Proposed Rule2025-21805
Facilitating More Intensive Use of Upper Microwave Spectrum
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") seeks comment on a variety of measures aimed at facilitating more intensive use of spectrum in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands (together, the UMFUS bands). These bands are shared between the terrestrial Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) and the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) pursuant to the Commission's rules. When the Commission created this framework in 2016, it assumed that UMFUS bands would be used intensively as a part of terrestrial 5G networks, that earth station deployment in the bands would be relatively light, and that the technical rules adopted were necessary to protect terrestrial UMFUS operations but not too onerous to chill FSS earth station siting. Since that time, it has become more clear how the bands are being used for terrestrial service and how growth in the space economy has increased interest in using the UMFUS bands for FSS. Given these shifts, the requirements contained in the Commission's rules have proven to be an impediment to processing earth station applications in the bands. Accordingly, the NPRM would seek input on a variety of mechanisms that might facilitate more intensive use of the UMFUS bands and improve licensing efficiency.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 230 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55702-55713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21805]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[SB Docket No. 25-305; FCC 25-70; FR ID 319485]
Facilitating More Intensive Use of Upper Microwave Spectrum
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(``FCC'' or ``Commission'') seeks comment on a variety of measures
aimed at facilitating more intensive use of spectrum in the 24 GHz, 28
GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands (together, the
UMFUS bands). These bands are shared between the terrestrial Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) and the Fixed-Satellite Service
(FSS) pursuant to the Commission's rules. When the Commission created
this framework in 2016, it assumed that UMFUS bands would be used
intensively as a part of terrestrial 5G networks, that earth station
deployment in the bands would be relatively light, and that the
technical rules adopted were necessary to protect terrestrial UMFUS
operations but not too onerous to chill FSS earth station siting. Since
that time, it has become more clear how the bands are being used for
terrestrial service and how growth in the space economy has increased
interest in using the UMFUS bands for FSS. Given these shifts, the
requirements contained in the Commission's rules have proven to be an
impediment to processing earth station applications in the bands.
Accordingly, the NPRM would seek input on a variety of mechanisms that
might facilitate more intensive use of
[[Page 55703]]
the UMFUS bands and improve licensing efficiency.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 2, 2026; reply comments
are due on or before February 2, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-305,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3b3e3e686d691d3b3e3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9dfdada8c898df9dfdada97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Riehm, 202-418-2166,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6fcd7ddd398e4dfd3dedbf6d0d5d598d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22684349470c704b474a4f624441410c454d54">[email protected]</span></a> or Kerry Murray, 202-418-0734, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b99780808bdcbf878080938bb2949191dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4af8196969dcaa9919696859da4828787ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in SB Docket No. 25-305, FCC 25-70,
adopted October 28, 2025, and released October 29, 2025. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-70A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-70A1.pdf</a>. The full text of this
document is also available for inspection and copying during business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a3a6a6d0d5d1a5838686cb828a93">[email protected]</a> or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM does not contain proposed
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any proposed 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).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of the NPRM will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. As the space economy has rapidly expanded in recent years, Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) operators' demand for spectrum to deliver
broadband to the American people has far exceeded what was expected
only a few years ago. And given the finite amount of available
spectrum, the Commission must continue to search for ways to make sure
bands are intensively used. Therefore, in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we begin a review of our rules and policies
applicable to upper microwave spectrum bands above 24 GHz that are
shared between the terrestrial Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
(UMFUS) and FSS. In light of technological and economic advancements
and with the benefit of experience following the Commission's 2016
Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order), in which most of the
rules governing bands used for UMFUS were adopted, now is an opportune
time to consider how we might facilitate more intensive use of these
bands. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on Sec. 25.136 of the
Commission's rules, which governs spectrum sharing between UMFUS and
FSS operations.
II. Background
2. The July 2016 Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order aimed to
``take a significant step towards securing the Nation's future in the
next generational evolution of wireless technology to so-called 5G.''
While these frequencies previously had been thought best suited for
satellite and fixed microwave applications, the Commission noted that
``recent technological breakthroughs ha[d] newly enabled advanced
mobile services in these bands, notably including very high speed and
low latency services.'' Accordingly, the chief objective of the
Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order was to make spectrum available for
advanced wireless services using the UMFUS bands.
3. Creation of UMFUS Licensing Framework. The Spectrum Frontiers
Report and Order made spectrum available through both licensed and
unlicensed mechanisms. The Commission created the UMFUS framework,
which permitted authorization of both fixed and mobile operations in
the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), the 37.7-38.6 GHz (upper 37 GHz
band), and the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band) using geographic area
licensing. In the 28 GHz band, the Commission permitted authorizations
using county-sized geographic area licenses. In the upper 37 and 39 GHz
bands, it permitted authorization using Partial Economic Area (PEA)
licenses. In the 37-37.6 GHz
[[Page 55704]]
band, it established coordinated co-primary shared access between
Federal and non-Federal users. The Commission also protected a limited
number of Federal military sites across the full 37 GHz band and
maintained the existing Federal fixed and mobile allocations throughout
the band.
4. The Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order also established
licensing and operating rules for UMFUS. It granted mobile operating
rights in the 28 GHz band to existing Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (LMDS) licensees. Similarly, the Spectrum Frontiers Report and
Order granted mobile operating rights to existing 39 GHz band
licensees. The Commission revised the 39 GHz band plan to provide
licensees with wider blocks of contiguous spectrum and established a
mechanism for existing licensees to transition to the new band plan. It
adopted service and technical rules designed to facilitate full and
complete use of the bands, including an operability requirement for
equipment. It adopted spectrum holdings policies for the 28 GHz, 37
GHz, and 39 GHz bands that apply to licenses acquired through auctions
and the secondary market.
5. The November 2017 Second Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order
made an additional 1,700 megahertz of spectrum available for flexible
wireless use. Specifically, the Second Spectrum Frontiers Report and
Order made spectrum available in the 24.75-25.25 GHz (24 GHz band) and
the 47.2-48.2 GHz (47 GHz band). The UMFUS framework was expanded to
include both bands, which could be licensed geographically for fixed
and mobile use on a PEA basis.
6. In the V-band First Report and Order in 1998, the Commission
designated the 50.4-51.4 GHz segment for use by fixed and mobile
services. In 2019, the Spectrum Frontiers Fifth Report and Order
authorized licensing of individual FSS earth stations in the 50.4-51.4
GHz (50 GHz band), applying the UMFUS licensing criteria adopted by the
Commission for the 24.75-25.25 GHz band--that is, applying the
permitted aggregate population limits within the specified earth
station power flux density contour on a per-county basis and adopting
constraints on the number of permitted earth stations on both a per
county and a per PEA basis.
7. In 2019, the Commission held three spectrum auctions (Auctions
101, 102, and 103) through which it awarded licenses for fixed and
mobile services in UMFUS spectrum. Through these auctions, a total of
20,011 licenses were awarded in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and
47 GHz bands, with total net bids of $10,283,281,951.
8. UMFUS-FSS Sharing. Each of the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39
GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands (the UMFUS bands) is also allocated for
FSS, in addition to fixed and mobile services, in the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations. In the 28 GHz band, FSS is allocated on a
secondary basis. In the other bands, FSS is allocated on a co-primary
basis with fixed and mobile services. In the upper 37 GHz band and the
39 GHz band, FSS is allocated in the space-to-Earth direction, while in
the other bands, FSS is allocated in the Earth-to-space direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Band FSS sharing status Direction 25.136 criteria Other rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 GHz (24.75-25.25).......... Co-primary.............. Earth-to-space... 25.136(e), (f)-
(h).
28 GHz (27.5-28.35)........... Secondary............... Earth-to-space... 25.136(a), (f)-
(h).
Upper 37 GHz (37.5-38.6)...... Co-primary.............. 37.5-38 (space-to- 25.136(b)-(c), Certain federal
Earth) 38-38.6 (f)-(h). military sites
(space-to-Earth). specifically
protected
(US151) federal
co-primary
across the
band.
39 GHz (38.6-40).............. Co-primary.............. space-to-Earth... 25.136(b)-(c), 39.5-40 GHz:
(f)-(h). federal co-
primary.
47 GHz (47.2-48.2)............ Co-primary.............. Earth-to-space... 25.136(d), (f)-
(h).
50 GHz (50.4-51.4)............ Co-primary.............. Earth-to-space... 25.136(e), (f)-
(h).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In the Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order in 2016, the
Commission first adopted Sec. 25.136, which specified conditions under
which FSS earth stations could coexist with UMFUS operations in the 28
GHz, Upper 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. The Commission later adopted
similar requirements for the 24 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands. While
the specific requirements vary from band to band, Sec. 25.136 defines
four circumstances under which individually licensed FSS earth stations
could be authorized to operate, conducting Earth-to-space operations,
without providing interference protection to UMFUS stations. An FSS
operator may operate an earth station in such a manner if: (1) the FSS
operator holds an UMFUS license covering the frequencies and location
where its proposed earth station would generate a power flux density
(PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to -
77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz; (2) the earth stations was authorized before the
effective date of the relevant coexistence rule; (3) the earth
station's application was filed and pending before the effective date
of the coexistence rule; and (4) the earth station satisfies certain
requirements (UMFUS Protection Criteria) discussed immediately below.
10. Under the UMFUS Protection Criteria, a proposed FSS earth
stations may operate without providing protection to UMFUS stations if
it satisfies four criteria. First, the earth station must not cause the
total number of earth stations in the relevant area to exceed a
numerical cap. The number of earth stations within each county is
capped at three. Operations between 37.5-40 GHz also are limited to
fifteen earth stations per PEA. Second, the earth station must be sited
in a location such that it complies with limits on the population that
may be covered by the aggregate areas of operation of earth stations in
the license area. In bands allocated for Earth-to-space operations, the
relevant area of operations is the area within which the earth station
generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level,
of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz. In bands allocated for
space-to-Earth operations, earth stations operate in protection zones
that are self-defined using reasonable engineering methods. Third, the
earth station's area of operation may not cover certain defined types
of infrastructure or major roads. Finally, in areas where there is a
co-channel UMFUS licensee, the FSS operator must successfully
coordinate the proposed earth station with the UMFUS licensee using the
coordination processes contained in part 101 of the Commission's rules.
When first announcing what would become the UMFUS Protection Criteria,
the Commission stated that ``[t]hese conditions are designed to provide
FSS licensees with substantial opportunities to expand their limited
use of the [spectrum] to deploy earth stations that
[[Page 55705]]
do not have to protect terrestrial services, while minimizing the
impact on terrestrial operations.''
11. UMFUS Coverage and Buildout Requirements. In the Spectrum
Frontiers proceeding, the Commission adopted UMFUS buildout and
coverage requirements to comply with the statutory obligation to
prevent spectrum warehousing and to create a regulatory scheme that
promoted the widespread deployment of wireless broadband. Operators
with 28 GHz band LMDS licenses that were converted to UMFUS licenses in
the Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order had until June 1, 2024 to
fulfill these requirements. Because initial authorizations have a term
not to exceed ten years from the date of initial issuance or renewal,
the buildout deadlines for licenses obtained in 2019 and 2020 in
Auctions 101, 102, and 103 are in 2029 and 2030. Failure to meet
buildout requirements results in cancellation of the UMFUS license,
except in bands licensed on a PEA basis, where licensees have the
option of partitioning a license on a county basis in order to reduce
the population or land area within the license area to a level where
the licensee's buildout would meet one of the requirements.
III. Discussion
A. Introduction
12. The Commission adopted the Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order
in 2016, and the technical restrictions contained therein, against the
background of three predictive assumptions. First, the Commission
anticipated that the spectrum at issue would be used intensively as a
part of terrestrial 5G networks. Second, the Commission believed that
earth station deployment in the UMFUS bands would be relatively light
consistent with past experience. At that time, the boom in space
operations, including the deployment of large non-geostationary orbit
(NGSO) satellite constellations and high throughput geostationary orbit
(GSO) satellites delivering high-speed broadband and other services,
was still several years away. Third, the Commission believed that the
technical rules adopted in Sec. 25.136 were necessary to protect
terrestrial UMFUS operations but not too onerous to chill FSS earth
station siting.
13. Today, however, we have reason to believe that all three of
these predictive assumptions were incorrect in meaningful ways. The
UMFUS bands have not turned out to be core terrestrial wireless
spectrum. As of today, there has been less emphasis on incorporating
upper microwave spectrum into 5G networks than the Commission
anticipated. Wireless operators have struggled with the short range and
poor penetration of signals in the UMFUS bands. As a result, outside of
a few urban hotspots, there do not appear to be many dense 5G
deployments to protect. Even in urban areas, building loss appears to
be the primary impediment to 5G deployment, not interference from other
operations in the bands. Instead, 5G deployments have been largely
focused on mid-band spectrum. AT&T and T-Mobile have traditionally
remained focused on the mid-band spectrum. Verizon rolled out ultra-
wideband base stations very rapidly at first and had deployed more than
30,000 such nodes in at least 82 cities and 60 stadiums and arenas by
the end of 2021, with upper microwave fixed wireless access (FWA)
provided to homes in 57 cities. Verizon later slowed its upper
microwave mobile service deployments, however, in favor of mid-band 5G,
and announced plans to make use of upper microwave bands to deliver FWA
to apartments and office buildings in high-density urban areas. A
review of compliance with the June 1, 2024 performance requirement
deadline for incumbent 28 GHz licenses indicates that terrestrial use
of upper microwave spectrum appears to be light. T-Mobile, which had
held 550 incumbent 28 GHz licenses, voluntarily turned in 516 of those
licenses for cancellation. Two other licensees voluntarily turned in 52
licenses for cancellation.
14. On the other hand, as both the space marketplace and the
relevant technology have developed, there is now considerably more
satellite interest in using the upper microwave bands, particularly the
28 GHz band. We have seen the growth of large NGSO constellations
alongside the deployment of next-generation GSO satellites, and a
corresponding nearly 400 percent increase in the number of earth
station applications submitted to operate in these bands over the most
recent five year period. Specifically, over the five-year period from
January 2016 to December 2020, 164 applications were filed for earth
stations in the UMFUS bands. By contrast, from January 2021 through
August 2025, 607 earth station applications were filed for operations
in these bands. Finally, the restrictions on earth station deployment
contained in Sec. 25.136 have proven needlessly burdensome on FSS
operators, particularly given the light deployment by UMFUS licensees.
15. In the Spectrum Frontiers Proceeding, ViaSat, a satellite
communications provider that provides satellite broadband services to
customers, including in the Ka-band (27-40 GHz), encouraged the
Commission to allow greater satellite access to ``core'' spectrum bands
premised on the reliable availability of other ``non-core'' spectrum,
on an interference-protected basis, for widely-deployed satellite user
terminals. O3b Limited urged the Commission to ensure the development
of rational policies for spectrum use and spectrum sharing by
addressing the possible future 5G policies in parallel with proceedings
addressing incumbent satellite services above 24 GHz. SpaceX asks that
the Commission ensure the availability of adequate spectrum for
existing and future satellite requirements as it considers possible 5G
services in these higher bands.
16. Given the intervening ramp up in space economy activity and the
increased volume of applications for FSS earth station licenses,
particularly in the 28 GHz band, the complex technical criteria
contained in Sec. 25.136 have posed challenges to the timeliness of
the Commission's processing of earth station applications in the bands
used for UMFUS and, therefore, to industry. For example, in comments
filed in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, Astranis Space
Technologies Corp. (Astranis) suggests that the complex showings
required under Sec. 25.136 inhibited timely spectrum access by
delaying the processing of earth station applications. Astranis also
indicates that ``lack of certainty regarding access to the 27.5-28.35
GHz frequency band (due to the complex siting requirements of Sec.
25.136 of the Commission's rules) forces [U.S.] companies like Astranis
to consider locating their tracking, telemetry and control or gateway
earth stations in other countries.'' Meanwhile, the Satellite Industry
Association also states that ``[o]ther countries are recognizing that
mmWave spectrum is underutilized and are revising their rules to enable
more use by FSS earth stations.''
17. In light of the Commission's experience with the existing Sec.
25.136 rules, developments in the space economy, including increased
demand for spectrum resources, the NPRM seeks comment on a variety of
ways to encourage more intensive use of spectrum in the UMFUS bands and
to ensure the Commission's licensing processes scale with the demand
for licenses. The first set of questions and proposals we discuss
involve replacing the Sec. 25.136 criteria and part 101 manual
coordination framework with a light-licensing approach. Next, we
discuss market-based approaches to encourage increased usage of the
[[Page 55706]]
UMFUS bands. Then, we seek input on changes to Sec. 25.136 and on
revising regulatory showings applicants are required to make to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 25.136 during the application
process. Finally, we seek comment on alternative frameworks that might
replace the rule in order to modernize the Commission's overall
approach to licensing earth stations in these bands. What are the costs
and benefits of our proposals, and any alternatives commenters may
advocate? How do we ensure that the proposals in the NPRM do not
adversely affect or degrade federal government operations or capacity?
When responding to the questions and proposals contained in the NPRM,
parties are encouraged to be as specific as possible and to provide
input concerning the potential impact on small entities and any
alternatives that would better serve the needs of small entities.
B. Light Licensing
18. Many commenters have suggested ``light licensing'' as a way to
expedite earth station siting in the UMFUS bands. As envisioned, light
licensing would replace the Sec. 25.136 criteria and the part 101
manual coordination framework through a two-step process. First,
holders of a nationwide, non-site earth station licenses would register
sites in a common, automated database(s) alongside terrestrial
licensees. As part of the registration process, the database would run
an automated check to determine if a proposed earth station would
interfere with previously registered base stations, calculated using
deployment information in the database. Second, depending on the
results of this automated interference check, an operator might be
permitted to register its proposed site (``green light''), it might be
blocked from registration (``red light''), or it might be required to
coordinate further with existing site(s) to resolve any potential
interference issues prior to registration (``yellow light'').
19. The Commission recently sought comment on incorporating earth
station gateways in the light-licensing database currently used for
terrestrial fixed links under subpart Q of part 101, such that the
database could serve as a unified portal for operations in the 70/80/90
GHz bands that are licensed under a nationwide, non-exclusive license.
We seek comment on whether such a portal could support deconfliction of
satellite and terrestrial operations in the UMFUS bands.
20. We note differences between the 70/80/90 GHz and UMFUS bands,
and we seek comment on their relevance as to light licensing. For one,
terrestrial licenses in 70/80/90 GHz are not authorized on a geographic
basis, unlike terrestrial licenses in the UMFUS band. Is light
licensing consistent with the character and design of geographic-area,
terrestrial UMFUS licenses? Would a link-registration obligation create
the kind of undue burden for terrestrial operators that geographic
licensing was intended to avoid? Does a registration requirement,
without more, change the nature of the terrestrial licenses purchased
at auction, even if the licensee can provide the same level of service
afterwards? On the other hand, could a light-licensing database better
help terrestrial licensees protect their investments from interference?
For another, federal users operate across the entire 70/80/90 GHz
bands, whereas federal users only operate in 37.5-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40
GHz. The current 70/80/90 GHz registration databases connect to the
NTIA federal user system, which generate green, yellow, and red lights
based on an initial interference check of site parameters. Should a
similar approach be pursued for UMFUS bands that are shared with
federal users? For UMFUS bands without federal users, could a similar
light-licensing framework similarly coordinate non-federal users?
21. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of light licensing in
the UMFUS bands. Would an initial, automated check at the point of
registration make interference deconfliction faster and more efficient
while preserving Commission resources? To what extent would that
initial check eliminate the need for unnecessary manual coordination
that occurs today in the UMFUS bands? We also seek comment on whether a
light-licensing database helps operators to understand the interference
environment more quickly and accurately. What is the value of
aggregating terrestrial and satellite sites in a single database? Would
a single database help terrestrial licensees ensure that their rights
are protected by providing greater visibility into later-in-time earth
stations? Would it reduce burden by allowing parties to accurately
observe buildout? Some commenters in the Commission's Delete, Delete,
Delete proceeding favored such an approach. We seek comment on this
approach.
22. We seek comment on all aspects of how such a database should
operate. Should the Commission operate such a database or should one or
more third-parties, like Comsearch, be used instead? Irrespective of
who administers the database, is there a separate need for a third-
party frequency coordinator? To the extent we retain the UMFUS
Protection Criteria, could the database administrator serve as a
frequency coordinator that ensures compliance with the criteria?
Alternatively, could a database automatically enforce compliance with
certain UMFUS Protection Criteria, such as the geographic cap on earth
stations, without the need for a dedicated frequency coordinator?
23. We seek comment on requirements to ensure that the initial step
of registration and automated deconfliction minimizes errors,
particularly false negatives that might magnify the risk of harmful
interference. What parameters should a registrant be required to
disclose during link registration? To what extent should they be
modeled after the 70/80/90 GHz database? Next, we seek comment on
appropriate criteria to inform a red, yellow, or green light
determination. Should the Commission apply an interference-to-noise (I/
N) protection threshold to trigger proactive interference mitigation or
good-faith coordination, as warranted? Should we use -6 dB
interference-to-noise (I/N) as the threshold, as in 70/80/90 GHz, or
would another value be more appropriate for the UMFUS bands? To the
extent I/N is either underprotective or overprotective, we seek comment
on alternative thresholds that more accurately facilitate an initial,
automated interference check.
24. We also invite comment on procedures to govern good-faith
coordination after the light-licensing database returns a yellow light.
At what point should coordination be considered complete, and at what
point should a site be registered and authorized to operate? On the one
hand, the Commission might permit operations only when coordination is
confirmed to be complete. On the other, it might allow operations on a
non-interfering, unprotected basis while coordination is ongoing. We
seek comment on these two options as well as other possibilities. Would
non-interfering, unprotected operations during the pendency of
coordination adequately protect incumbents from harmful interference?
Would it meaningfully accelerate new entry? We also seek comment on
measures to validate good-faith coordination. Should licensees be
required to provide evidence to the Commission that coordination is
complete? If so, what evidence would suffice? Could we instead
streamline the process by requiring only that a licensee provide
evidence of the coordination upon
[[Page 55707]]
Commission request? We invite comment on these questions and welcome
any other alternatives. We also seek comment how best to ensure that
terrestrial and satellite operators coordinate in good faith. If the
Commission adopts a light-licensing approach, what safeguards are
needed to ensure that incentives are aligned to create a successful
registration process? Should the Commission consider measures to
prevent ``squatting'' during link-registration? For example, should the
Commission require build-out within a certain timeframe and, if so,
what milestone is appropriate? What transition rules will be needed for
existing licenses and pending applications?
C. Commercial Agreements Between UMFUS Licensees and FSS Operators
25. In the absence of a light-licensing approach, we solicit
comment on a market-based approach to potentially increasing use of the
UMFUS bands. First, we seek comment on allowing UMFUS licensees to
voluntarily negotiate with FSS operators to permit operations in the
relevant shared bands without providing interference protection to
UMFUS operations. After such an agreement is reached, an FSS operator
would be able to file its one or more applications for new earth
stations (or modifications) in the geographic area(s) covered by the
agreement, and it could receive grants without having to satisfy the
UMFUS Protection Criteria. Sec. 25.136 already permits UMFUS licensees
and earth station applicants to negotiate agreements concerning
spectrum usage. However, because such agreements must be consistent
with the Commission's rules, a waiver of the protections outlined in
Sec. 25.136 is still required.
26. Under the proposal on which we seek comment here, criteria such
as per county caps, population coverage limitations, and infrastructure
coverage limitations would not apply to any earth stations covered by
the agreement. Would allowing such arrangements promote more extensive
use of spectrum in the UMFUS bands? What incentives or disincentives
exist for FSS operators and UMFUS licensees to enter into these
agreements? Might the Commission incentivize such agreements by
amending Sec. 30.104 to state that an UMFUS license holder can meet
its buildout requirements by entering into such agreement(s) with FSS
operator(s), provided the FSS operator(s) licenses and deploys at least
some number of earth stations in the relevant geographic area by the
buildout deadline? If so, how would that work? What would be an
appropriate number of earth stations? Are there other ways such
agreements could be applied to the UMFUS buildout requirements? Should
the Commission require earth station applicants to submit these
agreements (with appropriate redactions) via ICFS with the relevant
earth stations applications and UMFUS providers to submit these
agreements (with appropriate redactions) via ULS with applications that
involve the geographic area(s) covered by the agreements? What sort of
information would need to be provided to the Commission as part of
earth station applications that are the result of such negotiations?
Are there ways the Commission could streamline such a showing to avoid
delay once an agreement is reached between an UMFUS license holder and
a FSS operator, e.g., submission of a joint letter?
27. Are there any conditions or safeguards that we need to impose
on voluntary negotiations between UMFUS licensees and FSS operators? To
what extent could such agreements adversely affect the rights of third
parties? For example, should we be concerned about adjacent-band or
adjacent area interference? Are there other third parties that need to
be considered? Should we allow such voluntary agreements where the
rights of third parties are affected if the third parties agree as
well? If there are potential problems with mutual agreements to not
apply the UMFUS Protection Criteria, how can these concerns be
addressed in a way that does not unduly hinder the ability of market
participants to reach mutually beneficial agreements? Are there any
UMFUS Protection Criteria that we should not allow FSS earth station
applicants to avoid complying with even if the parties could reach an
agreement permitting non-compliance? If so, which criteria, and why?
Should the Commission require UMFUS licensees that are parties to such
agreements to certify that they have met their buildout requirements
and performance obligations in the geographic area covered by the
agreement?
D. Revisions to Sec. 25.136 Criteria
28. We also seek comment on ways the Commission might facilitate
more intensive use of spectrum by adjusting the criteria contained in
the Sec. 25.136. At the outset, we seek comment on the applicability
of the Sec. 25.136 criteria in geographic areas where there are no
UMFUS licensees. Should Sec. 25.136 be amended to exempt FSS
applicants in such geographic areas from some of the Sec. 25.136
criteria? If so, which ones and why? In practice, what are the best
ways for the Commission and applicants to identify geographic areas
with no UMFUS licensees? More generally, we request input on adjusting
our rules for UMFUS licenses that are fallow because they remain in the
Commission's inventory. Some of these licenses were not purchased at
auction, and others were returned to the Commission afterwards. Should
any elements of our proposals in the NPRM change with respect to these
licenses?
29. We also seek comment on our approach to collocation. Sec.
25.136 limits earth stations to three per county. For purposes of this
limitation, collocated earth stations are treated as a single earth
station. The Commission has defined the term ``location'' for
transmitting earth stations to mean the contour within which one or
more earth stations generate a PFD of no more than -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz
at 10 meters above ground level, or in the case of earth stations
receiving in the band, the self-defined protection zone around one or
more earth stations within which no terrestrial operations may be
located. In a March 2025 Public Notice (2025 Guidance Public Notice),
the Space Bureau (Bureau) clarified that new earth stations do not
count against the limit of the total number of earth stations for the
licensing area (i.e., are considered collocated) if the aggregate PFD
contour of the earth stations partially overlaps with the PFD contour
of one or more preexisting earth stations.
30. Given the interest in encouraging collocation with existing
sites when possible, should we expand the definition of collocation? In
some cases, multiple pieces of antenna equipment are located together
in a dedicated area called an ``antenna farm.'' Should we treat as
collocated multiple earth stations that are located within the same
satellite antenna farm, even if they are several hundred meters apart?
If so, do we need a precise definition of ``antenna farm?'' In many
instances, it is likely that UMFUS licensees would not be operating
close to a known, existing antenna farm and therefore no harmful
interference would occur. Given that the clarification concerning
collocation in the Guidance Public Notice is not binding on the
Commission, should we adopt it, and any precise definition of ``antenna
farm'' for purposes of Sec. 25.136 as binding rules? And, if an earth
station wishes to collocate with another earth station, is there any
reason to collect the complex technical showings currently required
under Sec. 25.136?
31. Next, we examine our geographical per-county and per-PEA
numerical limitations on earth stations
[[Page 55708]]
operating in the UMFUS bands. Our current rules establish a cap of
three earth station locations in a county where earth stations may not
be required to provide additional interference protection to UMFUS
licensees, or, in the case of space-to-earth bands, are entitled to
interference protection from UMFUS operations. Earth stations operating
in receive mode are limited to 15 per PEA as well. When initially
adopting the per-county cap in the Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order,
the Commission noted that ``[s]ince there are over 3,000 counties in
the United States, with a potential for up to three locations in each
county, FSS licensees would have many choices for earth station
locations.'' In the Second Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order the
Commission stated that ``eliminating [the per-county and per-PEA]
limits would be inconsistent with the decision to prioritize
terrestrial deployment in these bands.''
32. While a numerical cap is a straightforward and easy to
administer means of limiting potential FSS interference with UMFUS use
of spectrum, it also has the adverse effect of serving as a barrier to
entry for earth stations. In fact, licensing experience by the
Commission suggests that there are indeed geographic areas where such
caps are inhibiting new earth station siting. We therefore seek comment
on raising or removing the per-county and per-PEA limitations contained
in the rule. Did the Commission's statement in the Spectrum Frontiers
Report and Order that ``FSS licensees would have many choices for earth
station locations'' prove correct? Given that the UMFUS bands have not
become workhorse terrestrial spectrum and are instead in high demand
for FSS operations, do the caps still make sense today? Further, the
Commission adopted the UMFUS Protection Criteria in the Spectrum
Frontiers Report and Order with GSO systems in mind. Since then, NGSO
constellations, which require many distributed earth stations and
smaller beams to support capacity and low latency requirements, have
proliferated.
33. Do fixed geographic caps match the architectural needs of
modern satellite systems? Are the caps necessary to protect UMFUS
licensees, or are they overprotective? What are the benefits and costs
associated with raising or removing the per-county or per-PEA
limitations? Have caps hindered any earth station deployments? If the
Commission raises the cap, should the number of permissible earth
stations vary by county or PEA or be tied to certain characteristics of
specific counties or PEAs, such as geographic area, total population,
or population density? For example, should the limit be adjusted to
accommodate counties with larger geographic areas (e.g., additional
earth stations allowed for counties larger than 3,000 square miles)? If
we were to raise the per-county or per-PEA limitations, what increments
are reasonable and why? Might we exempt earth station deployments whose
beams are very unlikely to cross paths with a mobile 5G signal from the
caps? For example, many NGSO operators place gateway earth stations on
rooftops of data centers, points-of-presence, or other telecom
facilities, especially in dense metropolitan areas where land is
scarce. Such sites give clear line of sight to satellites above clutter
and reduce blockage from nearby buildings. These sites may also reduce
the odds of interference to UMFUS transmissions, which are downwardly
directed from the base station.
34. Alternatively, does it make sense to have a numerical limit on
the number of earth stations per county or per PEA at all? Managing a
cap requires administrative resources and could result in other
economic inefficiencies. Earth stations have a license term of fifteen
years and a renewal expectancy. Therefore, once a cap is reached within
a given geography, no new earth station can be reasonably expected in
that area. As a result, a new FSS entrant cannot use these bands as a
practical matter in large parts of the country. This might harm
innovation and efficient deployment of infrastructure. We therefore
invite comment on eliminating the geographic cap entirely and seek to
understand how the bands would be efficiently shared in such a
situation. Are there other protection criteria that should be used if
we were to eliminate caps, or are the population and other limits
sufficient?
35. If we retain numerical caps on the number of earth stations in
a geographical area, what is the best approach to determine which
applicants get these opportunities? In situations involving a scarce
resource (e.g., a cap on earth stations), there is a need to determine
who can access that resource. For instance, in other situations the
Commission has used auctions to assign scarce resources. We generally
seek comment on what approaches might be appropriate when multiple FSS
applicants vie for limited licenses in a geographic area and why.
36. Next, we examine the efficacy of our existing first-in-time
rules. The first-come, first-served approach adopted in 2016 has
created challenges in this context. For example, processing of later-
filed straightforward applications has occasionally been delayed
because those applications were filed after more complicated
applications in the same county that seek waivers and require more
analysis. And once the cap is reached, future entrants are kept out
until an existing licensee subject to the cap ceases operation and
relinquishes its license. Is there another approach the Commission
should consider to eliminate or reduce these delays? For example,
should we consider permitting applicants to apply for a nationwide,
non-site license, with the ability to register individual sites upon
successful coordination with UMFUS and FSS operations through a third
party database? Under this approach, would FSS operators still be
required to make the showings under Sec. 25.136 for each individual
earth station? Should applicants seeking waivers be placed at the back
of the line so as to prevent forestalling other applications in a given
area? These approaches would retain the first-come, first-served
approach but seek to reduce or eliminate the showings which have been
problematic. How could a revised first-come, first-served approach be
coupled with a cap?
37. Regardless of the means by which we initially determine who
receives a license, might we additionally attach a ``slot'' to current
and future earth station licenses? These slots would represent
opportunities to operate an earth station in the relevant geographical
area. Then, the Commission could allow slot-holders to exchange these
slots over time, effectively creating or allowing a secondary market
for slots? For example, the Commission could follow a first-come,
first-served approach (or another initial assignment approach) to
obtaining a license within a county and under the cap, but allow slot
holders to transfer the slot (but not the license) to another party.
Currently, an earth station licensee has poor incentives to surrender a
license they no longer, use and therefore we would expect the per
county cap to create inefficiencies. But if a secondary market for
slots existed, there would be incentive for a party that placed little
value on a particular earth station to surrender its license and
transfer the associated slot to another party who values that slot
more. Could allowing for such a secondary market exchange be a way to
make sure the limited slots within a cap go to the highest and best
use? Furthermore, a party who obtains a slot could avoid most, if not
all, of the complex showings that must be submitted with a license
application, which would streamline
[[Page 55709]]
the license process. Could allowing for such exchange even for existing
license holders be a way to inject greater efficiency in the near-term
while we determine how additional or future sites for earth stations
will be allocated? Should such an exchange of slots be subject to some
form of regulatory approval process, analogous to the transfer or
assignment of licenses and authorizations, or would a simpler form of
notification to the Commission be appropriate? Should we allow
exchanges only once an earth station is constructed or operational or,
in the alternative, include construction or operation milestones that
are not extended following an exchange?
38. Section 25.136 also limits the population that can fall within
the location or protection zone of an earth station operating in the
UMFUS bands. These limits vary by band and by population in the
terrestrial license area. The limits were based on the primacy of
UMFUS, however. Given the sparse buildout of terrestrial wireless
service in, and increased demand for FSS use of, the spectrum, does it
make sense to revisit these population limits? Might they be increased
to facilitate more intensive use of the spectrum by satellite
operators? Does the answer depend on characteristics of the county,
such as geography, population, or population density?
39. Section 25.136 also requires that the -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz
contour not cover certain defined types of infrastructure or major
roads--including major event venues; urban mass transit routes;
passenger railroads; cruise ship ports; and Interstates, Other Freeways
and Expressways, and Other Principal Arterials as defined by the
Federal Highway Administration. The protection zone for earth stations
operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band is subject to similar requirements.
Experience has shown that these limitations are an impediment to a
timely licensing process.
40. Given the state of buildout of terrestrial wireless service in
the UMFUS bands and the desire to use the spectrum for FSS operations,
should these population and infrastructure limits be modified or
eliminated entirely? If not, are there parts of the country (for
example, more rural, less populated areas) in which they could be
eliminated? Are there categories of roads that are protected under the
current rules where protection is not appropriate because terrestrial
deployment in the upper microwave bands is unlikely? Given the
generally small size of earth station contours and the speed at which
passenger trains move, is protection for passenger railroads necessary?
We also invite other suggestions for changes to the list of protected
infrastructure. If we retain population and infrastructure limits of
some kind, how might the required showings be modified to make them
less burdensome?
41. Section 25.136 also requires earth station applicants to
complete frequency coordination with UMFUS licensees using the
applicable processes contained in Sec. 101.103(d) of the Commission's
rules before filing its application. Coordination is designed only to
resolve potential interference to existing deployments, and there is a
duty to cooperate in good faith. While all of the requirements will not
be presented here, coordination under Sec. 101.103(d) involves (1)
notification to existing licensees, permittees and applicants in the
area, and other applicants with previously filed applications, whose
facilities could affect or be affected by the proposed earth station
and (2) response from the parties notified. The notification must
include relevant technical details of the proposal, which includes:
applicant's name and address, transmitting station name; transmitting
station coordinates; frequencies and polarizations to be added, changed
or deleted; transmitting equipment type, its stability, actual output
power, emission designator, and type of modulation(s) (loading);
transmitting antenna type(s), model, gain and, if required, a radiation
pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer; transmitting antenna
center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above
mean sea level; receiving station name; receiving station coordinates;
receiving antenna type(s), model, gain, and, if required, a radiation
pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer; receiving antenna
center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above
mean sea level; path azimuth and distance; estimated transmitter
transmission line loss expressed in dB; estimated receiver transmission
line loss expressed in dB; for a system utilizing ATPC, maximum
transmit power, coordinated transmit power, and nominal transmit power;
and, for transmitters employing digital modulation techniques, the
notification should clearly identify the type of modulation.
42. In general, notified parties have 30 days to respond, and
applicants, permittees, and licensees are expected to make every
reasonable effort to eliminate all problems and conflicts. All
technical problems that come to light during coordination must be
resolved; if not, the earth station applicant must explain why it is
unable or unwilling to resolve the conflict. Where changes to a
proposal become necessary over the course of coordination, additional
notifications to relevant licensees, permittees and applicants may be
required, and those notified parties have up to 30 days to respond.
Moreover, if the party proposing the earth station makes a change after
completion of coordination that it believes will have no impact on the
parties originally notified, it must re-notify those parties concerning
the change and of its opinion that no response is required. If no earth
station application is filed within six months after coordination, the
party proposing the earth station must send a renewal notification to
the notified parties, or else they are entitled to assume that the
previously coordinated frequency use is no longer desired.
43. We ask commenters to suggest any changes to the process that
they believe would facilitate coordination. For example, are there
different deadlines or procedures than those set forth above that would
be appropriate for coordination between UMFUS and FSS licensees in the
UMFUS bands? Could we modify some deadlines or procedures, or establish
additional deadlines or procedures, to help FSS operators and UMFUS
licensees better coordinate? Should we explore ways of automating the
coordination and interference analysis processes, in lieu of using the
manual part 101 coordination framework? If so, what would be the best
approach for automating that process, and what rule changes would be
necessary to implement that automation? To the extent that propagation
modeling is still required, we seek comment on whether and how the
Commission should provide further clarification or guidance beyond what
is contained in the Bureau's relevant Guidance Public Notices?
44. Finally, many of the issues discussed above involve the contour
within which one or more earth stations generate a PFD of no more than
-77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz at 10 meters above ground level. The Commission was
very cautious when establishing protection criteria in 2016. Over the
years, however, the Commission has gained better insight into the
actual operating environment between UMFUS and uplink gateway earth
stations in the band. In addition, there have been significant
improvements in both earth station and terrestrial systems designs,
including antenna sidelobe suppression, beamforming techniques, and
interference-resilient modulation. In
[[Page 55710]]
light of the foregoing, we seek comment on whether it remains
appropriate to measure the -77.6 dBm/m\2\/MHz at 10 meters above ground
level. Would it be more appropriate to measure at the UMFUS receive
antenna site or at some distance close to the UMFUS receive antenna?
E. Revisions to Sec. 25.136 Showings
45. The showings required for earth station applications in the
UMFUS bands under Sec. 25.136 require time-consuming staff review and
delay the approval of earth station licenses. For example, in order to
show compliance with limits on the population that may be covered in
the earth station's immediate area of operation or protection zone,
parties are required to provide detailed engineering exhibits to the
Commission, which Commission staff are required to evaluate. Earth
station applicants also must submit, and Commission staff must also
review, detailed showings demonstrating compliance with requirements
concerning coverage of defined types of infrastructure or major roads.
Review of these materials involves substantial Commission time and
resources, resulting in application processing delay and backlog.
Accordingly, we seek comment below on different approaches that may
increase the efficiency of earth station application processing. Are
there any other countries with models we might consider? When
commenting on the proposals below, commenters should bear in mind that
the per-county numerical limits on earth station deployments are meant
to balance the interests of FSS operators against UMFUS licensees.
Accordingly, burdens imposed by additional showings should be justified
if they are to be retained.
46. One alternative is to allow earth station applicants to certify
compliance with each of the UMFUS Protection Criteria and, in the
absence of a challenge to the application, FCC staff would rely on
those certifications without reviewing any technical exhibits. Under
this approach, earth station applicants would still be responsible for
complying with the UMFUS Protection Criteria, but Commission staff
would only be required to spend time and resources reviewing technical
exhibits to address accusations of actual harmful interference that
arise. One approach would be to require applicants to submit their
technical exhibits with their applications, so that interested parties
can review them, but have staff rely only on the certifications in the
application. Instead, the Commission could require applicants to submit
their technical analysis to the Commission upon request. We seek
comment on both possibilities.
47. Instead of a certification approach, could the Commission allow
applicants to provide more limited showings in certain cases? For
example, could the Commission employ a safe harbor approach in cases in
which an applicant proposes to locate an earth station at an existing
satellite antenna farm, or specifies minimum distances (at appropriate
power levels) from roads and other infrastructure specified in Sec.
25.136? Might such applicants be exempted from completing the relevant
bespoke showings concerning the enumerated in the UMFUS Protection
Criteria? What other ways might the Commission reduce the showings the
FSS applicants must provide? Are there available, public data sets
showing population dispersion or infrastructure on which applicants and
staff can rely that might make showing easier? Is there a publicly
available tool that the Commission should adopt for applicants to use
for certain showings?
48. Might the Commission adopt some de minimis exceptions to the
UMFUS Protection Criteria? That is, instead of finding an earth station
application unacceptable for grant if the station's immediate area of
operation or protection zone covers any of the roads or infrastructure
enumerated in the rule, might the Commission allow coverage of a de
minimis portion of a major event venue, urban mass transit route,
passenger railroad, cruise ship port. urban mass transit route, or
other road enumerated in the rule? If so, how might the Commission
define this de minimis area? We note that the Bureau has granted
waivers to allow de minimis overlaps of up to 400 meters with major
roads or passenger railroads in rural areas where the earth station
operator has successfully coordinated with the UMFUS licensee(s). Could
the Commission apply a similar approach to other UMFUS Protection
Criteria?
F. Other Alternatives for Replacing the Sec. 25.136 Criteria
49. Beyond the light licensing approach discussion in III.B above,
we also seek comment on whether Sec. 25.136 could be replaced with a
different paradigm for sharing between UMFUS and FSS operations. Would
it be reasonable to remove all the Sec. 25.136 criteria and replace
them with new rules for how terrestrial and earth station licensees may
deploy and coordinate with each other? If so, how would such
coordination work? For example, could we rely on a successfully
completed frequency coordination with affected UMFUS licensees? If we
remove all the criteria how should we treat the secondary status of FSS
in the 28 GHz band? If we adopt new rules, should we retain the
existing rule with respect to the secondary status of FSS in the 28 GHz
band? In the alternative, would it be desirable to possibly revise the
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to allocate FSS on a co-primary
basis in the band? What would be the pros and cons of such an approach?
Replacing the Sec. 25.136 criteria could occur in the near term or
could evolve alongside the UMFUS licensing framework.
50. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing. We also seek comment generally on
whether allowing uncoordinated earth stations with sensing capabilities
could play a role in facilitating more intensive use of the upper
millimeter wave bands. Starting at least as far back as 2005, the
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
Electronic Communications Committee (CEPT ECC) has issued several
reports that have envisioned allowing uncoordinated earth stations to
coexist with other services in the 28 GHz band. The most recent report
was adopted in January 2022. While the report notes several challenges
associated with such an approach in the relatively congested bands
below 30 GHz, and suggests that relatively long minimum separation
distances between earth stations and fixed links would be required in
those bands, uncoordinated earth stations with sensing might be more
feasible in some of the less congested bands above 30 GHz. The most
obvious candidates may be bands allocated to space-to-Earth operations,
such as the 38.6-40 GHz band, where earth stations operate in listen-
only mode and therefore pose no danger of direct interference to
terrestrial operations. To the extent that we consider permitting
uncoordinated earth stations to operate in certain bands, should they
be required to be capable of shifting their operations to alternative
frequencies (e.g., for the 38.6-40 GHz band, could the adjacent 40-42
GHz band, allocated primarily to satellite operations, be a plausible
alternative)? This could help to ensure that uncoordinated earth
stations do not become stranded investments if terrestrial buildouts
begin to generate interference. If a receive-only earth station shifts
to an alternative frequency, by what mechanism will the satellite(s)
communicating with it learn of the need to make a parallel frequency
shift? In addition, if we adopt this approach, how should we address
bands that are shared with federal services? We seek comment on whether
there are
[[Page 55711]]
any other circumstances under which earth stations could be authorized
on an uncoordinated basis.
51. Alternative Suggestions. In addition to the proposals mentioned
above, we invite commenters to offer alternative suggestions for how
the UMFUS bands can be more intensively used. Should terrestrial
operators be allowed to satisfy their buildout requirements by leasing
spectrum to satellite operators, or by entering into other arrangements
to provide satellite service access to areas beyond the reach of
terrestrial facilities? What other rule changes might facilitate
greater use of the UMFUS bands? We also seek comment on any
corresponding revisions to part 30 that would facilitate these changes.
52. With respect to all of these inquiries, we ask commenters to
consider and address the following issues: How would the market-based
proposals suggested herein, changes to required earth station
application showings, or proposed changes or replacements to Sec.
25.136 criteria facilitate real world deployment of earth stations by
satellite operators while still protecting UMFUS licensees from harmful
interference? What proposals would be most effective in facilitating
greater satellite use through deployment of earth stations? How would
adopting these methods affect existing and planned terrestrial
deployments? Are there steps the Commission could take to minimize the
impact on terrestrial deployments from more intensive use of UMFUS
spectrum by earth stations? Are the contemplated changes consistent
with the fact that UMFUS licenses are geographic area licenses? What
additional rules or technical criteria would be necessary to adopt any
of these proposals? What are the costs and benefits associated with
these approaches? Would the proposed changes promote more intensive use
of the spectrum and potentially unleash nascent services (e.g., Ground-
Station-as-a-Service)? To the extent possible, commenters should
quantify expected costs and benefits of the proposals set forth above
or any alternatives a commenter would prefer. Again, we encourage
commenters to provide input concerning the potential impact of
proposals on small entities.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
53. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) assessing the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission requests written public comments on the IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
54. In the NPRM, the Commission initiates a review of the rules
governing shared used between the terrestrial Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service (UMFUS) and the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) in upper
microwave spectrum bands above 24 GHz to facilitate more intensive use
of these bands due to the expanded needs of the space industry, and in
particular the increased interest in the bands used for UMFUS by FSS
operators. The space industry's expanded activity has increased the
demand for FSS licenses especially in the 28 GHz band, and the complex
criteria in the Commission 's existing rules in Sec. 25.136 has
created difficulties for the Commission with processing earth station
applications by the industry in bands used for UMFUS. Consequently, in
this proceeding the Commission seeks a workable, scalable solution for
UMFUS licensees and FSS operators to share upper microwave spectrum
bands. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on proposals
exploring whether, and how to revise our Sec. 25.136 rules, and
policies applicable to bands above 24 GHz that are shared by
terrestrial UMFUS licensees and FSS operators. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on proposals, and frameworks that could
replace the Sec. 25.136 rules to allow sharing for space and
terrestrial use in these bands.
B. Legal Basis
55. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 303, 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
56. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
57. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, three broad
groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our
actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75
million businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are generally not-
for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the
number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of
nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' are defined as ``governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Based on the 2022 U.S.
Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of
90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than
50,000.
58. The review of the rules and policies in the NPRM will apply to
small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their
six-digit North American Industry Classification System codes and
corresponding SBA size standard.
[[Page 55712]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Small firms
Regulated industry (NAICS classification) NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms Small firms in industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Other Telecommunications.................. 517810 $40 million................................ 1,079 1,039 96.29
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 334220 1,250 employees............................ 656 624 95.12
Communications Equipment Manufacturing.
Satellite Telecommunications.................. 517410 $47 million................................ 275 242 88.00
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 517112 1,500 employees............................ 2,893 2,837 98.06
Satellite).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the
estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we
conclude that the review of the rules and policies in the NPRM will
impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we
provide additional information regarding the number of potentially
affected entities in the above identified industries, and information
for other affected entities, as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications
service provider data (Data as of December 2023)............ SBA size standard (1,500 employees).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)...... 585 498 85.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
60. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of the
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
1. Revising the Sec. 25.136 Criteria
61. The Commission explores of the possible expansion of the
definition of collocation inquiring whether reporting of the complex
technical showings currently required under Sec. 25.136 of our rules
should continue if we accept as collocated a new earth station located
several hundred meters apart within the same satellite antenna farm,
because theoretically UMFUS licensees would not be operating close to a
known, existing antenna farm. Removing this requirement would lessen
the administrative and technical economic burden on small and other
entities caused by complying with this collection mandate. The
proposals in the NPRM to expand the definition of earth station
collocation, and increase or eliminate numerical per-county or per-
Partial Economic Area (PEA) caps on earth stations would reduce the
burdens for small and other FSS applicants and provide opportunities
for more entities to apply for licenses without imposing additional
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We also review the usefulness
of the current first-in-time/first-come first-served rules for ways to
reduce and/or eliminate problematic reporting requirements for small
and other entities. At this time the Commission is not aware of any
costs that would be imposed on small entities by the alternatives to
the first-in-time rules for processing initial earth station
applications proposed in the NPRM. Our proposal to revise Sec. 25.136
to allow UMFUS licensees and FSS operators to agree to waive certain
protection criteria contained in the rule would reduce burdens on FSS
operators.
62. Our proposals in the NPRM to modify or eliminate population and
infrastructure limits for earth station applications, if adopted, would
not introduce or impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on small entities. Instead, these proposals would streamline and
simplify application preparation and reduce administrative burdens.
Similarly, our examination of the frequency coordination requirements
in Sec. 25.136 inquiring whether there are deadlines or procedures to
facilitate frequency coordination between FSS operators and UMFUS
licensees such as investigating whether automation of the coordination
and interference analysis processes can be implemented to replace the
current part 101 manual coordination framework, could reduce burdens
for small and other entities.
2. Replacing the Sec. 25.136 Criteria; Light Licensing
63. The Commission's consideration of whether to replace Sec.
25.136 and its requirements could result in a new body of rules,
including but not limited to technical criteria requirements governing
the deployment and coordination between terrestrial and earth station
licensees. In the NPRM, we discuss and seek comment on approaches in
two areas toward that end: Automated Interference Analysis and Dynamic
Spectrum Sharing. The Automated Interference Analysis/Light Licensing
model proposes a model where the Commission or one or more third
parties would oversee UMFUS-FSS coordination and a shift to a licensing
model that requires earth station and terrestrial licensees to use a
registration database where links are registered under their licenses.
The coordinator's role would be two-fold by also including review of
compliance with any Sec. 25.136 requirements that continue to apply.
Such a framework would reduce the economic impact of current earth
station pre-coordination and licensing requirements in bands above 24
GHz for small and other entities. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing would allow
uncoordinated earth stations with sensing capabilities to operate in
certain upper millimeter wave bands resulting in the removal of
existing coordination requirements applicable to the bands where
allowed.
64. While we note that the economic impact and reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance obligations could be reduced for
small and other entities by some of the proposals and matters which the
Commission seeks comment on in this proceeding, the diversity and
variability of the proposals and inquiries make it impractical to
conduct a realistic cost estimate and/or economic analysis at this
time. The Commission is not aware of any costs that would be imposed on
small entities and does not anticipate that it will be necessary for
small entities to hire professionals if the proposals discussed in the
NPRM are adopted. However, to help the Commission more fully evaluate
the cost of compliance we request comment on the cost implications of
the proposals and alternatives discussed in the NPRM as
[[Page 55713]]
well as on any alternative approaches that are submitted by commenters.
We expect the information we received in comments including cost
analysis data, to help the Commission further identify and evaluate
relevant matters for small entities, including compliance costs and
other burdens that may result from the proposals and inquiries in the
NPRM.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
66. The Commission's evaluation of revisions to Sec. 25.136
considers and seeks comment on several options for collocation which
could minimize the economic impact for small entities. As we describe
in section D above, we consider expanding the definition of collocation
in a manner which could result in the elimination of the complex
technical showings currently required under Sec. 25.136. We also
consider increasing or removing the three per county limitation on
earth station collocations. More specifically, we inquire whether to
raise the limitation to ten per county, or to modify the per county cap
to a structure where the cap has a designated increase at a specific
time interval such as increasing the limitation by ten every one, two,
or five years. Additionally, we inquire about an approach where the
number of permissible earth stations would vary by county, or be tied
to characteristics of a county, such as geographic area, total
population, or population density. These options would allow for an
increase in earth stations by small and other entities while decreasing
the frequency and burdens of any showings required for collocation.
Alternatively, we consider the efficacy of continuing to have a
numerical cap on the number of earth stations per county noting the
potential harm to innovation and the efficient deployment of
infrastructure by caps because once a cap is reached the opportunity
for small and other entities to collocate an earth station is
foreclosed. Similarly for the 28 GHz band, we consider whether the
limit of 15 earth stations per PEA should be increased or eliminated.
If the Commission maintains numerical cap limitations we consider and
seek comment on a fair and equitable approach to determining how
applicants get the opportunity to collocate.
67. We also explore the usefulness of the first-in-time, first-come
first-served approach of obtaining a license within a county that the
Commission adopted in 2016. The approaches we consider retain the
first-come, first-served approach while seeking to mitigate or
eradicate the showings that have posed earth station licensing
challenges. For example, we seek comment on options to alleviate
challenges like the processing delays resulting from this approach such
as allowing small and other applicants to apply for a nationwide, non-
site license, with the ability to register individual sites upon
successful coordination with UMFUS and FSS operations through a third
party database, like Comsearch. We also inquire and seek comment on how
a revised first-come, first-served approach could be coupled with a
cap. Should a cap be retained, the NPRM considers market-based
alternatives for allocating earth stations such as auctioning initial
opportunities to construct and operate earth stations in geographic
areas (slots) or maintaining the Commission's current approach to
initial earth station allocation. A slot would be attached to each
earth station license and allow permittees (who may or may not also be
the licensee) to exchange these slots over time. This approach could
increase opportunities by effectively creating or allowing a secondary
market for slots, and we seek comment on the impact of such proposals
on small entities. Another alternative the Commission considers in NPRM
as discussed above in section D, is whether and how coordination and
interference analysis processes can be automated which would benefit
small entities. Lastly, in the NPRM and in section D of the IRFA, we
discuss whether the Sec. 25.136 criteria is still needed exploring a
coordination and license registration model, and allowing the operation
of uncoordinated earth stations. These approaches could lessen the
burdens of the existing earth station coordination and licensing
requirements in frequency bands above 24 GHz for small and other
entities.
68. Based comments the Commission receives in response to the NPRM,
we expect to more fully consider the alternatives raised in the NPRM as
well as any alternatives raised by commenters, and the economic impact
for small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed
in this proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the
final conclusions it reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes
in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may
occur on small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
69. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
70. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4, 303, and 307 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, that
the NPRM is adopted.
71. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-21805 Filed 12-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 3, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.