Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
1Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 
70/80/90 GHz Bands )
)
)
)
)
)WT Docket No. 20-133
REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  January 24, 2024 Released:  January 26, 2024
Comment Date:  30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register
Reply Comment Date:  60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register
By the Commission:  Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Starks issuing separate statements; 
Commissioner Gomez not participating.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................3
III. REPORT AND ORDER..........................................................................................................................9
A. Enabling Point-to-Point Communications to Aircraft and Ships....................................................10
1. Authorization and Framework..................................................................................................13
2. Technical and Operational Rules..............................................................................................24
a. Transmissions Between Aircraft and Ground Stations......................................................31
b. Transmissions Between Aircraft In Flight.........................................................................43
c. Transmissions Between Ships, Shore, and Aerostat Stations............................................53
B. Facilitating Use of the Bands for Backhaul ....................................................................................56
C. Improving the Link Registration System........................................................................................68
1. Construction and Operational Status........................................................................................69
2. De Minimis Modifications to Registrations .............................................................................77
D. Other Issues.....................................................................................................................................80
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING......................................................................85
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.................................................................................................................92
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES......................................................................................................................102
APPENDIX A—FINAL RULES
APPENDIX B—FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C—INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to play a leading role in 
fostering innovation in the provisioning of broadband, including through novel technological solutions as 
well as fifth-generation wireless technology (5G).  Meeting the non-stop growth in demand for wireless 
broadband connectivity is more important than ever due to the outsized impact the Internet has on our 
work, education, health care, and personal connections.  Recognizing this reality, and to help close the Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
2digital divide, in the Report and Order portion of this item we adopt new rules and update preexisting 
ones for the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, 92–94 GHz, and 94.1–95 GHz bands (collectively, the 70/80/90 
GHz bands).  And in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) portion, we seek 
comment on other possible changes to the rules to accommodate additional services.  These actions will 
promote the efficient use of this spectrum and provide opportunities for new broadband service options to 
be developed.
2. Specifically, based on the record and following extensive consultation with federal 
stakeholders, in this Report and Order we authorize certain point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in 
the 71–76 GHz (the 70 GHz band) and 81–86 GHz (the 80 GHz band) bands under our part 101 rules to 
facilitate the use of these frequencies for access to broadband services on aircraft and ships.  We also 
update our rules to permit the use of smaller and lower-cost antennas to facilitate the provision of 
backhaul service in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands and mandate a channelization plan in those bands.  
And we further adopt changes to the link registration process in the 70/80/90 GHz bands to require 
certification of construction of registered links, which will promote more efficient use of this spectrum 
and improve the accuracy of the link registration database.  Finally, in the Further Notice, we seek 
comment on the potential inclusion of ship-to-aerostat transmissions as part of maritime operations 
otherwise authorized in this Report and Order and of Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations in our 
light-licensing regime for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.
II. BACKGROUND
3. In the United States, the 70/80/90 GHz bands are allocated on a co-primary basis for 
federal and non-federal use, as follows.1
Band Non-Federal Use Federal Use
71–74 GHzFixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, and Mobile SatelliteFixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, and Mobile Satellite
74–76 GHz2Fixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, Broadcasting, and 
Broadcasting SatelliteFixed, Fixed Satellite, and 
Mobile
81–84 GHz3Fixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, Mobile Satellite, 
and Radio AstronomyFixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, Mobile Satellite, and 
Radio Astronomy
84–86 GHzFixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, and Radio 
AstronomyFixed, Fixed Satellite, 
Mobile, and Radio 
Astronomy
92–94 GHz, 94.1–95 
GHzFixed, Mobile, Radio 
Astronomy, and 
RadiolocationFixed, Mobile, Radio 
Astronomy, and 
Radiolocation
In the 70 GHz band and 80 GHz band, Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services must not cause harmful 
interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations located at 28 
military installations.4  In addition, in the 80 GHz band, and in the 92–94 GHz and 94.1–95 GHz bands 
(collectively, the 90 GHz band), licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy 
1 47 CFR § 2.106.
2 Id.  Additional allocations for federal and non-federal use for Space Research are on a secondary basis.
3 Id.
4 See id. § 2.106(c)(389).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
3observatories must coordinate their proposed links with those observatories.5  The 94–94.1 GHz 
frequencies are allocated for federal use for Earth Exploration Satellite (active), Radiolocation, and Space 
Research (active) and for non-federal use for Radiolocation.6  Additionally, the adjacent 86–92 GHz band 
is allocated for Federal and non-Federal Earth Exploration-Satellite (passive), Space Research (passive), 
and Radio Astronomy services and is subject to footnote US246.7
4. In 2003, the Commission established service rules for non-federal use of the 70/80/90 
GHz bands through a two-step, non-exclusive licensing regime.8  Users first obtain a nationwide, non-
exclusive license for the entire 12.9 gigahertz of the 70/80/90 GHz bands and then register individual 
links in a database administered by third-party database managers.9  In order for a link to be registered, it 
must be coordinated successfully with federal operations—typically through the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s) online, automated mechanism.10  Also, 
the licensee must provide an analysis to the third-party database manager demonstrating that the proposed 
link will neither cause harmful interference to, nor receive harmful interference from, any previously 
registered non-government link.11  Licensees are afforded first-in-time priority for successfully registered 
links relative to links that are successfully registered at a later point in time.12  Registered links must be 
constructed within 12 months of their registration.  Under part 101, non-federal licensees may use the 
70/80/90 GHz bands for any point-to-point, non-broadcast service.13  
5. In June 2020, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70/80/90 GHz 
NPRM) in this proceeding, seeking comment on both adopting new rules and updating preexisting rules to 
further enable non-federal uses of the 70/80/90 GHz bands.14  Among a range of issues and proposals—
which the Commission said it would work with NTIA to evaluate15—the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought 
comment on proposals to authorize point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz 
bands to facilitate broadband service to ships and aircraft in motion, as well as on whether to classify 
5 See id. § 2.106(c)(161).
6 Id. § 2.106.
7 See id. § 2.106(c)(74), (246).
8 Allocations and Service Rules for 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report 
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23322, para. 5 (2003) (70/80/90 GHz Report and Order).
9 Since 2004, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) has designated four entities to be database managers 
but there are currently two database managers:  Comsearch and Micronet Communications, Inc.  See, e.g., FCC, 
Millimeter Wave 70/80/90 GHz Service (Sept. 26, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/millimeter-wave-708090-ghz-service.  
10 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b)(3), (c).  If a proposed link does not interfere with existing federal operations then it is 
given a “green light;” if it may interfere with existing federal operations, then it is given a “yellow light,” indicating 
that the licensee must file a registration application for the link with the FCC for coordination with NTIA.  See id. 
§ 101.1523(b)(3), (c); 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23342–43, para. 54.  The “green light” / 
“yellow light” system protects the sensitive nature of the locations of military installations.  
11 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b)(2); Allocations and Service Rules for 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, 
WT Docket No. 02-146, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4889, 4895–96, paras. 11–14 (2005) 
(Commission adopted an interference-analyses requirement for registering non-Federal Government licensees).  
12 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b)(3); 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23339–40, para. 45.  See also 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71–76 GHz, 81–
86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB 2005).  
13 47 CFR § 101.1507.
14 Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 20-133, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020) (70/80/90 GHz NPRM).
15 Id. at 6040, para. 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
4those links as “mobile” service.16  Noting that the 70/80/90 GHz bands could provide a “unique spectrum 
resource” for “the provisioning of broadband services to airplanes, ships, and other antennas in motion,”17 
the Commission sought comment on technical and operational rules to allow these new service offerings 
in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands and to mitigate interference to incumbents and other proposed users of 
these bands and adjacent bands.18
6. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM also proposed several changes to the antenna standards for the 
70 GHz and 80 GHz bands to provide greater flexibility in deploying 5G wireless backhaul, noting 
industry’s assessment of its needs.19  The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment as well on whether 
adopting a channelization plan would promote more efficient use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.20  In 
addition, the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM asked about whether the Commission should make changes to the link 
registration rules for the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands.21  Parties including aeronautical and satellite 
companies,22 radio astronomy interests,23 equipment manufacturers,24 fixed and mobile wireless entities,25 
and organizations focused on meteorology26 filed in response to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM.  Commenters 
discussed Aeronet’s proposals, the suitability of the bands for backhaul, and a range of ways to improve 
the bands’ overall functionality (such as channelization and updates to the relevant antenna standards and 
link registration process).  
7. Following the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, in October 2021, the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (WTB) issued a Public Notice seeking to further develop the record on the use of High Altitude 
Platform Stations (HAPS Public Notice) or other stratospheric-based platform services in the 70/80/90 
GHz bands.27  Fifteen Comments and five Reply Comments were filed in response to the HAPS Public 
16 Id. at 6043–44, para. 7 (citing Petition for Rulemaking of Aeronet Global Communications Inc., RM-11824 (filed 
Feb. 6, 2019) (Aeronet Aeronautical Petition); Petition for Rulemaking of Aeronet Global Communications Inc., 
RM-11825 (filed Feb. 6, 2019) (Aeronet Maritime Petition) (collectively, the Aeronet Petitions)).  Although the 
Aeronet Petitions proposed that endpoints in motion operations be permitted in the 70, 80 and 90 GHz bands, 
several parties that commented on the Aeronet Petitions expressed concerns about co-existence with other services 
in the 90 GHz band.  See id. at 6044–45, para. 8.  The Commission did not propose to authorize endpoints in motion 
in the 90 GHz band.  Id. at 6049–50, paras. 22, 26, n.78.
17 Id. at 6050, para. 25.
18 Id. at 6056–58, paras. 42–45. 
19 Id. at 6045–47, paras. 10–15.
20 Id. at 6058–99, paras. 46–48.
21 Id. at 6048–49, paras. 18–21.
22 See, e.g., AIRBUS Comments; Boeing Company Comments; L3 Technologies Comments; SIA Comments; 
Moog, Inc. Comments.  One satellite interest in particular, SpaceX, made numerous filings in this proceeding.  
Although SpaceX initially opposed the Aeronet Petitions, it subsequently expressed support for Aeronet’s proposed 
operations.  Compare, e.g., SpaceX Reply Comments at 5–7 with Letter from David Goldman, Director, Satellite 
Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed 
Oct. 12, 2021) (SpaceX Oct. 12, 2021 Ex Parte).  We discuss SpaceX’s FSS-specific advocacy in Section III.D of 
this Report and Order, and in the Further Notice portion of this item, Section IV, infra.
23 See, e.g., MIT Haystack Observatory Comments; NRAO Comments; CORF Comments.
24 See, e.g., Ericsson Comments; Nokia Comments; Qualcomm Comments.
25 See, e.g., CTIA Comments; WISPA Comments; Verizon Comments; AT&T Comments; CCA Comments.
26 See, e.g., American Geophysical Union et al. Comments; EUMETSAT Comments; European Centre for Medium 
Range Weather Forecasts Comments; World Meteorological Organization Comments.
27 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to Supplement the Record on 70/80/90 GHz Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 20-133, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 14375 (WTB 2021) (HAPS Public Notice).  The 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
5Notice, with participants ranging from past commenters on the original 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to additional 
governmental entities28 and public interest groups,29 among others.
8. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission committed to coordinate with NTIA prior 
to adopting any rules in this proceeding that would affect federal users, given that allocations for the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands include both federal and non-federal use.30  In response to the 70/80/90 GHz 
NPRM, NTIA established a technical interchange group (TIG) with representatives from the affected 
federal agencies, including National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Air Force, and 
NTIA itself (collectively, the Federal Agencies).31  Commission staff participated in regular information 
exchange meetings with the TIG.  The Federal Agencies, through NTIA, submitted a summary of their 
analyses and a set of proposed interference mitigation measures to the record.32  On October 18, 2023, the 
Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking to refresh the overall record in this proceeding and seeking 
comment, in particular, on the Federal Agencies’ proposals.33  Nine parties—eight of which had already 
participated in the record to date—filed comments in response to the Refresh Public Notice.34 
III. REPORT AND ORDER
9. After reviewing the record, we adopt rules to allow for point-to-point links to endpoints 
in motion—specifically, links on aircraft and on ships—in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands under our part 
101 rules.  We also adopt changes to our rules to facilitate the use of the 70 and 80 GHz bands for 
backhaul, including through the use of smaller antennas, and to improve the accuracy of the link 
registration database for the 70/80/90 GHz bands.  Specifically, we adopt proposals to increase maximum 
antenna beamwidth from 1.2 degrees to 2.2 degrees; reduce minimum antenna gain from 43 dBi to 38 dBi 
while retaining the proportional EIRP reduction requirement; eliminate the co-polar and relax the cross-
polar discrimination requirements at angles less than 5 degrees; revise the co-polar and cross-polar 
discrimination requirements at angles between 5 degrees and 180 degrees; and allow minor modifications 
to registrations in the 70/80/90 GHz bands without the loss of first-in-time rights.35  We further adopt a 
channelization plan consistent with Recommendation ITU-R F.2006.  Finally, we adopt a requirement 
that licensees certify that each link is constructed and operating within 12 months of successful 
registration in the link registration system (LRS) administered by third-party database managers.
A. Enabling Point-to-Point Communications to Aircraft and Ships
10. Pursuant to Aeronet’s two Petitions for Rulemaking—one addressing aeronautical 
service, the other maritime service36—the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM proposed to authorize point-to-point links 
(Continued from previous page)  
Commission’s rules define a “High Altitude Platform Station” as a “station located on an object at an altitude of 20 
to 50 km and at a specified, nominal, fixed point relative to the earth.”  Id. at 14376 (citing 47 CFR § 2.1(c)).
28 See, e.g., NTIA Reply Comments; NASA et al. Comments.
29 See, e.g., New America’s Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge Comments.
30 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6041, para. 2.
31 Letter from Charles Cooper, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Ronald T. 
Repasi, Chief, OET, FCC, and Joel Taubenblatt, Chief, WTB, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 2 (filed Oct. 17, 
2023) (Federal Agencies Letter).  
32 See generally id.
33 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record in 70/80/90 GHz Bands Proceeding, WT 
Docket No. 20-133, Public Notice, DA 23-988 (WTB 2023) (Refresh Public Notice).
34 See Almagest Space Corp. Refresh Public Notice Comments (first-time proceeding filer Almagest Space Corp. 
describing itself as a “new satellite operator” with plans to begin deployment in 2024).
35 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6045–46, 6048–49, paras. 11–12, 18–21.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
6to endpoints in motion on aircraft and on ships in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.37  The 70/80/90 GHz 
NPRM sought comment on this proposal, with a focus on potential impacts on other services, including 
radio astronomy service (RAS), Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (passive) (EESS), FSS, and terrestrial 
fixed point-to-point links in the Fixed Service (FS).38
11. As noted above, in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission committed to coordinate 
with NTIA prior to adopting any rules in this proceeding that would affect federal users;39 this 
coordination ultimately resulted in the work of NTIA’s TIG and the submission of the Federal Agencies 
Letter, which was one of the topics specifically noted in our Refresh Public Notice.  Both the Federal 
Agencies Letter and the responsive filings in the record have advanced our efforts to enable innovative 
new uses of this band in both the aeronautical and the maritime contexts, while ensuring adequate 
interference protection for incumbents and other authorized services in these and adjacent bands.
12. In order to facilitate increased provision of broadband service and enhanced competition 
in the aviation and maritime markets, we adopt rules authorizing point-to-point links to endpoints in 
motion on aircraft and on ships, pursuant to specifications and restrictions described below.  These rules 
will permit increased broadband access in this space while protecting important incumbent and federal 
operations.
1. Authorization and Framework
13.Classification of Services.  In its two original Petitions for Rulemaking, Aeronet 
requested that the Commission categorize its proposed services as fixed services.40  In the 70/80/90 GHz 
NPRM, however, the Commission instead proposed to classify service to endpoints in motion as a mobile 
service, because our rules define “fixed service” as a “radiocommunication service between specified 
fixed points,” which endpoints in motion inherently are not.41  Several commenters supported our 
approach, including Boeing, the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), and Loon, which 
also requested that we make sure any definition of “mobile” include mobile components of HAPS 
systems as well.42  The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) alone opposed mobile 
classification, on the grounds that one endpoint of the transmission is fixed, and therefore the service does 
not reach “full mobility,” and also because the appropriate comparison is with the Fixed Satellite Service, 
which may provide service to Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) without being reclassified as “Mobile-
Satellite Services.”43  WISPA also argued that if we do classify services to endpoints in motion as mobile, 
we should classify them as aeronautical mobile and maritime mobile specifically, as those terms are 
defined in our existing rules.44
14. We find WISPA’s arguments unpersuasive.  Other mobile services, for example cellular 
service, ubiquitously involve transmissions from one fixed point (the base station) to a variety of mobile 
points (the cell phone), without risking reclassification as a fixed service.  As between “mobile” and 
“aeronautical mobile,” we note that a classification as simply “mobile” encompasses aeronautical use.  
(Continued from previous page)  
36 Aeronet Aeronautical Petition; Aeronet Maritime Petition.
37 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6049–50, para. 22.
38 Id. at 6049–50, para. 22; id. at 6056–58, paras. 42–45.
39 Id. at 6041, para. 2.
40 Aeronet Aeronautical Petition at 28; Aeronet Maritime Petition at 26–27.
41 47 CFR § 2.1(c); 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6052, para. 30.
42 Boeing Comments at 6; FWCC Comments at 6–7; Loon Comments at 9–10.
43 WISPA Comments at 7–8.
44 Id. at 9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
7Similarly, as between “mobile” and “maritime mobile,” a classification as simply “mobile” encompasses 
maritime use.  Given the otherwise favorable record, and our existing rules, we conclude that the service 
we authorize today, involving transmissions to and from aeronautical endpoints in motion, is a mobile 
service.  
15. As noted in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, our authorization of a mobile service in the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands constitutes a revisiting of the Commission’s previous actions in the Spectrum 
Frontiers proceeding.45  At that time, the Commission declined to authorize mobile use in the 70 GHz and 
80 GHz bands, but reserved the right to revisit the issue of possible methods of promoting coexistence 
between fixed links and mobile operations as mobile deployments increased in other millimeter-wave 
bands, as technology developed, and as additional options or frameworks for coexistence of fixed and 
mobile services in the same band were brought forth.46  In the six years since the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers 
Order, there have been considerable advances in both technology and sharing paradigms—and Aeronet 
and other parties have continued to submit new analyses on possible coexistence.47  We therefore 
conclude that revisiting the Commission’s previous stance on this matter is warranted and appropriate.  
We note that the mobile services that we permit pursuant to our decisions in this Report and Order are 
subject to significantly different rules and requirements than the part 30 rules we contemplated in 2017.48
16.Limitation to 70 GHz and 80 GHz Bands.  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we noted various 
concerns already in the record regarding potential harmful interference to Enhanced Flight Vision 
Systems (EFVS) and Foreign Object Detection (FOD) systems from Aeronet’s proposed service in the 90 
GHz band and, on that basis, proposed to allow endpoint-in-motion operations only in the 70 GHz and 80 
GHz bands, while continuing to seek comment on the issue.49  Since then, additional concerns have been 
raised by numerous other entities regarding proposed aeronautical use of the 90 GHz band, due to both 
potential incompatibility with proposed use by EFVS and FOD systems,50 and potential harmful 
interference to radio astronomy and remote sensing receivers in the 86–92 GHz band and at 94.0–94.1 
GHz.51  Given the many concerns raised in the record, and the relatively greater interest expressed in 
expanding use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, we conclude that the risk of harmful interference to 
incumbent and adjacent services outweighs the benefit to consumers of allowing service to aeronautical 
endpoints-in-motion in the 90 GHz band.  As proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we therefore 
authorize endpoint-in-motion service only in the 70 and 80 GHz bands.  At this juncture, the new service 
45 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6053, para. 33 (citing Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile 
Radio Services, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 10988, 11054, para. 200 (2017) (2017 
Spectrum Frontiers Order)).
46 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 11054, paras. 200–01.  Indeed, the Commission noted that 
companies such as Aeronet, Google, and The Elefante Group had filed comments in the Spectrum Frontiers 
proceeding that “proposed different uses for these bands which neither fit the traditional mobile broadband nor fixed 
link models.”  Id. (note omitted).  See also 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6053, para. 33.
47 Letter from Samuel L. Feder, Counsel to Aeronet Global Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, RM-11824, RM-11825 (filed May 10, 2019) (attaching a study by Comsearch entitled “Aeronet Aviation and 
Maritime Communications Systems:  Compatibility with Incumbent E-Band Fixed Services and Link Registration 
System” (Comsearch Report)).
48 See generally 47 CFR pt. 30.
49 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6050, para. 26; Sierra Nevada Corp. Comments at 2–3; Moog Reply 
Comments at 7.
50 Airbus Comments at 1; Boeing Comments at 5; Moog Comments at 5; Sierra Nevada Corp. Comments at 2.
51 American Geophysical Union/American Meteorological Society/National Weather Association Comments at 6; 
CORF Comments at 2; ETA/EUMETSAT Reply Comments at 2; European Centre for Medium Range Weather 
Forecasts Reply Comments at 1; IEEE-GRSS FARS Reply Comments at 1–2; NRAO Comments at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
8covers:  (1) in the aeronautical space, ground-to-air and air-to-ground transmissions between ground 
stations and aircraft, and air-to-air transmission between aircraft in flight; and (2) in the maritime space, 
ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, shore-to-aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, aerostat-to-shore, and ship-to-ship 
transmissions.52
17.Coordination, Licensing, and Registration.  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment generally on what changes to the 70/80/90 GHz coordination, licensing, and registration 
framework might be necessary in order to facilitate the operation of endpoints in motion under part 101.53  
The Commission also proposed to incorporate such operations, to the extent ultimately authorized, into 
the current framework of non-exclusive, nationwide licensing used for fixed point-to-point operations in 
these bands.54  The record is fairly thin on the specifics of the appropriate licensing framework; most 
commenters focused on whether we should authorize this service as an initial matter.  However, several 
commenters did voice support for including any new service in the existing third-party database 
management system.55 
18. In order to allow service to aeronautical and maritime endpoints in motion to deploy 
efficiently and without causing harmful interference to incumbent operations and other services in these 
bands, the applicable licensing mechanism must support adequate coordination with those other services 
without being unduly burdensome on both incumbent and new operators.  To this end, we will require 
prospective operators of service to aeronautical and maritime endpoints in motion to first apply for and 
receive a nationwide, non-exclusive license.  This license will establish the prospective operator’s 
qualification to be a licensee and will serve as a blanket license for:  (1) on the aeronautical side, air-to-air 
operations, and as a prerequisite to register ground-to-air (GTA) stations and associated air-to-ground 
(ATG) transmission; and (2) on the maritime side, as a prerequisite to register ship-to-shore, shore-to-
ship, shore-to-aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, and aerostat-to-shore transmissions.  We clarify that as of the 
effective date of the rules we are adopting today, all nationwide, non-exclusive licenses for the 70/80/90 
GHz service will include the service areas set forth in section 101.1501 as revised today.56
19. In the matter of coordinating and registering individual aeronautical stations and links, 
we proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to require coordination and registration for not only GTA 
stations and ATG transmissions, but also air-to-air links between two aircraft in motion.57  We also sought 
comment on how all types of links should be represented or described in their registrations, as the current 
system, designed for fixed point-to-point links on the ground, does not account for potential differences in 
altitude or the varying orientation of links to endpoints in motion.58  Several commenters noted the 
potential difficulty of coordinating air-to-air links, due not only to these different characteristics, but also 
their temporary and transient nature.59  Aeronet proposed coordinating three-dimensional polyhedrons for 
air-to-air links, which DSA supports, within a horizontal altitude band from 10,000 to 50,000 feet.60  
52 For purposes of both the Report and Order and Further Notice, we consider the term “aerostat” to mean an 
airborne transmitter operating within a small specified area, below 1,000 feet of elevation, regardless of method of 
propulsion. 
53 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6054, para. 35.
54 Id. 
55 DSA Reply Comments at 2–3, SIA Comments at 8, Letter from David Goldman, Director, Satellite Policy, Space 
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1 (filed Nov. 8, 
2021) (SpaceX Nov. 8, 2021 Ex Parte).
56 See infra Appx. A. at 47 CFR § 101.1501.
57 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6054, para. 36.
58 Id. at 6055, para. 37.
59 CORF Comments at 2. 
60 Aeronet Aeronautical Petition at 14; DSA Comments at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
9However, concerns in the record about potential harmful interference from air-to-air transmissions stem 
mainly from such transmissions’ specific angle, direction, or distance from specific sites (most of which 
would not be addressed by registration of polyhedrons) that can be addressed directly with specific 
limitations.61  Due to the difficulties of adequately representing the potential interference from these links 
in the existing database structure,62 and in light of the various interference mitigation measures we also 
adopt (discussed below) to answer those concerns, we will not require registration or coordination of 
individual air-to-air links.  
20. In the matter of coordinating and registering individual maritime stations and links, the 
Commission proposed in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM to require coordination and registration for not only 
ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship transmissions, but also ship-to-ship and ship-to-node (i.e., as described in 
this item ship-to-aerostat).63  The Commission also sought comment on how all types of links should be 
represented or described in their registrations, as the current system—designed for two-dimensional fixed 
point-to-point links on the ground—does not account for potential differences in three-dimensional space-
to-endpoints in motion.64  As explained immediately above, commenters focused on the potential 
difficulty of coordinating air-to-air links, and Aeronet proposed a system of three-dimensional 
polyhedrons for the same.  Similar in-depth discussion around maritime-related links did not develop in 
the record.  
21. After receiving the nationwide license, aeronautical operators will coordinate with federal 
operators and register GTA stations and associated ATG transmissions, and must not operate such 
facilities until registration has successfully been completed.  Air-to-air operations will not be separately 
registered but may only operate under a nationwide license if the communication is associated with a 
registered GTA or ATG registration.  All GTA and ATG operations, including operations transmitting to 
or from aeronautical endpoints in motion and associated ground stations, will be afforded protection from 
other operations on a first-in-time basis, and must afford those other operations the relevant first-in-time 
protections in turn.65  
22. After receiving the nationwide license, maritime operators will coordinate with federal 
operators and register shore-to-ship transmitters, shore-to-aerostat transmitters, ship-to-shore transmitters, 
and aerostat relay stations.  As with GTA and ATG transmissions, all such maritime operators must not 
operate any facilities until registration has successfully been completed.  All such maritime operations 
will be afforded protection from other operations on a first-in-time basis and must afford those other 
operations the relevant first-in-time protections in turn.  
23. We delegate authority to WTB to establish specific procedures to be followed for 
coordinating and registering aeronautical and maritime stations and their associated transmissions, to be 
61 See, e.g., Federal Agencies Letter.
62 See Comsearch HAPS Public Notice Comments at 2 (citing Comsearch Comments at 17:  “[A]ny concept of 
recording polyhedrons, cones, or polygons to represent mobile operations, or likewise any other approach to 
database information to describe these operations would constitute a major change to the current registration 
database structure and process.”).
63 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6054, para. 36.
64 Id. at 6055, para. 37.
65 We note the request of CTIA and others that we grant priority to fixed service in these bands over new uses.  
CTIA Refresh Public Notice Comments at 6; see also, e.g., AT&T Refresh Public Notice Comments at 3–4.  Fixed 
service in these bands has been co-primary with other services, including mobile service, for some time.  See 47 
CFR § 2.106.  Adopting new service rules for these existing allocations does not change the co-primary status of the 
fixed service.  Additionally, incorporating these new aeronautical and maritime services into the existing registration 
regime with first-in-time protection effectively protects all existing operations, including fixed operations, from all 
deployments in these services.  That subsequent deployments will be protected from each other on a first in time 
basis is also consistent with the co-primary nature of the allocations.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
10set forth in a future publication or publications.  We note, in relation to technical discussion raised by 
certain parties in the docket,66 that validation of new aeronautical and maritime systems’ ability to not 
cause interference may involve processes beyond the third-party database system.67  Additionally, we 
delegate authority to WTB and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to establish a process, in 
coordination with NTIA, for demonstrating that technologies for point-to-endpoint-in-motion 
communications to aircraft and ships are capable of meeting the specific technical and operating 
requirements adopted in this Report and Order.  We instruct WTB and OET to take such actions as 
authorized by sections 0.241(l) and 0.331(g) of our rules, which we adopt today, and to do so 
expeditiously.
2. Technical and Operational Rules 
24. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM we sought comment on what changes to our current rules 
might be necessary to facilitate the contemplated aeronautical and maritime services, while protecting 
incumbent and federal operations.68  We also sought comment generally on any interference mitigation 
measures not specifically mentioned that might be necessary to protect other operations.69  
25. In response to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, some commenters argued—focusing on the 
aeronautical context in particular—that a more developed record would be necessary to support the 
authorization of aeronautical mobile service along the lines proposed by Aeronet, given the potential for 
interference to incumbent and other potential services.70  Other commenters disagreed.71  Maritime service 
was largely unaddressed in the record.  A small number of parties—including SpaceX, T-Mobile, and 
Verizon72—raised more specific, albeit still highly generalized, objections to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM’s 
proposed maritime authorizations, citing in part concerns over potential impacts on fixed wireless 
backhaul, among other issues.  Others generally endorsed the adoption of the proposed maritime regime.73  
26. Since the initial comment period to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, additional submissions to 
the record, including detailed contributions from NTIA and other federal agencies, have enhanced the 
66 See, e.g., Comsearch Refresh Public Notice Comments at 1–2 (articulating, consistent with past filings from the 
same party, how certain changes might “require major modifications to the databases or most likely entirely new 
structures” (internal quotations, citation omitted)).
67 See generally 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23341–45, paras. 48–60  (detailing the 
coordination and registration regime for the 70/80/90 GHz bands, including the use of third-party database 
managers); Allocations and Service Rules for 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-
146, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20524 (WTB 2004) (designating three entities as database Managers “tasked with jointly 
developing and managing databases of link registrations by FCC licensees in the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 
GHz bands (collectively, link registration system)”).
68 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6055–58, paras. 40–46.
69 Id. at 6057, para. 45.
70 Letter from Gregory Coutros, Associate Corporate Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1–2 (filed Feb. 26, 2021) (Hughes Feb. 26, 2021 
Ex Parte); Letter from Jennifer Manner, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 
and David Goldman, Director, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 2 (filed Dec. 7, 2020).
71 Letter from Dowel V. King, Sr. Manager, Contracts, L3 Technologies, Inc. Communications Systems West, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 2 (filed May 18, 2021) (L3Harris May 18, 2021 Ex 
Parte). 
72 SpaceX Reply Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 2–3 and 10–11; Verizon Comments at 2–3.
73 See, e.g., SIA Comments at 7–8; Nokia Reply Comments at 3; L3 Technologies Comments at 1–2.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
11depth of the record.74  Our increased understanding of potential interactions between Aeronet’s proposed 
service and incumbent, adjacent, and other potential operations, including sensitive operations such as 
weather satellites in the EESS, now allows us to set forth a series of technical and operational rules 
calculated to protect all services within the 70/80 GHz bands, and adjacent to them, from harmful 
interference.
27. Except as noted below, the aeronautical and maritime mobile services we authorize today 
will be governed by part 101 of our rules.  Though part 101 currently encompasses only fixed services, 
we find it appropriate to place the service rules governing aeronautical and maritime mobile services in 
the 70 and 80 GHz bands within the same rule part.  In addition, operators of these new services must 
coordinate with operators in the existing FS, and part 101 is the logical home for rules related to that 
coordination.  The technical and operational rules we set forth below are sufficient to accommodate the 
different technical characteristics of these aeronautical and maritime transmissions.
28.Guard Bands.  We did not specifically seek comment in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM on the 
potential use of guard bands as means of protecting services in adjacent bands from harmful interference.  
Several commenters suggest them, particularly to protect both EESS satellites and RAS facilities in the 
86–92 GHz band.75  However, the analysis submitted by the Federal Agencies, which includes NASA and 
NOAA, instead relies upon specified out of band emissions (OOBE) limits to protect EESS.76  Because 
the Federal Agencies’ analysis supports coexistence between the new aeronautical and maritime services 
and services in adjacent bands without the use of a guard band, no commenters objected to the lack of 
guard bands in response to the Refresh Public Notice, and based on our engineering analysis of the 
Federal Agencies’ recommendations, we decline to adopt guard bands as an interference protection 
measure here.
29.Transmission Power Levels.  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we sought comment on 
Aeronet’s request to increase the maximum allowable mobile equivalent isotropically radiated power 
(EIRP) for the 70 and 80 GHz bands from +55 dBW to +57 dBW.77  CORF and satellite operators 
objected to this proposal, on the grounds that an increased power level would unacceptably increase the 
risk of harmful interference to FSS and RAS operations.78  Qualcomm supported the increase, arguing 
that atmospheric attenuation in these bands should be sufficient to mitigate interference concerns.79  
Aeronet argues that the proposed increase is minimal and that the highly directional nature of 
transmissions in its proposed service will work to avoid incidents of harmful interference.80  The Federal 
Agencies’ analysis of potential interference into federal operations assumes +57 dBW, and suggests that 
the recommended interference mitigation measures in its report would be sufficient to protect federal 
74 See Federal Agencies Letter; Letter from Roger Sherman, Counsel to Aeronet Global Communications Inc., to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133 (filed May 12, 2022); Letter from Jameson Dempsey, Principal, 
Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-
133 (filed May 23, 2022) (SpaceX May 23, 2022 Ex Parte); Letter from Jameson Dempsey, Principal, Satellite 
Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed 
July 25, 2022) (SpaceX July 25, 2022 Ex Parte).  The Federal Agencies Letter in particular contains detailed 
analysis and specific actionable recommendations for interference mitigation.  See Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. 
B; id., Attach. C.
75 Letter from Dan DePodwin, Manager of Forecasting Operations, AccuWeather, Inc. et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133, at 2–3 (filed Sept. 17, 2020); CORF Comments at 2; American Astronomical Society 
Comments at 2; IEEE-GRSS Reply Comments at 1–2; NRAO Comments at 3.
76 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A at 1.
77 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 5056, para. 42.
78 Hughes Feb. 26, 2021 Ex Parte; CORF Comments at 2; SIA Comments at 5–6.
79 Qualcomm Comments at 10.
80 Aeronet Comments at 1–2; Aeronet Reply Comments at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
12operations from an aeronautical mobile service operating at that power level.81
30. We acknowledge the concerns of satellite operators and the RAS community about 
potential interference from the services that this item contemplates, as discussed in more detail below.  
However, the Federal Agencies’ analysis addresses potential harmful interference to both RAS and FSS 
operations, and we find it persuasive based on our review of the record and our independent analysis.  As 
we also adopt the interference mitigation measures recommended in that report, we adopt a maximum 
EIRP level of +57 dBW for transmissions in these new aeronautical and maritime mobile services.  
a. Transmissions Between Aircraft and Ground Stations
31. In introducing a new aeronautical mobile service to these bands, care must be taken to 
ensure compatibility with existing and other authorized services, both in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, 
and adjacent to them.  The record reflects a variety of concerns about the potential impact on these other 
services.  To address these concerns, we adopt a number of interference mitigation measures specifically 
related to transmissions between ground stations and aircraft in flight, described below.  Ground-to-air 
and air-to-ground transmissions are limited to the 80 GHz and 70 GHz bands, respectively; ground 
stations must be located a minimum distance away from RAS facilities, fixed stations, and FSS earth 
stations; specific OOBE limits above 86 GHz must be observed; and minimum and maximum elevation 
angles for ground-to-air transmissions are required.
32. Several commenters expressed concern regarding air-to-ground transmissions in the 80 
GHz band, due to the potential for such transmissions to cause harmful interference to RAS operations.82  
No party, including Aeronet, has argued that downlink transmissions in the 80 GHz band are necessary to 
provide aeronautical service, provided that the 70 GHz band is available for that purpose.  AT&T notes in 
its comments that a channel plan that designates different parts of the 70 GHz or 80 GHz bands for uplink 
versus downlink signals would be beneficial to reduce self-interference to air-to-ground and ground-to-air 
mobile systems.83  In addition, having air-to-ground transmissions in the 70 GHz band and ground-to-air 
transmissions in the 80 GHz band creates directional consistency with the bands designated for space-to-
Earth (71–76 GHz) and Earth-to-space (81–86 GHz) in the FSS service.  Aeronet’s technical study 
indicates compatibility with the FSS services while assuming air-to-ground transmissions in the 70 GHz 
band and ground-to-air transmissions in the 80 GHz band.84  SpaceX supported Aeronet’s study.85  We 
therefore authorize air-to-ground transmissions only in the 70 GHz band. 
33. Many commenters suggested that some separation distance between aeronautical ground 
stations and operations of other services, including RAS stations, FSS earth stations, and fixed point-to-
point links, would be either advisable or necessary to reduce the risk of harmful interference.86  The 
Federal Agencies’ analysis provides specific values for such separation distances:  greater than 10 km for 
licensed FSS earth stations, 10 km for fixed point-to-point transmitters, and 150 km for RAS operations.87  
That analysis also asserts that in order to protect RAS operations, ground stations should not transmit in 
81 See Federal Agencies Letter at 2; id., Attach. B at 2.
82 CORF Comments at 2; NRAO Comments at 8; Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. C at 1.
83 AT&T Comments at 10.
84 Letter from Roger Sherman, Counsel to Aeronet Global Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT 20-133, Attach. at 4 (filed Oct. 4, 2021) (Aeronet Oct. 4, 2021 Ex Parte) (filing attaching a September 
2021 study entitled “Aviation-Satellite Coexistence in the 70 and 80 GHz bands”).
85 SpaceX Oct. 12, 2021 Ex Parte at 1. 
86 DSA Comments at 3–4; Letter from Martin L. Stern and E. Barlow Keener, Counsel to Sceye Inc., to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133, at 3 (filed Apr. 19, 2022); SpaceX HAPS Public Notice Comments at 4; NSF 
HAPS Public Notice Comments at 2.
87 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A at 1–2; id., Attach. B at 4, 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
13the direction of an RAS facility, or receive transmissions from aircraft in that direction, such that the 
transmission enters the appropriate “zone of avoidance” around the facility.88  In response to the Refresh 
Public Notice, NRAO raised concerns that this 150 km separation distance may be inadequate to protect 
RAS operations in the 76–81 GHz band specifically.89
34. We find the conclusions of the Federal Agencies’ analysis persuasive.  No other party has 
submitted alternative suggestions for separation distances with respect to federal operations.  With regard 
to NRAO’s concerns, we note that as the Technical Interchange Group that produced the Federal 
Agencies Letter specifically considered interference into the 76–81 GHz band, and as NSF, with which 
NRAO is affiliated, participated in the TIG and endorsed its output, we will defer to the expertise of NSF 
in this matter.90  Accordingly, we adopt a minimum separation distance of 150 km between RAS facilities 
and aeronautical ground stations.
35. With respect to FS and FSS, although the 10 km distances were calculated specifically 
with federal operations in mind, we find that a 10 km distance separation should apply with respect to 
non-federal operations in these services.  With respect to FSS, the record generally supports the 10 km 
separation distance without objection.  For example, Aeronet’s study showing compatibility between its 
system and FSS concluded that a 10 km separation distance would be sufficient to prevent interference91 
and SpaceX supports this conclusion.92  With respect to FS, Aeronet contends that applying a 10 km 
separation requirement for ground stations is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive given that 
Aeronet expects to, in some cases, be able to co-locate with backhaul links.93  FWCC and CTIA, on the 
other hand, assert that the 10 km separation distance is necessary to protect non-Federal FS stations.94  
Based on our assessment of the record, we do not find any technical reason to adopt a different separation 
distance between ground stations and non-Federal FS stations than we adopt for the separation between 
ground stations and Federal FS stations.  Moreover, in response to Aeronet’s concern that a 10 km 
separation distance could preclude co-location of ground stations with backhaul links, we note that 
ground stations can be separated less than 10 km from backhaul links pursuant to coordination 
agreements, and we encourage all parties to explore more efficient interference protection parameters in 
the context of those discussions.  We find that a 10 km coordination requirement strikes the appropriate 
balance for sharing between the longstanding use of the bands under the fixed allocation and the new uses 
under the co-primary mobile allocation—including ground stations with antennas that are not static.  
36. While Comsearch assumed a larger coordination area around FS stations than 10 km, we 
note that its analysis uses conservative assumptions to calculate an area on the ground that could be 
illuminated by an aircraft antenna.95  This worst-case calculation does not take into account a number of 
88 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. B at 4.
89 NRAO Refresh Public Notice Comments at 1.
90 See Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A at 1 (separate entries for mitigating adjacent band interference into both 
86–92 GHz and 76–81 GHz), Federal Agencies Letter at 1 (listing participating agencies, including NSF); see also 
NSF, Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (Feb. 2023), 
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/ (enumerating all Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and 
their sponsors—including, for NRAO, NSF). 
91 Aeronet Oct. 4, 2021 Ex Parte, Attach. at 2.
92 SpaceX Oct. 12, 2021 Ex Parte at 1 (“SpaceX supports Aeronet’s ‘very conservative’ conclusion that a 
coordination area of 10 kilometers would prevent harmful interference between its ground stations and FSS 
gateways in the 70/80 GHz bands.”).
93 Aeronet Jan. 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 2–3.
94 Letter from Seth L. Williams, Counsel, FWCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 
2 (filed Jan. 18, 2024); Letter from Michael Mullinix, Vice President—Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 2–3 (filed Jan. 18, 2024).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
14factors that would reduce the interference potential, most notably the directional nature of transmissions 
from the aircraft.  Considering the relative potential interference between ground stations and FSS versus 
FS, we note the following:  (1) the elevation angle of FSS earth station receive antennas makes them more 
likely to be co-linear with the air-to-ground link; (2) due to the long path from space-to-Earth, the desired 
signal at a satellite earth station from a satellite would typically be weaker than the desired signal at an FS 
receiver from its transmitter (in other words, the C in the C/I ratio would be higher for any FS station); 
and (3) the Federal FSS study assumed an interference threshold of I/N = -12.2 dB would be required to 
protect FSS, whereas the typical interference threshold for FS is 1.0 dB of degradation of the static 
threshold of the protected receiver,96 which equates to an I/N of -6 dB.  These factors all indicate that FS 
would be less susceptible to interference from air-to-ground or ground-to-air links than FSS.  We 
therefore conclude that there is no need for the separation distance between ground stations and FS 
stations to be any greater than the separation distance between ground stations and FSS stations.  
Accordingly, we adopt a minimum separation distance 10 km between proposed aeronautical ground 
stations and any registered fixed point-to-point transmitter or FSS earth station, Federal or non-Federal, in 
the absence of a coordination agreement with the fixed station or FSS earth station operator.
37. Commenters in the record evidenced significant concern regarding protection of EESS 
sensors above 86 GHz from harmful interference due to spurious emissions from the 80 GHz band.97  We 
sought comment on what interference mitigation measures might be necessary to protect EESS services 
operating in the 86–92 GHz band.98  CORF, ESA/EUMETSAT, and the World Meteorological 
Organization suggest that the OOBE limits in our rules should be updated to conform to the standard set 
forth in ITU-R Resolution 750.99  The Federal Agencies, based on an independent analysis incorporating 
specific details of Aeronet’s proposed system, recommend an OOBE limit of -38.5 dBW in any 100 
megahertz of the passive band 86–92 GHz for ground-to-air transmissions.100  
38. We find the recommendation of the Federal Agencies to be persuasive.  We acknowledge 
that this OOBE limit is slightly more lenient than that urged by CORF and others.  However, the Federal 
Agencies’ analysis takes into account specific characteristics of Aeronet’s proposed system.  We are 
therefore confident that their resulting conclusions are sufficient to adequately protect EESS operations.  
We adopt an OOBE limit of -38.5 dBW in any 100 megahertz of the passive band 86–92 GHz for ground-
to-air transmissions.
39.Minimum and Maximum Elevation Angles.  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we sought 
comment on a minimum elevation angle of five degrees for transmissions from ground stations, consistent 
with the parameters in Aeronet’s initial petition.101  Some commenters suggest that lower elevation angles, 
such as three or even 1.5 degrees, would be sufficient to prevent harmful interference.102  Hughes argues 
(Continued from previous page)  
95 For example, the Comsearch analysis assumes an aircraft altitude of 50,000 ft—see Comsearch Report at 22—
whereas most commercial aircraft typically fly between 31,000 and 38,000 feet.  
96 47 CFR § 101.105; TIA-10-A, Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems (TIA 2023), 
https://tiaonline.org/standardannouncement/tia-issues-new-interference-criteria-for-microwave-systems-standard/.
97 AGU/AMS/NWA Comments at 6; CORF Comments at 2; ESA/EUMETSAT Reply Comments at 1; European 
Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Comments at 1; World Meteorological Organization Reply Comments 
at 2.
98 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6056, para. 42.
99 CORF Comments at 2; ESA/EUMETSAT Reply Comments at 1; World Meteorological Organization Reply 
Comments at 2.
100 See Letter from Charles Cooper, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Ronald T. 
Repasi, Chief, OET, FCC, and Joel Taubenblatt, Chief, WTB, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1–2 (filed Dec. 29, 
2023) (Federal Agencies Clarification Letter); see also Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A at 1; id., Attach. B at 8–9.
101 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6056, para. 43; Aeronet Aeronautical Petition at 14.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
15that lower elevation angles might require larger separation distances between these aeronautical ground 
stations and FSS ground stations, thereby hampering future deployment of FSS service.103  Geneva 
Communications is generally supportive of some minimum elevation angle in order to protect incumbent 
Fixed users,104 and FWCC supports a five degree minimum specifically.105  Loon argues that any 
minimum elevation angle would favor some systems or business models over others, and thereby restrict 
competition.106  Comsearch’s analysis of the potential impact of Aeronet’s proposed service on other 
services in the 70/80/90 GHz bands concludes that a minimum elevation angle of five degrees 
significantly mitigates the potential for interference into fixed point-to-point links.107  Aeronet 
subsequently indicated that a minimum elevation angle of five degrees could impact deployment timing 
and costs compared to a lower angle such as three degrees.108
40. We adopt a minimum elevation angle of five degrees for ground stations in this 
aeronautical service.  This is consistent with Aeronet’s initial petition and with the record before us.109  
We find Loon’s argument against any minimum elevation angle unpersuasive.  Elevation angle is 
routinely an area of potential concern in bands where terrestrial service coexists with services operating at 
altitude; for example, part 25 of our rules, which provides the default rules for satellite operations, 
requires that satellite earth stations not transmit at elevation angles below five degrees in any band shared 
with a terrestrial radio service.110  Adopting a similar restriction on aeronautical services is motivated by 
similar interference protection concerns and remains a technology-neutral requirement.  Given the 
concerns raised in the record about lower elevation angles, we conclude that five degrees is the most 
appropriate value.  That said, we recognize the benefits to efficient spectrum use, and ultimately 
consumers, of permitting parties to agree to less stringent interference mitigation measures than required 
under our rules.  Accordingly, WTB will consider any request for waiver of this rule through our existing 
regulatory processes,111 subject to coordination with NTIA to ensure that federal incumbents are protected 
(Continued from previous page)  
102 L3Harris May 18, 2021 Ex Parte at 2; Letter from John W. Kuzin, Vice President and Regulatory Counsel, 
Qualcomm Incorporated, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133, at 1 (filed Jan. 8, 2021).
103 Hughes Feb. 26, 2021 Ex Parte at 2. 
104 Letter from Wesley K. Wright, Counsel to McKay Brothers, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 
20-133, at 2 (filed June 2, 2022).
105 FWCC Comments at 6–7.
106 Loon Reply Comments at 3.
107 Comsearch Report at 3.
108 See Aeronet Jan. 10, 2024 Ex Parte at 1 (seeking “an expedited process for Commission staff or the future 
database administrator to adjust the minimum angle after appropriate coordination with potentially impacted parties 
based on real-world data”). 
109 We note that the Federal Agencies Clarification Letter stated that one study initially conducted by the Federal 
Agencies assumed 3 degree minimum elevation angles.  Federal Agencies Clarification Letter at 1–2.  However, in 
the record before us Aeronet has only proposed a 5 degree minimum elevation angle, both in its own Petition and in 
studies that Aeronet commissioned.  See, e.g., Aeronet Aeronautical Petition at 14; Comsearch Report at 3–4, 21–22.  
The OOBE limit of -38.5 dBW in any 100 megahertz of the passive band 86–92 GHz for ground-to-air 
transmissions, as recommended in the Federal Agencies Clarification Letter, accounts for a 5 degree minimum 
elevation angle.
110 47 CFR § 25.205.
111 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3) (grant of a waiver request requires a showing that “the underlying purpose of the rule(s) 
would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the requested 
waiver would be in the public interest; or in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, 
application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant 
has no reasonable alternative”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
16from harmful interference and, as Aeronet suggests, “coordination with other potentially impacted parties 
based on real-world data.”112 
41. We also adopt a maximum elevation angle of forty-five degrees for aeronautical ground 
stations.  Though this parameter was not included in Aeronet’s petition, it is the maximum elevation angle 
used by the Federal Agencies in their analysis of potential harmful interference to federal operations, and 
these assumptions about likely operational parameters were based on input from Aeronet.113  Because this 
analysis shows that elevation angles of up to forty-five degrees can (under certain other parameters) 
coexist successfully with federal operations, and because we lack evidence in the record that 
transmissions above that angle of elevation will not cause harmful interference to federal or other satellite 
operations, we adopt a maximum elevation angle of forty-five degrees.
42. Together, these technical parameters and interference mitigation measures will ensure 
that operators in this aeronautical mobile service will be able to successfully operate, while also 
protecting operators in other services.
b. Transmissions Between Aircraft In Flight
43. Air-to-air transmissions present a unique set of characteristics in terms of the potential for 
interaction with other services, in both the same and adjacent bands, and accordingly, considerable 
attention has been paid to how harmful interference from such transmissions might be avoided.  In the 
70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission sought comment generally on potential interference mitigation 
measures.114  Many commenters raised concerns about the potential for harmful interference into other 
services, particularly RAS sites above 86 GHz.115  In response to these concerns, Aeronet, Comsearch, 
and other commenters suggested a variety of potential mitigation measures.116  In particular, the Federal 
Agencies submitted a report with both suggested interference mitigation measures and underlying 
analysis supporting them, which they suggest would be sufficient to protect federal operations both in the 
70/80 GHz bands and in adjacent bands from harmful interference from air-to-air transmissions.
44. After reviewing the record, and as discussed in more detail below, we adopt the following 
technical and operational restrictions on transmissions between aircraft in flight, in order to reduce the 
risk of harmful interference to other services.  Air-to-air transmissions will be authorized in both the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands.  We establish an OOBE limit of -29.7 dBW in any 100 megahertz of the passive 
band 86–92 GHz, to protect EESS (passive) operations.  In the 80 GHz band, we set a maximum allowed 
EIRP signal level towards any of a specified list of RAS sites, varying by transmission frequency and 
distance from the site.  In the 70 GHz band, we adopt a similar limit on EIRP signal levels toward 
specified military installations.  Finally, we adopt both altitude restrictions and a minimum slant path 
distance requirement in order to reduce the risk of harmful interference to in-band services, particularly 
fixed point-to-point links.
45. Several commenters raised concerns in the record that air-to-air transmissions in the 80 
GHz band might produce unwanted emissions into the band above 86 GHz that might cause harmful 
interference to services in that band, particularly RAS observatories and EESS operations.117  We agree 
112 Aeronet Jan. 10, 2024 Ex Parte at 1.
113 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. B at 7.
114 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6057, para. 45.
115 American Geophysical Union et al. Comments at 6; CORF Comments at 2; ETA/EUMETSAT Reply Comments 
at 2; European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reply Comments at 1; IEEE-GRSS FARS Reply 
Comments at 1–2; NRAO Comments at 3.
116 See e.g., Aeronet Comments at 1–2, 3; Comsearch Report at 42–44; Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A.
117 American Astronomical Society Comments at 2; CORF Comments at 2, MIT Haystack Observatory Comments 
at 1–2, NRAO Comments at 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
17with commenters on the importance of protecting RAS and EESS operations in the 86–92 GHz band.  
However, based on the analysis by the Federal Agencies, we conclude that the interference mitigation 
measures we adopt today, which include restrictions on transmissions in the direction of RAS sites, are 
sufficient to allow air-to-air transmissions in both the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. 
46. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we sought general comment on what interference mitigation 
measures might be necessary to protect EESS and RAS services operating in the 86–92 GHz band.118  
Among the measures proposed by commenters relating to air-to-air transmissions were limiting those 
transmissions to the 70 GHz band119 and updating the OOBE limits to reflect recent ITU standards.120  
Several commenters also discussed the need for any air-to-air transmissions to avoid pointing directly at 
an RAS receiver.121  The Federal Agencies’ analysis recommends an OOBE limit of -29.7 dBW in any 
100 megahertz of the passive band 86–92 GHz for air-to-air transmissions in order to protect EESS 
sensors, and a set of restrictions on EIRP levels toward any RAS site depending on the distance of the 
transmitter to the site.122  Aeronet has represented both in our record and to the Federal Agencies that their 
proposed system has the capability to automatically avoid transmission towards specified stationary areas 
or coordinates corresponding to RAS sites, which would enable them to comply with such a 
requirement.123
47. We adopt an OOBE limit of -29.7 dBW in any 100 megahertz of the passive band 86–92 
GHz for air-to-air transmissions, as suggested by the Federal Agencies.124  We also adopt a requirement 
that air-to-air transmissions, in both the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, not take place within the main beam 
of an RAS observatory, and that if this cannot be assured, no transmissions should take place within the 
radio horizon of the observatory.  This restriction was also suggested by the Federal Agencies.125  We 
adopt these requirements in order to protect passive services in the adjacent bands (i.e., 76–81 GHz, and 
above 86 GHz).  The Federal Agencies’ analysis uses ITU recommendations as their starting point, and 
comprehensively considers various factors that may influence both harmful interference from aeronautical 
operations specifically, and aggregate interference from those operations, in addition to previously 
authorized services.126  Accordingly, we conclude that the resulting recommendations will be sufficient to 
protect EESS operations.
48. We take protection of RAS operations very seriously, and accordingly assign significant 
weight to the concerns expressed in the record, and especially in the Federal Agencies’ analysis, which 
discusses protection of RAS operations in detail.127  In order to safeguard these operations, we will follow 
the recommendations of the Federal Agencies in requiring the following interference protection measures.  
First, as a general matter no transmissions may occur within the main beam of an RAS station.128  In 
118 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6056, para. 42.
119 American Astronomical Society Comments at 2; CORF Comments at 2; MIT Haystack Observatory Comments 
at 1–2; NRAO Comments at 8.
120 CORF Comments at 2; World Meteorological Organization Reply Comments at 2.
121 CORF Comments at 2; NRAO Comments at 4.
122 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. A at 1; id., Attach. C at 1–2.
123 Letter from Roger Sherman, Counsel to Aeronet Global Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT 20-133 (filed July 19, 2023); Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. C at 1, fn. 1.
124 Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. C at 1.
125 Id., Attach. B at 4–5; id., Attach. C at 1–2.  The list of RAS facilities will be specified in our rules, and may be 
found in App. A below.  See id., Attach. A at 2.
126 Id., Attach. B at 8–9.
127 Id., Attach. A at 1; id., Attach. B at 1–6; id., Attach. C at 1–2. Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
18addition, aircraft within the radio horizon of any RAS station must limit the EIRP level towards the RAS 
stations of any air-to-air transmission, as set forth in Fig. 1.129  
Fig. 1:  List of Maximum Allowable EIRP levels toward RAS sites, in dBW
Horizontal Distance (km) Frequency 
(GHz) 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375
81 -11.2 -8.8 -6.5 -4.2 -1.5 1.1 3.9 6.7 10 13.5
82 -11.5 -9.2 -6.9 -4.6 -2 0.5 3.2 6 9.2 12.6
83 -11.7 -9.5 -7.3 -5 -2.4 0 2.7 5.4 8.6 11.9
84 -11.9 -9.7 -7.5 -5.3 -2.8 -0.4 2.3 4.9 8 11.3
85 -12.1 -9.9 -7.8 -5.5 -3 -0.7 1.9 4.5 7.6 10.8
86 -12.2 -10 -7.9 -5.7 -3.3 -0.9 1.7 4.2 7.3 10.5
49. In addition to concerns regarding adjacent band services, the Federal Agencies also raised 
concerns about potential harmful interference to co-primary services in the 70 GHz band.130  Protection of 
fixed point-to-point links, both federal and non-federal, is addressed below.  For protection of Federal 
FSS operations, the Federal Agencies suggest that, similar to protections for RAS stations, EIRP levels 
from air-to-air transmissions within 375 km of a specified military installation should not exceed 20 
dBW/1000 megahertz toward that installation, unless the aeronautical operator has coordinated some 
other allowable level with the Department of Defense.131  In response to the Refresh Public Notice, no 
commenter objects to these interference mitigations measures, nor argues that they are insufficient to 
protect co-primary services in the 70 GHz band.  As with protections for RAS operations, we find the 
Federal Agencies’ analysis on this point persuasive, particularly since no other commenter touches on the 
interest of Federal FSS operations.  Accordingly, we adopt the suggested requirement that air-to-air 
transmitters within 375 km of any of the specified military installations132 must limit the EIRP of their 
transmissions to 20 dBW toward the military installation site.
50.Altitude Restrictions.  In its petition for rulemaking, Aeronet specified that its proposed 
service would operate only with aircraft at altitudes between 10,000 and 50,000 feet.133  We did not seek 
specific comment in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM on this point.  DSA suggested that altitude restrictions are 
unnecessary because the risk of interference into other services is already low, while Loon argued against 
any altitude caps on the theory that they would be harmful to potential competition.134  Geneva 
Communications suggests that altitude restrictions are unnecessary so long as links are adequately and 
dynamically coordinated.135  FWCC supports a restriction to between 10,000 and 50,000 feet of altitude.136
(Continued from previous page)  
128 See id., Attach. B at 4; id., Attach. C at 1.  The list of RAS facilities will be specified in our rules, and may be 
found in Appendix A below.  See id., Attach. A at 2.
129 See id., Attach. B at 3.
130 Id., Attach. B at 9–11.
131 Id., Attach. C at 2.
132 This list, which includes specific coordinates for each site, may be found in Appendix A at 47 CFR § 101.1528(c) 
below.  See also Federal Agencies Letter, Attach. C at 5; Federal Agencies Clarification Letter at 2.  The 
Department of Navy also seeks to add an additional FSS site in Miramar, CA, which is not currently reflected in 
US389, to the list of protected sites in our part 101 rules.  Federal Agencies Clarification Letter at 2.  We are not 
taking any action in this proceeding to modify US389, and thus defer on this request at this time.
133 Aeronet Aeronautical Petition at 14.
134 DSA Reply Comments at 5.
135 Geneva HAPS Public Notice Reply Comments at 1–2.
136 FWCC Comments at 6–7.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
1951. We reject Loon’s assertion that altitude restrictions favor certain technologies or business 
models over others.  The record demonstrates that, together with other restrictions, air-to-air transmissions 
between 10,000 and 50,000 feet may be accomplished without harmful interference to incumbent and 
adjacent operations; it does not demonstrate that transmissions at higher or lower altitudes would be 
similarly successful.  As we are unpersuaded that mandating dynamic coordination of all air-to-air links is 
necessary, we reject Geneva Communications’ argument as well.  Consistent with Aeronet’s petition, we 
adopt a minimum altitude of 10,000 feet for all air-to-air transmissions in these bands, and a maximum 
altitude of 50,000 feet.  Together with the minimum slant path distance requirement that we also today 
adopt, these altitude restrictions will reduce the risk of harmful interference into other services by limiting 
the area on the ground with line of sight to the airborne transmitter, restricting the angle at which air-to-
air transmissions may enter receivers on the ground, and setting a minimum vertical distance (and 
therefore a minimum amount of atmospheric attenuation) between air-to-air transmissions and both 
terrestrial and satellite services.
52.Minimum Slant Path Distance.  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we asked what mitigation 
measures might be necessary to address the risk of harmful interference from air-to-air transmissions 
between aircraft of significantly different altitudes.137  That risk of interference arises from the resulting 
steep angle of the signal, and therefore the increased risk that the transmission ultimately illuminates a 
receiver in another service, especially a fixed point-to-point receiver along the boresight.  Aeronet and 
Comsearch suggest that a minimum slant path distance would reduce any potential harmful interference 
from air-to-air links.138  Qualcomm argues that a minimum horizontal distance between aircraft would be 
sufficient to render potential harmful interference into fixed links negligible.139  No commenters argue 
against adopting a minimum separation between aircraft.  Given the state of the record on this point, we 
adopt a minimum slant path distance of 50 kilometers between aircraft involved in air-to-air 
transmissions.
c. Transmissions Between Ships, Shore, and Aerostat Stations
53. The record generally supports technical and operational restrictions on transmissions to 
and from ship, shore, and aerostat stations that are parallel to those adopted for airborne transmissions.140  
137 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6057, para. 45.
138 Aeronet Comments at 3; Comsearch Report at 28–32.
139 Qualcomm HAPS Public Notice Comments at 8.
140 Sceye Comments at 12 (“Sceye also supports the use of a unified light-licensing framework to allow fixed 
terrestrial, satellite, fixed aerostat, and aviation/maritime to register their respective 70/80/90 GHz links”); 
Comsearch Comments at 1–2; L3Harris May 18, 2021 Ex Parte at 1 (Aeronet’s proposed “deployment of SDDL 
technology will dramatically reduce network costs and provide enhanced security for . . . maritime operators”); Loon 
Comments at 2 (“Loon appreciates the importance of robust in-flight and maritime connectivity. . . .  By adopting 
flexible, technology-neutral rules and setting a path toward dynamic coordination for all services in the bands, the 
Commission can ensure simultaneous technological innovation on land, at sea, in the sky, and in space.”); WISPA 
Comments at 7 (“In general, the services contemplating fixed transmissions to moving terminals in . . . maritime 
environments should pose a low risk of interference to more conventional fixed uses.”); FWCC Comments at 2 (“the 
FWCC has no objection to Aeronet’s proposal to operate a mobile aviation and maritime communications network, 
provided the Commission protects incumbent users” (internal citations omitted)); DSA Comments at 4 (“[W]e see 
no technical reason why the 70/80 GHz database could not serve as a comprehensive repository of all non-federal 
links, whether they are traditional fixed point-to-point links; links to, from, and between antennas in motion on ships 
or aircraft . . . .”).  See also SIA Comments at 7 (“Maritime operations do not pose the same risk to co-primary users 
of the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands . . . because the characteristics of maritime operations are not like those of 
aeronautical operations.”).  But see SIA Comments at 7–8 (“Nevertheless, to the extent the FCC decides to authorize 
maritime uses of these bands, it should take appropriate steps to integrate those uses into the current regulatory 
regime, including ensuring that interference issues are addressed in a way that does not have an unnecessary impact 
on other users.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
20Shore-to-ship transmissions are only permitted in the 70 GHz band, and ship-to-shore transmissions are 
only permitted in the 80 GHz band.  Shore-to-aerostat transmissions and aerostat-to-ship transmissions 
are only permitted in the 70 GHz band.  Aerostat-to-shore transmissions are only permitted in the 80 GHz 
band.  We adopt an OOBE limit of -29.7 dBW in any 100 megahertz of the passive band 86–92 GHz for 
ship-to-shore and aerostat-to-shore transmissions in order to protect EESS (passive) operations.141 
54. Ship-to-ship communications are limited to ships located more than 30 km offshore, or 
closer only where the main beam of the transmit antenna is oriented at least 15 degrees away from any 
point on the shore.  Ship stations and aerostat stations must only operate when there is a minimum 
separation of 150 km to the federal facilities listed in section 101.1528(c)(1) – Table 3 in Appendix A in 
this Report and Order, absent a coordination agreement with the federal operator.  Shore-to-ship, shore-
to-aerostat, aerostat-to-shore, and ship-to-shore transmission must only occur between stations that are 
located at least 10 km from the federal military installations listed in section 101.1528(c)(2) – Table 4 in 
Appendix A in this Report and Order, absent a coordination agreement with the federal operator.  Ship-
to-shore, shore-to-ship, shore-to-aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, and aerostat-to-shore operations must 
coordinate with Federal FS operations using the NTIA web-based coordination mechanism to prevent 
interference.142  We note that ship-to-aerostat operation has not been sufficiently studied, and thus is not 
permitted at this time, although we seek comment in the Further Notice below on its potential 
implementation.  Aeronet, through filings submitted in the record, has outlined the important role of 
bidirectional transmissions between ships and aerostats to the two-way maritime broadband services 
otherwise authorized in this Report and Order.143  During the pendency of the Further Notice, WTB will 
consider requests for waiver with respect to specific ship-to-aerostat implementation deployment 
proposals through our existing regulatory processes,144 subject to coordination with NTIA to ensure that 
federal incumbents are protected from harmful interference and coordination with any other potentially 
impacted parties.
55. The same engineering principles that underpin our adoption of technical and operational 
restrictions for transmissions between aircraft and ground stations and aircraft in flight serve as a baseline 
in the maritime context as well, subject to certain modifications as set forth herein and in Appendix A in 
this Report and Order.145  Opponents of transmissions between ships, shore, and aerostat stations 
predominantly assert the need for further examination of whether incumbent or future operations in the 
bands might suffer interference from by maritime operations.146  The exhaustive TIG process led by the 
141 See supra paras. 46–47.
142 See supra para. 23.
143 See Letter from Roger Sherman, Counsel to Aeronet Global Communications Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133 (filed Jan. 19, 2024) (Aeronet Jan. 19, 2024 Ex Parte); Comsearch Report at Section 
3.2.3, 20, 43–44; see generally Aeronet Maritime Petition at 10–11, 13 & Figure 1, 17, 18 & Figure 2.
144 47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3).  See supra note 111.  
145 For example, we clarify that Appendix A does not establish a minimum elevation angle in the maritime context.  
See Aeronet Jan. 10, 2024 Ex Parte at 2.
146 See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 4–5 & n.14 (“maritime use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands should not 
preclude existing and future point-to-point use of the bands”); Verizon Comments at 8 (“[T]he Commission should 
delay acting on its proposal to authorize point-to-point links to endpoints in motion until it determines whether 
mobile aeronautical and maritime deployments pose an interference risk to use of the band for fixed wireless 5G 
backhaul.”); Nokia Comments at 8–9 (“Nokia recommends that this new service [referencing both mobile aerial and 
maritime endpoints] not be added at this time, but we would not oppose testing of such services for potential 
inclusion on a non-interference basis at a later date subject to successful co-existence trials”); Moog Comments at 8 
(stating that “without knowing if there will be restraints on the location and orientation of land stations using 
SDDLs, whether maritime or aviation . . . there is potential for interference to other co-band operations at airfields 
that might fall within the changing pointing direction of SDDL land station transmitters”).  See also SIA Comments 
at 7–8. Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
21Federal Agencies provides the requested examination.147  Each of the restrictions described above finds 
specific support in the collective Federal Agencies Letter, reflecting extensive interagency 
collaboration—collaboration focused in part on ensuring non-interference with current and future uses of 
the bands in question—as promised by the Commission in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM.148  No parties 
objected to adopting the proposed maritime regime we describe above following the solicitation of 
comment on the Federal Agencies Letter in our Refresh Public Notice.149  We find that the combination of 
the:  (1) Commission’s own engineering expertise; (2) initial general support for a maritime regime found 
in responses to the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM; (3) further examination of specific analyses undertaken in the 
Federal Agencies Letter, and the studies underpinning it; and (4) silence on maritime issues in particular 
in the Refresh Public Notice comment cycle, demonstrate that the above-described regime for 
transmissions between ships, shore, and aerostats will protect current and future operations both in the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands, and in adjacent bands. 
B. Facilitating Use of the Bands for Backhaul 
56. To promote more intensive use of spectrum in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, including 
use for backhaul for high-capacity 5G service, we adopt several changes to our antenna standards that will 
allow licensees to use smaller, lower-cost antennas in these bands, and we adopt a channelization plan for 
the band.  
57.Antenna Standards.  The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM proposed several changes to the antenna 
standards for the 70 and 80 GHz band to promote flexibility.  In particular, the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM 
proposed to reduce minimum antenna gain from 43 dBi to 38 dBi while retaining the requirement to 
proportionally reduce maximum EIRP in a ratio of 2 dB of power per 1 dB of gain.  It also proposed to 
reduce the co-polar and cross-polar discrimination requirements applicable to 70 GHz and 80 GHz band 
antennas.  Further, the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment on whether to allow +/- 45 degree 
polarization (also known as slant polarization) and whether to adopt a second, more flexible set of 
antenna standards in these bands.  Commenters generally supported reducing antenna gain and co-polar 
and cross-polar discrimination requirements.
58. Although the Commission does not regulate the size of antennas directly, minimum 
antenna size is constrained by technical factors including the intended operating bands and requirements 
governing beamwidth, gain, and polarization discrimination.  Based on our analysis of the record, we 
determine to relax those requirements for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands to standards more in line with 
the requirements for point-to-point operations for other part 101 bands.  We acknowledge Fiberless 
Networks’ concern that “[a]ny reduction in antenna sizes must ultimately impact the number of wireless 
links using the 71–76 and 81–86 GHz bands that may be deployed in any metro area,”150 but we are 
persuaded by the FWCC’s long-stated advocacy that such changes “will allow for the use of smaller, 
lighter, lower cost, less susceptible to pole sway, and more visually attractive antennas” that may enable 
more intensive use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands for point-to-point backhaul services.151  
Additionally, commenters agree that relaxing these antenna standards will also enable the use of smaller 
antennas for backhaul that will be needed to facilitate densified 5G networks.152  Accordingly, we raise 
147 Federal Agencies Letter at 1–2; see also id., Attach. B; id., Attach. C.
148 Id. at 1–2; id., Attach. B; 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6040, para. 1; id. at 6055–52, paras. 40, 42–45.
149 While a small number of filers did call for the Commission to prioritize certain services over others—see, e.g., 
CTIA Refresh Public Notice Comments at 3–5; AT&T Refresh Public Notice Comments at 3–4—we address these 
filings in Section III.D, infra.
150 Fiberless Networks Corporation Comments at 12.
151 Letter from Donald J. Evans, Counsel to FWCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed June 10, 2021); see 
also FWCC Refresh Public Notice Comments at 1–3; CTIA Refresh Public Notice Comments at 6–9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
22the maximum beamwidth to 2.2 degrees and reduce the minimum antenna gain to 38 dBi for antennas in 
the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.153  In order to maintain consistency and minimize the risk of interference, 
the proportional power reduction requirement will continue to be applicable to antennas in these bands 
with a gain less than 50 dBi down to the new minimum antenna gain of 38 dBi.154
59. We also adopt our proposal to remove the co-polar discrimination requirement below 
5 degrees and modify the cross-polar discrimination requirements below 5 degrees to 21 dB.155  Some 
commenters argue that both the co-polar and cross-polar discrimination requirements are obsolete and 
propose eliminating those requirements entirely.156  FWCC contends that some of the smaller, lighter 
antennas its members contemplate using cannot meet the existing co-polar requirement.157  In order to 
maximize the flexibility we seek to achieve by relaxing the antenna standards, we eliminate the co-polar 
discrimination requirement at angles less than 5 degrees.  However, we decline to eliminate the cross-
polar discrimination requirements below 5 degrees in their entirety.  We agree with commenters, 
including the third-party database manager Comsearch, that cross-polar discrimination requirements are 
proven to be effective in maximizing frequency reuse in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.158  The 
Commission agrees with Comsearch that reducing the cross-polar discrimination requirement for angles 
less than 5 degrees to 21 dB brings our rules closer to conformity with international standards without 
sacrificing the frequency reuse advantages of having some cross-polar requirement.159  We agree with 
Comsearch that a cross-polar discrimination requirement of 21 dB is not “difficult to meet[.]”160  
60. Further, we adopt corresponding changes to the co-polar and cross-polar discrimination 
requirements at angles between 5 degrees and 180 degrees.  Physics dictates that smaller antennas will 
have less sidelobe suppression.  Therefore, corresponding adjustments to the discrimination requirements 
between 5 and 180 degrees are also necessary to facilitate the use of smaller antennas.  FWCC proposed 
antenna standards for this band that are consistent with our proposed minimum gain of 38 dbi and 
maximum beamwidth of 2.2 degrees and also proposed co-polar and cross-polar discrimination values for 
angles between 5 degrees and 180 degrees.161  FWCC’s proposals are consistent with ESTI Class 3 
antenna standards,162 and are supported by the 5G Wireless Backhaul Advocates163 and Comsearch.164  
(Continued from previous page)  
152 See, e.g., Nokia Comments at 1; 5G Americas Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 1; FWCC Comments at 3; 
T-Mobile Comments at 3; Letter from Kara Graves, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed May 8, 2020).
153 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6045–46, para. 11.  See also 47 CFR § 101.115(b)(2).  Some parties 
suggested that the Commission go further and adopt a minimum antenna gain of 35 dBi or lower.  See, e.g., 
Qualcomm Comments at 7–8.
154 See, e.g., Comsearch Reply Comments at 1.  See also 47 CFR § 101.115(b)(2) n.14.  Lower-gain antennas have 
more energy in their sidelobes as compared to a higher-performance antenna, so imposing a proportional reduction 
in EIRP for antennas with a gain less than 50 dB helps to compensate for the additional power in the sidelobes—
thereby ensuring that a lower-performance antenna does not create any greater risk of off-axis interference than a 
higher-performance antenna.
155 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6046, para. 12.  See also 47 CFR § 101.115(b)(2) n.14.
156 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 5–6.
157 FWCC Comments at 2 n.3 (enumerating past advocacy by FWCC, including on this issue).
158 Comsearch Reply Comments at 3.
159 Id.  See also European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Standard ETSI EN 302 217-4-2 (V1.5.1), 
“Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and Requirements for Point-to-Point Equipment and Antennas” (2010), 
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/302200_302299/3022170402/01.05.01_60/en_3022170402v010501p.pdf (ETSI 
Standard).  
160 See Comsearch Reply Comments at 3–4.
161 See FWCC Comments at 6,WT Docket No. 10-153 (rec. Oct. 5, 2012).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
23Comsearch emphasizes that it is appropriate to provide antenna performance requirements between 5 and 
180 degrees, as proposed by FWCC.165  We believe that the changes proposed by FWCC and the 5G 
Backhaul Advocates strike a balance, allowing for the use of smaller antennas which will promote and 
expedite backhaul deployment,166 while also preserving an appropriate co-polar and cross-polar advantage 
between paths to promote frequency re-use.167
61. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we sought comment on a proposal to allow +/- 45 degree 
polarization (slant polarization) in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.168  At this time, we decline to modify 
our rules to adopt slant polarization because we agree with most commenters that slant polarization will 
increase the risk of interference and make the coordination of links more difficult.169  As Comsearch 
notes, allowing slant polarization would “take away the cross-polarization advantage between paths” 
which has “proven to be effective in maximizing frequency reuse in the 70 and 80 GHz bands . . . .”170
62. We also decline to adopt a second category of antenna standards for the 70 GHz and 80 
GHz bands.  The Commission’s rules for some other services regulated under part 101 allow for two 
categories of antennas, Category A and Category B; Category A performance standards are more 
stringent than Category B.171  In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, we sought comment on whether to adopt a 
similar framework for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands by designating the existing antenna standards the 
“Category A” standards and adopting new, less restrictive “Category B” standards.172  Although some 
commenters, including Scientel Solutions and T-Mobile, support adding a Category B standard that does 
not exist for these bands in the current rules, others, including 5G Americas, Ericsson, and Nokia, do not 
believe a Category B standard is necessary.173  Comsearch argues that there is no reason to define two 
categories of antennas because database managers would not be able to compel antenna upgrades based 
on predicted interference.  We also agree with commenters that adding a Category B standard is 
(Continued from previous page)  
162 See ETSI Standard. 
163 See Letter from Jeffrey A. Marks, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, North America, Nokia, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 20-133, at 12 (filed June 22, 2021).
164 See Comsearch Comments at 7–9.
165 See Comsearch Reply Comments at 2–3. 
166 See, e.g., Nokia Comments at 2; AT&T Comments at 4.
167 See Comsearch Reply Comments at 3–4.
168 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6046–47, para. 13.
169 See, e.g., Nokia Comments at 5; AT&T Comments at 2; Ericsson Comments at 7; Comsearch Comments at 10; 
AT&T Refresh Public Notice Comments at 2–3.
170 Comsearch Reply Comments at 3 (“In instances where there are multiple links between the same two structures, 
using the opposite polarization assists with frequency reuse.”).
171 See 47 CFR § 101.115(b); see also Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of 
Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary 
Services and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, et al., Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, Second Notice of Inquiry, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
27 FCC Rcd 9735, 9741, para. 9 (2012).  Category B antennas may be used in areas not subject to frequency 
congestion.  47 CFR § 101.115(b).  Category B antennas must be replaced if they are shown to cause interference to 
(or receive interference from) any other authorized station where a higher performance antenna is not likely to cause 
such interference.  Id. § 101.115(c).
172 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6047, para. 14.
173 Compare Scientel Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 6–7 (arguing that less restrictive Category B standards 
would further promote deployment); with 5G Americas Comments at 6; Ericsson Comments at 8; Nokia Comments 
at 6 (arguing that relaxing the current standard is sufficient and adopting a second standard is unnecessary).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
24unnecessary, given our decision in this Report and Order to allow smaller antennas in these bands.174
63.Channelization Plan.  The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment on whether adopting a 
channelization plan would promote more efficient use of the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.175  It further 
asked about what channel plan should be considered, noting the existence of the plan contained in ITU 
Recommendation F.2006, which we describe in greater detail below.176  The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM also 
solicited comment on a range of issues including the impact of a channel plan on existing equipment, 
whether to continue to apply the standard emission limit rules in section 101.1011, whether any specific 
channel plan and direction of service would be particularly conducive to protecting the other co-primary 
services from interference, and the costs and benefits of channelization.177
64. We are persuaded that we should adopt a channelization plan consistent with 
Recommendation ITU-R F.2006.178  We acknowledge that the Commission decided in 2003 that a specific 
channel plan was unnecessary in the context of adopting new rules to facilitate greater use of the bands by 
nascent fixed services.179  Given the development of these fixed services since 2003 and our adoption 
today of rules to permit additional services into the band, we agree with commenters that a standardized 
channel plan will make interference mitigation between licensees easier to manage.  Adopting the ITU 
F.2006 plan will also harmonize our rules with international standards, and is consistent with a majority 
of commenters’ recommendations.180
65. After reviewing the record, including responses to the HAPS Public Notice and Refresh 
Public Notice, while some commenters are neutral on the issue of channelization others specifically state 
that if the Commission introduces new services into the band—such as the services contemplated by 
Aeronet—there will be a greater need to have a standardized channel plan in order to make interference 
mitigation between licensees more manageable.181  On balance, most commenters support adopting a 
standardized plan specifically if new services are introduced into the band.182  Moreover, Aeronet 
supports the adoption of a standardized channel plan.183  
66. There is near-unanimous agreement among commenters that if the Commission adopts a 
channel plan, we should adopt a plan consistent with Recommendation ITU-R F.2006, which provides 
174 See Nokia Comments at 2 (“Nokia believes that a ‘Class B’ antenna category in the 70/80 GHz band would have 
limited utility in the near-term because of the already very-small size of the proposed 38 dBi antennas in the 70/80 
GHz band compared to the larger antennas used in other bands.”).
175 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6058–59, paras. 46–48.
176 Id. at 6058–59, para. 46, n.129.  See also International Telecommunications Union (ITU), Recommendation ITU-
R F.2006, “Radio-Frequency Channel and Block Arrangements for Fixed Wireless Systems Operating in the 71–76 
and 81–86 GHz Bands” (2012), https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/f/R-REC-F.2006-0-201203-I!!PDF-E.pdf 
(ITU Recommendation).
177 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6058–59, paras. 46–48.
178 See ITU Recommendation. 
179 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23333, para. 32; see also Allocations and Service Rules for the 
71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, and 92–95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 
FCC Rcd 4889, 4899–90, paras. 19–20 (2005) (70/80/90 GHz Reconsideration Order).  See generally Allocations 
and Service Rules for the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, RM-10288, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 12182, 12220, para. 97 (2002).
180 See Geneva Communications Comments at 11; Ericsson Comments at 9–10; AT&T Comments at 3; Nokia 
Comments at 7–8; AT&T Refresh Public Notice Comments at 4.
181 CORF Comments at 2; Qualcomm Comments at 12.
182 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
183 Aeronet Comments at 22.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
25different channel sizes from 250 megahertz up to 5 gigahertz, and includes a plan for 1.25 gigahertz 
segmentation.184  This channelization plan is consistent with what the Commission proposed, but 
ultimately did not codify in the original 70–80 GHz rulemaking.  Comsearch notes that a majority of 
licensees already conform with the ITU-R F.2006 channel plan.185  Even commenters that advocate 
against adopting a standardized channel plan, such as WISPA, support adopting the ITU F.2006 channel 
plan if the Commission decides that it should adopt a standardized plan.186
67. To provide adequate lead time for manufacturers to modify their equipment lines to 
comply with the new channel plan,187 we will make the new channel plan effective on September 1, 2024.  
Considering that there are incumbents in the band who have deployed under the current rules and may not 
be operating consistent with a channel plan that we adopt, we will permit licensees that are registered 
prior to the effective date of the new channel plan to continue to operate under nonconforming channel 
plans as long as their pre-existing operations remain in good standing.  With the exception of de minimis 
modifications to registered links discussed below,188 all links registered on or after September 1, 2024 will 
be required to comply with the new channel plan.
C. Improving the Link Registration System
68. In the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the Commission solicited input on whether it should make 
changes to the link registration rules for the 70/80/90 GHz bands.189  Specifically, the Commission sought 
comment on how to amend its rules to improve the accuracy of the link registration database.190  The 
Commission also asked whether it should require licensees in these bands to certify that their links have 
been timely constructed—and, if so, how an efficient and effective certification process would operate.191  
The Commission also sought comment on whether to allow de minimis modifications to certain 
information filed in the registration database.192
1. Construction and Operational Status
69. To promote the efficient use of the high-capacity 70/80/90 GHz bands, in this Report and 
Order we adopt a requirement that licensees certify that each link is constructed and operating within 12 
months of successful registration in the link registration system (LRS) administered by third-party 
database managers.  Under the Commission’s rules in place since 2003, licensees must construct their 
links within 12 months of registering them in the LRS and failure to timely begin operation means the 
authorization cancels automatically.193  Under the hybrid license/registration approach adopted for these 
184 Loon Reply Comments at 21–22; Geneva Communications Comments at 11–12.
185 See Comsearch Comments at 18.
186 WISPA Reply Comments at 7–8.
187 See CTIA Reply Comments at 4; AT&T Comments at 6.
188 See infra Section III.C.2 (“ De Minimis Modifications to Registrations”).
189 The 90 GHz band has different antenna rules, but the same link registration process as the 70 GHz and 80 GHz 
bands.  Although in this Report and Order we do not modify the antenna rules in the 90 GHz band, in our 
consideration of changes to the link registration process, we do include the 90 GHz band to maintain a harmonized 
approach to link registration for all of the bands included in the link registration system.  See 47 CFR §§ 101.115(b), 
101.1523.
190 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6048, para. 18.
191 Id. at 6048–49, para. 19.  Among other things, the Commission asked whether “certifications should be filed 
when the links become operational, at any time prior to the construction deadline, or whenever a licensee seeks to 
renew its license?”  Id.
192 Id. at 6049, para. 21. 
193 See 47 CFR § 101.63(b), (c).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
26bands, however, the Commission decided “at [that] time” not to require licensees to affirmatively report 
link construction and instead relied on licensees to ask a database manager to remove unconstructed links 
from the database.194  As such, the Commission instructed the database managers to remove a link from 
the registry if it is found to be unconstructed after the required timeframe.195  We note that in 2003 the 
bands were “essentially undeveloped and available for new uses” and that the Commission reserved the 
discretion to revisit this issue if experience indicated that additional measures were necessary.196
70. Today, as in 2003, the overarching purpose of the Commission’s requirements 
concerning link construction, as well as modification and discontinuance, is to ensure that spectrum is put 
to use and to maintain the “integrity of the information in the relevant databases by correctly reflecting 
the actual record concerning these issues.”197  Based on the Commission’s experience, including the 
development of the bands since 2003, and the record before us, we find that requiring licensees to certify 
in the LRS that each link is timely constructed will significantly improve the accuracy of the database, 
thereby increasing opportunities for additional, efficient use of the bands.  Failure to begin operations in a 
timely manner pursuant to a part 101 authorization results in the automatic cancelation of an 
authorization.198
71. In the 70/80/90 GHz bands, the nationwide license serves as a prerequisite to registering 
links, each registration in the LRS is the licensee’s authorization to operate the individual link,199 and the 
12-month construction period commences on the registration date of each individual link.200  Under the 
current rules, “[f]ailure to timely begin operation means the authorization cancels automatically” as of the 
construction deadline.201  Similar to the timeline for construction notifications filed in ULS, however, we 
will allow 70/80/90 GHz licensees 15 days after the 12-month construction deadline for each link to 
certify in the LRS that the link was timely constructed and operating.202  Accordingly, if a 70/80/90 GHz 
licensee does not certify in the LRS within 15 days after the 12-month construction deadline for a link, 
the link will be deemed to be unconstructed and the licensee’s authority to operate the link shall be 
terminated automatically without further Commission action as of the 12-month construction deadline for 
the link.  We also agree with commenters that after the certification requirement becomes effective, it 
should apply to all uncertified links even if the 12-month construction deadline date occurred prior to the 
effective date of the certification requirement.  For uncertified links registered 12 months or longer before 
the effective date, licensees will have until 15 days after the effective date to certify that their links were 
constructed on or before the effective date.  Thus, for uncertified links registered less than 12 months 
before the effective date, licensees will have to file a certification within 15 days from the end of the 12-
month construction period following registration.  
194 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23349, para. 80.
195 See id. at 23349, para. 80.
196 See id. at 23322, 23349, paras. 5, 80.
197 Id. at 23351, para. 80.
198 47 CFR § 101.63(c).
199 See id. § 101.1501; 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23340, para. 46 (Commission explained that 
applicant-qualification for non-exclusive licenses would be assessed on FCC Form 601 and Commission rules while 
operations would be authorized through the registration and coordination process).  
200 47 CFR § 101.63(b).  Because 70/80/90 GHz links are registered in the LRS, the provision in paragraph (f) 
stating that “construction of any authorized facility or frequency must be completed by the date specified in the 
license” is inapplicable to 70/80/90 links.
201 Id. § 101.63(c).
202 See id. § 1.946(d) (“A licensee who commences service or operations within the construction period . . . must 
notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601.  The notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of 
the applicable construction . . . period.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
2772. Once the certification requirement is in effect, we instruct the third-party database 
managers, as a matter of database accuracy and integrity, to remove uncertified registrations from the 
LRS that have terminated automatically under the Commission’s rules.  Because licensees will have until 
15 days after the 12-month construction deadline to certify in the LRS that a link is constructed and 
operating, we instruct database managers to remove a link from the LRS on the 16th day after the 12-
month construction deadline for a link if the licensee has not certified in the LRS that the link was timely 
constructed and operating.  
73. Imposing the certification requirement on licensees and having the third-party database 
managers update the LRS accordingly will allow all licensees, and the Commission, to track link 
cancellations through the LRS.  Parties considering the 70/80/90 GHz bands and licensees seeking to 
register links after implementation of this requirement will have a more accurate database to use to judge 
spectrum availability.203  
74. There is broad support in the record for implementing the certification requirement.  
FWCC argues that construction certifications will help maintain a reliable database at a low cost to 
licensees.204  Commenters broadly agree that the database should consist only of links that are actually 
constructed or that have been successfully registered but are within their one-year construction period, 
and that requiring construction certifications would be an effective way to maintain an accurate database 
and promote efficient access to the bands.205  Other commenters, including Comsearch, agree that the 
existing database managers are well suited to administer the certification requirement.206
75. Although some parties would have the Commission manage construction certifications 
through ULS, we believe that the hybrid license/registration approach that has governed these bands since 
the database managers developed and began operating the LRS in 2005 has worked reasonably well and 
should not be displaced.207  Industry members are already accustomed to working with the database 
managers on spectrum management matters and have established access to the database managers’ 
platforms.  The Commission agrees with FWCC and Comsearch that using ULS for certification would 
add unnecessary complexity to the link registration process.208  We agree, however, with commenters who 
suggest that additional measures are warranted to ensure that registered links remain operational on an 
ongoing basis long after satisfaction of the 12-month construction deadline.209  Accordingly, when a 
203 In this setting, if a licensee’s authority to operate a link is automatically terminated because the construction 
requirement was not met, the licensee will not be barred from attempting to register the link again, and if successful, 
constructing it later.  The licensee, however, will lose the original registration date for the purpose of interference 
protection procedures.
204 FWCC Comments at 5.
205 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6; Geneva Communications Comments at 6; WISPA Comments at 6.
206 See FWCC Comments at 6; Comsearch Reply Comments at 5.  Micronet’s database provides information about 
links that have been registered and not constructed, but there is no requirement that Micronet provide this 
information and there is no requirement that licensees inform Micronet when links are built.  Therefore, links that 
appear in Micronet’s database as unconstructed may be constructed.  See Micronet Database, 
https://www.micronetcom.com/MOS/.
207 CTIA Comments at 6; Scientel Comments at 14.
208 See FWCC Comments at 6; Comsearch Reply Comments at 5.
209 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 7 (incumbent licensees must certify that their links have been constructed at the 
time of renewal and all registrations must certify that their links are in regular use at the time of renewal); Geneva 
Communications Comments at 8 (links in the database that are no longer operational should be deleted); Scientel 
Comments at 14–16 (no need to wait until license renewal to require a licensee to certify that it is making efficient 
use of its spectrum, but favors requiring such certifications to be filed in ULS).  But see AT&T Comments at 2–3 
(adopting requirements that are novel, such as identifying or certifying links at license renewal, would merely 
impose unnecessary burdens, uncertainty and delays).  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
2870/80/90 GHz band licensee seeks to renew its nationwide license, we will require the licensee to certify 
as part of the license renewal application that each link registered under the license more than twelve 
months prior to the filing date of the renewal application is constructed and operating on an ongoing basis 
as of the filing date of the license renewal application.  We disagree with AT&T that requiring licensees 
to certify every ten years that they are still operating their registered links is unnecessary given that we are 
requiring licensees to certify each link shortly after the 12-month construction deadline.210  We clarify, 
however, that we are not requiring renewal applicants to “list links, whether constructed or not, in renewal 
applications for 70/80/90 GHz licenses.”211
76.Implementation Matters.  We authorize and direct WTB to consult each database 
manager on the timing of modifications to the LRS necessary to accommodate today’s rule changes.212  
WTB will also announce by public notice the details and dates for implementing a construction 
certification requirement.  Additionally, we understand that each database manager periodically sends its 
registrants e-mail reminders of their upcoming and recently past construction deadlines and that each 
database manager plans to send e-mail alerts to its relevant registrants about these rule changes.  We 
applaud the database managers’ past efforts to improve the accuracy of the database and encourage them 
to continue sending e-mail alerts to licensees.  We emphasize, however, that each licensee is responsible 
for timely filing its construction certifications in the LRS regardless of whether a courtesy reminder e-
mail may have been sent or received.213  Finally, we remind licensees that they should only certify as 
constructed links that are operational, and that non-operational links should be deleted from the 
database.214
2. De Minimis Modifications to Registrations 
77. The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought comment on whether licensees should be allowed to 
amend their registered links without losing first-in-time status—i.e., on what date should a link be 
considered registered and given protected status for purposes of these rule—and what amendments, if 
any, should be allowed without losing first-in-time status.215  We find support in the record for allowing 
de minimis modifications to registrations that are exclusively for the purpose of repairing or replacing 
installed and operating equipment, provided that there are no changes to any registered technical 
210 AT&T Comments at 2–3, 7.  
211 Id. at 7.
212 See generally Comsearch Comments at 12 (Comsearch supports rule changes to “improve[] processes for 
removing old registrations, unconstructed links, or links that are no longer operating from the 70/80/90 GHz bands 
database . . . .  The Commission, however, would need to provide adequate notice of the new certification 
requirement to third-party database managers, as Comsearch would need to implement minor changes to its link 
registration system to add a page with appropriate language that the licensee can certify that the link is 
constructed.”).  
213 Accord Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of 
the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 98-20, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21071, para. 96 (1998) 
(although the Commission sends letters to remind licensees of pending expiration dates, the renewal reminder is 
merely a courtesy and non-receipt by the licensee is not sufficient justification for a failure to file a timely renewal 
application).  See generally FCC, Construction/Coverage Requirements (Sept. 29 2023), 
https://www.fcc.gov/constructioncoverage-requirements; FCC, ULS Automated Termination Process Frequently  
Asked Questions (Oct. 4, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/support/universal-licensing-system-uls-resources/uls-
automated-termination-process.
214 Licensees are reminded that links that are not actually constructed by the construction deadline cancel 
automatically on the date of the construction period expires and are not entitled to first-in-time protection regardless 
of whether they may appear in the registration database.  47 CFR § 1.946(c).
215 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6049, para. 21.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
29parameters that would change the potential for a link to cause or receive interference.216  Modifications 
that are consistent with these requirements can be implemented without affecting a registrant’s first-in-
time rights for the particular link.  Such modifications may be implemented if the modified registration is 
successful without affecting a registrant’s first-in-time rights for the particular link.  By allowing these de 
minimis modifications to registrations without changing the interference-protection date, we allow 
licensees to maintain the existing operation of their links without sacrificing either the accuracy of the 
database or the licensee’s interference-protection rights.217  We emphasize that “de minimis” 
modifications to registrations that commenters discuss in this proceeding are distinct from the 
Commission’s part 1 rules that govern major or minor modifications to station authorizations.218  To avoid 
confusion, we refer to modifications to registrations that licensees can make without losing first-in-time 
status as de minimis.  Most parties support de minimis modifications to the extent that they will not 
change the interference landscape, though parties’ ideas of what would constitute a de minimis 
modification differ.219  Some parties argue that de minimis modifications should include changes to some 
technical specifications.220  For example, WISPA argues that minor modifications should include changes 
to geographic coordinates within +/- 15 meters of latitude or longitude and +/- 3 meters of elevation.221  
Others, however, believe that de minimis modifications should be only those changes that do not affect 
any technical parameters relevant for coordination.222  We agree with commenters that modifications that 
change “interference potential” should not be treated as de minimis modifications and will result in a new 
date for first-in-time purposes.223  
78. We find that many of the proposals by commenters, such as those involving changes to 
location, could change the interference landscape and therefor are not de minimis.224  In addition, changes 
to parameters that typically would not be considered major in other contexts,225 like increases to receive 
antenna height, could make an existing link more susceptible to interference.  Given the sensitivity of the 
first-in-time rights to changes in the interference environment, we believe that it is prudent to define de 
minimis modifications in this context very narrowly.  Based on our analysis of the comments in the 
record we will define de minimis modifications as those that meet all of the following criteria:
•The modification is necessary to repair or replace registered, constructed, and operating 
equipment;
216 Comsearch Reply Comments at 9 (quoting Scientel Comments at 14–15, and agreeing that “a licensee should be 
allowed to amend the associated link registration without losing its first-in-time priority rights, provided that the 
amendment is submitted for purpose of repairing or replacing installed and operating equipment due to end-of-life 
conditions, and does not change the registered EIRP, transmit power, frequency, antenna height or location, or 
receive sensitivity”).  
217 See SIA Comments at 3.
218 See 47 CFR § 1.947 (“Modification of licenses”), which cross-references to 47 CFR § 1.929 (“Classification of 
filings as major or minor”).  
219 See e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; Geneva Communications Comments at 10; Scientel Comments at 10; T-Mobile 
Comments at 9; SIA Comments at 3; WISPA Comments at 6; Comsearch Reply Comments at 7.
220 See, e.g., Geneva Communications Comments at 10; WISPA Comments at 6.
221 WISPA Comments at 6.
222 Comsearch Reply Comments at 9 (quoting Scientel Comments at 14–15).
223 Id. (“Comsearch observes that the following modifications should not increase the interference potential:  EIRP 
and/or emission bandwidth reductions, provided that the power density is the same or reduced, and antenna upgrades 
that have the same or better radiation suppression specifications at all angles.”).
224 See WISPA Reply Comments at 6.
225 See 47 CFR § 1.929.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
30•The modification does not increase the EIRP of a digital system or change the EIRP of an 
analog system;226
•The modification does not increase the channel bandwidth;
•The modification does not change the power density;
•The modification does not increase the receiver sensitivity;
•The modification does not increase the antenna beamwidth;
•The modification does not increase the antenna gain, except where there is a corresponding 
reduction transmitter power so that there is no increase in EIRP;
•The modification does not involve a change to antenna with less off-axis attenuation at any 
angle; and
•The modification does not change any other technical parameters not mentioned above.
79. Under the definition adopted above, any modification to a registration that could make a 
link more susceptible to interference or more likely to cause interference will result in a new date for first-
in-time coordination purposes.227  We find that the limited definition of a de minimis modification 
adopted in this Report and Order will minimize the risk of harmful interference and promote efficient 
access to these bands.
D. Other Issues
80. We do not take action at this time on several other issues raised in the Commission’s 
inquiries in this proceeding, or by commenters in the record owing to absence of notice, an inadequate 
record, or lack of consensus on a path forward.  To wit, in the 70/80/90 GHz NPRM we sought comment 
on a proposal relating to authorizing mobile operations on a non-interference basis to fixed operations 
along the United States’ international borders with Canada and Mexico, subject to future international 
agreements.228  This specific issue was not addressed by any filers.  In the absence of a developed record 
on this issue, we do not address it at this time.
81. Separately, in the HAPS Public Notice WTB sought to supplement the record on the 
possibility of bringing HAPS and/or other stratospheric-based platform services into the 70/80/90 GHz 
bands.229  The record, including analysis provided by the Federal Agencies, contains highly divergent 
claims regarding the possibility of integrating HAPS operations into the 70/80/90 GHz bands,230 with 
226 For analog systems the interference criteria in rule section 101.105 is specified as a C/I ratio, so decreases in 
EIRP could change the C/I ratio and potentially make a link more susceptible to interference.  Therefore, for analog 
systems any modification that changes the EIRP will not be considered de minimis, and a new date will be applied 
for first-in-time purposes.  
227 See SIA Comments at 3.
228 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6059, para. 52.
229 HAPS Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 14375.
230 Compare, e.g., NASA et al. HAPS Public Notice Comments at 5 (“The record is unclear as to the specific 
requirement for additional spectrum access into the 70/80/90 GHz bands to support HAPS, and whether existing 
allocations are either congested or unsuitable. . . .  The PN does note that ‘several advocates for HAPS are no longer 
pursuing their planned operations’ in certain bands and are seeking access into 70/80 GHz. . . .  Any additional 
usages for active services should be based on sound engineering studies to determine the limitations on unwanted 
emission levels to protect EESS (passive), EESS (active) and SRS (passive) operations prior to allowing HAPS 
systems to operate” in these bands.) with HAPS Alliance HAPS Public Notice Comments at 1–2.  See also, e.g., T-
Mobile HAPS Public Notice Comments at 3 (“There is no reason for the Commission to modify its rules to 
accommodate HAPS or similar services in the 70/80/90 GHz bands.  There is little current documented interest in 
those services and, unlike 5G, no deployment.”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
31limited actual data to support such action.231  We therefore decline at this time to adopt rules for HAPS 
operations in the 70/80/90 GHz bands.  We do note that any party—including HAPS providers—can 
engage in operations consistent with the rules of general applicability for aeronautical services adopted in 
this Report and Order. 
82. Beginning in ex parte presentations, and later in other filings in this docket, SpaceX 
requested that we amend our rules to allow the registration of FSS earth stations in the third-party link 
registration database for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.232  While FSS has a co-primary shared allocation, 
the Commission has not yet developed service rules for FSS operations in these bands.233  As FSS 
operations differ in significant ways from the FS operations that the third-party database system was 
originally designed to accommodate, adding FSS to this system would likely require development of 
different coordination parameters, and possibly additional interference mitigation techniques to protect 
federal operations in the bands.234  Moreover, SpaceX notes that the interference mitigations proposed in 
the Federal Agencies Letter, which inform the rules to accommodate airborne and maritime point-to-
endpoints-in-motion in the third-party database system that we adopt today, would not be appropriate for 
FSS operations in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.235  Without the development of a record on the specifics 
required to include FSS earth stations in the third-party database, or federal inter-agency discourse on this 
prospect, we are not in a position today to take this step.  However, we seek further input on these issues 
in the Further Notice portion of this item immediately below.
231 The only advocate for HAPS inclusion in 70/80/90 GHz to provide a detailed technical study in the record, Loon 
LLC, shuttered in early 2021.  See Astro Teller, Loon’s Final Flight, Medium (Jan. 21, 2021), 
https://blog.x.company/loons-final-flight-e9d699123a96 (official company blog); see also Letter from Julie M. 
Kearney, Global Head of Communications Regulation and Policy, Loon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT 
Docket No. 20-133 (filed Jan. 14, 2021) (attaching a study by Comsearch entitled “Loon E-Band Backhaul:  
Analysis of Compatibility with Incumbent Fixed Services, Use of the Link Registration System, and Review Versus 
Passive Services.”).
232 See, e.g., SpaceX Nov. 8, 2021 Ex Parte at 1–4; Letter from Jameson Dempsey, Principal, Satellite Policy, Space 
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1–2 (filed Jan. 
31, 2022) (SpaceX Jan. 31, 2022 Ex Parte); see also, e.g., SpaceX HAPS Public Notice Comments; SpaceX HAPS 
Public Notice Reply Comments; SpaceX Refresh Public Notice Comments at 1–5.
233 As SpaceX has previously itself noted, for “the E-band . . . the Commission has not yet adopted service rules or 
licensed other satellite operators.”  See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application for Orbital Deployment and 
Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055, 
Attach. Narrative App. at 6 (filed May 26, 2020) (SpaceX Gen2 Application).
234 We note that the Commission’s rules for authorization of proposed non-federal fixed terrestrial links in the 71.0–
76.0 GHz and 81.0–86.0 GHz bands do not address co-band, non-Federal FSS Earth stations and thus non-federal 
terrestrial licensees are not required to analyze the potential for harmful interference to or from a proposed link to 
non-federal gateway Earth stations previously authorized or pending in ICFS under the default service rules.
235 SpaceX Refresh Public Notice Comments at 5 (“While NTIA’s specific technical proposals may be appropriate 
to assess interference from Aeronet’s 70/80 GHz links into other federal and non-federal users—and SpaceX does 
not comment on the appropriateness of those values for Aeronet—they are not well-tailored to fixed-satellite service 
operations in the 70/80 GHz band.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
3283. The fact that we are not adding FSS to the third-party database registration system does 
not impair the ability of FSS operators to continue to deploy and operate new earth stations in the 
70/80/90 GHz bands,236 subject to prior coordination with existing incumbents.237  
84. In response to certain concerns raised in the record,238 we emphasize that the allocations 
in the 70/80/90 GHz bands have not changed.  FSS and FS remain co-primary, and the Commission 
continues to have policies in place that allow for coexistence.  First-in-time priority rights serve as the 
foundation for such coexistence in the 70/80/90 GHz bands, as they do in other spectrum bands shared by 
FS and FSS; nothing we adopt today disturbs this status quo.239
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
85. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on two issues for which the record in this 
proceeding is not sufficient for us to make a determination at this time:  (1) whether to permit ship-to-
aerostat transmissions as part of the maritime service otherwise authorized in the Report and Order; and 
(2) whether to include FSS earth stations in the existing third-party database registration regime  modified 
in the Report and Order.240  
86.Inclusion of Ship-to-Aerostat Transmissions in the Maritime Service.  In the Report and 
Order, we declined to permit ship-to-aerostat transmissions at this time.  We note that Aeronet has 
expressed concern that ship-to-aerostat links are critical to the operation of its maritime system and that 
the maritime broadband services otherwise authorized in the Report and Order depend on the availability 
of a return link.241  We seek comment on whether to authorize such transmissions, including input on the 
potential impact on federal and other non-federal operations.  
87.Inclusion of FSS in Third-Party Database Registration System.  In the Report and Order, 
we declined to include FSS earth stations in the third-party database registration system because of lack of 
notice, and a record insufficient to address this issue.  SpaceX has advocated for the inclusion of FSS into 
the existing light-licensing regime for the 70/80/90 GHz bands.242  To date, few parties have addressed the 
feasibility of these proposals, and those that have mentioned the issue have suggested that operational 
limitations and/or further technical study would be needed.243  As SpaceX contends and others support,244 
236 We note, for example, that SpaceX has filed earth and space station applications to authorize its operations in the 
70/80/90 GHz bands pursuant to the part 25 default service rules, and is currently operating under special temporary 
authorizations (STAs) pending completion of federal coordination on its applications for final authorization.
238 See Almagest Space Corp. Refresh Public Notice Comments at 2–3; Sierra Nevada Corp. Refresh Public Notice 
Comments at 1–2.
239 Cf, e.g., FWCC Refresh Public Notice Comments at 4–5 (seeking preferential treatment for FS); AT&T Refresh 
Public Notice Comments at 3–4 (same); CTIA Refresh Public Notice Comments at 3–6 (same).
240 See Sections III.A.2.c and III.D, supra.
241 See Aeronet Jan. 19, 2024 Ex Parte at 1–2; see also Aeronet Jan. 10, 2024 Ex Parte at 2.
242 See SpaceX Oct. 12, 2021 Ex Parte; SpaceX Nov. 8, 2021 Ex Parte at 2; SpaceX HAPS Public Notice Comments 
at 6–8; SpaceX HAPS Public Notice Reply Comments at 1–4; Letter from David Goldman, Director, Satellite 
Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1 
(filed Jan. 6, 2022); SpaceX Jan. 31, 2022 Ex Parte at 1; SpaceX May 23, 2022 Ex Parte at 1–2; Letter from 
Jameson Dempsey, Principal, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1–2 (filed May 31, 2022); SpaceX July 25, 2022 Ex Parte at 1–2; Letter 
from Jameson Dempsey, Principal, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133, at 1 (filed Aug. 22, 2022).
243 For example, Comsearch, one of the two third-party database providers, does not reference FSS in its comments 
responding to the Refresh Public Notice or in most of its other entries in the docket.  Cf., e.g., Comsearch Refresh 
Public Notice Comments; Letter from Joseph N. Marzin, Director, Technology Group, Comsearch, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed June 2, 2022); Letter from Peter S. Young, Principal 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
33incorporating earth station gateways in the third-party database would enable the light-licensing approach 
currently used for operations under subpart Q of part 101 to serve as a unified portal for operations in the 
70 GHz and 80 GHz bands that are licensed under a nationwide, non-exclusive license.  We recognize 
that a unified database may provide efficiencies for the use of these bands and may offer other benefits.  
88. Accordingly, we seek comment on the potential inclusion of FSS earth stations in the 
third-party database registration regime in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  As a general matter, would it 
be feasible to include FSS in the database registration process?  Would doing so have any negative effects 
on incumbent services?  What changes would be necessary to the database system to accommodate FSS 
registrations, and would those changes be feasible?  We note that in response to the aeronautical and 
maritime rules we adopt today, at least one party has articulated how “major modifications to the 
databases or most likely entirely new structures” may be necessary, and that “[m]aking [these] changes 
. . . and developing enhanced analysis methods to cover coordination zones . . . would have to be 
supported by the proponents” of the newly included operations in the bands.245  We seek comment on 
whether analogous concerns exist for the changes that may be necessary to permit FSS into the regime, 
and on the allocation of costs for such changes.
89. If we do incorporate FSS earth stations into the third-party database system, under what 
protection criteria should they be included?  SpaceX argues that the limits set forth in the Federal 
Agencies Letter, which we today adopt for aeronautical operations in these bands, are inappropriate for 
FSS, and urges us to instead adopt the rules found in part 25 as a guide to the appropriate operational 
restrictions for FSS in this context.246  The part 25 rules, however, contemplate individual coordination of 
earth stations, and therefore may not be a good fit for LRS, the third-party database system that is used to 
coordinate operations in these bands.247  The EIRP limit for earth stations in part 25 is much more 
generous than the EIRP limits for fixed and aeronautical services in these bands.248  For earth stations that 
(Continued from previous page)  
Engineer. Comsearch, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed Aug. 20, 2021); 
Comsearch Reply Comments; Commscope and Comsearch Comments.  But see Comsearch HAPS Public Notice 
Comments at 1–2 (discussing in one paragraph the inclusion of FSS earth stations in the current ecosystem).  
Further, at least one other satellite-specific interest objected to SpaceX’s proposals.  Letter from Jennifer Manner, 
Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
WT Docket No. 20-133, at 2–3 (filed June. 29, 2022) (“The Commission also should reject SpaceX’s proposed new 
technical limits for FSS earth stations in the 80 GHz band.  Such technical limits are outside the scope of this 
proceeding, which is limited to proposed changes to the Part 101 rules applicable to terrestrial services only. . . .  
SpaceX’s proposal unfairly favors NGSO over GSO FSS earth stations, and provides no basis to extend technical 
limits on terrestrial operations to FSS earth stations not otherwise subject to those limits. . . .  [T]he Commission 
should reject . . . SpaceX’s proposed application of a unified light-licensing framework, including technical limits 
otherwise applicable to terrestrial services only, to satellite operations in the bands.”).
244 See, e.g., Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comments at 4 (“we see no technical reason why the 70/80 GHz database 
could not serve as a comprehensive repository of all non-federal links, whether they are traditional fixed point-to-
point links; links to, from, and between antennas in motion on ships or aircraft; or gateway links in a 
nongeostationary satellite network”); SIA Comments at 4 (“the registration system should, on a going-forward basis, 
account for both terrestrial and satellite users”); Geneva Communications LLC Comments at 2; New America’s 
Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge Comments at 4; see generally Letter from Jameson Dempsey, 
Director, Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-133 (filed Jan. 17, 
2024).
245 Comsearch Refresh Public Notice Comments at 1.  
246 See, e.g., SpaceX Refresh Public Notice Comments at 5.
247 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 25.251 (“Special requirements for coordination”). 
248 47 CFR § 25.204(b) (+ 64 dBW in any 1 megahertz band); id. § 101.113 (+55 dBW).  Because the part 25 limit is 
expressed as a power density, while the part 101 limit is not, this is not a direct comparison.  Converting the part 25 
limit to 70/80 GHz channel sizes, which are at minimum 1.25 gigahertz, yields an equivalent EIRP of, at minimum, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
34are individually coordinated, this higher-powered limit may be modified to suit the specific circumstances 
and satisfy all potentially affected parties.  For database coordination, however, the EIRP limit must be 
such that coexistence with other operators and services is possible without such individual attention.  The 
EIRP limits we adopt today for aeronautical service are the product of significant attention, analysis and 
input from a variety of parties and perspectives, including those operators and services most likely to be 
affected by any harmful interference.249  We seek similar comment on appropriate EIRP limits for FSS 
earth stations in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  What limits would best enable meaningful FSS service, 
while adequately protecting incumbent operations?  In a similar vein, we seek comment on the 
appropriate OOBE limits for FSS earth stations in these bands, given the importance of protecting 
adjacent band operations.  We also seek comment generally on any other operational limits or restrictions 
that might be required to meaningfully enable database registration for FSS earth stations without risking 
harmful interference to incumbent and adjacent services.
90. We seek comment on the appropriate criteria for the protection of FSS from other 
services.  The rules that we adopt today are designed in part to protect FSS operations, both Federal and 
non-Federal, from the newly established aeronautical service.  However, there are currently no rules 
requiring fixed links to protect FSS operations.  What criteria could be implemented for this purpose?  
Current part 101 rules include an interference protection threshold for fixed services.250  Is there a similar 
appropriate threshold for satellite earth stations?  Are there any other protection criteria that might be 
necessary to ensure that other services in these bands do not cause harmful interference to FSS 
operations?  Consistent with the Commission’s statement when it adopted service rules for FS use of the 
band,251 we propose to require registrations for new FS links submitted on or after the release date of this 
Further Notice to demonstrate protection of FSS earth stations with a final authorization prior to the 
submission date of the new FS registration.  
91. Finally, we seek comment on any changes that would be necessary to our rules or 
procedures to accommodate FSS in the third-party database system as a logistical matter.  Currently, 
terrestrial and aeronautical operators must first obtain a nationwide license from the Commission before 
registering individual sites with a database administrator.252  What would be the equivalent for a satellite 
operator?  Should a satellite operator also be required to obtain a nationwide license from the Commission 
before registering individual sites with a database administrator?  If so, what changes would be required 
to the part 25 earth station licensing rules?  We also seek comment on any changes necessary for federal 
to non-federal coordination in the FSS context.  For fixed services in these bands, this coordination is 
accomplished by the database administrators querying an automated green light/yellow light system 
operated by NTIA, with a yellow light result leading to more individual coordination.253  Could this 
system accommodate FSS operations as well?  What changes would be necessary to support such 
inclusion?  We seek comment generally on these and any other issues raised by the possibility of 
including FSS earth stations in the 70/80 GHz database registration system.
(Continued from previous page)  
+94.96 dBW toward the horizon, or 39.96 dB higher than the part 101 limit, while for a 4.5 gigahertz channel the 
part 25 limit would allow an EIRP 45.53 dB higher than the part 101 limit.
249 See, e.g., Federal Agencies Letter at 1–2 (detailing in part incumbent federal operations in and adjacent to the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands); id., Attach. B at 1–11; Comsearch Report at 24–32.
250 47 CFR § 101.105(a).
251 See supra note 237.  
252 See supra para. 18; see also infra App. A; 47 CFR § 101.1501.  
253 47 CFR § 101.1523; 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23342–43, para. 54; Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Announces Licensing and Interim Link Registration Process, Including Start Date for 
Filing Applications for Non-Exclusive Nationwide Licenses in the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, and 92–95 GHz Bands, 
WT Docket No. 02-146, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 9439, 9447 (WTB 2003).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
35V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
92.Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),254 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”255  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in 
this Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.  
93. The Commission has also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
concerning the potential impact of rule and policy changes in the Further Notice on small entities.  The 
IRFA is set forth in Appendix C.  Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.  Comments must 
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document 
and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
94.Paperwork Reduction Act.  This document contains new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.256  It 
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of 
the PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
§ 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.  We have 
described impacts that might affect small businesses, which include most businesses with fewer than 25 
employees, in the FRFA, attached as Appendix B.
95. The Further Notice also may contain proposed new and revised information collection 
requirements.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C § 
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
96.Congressional Review Act.  The Commission will submit this draft Report and Order to 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, for concurrence as to whether this rule is “major” or “non-major” under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
97.Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act:  The Providing Accountability 
Through Transparency Act requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule.257  Accordingly, the Commission will publish the 
required summary of this Further Notice on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
98.Ex Parte Presentations—Permit-But-Disclose.  The proceeding this Further Notice 
initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex 
254 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.  The RFA has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
255 5 U.S.C. §§ 605(b).
256 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–20.
257 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(4).  The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 118-9 (2023), 
amended section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
36parte rules.258  Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must:  (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all 
data presented and arguments made during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in 
part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to 
be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 
rules.  In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the Commission’s rules 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.259
99.Comment Filing Procedures.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the 
dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
•Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by 
accessing ECFS:  https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 
•Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy 
of each filing.
•Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight 
U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
•Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.  U.S. 
Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC  20554.
•Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts 
any hand or messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure taken to help 
protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of 
COVID-19.  See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and 
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).  
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-
hand-delivery-policy.
100.People with Disabilities.  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
258 47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.
259 Id. § 1.49(f).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
37101.Further Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, contact Jeffrey 
Tignor of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at Jeffrey.Tignor@fcc.gov or 
202-418-0774.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
102.IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 303(r) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 301, 302a, 303(c), 303(f), and 303(r), 
that this Report and Order IS ADOPTED as set forth above.
103.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4, 303, and 307 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 307, that this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED as set forth above.
104.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments of the Commission’s rules as set 
forth in Appendix A ARE ADOPTED, effective thirty days from the date of publication in the Federal 
Register, except for: (1) section 101.147(z)(3), which will take effect on September 1, 2024; and 
(2) sections 101.63(b), 101.1523(a), (e), and 101.1528 (a)(11), (b)(10), and (d), which contain new or 
modified information collection requirements that requires approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and will take effect after the Commission publishes a notice 
in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date(s).
105.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Office of the Secretary, SHALL 
SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
106.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance 
and Program Management, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
§ 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretaryFederal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
38APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document above, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 
CFR parts 0 and 101 as follows:
PART 0 – COMMISSION ORGANIZATION 
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted. 
2. Section 0.241 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
§ 0.241 Authority delegated.
* * * * *
(l) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated authority, jointly with the 
Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to establish and administer a process for review of 
proposed technologies for point-to-endpoint-in-motion communications to aircraft and ships in the 71–76 
GHz and 81–86 GHz bands to ensure compliance with the requirements adopted by the Commission.
3. Section 0.331 is amended by revising the introductory text and adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:
§ 0.331 Authority delegated.
The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is hereby delegated authority to perform all 
functions of the Bureau, described in § 0.131, subject to the exceptions and limitations in paragraphs (a) 
through (d) of this section, and also the functions described in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) Authority concerning review of certain proposed technologies in the 71–76 and 81–86 GHz 
bands.  The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is delegated authority, jointly with the 
Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology, to establish and administer a process for review of 
proposed technologies for point-to-endpoint-in-motion communications to aircraft and ships in the 71–76 
GHz and 81–86 GHz bands to ensure compliance with the requirements adopted by the Commission.  The 
Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is also delegated authority to establish and administer 
specific procedures to be followed for coordinating and registering aeronautical and maritime stations and 
their associated transmissions.
PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
4. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
395. Section 101.63 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 101.63 Period of construction; certification of completion of construction.
* * * * *
(b) For the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands, the 12-month construction period will 
commence on the date of each registration of each individual link; adding links will not change the 
overall renewal period of the license.  For each individual link, a licensee who commences operations 
within the construction period must certify in the third-party link registration database, such as those 
established pursuant to section 101.1523, that the link is constructed and operational.  The certification 
must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction period for each individual 
link.  If operations have begun using some, but not all, of the authorized transmitters, the certification 
must show to which specific transmitters it applies.  After 15 days of the end of the construction period 
for each individual link, if the licensee has not certified that the link is constructed and operational, the 
third-party database managers will delete the registration from the database.  
* * * * *
6. Section 101.111 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(vi) to read as follows:
§ 101.111 Emission limitations.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi)(A) In order to protect Federal Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (passive), aeronautical and 
maritime endpoints in motion operating in the 70 and 80 GHz bands must comply with the following 
limits:
(1) Ground-to-air transmissions shall not exceed an unwanted emission level of -38.5 dBW per 
100 MHz in any portion of the 86–92 GHz passive band;
(2) Air-to-air, ship-to-shore, and aerostat-to-shore transmissions shall not exceed an unwanted 
emission level of -29.7 dBW per 100 MHz in any portion of the 86–92 GHz passive band. 
(B) Any changes to system specifications, operations, or deployment scenarios for aeronautical or 
maritime end points in motion shall be pre-coordinated with NTIA and affected Federal agencies, and 
licensees of aeronautical or maritime end points in motion must cooperate fully with any updates to the 
required unwanted emission limits that may result from these modifications.
* * * * *
7. Section 101.113 is amended by adding footnote 14 to the entries of “71,000 to 76,000” and 
“81,000 to 86,000” in the table of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 101.113 Transmitter power limitations.
(a) * * *
\14\ The EIRP limit for fixed and mobile stations used for aeronautical and maritime endpoints in 
motion is 57 dBW.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
40* * * * *
8. Section 101.115 is amended in the table in paragraph (b)(2) by revising the entries for “71,000 to 
76,000 (co-polar)”, “71,000 to 76,000 (cross-polar)”, “81,000 to 86,000 (co-polar)”, and “81,000 to 
86,000 (cross-polar)” to read as follows:
§ 101.115 Directional antennas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
ANTENNA STANDARDS
Minimum radiation suppression to angle in 
degrees from centerline of main beam in 
decibels
Frequency 
(MHz)CategoryMaximum 
beamwidth 
to 3 dB 
points1 
(included 
angle in 
degrees)Minimum 
antenna 
gain (dBi)5° 
to 
10°10° 
to 
15°15° 
to 
20°20° 
to 
30°30° 
to 
100°100° 
to 
140°140° 
to 
180°
* * * * * * *
71,000 to 
76,000 
(co-polar)14N/A 2.2 38 22 28 32 35 37 55 55
71,000 to 
76,000 
(cross-polar)14 N/A 2.2 38 35 35 40 42 47 55 55
81,000 to 
86,000 
(co-polar)14N/A 2.2 38 22 28 32 35 37 55 55
81,000 to 
86,000 (cross-
polar)14N/A 2.2 38 35 35 40 42 47 55 55
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
\14\ Antenna gain less than 50 dBi (but greater than or equal to 38 dBi) is permitted only with a 
proportional reduction in maximum authorized EIRP in a ratio of 2 dB of power per 1 dB of gain, so that 
the maximum allowable EIRP (in dBW) for antennas of less than 50 dBi gain becomes + 55-2(50-G), 
where G is the antenna gain in dBi.  In addition, antennas in these bands must meet the following 
additional standard for minimum radiation suppression:  At angles of less than 5 degrees from the 
centerline of main beam, cross-polar discrimination must be at least 21 dB.
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
419. Effective September 1, 2024, section 101.147 is amended by adding paragraph (z)(3) to read as 
follows:
§ 101.147 Frequency assignments.
* * * * *
(z) * * *
(3) The following channel plans apply to the 71,000–76,000 MHz and 81,000–86,000 MHz 
bands:
(i) 250 MHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71250 81250
71500 81500
71750 81750
72000 82000
72250 82250
72500 82500
72750 82750
73000 83000
73250 83250
73500 83500
73750 83750
74000 84000
74250 84250
74500 84500
74750 84750
75000 85000
75250 85250
75500 85500
75750 85750
(ii) 500 MHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71375 81375
71875 81875
72375 82375
72875 82875
73375 83375Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
4273875 83875
74375 84375
74875 84875
75375 85375
(iii) 750 MHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71500 81500
72250 82250
73000 83000
73750 83750
74500 84500
75250 85250
(iv) 1 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71625 81625
72625 82625
74125 84125
75125 85125
(v) 1.25 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71750 81750
73000 83000
74250 84250
(vi) 1.5 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
71875 81875
74375 84375
(vii) 1.75 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72000 82000
74500 84500Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
43(viii) 2.0 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72125 82125
74625 84625
(ix) 2.25 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72250 82250
74750 84750
(x) 2.5 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72375 82375
(xi) 2.75 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72500 82500
(xii) 3 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72625 82625
(xiii) 3.25 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72750 82750
(xiv) 3.5 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
72875 82875
(xv) 3.75 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
73000 83000
(xvi) 4 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
4473125 83125
(xvii) 4.25 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
73250 83250
(xviii) 4.5 GHz authorized bandwidth.
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
73375 83375
10. Section 101.1501 is revised to read as follows:
§ 101.1501 Service areas.
The 70/80/90 GHz bands are licensed on the basis of non-exclusive nationwide licenses.  There is 
no limit to the number of non-exclusive nationwide licenses that may be granted for these bands, and 
these licenses will serve as a prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point links.  In the 71–76 
GHz and 81–86 GHz bands, nationwide non-exclusive licenses also serve as a blanket license for air-to-
air and ship-to-ship operations, and as a prerequisite to register ground-to-air (GTA) stations and to 
operate associated GTA and air-to-ground (ATG) transmissions; and as a prerequisite to register shore 
stations and aerostat relay stations and to operate associated ship-to-shore, shore-to-ship, shore-to-
aerostat, aerostat-to-ship, and aerostat-to-shore transmissions.
11. Section 101.1507 is revised to read as follows:
§ 101.1507 Permissible operations.
Licensees may use the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands for any point-to-point, non-broadcast 
service.  Licensees may use the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands for aeronautical and maritime service as set 
forth in § 101.1528.  The segments may be unpaired or paired, but pairing will be permitted only in a 
standardized manner (e.g., 71–72.25 GHz may be paired only with 81–82.25 GHz, and so on).  The 
segments may be aggregated without limit. 
12. Section 101.1523 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:
§ 101.1523 Sharing and coordination among non-government licensees and between non-
government and government services.
(a) Each individual point-to-point link must be registered in a third-party database.  Registration 
of aeronautical ground stations, maritime shore stations, and aerostats for operation of aeronautical or 
maritime links to end points in motion in the 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands will be in a third-party 
database after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau announces by public notice the details of the 
implementation of a third-party database for such links to endpoints in motion.  
* * * * *
(e) A licensee must successfully complete the requirements of this section prior to modifying the 
technical parameters of a registered link.  Except for de minimis modifications, any change to the Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
45technical data on a link registration will result in a new interference protection date.  A modification to 
link registration in the 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands is de minimis, and the registration will retain its 
existing interference protection date and not lose its existing first-in-time rights, if the modification meets 
all of the following criteria:
(1) The licensee certifies that the modification is necessary to repair or replace equipment 
specified in the registration that was constructed and operating under the registration;
(2) The modification does not increase the EIRP of a digital system or change the EIRP of an 
analog system;
(3) The modification does not increase the channel bandwidth;
(4) The modification does not change the power density;
(5) The modification does not increase the receiver sensitivity;
(6) The modification does not increase the antenna beamwidth;
(7) The modification does not increase the antenna gain, except where there is a corresponding 
reduction transmitter power so that there is no increase in EIRP;
(8) The modification does not involve a change to antenna with less off-axis attenuation at any 
angle; and
(9) The modification does not change any other technical parameters not mentioned in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.
13. Section 101.1528 is added to subpart Q to read as follows: 
§ 101.1528 Requirements for aeronautical and maritime links to, from, or between endpoints in 
motion.
(a) Requirements for aeronautical ground stations and endpoints in motion.
(1) Air-to-ground transmissions are permitted only in the 71–76 GHz band.
(2) Ground-to-air transmissions are permitted only in the 81–86 GHz band.
(3) Air-to-air transmissions are permitted only between aircraft that are separated by a minimum 
slant path distance of 50 km.
(4) Transmissions are only permitted to and from aircraft at altitudes between 10,000 ft and 
50,000 ft.
(5) Ground stations must operate with a minimum elevation angle of 5 degrees and a maximum 
elevation angle of 45 degrees.
(6) Ground stations must be located at least 10 km from any existing Non-Federal FSS earth 
station or Federal facility listed in table 4 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, absent a coordination 
agreement with the FSS operator.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
46(7) Ground stations must be located at least 150 km from the specific Federal facilities and not 
within the areas listed in table 3 to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, absent a coordination agreement with 
the Federal operator. 
(8) Ground stations must be located at least 10 km from any existing Federal or non-Federal fixed 
station receiver, absent a coordination agreement with the fixed station operator.
(9) Air-to-air transmissions are permitted in 81–86 GHz subject to the following limitations;
(i) EIRP signal levels radiated along a line between the airborne transmitter and the latitude and 
longitude of the observatories in table 3 to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, which must be maintained as 
the airborne transmitter moves, cannot exceed the levels shown in table 1 to this paragraph (a)(9)(i).  
Within the range of 150 km and 375 km, the maximum allowable EIRP levels for horizontal distances not 
listed in table below may be approximated by linear interpolation.
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(9)(i) - List of Maximum Allowable EIRP levels, in dBW
Horizontal Distance (km) Frequency 
(GHz) 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375
81 -11.2 -8.8 -6.5 -4.2 -1.5 1.1 3.9 6.7 10 13.5
82 -11.5 -9.2 -6.9 -4.6 -2 0.5 3.2 6 9.2 12.6
83 -11.7 -9.5 -7.3 -5 -2.4 0 2.7 5.4 8.6 11.9
84 -11.9 -9.7 -7.5 -5.3 -2.8 -0.4 2.3 4.9 8 11.3
85 -12.1 -9.9 -7.8 -5.5 -3 -0.7 1.9 4.5 7.6 10.8
86 -12.2 -10 -7.9 -5.7 -3.3 -0.9 1.7 4.2 7.3 10.5
(ii) A licensee of aeronautical end points in motion must have a capability to target specific areas 
which can be added to a “block list” as part of a dynamic link management system.  If air-to-air 
transmission within the main beam of the radio astronomy receiver cannot be avoided, air-to-air 
transmissions within the radio horizon of the radio astronomy site (as specified in table 2 to this paragraph 
(a)(9)(ii)) should not occur.  
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(9)(ii) - Approximate Radio Horizon, in Horizontal Distance (km)
Altitude (m)Approximate Radio Horizon (km)
(horizontal distance)
10,360 375
8,000 315
6,000 260
5,000 220
4,000 180
3,000 125
(iii) The list of radio astronomy sites may be periodically updated by the NTIA and the FCC.  
This rule may be superseded by a coordination agreement between the licensee and NSF, in which case 
the coordination agreement will specify the technical restrictions.
(10) Air-to-air transmissions in the 71–76 GHz band are subject to the following restrictions:Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
47(i) EIRP signal levels shall be limited to 20 dBW/1000 MHz towards each military installation 
listed in table 4 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section that is within 375 km of the airborne transmitter.  This 
20 dBW/1000 MHz EIRP applies to the power radiated along a line between the airborne transmitter and 
the latitude and longitude of the military installations in table 4 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section and 
must be maintained as the airborne transmitter moves.  An EIRP of 57 dBW/1000 MHz is allowed in 
other directions.  The list of military installations in table 4 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section may be 
periodically updated by the NTIA and the FCC.  This rule may be superseded by a coordination 
agreement between the licensee and the Department of Defense (DoD), in which case the coordination 
agreement will specify the technical restrictions and allow the licensee and DoD to update the list of 
protected installations in the agreement.  The locations of all aeronautical end-point-in-motion ground 
stations will be provided to NTIA and DoD as part of the coordination process.
(ii) A licensee of aeronautical end points in motion must have a capability to target specific areas 
which can be added to a “block list” as part of a dynamic link management system.  If air-to-air 
transmission within the main beam of the radio astronomy receivers associated with the observatories in 
table 3 to paragraph (c)(1) of this section cannot be avoided, air-to-air transmissions within the radio 
horizon of the radio astronomy site (as specified in table 2 to paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this section) should 
not occur.  
(iii) The list of radio astronomy sites may be periodically updated by the NTIA and the FCC.  
This rule may be superseded by a coordination agreement between the licensee and NSF, in which case 
the coordination agreement will specify the technical restrictions.
(11) Aeronautical operators must coordinate with Federal operators and register ground-to-air 
stations, and must not operate such facilities or any associated air-to-ground transmissions until 
registration has successfully been completed.
(b) Requirements for maritime shore stations, aerostats, and endpoints in motion.
(1) Ship-to-shore transmissions are only permitted in the 81–86 GHz band.
(2) Shore-to-ship transmissions are only permitted in the 71–76 GHz band.
(3) Shore-to-aerostat transmissions are only permitted in the 71–76 GHz band.
(4) Aerostat-to-ship transmissions are only permitted in the 71–76 GHz band.
(5) Aerostat-to-shore transmissions are only permitted in the 81–86 GHz band.
(6) Aerostat must not operate above an altitude limit of 1000 ft. 
(7) Ship-to-ship communications are limited to ships located more than 30 km offshore, or closer 
only where the main beam of the transmit antenna is oriented at least 15 degrees away from any point on 
the shore.
(8) Ship stations and aerostat stations must only operate when there is a minimum separation of 
150 km to the specific Federal facilities and not within the areas listed in table 3 to paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, absent a coordination agreement with the federal operator.
(9) Shore-to-ship and ship-to-shore transmission must only occur between stations that are 
located at least 10 km from the Federal military installations listed in table 4 to paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section, absent a coordination agreement with the Federal operator.
(10) Maritime operators must coordinate with Federal operators and register shore and aerostat 
transmitters, and must not operate such facilities or any associated ship-to-shore transmissions until 
registration has successfully been completed. Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
48(c) Protected Federal sites.
(1) RAS and VLBA sites:
Table 3 to Paragraph (c)(1)
RAS Station NameNorth
LatitudeWest
Longitude
Arizona Radio Observatory (ARO) 12-meter 31° 57' 11.9" 111° 36' 53.6"
Green Bank Observatory 38° 25' 59" 79° 50' 23"
Very Large Array (VLA), Socorro, NM 34° 04' 44" 107° 37' 06"
Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO), Big Pine, CA 37° 14′ 02″ 118° 16′ 55″
Haystack Observatory, Westford, MA 42° 37' 24'' 071° 29' 18''
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Very Long Baseline Array Stations
Brewster, WA  48° 07' 52" 119° 41' 00"
Fort Davis, TX  30° 38' 06" 103° 56' 41"
Hancock, NH  42° 56' 01" 71° 59' 12"
Kitt Peak, AZ  31° 57' 23" 111° 36' 45"
Los Alamos, NM  35° 46' 30" 106° 14' 44"
Mauna Kea, HI  19° 48' 05" 155° 27' 20"
North Liberty, IA  41° 46' 17" 91° 34' 27"
Owens Valley, CA  37° 13' 54" 118° 16' 37"
Pie Town, NM  34° 18' 04" 108° 07' 09"
Saint Croix, VI  17° 45' 24" 64° 35' 01"
National Radio Quiet ZoneRectangular area between latitudes 
37°30' N and 39°15' N, and 
longitudes 78°30' W and 
80°30' W.
Next-generation Very Large Array (ngVLA) Rectangular area between latitudes 
31°22'1.9" N and 34°23'10" N, 
and longitudes 109°1'53.4" W and 
103°4'39" W
(2) Military installations:
Table 4 to Paragraph (c)(2)
Military Installation Latitude Longitude
Redstone Arsenal, AL………………………………………………
Fort Huachuca, AZ………………………………………………….
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ…………………………………………
Beale AFB, CA……………………………………………………...
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, CA……………………
China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, CA……………………….
Edwards AFB, CA…………………………………………………..
Fort Irwin, CA………………………………………………………
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, CA……………………..
Buckley AFB, CO…………………………………………………...
Schriever AFB, CO………………………………………………….
Fort Gordon, GA……………………………………………………34° 41' 42" N
31° 33 '18" N
33° 01' 02" N
39° 06' 41" N
34° 43' 00" N
35° 41' 05" N
34° 54′ 58″ N
35° 16' 22" N
34° 13' 54" N
39° 42' 36" N
38° 48' 12" N
33° 25' 14" N086° 39' 04" W
110° 20' 59" W
114° 15' 05" W
121° 21' 36" W
121° 54' 08" W
117° 41' 19" W
117° 56′ 07″ W
116° 41' 05" W
116° 03' 42"W
104° 45' 29"W
104° 31' 32" W
082° 09' 09'' WFederal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
49Naval Satellite Operations Center, GU……………………………...
Naval Computer and Telecomm Area Master Station, Pacific, HI…
Fort Detrick, MD……………………………………………………
Nellis AFB, NV……………………………………………………..
Nevada Test Site, NV……………………………………………….
Tonapah Test Range Airfield, NV…………………………………..
Cannon AFB, NM…………………………………………………...
White Sands Missile Range, NM……………………………………
Dyess AFB, TX……………………………………………………...
Fort Bliss, TX……………………………………………………….
Fort Sam Houston, TX………………………………………………
Goodfellow AFB, TX……………………………………………….
Kelly AFB, TX……………………………………………………...
Utah Test and Training Range, UT…………………………………
Fort Belvoir, VA…………………………………………………….
Naval Satellite Operations Center, VA……………………………...13° 34' 55'' N
21° 31' 16" N
39° 26' 08" N
36° 14' 29" N
38° 33' 41" N
37° 47' 56" N
34° 23' 23" N
32° 56' 38" N
31° 10' 10" N
31° 48' 45" N
29° 26' 34" N
31° 26' 05" N
29° 22' 51" N
40° 12' 00" N
38° 43' 08" N
36° 34' 00'' N144° 50' 50'' E
157° 59' 57" W
077° 25' 38" W
115° 03' 03" W
116° 42' 30" W
116° 46' 51" W
103° 19' 06" W
106° 25 '11" W
099° 41' 01" W
106° 25' 17" W
098° 26' 33" W
100° 24' 11" W
098° 34' 40" W
112° 54' 00" W
077° 09' 15" W
076° 14' 00'' W
(d) Review of certain proposed technologies in the 71–76 and 81–86 GHz bands.  Prior to 
registration of any aeronautical or maritime links—to, from, or between endpoints in motion—each 
licensee must demonstrate, in accordance with the process to be established by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology, see 47 CFR §§ 0.241(l), 
0.331(g) of this title, that its technologies for point-to-endpoint-in-motion communications to aircraft and 
ships are capable of meeting specific technical and operating requirements set forth in this section.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
50APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Modernizing and Expanding Access to 
the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released in June 2020.2  The Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
NPRM, including comments on the IRFA.  No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  This present 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2. In the Report and Order, the Commission seeks to further its goals of fostering 
innovation in provisioning broadband and on meeting the rapidly increasing demand for its related 
services by small and other entities through the adoption of new rules and modernizing current rules for 
the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, 92–94 GHz, and 94.1–95 GHz bands (collectively, the 70/80/90 GHz 
bands).
3. The adopted rules take several approaches towards achieving these goals.  One approach 
is authorizing certain point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands under 
our Part 101 rules to further the use of these frequencies for access to broadband services on aircraft and 
ships.  In the Report and Order, the Commission authorizes certain point-to-point links to endpoints in 
motion in the 71–76 GHz (the 70 GHz band) and 81–86 GHz (the 80 GHz band) bands under its part 101 
rules.  Another approach is updating the Commission’s rules to permit the use of smaller and lower-cost 
antennas to facilitate the provisioning of backhaul service in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, and 
mandates a channelization plan in those bands.  Finally, the Report and Order adopted changes to the link 
registration process in the 70/80/90 GHz bands to promote prompt construction of registered links, 
thereby fostering more efficient use of this spectrum and improving the accuracy of the link registration 
database.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
4. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies 
presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
5. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.4  The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response 
to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
6. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.5  The RFA generally 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–12, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2 Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 20-133, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020).  
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
51defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.”7  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.8
7.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.9  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.10  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million 
businesses.11
8. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”12  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.13  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.14 
(Continued from previous page)  
5 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(4).
6 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,” https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf (Mar. 2023).
11 Id.
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
13 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
small organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.
14 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
529. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”15  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
of Governments16 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.17  Of this number, there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county,18 municipal, and town or township19) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts20 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.21  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”22
10.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.23  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
wireless video services.24  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.25  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
16 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html. 
17 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State:  2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017. 
18 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State:  2017 [CG1700ORG05], 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.  
19 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State:  2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 
20 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State:  2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
21 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
22 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments—
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040)—from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls. 5, 6 & 10.
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
24 Id.
25 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
53industry that operated for the entire year.26  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.27  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services.28  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.29  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
11.Fixed Microwave Services.  Fixed microwave services include common carrier,30 private-
operational fixed,31 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.32  They also include the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),33 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),34 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),35 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),36 24 GHz Service,37 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),38 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),39 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.40  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)41 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.42  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.43  Of this number, 2,837 
26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
27 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
28 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
29 Id.
30 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.
31 See id. Subparts C and H.
32 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
33 See 47 CFR Part 30.
34 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
35 See id. Subpart L.
36 See id. Subpart G.
37 See id.
38 See id. Subpart O.
39 See id. Subpart P.
40 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
41 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
42 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
54firms employed fewer than 250 employees.44  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
12. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave 
services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the 
various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services.  When bidding credits are adopted for the 
auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to 
the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in part 101 of the Commission’s rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency 
bands.45   
13. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
14.Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”46  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.47  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.48  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.49  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.50  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.51  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
(Continued from previous page)  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
44 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
45 See 47 CFR §§ 101.538(a)(1)–(3), 101.1112(b)–(d), 101.1319(a)(1)–(2), 101.1429(a)(1)–(3). 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
47 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.  
48 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors:  Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.:  2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
49 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably.  See https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
50 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 
51 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
55standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
15.All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.52  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.53  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.54  
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small.55  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year.56  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.57  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.  
16.Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.58  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are:  transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.59  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.60  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.61  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.62  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). 
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors:  Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.:  2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
57 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably.  See https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
58 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220. 
59 Id.
60 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
61 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
62 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
56E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
17. The rule changes adopted in the Report and Order will impose some new and/or 
additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities who obtain 
licenses in the 70/80/90 GHz bands.  These requirements are consistent with the requirements the 
Commission has adopted for other mmW bands; as a result, small entities will potentially have less of a 
learning curve in their efforts to comply with the adopted rules. 
18. In 2003, the Commission established service rules for non-federal use of the 70/80/90 
GHz bands through a two-step, non-exclusive licensing regime.63  Small entities and other applicants 
obtain a nationwide, non-exclusive license for the entire 12.9 gigahertz of the 70/80/90 GHz bands, and 
then register individual links in a database administered by third-party database managers.64  In order for a 
link to be registered, it must be coordinated successfully with federal operations, typically through 
through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) online, automated 
mechanism.65  Also, the licensee must provide an analysis to the third-party database manager 
demonstrating that the proposed link will neither cause harmful interference to, nor receive harmful 
interference from, any previously registered non-government link.66  Licensees are afforded first-in-time 
priority for successfully registered links relative to links that are successfully registered at a later point in 
time.67  Registered links must be constructed within 12 months of their registration.  Under part 101, non-
federal licensees may use the 70/80/90 GHz bands for any point-to-point, non-broadcast service.68 
19. Many of the rule changes adopted in the Report and Order are consistent with and mirror 
existing Commission policies and requirements used in other part 101 spectrum bands, which we expect 
will help minimize some of the compliance burdens associated with the adopted rules.  For example, 
while we do add a construction certification requirement that licensees certify that each link is constructed 
and operating within 12 months of successful registration in the link registration system (LRS) 
administered by third-party database managers, small entities with existing licenses in other bands may 
already be familiar with similar policies and requirements and have the processes and procedures already 
in place to facilitate compliance, resulting in minimal incremental costs to comply with our requirements 
for the 70/80/90 GHz bands.  We also adopt de minimis modifications to link registrations, which allow 
licensees to amend their registered links without losing their first-in-time rights for those links.  Adopting 
this rule allows small and other licensees to maintain the existing operation of their links without 
sacrificing either the accuracy of the database or the licensee’s interference-protection rights.  
63 Allocations and Service Rules for 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report 
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23322, para. 5 (2003) (70/80/90 GHz Report and Order).
64 Since 2004, the Wireless Bureau has designated four entities to be database managers but there are currently two 
database managers:  Comsearch and Micronet Communications, Inc.  See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/millimeter-
wave-708090-ghz-service.  
65 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b).  If a proposed link does not interfere with existing federal operations then it is given a 
“green light;” if it may interfere with existing federal operations, then it is given a “yellow light,” indicating that the 
licensee must file a registration application for the link with the FCC for coordination with NTIA.  See 47 CFR 
§ 101.1523(b)(3),(c); 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23342–43, para. 54.  The “green light” / 
“yellow light” system protects the sensitive nature of the locations of military installations.  
66 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b)(2); Allocations and Service Rules for 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, 
WT Docket No. 02-146, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4889, 4895–96, paras. 11–14 (2005) 
(Commission adopted an interference-analyses requirement for registering non-Federal Government licensees).  
67 See 47 CFR § 101.1523(b)(3); 70/80/90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23339–40, para. 45.  See also 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71–76 GHz, 81–
86 GHz and 92–95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB 2005).  
68 47 CFR § 101.1507.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
57Additionally, the Commission believes small entities will continue to benefit from their ability to obtain 
more information than was previously available to them, such as access to the third-party databases and 
FCC rulemakings, but with improvements to the data within the database that will result from the 
construction certification requirement.     
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
20. The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, 
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities 
was rejected.”69
21. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts measures to meet the great demand for 
wireless broadband connectivity in an efficient and effective manner.  While doing so, the Commission is 
mindful that small licensees and service providers will incur some new and/or additional compliance 
requirements that may also result in increased costs.  In adopting the proposed rules, we weighed the 
impact of these obligations on small entities against the public interest benefits gained from them and 
have determined that the benefits outweigh the costs.  Both the specific steps the Commission has taken 
to minimize costs and reduce the economic impact for small entities and the alternatives considered are 
discussed below. 
22. For example, through the adopted rules, the Commission took the step of changing our 
antenna standards to allow licensees, some of which are small entities, to use smaller, lower-cost antennas 
in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands for 5G backhaul.  Taking this approach will allow for more intensive 
use of these bands by small and other entities, thus allowing them to further develop and expand their 
businesses.  Alternatively, we considered not utilizing this approach, due to a concern that reducing 
antenna size would impact the number of links using the 71–76 and 81–86 GHz bands in metro areas.70  
However, the benefit of allowing for greater use of the bands outweighed this concern.  The Commission 
also minimized the economic impact on small and other entities through our adoption of the de minimis 
modification requirement, which ensures that licensees can amend their registrations and not lose their 
first-in-time status for their registered links, as long as their modifications are consistent with the adopted 
requirements.  The adopted de minimis standard for modifications will be a particular boon to small 
entities, who may already have limited resources and would likely be disproportionately burdened if their 
need to repair or replace installed and operating equipment did not change the potential risk of a link 
causing or receiving interference, yet still caused them to “lose their place in line.”  We considered, but 
declined to adopt, proposals from commenters that we determined were beyond a de minimis 
modification, such as those that would change the interference landscape.
23. The Commission also considered but rejected arguments requiring construction 
certifications be filed in the Universal Licensing System (ULS).  The Commission instead focused on 
targeted changes to improve efficiency in high-capacity bands critical to accelerating the deployment of 
5G services nationwide.  We expect our approach of opting to modify existing rules as minimally as 
possible instead of creating numerous new and/or additional rules, should minimize the economic impact 
for small entities and promote greater use of the band among all providers.  
24. To the extent the cost of complying with these burdens is relatively greater for smaller 
entities than for large ones, the Commission believes equal application of the rules is necessary to 
effectuate the purpose of the Communications Act, namely, to further the efficient use of spectrum and to 
prevent spectrum warehousing.  Likewise, equal application of compliance with our technical rules and 
69 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
70 Fiberless Networks Corporation Comments at 12.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
58coordination requirements for all licensees is necessary for the furtherance of the Commission’s goals of 
protecting the public while facilitating the provision of interference-free services by licensees. 
G. Report to Congress 
25. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a 
report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.71  In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  A 
copy of the Report and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.72
71 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
72 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
59APPENDIX C
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice).  Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must 
be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Further Notice.  The Commission 
will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the Further Notice, the Commission considers and seeks comment on whether—and if 
so, how—it might include Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations in the third-party database 
registration regime currently used for operations in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  Included in the 
Commission’s discussion of potential rule changes and requests for comments in the Further Notice are 
repeated requests from the Space Exploration Technology Corporation (SpaceX), which has advocated 
for the inclusion of FSS into the existing light-licensing regime for the 70/80/90 GHz bands.4  The 
Further Notice seeks comment on issues including whether it would be feasible to include FSS in the 
database regime process, and whether doing so would have any negative effects on incumbent services.  
The Commission also solicits comment on what changes to the database system might be needed, whether 
such changes are feasible, how costs for any changes should be allocated and if those costs would have a 
significant economic impact on small entities either currently operating, or seeking to operate, in those 
bands.  Lastly, the item also asks commenters to address what protection criteria should be adopted if FSS 
earth stations are incorporated into the third-party database system, on the appropriate criteria for the 
protection of FSS from other service, and on any changes that might be necessary to our rules or 
procedures as a logistical matter.  In addition, in the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on  
whether to permit ship-to-aerostat transmissions as part of the maritime service otherwise authorized in 
the Report and Order.
B. Legal Basis
3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4, 303, and 307 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.5  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–12, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.  
4 See, e.g., Comments of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., WT Docket No. 20-133 et al. (filed Dec. 2, 2021); 
Reply Comments of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., WT Docket No. 20-133 et al. (filed Jan. 3, 2022); 
Comments of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., WT Docket No. 20-133 et al. (filed Nov. 8, 2023).
5 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
60organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA).”7  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.8
5.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.9  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.10  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million 
businesses.11
6. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”12  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.13  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.14 
7. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”15  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
6 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,” https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf (Mar. 2023).
11 Id.
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
13 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
small organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.
14 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
61of Governments16 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.17  Of this number, there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county,18 municipal, and town or township19) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts20 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.21  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”22
8.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.23  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
wireless video services.24  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.25  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.26  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
(Continued from previous page)  
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
16 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html. 
17 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State:  2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017. 
18 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State:  2017 [CG1700ORG05], 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.  
19 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State:  2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 
20 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State:  2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
21 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
22 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments—
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040)—from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls. 5, 6 & 10.
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
24 Id.
25 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
62employees.27  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services.28  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.29  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
9.Fixed Microwave Services.  Fixed microwave services include common carrier,30 private-
operational fixed,31 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.32  They also include the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),33 Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz),34 Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (LMDS),35 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),36 24 GHz Service,37 
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),38 and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),39 
where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.40  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)41 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.42  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.43  Of this number, 2,837 
(Continued from previous page)  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
27 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
28 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf.
29 Id.
30 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.
31 See id. Subparts C and H.
32 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR Part 74.  
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary 
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between 
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
33 See 47 CFR Part 30.
34 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
35 See id. Subpart L.
36 See id. Subpart G.
37 See id.
38 See id. Subpart O.
39 See id. Subpart P.
40 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
41 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
42 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
63firms employed fewer than 250 employees.44  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
10. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave 
services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the 
various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services.  When bidding credits are adopted for the 
auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to 
the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in part 101 of the Commission’s rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency 
bands.45   
11. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
12.Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”46  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.47  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.48  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.49  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.50  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.51  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
44 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
45 See 47 CFR §§ 101.538(a)(1)–(3), 101.1112(b)–(d), 101.1319(a)(1)–(2), 101.1429(a)(1)–(3). 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
47 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.  
48 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors:  Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.:  2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
49 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably.  See https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
50 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 
51 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
6413.All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.52  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.53  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.54  
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small.55  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year.56  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.57  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.
14.Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.58  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are:  transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.59  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.60  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.61  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.62  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). 
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors:  Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.:  2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
57 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably.  See https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
58 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220. 
59 Id.
60 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
61 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:  
2017, Table ID:  EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
62 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
65Requirements for Small Entities
15. The proposals contemplated in the Further Notice may impose new or additional 
reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance obligations on small entities, as well as on other 
licensees and applicants if adopted.  In particular, there may be new recordkeeping or compliance 
obligations created if changes are made to the Commission’s part 101 technical and/or operational rules in 
order to accommodate the potential inclusion of FSS earth stations in the third-party database registration 
regime in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands or in order to permit ship-to-aerostat transmissions as part of the 
maritime service otherwise authorized in the Report and Order.  
16. At this time, Commission is not currently in a position to determine whether, if adopted, 
the proposed rules and associated requirements raised in the Further Notice would require small entities 
to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals and cannot quantify the cost of compliance 
with the potential rule changes and compliance obligations raised herein. In our discussion of these 
proposals in the Further Notice, we have sought comments from the parties in the proceeding, and 
requested costs and benefits analyses, which may help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant 
matters for small entities, including any compliance costs and burdens that may result from any matters 
discussed in the Further Notice, or from any proposed rules in the proceeding, should they be adopted.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives (among others):  (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 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.63
18. In the Further Notice, the Commission has sought to minimize the economic impact on 
small entities, as well as considered significant alternatives and weigh their potential impact to those 
entities.  For example, in response to SpaceX’s advocacy for including FSS into the existing light-
licensing regime for the 70/80/90 GHz bands, we considered whether it was feasible to alter the third-
party database registration regime to include FSS earth stations as well as what compliance obligations 
could be adopted to minimize the economic impact to small entities.  In addition, in response to Aeronet’s 
advocacy for permitting ship-to-aerostat transmissions in the maritime service otherwise authorized in the 
Report and Order, we considered whether it was feasible to authorize such links as well as what 
compliance obligations could be adopted to minimize the economic impact on small entities.  In order to 
provide proper notice for potential commenters and to allow for a technical record that will better assist 
the Commission in adopting rules that will minimize burdens to small and other entities as much as 
possible, we seek comment on FSS-specific issues and issues related to ship-to-aerostat links.
19. Additionally, we considered what types of changes to the database system would be 
needed for FSS registrations and if any changes, if adopted, would cause major modifications to the 
databases, or alternatively, if entirely new database structures would be required.  We seek comment from 
small entities as to what economic or compliance-related challenges they would encounter as a result of 
adopting such changes.  We also considered what protection criteria should be included as part of 
incorporating FSS earth stations into the third-party database system.  For example, the Commission 
could adopt, as SpaceX prefers, the rules found in part 25 as a framework for appropriate FSS operational 
restrictions, as opposed to using the limits set forth in the Federal Agencies Letter, which was adopted by 
the Commission for aeronautical operations in these bands.  We seek comment on any other operational 
63 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
66limits or restrictions that might be required to meaningfully enable database registration for FSS earth 
stations without risking harmful interference to incumbent and adjacent services.  Lastly, we also 
considered what types of changes to our rules or procedures intended to accommodate FSS in the third-
party database system would be necessary, what licensing requirements for satellite operators would be 
required and what changes would be needed for federal to non-federal coordination in the FSS context.
20. To assist with the Commission’s evaluation of the significant economic impact on small 
entities, and to better evaluate options and alternatives should the proposals in the Further Notice be 
adopted, the Commission has sought comment from the parties.  The proposals in this proceeding to 
accommodate the potential inclusion of FSS earth stations in the third-party database registration regime 
in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands are predicated on requests from SpaceX for the same.  The proposals in 
this proceeding to include ship-to-aerostat transmissions as part of the maritime service otherwise 
authorized in the Report and Order are predicated on requests from Aeronet for the same.  In light of 
these requests, the Further Notice seeks comment on how to weigh the inherent public interest 
considerations involved.  The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and 
alternatives for small entities following the review of comments and costs and benefits analyses filed in 
response to the Further Notice.  The Commission’s evaluation of this information will shape the final 
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions in reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
21. None. Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
67STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 20-133 (January 24, 2024)
It doesn’t seem that long ago that many of us were in lockdown, passing the time by making 
plans for post-pandemic life, including the places we would go and the friends and family we would visit.  
Now people across the country are flying again and in record numbers.  In fact, last year, over 858 million 
passengers passed through our airports.  That's an increase of nearly 100 million passengers from the year 
before.
Even before this surge in passengers, the demand for Wi-Fi in-flight often outstripped what many 
airlines could provide.  The same was true for broadband connections onboard passenger ships like ferries 
and cruises.  Connections while in transit fail consumers when too many passengers compete for the same 
signal and backhaul capacity struggles to keep up.  
The good news is that we are taking steps today to keep us all connected—even at 30,000 feet in 
the air or miles out in the ocean.  We are opening up underutilized spectrum in the 70, 80, and 90 GHz 
bands to provide more innovative ways to provide and use broadband in aviation and maritime settings.  
But that’s not all.  We are maximizing the use of these bands by allowing them to also be used for small, 
lower-cost antennas that can assist with 5G backhaul.  So on top of expanding the opportunities for 
connection in transit, we are growing the opportunities for the use of these bands in places where other 
backhaul efforts have proved challenging.  This approach is smart—because in our post-pandemic world 
we expect to be connected everywhere and our approach to airwaves like these must keep up.Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-16
68STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
Re:Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 20-133 (January 24, 2024)
In wireless, much of our recent attention appropriately has focused on mid-band spectrum.  But 
over the long term, I wouldn’t be surprised if the very short wavelengths all the way up in the 70/80/90 
GHz bands also end up serving as a backbone of U.S. communications networks.  
These bands are already being deployed on terra firma for 5G backhaul links that step in where 
carriers can’t deploy fiber—and that perform well enough to ensure fiber backhaul isn’t missed.  Up in 
space, satellite operators see real potential for these bands to expand the capacity of our satellite 
broadband networks.  And in the area in between, companies have been eyeing these bands to power 
faster and cheaper alternatives to satellite on planes, ships, and offshore platforms.  All of this could 
translate into higher speeds, lower prices, and more choice for the everyday consumer, whether they’re 
logging in from a city, suburb, or rural community or connecting to an in-flight Wi-Fi network on the go. 
This item modernizes our rules to ensure that these services can develop and expand, and that’s 
why I’m proud to support it.  And while several steps remain for us, along with our federal partners, to 
stand up and fully implement the framework, I know that completing the job will remain a top priority.  
I’m especially glad that, as I urged, we made the framework more efficient for smaller innovators.  There 
are so many important interests at play in these wireless proceedings, and that can make the regulatory 
process hard to navigate, especially for small businesses trying out something new.  But our hard work 
can facilitate real progress and open up new possibilities for consumers.
I’d like to thank the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, and staff elsewhere in the Commission who worked on this complex and cross-cutting item.  
It has my full support.