Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-22020

Proposed Rule2025-22020

In the Matter of Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz)

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 5, 2025

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on proposed rule changes that would expand the ecosystem for next generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) by making as much as 180, and at least 100, megahertz of the 3.98-4.2 GHz band (Upper C-band) available for terrestrial wireless flexible use via a system of competitive bidding. This action would be in furtherance of Congress' direction in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act) to "complet[e] a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz." The NPRM seeks comment on options for reconfiguring the Upper C-band in the contiguous United States ranging from 180 megahertz (3.98-4.16 GHz) to the congressionally mandated minimum of 100 megahertz (3.98-4.08 GHz) for terrestrial wireless use. The NPRM seeks comment on how much Upper C- band spectrum--beyond the minimum 100 megahertz required by the OBBB Act--could be repurposed by incumbent fixed satellite service (FSS) space station operators and on how the transition could be effectuated if their existing customers relocate out of the C-band. Under any of the reconfiguration options under consideration, the NPRM's baseline proposition is to apply the existing 3.7 GHz Service rules (applicable in the Lower C-band from 3.7-3.98 GHz) to any newly authorized terrestrial wireless operations. Any other rules and requirements, including those relating to the transition process, would be modeled to the greatest extent possible on those that applied to the Lower C-band transition. The NPRM also seeks comment on a range of issues associated with repurposing some portion of the Upper C-band, including: reallocation of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band; competitive bidding procedures for an eventual auction; licensing, operating, and technical rules for any new wireless services; (4) transitioning incumbent FSS operations; and promoting co-existence with adjacent band radio altimeters.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56076-56101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22020]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25, and 27

[GN Docket No. 25-59; FCC 25-78; FR ID 319865]

In the Matter of Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz)

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on proposed rule
changes that would expand the ecosystem for next generation wireless
services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) by making as much as 180, and
at least 100, megahertz of the 3.98-4.2 GHz band (Upper C-band)
available for terrestrial wireless flexible use via a system of
competitive bidding. This action would be in furtherance of Congress'
direction in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act) to ``complet[e]
a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band
between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.'' The NPRM seeks comment on
options for reconfiguring the Upper C-band in the contiguous United
States ranging from 180 megahertz (3.98-4.16 GHz) to the
congressionally mandated minimum of 100 megahertz (3.98-4.08 GHz) for
terrestrial wireless use. The NPRM seeks comment on how much Upper C-
band spectrum--beyond the minimum 100 megahertz required by the OBBB
Act--could be repurposed by incumbent fixed satellite service (FSS)
space station operators and on how the transition could be effectuated
if their existing customers relocate out of the C-band. Under any of
the reconfiguration options under consideration, the NPRM's baseline
proposition is to apply the existing 3.7 GHz Service rules (applicable
in the Lower C-band from 3.7-3.98 GHz) to any newly authorized
terrestrial wireless operations. Any other rules and requirements,
including those relating to the transition process, would be modeled to
the greatest extent possible on those that applied to the Lower C-band
transition. The NPRM also seeks comment on a range of issues associated
with repurposing some portion of the Upper C-band, including:
reallocation of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band; competitive bidding procedures
for an eventual auction; licensing, operating, and technical rules for
any new wireless services; (4) transitioning incumbent

[[Page 56077]]

FSS operations; and promoting co-existence with adjacent band radio
altimeters.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 5, 2026; reply comments
are due on or before February 3, 2026. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before February 3,
2026.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by GN
Docket No. 25-59, 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 choose to file by paper must
file 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 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#187e7b7b2d282c587e7b7b367f776e">[email&#160;protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Send a copy of your comment on
any proposed information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f6f6d7e7f595c5c11585049">[email&#160;protected]</a> and to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387b594c5041166f5154545159554b785e5b5b165f574e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Paul Powell, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecbc8d9980c2bc839b898080ac8a8f8fc28b839a">[email&#160;protected]</a>, of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-1613. Direct
press inquiries to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69240c0d00083b0c05081d0006071a290f0a0a470e061f">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdadafbcbd9b9e9ed39a928b">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at
(202) 418-2918 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f1c3e2b37267108363333363e322c1f393c3c71383029">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 25-78, adopted on November 20, 2025
and released on November 21, 2025. The full text of this document is
available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS) website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/edocs">https://www.fcc.gov/edocs</a> (search using FCC
number) or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a> (search using docket number).
(Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This NPRM may contain proposed new or
modified information collections. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any
information collections contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due February 3, 2026.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. In July 2025, Congress adopted, and President Trump signed, the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act), Public Law 119-21, 40002(b)(2).
The OBBB Act re-instituted the Commission's general auction authority
and specifically directed the Commission to ``grant licenses through
systems of competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general
auction authority . . . for not less than 300 megahertz, including by
completing a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in
the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.'' Consistent with
this directive, we propose today to further expand the ecosystem for
next generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) by
making as much as 180, and at least 100, megahertz of the 3.98-4.2 GHz
band (Upper C-band) available for terrestrial wireless flexible use via
a system of competitive bidding.
2. To satisfy our congressional mandate and rapidly make more
valuable mid-band spectrum available for terrestrial wireless services,
we have identified several key goals for this proceeding. First, we
propose to make additional spectrum in the Upper C-band available for
new terrestrial wireless operations within the congressionally mandated
timeframe. Next, as with the earlier 3.7-3.98 GHz (Lower C-band)
transition, we seek to expeditiously transition incumbent operations in
the Upper C-band in keeping with our Emerging Technologies precedent.
The Commission's Emerging Technologies framework has been relied on
since the early 1990s to facilitate the swift transition of spectrum
from one use to another. In the Lower C-band, it was used to require
new 3.7 GHz Service licensees, as a condition of their licenses, to
make ``all necessary relocation and accelerated relocation payments
before they are allowed to deploy in the spectrum made available for
flexible use.'' Finally, we look to

[[Page 56078]]

reinforce a successful coexistence environment by facilitating the
timely introduction of new, high-powered terrestrial wireless
operations in the Upper C-band alongside a generational upgrade to
radio altimeters that facilitates aviation safety through operations in
the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band that can safely coexist with wireless
services. We therefore seek comment on proposals to enable terrestrial
wireless operations in a segment of the Upper C-band in the contiguous
United States, to reserve no more than 20 megahertz as a guard band
between those wireless operations and Fixed Satellite Services (FSS),
and to generally apply the part 27 licensing and operating rules that
presently govern wireless operations in the Lower C-band to new full-
power commercial operations in the Upper C-band. We ask commenters to
provide specifics on the costs and benefits of these proposals, and of
potential alternatives, in addition to detailed technical analyses and
other studies in support of their positions.
3. Accomplishing these tasks within the timeframe established by
the OBBB Act will necessitate broad-based and proactive engagement from
relevant industry stakeholders as well as our federal partners. To that
end, we look forward to robust participation in this proceeding from
entities with current and prospective in-band equities, including Upper
C-band incumbents (e.g., FSS space and earth station operators, content
providers, and other contractual customers that use FSS services),
wireless carriers, and proponents of alternative distribution
technologies. In terms of adjacent band equities, we note that the
wireless and aviation industries are already engaged in ongoing
discussions about how to promote the effective coexistence between any
new terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-band and radio
altimeters in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band. We similarly anticipate continued
dialogue and close coordination with the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and other federal stakeholders in areas of mutual
interest. In particular, we expect that FAA will soon initiate a
synchronized rulemaking to update its radio altimeter standards to
complement our efforts to repurpose the Upper C-band. Although radio
altimeters operate in an adjacent band (4.2-4.4 GHz), coordinated
timing for these parallel processes will be important to provide
certainty for stakeholders and to ensure a successful spectral
coexistence environment. We believe that these collective efforts will
help us meet the mandatory deadlines established by Congress and bring
the benefits of expanded access to advanced wireless services,
including 5G and, eventually 6G, to the American people.

II. Background

A. Current Allocation and Use of the Upper C-Band and Adjacent Bands

4. Upper C-band. The 4.0-4.2 GHz portion of the Upper C-band is
currently allocated for non-federal use on a primary basis for FSS and
Fixed Service (FS) links throughout the United States although FS
operations were sunset in the contiguous United States throughout the
entire C-band as part of the earlier Lower C-band transition. Space
station operators use 4.0-4.2 GHz nationwide to provide space-to-earth
signals (i.e., downlink) of various bandwidths to licensed transmit-
receive, registered receive-only, and unregistered receive-only earth
stations nationwide. These signals primarily deliver programming
content to television and radio broadcasters throughout the country, as
well as telephone, data, and satellite communications services to
customers, including federal users, on a contractual basis. FS links
remain in use in these frequencies outside the contiguous United States
only.
5. The 3.98-4.0 GHz portion of the Upper C-band was reallocated as
part of the earlier lower band transition in the contiguous United
States, and is reserved as a guard band to protect adjacent incumbent
operations in the remainder of the Upper C-band from potential harmful
interference. 3.98-4.0 GHz is allocated in the continental United
States for non-federal use on a primary basis for FS and Mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, Service, but there are no service rules
established for that portion of the band. Outside the contiguous United
States, these frequencies are allocated for and used by FSS and FS
services. Outside of the contiguous United States, authorized FSS and
FS providers were allowed to continue operating throughout the entire
3.7-4.2 GHz band.
6. Lower C-band. The adjacent Lower C-band from 3.7-3.98 GHz is
allocated on a primary basis for non-federal Fixed and Mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, services in addition to FS service within the
contiguous United States, although as a practical matter only flexible
use terrestrial wireless operations remain given the earlier sunset of
FS uses. Outside of the contiguous United States, the Lower C-band
remains allocated for, and used by, FSS and FS services.
7. 4.2-4.4 GHz. The adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band is allocated in the
United States on a primary basis for federal and non-federal
Aeronautical Radionavigation Services for radio altimeters, which are
aeronautical safety systems primarily used at altitudes under 2500 feet
above ground level to measure aircraft height above terrain and
obstacles in all phases of flight. The band is also allocated worldwide
on a co-primary basis for wireless avionics intra-communications
systems; these systems provide communications over short distances
between points on a single aircraft and are not intended to provide
air-to-ground communications or communications between two or more
aircraft.

B. Procedural History

1. Lower C-Band
8. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission authorized flexible use
terrestrial operations in the 3.7 GHz Service from 3.7-3.98 GHz,
reserved 3.98-4.0 GHz as a guard band, and migrated incumbent
operations into 4.0-4.2 GHz throughout the contiguous United States. To
effectuate this transition and clear incumbent operations in the lower
portion of the band, the Commission modified the licenses and market
access authorizations of incumbent FSS operators, transmit-receive
earth station licensees, and FS licensees. The Commission also adopted
a freeze on the filing of new or modified earth station applications
across the 3.7-4.2 band, and it remains in place. The Commission also
assigned overlay licenses for the 3.7 GHz Service through an auction,
and adopted service rules requiring those licensees to comply with
certain part 27 licensing, operating, and technical rules to encourage
efficient use of the spectrum and protect incumbent users both in-band
and in adjacent bands. As discussed below, the 3.7 GHz Service
licensees subsequently made temporary, voluntary commitments to adjust
certain technical parameters in support of both full power deployments
across the Lower C-band and the coexistence environment with adjacent
band radio altimeters.
9. The 2020 C-band R&O required 3.7 GHz Service licensees to
reimburse the reasonable relocation costs of eligible FSS space station
operators, incumbent FSS earth station operators, and incumbent FS
licensees, with a third-party Relocation Payment Clearinghouse
(Clearinghouse) overseeing the cost-related aspects of the transition.
The practical aspects of the FSS transition were managed by the
eligible space

[[Page 56079]]

station operators who were required to submit public transition plans
and work with a Relocation Coordinator to ensure a timely and orderly
process. The Commission established an ultimate deadline of December 5,
2025, by which the eligible space station operators were to complete
the transition of FSS operations to the upper portion of the band, and
also provided incentives for an accelerated clearing process by
allowing eligible space station operators to voluntarily commit to
relocate on a two-phased accelerated schedule, with a Phase I deadline
of December 5, 2021, and a Phase II deadline of December 5, 2023.
10. All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated
relocation, subsequently met the respective Phase I and II deadlines,
and became eligible for the designated accelerated relocation payments.
As a result, the practical work of the transition was completed in
2023, and 3.7 GHz Service licensees are now providing 5G service using
these frequencies in markets throughout the contiguous United States.
Residual cost-related aspects of the transition were effectively
completed by June 2025, and the relocation cost reimbursement program
officially ended as of August 21, 2025.
2. 2025 Upper C-Band Notice of Inquiry
11. In February 2025, the Commission issued the Upper C-band NOI,
which outlined the successful lower band transition, the current state
of allocations and services across the C-band, and the Commission's
interest in exploring the potential for new services in the Upper C-
band. The Commission solicited feedback on the appropriate parameters
for additional opportunities for robust connectivity in the Upper C-
band and asked commenters to identify how much spectrum in the Upper C-
band could be repurposed for new uses. The Commission also sought
comment on whether and how to amend the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations to facilitate new opportunities in the band, either by
aligning the Upper C-band's allocations with those in the Lower C-band,
or by taking a different approach. The Upper C-band NOI asked questions
about the structure and mechanics of a potential transition to new
operations in the Upper C-band, including whether to utilize some or
all of the aspects of the Lower C-band transition, as a means to manage
the practical and financial aspects of any new transition effort. The
Commission also sought input on the appropriate service and technical
rules for any new operations in the Upper C-band.
12. The Upper C-band NOI asked Upper C-band incumbents--including
FSS space and earth station operators, content providers, and other
contractual customers (including federal users) that rely on FSS
services--about how the introduction of new services might affect their
current and future operations in the band. The Upper C-band NOI also
noted the proximity and sensitivity of the radio altimeter operations
in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, the steps that were taken to protect those
operations in the 2020 C-band R&O, and technical work that has been
undertaken in the years since that action. Recognizing the successful
coexistence environment that has been fostered between the 3.7 GHz
Service and radio altimeters at 4.2-4.4 GHz, we requested further
information regarding advancements in radio altimeter resiliency and
sought comment on appropriate technical and service rules that would
further promote coexistence in light of potential new operations in the
Upper C-band.
13. The Upper C-band NOI generated a wide array of comments from
incumbent FSS operators, 3.7 GHz Service licensees and other wireless
providers, content providers and other FSS customers, as well as
aviation interests with adjacent band equities. Since that record
closed earlier this year, the OBBB Act passed and was signed into law.
The proposals set forth in this NPRM have been specifically developed
to fulfill the directive in the OBBB Act to auction for terrestrial use
not less than 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band; we look forward to
commenters refining their earlier Upper C-band NOI input in response to
the specific proposals in this NPRM, and with our new legislative remit
in mind.
3. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act
14. In July 2025, as part of the OBBB Act, Congress reinstituted
the Commission's general authority to grant licenses through systems of
competitive bidding through September 2034 and established a path
forward for the eventual repurposing of 800 megahertz to be licensed
through competitive bidding, including at least 500 megahertz for full
power commercial licensed use cases. The OBBB Act also specifically
directed the Commission to ``grant licenses through systems of
competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general auction
authority for not less than 300 megahertz, including by completing a
system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band
between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.'' In light of this direction,
we are quickly moving forward to fulfill our Congressional mandate and
seek comment below on reconfiguration alternatives for the Upper C-band
which are designed to meet this goal.

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Reconfiguration and Allocation of the Upper C-Band

1. Reconfiguration Options
15. In this NPRM, we seek comment on options for reconfiguring the
Upper C-band in the contiguous United States ranging from 180 megahertz
(3.98-4.16 GHz) to the congressionally mandated minimum of 100
megahertz (3.98-4.08 GHz) for terrestrial wireless use. Under any
approach we may adopt within this range, we propose that the remainder
of the Upper C-band would be used for repacked FSS operations with a
guard band of no more than 20 megahertz. For clarity, we note that the
total amount of spectrum ultimately repurposed will include both the
spectrum designated for auction as well as any guard band. Thus, to
auction 100 megahertz, that amount plus any guard band (e.g., 20
megahertz, for a total of 120 megahertz) will need to be repurposed.
Our consideration of the optimal amount of spectrum to repurpose for
terrestrial wireless use will take into account what may be achievable
in terms of the further transitioning of in-band incumbent FSS
operations in the contiguous United States. Notably, incumbent
satellite operators serving a majority of the C-band earth stations in
CONUS have already stated that it is possible for them to repurpose at
least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band for terrestrial wireless use.
We seek comment on how much Upper C-band spectrum--beyond the minimum
100 megahertz required by the OBBB Act--could be repurposed by
incumbent FSS space station operators and on how the transition could
be effectuated if their existing customers relocate out of the C-band.
16. Our ultimate decision regarding the amount of spectrum to
repurpose will depend on a variety of additional factors. Specifically,
we seek input on the economic benefits and costs of repurposing
spectrum for terrestrial wireless and how that value could be affected
by the amount of spectrum that is ultimately repurposed and the
clearing timeline. We also will consider the capabilities of adjacent
band radio altimeters which are expected to undergo upgrades that will
further enhance their signal rejection capabilities and bolster the
existing

[[Page 56080]]

successful spectral co-existence environment to facilitate a further
repurposing in the Upper C-band. We believe that appropriately
balancing all these factors will help to further our ultimate goal of
repurposing the maximum amount of spectrum for terrestrial mobile
broadband as the United States continues to deploy 5G systems and plan
for future 6G systems.
17. Under any of the reconfiguration options under consideration,
our baseline proposition is that we would apply the existing 3.7 GHz
Service rules to any newly authorized terrestrial wireless operations.
Any other rules and requirements, including those relating to the
transition process, would be modeled to the greatest extent possible on
those that applied to the Lower C-band transition. We recognize,
however, that certain modifications may be necessary in light of our
experiences during that earlier transition with the Lower C-band, with
the unique parameters of the Upper C-band and the instant transition in
mind, and as a result of the band reconfiguration option we ultimately
adopt. We seek comment on these reconfiguration options generally, and
specifically as to how each of the topics addressed throughout this
NPRM might be impacted depending on the amount of spectrum that we
ultimately repurpose. We also seek input on how these reconfiguration
options might be adjusted or better tailored to the specific
circumstances of the Upper C-band, and how they might impact existing
and future incumbent services, both in-band and in adjacent bands.
2. Reallocation of the 4.0-4.2 GHz Band
18. To implement any reconfiguration proposal in effectuating the
OBBB Act's Upper C-band directive, we propose to add a primary, non-
federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to whatever
portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band we reconfigure in the contiguous United
States. We also propose to remove the FSS allocation from the
reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band in the contiguous United
States. This proposal would harmonize the allocations in the
immediately adjacent Upper C-band with those in the 3.7-4.0 GHz portion
of the band and thus make a wider band of contiguous mid-band spectrum
available for next generation wireless services. As noted supra, before
its 2020 reallocation, the Lower C-band had exclusive non-federal
allocations for FSS and FS, as does 4.0-4.2 GHz today. In the 2020 C-
band R&O, the Commission added a primary non-federal mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, allocation to the 3.7-4.0 GHz band in the
contiguous United States. The Commission also reserved a guard band at
3.98-4.0 GHz to protect adjacent operations.
19. We propose to closely align the allocations across the C-band
for reasons similar to those that prompted the Commission's 2020
reallocation of 3.7-4.0 GHz. Mid-band spectrum is crucial for next-
generation wireless broadband service due to its favorable propagation
and capacity characteristics. As before, we believe that adding a
primary non-federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to
whatever portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band that is eventually repurposed
in the contiguous United States will foster more efficient and
intensive use of mid-band spectrum and facilitate investment in next
generation wireless services. Recognizing that FS operations have been
sunset in those areas, we further propose to retain exclusive non-
federal allocations for FSS and FS in whatever portion of that band is
not repurposed for terrestrial commercial wireless use in the
contiguous United States. The OBBB Act established a compressed
deadline to complete an Upper C-band auction. Given our clear mandate
to repurpose the Upper C-band for terrestrial wireless services,
coupled with the complexity of implementing that legislative directive
by July 2027, we propose to not allow any additional satellite or other
uses in the Upper C-band at this time. Although the Upper C-band NOI
sought comment on these issues, we received sparse record evidence in
response, particularly with respect to potential impacts on incumbent
in-band and adjacent band services. We nevertheless welcome further
comment on these issues; we encourage technical specificity on how next
generation satellite services could potentially coexist with incumbent
or new operations in the 3.98-4.2 GHz or 4.2-4.4 GHz bands after the
Upper C-band transition is complete.
20. Although we propose to remove the FSS allocation from the
reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band in the contiguous United
States, we also propose to preserve the status quo regarding FSS and FS
allocations and operations outside of the contiguous United States,
which would be permitted to continue in the entire C-band. This
proposal would ensure the ongoing provision of C-band services
necessary to protect life and property--including national security,
telehealth, E911, and education services--for which C-band service may
be the only option available, such as in remote areas of Alaska.
21. We seek comment on the above reallocation proposals. What are
the benefits and potential drawbacks of adding a mobile allocation,
except aeronautical mobile, in some portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band in
the contiguous United States? Do our reallocation proposals strike the
proper balance between enabling more intensive flexible use of the band
and reserving spectrum for existing incumbent FSS operations which--
based on information previously provided by certain C-band satellite
operators--are declining in use over time? What are the potential
economic and operational/service impacts of our reallocation proposals,
and of any potential alternatives that commenters may advance?
Commenters are encouraged to provide specific data in support of any
views on existing or future service trends that may inform the
reconfiguration approach we adopt, and the resulting allocations that
will be needed to implement that decision.

B. Auction of Upper C-Band Spectrum for Flexible Use

1. Competitive Bidding Procedures
22. Consistent with our statutory mandate to grant licenses in the
3.98-4.2 GHz band through a system of competitive bidding, and to
complete competitive bidding for such licenses within two years, we
propose to conduct an auction of licenses in this band in conformity
with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart
Q, of the Commission's rules. As we have done in all recently conducted
Commission spectrum auctions, we propose to employ the part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
unjust enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain
communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future.
We seek comment on whether any of those rules would be inappropriate or
should be modified for an auction of licenses in the Upper C-band.
Consistent with our longstanding approach, we will initiate a public
notice process to solicit input on certain details of auction design
and the auction procedures.
23. We also seek comment on the specific implementation of
designated entity preferences available in the Upper C-band. Consistent
with every recent Commission auction of 5G-

[[Page 56081]]

capable spectrum, including the Lower C-band, we propose to offer small
business bidding credits to eligible entities, subject to the cap of no
less than $25 million, as described in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of the
Commission's rules. If we decide to offer small business bidding
credits, we seek comment on how to define a small business. In all
auctions of licenses likely to be used to provide 5G services in a
variety of bands since the part 1 schedule of bidding credits was
updated in 2015, we have adopted bidding credits for the two larger
designated entity business sizes provided in the Commission's part 1
standardized schedule of bidding credits. We propose to use the same
definitions here. Accordingly, we propose to define a small business as
an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five years not
exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with
average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20
million. A qualifying ``small business'' would be eligible for a
bidding credit of 15% and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be
eligible for a bidding credit of 25%, subject to the use of a bidding
credit cap specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of the Commission's
rules. We also seek comment on whether the characteristics of the
frequencies in the Upper C-band and our proposed licensing model
suggest that we should adopt different small business size standards
and associated bidding credits than we have in the past. Commenters
advocating different standards and/or bidding credits are encouraged to
identify specific circumstances and characteristics of licenses in the
Upper C-band and to provide specific, data-driven arguments in support
of their proposals.
24. Additionally, we propose to offer rural service providers a
designated entity bidding credit for licenses in the Upper C-band.
Consistent with the findings in the Updated Part 1 Report and Order and
our approach in other bands where the spectrum is likely to be used to
provide 5G services, including the Lower C-band, we propose to offer a
15% bidding credit to any eligible rural service provider, as defined
in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of the Commission's rules, and subject to the
bidding credit cap of no less than $10 million, as described in Sec.
1.2110(f)(4)(ii) of the Commission's rules, that has not claimed a
small business bidding credit. Our past experience with the rural
service provider credit indicates that the existing part 1 rural
service provider bidding credit achieves an appropriate balance of
statutory obligations that the Commission is charged with pursuing,
while sufficiently enabling rural service providers to compete for
spectrum licenses. Commenters addressing this proposal should consider
what details of licenses in the band may affect whether rural service
providers will apply for them. Those advocating for any alternatives
should provide data-driven arguments in support of their proposals.
25. In the Upper C-band NOI, we sought comment on steps the
Commission could consider to promote connectivity in historically
unserved or underserved areas, citing in particular the Commission's
earlier Tribal licensing window in the 2.5 GHz band. Mindful of our
``baseline proposition'' to adopt rules that mirror those in the Lower
C-band to the greatest extent possible, we seek further comment on
these issues here--specifically on the feasibility of conducting a pre-
auction or concurrent Tribal licensing window while satisfying our
legal requirement under the OBBB Act to assign licenses in the Upper C-
band through a system of competitive bidding by July 4, 2027, and on
any other differences between the Upper C-band and 2.5 GHz band
contexts. For example, in contrast with the 2.5 GHz band, here we are
not proposing to reconfigure and auction the Upper C-band for
terrestrial wireless use in Alaska or Hawaii, nor is there a pre-
existing and mature equipment ecosystem to facilitate Tribal licensee
deployments and use of the spectrum in the near term.
2. Licensing and Operating Rules
26. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission adopted licensing,
operating, and technical rules to encourage efficient use of spectrum
resources and promote investment in the Lower C-band while protecting
incumbent users both in-band and in adjacent bands. Building on the
Commission's prior decision to license terrestrial mobile operations in
the 3.7-3.98 GHz portion of the C-band under our part 27 flexible use
rules, we propose to adopt similar licensing and operating rules that
provide the flexibility to align new licenses in the Upper C-band with
existing licenses in the Lower C-band already governed by part 27. By
providing a consistent framework for development and implementation
across the Upper and Lower C-band, we aim to harmonize the entire
repurposed band for mobile terrestrial use with the expectation that it
will yield significant economies of scale and accelerate the deployment
of cutting-edge technologies, such as 5G and eventually 6G. We invite
comment on this approach.
27. We also seek to afford new terrestrial wireless licensees the
flexibility to align licenses in the Upper and Lower C-band with
licenses in other spectrum bands also governed by part 27 of the
Commission's rules. We therefore propose that new licensees in the
Upper C-band comply with licensing and operating rules that are
applicable to all part 27 services, including those rules relating to
the assignment of licenses by competitive bidding, flexible use,
regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting, compliance with
construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance
of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing.
We seek comment on this approach and ask commenters to identify any
aspects of our general part 27 service rules that should be modified to
accommodate the particular characteristics of the Upper C-band.
28. In addition, we seek comment on whether to adopt service-
specific rules in several areas for the Upper C-band, or integrate the
Upper C-band into those rules already applicable to the Lower C-band,
including eligibility, license term, performance requirements, renewal
term construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules.
In addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that
commenters propose.
a. Band Plan
29. Block Size. For the Lower C-band, the Commission issued
licenses in 20 megahertz sub-blocks to provide sufficient flexibility
for interested bidders to tailor their decisions based on the
anticipated clearing costs and accelerated relocation payment
obligations associated with a particular amount of spectrum or
geographic license area. To facilitate the provision of 5G services,
the Commission defined uniform block sizes of 100 megahertz that would
run across the entire Lower C-band and allowed new flexible-use
licensees to acquire 100 megahertz blocks by aggregating 20 megahertz
sub-blocks through the competitive bidding process. In doing so, the
Commission ensured that Lower C-band spectrum was licensed in
sufficiently wide bandwidths to enable 5G deployments. Moreover, the
use of 20 megahertz sub-blocks provided sufficient flexibility for
manufacturers and licensees to tailor application of the band to suit
future needs, especially when considering that LTE can be made to
coexist within or

[[Page 56082]]

adjacent to 5G operations. Consistent with Lower C-band, we propose to
issue at least 100 megahertz of Upper C-band licenses in 20 megahertz
blocks, to facilitate the ability of licensees in both portions of the
band to further aggregate mid-band spectrum they need for 5G deployment
and enable complementary deployments across the entire band. We invite
comment on this proposal. Correspondingly, we also seek comment on
whether a block size approach similar to Lower C-band would be
appropriate for the wireless technologies that are likely to be
deployed in Upper C-band and whether 20 megahertz continues to be the
appropriate block size to accommodate a wide range of terrestrial
wireless services and provide sufficient bandwidth to support 5G and
eventually 6G services.
30. Alternatively, would a mix of channel sizes improve efficiency
and flexibility for a wider variety of users in the band? Should we
consider smaller block sizes to create opportunities for a wider
variety of entities to compete for licenses at auction? For example, in
the 3.45 GHz Band 2d R&O, where only 100 megahertz was available for
auction, the Commission determined that smaller 10-megahertz blocks
would best serve our dual goals of making spectrum available to a
diverse array of entities while also enabling licensees to obtain
sufficient spectrum rights for deploying wideband networks. Or should
we license the Upper C-band in larger block sizes (e.g., 50-100
megahertz)? Should the specific transition mechanism ultimately adopted
by the Commission dictate the appropriate block size for the Upper C-
band? What types of services or applications do prospective licensees
envision providing using this spectrum? How does the choice of channel
block size impact the ability to deliver these services and
applications in terms of sufficient capacity as well as network
robustness? Commenters who support an alternative approach should
support their proposals with detailed cost benefit analyses.
31. Spectrum Block Configuration. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the
Commission found that an unpaired spectrum block configuration provides
licensees the flexibility necessary to increase the capacity of their
networks and make the most efficient use of Lower C-band spectrum. We
propose to adopt the same unpaired spectrum block configuration to
ensure continuity, spectral efficiency and maximum flexibility for
licensees across the Upper and Lower C-band. We invite comment on this
approach and on any alternate proposals, including auctioning paired
spectrum blocks. Commenters who support an alternative approach should
support their proposals with detailed cost benefit analyses.
32. Use of Geographic Licensing. Consistent with our approach in
other bands used to provide fixed and mobile services, we propose to
license the Upper C-band on an exclusive, geographic area basis.
Geographic area licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes
efficient spectrum use, and helps facilitate rapid assignment of
licenses, utilizing competitive bidding when necessary. We seek comment
on this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a
geographic area licensing scheme. Parties who do not support the use of
geographic licensing should explain their position, describe the type
of licensing scheme they prefer, and identify the costs and benefits
associated with an alternative licensing proposal.
33. Geographic License Area. For Lower C-band, the Commission
decided to issue flexible-use licenses on a Partial Economic Area (PEA)
basis for 20 megahertz sub-blocks in the contiguous United States and
the District of Columbia because the PEA license-area size best
optimizes and balances our statutory and regulatory objectives in
licensing spectrum. Consistent with that approach, we propose to
license the Upper C-band on a PEA basis as well and invite commenters
to indicate whether they support the continued use of PEA service areas
to issue additional flexible use licenses in the Upper C-band. In line
with our proposal to align both portions of the band by adopting a
common part 27 flexible-use licensing approach and similar technical
rules, we tentatively conclude that licensing on a PEA basis would
further facilitate harmonization in the Upper and Lower C-band,
increase the availability of spectrum aggregation opportunities for 5G
services across the entire band, and encourage auction participation
for large, regional, and small carriers for new Upper C-band licenses.
Based on our experience with the Lower C-band, we also tentatively
conclude that licensing on a PEA basis in the contiguous United States
and the District of Columbia is likely to increase competition, spur
investment, and make next generation technologies available sooner and
on a larger scale than smaller or larger license areas would. Parties
who oppose the use of PEAs should explain their position, describe the
type of geographic licensing areas they prefer instead, and identify
the costs and benefits associated with a different service area
approach.
34. While the reconfiguration options discussed supra do not
anticipate issuing licenses for areas outside the contiguous United
States in the Upper C-band, we nonetheless seek comment on whether we
should adopt a licensing approach for certain areas outside the
contiguous United States. In AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for the Gulf area. In the Lower C-
band, the Commission decided not to issue flexible-use licenses for
PEAs including Honolulu, Anchorage, Kodiak, Fairbanks, Juneau, Puerto
Rico, Guam-Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and the Gulf. Commenters who advocate for this approach should
discuss what boundaries should be used, and whether special
interference protection criteria or performance requirements may be
necessary due to the unique radio propagation characteristics and
antenna siting challenges that may exist in these areas, and address
any unique impacts on these markets were we to reallocate them from FSS
service to terrestrial wireless service.
b. Application Requirements and Eligibility
35. Eligibility. Consistent with established Commission practice in
the Lower C-band and elsewhere, we propose to adopt an open eligibility
standard for licenses in the Upper C-band. We seek comment on this
approach and whether it would encourage efforts to develop new
technologies, products, and services, while helping to ensure efficient
use of this spectrum. We note that an open eligibility approach would
not affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable
qualifications that may apply under our rules. Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on
competition, innovation, and investment. Finally, we note that a person
who has been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of
the federal government from bidding on a contract, participating in an
auction, or receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a license that is
required by 47 U.S.C. chapter 13 (the Spectrum Act) to be assigned by a
system of competitive bidding under Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act. In the event that we assign licenses through
competitive bidding, we propose to apply this ineligibility provision
to the Upper C-band.
c. Mobile Spectrum Holdings
36. Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile
wireless

[[Page 56083]]

services, and to implement provisions of the Communications Act, the
Commission has developed policies to ensure that spectrum is assigned
in a manner that promotes competition, innovation, and efficient use.
We seek comment generally on whether and how to address any mobile
spectrum holdings issues involving the Upper C-band spectrum to meet
our statutory requirements and ensure competitive access to the band.
Similar to the Commission's approach in the 2020 C-band R&O, we propose
not to adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of any
entity to acquire spectrum in the Upper C-band through competitive
bidding at auction. Since such pre-auction limits may unnecessarily
restrict the ability of entities to participate in and acquire spectrum
in an auction, we are not inclined to adopt such limits absent a clear
indication that they are necessary to address a specific competitive
concern, and we seek comment on any specific concerns of this type.
Additionally, we propose to review holdings on a case-by-case basis
when applications for initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure
that the public interest benefits of having a threshold on spectrum
applicable to secondary market transactions are not rendered
ineffective. Finally, we propose to include the Upper C-band spectrum
in the Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to identify markets
that may warrant further competitive analysis, for evaluating proposed
secondary market transactions.
d. License Term
37. We propose a 15-year term for licenses in the Upper C-band. In
the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission found that a 15-year license term
was warranted as it would afford licensees sufficient time to achieve
significant build-out obligations post-transition and also encourage
investment in the Lower C-band given the clearing, relocation, and
repacking that had to occur prior to the introduction of mobile
operations. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of using the same
term in the instant context. In addition, we invite commenters to
submit alternate proposals for the appropriate license term, which
should include a discussion on the costs and benefits. Commenters
seeking to make adjustments to our proposal should explain how their
proposals reflect the process for any incumbent transition work that
has to occur before mobile operations can be deployed in the Upper C-
band.
e. Performance Requirements; Renewal
38. Performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that
licensed spectrum does not lie fallow, and are required for licenses
issued through competitive bidding. To that end, the Commission has
imposed different performance and construction requirements in various
spectrum bands based on the specific characteristics of each band in
order to ensure that spectrum is intensely and efficiently utilized in
the public interest. Although we propose to use the performance
requirements previously adopted for the Lower C-band, we also seek
comment on possible alternative approaches to each of the performance
requirements proposed below, including how we might facilitate access
to portions of this band or geographic areas that are not ultimately
assigned or used.
39. Mobile or Point-to-Multipoint Performance Requirements. In the
2020 C-band R&O, the Commission required Lower C-band licensees
offering mobile or point-to-multipoint services to provide reliable
signal coverage and offer service to at least 45% of the population in
each of their license areas within eight years of the license issue
date (first performance benchmark), and to at least 80% of the
population in each of their license areas within 12 years from the
license issue date (second performance benchmark). These performance
milestones were designed to provide sufficient time for incumbent
operations to transition out of the Lower C-band given that new
flexible-use licensees could not commence operations until the
necessary band clearing had been completed. Faced with a similar but
potentially more complex transition in the current context, we propose
to apply the same benchmarks for new terrestrial mobile licensees in
the Upper C-band as we did in the Lower C-band. We believe that our
proposal will provide sufficient time for incumbents to transition
their operations and for new Upper C-band flexible-use licensees to
deploy and meet the requisite coverage requirements once the license
area has been cleared. We also believe that providing clear benchmarks
will provide greater certainty for licensees, ensure investment, and
encourage robust deployment of valuable mid-band spectrum in the public
interest. We seek comment on this proposal, and whether it strikes the
appropriate balance between license-term length and a significant final
build-out requirement.
40. We also seek comment on any potential alternatives. We invite
commenters to indicate whether we should consider adjustments to the
proposed performance benchmarks for the Upper C-band and explain their
rationale for proposing such adjustments. We also seek comment on
whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect
to build-out requirements such that they require certain accommodations
or additional time to comply. Commenters should discuss and quantify
how any build-out requirements they support will affect investment and
innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other associated costs and
benefits.
41. Alternate internet-of-Things (IoT) Performance Requirements. We
note that licensees providing IoT-type fixed and mobile services may
benefit from an alternative performance benchmark metric in contrast
with those we may impose on fixed and mobile services. In the 2020 C-
band R&O, the Commission found that the use of geographic coverage
levels would maintain reasonable parity between performance
requirements for IoT providers and performance requirements for mobile
providers relying on population-based coverage metrics. As a result,
the Commission provided Lower C-band licensees the flexibility to
demonstrate that they offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the
license area at the first (eight-year) performance benchmark, and
geographic area coverage of 65% of the license area at the second (12-
year) performance benchmark. The Commission adopted this framework to
provide enough certainty to licensees to encourage investment and
deployment as soon as possible, while retaining enough flexibility to
accommodate both traditional services and innovative services or
deployment patterns. In addition, the Commission asserted that a
performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or presence)
allows for networks that provide meaningful service but deploy along
lines other than residential population. Although the Commission
adopted an additional performance metric to facilitate the deployment
of IoT and other innovative services, it also emphasized that there is
no requirement that a licensee build a particular type of network or
provide a particular type of service in order to use whatever metric it
selects to meet its performance requirement.
42. We propose to adopt the geographic area coverage levels applied
in the Lower C-band as alternative IoT performance benchmarks for the
Upper C-band and invite commenters to provide input on our proposal,
which we believe will provide sufficient time

[[Page 56084]]

for FSS incumbent operators to transition their operations and for new
Upper C-band flexible-use licensees to deploy and meet the requisite
coverage requirements. We also believe that our proposed benchmarks
will provide enough certainty to licensees to encourage investment and
deployment as soon as possible, while affording them enough flexibility
to accommodate both traditional services and innovative services or
deployment patterns. We invite commenters to submit alternate proposals
or to indicate whether we should consider adjustments to the proposed
performance benchmarks and explain their rationale for proposing such
adjustments.
43. Fixed Point-to-Point under Flexible Use. For licensees
providing fixed, point-to-point links, the Commission generally has
evaluated build-out by comparing the number of links in operation to
the population of the license area. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the
Commission adopted a requirement that part 27 geographic area licensees
providing Fixed Service in the Lower C-band must demonstrate within
eight years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark)
that they have four links operating and providing service, either to
customers or for internal use, if the population within the license
area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission required licensees
providing point-to-point service to demonstrate they have 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. Licensees
relying on point-to-point service were required to demonstrate within
12 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, the Commission required a
demonstration that the licensee is providing service and has at least
two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a license area.
44. We propose adopting performance standards that are consistent
with the benchmarks for Lower C-band for Upper C-band licensees relying
on point-to-point service. For the same reasons as stated above, we
believe that extending the Lower C-band framework will afford
sufficient time for FSS incumbent operators to transition their
operations and for new Upper C-band flexible-use licensees to deploy
and meet the requisite coverage requirements once the license area has
been cleared of FSS operations. We invite the public to comment on this
proposal and on any adjustments or alternative proposals, as well as
their basis for proposing such adjustments or alternatives. Commenters
should also discuss and quantify how any proposed performance
requirements will impact investment and innovation, as well as discuss
and quantify other costs and benefits associated with the proposal in
question.
45. Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements. To
encourage compliance with our performance benchmarks, we propose
imposing meaningful and enforceable penalties on Upper C-band licensees
that fail to timely build-out. Consistent with our decision in the 2020
C-band R&O, we propose to adopt a rule requiring that, in the event a
licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's
second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years,
thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years
sooner (at 10 years into the license term) and correspondingly reducing
its license term to 13 years. As with the approach the Commission took
in the Lower C-band, we further propose that, in the event a licensee
fails to meet the second 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.
46. In the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates
automatically, we propose that the licensee's spectrum rights would
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. Consistent with
the Commission's rules applicable to Lower C-band and in other bands,
we propose that any Upper C-band licensee that forfeits its license for
failing to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from
regaining the spectrum rights covered by the license. We invite
comments on these proposals. Is the approach that the Commission
adopted for the Lower C-band transition appropriate for the Upper C-
band? Commenters should address the costs and benefits of our
proposals, and of any suggested alternatives.
47. Compliance Procedures. In addition to the compliance procedures
applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, we propose that such
electronic coverage maps must accurately depict both the boundaries of
each licensed area and the coverage boundaries of the actual areas to
which the licensee provides service. If a licensee does not provide
reliable signal coverage to its entire license area, we propose that
its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas
within each license area not being served. Further, we propose 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 provide 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 our proposal. 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.
48. License Renewal. We propose applying the general renewal
requirements applicable to all Wireless Radio Services (WRS) licensees
to licensees in the Upper C-band. As explained in further detail below,
we believe that this approach will promote consistency across the Upper
and Lower C-band.
49. Renewal Term Construction Obligation. We propose to apply our
general part 27 renewal requirements for wireless licenses to the Upper
C-band, as the Commission has for the Lower C-band, 3.45 GHz band, and
the 3.55-3.7 GHz band. Correspondingly, we propose to include the Upper
C-band in the unified renewal framework for WRS. This means that Upper
C-band licensees will be required to comply with Sec. 1.949 of our
rules by demonstrating that, over the course of their license term,
they either: (1) provided and continue to provide service to the
public, or (2) operated and continue to operate the license to meet the
licensee's private, internal communications needs. Licensees can
demonstrate compliance with this requirement either through the renewal
showing in Sec. (f) of that rule, or the relevant safe harbor found in
Sec. (e). Consistent with other licensing rules we are proposing to
adopt in this item, we believe that our proposal to apply this renewal
standard to the Upper C-band will help create uniform flexible-use
licensing rules across the Upper and Lower C-band and facilitate the
deployment of next-generation wireless technologies.

[[Page 56085]]

50. In addition to, and independent of, the general renewal
provisions set forth in our rules, we seek comment on applying specific
renewal term construction obligations to Upper C-band licensees. In
particular, we invite comment on whether there are unique
characteristics of the Upper C-band that might warrant a different
approach than the general renewal requirements applicable to all WRS.
Do any of our proposals for the Upper C-band, such as longer license
terms, necessitate a more tailored approach than our general part 27
renewal requirements? Commenters advocating rules specific to the Upper
C-band should address the costs and benefits of their proposed rules
and discuss how a given proposal will encourage investment and
deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant
wireless coverage.
3. Technical Rules
51. In addition to the proposed licensing and operating rules
discussed supra, we seek comment on adopting technical rules that will
maximize potential uses of the Upper C-band for next generation
wireless technologies, encourage efficient use of spectrum resources,
and promote investment in the Upper C-band. As a general matter, we
propose to align the technical rules for this band segment with those
previously adopted for the adjacent Lower C-band to promote harmony and
standardization across the Upper and Lower C-band, to produce
significant economies of scale resulting in more affordable products
and services, rapid operational expansion, and deployment of high-
powered terrestrial 5G, and to align with global efforts. We seek
comment on this overarching proposal and its potential impact on
operations in adjacent bands, as well as on alternative approaches.
Specifically, we seek comment on appropriate power limits, out-of-band
emissions limits, antenna height limits, service area boundary limits,
international coordination requirements, and any other technical rules
that would provide the flexibility necessary to maximize use of the
band. We also ask that commenters provide detailed technical data in
support of their positions and any alternative approaches they may
advance in each of these areas.
a. Power Levels
52. Power Limits for Fixed and Base Stations. We propose to permit
base stations in non-rural areas to operate at power levels up to 1640
watts per megahertz EIRP and base stations in rural areas to operate
with double the non-rural power limits (3280 watts per megahertz EIRP).
Our proposal mirrors the Commission's decision to adopt power limits
under the part 27 flexible use rules for the Lower C-band and the 3.45
GHz band that are consistent with other broadband mobile services in
nearby bands (AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and PCS). Consistent with our
decisions in those bands, we believe that setting a higher power limit
for rural areas will further the Commission's objective of fostering
rural deployment of broadband services. Further, consistent with our
approach in the Lower C-band, we propose to adopt for the Upper C-band
the part 27 requirement that, in measuring transmissions using an
average power technique, the peak-to-average ratio (PAR) may not exceed
13 dB.
53. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission provided 3.7 GHz Service
licensees with the flexibility to optimize their system designs to
offer wide area coverage without sacrificing the flexibility needed to
address coexistence issues with incumbent FSS operations. Specifically,
we applied the same power density limit to all channel bandwidths to
facilitate uniform power distribution across a licensee's authorized
band, regardless of whether wideband or narrowband technologies are
being deployed. This approach aligns with that also adopted in the 3.45
GHz band, where such limit applies to emissions of all bandwidths,
including those of less than one megahertz, to facilitate uniform power
distribution across a licensee's authorized band regardless of whether
it deploys wideband or narrowband technologies.
54. Because advanced antenna systems often have multiple radiating
elements in the same sector, the Commission adopted power limits in the
3.45 GHz and Lower C-bands that apply to the aggregate power of all
antenna elements in any given sector of a base station. The Commission
found that adopting power levels consistent with other bands used for
wide area wireless operations (e.g., AWS) would permit the Lower C-band
to reach its full potential and licensees to achieve similar coverage,
creating network efficiencies between network deployments in different
spectrum bands. By adopting base station power limits that have spurred
development in other bands, the Commission sought in the Lower C-band
to promote investment and facilitate the rapid and robust deployment of
next-generation mobile broadband services, including 5G. On this basis,
we similarly propose to apply Sec. 27.50(j)(1) through (2) and (4)
through (5) of the Commission's rules to both fixed and base stations
operating in the Upper C-band. We invite comment on this proposal.
55. We also seek comment on alternative base station power limits.
We invite commenters who propose alternative solutions to provide
specific technical details and thorough analyses to support their
proposals, including the effect on receiver blocking or other aggregate
interference issues impacting receivers operating above and below the
band. In addition to providing this technical support, proponents
should outline the corresponding costs and benefits underlying their
proposals. Should power be composed of transmit conducted power and
antenna gain with some flexibility to ``mix and match'' both, or should
the rule only define the final power in EIRP? Although higher power
limits can facilitate deployment, what impact might this approach have
on adjacent bands? Are there particular circumstances or locations
where a different approach may be merited in consideration of adjacent
band operations?
56. Power Limits for Mobiles and Portables. We propose to adopt a 1
Watt (30 dBm) EIRP power limit for mobile devices, matching the
standards adopted for the Lower C-band and the 3.45 GHz band. In the
2020 C-band R&O, the Commission found that a 1 Watt limit provides
adequate power for robust mobile service deployment and also permits
operation of mobile device power classes as outlined in the 5G
standards given that mobile devices typically operate at levels below 1
Watt to preserve battery life and meet both human exposure limits and
power control requirements. In recognition that 3.7 GHz Service
licensees are expected to deploy much wider channel bandwidths and will
operate in exclusively licensed spectrum, the Commission indicated that
it was adopting a mobile device power limit intended to provide
consistency between mobile 5G deployments in the Lower C-band and
comparable macro cell deployment in the PCS, AWS, and similar bands.
57. Similarly, in the 3.45 GHz Band 2d R&O, the Commission found
that providing consistency between mobile 5G deployments in various
bands is crucial for the entire 3 GHz band to reach its full potential
and therefore aligned the mobile power limit for the 3.45 GHz band with
that adopted for the Lower C-band. The Commission concluded that this
mobile power limit will provide an adequate range for operation of
different mobile and fixed broadband deployments across a wide variety
of use cases and permit operation of mobile power classes as

[[Page 56086]]

outlined in the 3GPP standards. In light of this precedent, we invite
comment on our proposed power limit for mobiles and portables operating
in the Upper C-band. We also seek comment on whether alternative mobile
station power limits should be considered based on expected use cases.
Commenters supporting alternative mobile power limits should include a
technical justification for such power limits and a detailed evaluation
of any coexistence issues. Commenters should also provide an analysis
of the costs and benefits of their proposals.
b. Out-of-Band Emissions
58. Base Station Out-of-Band Emissions. As a baseline matter, we
propose here to adopt base station out-of-band emission (OOBE)
requirements consistent with the limits adopted for the Lower C-band.
For the Lower C-band, base stations were required to suppress their
emissions beyond the edge of their authorization to a conducted power
level of -13 dBm/MHz. The Commission adopted this limit because it is
consistent with emission limits established for many other mobile
broadband services as well as those established for 5G technologies by
standards bodies, and has been widely accepted as being adequate for
reducing unwanted emissions into adjacent bands. We seek comment on
whether to harmonize the limits applied to the Lower and Upper C-bands,
generally on what the appropriate limits should be, and whether they
should diverge from the baseline cited supra. We also seek comment on
whether the same or different OOBE limits should be applied to
emissions within the band as compared to those at either edge of the
band. Should we consider additional requirements beyond the upper and
lower band edges similar to the two-step limits adopted in the 3.45 GHz
and CBRS bands to facilitate widespread deployment of next-generation
wireless services while ensuring effective coexistence with incumbent
federal and non-federal services operating in adjacent bands?
59. For base station OOBE, we also propose to adopt the same part
27 measurement procedures and resolution bandwidth that are currently
used for the Lower C-band. Specifically, the resolution bandwidth used
to determine compliance with the base station limit is 1 megahertz or
greater, except that within the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside
and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block where a resolution
bandwidth of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental
emission of the transmitter may be employed. We seek comment on our
proposal to apply the part 27 measurement procedures and resolution
bandwidth and invite input on alternative approaches to defining
resolution bandwidth.
60. Mobile Out-of-Band Emissions. We propose to adopt a mobile OOBE
limit that is consistent with the service rules adopted for the Lower
C-band. Specifically, we propose to require mobile units to suppress
their conducted emissions to no more than -13 dBm/MHz outside their
authorized frequency band, i.e., at the authorized channel edge as
measured at the antenna terminals. We also propose to adopt the same
measurement procedure as we adopted for the Lower C-band where a
narrower resolution bandwidth can be used to measure the OOBE limits in
the spectrum immediately adjacent to the channel edge. For emissions
within 1 megahertz from the channel edge, the minimum resolution
bandwidth would be either one percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter or 350 kilohertz. In the bands
between one and five megahertz removed from the licensee's authorized
frequency block, the minimum resolution bandwidth would be 500
kilohertz. We believe that this proposal will promote consistency
between mobile 5G deployments in various bands and does not increase
the potential for OOBE to cause harmful interference and seek comment
on that belief. We seek comment generally on whether to harmonize the
mobile OOBE limits applied to the Lower and Upper C-bands, generally on
what the appropriate limits should be, and whether they should diverge
from the baseline cited supra.
61. Other OOBE Limit Issues. As noted in the 2020 C-band R&O, the
Commission adopted provisions that permit licensees in the Lower C-band
to implement private agreements with adjacent block licensees to exceed
the adopted OOBE limits. In addition, like other part 27 services, the
2020 C-band R&O applied Sec. 27.53(i) to the Lower C-band, providing
that the Commission may, in its discretion, require greater attenuation
than specified in the rules if an emission outside of the authorized
bandwidth causes harmful interference. Consistent with this approach,
we propose to apply Sec. Sec. 27.53(h)(4) and 27.53(i) to the Upper C-
band as well. We seek comment on our proposal and invite commenters to
indicate whether harmonizing the OOBE limit for Upper and Lower C-band
segments will help facilitate broader deployment of multi-band 5G radio
equipment that can operate across the 3 GHz bands. What would be the
impact of implementing a consistent OOBE limit across Upper and Lower
C-band segments relative to immediately adjacent FSS operations or
operations in nearby channels in the 3.5 GHz band? How might any such
impacts be addressed? Finally, we also seek comment on whether base
station power levels or OOBE limits should be adjusted to promote
coexistence with radio altimeters operating in the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz
band.
c. Antenna Height Limits
62. Consistent with the existing part 27 AWS rules and Lower C-band
and 3.45 GHz band requirements, none of which impose antenna height
limits on antenna structures, we propose to not restrict antenna
heights for Upper C-band operations beyond any requirements necessary
to ensure air navigation safety. In both the Lower C-band and 3.45 GHz
proceedings, the Commission noted that rather than using antenna height
limits to reduce interference between mobile service licensees, as had
been done in the past, it has more recently used field strength limits
at service boundaries to provide licensees more flexibility to design
their systems while still ensuring harmful interference protection
between systems. Furthermore, the limitations of field strength at the
geographical boundary of the license also effectively limit antenna
heights. Given its success in other services, the Commission adopted
the same approach in the Lower C-band as well as the 3.45 GHz band. We
propose to take the same approach here as well and seek comment on this
proposal, including its costs and benefits along with those associated
with any alternative approaches that may be advanced.
d. Service Area Boundary Limit
63. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission adopted a -76 dBm/m\2\/
MHz power flux density (PFD) limit at a height of 1.5 meters above
ground at the geographical border of 3.7 GHz Service licensees' service
areas. We propose to apply the same service area boundary limit for any
new terrestrial wireless licensees in the upper portion of the band. As
the Commission previously observed, the -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz PFD limit is
the same as what we established for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS), and it is both easy to measure and scales with channel
bandwidth to offer licensees flexibility for demonstrating compliance.
We seek comment on this proposal. Is this an appropriate limit in the
Upper C-band, or should we impose a different service area boundary
power

[[Page 56087]]

limit than that which applies to the 3.7 GHz Service in the lower
portion of the band? Would some other limit better protect
geographically adjacent licensees from co-channel interference?
e. International Boundary Requirements
64. We propose to apply Sec. 27.57(c) of the Commission's rules to
terrestrial licensees in the Upper C-band, consistent with the approach
that was adopted for the Lower C-band. Section 27.57(c) requires all
part 27 operations to comply with international agreements for
operations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. Under this provision,
licensee operations must not cause harmful co-interference across the
border, consistent with the terms of agreements currently in force. We
note that modification of the existing rules might be necessary in
order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico
regarding the use of these bands. We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of any alternative approaches.
f. Other Part 27 Rules
65. Consistent with the approach taken in the Lower C-band, we
propose to once again adopt several additional technical rules that are
applicable to all part 27 services, including Sec. Sec. 27.51
(Equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (Frequency
stability), and part 1, subpart BB of the Commission's rules
(Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Patterns) for new
terrestrial commercial wireless operations in the Upper C-band. As
observed in the 2020 C-band R&O, because the Upper C-band will be a
part 27 service, we believe that these rules implement important
safeguards for all wireless services to ensure that devices meet RF
safety limits and that the potential for harmful interference to other
operations is minimized. We seek comment on this proposal. Should we
consider a different approach with respect to the adoption of these
generally applicable part 27 technical rules to govern new terrestrial
wireless licenses in the Upper C-band? Are there other generally
applicable rules, not listed above, that we should apply to these new
Upper C-band operations?
66. We also propose to require client devices to be capable of
operating across any portion of the Upper C-band that is allocated for
terrestrial commercial wireless operations, as the Commission has done
for other part 27 services since 2014. Specifically, we propose to add
any such portion of the Upper C-band to Sec. 27.75, which requires
mobile and portable stations operating in the 600 MHz band and certain
AWS-3 bands to be capable of operating across the relevant band using
the same air interfaces that the equipment uses on any frequency in the
band. The Commission observed in the 2020 C-band R&O that cross-band
operability is important to ensure a robust equipment market for all
licensees. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there a reason not to
apply Sec. 27.75 to new terrestrial wireless licensees in the Upper C-
band?
g. Protection of Incumbent FSS Earth Stations
67. For any repacked FSS operations in the C-band band after the
proposed transition is complete, we propose to incorporate the existing
incumbent protection measures that apply to 3.7 GHz Service operations
in the Lower C-band and to apply them to new terrestrial wireless
licensees in the Upper C-band. These measures include: (1) a PFD limit
to protect registered FSS earth stations from out-of-band emissions
from Upper C-band operations; (2) a PFD limit to protect against
receiver blocking resulting from Upper C-band operations; and (3)
allowing full band/full arc use of the Upper C-band by FSS earth
stations.
68. To safeguard against out-of-band emissions, we propose to
require a PFD limit of -124 dBW/m\2\/MHz within the portion of the
Upper C-band that will continue to be used for FSS operations, as
measured at the registered incumbent earth station antenna. As with the
existing 3.7 GHz Service licensees in the Lower C-band, this PFD limit
would apply to all emissions within the earth station's authorized band
of operation, from both base and mobile stations. The Commission
concluded in the 2020 C-band R&O that compliance with a PFD limit like
the one we now propose was simpler and less burdensome on both FSS
earth station licensees and on new licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service to
implement than a power spectral density (PSD) limit would be. We seek
comment on this proposal in the instant context. Are the assumptions
from the past proceeding accurate and applicable to our proposed
licensing regime for the Upper C-band? If not, what alternative
approaches should we consider, and what costs and benefits would such
approaches entail?
69. In order to protect earth stations from receiver blocking, we
propose to require a PFD limit of -16 dBW/m\2\/MHz within the portion
of the Upper C-band that is repurposed for terrestrial wireless use, as
measured at the registered incumbent earth station antenna, and applied
across the transitioned frequency range. This blocking limit would
apply to all emissions within the new terrestrial wireless licensee's
authorized frequency range, and it is the same limit that we applied to
protect earth stations during the Lower C-band transition. Are the
assumptions from the past proceeding accurate and applicable to our
proposed licensing regime for the Upper C-band? If not, what
alternative approaches should we consider, and what costs and benefits
would such approaches entail?
70. Finally, we propose to allow full band/full arc use by FSS
earth stations that continue to operate in the band during and after
the transition process. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission noted
the need to offer flexibility to earth stations that, in that
proceeding, were transitioned above 4.0 GHz. We seek comment on this
proposal in the current context. Does the need for operational
flexibility still recommend retention of full band/full arc use? What
consequences would elimination of the policy hold for earth stations
and for new terrestrial wireless licensees in the Upper C-band? Should
we consider any alternative approaches, and what consequences such
alternatives impose?
h. Protection of TT&C Earth Stations
71. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission established protection
measures to safeguard Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C)
operations throughout the C-band until such operations can be relocated
to other bands. Incumbent space station operators were required to
identify and consolidate their TT&C operations to four locations within
the contiguous United States by December 5, 2021, and the Commission
indicated that it would not authorize any new TT&C operations elsewhere
in CONUS, except to facilitate that consolidation. TT&C operations are
protected at the consolidated locations until December 5, 2030, in
order to allow time for the launching of replacement satellites, and
after that date TT&C operations may operate in the C-band on an
unprotected basis. The Commission also authorized private negotiation
between incumbent space station operators and 3.7 GHz Service licensees
regarding TT&C sites, including early entry of 3.7 GHz Service
operations, and prolonged TT&C operations.
72. Are there additional TT&C sites which were not identified for
purposes of the Lower C-band transition that are active in the Upper C-
band? If so, could operations at those sites be consolidated or co-
located at already protected facilities? If additional sites are
identified, should they be protected from harmful interference through

[[Page 56088]]

December 5, 2030, consistent with our approach in the Lower C-band?
73. Co-channel Protection Criteria. We propose to maintain and
apply existing co-channel protection criteria to safeguard TT&C
operations in the C-band. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission
required 3.7 GHz Service licensees to ensure that the aggregated power
from their operations meet an interference to noise ratio (I/N) of -;6
dB as received by the TT&C earth station. The Commission also required
3.7 GHz Service licensees to coordinate their co-channel operations
within 70 km of TT&C earth stations that continued to operate in the
Lower C-band. The Commission observed in the 2020 C-band R&O that there
are few TT&C earth stations relative to other FSS earth stations, they
are run by highly qualified technical staff, and that a coordination
process accounting for terrain, shielding, polarization, and other
technical parameters will result in adequate earth station protection
and permit terrestrial use at a closer distance. Further, the usual
coordination process would presumably minimize the risk of harmful
interference; this process includes the expectation the 3.7 GHz Service
licensees take all practical steps necessary to protect TT&C
operations, operate in good faith, and cooperate to resolve any
interference issues via mutually satisfactory arrangements.
74. We seek comment on our proposal to apply the existing co-
channel protection criteria to TT&C operations throughout the C-band.
Do the assumptions that the Commission made in the 2020 C-band R&O
regarding aggregated power and coordination distance remain accurate
and applicable? Has the coordination framework proven to be sufficient
and workable for affected operators? Have the protection criteria
sufficed, both for 3.7 GHz Service licensees and for TT&C operations?
Should we consider alternative protection criteria, and if so, what
criteria would be appropriate? Commenters proposing alternatives should
supply detailed technical information to support their positions.
75. Adjacent Channel Protection Criteria. We also propose to
maintain existing criteria to protect TT&C operations in the C-band
from adjacent channel interference due to out-of-band emissions,
including: (1) aggregated power from adjacent 3.7 GHz Service
operations must meet a -6 dB I/N ratio, and the limit would apply to
all emissions removed from the TT&C's center frequency by more than
150% of the TT&C's necessary emission bandwidth; (2) we would not
require prior coordination between adjacent operations, but 3.7 GHz
Service licensees and TT&C earth station operators would be expected to
cooperate in good faith and make reasonable efforts to anticipate and
resolve technical problems that may inhibit effective and efficient use
of the spectrum; and (3) TT&C operators would be expected to make
available pertinent technical information about their systems upon
request by the 3.7 GHz Service licensees, and licensees of stations
suffering or causing harmful interference would be expected to
cooperate and resolve the problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements.
76. To provide protection from potential receiver overload, we
propose to require that: (1) base stations and mobile devices meet a
PFD limit of -16 dBW/m\2\/MHz, as measured at the TT&C earth station
antenna; (2) this blocking limit applies to all emissions within the
3.7 GHz Service licensee's authorized band of operation and protect
TT&C earth stations based on the assumption that robust, custom filters
have been installed at those facilities, like other FSS earth stations;
(3) TT&C filter quality must provide a minimum of 60 dB of rejection,
and the frequency at which the filter must meet this 60 dB of rejection
would vary with the bandwidth; (4) TT&C filters must meet 60 dB of
rejection for all frequencies removed from the center frequency by more
than 150% of the TT&C's emission bandwidth, both above and below the
channel; (5) the filter must provide 70 dB of rejection for all
frequencies removed from the TT&C's center frequency by more than 250%
of the TT&C's emission bandwidth, both above and below; and (6) in the
event of a claim of harmful interference, the earth station operator
must demonstrate that they have installed a filter that complies with
the mask described above, and if they have not installed such a filter
or are unable to make such a demonstration, and the 3.7 GHz Service
licensee can confirm it meets the PFD, the TT&C operator would have to
accept the interference.
77. We seek comment on our proposal to maintain the existing
adjacent channel interference protection criteria for TT&C operations.
Do our previous assumptions regarding aggregated power, blocking
protections, and the workability of the coordination framework remain
true? What, if any, alternatives might be appropriate in light of the
past several years of experience and technical developments?
i. Other Matters
78. Lastly, in its Upper C-band NOI comments, NTIA stated that in
the 3.98-4.2 GHz band there are a limited number of radio astronomy
sites that operate on an opportunistic basis (i.e., no primary
allocation), primarily located in remote areas where natural isolation
aids in mitigating interference. We seek comment on whether we should
take steps to facilitate coordination between wireless operations in
the band and operations at these radio astronomy sites, including the
costs and benefits of any proposed measures.

C. The Transition of FSS Operations

79. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission transitioned incumbent
services out of the Lower C-band and into the upper 200 megahertz of
the C-band by relying on the Emerging Technologies framework to
facilitate the swift transition of spectrum from one use to another.
Specifically for incumbent FSS services, the Commission required
overlay licensees to pay for the reasonable transition costs of
eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators
that were required to clear the lower 300 megahertz of the C-band
spectrum in the contiguous United States.
80. As discussed in further detail below, we propose adopting many
of the same transition framework elements used for the Lower C-band for
the Upper C-band transition of incumbent FSS operations. We seek
comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether there are any
improvements that should be made to certain elements of the Lower C-
band transition framework based on technological advances or lessons
learned during that process which will facilitate our efforts to meet
Congress' mandate of completing a system of competitive bidding ``for
not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2
gigahertz'' by July 4, 2027. In addition, we seek comment on whether
modifications to the elements of the transition framework are necessary
to accommodate whatever reconfiguration option we elect for the Upper
C-band.
1. Definition of Incumbent FSS Operations
81. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission defined the classes of
incumbent FSS space station and earth station operations that would be
transitioned out of the Lower C-band and reimbursed for their
transition costs consistent with our Emerging

[[Page 56089]]

Technologies precedent. Identification of these incumbent FSS
operations was an important step toward providing clarity about the
transition process and informing auction bidders about the costs they
would incur as a condition of their overlay license. With these same
goals in mind, below we seek comment on the appropriate definitions to
identify the specific incumbent FSS space station and incumbent earth
station operators that are relevant for purposes of the next proposed
transition, using the Lower C-band model as a guide.
82. Incumbent Space Station Operators. For purposes of the Lower C-
band transition, the Commission determined that ``incumbent space
station operators'' would generally include all space station operators
authorized to provide C-band service to any part of the contiguous
United States pursuant to an FCC-issued license or grant of market
access as of June 21, 2018. On that date, the Commission's former
International Bureau issued a temporary freeze on certain new space
station applications in order to preserve the landscape of authorized
operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and that freeze remains in place.
At the time of the 2020 C-band R&O, eight entities qualified under this
definition, but since then certain of those entities have either ceased
operations in the contiguous United States or merged with other
incumbent space station operators. Today, the remaining entities that
qualify under this definition are: Empresa, Eutelsat, Hispasat, SES,
and Telesat. We propose to use the same baseline definition of
incumbent space station operators for purposes of the forthcoming Upper
C-band transition, while accounting for any intervening changes in the
legal or operational status of those entities since the Lower C-band
transition, and seek comment on this proposal.
83. For purposes of transition cost reimbursement, the Commission
defined an ``eligible space station operator'' as an incumbent space
station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it
has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite
transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous
United States. At the time of the 2020 C-band R&O, five of the
incumbent space station operators qualified as `eligible' under this
definition. Today, the remaining entities that would qualify under this
definition and continue to provide service to one or more incumbent
earth stations within the contiguous United States are: Eutelsat, SES,
and Telesat. We propose to use the same baseline definition of eligible
space station operators for purposes of the forthcoming Upper C-band
transition, with the requirement that each must still provide service
to one or more incumbent earth stations within the contiguous United
States, and seek comment on this proposal.
84. Incumbent Earth Stations. The Commission previously defined
``incumbent earth stations'' for the Lower C-band transition to include
fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of
April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were
licensed or registered in the ICFS database on November 7, 2018; and
(3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the
Commission by May 28, 2019. As with space stations, a freeze on the
filing of new or modified earth station applications throughout the
entire C-band was issued on April 19, 2018--the qualifying date for
incumbency--and the freeze remains in place. Throughout the Lower C-
band transition, Commission staff continuously updated its list of
incumbent earth stations found to qualify under these criteria, the
most recent of which was issued on November 19, 2025. \.\
85. We propose to retain the existing definition of incumbent earth
stations for purposes of the Upper C-band transition, using the most
recently released incumbent earth station list for the Lower C-band
transition as the baseline going forward. We seek comment on this
proposal, and any considerations we should keep in mind given the
passage of time since the Lower C-band transition.
2. Clearing FSS Operations in the Upper C-band
86. As noted above, we propose to adopt rules to reconfigure the
Upper C-band landscape. and to use our authority under Section 316 of
the Communications Act to modify, as needed, the existing licenses,
market access authorizations, and registrations currently held by FSS
C-band incumbents to clear whatever portion of the Upper C-band we
ultimately reallocate.
a. Clearing Space Station Operations
87. The OBBB Act directs the Commission to grant licenses through a
system of competitive bidding for at least 100 megahertz of the Upper
C-band. This directive necessitates modification of the space station
operator licenses and market authorizations that operate in whatever
portion of the band we ultimately reallocate. We again propose to use
our authority under Section 316 of the Communications Act to accomplish
the legislative mandate in this context. We also propose to further
modify our existing rules to prohibit new applications for space
station licenses and new petitions for market access concerning space-
to-Earth operations in whatever portion of the band we reallocate in
the contiguous United States.
88. As observed in the 2020 C-band R&O, ``[s]ection 316 of the
Communications Act vests the Commission with broad authority to modify
licenses `if in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote
the public interest, convenience, and necessity.' '' Here we similarly
believe that modifying the authorizations of incumbent space station
operators to clear at least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band for
auction as required by Congress is within the Commission's statutory
authority, consistent with prior Commission practice, and will promote
the public interest, convenience, and necessity by increasing the
availability of wireless broadband services throughout the contiguous
United States. Commenters should explain any concerns with the proposed
reconfiguration options, which were proposed in furtherance of a clear
directive from Congress, and submit technical and other supporting
documents to inform the Commission's consideration of these issues. We
also seek comment on the extent to which implementation of our
reconfiguration proposals in the instant NPRM align with the clearing
approach taken in the Lower C-band transition.
89. We also seek comment on the specific clearing targets, steps,
and timing for any further FSS transition in the Upper C-band. Space
station operators have indicated that greater use of advanced
compression technologies, combined with the ongoing trend of customer
migrations to alternative distribution mechanisms, means that a
repacking and clearing of some portion of the Upper C-band might be
achievable in a shorter timeframe than that required for the Lower C-
band. We seek additional input and specifics from the incumbent space
station operators about their anticipated customer needs, the
trajectory of their capacity demands, the extent of potential capacity
gains that can be achieved by greater use of advanced compression, and
any other factors and considerations relating to the potential future
transition of their existing services. To the extent that any such
information may be confidential or

[[Page 56090]]

business sensitive in nature, we note that the incumbent space station
operators may request confidential treatment of some or all of the
information that they submit, consistent with the Commission's rules.
b. Clearing Earth Station Operations
90. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission modified the
registrations of receive-only earth stations but noted that, unlike
transmitting space stations, they are not licensees. Title III of the
Communications Act requires a license for ``the transmission of energy
or communications or signals by radio.'' The Commission has long
concluded that, because receive-only earth stations do not transmit,
they do not require a license under Section 301 of the Communications
Act. As such, past regulatory actions relating to receive-only earth
stations have been predicated on our Title I ancillary authority as
part of ``other regulatory responsibilities to maximize effective use
of satellite communications'' over which the Commission has express
Title III authority. The Commission is also empowered to make
reasonable regulations to prevent harmful interference to and among its
licensed users. We thus have an ongoing responsibility to modify this
registration regime for receive-only earth stations as appropriate to
ensure that it remains consistent with our regulation, in the public
interest, of the licensed satellite stations.
91. Accordingly, the Commission previously modified all necessary
earth station registrations to comport with the Lower C-band
reconfiguration adopted in the 2020 C-band R&O. Those modifications
limited the frequencies on which incumbent earth stations may receive
interference protection to the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band. As
the Commission further observed in the 2020 C-band R&O, a relatively
small number of earth stations that receive in the 4.0-4.2 GHz band are
licensed to transmit in another band (i.e., licensed transmit-receive
earth stations). Those licenses to transmit do not provide the earth
station operators with the right to do so in the C-band, where they
hold no licensed spectrum usage rights. To the extent that certain
incumbent earth stations have licenses to transmit in another band, we
believe that we have ample authority to propose to modify their
authorizations and their interference protection rights in the Upper C-
band once incumbent satellite operations have been relocated consistent
with our Section 316 authority. In light of the foregoing, we again
propose to modify incumbent earth station registrations consistent with
our regulation of the corresponding incumbent space stations,
regardless of the reconfiguration option we ultimately adopt for the
Upper C-band. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should
explain any concerns with the proposed reconfiguration options, which
were proposed in furtherance of a clear directive from Congress, and
submit technical and other supporting documents to inform the
Commission's consideration of these issues.
92. As noted by the incumbent space station operators, any
transition of existing C-band services will necessarily impact and must
be carefully coordinated with their customers. That said, C-band
utilization is gradually declining, particularly in terms of media
content services, with C-band customers switching to alternative
distribution technologies (including but not limited to Ku-band, fiber,
and content delivery networks) over time. To this end, we seek
additional information and input on how this trend may impact any
clearing of incumbent earth stations from the Upper C-band and on any
considerations specific classes of earth station operators, including
those in rural locations and with transportable facilities, may have.
3. Transition Schedule
93. We propose to set a specific transition deadline to ensure that
all incumbent FSS operations are cleared in a timely manner to
facilitate the introduction of terrestrial wireless services in the
Upper C-band and to provide potential auction bidders with some
certainty as to when they will be able to obtain access to Upper C-band
spectrum. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission found that it was in
the public interest to adopt a December 5, 2025 final deadline as it
would ensure that Lower C-band spectrum would be made available for
flexible use in a timely manner, while ensuring a smooth and
predictable transition of incumbent FSS services to the upper 200
megahertz of the band. The Commission also noted that setting a
specific transition deadline would make sure that eligible space
station operators, incumbent earth station operators, and other
stakeholders have the necessary time to complete the transition in a
careful, fair, and cost-effective manner. In addition to setting a
final transition deadline, the Commission also adopted a two-phased
accelerated schedule for eligible space station operators in the Lower
C-band who opted to transition on this basis in order to become
eligible for certain incentives.
94. We seek comment on whether a transition timeline of a similar
length (i.e., approximately five-and-a-half years from the adoption of
final rules) would be appropriate here as well and, if not, whether one
or more different deadline(s) should be used. We invite commenters to
indicate how quickly eligible space station operators and incumbent
earth station operators will be able to transition their Upper C-band
operations to make spectrum available for new terrestrial wireless
licensees. Specifically, commenters are encouraged to propose one or
more FSS transition deadline(s) they believe to be achievable and to
provide a step-by-step breakdown of what would be required from a
technical and operational standpoint to achieve a transition in a
timely manner, including but not limited to a description of the
technical steps of repacking or relocating incumbent FSS services, any
necessary compression equipment upgrades, and the need for construction
and launch of any new satellites, along with the corresponding time
frames for achieving each step. Parties commenting on the transition
timeline should address the extent of any transition-related
information needed at particular points in time for potential bidders
to participate effectively in an auction for any new licenses.
Commenters proposing one or more specific spectrum clearing deadlines
are also encouraged to indicate how their proposed deadline(s) might
change under the band reconfiguration options under consideration, and
how any in-band FSS transition timelines align with adjacent band
considerations discussed infra. We also seek comment on whether to
retain or modify the certification process by which eligible space
station operators, on an individual basis, demonstrated compliance with
the relevant Lower C-band deadlines, and on the potential costs and
penalties in the event that an incumbent space station operator fails
to clear their existing services by any final transition deadline that
we establish. Incumbent space station operators that failed to clear
their existing services by the final deadline for the Lower C-band
transition would not be eligible to receive reimbursement for their
reasonable transition costs or receive Accelerated Relocation Payments,
and could also be subject to penalties for violation of the conditions
of their license authorization. Further, we seek comment on the
viability of private negotiations among relevant parties to accomplish
earlier clearing than any

[[Page 56091]]

deadlines established by the Commission.
4. Transition Cost Reimbursement
95. As discussed in further detail infra, we propose to establish
an FSS transition cost reimbursement structure that is generally
consistent with the approach adopted by the Commission in the 2020 C-
band R&O. That model required new terrestrial wireless licensees in the
Upper C-band to reimburse the reasonable transition costs incurred by
eligible FSS space station and incumbent earth station operators
allocated the responsibility for those costs among the new terrestrial
wireless licensees on a pro rata basis. We further offered incumbent
earth station operators the choice of either accepting reimbursement
for their actual reasonable transition costs or accepting a lump sum
reimbursement for all of their incumbent earth stations based on the
average, estimated cost of transitioning those facilities. We seek
comment on the potential repurposing of these reimbursement mechanisms
and standards in the instant context, as well as whether there are any
improvements that could be made based on lessons learned from the Lower
C-band transition process. We acknowledge that, depending on the
reconfiguration option we ultimately adopt in the instant context, the
transition of the Upper C-band may differ in some important respects
from that in the Lower C-band including as to key transition actions
and related costs incurred. As such, we also seek comment on estimates
for the potential total amount of transition cost reimbursements for
FSS services in the Upper C-band for a given clearing target, and how
we may need to modify certain reimbursement mechanisms and standards
depending on what reconfiguration approach we ultimately adopt and how
incumbent services may be transitioned.
96. Compensable Transition Costs. In the Lower C-band proceeding,
the Commission set guidelines for compensable costs, i.e., those
reasonable transition costs for which eligible space station operators
and incumbent earth station operators were able to seek actual cost
reimbursement. In doing so, the Commission required all such transition
costs to be reasonable, and indicated that such expenses would be
compensable so long as they were both reasonable in cost and reasonably
necessary to complete the transition in a timely manner. While the
Commission allowed reimbursement for the reasonable replacement cost of
newer equipment needed to carry out the transition, it also indicated
that it would not permit reimbursement for equipment upgrades beyond
what was necessary to clear the lower portion of the band and cautioned
incumbents against attempts to gold-plate their systems. The Commission
emphasized that compensable transition costs were only those that are
reasonable and needed to transition existing operations in the
contiguous United States out of the lower 300 megahertz of the C-band.
Consistent with this approach, and as relevant to the reconfiguration
option we ultimately adopt in the instant proceeding, we propose to
again require any actual transition costs needed to clear existing
Upper C-band operations in the contiguous United States to be
``reasonable'' in order to qualify for reimbursement and will not
permit reimbursement for equipment upgrades beyond what is necessary to
clear the band. We further seek comment on whether the type of
reimbursable transition activities may differ in an Upper C-band
transition, particularly as to current FSS C-band customers that may
migrate to another satellite band or alternative delivery mechanism. We
also propose not to reimburse incumbents for the speculative value of
any business opportunities they claim they would lose as a result of
the transition, and any ``soft costs'' would again be subject to a
rebuttable presumption for a cap of 2% of the hard costs involved in
the transition. We invite comment on this proposal, and on whether any
clarifications or adjustments are needed to delineate what constitutes
reasonable in the context of the forthcoming Upper C-band transition.
97. In this context, we seek comment on certain issues relating to
compensable transition costs that were raised by stakeholders during
the Lower C-band transition which may likewise be relevant for an Upper
C-band transition depending on which reconfiguration option we
ultimately adopt. As in the Lower C-band transition, to the extent that
any unregistered earth stations, or registered earth stations that do
not meet the existing definition of an incumbent earth station, remain
operational in the C-band in the contiguous United States, our intent
is that such stations would not be eligible for reimbursement of
transition costs in the Upper C-band transition. We similarly clarify
our intent that--assuming that the Upper C-band transition is limited
to operations in CONUS, as proposed--earth stations outside CONUS but
within the United States would only be eligible for reimbursement of
transition costs where they ``demonstrate that they were required to
make the system modifications for which they seek reimbursement as a
direct result of the transition in the contiguous United States.''
Further, we propose that costs associated with facilities outside the
United States would not be eligible for any reimbursement of transition
costs, independent of any arguable relationship to the transition in
the contiguous United States. To be clear, with the limited exception
referenced above for earth stations within the United States but
outside the contiguous United States, the only C-band earth stations
that we propose would be eligible to have any reasonable transition
costs reimbursed in connection with the Upper C-band transition are
those within the contiguous United States that meet the proposed
incumbent earth station definition, are currently on the most recent
incumbent earth station list released by the Space Bureau, and that
remain on any successor lists issued in the future. In a similar vein,
we clarify our intent that any incumbent space station operators
seeking reimbursement for new satellites may only seek reimbursement
for reasonable transition costs that directly relate to and are
necessary to continue to offer C-band service to one or more incumbent
earth stations in the contiguous United States. As such, for any new
satellites that may carry other payloads, transmit using other spectrum
bands, or transmit C-band service into locations outside the contiguous
United States, we anticipate that the only costs which will be
compensable are those directly relating to the transition of C-band
services in the contiguous United States. We seek comment on this
approach, and how it might align with the different reconfiguration
options under consideration, and the potential migration of existing C-
band customers to Ku-band satellite service or other distribution
technologies.
98. Lump Sum Reimbursement Option. As noted supra, in the 2020 C-
band R&O, the Commission provided incumbent earth station operators
with the choice to either accept reimbursement for their actual
reasonable transition costs in maintaining C-band satellite reception,
or instead accept a lump sum reimbursement based on the average,
estimated costs of transitioning all of their incumbent earth stations.
The decision to accept a lump sum reimbursement was irrevocable--by
accepting the lump sum, the incumbent took on the risk that the lump
sum

[[Page 56092]]

would be insufficient to cover all its relocation costs--to ensure that
incumbents had the appropriate incentive to accept the lump sum only if
doing so is truly the more efficient option. Earth station operators
that elected the lump sum payment and were intending to remain
operating in the band were responsible for performing any necessary
transition actions themselves, and they were required to complete any
such work consistent with the space station operator's deadlines for
transition.
99. We propose to give incumbent earth station operators the same
choice in the instant transition to opt out of the formal transition
process through a lump sum reimbursement option, and seek comment on
whether we should again utilize the lump sum categories and general
procedures set forth in our cost category schedule (Cost Catalog) for
the Lower C-band transition. Proponents of any changes to the lump sum
reimbursement option should describe both the scope of intended lump
sum reimbursements as well as any new basis upon which to calculate the
lump sum amounts, or other adjustments thereto, such as for inflation.
For example, should lump sum payments now be premised on the cost of
potentially moving incumbent earth station operators to an alternate
distribution technology? How might the scope of lump sum reimbursements
differ under the band reconfiguration options we are considering for
Upper C-band? Could a modified and expanded lump sum regime essentially
replace or obviate the need to reimburse actual costs, resulting in a
more streamlined and efficient cost reimbursement program? We encourage
commenters to submit detailed breakdowns of any potential alternative
approaches to the lump sum option and also describe in detail the
methodology they would use to determine an appropriate lump sum payment
in lieu of actual cost reimbursement for incumbent earth station
operators in the instant context.
100. Allocating Payment Obligations Among Overlay Licensees. For
Lower C-band, the Commission explained the financial responsibilities
that each 3.7 GHz Service licensee would incur to reimburse incumbent
space station operators for clearing the band, as well as our authority
to require such payments as license conditions on the new 3.7 GHz
Service licensees consistent with our Emerging Technologies precedent.
Specifically, the Commission found it reasonable to generally base the
share for each 3.7 GHz Service licensee on that licensee's pro rata
share of gross winning bids in the underlying auction, with specific
allocation formulas governing each type of payment obligation. We
propose to utilize the same general payment obligation structure and
mechanisms used in Lower C-band and to again base the share of
transition costs for each new 3.7 GHz Service licensee on that
licensee's pro rata share of gross winning bids in the competitive
bidding process. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters are
invited to recommend alternative approaches with a detailed description
of the methodology behind their proposals. Would our methodology for
allocating payment obligations have to be modified based on whatever
reconfiguration option we adopt for the Upper C-band?
5. Incentives
101. We seek comment on the possible use of incentives to
facilitate the timely introduction of new terrestrial wireless
operations in the Upper C-band. For example, in the Lower C-band, the
Commission used incentives in the form of accelerated relocation
payments to eligible space station operators that voluntarily committed
to relocate on an accelerated two-phase schedule and met those
deadlines. The use of accelerated relocation payments to incentivize
eligible space station operators to voluntarily relocate by early
clearance benchmarks sought to leverage the technical and operational
knowledge of incumbent space station operators, align their incentives
to achieve a timely transition, and enable that transition to begin as
quickly as possible. As further incentive, the Commission determined
that eligible space station operators which failed to clear their
existing C-band services out of the lower band by either of the
Accelerated Relocation Deadlines would receive an incremental reduction
in the amount of accelerated relocation payment based on the number of
days that had passed since the deadline, with a payment of zero after
more than 180 days.
102. Given the different circumstances in the Upper and Lower C-
band--including the scope and scale of parties that may be seeking
transition cost reimbursement as well as the timing of any adjacent
band altimeter retrofits--would a similar incentive structure be
appropriate for eligible space station operators in the forthcoming
transition process? Will successful completion of the Upper C-band
transition to terrestrial wireless services be primarily dependent on
the expeditious clearing of incumbent FSS operations or will other
factors and other parties be the primary drivers of the transition
timeline? In light of these different considerations, what is the
economic value of accelerating the FSS transition in this instance? We
encourage parties supporting incentives for eligible space station
operators in the Upper C-band to submit detailed arguments, including
cost-benefit analyses, underlying their perspectives.
103. We also seek comment more generally on whether we should
consider incentives--monetary or otherwise--to facilitate expeditious
clearing of the Upper C-band. If so, who should be eligible for such
incentives, how should any responsibility thereto be allocated, and
what benchmarks should they be aligned with? If monetary in nature, how
should such incentives be calculated, and should there be any reduction
or elimination of incentives if the requisite deadlines are missed?
Commenters should also indicate how such an estimate would be impacted
by either of the band reconfiguration options we are considering. For
example, should any incentives hinge on the amount of spectrum to be
cleared?
6. Relocation Payment Clearinghouse
104. Consistent with our approach in the earlier transition, we
propose to again use an independent Clearinghouse to oversee the cost-
related aspects of the eventual Upper C-band transition, using a
similar selection process and imposing the same broad responsibilities
that were outlined in the 2020 C-band R&O. The Commission there noted
that selecting an independent third party for this purpose, subject to
the Commission's rules and oversight, would help to ensure fairness and
transparency in the handling of the reimbursement obligations
associated with the Lower C-band transition. At the time, the
Commission observed that it had previously and successfully adopted
cost-sharing plans that utilized private clearinghouses to administer
such reimbursement obligations among affected licensees. We believe,
based on the experience of the earlier C-band transition, that such an
approach would once again be in the public interest here. We seek
comment on this proposal and on ways to build upon the success of the
Lower C-band Clearinghouse in terms of potential improvements to any
new transition cost reimbursement program.
a. Duties of the Clearinghouse
105. In the 2020 C-band R&O, the Commission established that a
Clearinghouse would be responsible for carrying out four categories of
essential duties in connection with overseeing

[[Page 56093]]

the financial aspects of the Lower C-band transition. We propose to
task any new Clearinghouse that is ultimately selected to oversee the
financial aspects of the Upper C-band transition with broadly the same
responsibilities, described in more detail below.
106. First, the Commission charged the Clearinghouse with
collecting from all eligible space station operators and incumbent
earth station operators a showing of their transition relocation costs,
as well as a demonstration of those costs' reasonableness. Parties
submitted their costs to the Clearinghouse directly, which then
ascertained in the first instance whether the costs were reasonable,
and allowed submitting parties to supplement claims initially deemed
insufficient. Entities seeking reimbursement were required to document
all of their costs, and to justify them; these entities were subject to
audits and required to make all relevant documentation available to the
Clearinghouse upon its request. The Clearinghouse notified requesting
parties in the event that it deemed any claimed costs to be
unreasonable, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau was empowered
to make further determinations related to reimbursable costs, as
necessary, throughout the transition process.
107. Second, the Clearinghouse was tasked with apportioning costs
among new 3.7 GHz Service licensees and distributing payments to
eligible space station operators, incumbent earth station operators,
and appropriate surrogates of those parties that incurred compensable
costs. After the auction, the Clearinghouse calculated each 3.7 GHz
Service licensee's estimated share of the eventual relocation costs, as
well as an estimate of total costs from before the auction through the
first six months after it was complete. Licensees paid their shares of
the initial cost estimate into the Clearinghouse-administered
relocation fund shortly after the auction was complete, and the
Clearinghouse drew from that fund to reimburse approved claims. The
Clearinghouse calculated the estimated total program costs for every
six-month period until the transition was complete, notified the 3.7
GHz Service licensees of their amounts owed at least 30 days before
every six-month payment deadline, and reimbursed approved claims within
30 days of invoice submissions. The Clearinghouse included its own
reasonable costs in its six-month estimates and provided an annual
financial audit to the Office of the Managing Director and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau including those costs, which were paid by 3.7
GHz Service licensees once their licenses were issued.
108. Third, the Clearinghouse was directed to, as needed, act as a
special master and either mediate disputes related to cost estimates or
payments, or refer the parties to alternate dispute resolution fora.
The Commission also provided for expedited non-binding arbitration,
with costs shared by the disputing parties, and for review of any
disputes by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with the
opportunity for further review on appeal to the Commission.
109. Fourth, the Clearinghouse was required to provide quarterly
information and progress reports to the Commission in order to ensure
proper oversight of the Clearinghouse program. These reports included
information related to available funds for reimbursement, payments
issued, amounts collected from licensees, incumbents' certifications,
funds spent on the transition, and description of any disputes and
their resolutions. The Clearinghouse was also required to provide
additional information upon the request of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director.
110. We propose to task a new independent third-party Clearinghouse
with these same broad duties for the Upper C-band transition, and we
seek comment on this proposal. Should we retain the basic structure of
the processes by which the new 3.7 GHz Service licensees will replenish
the reimbursement fund and eligible incumbents submit reimbursement
claims for their reasonable transition costs? To the extent that a new
terrestrial wireless licensee relinquishes to the Commission its
license prior to all its transition payment responsibilities being
discharged, we again propose that the remaining payments will be
distributed among other similarly situated new terrestrial wireless
licensees. If a new license is issued for such previously relinquished
rights prior to final payments becoming due, we propose that the new
licensee will be responsible for the same pro rata share of the payment
obligations as the initial terrestrial wireless licensee. Finally, if a
new terrestrial wireless licensee sells its rights on the secondary
market, we propose that the new licensee will be obligated to fulfill
all payment obligations associated with the license. We again
anticipate that each eligible space station operator will be
responsible for payment of its own satellite transition costs until the
new terrestrial wireless licensees are determined, and those licensees
will pay the Clearinghouse's costs throughout the reimbursement
program, and thus seek comment on those proposals. Did the dispute
resolution process resolve any open issues in a timely manner, or would
additional alternative dispute resolution options or a more streamlined
appeals process from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau directly to
the Commission facilitate the expeditious resolution of such matters?
Were the quarterly Clearinghouse reporting requirements sufficient for
the Commission to carry out its transition oversight duties, or would a
different cadence of filings serve the same goal? Did the experience of
the Lower C-band transition offer any other lessons that should guide
us to adopt alternative approaches to any of the duties described
above? If so, what are those alternatives, and why should we depart
from our previous practice? For example, are there ways in which the
new Clearinghouse could streamline the claims review process without
compromising its duty to prevent fraud, waste, or abuse in the
transition cost reimbursement program? Would any additional
Clearinghouse duties, not contemplated in the Lower C-band transition,
be useful in administering the cost aspects of the Upper C-band
transition?
111. As part of the earlier transition, the Commission directed
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to establish a Cost Catalog which
provided guidance to both incumbents and the new 3.7 GHz Service
licensees about a range of reasonable transition costs. The Cost
Catalog also detailed the process and relevant categories for incumbent
earth station operators opting out of the formal transition and seeking
a lump sum payment. Consistent with this approach, reimbursement claims
that fell within the applicable range in the Cost Catalog were presumed
reasonable. Should we once again utilize a Cost Catalog to establish
ranges of presumptively reasonable transition costs? If so, should we
retain the existing Cost Catalog, adjust it in some way (such as for
inflation), or develop an entirely new one for the Upper C-band
transition? If we again direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
to develop a new Cost Catalog or modify the existing one, how should we
develop appropriate ranges identifying presumptively reasonable
reimbursement claims?
b. Selecting the Clearinghouse
112. We propose to appoint a search committee tasked with selecting
the Clearinghouse for the Upper C-band transition. As in the 2020 C-
band R&O,

[[Page 56094]]

we propose to establish a search committee that: (1) represents various
stakeholder interests, including space station operators, earth station
incumbents, and prospective flexible-use licensees; (2) proceeds by
consensus, and, if necessary, selects the Clearinghouse by a majority
vote; and (3) notifies the Commission of its choice by an established
deadline. In order to streamline the search committee process, in
contrast with the lower band transition where the search committee
established the Clearinghouse's selection criteria, here we propose the
use of selection criteria based upon the Clearinghouse's duties as
discussed supra. Upon the selection of a Clearinghouse, we propose to
direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to issue a public notice
seeking comment on whether the entity selected satisfies the selection
criteria, and to issue a final order announcing whether the selection
criteria has been satisfied. We further propose to again direct and
delegate broad authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
provide the Clearinghouse and incumbent space station operators with
any needed clarifications and interpretations of the Commission's
orders and rules, and more generally to take such measures as are
necessary to ensure the timely and efficient transition of the Upper C-
band.
113. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt for the Upper C-band
transition a process broadly similar to that used to select the
Clearinghouse for the Lower C-band transition, with certain proposed
modifications as detailed above. What lessons from the previous
transition might inform the composition of the search committee, the
substance of the selection criteria, or the procedures for, and timing
of, the Clearinghouse's selection? We also seek comment on what should
happen in the event that the search committee fails to select a
Clearinghouse and notify the Commission by the deadline, including but
not limited to procedures similar to those used in the Lower C-band
transition?
7. The Logistics of Relocation
114. In order to relocate incumbent FSS operations out of the
reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band, we propose to adopt
requirements similar to those that governed the transition of FSS
operations out of the Lower C-band. We therefore propose to require:
(1) the preparation and submission of Transition Plans by the eligible
space station operators; (2) a filing deadline for the submission of
such Transition Plans, to be followed by a public comment period and
the opportunity to update the plans as permitted by the Commission; (3)
requirements for the content of eligible satellite operators'
Transition Plans; and (4) the submission of quarterly status reports by
the eligible space station operators on their implementation efforts;
and (5) the selection and appointment of a Relocation Coordinator to
ensure that relocation is completed in a timely manner.
115. The Commission previously found that the eligible space
station operators possessed the technical and operational expertise
that was required to facilitate the transition of FSS services out of
the Lower C-band, and that putting them in charge of practical
transition logistics--with Commission oversight--would be the most
effective approach. Such operators were required to submit formal
Transition Plans roughly three months after the Commission adopted the
2020 C-band R&O, and the public was allowed to comment on those plans.
The Commission required that the Transition Plans describe seven items
in detail. Should we once again make the eligible space station
operators responsible for both establishing and satisfying their
clearing obligations? If so, should we adopt similar deadlines and
content requirements for eligible space station operators' Transition
Plans and status reports, and enable the filing of joint Transition
Plans by multiple operators who deem it useful to develop a combined
space station grooming plan, as long as it includes all of the required
elements? Depending on the reconfiguration option we ultimately adopt,
would any changes to the relocation process be appropriate?
116. The Commission previously determined that the establishment of
a Relocation Coordinator to oversee the FSS transition was in the
public interest, upon a demonstration of its expertise. Should we take
the same approach to ensure the timely execution of the Upper C-band
transition, or might a different approach be warranted depending on
which reconfiguration option is adopted? Should we again establish a
search committee of interested parties to select the Relocation
Coordinator, or would another approach better suit this transition?
What lessons from the Lower C-band transition might inform our approach
to using a Relocation Coordinator for this effort? Should the
Relocation Coordinator's selection process and responsibilities remain
essentially the same as before, or might they change depending on which
reconfiguration approach we select?

D. Coexistence With Adjacent Band Radio Altimeters

117. In light of our statutory mandate to complete a system of
competitive bidding for licenses for at least 100 megahertz of the
Upper C-band by July 4, 2027, we seek comment on how best to promote
spectral coexistence between these proposed new wireless services and
radio altimeters in the neighboring 4.2-4.4 GHz band. Since this issue
was first addressed in the 2020 C-band R&O, there has been significant
technical work done by government and industry stakeholders to better
understand any potential for harmful adjacent band interference. In
addition, temporary measures were adopted by the wireless industry in
the Lower C-band to adjust certain technical parameters in support of
both full power deployments across the Lower C-band and the coexistence
environment with adjacent band radio altimeters, for which retrofits
were required by the FAA for part 121 and certain 129 aircraft in the
United States as of February 1, 2024 to improve their signal rejection
performance. There are also ongoing aviation industry-led efforts to
design next generation radio altimeters that predate the instant FCC
proceeding but nonetheless may lead to the production and deployment of
more resilient altimeters in the near future. To that end, we expect
the FAA to initiate and complete a rulemaking to codify the new radio
altimeter standards in parallel with our rulemaking and prior to any
auction we are required to commence under the OBBB Act. We believe that
the development and installation of more robust radio altimeters will
further aviation safety and aligns with other ongoing efforts to
improve safety in the national airspace (NAS) including, for example,
forthcoming air traffic control improvements recently appropriated for
in the OBBB Act. Further, radio altimeter improvements will also
reinforce the successful coexistence environment that exists between
radio altimeters and operators in the 3.7 GHz Service, and we expect
will obviate any need for ongoing mitigations or burdensome regulatory
oversight going forward.
118. We seek comment on the current state of radio altimeter
performance, and particularly specific technical data about the signal
rejection capabilities of existing radio altimeters above 3.98 GHz that
have been in use following the 2023 FAA-mandated retrofit. We ask radio
altimeter equipment manufacturers and other relevant stakeholders to
provide this data in sufficient detail to allow us to independently
assess the ability of

[[Page 56095]]

post-retrofit radio altimeters, with or without additional
modifications such as filtering, to coexist with the planned new
adjacent band wireless operations. We are concurrently issuing a
protective order in this proceeding to enable requests for the
confidential treatment of any data and related business sensitive
information. Further, we welcome updates related to ongoing private
sector efforts to improve radio altimeter performance. We seek input on
the expected level of performance from new radio altimeters based on
technical work currently underway, along with the timing for
finalization of any new performance standard and its implementation by
the aviation industry.
119. In light of the ongoing industry efforts to develop and
produce improved radio altimeters, we also seek comment on the
substance and timing of the transition process for implementing future
radio altimeter upgrades throughout the NAS. Once any new technical
requirements are adopted by FAA, what compliance steps would the
aviation industry need to undertake, and how long would an altimeter
retrofit process last? What steps, if any, can be taken to enable a
rapid implementation timeframe for any needed retrofits? Given our
statutory mandate to complete a system of competitive bidding for the
Upper C-band spectrum by July 2027, and the need to provide bidders
with assurances of when they will be able to access the spectrum won at
auction, we also seek comment on how the timing of the aviation
industry's future implementation efforts can be aligned with the
fulfillment of our statutory responsibilities.
120. In this context, we note that the requirement in the OBBB Act
to complete a system of competitive bidding for least 100 megahertz of
the Upper C-band by July 4, 2027 does not mention adjacent band issues.
We also recognize that our established Emerging Technologies framework
has not previously been used to address adjacent band equities.
Nevertheless, we recognize that radio altimeter retrofits by the
aviation industry that significantly improve their signal rejection
capabilities within an accelerated timeframe would not only promote
coexistence with future terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-
band over the long term, but also support a timely implementation of
our legislative remit and a successful conclusion of the competitive
bidding process. Therefore, given the unique circumstances and timing
considerations involved with the Upper C-band, we seek comment on ways
in which any future radio altimeter retrofits can be incentivized and
accelerated as part of the overall Upper C-band repurposing and
transition process.
121. As an initial matter, and to provide financial certainty and
transparency to all stakeholders, we seek comment on the estimated
scale and scope of anticipated radio altimeter retrofits as a result of
any new technical requirements that FAA may adopt in the near term that
would facilitate a predictable and rapid repurposing of the Upper C-
band. We also seek comment on specific proposals and mechanisms to
facilitate these retrofits from a financial perspective, including how
best to design and implement any such regime, as well as the basis for
calculating such payments (e.g., number of altimeter retrofits,
installation timing). What would be an appropriate underlying rationale
or predicate supporting such proposals, such as our Emerging
Technologies framework? We also seek comment on who might be eligible
to receive any such payments from winning bidders (e.g., airlines or
other aircraft owners, equipment manufacturers)? Should eligibility be
limited to certain types of aircraft or classes of operator? Are there
certain such categories, such as foreign aircraft or aircraft operated
for personal, private use, for which a right to receive payment would
not serve the public interest? We also seek comment on who might be
responsible for addressing any payments and how they could be allocated
(e.g., the Upper C-band auction winners on a pro rata basis, akin to
the mechanism used for the Lower C-band FSS transition)? Or would an
alternate approach be more appropriate?
122. We further seek comment on how best to manage any potential
payments related to radio altimeter retrofits. Specifically, could a
list of eligible entities be created and maintained, such as with the
incumbent earth station list used in the in-band FSS transition? What
mechanism could be used to manage any such process and prevent
potential fraud, waste, or abuse? If a third-party clearinghouse were
used, could that be the same clearinghouse that we propose would
oversee the in-band FSS transition cost reimbursement process? If not,
what other type of entity might be appropriate to manage payments
relating to an aviation retrofit process, how would it be selected,
what would its responsibilities include, and who would be responsible
for its operational costs?
123. Finally, in recognition of the evolving spectral environment
in the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band, we seek comment on whether the
proposed technical rules in the instant proceeding--including limits on
maximum base station power and OOBE--would contribute to a successful
coexistence environment between new wireless operations in the Upper C-
band and current and upgraded radio altimeters. Some commenters have
suggested that more stringent limits on power and OOBE than those that
were adopted in the 2020 Report and Order may be appropriate.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether more restrictive limits on
power or OOBE are necessary in the face of recent and future radio
altimeter improvements to promote effective spectral coexistence. Does
the answer depend on which repurposing option the Commission ultimately
selects for the Upper C-band? Should any changes to such technical
parameters be limited to the block(s) immediately adjacent to the 4.2-
4.4 GHz band or within certain geographic areas? What is the minimum
size guard band that would be required between terrestrial wireless and
altimeters and how might this answer change based on the power and OOBE
limits of the adjacent spectrum block(s)? While we seek to avoid
ongoing and potentially burdensome oversight that may inhibit the rapid
and robust deployment of wireless services in the Upper C-band, we also
seek comment on whether other emissions management techniques may help
to promote effective coexistence with radio altimeter operations.

IV. Procedural Matters

124. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. 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

[[Page 56096]]

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 Sec. 1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In
proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f), 47 CFR 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.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

125. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980,
as amended, Public Law 104-121, 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 this
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 this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for 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

126. With today's NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals
to expand next generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-
band). As means of furthering its objective of optimizing use of the C-
band's versatile coverage, capacity, and propagation characteristics,
the Commission in 2020 repurposed the 3.7-3.98 GHz portion of the band
(Lower C-band) for flexible use in the contiguous United States. As a
result of that effort, Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) space and earth
station operators deployed new and improved wireless services that
brought 5G to countless communities, including rural, remote, and
underserved areas. The NPRM takes another step to put vital mid-band
spectrum to more intensive, flexible use that will support robust
connectivity, spur economic growth, and advance American security
interests, in furtherance of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act),
Public Law 119-21, 40002.
127. The NPRM proposes to further enable terrestrial wireless
operations in a segment of the 3.98-4.2 GHz portion of the C-band
(Upper C-band) in the contiguous United States and to generally apply
the part 27 licensing and operating rules that presently govern
wireless operations in the Lower C-band to new full-power commercial
operations in the Upper C-band. In July 2025, as part of the OBBB Act,
Congress reinstituted the Commission's general authority to grant
licenses through systems of competitive bidding through September 2034
and established a path forward for the eventual repurposing of 800
megahertz to be licensed through competitive bidding, including at
least 500 megahertz for full power commercial licensed use cases. OBBB
Act, 40002(b)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(11). The OBBB Act also
specifically directed the Commission to ``grant licenses through
systems of competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general
auction authority for not less than 300 megahertz, including by
completing a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in
the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.'' OBBB Act,
40002(b)(2).
128. Pursuant to this statutory directive, the NPRM seeks comment
on options for reconfiguration of the Upper C-band. We have developed
these options in light of what we believe might be achievable both in
terms of further transitioning in-band incumbent FSS operations in the
contiguous United States, as well as ongoing technical advancements
with adjacent band radio altimeters which will further enhance their
signal rejection capabilities and bolster the existing successful
spectral co-existence environment. We propose to generally apply the
existing 3.7 GHz Service rules to any newly authorized terrestrial
wireless operations in any reconfiguration scenario. As discussed in
further detail below, any other rules and requirements, including those
relating to the transition process, would be modeled to the greatest
extent possible on those that applied to the Lower C-band transition.
129. Thus, throughout the NPRM, we seek to enable more intensive
flexible use of key mid-band spectrum by retaining many elements of the
successful Lower C-band transition, and, where appropriate, by
leveraging the lessons learned from that process to craft an improved
process for transitioning the Upper C-band.

B. Legal Basis

130. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2,
4(i), 301, 302(a), 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
301, 302(a), 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, and 403, and by Section 40002 of
the OBBB Act.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

131. 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 (SBA). 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
132. 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 not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
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

[[Page 56097]]

500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' are
defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations 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.
133. We have identified the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) and Satellite Telecommunications industries as the
most likely to be impacted by the rules proposed in the NPRM. These
industries are identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data
regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified
industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial
number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the industries identified below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated Industry (Footnotes
specify potentially affected SBA size Total small
entities within a regulated NAICS code standard Total firms firms % Small firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees. 1,184 1,081 91.30
Carriers (except Satellite).
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $44 million..... 332 195 58.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal Service Monitoring Report Telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 Employees)
Service Provider Data (Data as of December 2023) --------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
Form 499A Small firms Small entities
Affected entity filers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

134. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
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
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
135. The proposed changes in the NPRM, if adopted, may require
small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other
professionals to comply. Although the Commission cannot quantify the
cost of compliance, we note that several of the proposed rule 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 with our requirements for the Upper C-band. Below is an
overview of areas discussed in the NPRM that contain proposals that
may, if adopted, lead to modified or additional compliance requirements
for small entities.
136. Reconfiguration and Allocation of the Upper C-band. The NPRM
seek comment on options for reconfiguring the Upper C-band in the
contiguous United States ranging from a minimum of 100 megahertz (3.98-
4.08 GHz) for terrestrial wireless use, as required by the OBBB Act, to
a maximum of 180 megahertz (3.98-4.16 GHz). Under any approach that may
be adopted within this range, the NPRM proposes that any remainder of
the Upper C-band would be used for repacked FSS operations with a guard
band of no more than 20 megahertz. The Commission seeks comment on
these reconfiguration options generally, and further seeks input
specifically as to how each of the topics addressed throughout the NPRM
might be impacted depending on which reconfiguration approach we elect.
137. Additionally, the NPRM proposes to add a primary, non-federal
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to whatever portion of
the 4.0-4.2 GHz band we reconfigure in the contiguous United States.
This proposal would harmonize the allocations in the Upper C-band with
those in 3.7-4.0 GHz and thus make a wider band of contiguous mid-band
spectrum available for next generation wireless services. The NPRM
further proposes to retain exclusive non-federal allocations for FSS
and Fixed Service (FS) in whatever portion of that band is not
repurposed for terrestrial commercial wireless use in the contiguous
United States, recognizing that FS operations have been sunset in those
areas, and to preserve the status quo regarding FSS and FS allocations
and operations outside of the contiguous United States. We seek comment
on the benefits and potential drawbacks of our reconfiguration and
reallocation proposals, including their economic impacts, potential
alternatives, and whether they strike the right balance between
incumbent interests and our goal of enabling more intensive flexible
use of the C-band.
138. Competitive Bidding Procedures. The NPRM proposes to conduct
an auction of licenses in the Upper C-band in conformity with the
general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of
the Commission's rules. As we have in all recent previous Commission
spectrum auctions, we propose to employ the part 1 rules governing
competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust
enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain
communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future.
Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether any of those rules would be
inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in the
Upper C-band.
139. The NPRM also proposes to adopt bidding credits for the two
larger designated entity business sizes provided in the Commission's
part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits, as we have done in all
auctions

[[Page 56098]]

of licenses likely to be used to provide 5G services in a variety of
bands since the part 1 schedule of bidding credits was updated in 2015.
Further, the NPRM proposes to offer rural service providers a
designated entity bidding credit for Upper C-band licenses. We seek
comment on these proposals, and on whether the characteristics of the
Upper C-band and our proposed licensing model suggest that we should
adopt different small business size standards and associated bidding
credits than we have in the past.
140. The Transition of FSS Operations. The NPRM proposes to adopt
many of the same transition framework elements used for Lower C-band
for the Upper C-band transition of incumbent FSS operations. First, the
NPRM proposes that ``incumbent space station operators'' will generally
include all space station operators authorized to provide C-band
service to any part of the contiguous United States pursuant to an FCC-
issued license or grant of market access as of June 21, 2018. The NPRM
also proposes to define an ``eligible space station operator'' as an
incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February
1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-
band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in
the contiguous United States. In addition, the NPRM proposes to define
``incumbent earth stations'' for the Upper C-band transition to include
fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of
April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were
licensed or registered in the ICFS database on November 7, 2018; and
(3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the
Commission by May 28, 2019. We seek comment on these proposals to apply
the same baseline definitions as in the Lower C-band transition.
141. The NPRM also proposes to use our authority under Section 316
of the Communications Act to modify, as needed, the existing licenses,
market access authorizations, and registrations currently held by FSS
C-band incumbents to clear whatever portion of the Upper C-band we
ultimately reallocate. The NPRM's proposals aim to align with the
clearing approach that the Commission took in carrying out the Lower C-
band transition. We seek comment on this proposal.
142. Regarding the transition schedule, the NPRM proposes to set a
specific transition deadline to ensure that all incumbent FSS
operations are cleared in a timely manner to facilitate the
introduction of terrestrial wireless services in the Upper C-band, and
to provide potential auction bidders with some certainty as to when
they will be able to obtain access to Upper C-band spectrum. As a
result, the NPRM seeks comment on whether a transition timeline of
approximately five and one half years, as was done with the Lower C-
band, would be appropriate here and, if not, whether one or more
different deadline(s) should be used. We seek comment on this proposal,
including how deadlines should shift depending upon which
reconfiguration proposal we adopt.
143. As with the Lower C-band transition, the NPRM proposes to
require new terrestrial wireless licensees in the Upper C-band to
reimburse the reasonable transition costs incurred by eligible FSS
space station and incumbent earth station operators and to allocate the
responsibility for those costs among the new terrestrial wireless
licensees on a pro rata basis. We again propose to offer incumbent
earth station operators the choice of either accepting reimbursement
for their actual reasonable transition costs or accepting a lump sum
reimbursement for all of their incumbent earth stations based on the
average, estimated cost of transitioning those facilities. We seek
comment on these proposals, whether improvements can be made in light
of lessons learned in the prior transition, and whether the expected
amount of transition cost reimbursement for FSS services in the Upper
C-band will vary depending upon the reconfiguration option that we
ultimately adopt.
144. Consistent with the Lower C-band approach, the NPRM also
proposes to require all actual transition costs needed to clear
existing Upper C-band operations in the contiguous United States to be
``reasonable'' in order to qualify for reimbursement and would not
permit reimbursement for equipment upgrades beyond what is necessary to
clear the band. The NPRM proposes not to reimburse incumbents for the
speculative value of any business opportunities they claim they would
lose as a result of the transition. The NPRM also proposes that any
soft costs (e.g., transactional expenses directly attributable to
relocation) would again be subject to a rebuttable presumption for a
cap of 2% of the hard costs involved in the transition. We seek comment
on these proposals.
145. To allocate the transition financial responsibilities of new
3.7 GHz Service licensees, the NPRM again proposes to generally base
the share for each licensee on that licensee's pro rata share of gross
winning bids in the underlying auction, with specific allocation
formulas governing each type of payment obligation. We seek comment on
this proposal, and commenters are invited to recommend alternative
approaches with a detailed description of the methodology behind their
proposals.
146. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether we should consider
incentives--monetary or otherwise--to facilitate expeditious clearing
of the Upper C-band. We ask commenters to address who should be
eligible for such incentives, how any responsibility thereto should be
allocated, and what benchmarks they should be aligned with, as well as
how incentives should be calculated and whether they would be impacted
by adoption of either of the band reconfiguration options we are
considering.
147. The NPRM proposes to once again use an independent
Clearinghouse to oversee the cost-related aspects of the Upper C-band
transition, using a similar selection process and imposing the same
broad responsibilities as in the Lower C-band transition. We seek
comment on this proposal, and on ways to build upon the success of the
Lower C-band Clearinghouse by way of potential improvements to any new
transition cost reimbursement program. Additionally, we seek comment on
whether we should again use a Cost Catalog to establish ranges of
presumptively reasonable transition costs, including whether we should
retain the existing Cost Catalog, adjust it in some way (such as for
inflation), or develop an entirely new one for the Upper C-band
transition. The NPRM proposes to establish a search committee that will
use selection criteria based upon the Clearinghouse's duties, rather
than asking the committee to establish those criteria itself. We also
seek comment on the proposal to adopt for the Upper C-band transition a
process broadly similar to that used to select the Clearinghouse for
the Lower C-band transition, with some proposed modifications.
148. In order to relocate incumbent FSS operations out of the
reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band, the NPRM proposes to adopt
requirements similar to those that governed the transition of FSS
operations out of the Lower C-band. These requirements would include
that eligible space station operators prepare and submit their own
Transition Plans by a set deadline, and also submit quarterly status
reports on their efforts. We seek comment on this proposal, on whether
we should again establish a Relocation Coordinator to oversee the FSS
transition, and if so, how we should

[[Page 56099]]

select it and with what responsibilities we should task it.
149. Band Plan. As with the Lower C-band, the NPRM proposes to
license at least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band in 20 megahertz
blocks, using an unpaired spectrum block configuration, and on an
exclusive, Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis. We seek comment on
whether this approach remains appropriate for the wireless technologies
likely to be deployed in the Upper C-band, whether PEAs are the
appropriate areas, and whether 20 megahertz remains the appropriate
block size, or if we should consider smaller or larger block sizes. We
also invite comment on the costs and benefits of geographic licensing,
and of any alternatives that commenters propose. Although the NPRM does
not propose licensing areas outside of the contiguous United States, we
seek comment on whether we should adopt a licensing approach for
certain such areas.
150. Licensing and Operating Rules. The NPRM proposes to adopt
similar licensing and operating rules that provide flexibility to align
new licenses in the Upper C-band with existing licenses in the Lower C-
band, which are already governed by part 27. In particular, we propose
that new licensees in the Upper C-band comply with licensing and
operating rules that are applicable to all part 27 services, including
those rules relating to the assignment of licenses by competitive
bidding, flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent
discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and
spectrum leasing. The NPRM asks commenters to identify any aspects of
our general part 27 service rules that should be modified to
accommodate the particular characteristics of the Upper C-band.
Similarly, the NPRM seeks comment as to whether we should adopt
service-specific rules for the Upper C-band in certain other areas, or
if we should integrate the band into the rules that already apply to
the Lower C-band. These rules govern eligibility, license term,
performance requirements, renewal term construction obligations, and
other licensing and operating rules. We also seek comment on a 15-year
term for licenses in the Upper C-band. We ask commenters to discuss the
costs and benefits associated with these approaches, as well as with
any proposed alternatives.
151. In addition, the NPRM proposes to adopt an open eligibility
standard for Upper C-band licenses. This approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications
that apply under our rules, and it would be consistent with that taken
in the Lower C-band. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this
standard, including its effects on competition, innovation, and
investment.
152. Regarding mobile spectrum holding policies, the NPRM proposes
to not adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of any
entity to acquire spectrum in the Upper C-band through competitive
bidding at auction. Instead, we propose to review holdings on a case-
by-case basis when applications for initial licenses are filed post-
auction to ensure that the public interest benefits of having a
threshold on spectrum applicable to secondary market transactions are
not rendered ineffective. Finally, we propose to include the Upper C-
band spectrum in the Commission's spectrum screen, which assists the
Commission with identifying markets that may warrant further
competitive analysis, as a means of evaluating proposed secondary
market transactions.
153. Performance Requirements. The NPRM proposes to require Upper
C-band licensees offering mobile or point-to-multipoint services to
provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 45% of
the population in each of their license areas within eight years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least 80%
of the population in each of their license areas within 12 years from
the license issue date (second performance benchmark). We propose to
once again permit Internet of Things (IoT) providers to instead
demonstrate that they offer geographic area coverage of 35% of the
license area at the first (eight-year) performance benchmark, and
geographic area coverage of 65% of the license area at the second (12-
year) performance benchmark. The NPRM also seeks comment on proposed
requirements for licensees relying on fixed, point-to-point links that
would mirror those adopted for the Lower C-band. Specifically,
licensees relying on point-to-point links licensees would be required
to demonstrate within eight years of the license issue date (first
performance benchmark) that they have four links operating and
providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If
the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, we
propose to require licensees to demonstrate they have 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. Licensees relying
on point-to-point service would be required to demonstrate within 12
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 would require a demonstration that the
licensee is providing service and has at least two links in operation
per every 67,000 persons within a license area. We seek comments on all
of these proposals.
154. Regarding penalties for failure to meet performance
requirements, we propose to adopt a rule requiring that, in the event a
licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's
second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years,
thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years
sooner (at 10 years into the license term) and correspondingly reducing
its license term to 13 years. As with our approach in the Lower C-band,
we further propose that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the
second 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. In the event a licensee's authority to operate
terminates automatically, we propose to make the relevant license
available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of Sec. 309(j). Consistent with the Commission's rules
applicable to the Lower C-band and other bands, we propose that any
Upper C-band licensee that forfeits its license for failing to meet its
performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license.
We invite comments on these proposals.
155. Compliance Procedures. In addition to the compliance
procedures applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of
electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, the NPRM
proposes to require that the coverage maps accurately depict both the
boundaries of each licensed area and the coverage boundaries of the
areas to which the licensee actually provides service. Therefore, if a
licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to its entire
license area, we propose that its map must accurately depict the
boundaries of the area or areas within each license

[[Page 56100]]

area not being served. Further, we propose 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 provide such service. We seek comment on our
proposals, as well as whether small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the transition that would require additional
time for them to comply.
156. License Renewal and Renewal Term Construction Obligations. We
propose to apply the general renewal requirements applicable to all
Wireless Radio Services (WRS) licensees to licensees in the Upper C-
band. We further propose to apply our general part 27 renewal
requirements for wireless licenses to the Upper C-band, as the
Commission has for the Lower C-band, the 3.45 GHz band, and the 3.55-
3.7 GHz band. Correspondingly, we propose to include the Upper C-band
in the unified renewal framework for WRS. This means that Upper C-band
licensees will be required to comply with Sec. 1.949 of our rules by
demonstrating that, over the course of their license term, they either:
(1) provided and continue to provide service to the public, or (2)
operated and continue to operate the license to meet the licensee's
private, internal communications needs. Licensees can demonstrate
compliance with this requirement either through the renewal showing in
section (f) of that rule, or through the relevant safe harbor found in
section (e).
157. In addition to, and independent of, the general renewal
provisions set forth in our rules, we seek comment on applying specific
renewal term construction obligations to Upper C-band licensees. We
invite comment on whether there are unique characteristics of the Upper
C-band that might warrant a different approach than the general renewal
requirements. Commenters are encouraged to address the costs and
benefits of their proposed rules and discuss how a given proposal will
encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise
benefit from significant wireless coverage.
158. Technical Rules. Consistent with existing rules for similar
wireless services in nearby bands, the NPRM proposes to permit base
stations in non-rural areas to operate at power levels up to 1640 watts
per megahertz EIRP and base stations in rural areas to operate with
double the non-rural power limits (3280 watts per megahertz EIRP). The
NPRM also proposes to apply Sec. 27.50(j)(1) through (2) of the
Commission's rules to both fixed and base stations operating in the
Upper C-band. For mobiles and portables, the NPRM proposes to adopt a 1
Watt (30 dBm) EIRP power limit, matching the standards adopted for the
Lower C-band and the 3.45 GHz band. We invite comment on alternative
power limits, request technical details in support of any proffered
alternatives, and request analyses of the costs and benefits of such
proposals.
159. For base station out-of-band emissions (OOBE), the NPRM
proposes--consistent with the Lower C-band limit--to require base
stations to suppress their emissions beyond the edge of their
authorization to a conducted power level of -13 dBm/MHz, and to apply
the existing part 27 measurement procedures and resolution bandwidth
that are used for the Lower C-band. We seek comment on whether the same
or different limits should be applied to emissions within the Upper C-
band compared to those at the band's edge. For mobile units, the NPRM
proposes to require that they suppress their conducted emissions to no
more than -13 dBm/MHz outside their authorized frequency band, i.e., at
the authorized channel edge as measured at the antenna terminals. This
proposal is consistent with the mobile OOBE limit that governs the
Lower C-band, as is our proposal to adopt a relaxation of the emission
limit within the first five megahertz of the channel edge by varying
the resolution bandwidth used when measuring the emission. For
emissions within 1 megahertz from the channel edge, the minimum
resolution bandwidth would be either one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter or 350
kilohertz. In the bands between one and five megahertz removed from the
licensee's authorized frequency block, the minimum resolution bandwidth
would be 500 kilohertz. Finally, the NPRM proposes to apply Sec. Sec.
27.53(h)(4) and 27.53(i) of the Commission's rules to Upper C-band, as
was done for the Lower C-band.
160. Consistent with the existing part 27 AWS rules, Lower C-band,
and 3.45 GHz band requirements, none of which impose antenna height
limits on antenna structures, the NPRM proposes not to restrict antenna
heights for Upper C-band operations beyond any requirements necessary
to ensure air navigation safety. And as with the Lower C-band, the NPRM
proposes to apply a -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz power flux density (PFD) limit at
a height of 1.5 meters above ground at the geographical border of Upper
C-band licensees' service areas. We seek comment on the costs and
benefits of these proposals, and on any potential alternatives.
161. The NPRM proposes to apply Sec. 27.57(c) of the Commission's
rules to terrestrial licensees in the Upper C-band; this rule requires
all part 27 operations to comply with international agreements for
operations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. Also consistent with
our Lower C-band approach, we propose to adopt several additional
technical rules that apply to all part 27 services, including
Sec. Sec. 27.51 (Equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54
(Frequency stability), and part 1, subpart BB of the Commission's rules
(Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Patterns) for new
terrestrial commercial wireless operations in the Upper C-band.
162. To safeguard incumbent FSS earth stations, the NPRM also
proposes to adopt a PFD limit of -124 dBW/m\2\/MHz as measured at the
registered incumbent earth station antenna; this PFD limit is
consistent with the Lower C-band and would apply to all emissions
within the earth station's authorized band of operation, from both base
and mobile stations. In order to protect earth stations from receiver
blocking, we propose to require a PFD limit of -16 dBW/m\2\/MHz, as
measured at the registered incumbent earth station antenna, and applied
across the transitioned frequency range. This blocking limit would
apply to all emissions within the new terrestrial wireless licensee's
authorized frequency range, and it is the same limit that applied to
the Lower C-band transition. Finally, the NPRM proposes to allow full
band/full arc use by FSS earth stations that continue to operate in the
band during and after the transition process. We seek comment on these
proposals, including the ongoing applicability of the assumptions that
guided the Lower C-band transition, along with any appropriate
alternatives.
163. In order to protect Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C)
operations, the NPRM proposes to require new terrestrial licensees to
ensure that the aggregated power from their operations meet an
interference to noise ratio (I/N) of -6 dB as received by the TT&C
earth station, and that they coordinate their co-channel operations
within 70 km of TT&C earth stations that continue to operate in the
Upper C-band. We also propose protections against adjacent channel
interference, including: (1) aggregated power from adjacent 3.7 GHz
Service operations must meet a -6 dB I/N ratio, and the limit would
apply to all emissions removed from the TT&C's center frequency by more
than 150% of the TT&C's necessary emission bandwidth; (2) we would not
require prior

[[Page 56101]]

coordination between adjacent operations, but 3.7 GHz Service licensees
and TT&C earth station operators would be expected to cooperate in good
faith and make reasonable efforts to anticipate and resolve technical
problems that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the spectrum;
and (3) TT&C operators would be expected to make available pertinent
technical information about their systems upon request by the 3.7 GHz
Service licensees, and licensees of stations suffering or causing
harmful interference would be expected to cooperate and resolve the
problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

164. 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.''
165. In formulating its request for comments, the Commission
considered alternatives addressing the economic impact of its proposals
on small entities, should they be adopted. In the NPRM, the Commission
broadly proposes to reconfigure the Upper C-band for more intensive,
next-generation wireless use by generally deploying the procedures used
in--and the lessons learned from--the successful similar transition of
the Lower C-band. Throughout that proceeding, the Commission
contemplated how its adopted rules would uniquely affect small entities
and calibrated its determinations accordingly. The approach taken
towards considering the effect of our rules towards small entities in
that proceeding largely informs our process in this one. For example,
we consider the potential economic hardship or compliance burdens to
small entities with respect to the information collection, such as
whether they would require certain accommodations or additional time to
comply. We seek comment from small entities as to whether these
entities face any special or unique concerns regarding this issue.
Similarly, in developing its proposals, the Commission considers the
effect of modifications that could be made to our rules regarding
administrative processes that would reduce the economic impacts of
proposed rule changes on small entities. By seeking comment
specifically targeting effects on small entities, the Commission will
obtain the data required to consider the approach that will be most
cost-effective and minimize the economic impact on small entities while
also fulfilling the Commission's statutory mandate.
166. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to adopt 15-year license terms
for new licenses in the Upper C-band. If adopted, small entities should
once again benefit from the opportunity for long-term operational
certainty and a longer period to develop innovative services. The NPRM
also contemplates and seeks comment on potential issues that small
entities might face in meeting the proposed performance requirements
for new Upper C-band licensees. To that end, the NPRM inquires whether
our proposed point-to-multipoint coverage and service benchmarks might
necessitate that we grant small entities certain accommodations or
additional time to comply. Similarly, the NPRM considers the impact of,
and seeks comment on, whether small entities should be offered
additional time to fulfill proposed compliance procedures. Finally, the
proposed competitive bidding procedures would implement familiar
designated entity preferences in an auction of Upper C-band licenses.
The NPRM proposes to adopt bidding credits for small and very small
businesses, and to adopt a rural service provider credit.
167. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in
encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to
scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid development of
mobile services to Americans. All licensees, including small entities,
play a crucial role in achieving these goals. Therefore, the NPRM seeks
comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, and
other measures that could accommodate the needs and resources of small
entities. The Commission will carefully consider the effects of its
proposals on small entities before adopting final rules in this
proceeding.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

168. None. This proposed rule is not duplicative, nor does it
overlap or conflict, with any other federal rules.

V. Ordering Clauses

169. It Is Ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302(a),
303, 304, 307, 309, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303, 304, 307, 309,
316 and 403, and by Section 40002 of the OBBB Act, that this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Is Hereby Adopted.
170. It Is Further Ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
171. It Is Further Ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary Shall Send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-22020 Filed 12-4-25; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 5, 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.