doing so, the Commission is also mindful that small and other entities may incur costs should the proposals we make, and the alternatives upon which we seek 
comment in the Further Notice, be adopted.   Below,  we discuss some specific actions taken and 
alternatives considered by the Commission in the Further Notice.  
27. In the Further Notice , the Commission consider ed different ways in which  to potentially 
expand licensed use of terrestrial fixed services in the 12.2 GHz band.  For example, expansion of 
licensed use for incumbent MVDDS licensees could include increasing power limits or expanding 
terrestrial rights for incumbent MVDDS licensees.  Incumbent  MVDDS licensees that are small entities 
may benefit from the expansion of licensed use.   At present, eight companies (10 legal entities) hold 191 
MVDDS licenses: two DISH subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS Access, a subsidiary of a Dell invest ment 
fund, holds 60 licenses; two Go Long Wireless entities hold a total of 25 licenses; and five smaller companies hold a total of 24 licenses.
75   
28. Additionally, in the Further Notice  among other things, the Commission considered what 
types of technical d ata reporting requirements should be considered.  More specifically, different 
technical data reporting requirements or timetables that take into account their limited resources; 
simplification or consolidation of reporting requirements for small entities;  or an exemption from any 
reporting requirements  considered as potential steps the Commission could take to the benefit of small 
entities .  We also consider ed the expansion of unlicensed use of the band, as a means of potentially 
creating additional capacity for Internet of Things (IoT) use,76 or alternatively, other types of applications.  
As a means of accommodating this expansion, the Commission consider ed whether our rules for 
unlicensed low power indoor devices in the 6 GHz band could serve as a model for unlicensed use in the 12.2 GHz band.  The use of existing rules as a model could make the compliance obligations we adopt for 
the 12.2 GHZ band easier to meet for those small entities already complying with similar requirements in the 6 GHz band.  In the Further Notice we seek comment on this matter.   
29. Lastly, the Commission considered whether there may be opportunities to take advantage 
of technological ad vancements to accommodate expanded terrestrial capabilities in the 12.2 GHz band.  
For example, services providing potential ly dynamic, database-driven coordination capabilities , such as 
those that have been implemented in other frequency bands (e.g., 6 GHz  unlicensed and 3.5 GHz Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service) could be implemented in the 12.2 GHz band.  Alternatively, we consider ed 
whether perhaps another type of frequency management system would allow for a greater opportunity for 
expanded terrestrial services to develop within the band while affording protection to incumbent satellite 
and terrestrial services.  The type of frequency management system adopted c ould make compliance 
easier to meet for small entities providing those services.  Accordingly, in the  Further Notice we seek 
additional comment on this issue.  
30. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for 
small entities following the review of comments, including cost -benefit analyses,  filed in response to th e 
Further Notice .  The Commission’s evaluation of this information will shape the final alternatives it 
 
75 The remaining 23 licenses automatically terminated for failure to meet the buildout requirement.  See Requests of 
Three Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Extension of Time to 
Meet the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Service under Section 101.1413 of the Commission’s 
Rules, Applications of Three Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution 
Service, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 107 57 (WTB BD 2018), recon s. pending .  See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign 
WQAR709 (Terminated July 26, 2014).   
76 Comments of Public Interest Organizations (New America’s Open Technology Institute, et. al.), at 2, 17.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
105 considers to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the final 
conclusions it reaches,  and any final rules it promulgates in this proceeding . 
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules  
31. None .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
106 APPENDIX C 
 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  in GN Docket No. 22 -352 
 
 
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 and rules proposed in th e 
attached  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 on the Notice .  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice , including this IRFA, to the Chief Co unsel 
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. Today’s Notice  seeks comment on proposals  to repurpose some or all of the 550 
megahertz of upper mid-band spectrum between 12.7 -13.25 GHz (12.7 GHz band) for mobile broadband 
or other expanded use.  The Commission is pursuing the joint goals of making this spectrum available for 
new wireless uses while effectively accommodating incumbent operations in the band.  Accordingly, the 
Notice  seeks comment on various proposals for transitioning all or part of the band to make it available 
for mobile broadband, as well as other expanded uses that will hel p ensure that the speed, capacity, and 
ubiquity of the nation’s wireless networks so that they may keep pace with the demands placed upon them 
by new technologies and possible new types of services for consumers and businesses.   
3. The Notice  proposes to req uire new licensees to protect fixed point -to-point incumbents 
until a sunset date with the option to negotiate agreements for accelerated relocations to other bands or 
media, and to repack mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service ( BAS ) and Cable Television Relay  Services 
(CARS) incumbents within a portion(s) of the band designated for such use.  We also propose to 
grandfather the 23 Fixed Satellite Service ( FSS) earth stations currently authorized to operate in the band 
(Earth -to-space) in accordance with the U.S . Table of Allocations, but otherwise prohibit all future earth 
stations of this type.  Other earth station operations in the band could continue to operate on a non-
interference, unprotected basis. Furthermore, we propose to dismiss any new space station license 
applications and new requests for access to the U.S. market through non -U.S.-licensed space stations, or 
those parts of any such applications and requests, that seek to operate in the 12.7 GHz band.  Unde r these 
proposals, the band would be unavailable for new Fixed Service ( FS), mobile BAS, or FSS earth stations 
and would become available for mobile broadband and other expanded uses.  The Notice  encourages  
commenters to discuss and quantify the costs and benefits associated with any of the proposed approaches 
for transitioning the band, along with other helpful technical or procedural details .  Today’s actions are 
another step in the Commission’s  efforts to close the digital divide by providing wireless br oadband 
connectivity across the nation and to secure U.S. leadership in the next generation of wireless services, 
including fifth -generation (5G) wireless, 6G, and beyond.  
B. Legal Basis  
4. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 
310, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 
307, 309, 310, 316, and section 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.411.  
 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 –612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREF A), Pub. L. No. 104 -121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  
2 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).  
3 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
107 C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entit ies 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 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 that:  (1) 
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
7 
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, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.
8  First, while there 
are indus try specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 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-profi t 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 organization s.
12  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small 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  
 
4 Id. § 603(b)(3). 
5 Id. § 601(6).  
6 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 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 Re gister.”  
7 15 U.S. C. § 632.  
8 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) -(6). 
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, “What is a small business?,” 
https:// cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp -content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small -Business -FAQ -2021.pdf . (Nov 2021).  
10 Id. 
11 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.  S ee 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 o n 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 -36  
 
108 8. Finally, the s mall 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 special 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 jurisdictions.”21 
9. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers).   There are several 
analogous industries with an SBA small business size standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers.  These industries are Fixed Microwave Services, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturi ng, Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.  A description of these industries and the SBA small business size standards are detailed below.  
(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 5 U.S.C . § 601(5).  
15 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs -
surveys/cog/about.html .  
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02] , 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 we re 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments.   
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 Gov ernments 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 special purpose governments - 
independent school districts with enrollment population s of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
109 10. Fixed Microwave Services.   Fixed microwave services include common carrier,22 private -
operational fixed,23 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.24  They also include the Upper Microwave 
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 status.32  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite)33 is the closest industry with an 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 fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small . 
11. The Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context 
of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since t he Commission 
does not collect 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.   
12. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.   This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone 
 
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 
microwave stations are used for r elaying 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 Telecommun ications 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 av ailable U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
110 apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).37  Examples of 
such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing, Intercom systems and 
equipment manufacturing, and signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing.38 The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 750 or fewer employees as small.
39  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 shows that 321 firms operated for the entire 
year.40  Of that number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.41  Based on this data, we 
conclude that the majority of Other Communications Equipment Manufacturers are small.  
13. 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.42  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.
43  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 
1,250 employees or less as small.44  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year.45  Of this number, 624 had fewer than 250 employees.46  
Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.    
14. Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) Licensees (TV Stations).  Only 
licensees of broadcast stations, broadcast networks, and cable networks can hold RPU licenses.  BAS involves a variety of transmitters , generally used  to relay broadcast programming to the public (through 
translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit to the studio or from the studio to the transmitter).  The Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) Remote Pickup (RPU) licensees.  Television Broadcasting
47 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard for Remote 
 
37 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, ” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334290&year=2017&details=334290 . 
38 Id. 
39 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334290.  
40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Ce nsus of the United States , Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334290,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334290&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.   
41 Id.   The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms t hat 
meet the SBA size standard.   
42 See U.S. Census 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 . 
43 Id. 
44 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
45 See U.S. Census Bure au, 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.   
46 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.  
47 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&detai ls=515120 .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
111 pickup BAS when used by a TV station.  The SBA sm all business size standard for this industry classifies 
a business as small if it has  $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.48  2017 U.S. Census Bureau indicates 
that 744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.49  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of 
less than $25,000,000.50  Based on this data we estimate that the majority of firms are small entities under 
the SBA size standard.   
15. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.51  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.
52  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees .53  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.54  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.55  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services.56  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.57  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.     
16. Satellite Telecommunications . This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”58  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.
59  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
 
48 See 13 CFR § 121.201,  NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120) .  
49 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 515120,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
50 Id. The av ailable 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 . 
51 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 . 
52 Id. 
53 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112) . 
54 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.   
55 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.  
56 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 391070A1.pdf . 
57 Id. 
58 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410 . 
59 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
112 firms in this industry operated for the entire year.60  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.61  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.62  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.63  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities  
17. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the Notice governing the operations of 
new licensees in the 12.7 GHz band will impose new reporting or reco rdkeeping and/or other compliance 
obligations on small entities as well as other applicants and licensees, if adopted.  The  rule changes 
proposed in this Notice  sunsetting fixed service operations in the 12.7 GHz band, repacking mobile 
BAS/CARS operations, and prohibiting certain fixed satellite service operations in the band, could also 
impose other new  compliance obligations  on small and other entities.   In the event these proposed actions 
are adopted, the Notice  seeks comment on relocation options and on transition and protection mechanisms 
for incumbent non-federal operations.  In the alternative, the Notice  explores the possibility of shared use 
of the band.  Finally, f or new ly licensed mobile and other expanded uses in the 12.7 GHz band, the Notice  
seeks comment on various service rules that should apply, including construction benchmarks and technical operating requirements.  The projected  reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
obligations proposed for small entities and other licensees are described below.
 
18. Certification.  In the Certification Requirement for Part -74 and Part 78 Licensees Order 
(Order) attached to the Notice , we direct each BAS and CARS licensee for each of their authorizations to 
use the 12.7 GHz band to certify the accuracy of  all information reflected on each license, including 
whether the facilities are operating as authorized.  If a licensee is unable to make such a certification for a 
given license, it must cancel or modify the license in accordance with the Commission’s ru les.  We 
propose in the Notice  to protect only those BAS and CARS stations licensed in the Universal Licensing 
System ( ULS ) and the Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), respectively, for which the 
licensee timely files the certification required in the Order.  To minimize burdens on entities, including 
small entities, the Commission exempted from the certification req uirement of 12.7 GHz band licenses for 
which the licensee has filed an application in ULS or COALS on or after January 1, 2021.  The  Notice  
does not require other incumbents to provide certifications for their existing authorized operations at this 
time.  However , the Commission encourages all licensees to timely submit their data and update their 
information because it may use this  data to inform its deliberations regarding the future use of the  12.7 
GHz band .  .  Moreover, the Notice  emphasizes that the Commission’s rules require all in -band 
incumbents to operate in accordance with their authorizations and that the latter must be kept current.  Therefore, while providing updated information may come at some cost, the revisions the Commission may ultimately  adopt should benefit small entities by providing them with increased access to wireless 
 
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 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&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 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Mon itoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 391070A1.pdf .  
63 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
113 spectrum , more information about opportunities in the 12.7 GHz band, and more flexibility to provide a 
wider range of services.  
19. Transitioning Mechanism . In the Notice , the Commission proposes using the Emerging 
Technologies (ET) framework to relocate incumbent licensees and to introduce new services into  the 12.7 
GHz band.  Pursuant to those procedures, if adopted, the Commission will set a sunset date for this band 
by which incumbent licensees may not cause harmful interference to new band entrants.  Prior to this 
date, new entrants will be allowed to negotiate with incumbents to gain early entry into the band and, if necessary, may relocate the incumbents to comparable facilities.  Because new entrants may have to 
relocate incumbents from a larger frequency range or greater geographic area than where the new entrants 
will operate, certain expenses will be placed upon incumbents by the proposed rules, and the Commission may establishes a companion set of cost -sharing procedures.
64  This process may  require small entities 
that are incumbent operators in the band to participate in negotiations  to reassign their spectrum access 
rights , involving additional attendant costs .  Incumbents operating in the spectrum designated for new 
licensed mobile and expanded use would further be required to relocate their operations to different 
bands, potentially requiring reconfiguration or replacement of their existing facilities , also at additional 
cost. 
20. The 12.7 GHz Band Plan.   We propose to allocate the 12.7 GHz band as an unpaired 
band and to license it on an exclusive, geographic license area (using Partial Economic Areas (PEA)) basis, and in roughly 100 megahertz blocks without guard bands, which will permit the filing of mutually 
exclusive applications.   The Commission’s statutory authority to resolve mutually exclusive applications 
for initial licenses through a system of competitive bidding has lapsed.
65  Accordingly, in the event w e 
determine to adopt a mutually exclusive application approach, we seek comment on how the Commission 
should resolve mutually exclusive applications for new initial licenses in the 12.7 GHz band in light of 
the lapse in our authority to use competitive bidding.  In the event that the Commission’s statutory 
authority with respect to auctions is restored, we delegate authority to WTB and OEA to seek comment 
on appropriate competitive bidding rules and procedures, consistent with prior Commission guidance.  
21. Licensing and Operating Rules.   In the  Notice, we propose that licensees in the 12.7 GHz 
band would be required to comply with certain licensing and operating rules applicable to all part 27 services,
66 flexible use,67 regulatory status,68 foreign ownership r eporting,69 compliance with construction 
notification requirements,70 renewal criteria,71 permanent discontinuance of operations,72 partitioning and 
 
64 See Amendment to the  Commission’s Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation , WT 
Docket No. 95 -157, Notice  of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 1923 (1995).  
65 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(11).    
66 The WRS Renewal 2nd R&O and FNPRM  adopted a unified framework for construction, renewal, and service 
continuity rules for flexible use geographic licenses in the Wireless Radio Services.  See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 
24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal et al. , WT Docket No. 10 -112, Second 
Report and Order and Further Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8874 (2017) ( WRS Renewal 
Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM ).   
67 47 CFR §§ 2.106, 27.2, 27.3.  Section 303(y) of the Act provides the Commission with authority to provide for 
flexibility of use if:  “ (1) such use is consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party; 
and (2) the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that (A) such an allocation would 
be in the public inte rest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or 
technology development; and (C) such use would not result in harmful interference among users.”  Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105- 33, 111 Stat. 251, 268- 69; 47 U.S.C. §  303(y).  
68 47 CFR § 27.10.  
69 47 U.S.C. § 310; 47 CFR § 27.12.  
70 47 CFR § 27.14(k).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
114 disaggregation,73 and spectrum leasing.74  We seek comment on this proposal and on certain other part 27 
rules that may be appropriate to apply to 12.7 GHz band licensees, or whether there are any aspects of our 
general part 27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular characteristics of the 
12.7 GHz band.  In addition, small entities and other future 12.7 GHz band licensees will have to comply 
with service-specific requirements for the band addressing eligibility, mobile spectrum holdings policies, 
license term, performance requirements, renewal term construction obligations, and other  licensing and 
operating rules, some of which include reporting and recordkeeping obligations.  
22. Alternatives for Sharing the Band.   The sharing methods that have been proven for white 
space devices and Citizens Broadband Radio Service ( CBRS ), in conjunction with new or developing 
sharing technologies, may be used in the 12.7 GHz band to maximize the use of spectrum.   Accordingly, 
the Notice  seeks comment on such methods as well as on using an automated spectrum management  
system such as the Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) systems used in the 6 GHz band or 
spectrum access systems used in CBRS as a method to enable spectrum sharing in the 12.7 GHz band as 
an alternative to relocating incumbents or repacking the band.   
23. Eligibility , License Term and Renew al. An open eligibility standard has been proposed 
for licensing in the 12.7  GHz band along with a 1 0-year initial term for new licenses.   The Commission 
also proposes  to apply our general part 27 renewal requirements for wireless licenses as the renewal 
standard for the 12.7 GHz as the Commission did in the 3.7 GHz Service and the 3.5 GHz band  orders . 
24. Performance Requirements.   The Notice  seeks comment on requiring  a 12.7 GHz band 
licensee, deploying  mobile or point -to-multipoint service in accordance with our part 27 rules, to provide 
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 30% to 45% of the population in each of their license 
areas within five years of the ir license issue date (interim performance benchmark), and to at least 60% to 
80% of the population in each of their license areas within ten years from the license issue date (final 
performance benchmark).  For licensees deploying point -to-point servic e, the Notice  seeks comment on  
requiring them to  demonstrate within five years of the license issue date (interim performance 
benchmark) that they have four links operating and providing service, if the population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000.  If the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, a 
licensee deploying  point -to-point service would need to demonstrate that it has at least one link in 
operation and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a 
license area.  We propose to require licensees deploying point -to-point service to demonstrate within ten 
years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark) that they have eight links operating and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the population within the license area is equal 
to or less than 268,000.  If the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, we propose to 
require a licensee deploying point -to-point se rvice to demonstrate it is providing service and has at least 
two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a license area . 
25. While the Notice  seeks comment on  performance benchmarks based on population 
coverage applicable for a range of fixed and m obile services, the Notice  recognize s that 12.7 GHz  licenses 
have flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population coverage metric.  In particular, licensees providing Internet of Things -type  (IoT-type)  fixed and mobile services may benefit from an 
alternative performance benchmark metric. To account for this , we propose that licensees providing IoT -
type services would have flexibility to demonstrate that they offer geographic area coverage of at least 
(Continued from previous page)   
71 Id. § 1.949.   
72 Id. § 1.953.   
73 Id. § 1.950.  
74 Id. § 1.9001 et seq .   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
115 25% to 35% of the license ar ea at the interim (five -year) performance benchmark, and geographic area 
coverage of at least 50% to 65% of the license area at the final (ten -year) performance benchmark.75 
26. Along with performance benchmarks, the Notice seeks comment on which penalties wil l 
most effectively ensure timely build -out.  Specifically, the Notice  states that, in the event a licensee fails 
to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee’s final benchmark and license term would be 
reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the final performance benchmark two years sooner (at 
eight  years into the license term) and reducing its license term to eight  years.  If a licensee fails to meet 
the final performance benchmark for a particular license area, its authorization for each license area in 
which it fails to meet the performance requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission 
action.   We seek comment on how , in the event a 12.7  GHz band licensee’s authority to operate 
terminates, its spectrum rights should beco me available for reassignment  pursuant to the licensing 
framework we adopt for this band.  We also seek comment on whether, consistent with the Commission’s 
rules for other part 27 licenses, we should require that any 12.7 GHz band flexible use licensee th at 
forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance requirements be precluded from regaining that 
license.  Finally, we seek comment on other performance requirements and enforcement mechanisms that 
would effectively ensure timely buildout.  
27. Complia nce Procedures.  In addition to compliance procedures applicable to all part 27 
licensees, including the filing of electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, the Notice  
proposes that such electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boun daries of each license area in 
the licensee’s service territory.  If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, the Notice  proposes that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within 
each license area not being served.  Further, the Notice  proposes that each licensee also must file 
supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its 
service territory and the type of technology used to provi de such service.  Supporting documentation must 
include the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal 
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee’s technology.  We seek comment on these 
proposals.  We also seek comment on whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect 
to the transition such that they would require additional time to comply.  
28. Mobile Spectrum Holdings and Initial Licensing.   Small entities could be impacted by 
additional requirements pursuant to our request for  comment on how to address spectrum holdings issues 
involving the 12.7 GHz band .  We also seek  comment on whether or not to include the 12.7 GHz band in 
the total spectrum screen or in a separat e spectrum screen ; on how to address spectrum aggregation issues 
in the initial licensing of  this band ; and, on whether there should be a limit on the amount of 12.7 GHz 
band spectrum held by a single entity at the licensing stage .     
29. Technical Rules.   Small entities and other licensees would also be subject to certain 
technical rules established to maximize flexible use of the 12.7 GHz band spectrum while minimizing the 
impact on adjacent band incumbents , consistent with the public interest.   In that context, the Notice  
proposes to adopt the same power limits that are applied to UMFUS operations and it seeks comment on 
whether incumbent satellite services and new terrestrial mobile services can coexist if the latter will be 
subject to these power  limits.   
 
75 See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(v)(2) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service licensee providing Internet of Things service to 
offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the license area within 8 years of initial grant and geographic area 
coverage of 65% of the license area within 12 years of  initial grant); 27.14(w)(1)(iii) (requiring a 3.45 GHz Service 
licensee providing Internet of Things service to offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the license area within 4 
years of initial grant and geographic area coverage of 65% of the license ar ea within 8 years of initial grant); 47 CFR 
§§ 30.103,  30.104(b) ( requiring  a UMFUS licensee providing Internet of Things or other services deployed along 
non-traditional lines to offer geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area within 10 years of  initial grant).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
116 30. For out -of-band-emissions, the Notice  proposes that emissions be kept to a level that will 
provide protection to incumbent services in adjacent bands, while allowing the full use of the new band, 
and additionally  proposes to adopt a requirement that the conductive power or the total radiated power of 
any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be −13 dBm/MHz or lower.  Further, the Notice  
seeks comment on whether additional technical protection criteria, beyond out -of-band-emission limits, 
are necessary to ensure effective coexistence with adjacent band FSS operations.  To implement field 
strength limit at market boundaries, the Notice  proposes to adopt a  -77.6 dBm/m2/MHz power flux 
density limit at the service -area boundaries.  The Notice  also proposes that fixed and mobile operat ions be 
subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.  
31. To comply with the proposed rules in the Notice , small entities may be required to hire 
attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals.  In particular, for small entities that are not existing operators and do not have existing staffing dedicated to regulatory compliance, engineering and 
legal expertise may be necessary to make the requisite filings and to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed performance obligations.  At this  time, while the Commission cannot quantify the cost of 
compliance with the proposed rule changes, we note that several of the proposed changes are consistent 
with and mirror existing policies and requirements used for other part 27 flexible use licenses.  Therefore, 
small entities with existing licenses in other bands may already be familiar with such policies and requirements and have the processes and procedures in place to facilitate compliance resulting in minimal 
incremental costs to comply if similar  requirements are adopted for this band.  We also note that for most 
of the proposals and requests for comments in the Notice, the Commission also requests cost -benefit 
analyses.  The Commission expects that the information it receives in comments and thro ugh cost -benefit 
analyses will help it identify and evaluate all relevant matters associated with the proposed reallocation and the relocation of public safety operations out of the band, including compliance costs and other 
burdens on small entities.  
E. Step s Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered  
32. 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, co nsolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for 
such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for such small enti ties.”
76 
33. In the Notice , the Commission seeks to identify potential opportunities for additional 
flexible access—particularly for wireless broadband services—in the 12.7 GHz band.  Throughout the Notice , we considered the economic impact the proposed rules could have on small businesses.  For 
example, we considered if there were particular instances where certain parameters –  such as use of 
smaller license areas –  could help small businesses.  The use of smaller license areas could potentially 
assist those s mall entities that favor shared licensing regimes, and also could help promote rural 
deployments by facilitating access to spectrum by small and regional service providers and beyond.
77 
34. The Commission also considered applying ten-year license terms for any  licensees issued 
in the 12.7 GHz band.  This approach specifically considers the potential impact to small entities, as they must allocate resources carefully over the length of their license term.  Moreover, as small entities tend to 
have more limited fu nds, should they be required to compete at auction for a particular license, the 
 
76 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -(4). 
77 See supra  at para. 102.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36  
 
117 certainty of a longer license term would provide licensees with sufficient incentive to make the long -term 
investments necessary for compliance.  In the Notice , we seek commen ts on this matter.  
35. With respect to our proposal in the Notice  to protect only those BAS and CARS stations 
licensed in ULS and COALS for which the licensee timely files the certification required in the Order, t o 
minimize burdens on small and other entities , the Commission  exempted from the certification 
requirement 12.7 GHz band licenses for which the licensee has filed an application in ULS and COALS 
on or after January 1, 2021.  Further, to minimize the economic impact for any small entity that is required to be repacked to a smaller portion of the 12.7 GHz band, the date that the Commission will set 
for mobile BAS/CARS operators to cease operations in this band will be set to provide them with enough 
notice to allow them to relocate without causing  disruption to their services.  Likewise, the sunset period 
for incumbent FS operations could potentially be set to provide additional time in order to aid small entities. 
36. To assist with the Commission’s evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that 
may result from the actions and alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, the Notice  seeks 
alternative proposals and requests information on the potential costs of such alternatives to licensees.  The 
Commission expects to consider more  fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of 
comments filed in response to the Notice , including costs and benefits information.  Alternative proposals 
and approaches from commenters would also  help the Commission further minimize the economic impact 
on small entities.  The Commission’s evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the 
final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize  any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final 
rules that are ultimately adopted.  
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules  
37. None. Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36 
118 STATEMENT OF  
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL  
 
Re: Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, Report & Order and FNPRM, WT Docket  
No. 20-443;  Expanding Use of the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other  
Expanded Use , NPRM and Order, GN Docket No. 22 -352 (May 18, 2023)  
 
Just a few weeks ago I joined the National Science Foundation to discuss 6G wireless and the 
potential that it holds .  That’s right—6G.  Just like with the early days of 5G, 6G discussions have started 
with big ideas and  big goals.   And just like  in the early days of  5G, the scrum for 6G is already underway.  
We are seeing  countries around the world launching programs, projects, and alliances to ensure their 
foothold in the next generation of wireless technology.    
Of course, you could say, on good authority, that no one knows yet with precision what 6G will 
entail —and you would be right.  But if we have learned anything from our experience rolling out 5G, it is 
that wireless policy matters for economic and national security.  That is true in the United States, and it is 
true globally.   
It is also true that fortune favors the bold.  So today we identify more than 1000 megahertz of 
prime mid -band spectrum for new and innovative use.  These are airwaves in the 12.2 -13.25 GHz band, 
which puts them right in the middle of the 7 -16 GHz band we have already identified as the sweet  spot for 
the 6G era.  We are the first country in the world to identify these bands for new wireless use —and take 
action.   
What does this more than 1000 megahertz of spectrum look like?  We have ideas today.  We 
believe these airwaves can be optimized wi th a mix of licensed, unlicensed, and space-based services.  
First, we take action to ensure the present and future of satellite services in the 12.2 -12.7 GHz 
band.  We recognize that millions of people rely on services in this band —and we want to see that 
continue.  But we also realize there may be additional potential in these airwaves, so we are exploring 
ways to also use this mid -band spectrum for fixed licensed and unlicensed terrestrial services.   
Second, we identify the 12.7 -13.25 GHz band as a prime candidate for new mobile use.  So we 
explore how to put it in the pipeline for new wireless broadband.   
Count this more than 1000 megahertz as an investment in our wireless future .  It is an investmen t 
in our leadership in 5G, 6G, and beyond.  But back to the here and now.  Because all of our planning for a bold future requires that we address something in the here and now.  For us to be successful, we need to 
have Congress reauthorize the spectrum auction authority of the Federal Communications Commission.  
For thirty years the agency has held this authority, which it uses to distribute airwaves for development 
nationwide.  The ongoing lapse in this authority has immediate consequences for 5G and could soon exact 
a toll on our 6G leadership.  In the past Congress has always extended our auction authority without interruption.  That didn’t happen this time around and we need to fix it —stat.  That’s because restoring 
this authority will provide the United  States with the strongest foundation to compete in a global 
economy, counter our adversaries’ technology ambitious, and safeguard our national security.   
Thank you to the agency staff who worked on this effort, including  Chris Andes, Simon Banyai, 
Robert  Bickford, Stephen Buenzow, Baron Chan, Peter Daronco, Jessica Greffenius, Garnet Hanly, 
Lamine Kone, Susannah Larson, John Lockwood, Madelaine Maior, Blaise Scinto, Joel Taubenblatt, 
Natasha Wiltz, and Brian Wondrack from the Wireless Telecommunications B ureau; Bahman Badipour, 
Michael Ha, Ira Keltz, Matthew Miller, Nicolas Oros, Ron Repasi, and Tom Struble from the Office of Engineering and Technology; Craig Bomberger, Nicolas Copeland, Judith Dempsey, Paul LaFontaine, 
Catherine Matraves, Giulia McHenry, Gary Michaels, Erik Salovaara, Martha Stancill, and Donald 
Stockdale from the Office of Economics and Analytics; Deborah Broderson, Doug Klein, Keith  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36 
119 McCrickard, and Bill Richardson from the Office of General Counsel; Greg Boran, Jennifer Gilsenan, 
Karl Kensinger, Kathyrn Medley, and Merissa Velez from the Space Bureau; Nese Guendelsberger, 
Dante Ibarra, Ethan Lucarelli, and James McCluckie from the Office of International Affairs; Jim 
Schlichting from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Brendan Holland, Jeffrey Neumann, 
and Sima Nilsson from the Media Bureau; and Michael Gussow, Joy Ragsdale, and Chana Wilkerson 
from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36 
120 STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS  
Re: Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, Report & Order and FNPRM, WT Docket  
No. 20-443; Expanding Use of the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other  
Expanded Use , NPRM and Order, GN Docket No. 22 -352 ( May 18, 2023)  
 
A massive part of our economy today— and our vision for a more prosperous and secure future 
tomorrow —depends on our ability to pack more information, more users, and more applications into the 
scarce resource we know as spectrum.  Part of the challenge with spectrum policy is that it takes time to 
develop the frequencies we unlock for consumers.  That means we have to lean forward and act early if 
we want to successfully untap underused spectrum.  But it also means that we can’t be afraid to adapt to 
the best available evidence as we steer the ship.   
That’s what you’re seeing today in the 12.2 and 12.7 GHz bands.  In 12.2 GHz, we’re correcting 
course in response to the technical evidence.  As some of you might remember, I had voiced concerns about whether mobile broadband and satellite services could successfully share this frequency band.  But 
in the interest of supporting efficient spectrum use —and doing more with less —I was open, and in fact 
committed, to following the engineering wherever i t went.  Based on the studies filed to date, our 
engineers have concluded that high- powered mobile broadband, when deployed throughout the country, 
will interfere with established and emerging satellite services that serve millions of consumers.  I would have welcomed a path forward that allowed both services to thrive.  But for now, it’s time to adapt.   
In 12.7 GHz, we’re leaning forward.  We’re proposing specific rules to lift 550 megahertz of 
underused spectrum off the ground while protecting or transit ioning incumbents and fully exploring 
sharing -based alternatives.  While many of the details remain undecided, there is one thing this item 
makes abundantly clear.  The best way to get this spectrum into the hands of users could very well be an 
auction.  We need our authority to hold one restored.  
I thank the Commission staff who developed this item.  It has my full support.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -36 
 
121  
STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON  
 
Re: Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, Report & Order and FNPRM, WT Docket  
No. 20-443; Expanding Use of the 12.7 -13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other  
Expanded Use , NPRM and Order, GN Docket No. 22 -352 (May 18, 2023)  
 
I am happy to support today’s item.  The Report and Order makes the right policy call by 
protecting NGSO FSS  incumbents who have engaged in significant investment in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz 
band.   The Report and Order also gets the engineering right, considering both these same incumbents’ on-
going  deployment of state- of-the-art satellite technology and overall trends in earth station design and 
regulation.    
Today’s NGSO FSS satellites speak to arrays of electronically steered receivers.   Signal rejection 
within those receivers is frequently achiev ed very close to the desired reception angle with arrays 
composed of antennas of limited dynamic range.  The power levels and coverage profiles of terrestrial 
networks risk saturating such arrays with interference from networks of powerful terrestrial tran smitters, 
including via side lobes even when care is taken with terrestrial antenna angles.  Barring significant 
technology developments driving down the price and complexity of individual array elements while driving up quality, this will probably be the case for some time to come.   And unless and until we see 
terrestrial technologies deployed in real -world situations, the FCC has no business betting the store on 
them by undermining the viability of fixed incumbent services in active deployment at large sc ale for 
which there is significant demonstrated public demand.   
And while I am hopeful that there is a way to allow satellite and two -way high-power fixed 
wireless service to coexist in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz band, I believe the FCC needs to be sure that it is not 
putting the cart before the horse and that it protects incumbents.   That is why I am grateful that my 
colleagues agreed to include language in the Further Notice that impresses upon parties who comment in 
this proceeding an obligation to provide cle ar and detailed technical and operational information, 
including studies —preferably real -world studies —that support these proposals.   Without such proposals, 
the FCC will never emerge from the quagmire of incommensurable, contradictory technical proposals that are laced with advocacy —as we saw with the record in response to the 2021 12.2 to 12.7 GHz NPRM.  
I am also happy to support the proposals made in today’s 12.7 to 13.2 GHz NPRM.   A high-
power exclusive-use licensing approach makes the most sense in a b and where there are few incumbents 
who can be easily relocated without the need for spectrum sharing —which is otherwise the preferred 
approach in congested spectrum bands.   I look forward to a fulsome record.   
Finally, I would like to thank the staff WTB a nd OET for their hard work on this item.  
 
 