13266 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 22, 2021. 

Edward H. Chu, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry 

‘‘10–5.530’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area 

*******

10–5.530 ........... Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions From Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.

2/28/2019 [Date of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04031 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27 and 101 

[WT Docket No. 20–443, GN Docket No. 17– 

183, RM–11768 (Proceeding Terminated); 

FCC 21–13; FRS 17479] 

Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2– 

12.7 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it could add a new Mobile allocation or 

expanded terrestrial service rights in 

500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum 

between 12.2–12.7 GHz (12 GHz band) 

without causing harmful interference to 

incumbent licensees. Assuming the 

Commission could do so, it seeks 

comment on whether that action would 

promote or hinder the delivery of nextgeneration services in the 12 GHz band 

given the existing and emergent services 

offered by incumbent licensees. The 

Commission proceeds mindful of the 

significant investments made by 

incumbents and values the public 

interest benefits that could flow from 

investments made to provide satellite 

broadband services, particularly in rural 

and other underserved communities 

that might be more expensive to serve 

through other technologies. The 

Commission believes that it is 

appropriate, however, to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to allow 

interested parties to address whether 

additional operations can be 

accommodated in the band while 

protecting incumbent operations from 

harmful interference and for the 

Commission to assess the public interest 

considerations associated with adding a 

new allocation. 

DATES: Comments due on or before 

April 7, 2021 and reply comments due 

on or before May 7, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 20–443 

and GN Docket No. 17–183, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the 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. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13267 

1See 47 CFR 2.106, United States Table of 

Frequency Allocations, non-Federal Table for the 

band 12.2–12.7 GHz. NGSO FSS (space-to-Earth) 

operations are authorized pursuant to international 

footnote 5.487A, which provides additional 

allocations including in Region 2 as follows: 

[The 12.2–12.7 GHz is] allocated to the fixedsatellite service (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis, 

limited to non-geostationary systems and subject to 

application of the provisions of [ITU Radio 

Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other 

non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixedsatellite service. Non-geostationary-satellite systems 

in the fixed-satellite service shall not claim 

protection from geostationary-satellite networks in 

the broadcasting-satellite service operating in 

accordance with the Radio Regulations, irrespective 

of the dates of receipt by the [ITU 

Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete 

coordination or notification information, as 

appropriate, for the non-geostationary-satellite 

systems in the fixed-satellite service and of the 

complete coordination or notification information, 

as appropriate, for the geostationary-satellite 

networks, and [international footnote] No. 5.43A 

does not apply. Non-geostationary-satellite systems 

in the fixed-satellite service in the [12 GHz band] 

shall be operated in such a way that any 

unacceptable interference that may occur during 

their operation shall be rapidly eliminated. 

47 CFR 2.106, n.5.487A. When an international 

footnote is applicable without modification to nonFederal operations, the Commission places the 

footnote on the non-Federal Table. See 47 CFR 

2.105(d)(5). 

2See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International 

Footnote). In Region 2, in the 12.2–12.7 GHz band, 

existing and future terrestrial radiocommunication 

services shall not cause harmful interference to the 

space services operating in conformity with the 

broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2 contained 

in Appendix 30. ‘‘Harmful Interference’’ is defined 

under the Commission’s rules as ‘‘[i]nterference 

which endangers the functioning of a 

radionavigation service or of other safety services or 

seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly 

interrupts a radiocommunication service operating 

in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations.’’ 47 

CFR 2.1(c). 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

• During the time the Commission’s 

building is closed to the general public 

and until further notice, if more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of a proceeding, 

paper filers need not submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number; an 

original and one copy are sufficient. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madelaine Maior of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at 202–418–1466 

or Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov; or Simon 

Banyai of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at 202–418–1443 

or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT 

Docket No. 20–443; FCC 21–13, adopted 

on January 2, 2021 and released on 

January 15, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available electronically via 

the FCC’s website at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-13A1.pdf or via the FCC’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) website 

at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a 

regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice and comment 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ Accordingly, 

the Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

concerning potential rule and policy 

changes contained in this NPRM. The 

IRFA is set forth in Appendix A, visit 

https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This NPRM may contain potential 

new or revised information collection 

requirements. Therefore, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

potential new or revised information 

collections subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. If the 

Commission adopts any new or revised 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget to comment on the 

information collection requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Ex Parte Rules 

Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the 

Commission’s rules, this NPRM shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Synopsis 

I. Background 

1. In the United States, the 12 GHz 

band is allocated on a primary basis for 

non-Federal use for Broadcasting 

Satellite Service (BSS) (referred to 

domestically in the band as Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Fixed 

Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) limited 

to non-geostationary orbit systems 

(NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.1 While 

these three services are co-primary, 

NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are 

allocated on a non-harmful interference 

basis with respect to BSS.2


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13268 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3See 47 CFR 2.106. See also Update to Parts 2 

and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, FixedSatellite Service Systems and Related Matters, 

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017) (2017 NGSO 

Order). FSS is co-primary with Fixed Service for 

individually licensed earth stations. Individually 

licensed FSS earth stations require coordination 

with co-primary Fixed Service. The 2017 NGSO 

Order also adopted rules to allow blanket earth 

station licensing for NGSOs in the 10.7–11.7 GHz 

band on an unprotected basis relative to terrestrial 

Fixed Service. As a result, blanket earth station 

licenses for NGSOs cannot claim interference 

protection from terrestrial Fixed Service in the 

band. Id. at 7817, paras. 24–25. 

4See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, 101.147(p). 

5See Inquiry into the Development of Regulatory 

Policy in Regard to Direct Broadcast Satellites for 

the Period Following the 1983 Regional 

Administrative Radio Conference, Report and 

Order, 90 FCC2d 676 (1982), recon. denied, 53 

RR2d 1637 (1983). 

6See Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct 

Broadcast Satellite Service, Report and Order, 11 

FCC 9712 (1995). DBS operations are subject to the 

International Telecommunication (ITU) Radio 

Regulations BSS and Feeder Link Plans contained 

in Appendices 30 and 30A. 

7 In 1996 the Commission held two auctions for 

DBS orbital slots at 110° and 148° in 1996. See, e.g., 

https://www.fcc.gov/auction/8; https://

www.fcc.gov/auction/9. In 2004, the Commission 

held an auction for three licenses for certain 

channels at DBS orbital slots at 175,° 166° and 157° 

but this auction was nullified. See Direct Broadcast 

Satellite (DBS) Service Auction Nullified: 

Commission Sets Forth Refund Procedures for 

Auction No. 52 Winning Bidders and Adopts a 

Freeze on All New DBS Service Applications, Public 

Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 20618, 20618 & n.3 (2005) 

(citing Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 412 

F.3d 145 (DC Cir. 2005)). In its decision, the 

Appellate Court vacated and remanded the section 

of the DBS Auction Order that concluded that DBS 

is not subject to the auction prohibition of the 

Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of 

International Telecommunications Act, Public Law 

106–180, 114 Stat. 48 section 647 (enacted Mar. 12, 

2000), codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f (ORBIT Act). Id. 

at n.3 

8See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO 

FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and 

Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 

Range, Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to 

Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2– 

12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite 

Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of 

Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and 

Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service 

in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98–206, 

First Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4177, 

para. 213 (2000) (First R&O and FNPRM). 

9 Id. at 4099–4100, para. 2; see also Establishment 

of Policies and Service Rules for the NonGeostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service 

in the Ku-band, IB Docket No. 01–96, Report and 

Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7841 (2002). 

10See 47 CFR 101.1407 (two-way services can be 

provided using spectrum in other bands for the 

return link). See also Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 

of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of 

NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and 

Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 

Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 

Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) 

(MVDDS Second Report and Order) (aff’d 

Northpoint Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC, 414 F.3d 

61 (DC Cir. 2005)). 

11See 47 CFR 101.1440. 

12See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17 

FCC Rcd at 9634–9664 paras. 53–125; 9690–9695 

paras. 196–209; 47 CFR 25.139 (NGSO FSS 

coordination and information sharing between 

MVDDS licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz 

band); 25.208(k) (Power flux density limits); 

101.103 (Frequency coordination procedures); 

101.105 (Interference protection criteria); 101.111 

(Emission limitations); 101.113 (Transmitter power 

limitations); 101.129 (Transmitter location); 

101.1409 (Treatment of incumbent licensees); 

101.1440 (MVDDS protection of DBS). 

13See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p). The 

EIRP limit for MVDDS is expressed as a power 

spectral density, i.e., 14 dBm per 24 megahertz of 

spectrum. Herein the Commission occasionally 

refers to EIRP levels in shorthand, e.g., ‘‘14 dBm.’’ 

The Commission clarifies that these shorthand 

references are for convenience only. 

14The EPFD is the power flux density produced 

at a DBS receive earth station, taking into account 

shielding effects and the off-axis discrimination of 

the receiving antenna assumed to be pointing at the 

appropriate DBS satellite(s) from the transmitting 

antenna of a MVDDS transmit station. 47 CFR 

101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A). 

15The Commission established different EPFD 

limits in four regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR 

101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), mainly due to differences in 

rainfall in each region. See, e.g., MVDDS Second 

Report & Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197. 

16See 47 CFR 101.1440(a). 

17See 47 CFR 101.1440(b). 

18See 47 CFR 101.1440(g). 

19See 47 CFR 101.1440(e) & (g). 

2. NGSO FSS operators also have a 

non-federal co-primary downlink 

allocation and access to the 10.7–12.2 

GHz band on a co-primary basis with 

Fixed Service in 10.7–11.7 GHz and on 

a primary basis from 11.7–12.2 GHz.3

Meanwhile, the adjacent frequencies 

above the band, 12.7–12.75 GHz, are 

allocated for non-federal Fixed Service, 

FSS, and Mobile Service. 

3. Currently there are three services 

authorized and operating in the band: 

DBS providers operating under the 

primary BSS allocation, Multi-Channel 

Video and Data Distribution Service 

(MVDDS) licensees operating on a nonharmful interference basis to DBS under 

the co-primary Fixed Service allocation, 

and NGSO licensees operating on a nonharmful interference basis to DBS under 

the co-primary NGSO FSS allocation. 

The Commission’s rules enable sharing 

between co-primary NGSO FSS and 

MVDDS using a combination of 

technical limitations, information 

sharing, and first-in-time procedures.4

4. The Commission added the DBS 

allocation in the early 1980s 5 and DBS 

service began in 1994.6 In 1996 and 

2004, some of these licenses were 

awarded by competitive bidding.7 In 

2000, the Commission permitted a new 

terrestrial service, MVDDS, to operate in 

the 12 GHz band under the existing 

Fixed Service allocation on a coprimary, non-harmful interference basis 

to the incumbent DBS providers, and on 

a co-primary basis to NGSO FSS.8 The 

Commission also adopted rules to 

permit NGSO FSS operations in the 12 

GHz band at this same time.9

5. The service rules for MVDDS 

permit one-way digital fixed nonbroadcast service, including one-way 

direct-to-home/office wireless service.10

To protect DBS, the Commission 

adopted technical rules to ensure that 

MVDDS stations would not cause 

harmful interference to DBS and 

imposed extensive coordination 

requirements on MVDDS licensees for 

each proposed station.11 These rules 

include detailed frequency coordination 

procedures, interference protection 

criteria, and limitations on signal 

emissions, transmitter power levels, and 

transmitter locations.12 In particular, the 

rules limit the effective isotropic 

radiated power (EIRP) for MVDDS 

stations to 14.0 dBm per 24 megahertz 

(¥16.0 dBW per 24 megahertz).13

6. To accommodate co-primary DBS 

earth stations that must be protected 

from interference caused by MVDDS, an 

MVDDS licensee may not begin 

operation unless it can ensure that the 

equivalent power flux density (EPFD) 14

from a proposed transmitting antenna 

does not exceed the applicable EPFD 

limit at any DBS subscriber location.15

Specifically, an MVDDS licensee cannot 

begin operation in the 12 GHz band 

unless it can ensure that the signal from 

its proposed transmitting antenna will 

not exceed certain specified EPFD limits 

at the receive antennas of any DBS 

customers of record (i.e., those who 

have had their antenna installed either 

before or within 30 days after the 

MVDDS licensee provides 90-days 

notice to DBS licensees of its intent to 

commence operations).16 Accordingly, 

when an MVDDS licensee is proposing 

to deploy a transmitting antenna, it 

must conduct a survey of the area 

around its proposed transmitting 

antenna site to determine the location of 

all DBS customers of record that may 

potentially be affected by its service.17

After coordinating a proposed 

transmitter with DBS licensees, the 

MVDDS licensee must remediate all 

complaints of interference to DBS 

customers of record for one year after it 

begins operating the transmitter.18

Going forward, the burden shifts to DBS 

licensees for new customers (and after 

one year for the customers of record) to 

take into account the presence of the 

MVDDS operations and ensure that DBS 

subscribers do not suffer interference 

from previously coordinated MVDDS 

stations.19 The Commission found that 

these and the other technical 

requirements would ensure that any 

interference caused to DBS customers 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13269 

20See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17 

FCC Rcd at 9640–9663 paras. 67–125, 9691–92, 198; 

see also 47 CFR 2.1 (defining harmful interference). 

21See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p). 

22See 47 CFR 101.103(f)(1); see also 47 CFR 

101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km 

from an MVDDS station to ¥135 dBW/m2 in any 

4 kHz measured and/or calculated at the surface of 

the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting location of 

MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any 

qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent mutual 

agreement of the licensees). 

23See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and 

Related Matters, Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 

(2017) (recon. pending). 

24 DIRECTV became a subsidiary of AT&T in July 

2015. See, e.g., Applications of AT&T, Inc. and 

DIRECTV for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control 

of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14– 

90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 

9131 (2015). Herein the Commission refers to AT&T 

and DIRECTV interchangeably. 

25See S&P Market Intelligence, Multichannel 

Operators by DMA (Q3 2020). 

26The remaining 23 licenses automatically 

terminated for failure to meet the buildout 

requirement. See Requests of Three Licensees of 22 

Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data 

Distribution Service for Extension of Time to Meet 

the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing 

Substantial Service under § 101.1413 of the 

Commission’s Rules, Applications of Three 

Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the 

Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service, 

Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757 (WTB BD Oct. 29, 2018). 

See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709 

(Terminated July 26, 2014). 

27Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for 

Rulemaking, RM–11768, filed Apr. 26, 2016 

(MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also Petition 

for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 

3042 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice). In its 

most recent filing, the Coalition’s members were 

reported to be: Cass Cable TV, Inc. (Cass Cable), 

DISH Network L.L.C., Go Long Wireless, LTD. (Go 

Long Wireless), MDS Operations, Inc., MVD 

Number 53 Partners, Satellite Receivers, Ltd., 

SOUTH.COM LLC, Story Communications, LLC, 

and Vision Broadband, LLC (Vision Broadband). 

See Letter from Chad Winters, Cass Cable, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM– 

11768, at 1 (filed May. 28, 2019) (MVDDS 5G 

Coalition May 28, 2019 Ex Parte). The Commission 

notes that MDS Operations subsequently assigned 

its remaining 60 MVDDS licenses to RS Access. 

28See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 17–18; 

MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 3. 

29MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 3. The Coalition 

notes that, ‘‘with the emergence of 5G, higher 

spectrum bands can be used to provide much 

needed broadband capacity relief using targeted, 

small cell deployments (such as in buildings and 

at urban street level locations) that present a lower 

interference potential than traditional wide-area 

macrocell deployments in lower frequency bands. 

Additionally, advanced antenna techniques like 

‘‘beamforming’’ and ‘‘beamsteering’’ allow better 

control of transmitter energy, enabling 

transmissions to be more narrowly focused to 

desired locations (and away from receivers with 

which they might interfere) dynamically.’’ MVDDS 

5G Coalition Petition at 18. 

30MVDDDS 5G Coalition Comments, Attach. 1, 

MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHz Co-Primary Service 

Coexistence (Coexistence 1) and MVDDS 5G 

Coalition Reply, Appx. A, MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHZ 

Co-Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence 2) 

(collectively, Coexistence Studies). 

31Since the Petition was filed in 2016, the 

Commission has taken action in several proceedings 

to make more than six gigahertz of spectrum 

available for 5G service, including 4,950 megahertz 

of high-band spectrum, over 500 megahertz of midband spectrum, and several swaths of low-band 

spectrum. See e.g., Modernizing and Expanding 

Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, et al, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 

(2020); Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; 

Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum 

Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report and Order, 35 FCC 

Rcd 3852 (2020); Review of the Commission’s Rules 

Governing the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report 

and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020); Improving 

Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz 

Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 4935 (2020); 

Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use 

Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 

47 GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless 

Services Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for 

Auction 103, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015 

(2020); Winning Bidders Announced for Auction of 

28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 

Licenses (Auction 101), Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 

4279 (2019); Auction of 24 GHz Upper Microwave 

Flexible Use Service Licenses Closes; Winning 

Bidders Announced for Auction 102, Public Notice, 

34 FCC Rcd 4296 (2019); Transforming the 2.5 GHz 

Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 

4687 (2018); Promoting Investment in the 3550– 

3700 MHz Band, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 

10598 (2018); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 

4.2 GHz Band, Order and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 6915 (2018); Incentive 

Auction Task Force and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau Grant 600 MHz 

Licenses, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 869 (2018). See 

also Federal Communications Commission, The 

FCC’s 5G FAST Plan, https://www.fcc.gov/5G (last 

visited Jan. 7, 2021). 

will not exceed a level that is 

considered permissible.20

7. The Commission also enabled 

sharing between co-primary NGSO FSS 

and MVDDS using a combination of 

technical limitations, information 

sharing, and first-in-time procedures.21

Specifically, these two services gain 

priority based on a first-in-time, first-inright approach, under which NGSO FSS 

receivers and MVDDS transmitting 

systems are afforded priority in the 12 

GHz band portion of spectrum vis-a`-vis 

each other based on which deployed 

earlier.22

8. Most recently, in 2016 and 2017, 

proponents of a new generation of 

NGSO FSS systems sought Commission 

authority for planned constellations of 

hundreds or thousands of small 

satellites using several frequency bands, 

including the 12 GHz band, and in 2017, 

the Commission updated its rules to 

enable the deployment of these 

emerging systems.23

9. Two U.S.-licensed DBS providers, 

DISH Network L.L.C. (DISH) and 

DIRECTV 24 use the band throughout the 

US to provide DBS directly from 

geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellites to 

relatively small dish antennas at tens of 

millions of individual homes and 

businesses. DIRECTV and DISH 

Network had over 22 million combined 

subscribers as of the third quarter of 

2020.25 Meanwhile, eight companies (10 

legal entities) currently hold 191 of 214 

MVDDS licenses.26

10. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G 

Coalition, which included eleven of the 

twelve MVDDS licensees at that time, 

filed a Petition for Rulemaking 

requesting reforms to the rules for the 12 

GHz band.27 The Petition seeks 

commencement of a rulemaking 

proceeding to: (i) Add a Mobile 

allocation at 12.2–12.7 GHz to the NonFederal Table of Frequency Allocations, 

(ii) delete or demote to secondary the 

‘‘unused’’ NGSO FSS allocation in this 

band from the Non-Federal Table of 

Frequency Allocations, (iii) allow 

MVDDS licensees to provide two-way, 

point-to-point or mobile broadband 

service, (iv) eliminate the MVDDS 

effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) 

limit, and (v) seek comment on easing 

the four regional equivalent power flux 

density (EPFD) limits. 

11. The Coalition contended that the 

(then) 15-year-old MVDDS rules did not 

account for the ‘‘urgent national 

priority’’ to make additional spectrum 

available for 5G mobile services or the 

intervening technological developments 

that would now make it feasible to 

provide two-way mobile broadband 

services in the band while 

simultaneously protecting DBS from 

harmful interference.28 The Coalition 

stated that ‘‘5G services have unique 

attributes that facilitate sharing in high 

frequency bands, such as the MVDDS 

band, since they can be used in a 

localized way to provide capacity relief 

in urban canyons and indoors.’’ 29 In 

conjunction with its Petition, the 

Coalition provided two Coexistence 

Studies that it claimed illustrate that the 

new rules it was proposing would 

protect DBS operators in the band but 

that they would be incompatible with 

NGSO FSS.30

12. In the intervening four years, the 

Commission has taken action to make 

additional spectrum available for 5G 

services.31 In 2020, the Commission 

initiated a proceeding to consider rule 

changes to allow the provision of 5G 

backhaul and broadband to ships and 

aircraft in motion in the 70/80/90 GHz 

bands. Additionally in 2020, the 

Commission took action to make 

available 280 megahertz of 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band spectrum while relocating existing 

satellite operations to the upper part of 

the band. Also in 2020 the Commission 

modernized certain rules governing the 

800 MHz and took action to expand 

unlicensed broadband opportunities in 

the 6 GHz band. In 2019 the 

Commission completed Auction 101, 

licensing 850 megahertz of spectrum for 

flexible use in the 28 GHz band. In 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13270 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

32Review of the Commission’s Rules Governing 

the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report and Order, 

35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020). 33 FCC Opens Spectrum Horizons for New 

Services & Technologies, Report and Order, 34 FCC 

Rcd 1605 (2019). 34Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 4687 (2018). 35See Satellite Policy Branch Information; 

OneWeb Petition Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No. 

SAT–LOI–20160428–00041), Cut-Off Established for 

Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or 

Petitions for Operations in the 10.7–12.7 GHz, 14.0– 

14.5 GHz, 17.8–18.6 GHz, 18.8–19.3 GHz, 27.5– 

28.35 GHz, 28.35–29.1 GHz, and 29.5–30.0 GHz 

Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15, 

2016). 

36See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for 

Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. 

Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS System, Order 

and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017) 

(OneWeb Order). 

37 Id. at 5369 para. 6. 

38 Id. at 5378, para. 26 (‘‘This grant of U.S. market 

access and any earth station licenses granted in the 

future are subject to modification to bring them into 

conformance with any rules or policies adopted by 

the Commission in the future.’’). See also id. at 

5369, para. 6 (‘‘Accordingly, any investment made 

toward operations in this band by OneWeb in the 

United States assume the risk that operations may 

be subject to additional conditions or requirements 

as a result of such Commission actions.’’). 

39 Id. at 5370 para. 8. 

40Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory 

Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the 

Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission, Order and 

Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space 

Norway Order); Karousel Satellite LLC, Application 

for Authority to Launch and Operate a NonGeostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System in the 

Fixed Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion, 

Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 (2018) 

(Karousel Order), Space Exploration Holdings, LLC 

Application For Approval for Orbital Deployment 

and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO 

Satellite System, Memorandum Opinion Order and 

Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391 (2018) (SpaceX 

Order), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for 

Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. 

Market for Kepler’s NGSO FSS System, Order, 33 

FCC Rcd 11453, (2018) (Kepler Order), Theia 

Holdings A, Inc. Request for Authority to Launch 

and Operate a Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit 

System in the Fixed-Satellite Service, MobileSatellite Service, and Earth-Exploration Satellite 

Service, Memorandum, Opinion and Authorization, 

34 FCC Rcd 3526 (2019) (Theia Order). 

41See Space Norway Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9655, 

9611, paras. 13, 27 (2017); Karousel Order, 33 FCC 

Rcd at 8486–87, paras. 3, n.14, 25(v) (2018); SpaceX 

Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 3399, 3401–02, 3407, paras. 

19, 26, 40(r) (2018); Kepler Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 

11455, 11462–63, paras. 4–5, 29 (2018), Theia 

Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3539–40, 3548, paras. 36, 58 

(2019). 

42Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) 

argues that its authorizations are not conditional in 

12 GHz band. See, e.g., Letter from David Goldman, 

Director of Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, at 2 

(filed Nov. 5, 2020) (SpaceX Nov. 5, 2020 Ex Parte). 

DISH argues that ‘‘every . . . Ku-band authorization 

is conditioned on the outcome of the 12 GHz 

petition.’’ Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive 

Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs, 

DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket 

No. RM–11768, at 2 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) (DISH 

Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte); see also id. at 1–2 citing 

SpaceX Order, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, n.88. 

43 In a March 2020 NGSO FSS processing round, 

these four companies filed additional applications 

to use the 12 GHz band. See SpaceX, SAT–LOA– 

20200526–00055; OneWeb, SAT–MPL–20200526– 

00062; New Spectrum Satellite, SAT–LOA– 

20200526–00060; Kepler, SAT–PDR–20200526– 

00059. These companies have also filed several 

applications for earth stations. See, e.g., SpaceX 

Application File No. SES–LIC–20190211–00151; 

SpaceX File Nos. SES–LIC–20190402–00425, SES– 

LIC–20190402–00426, SES–LIC–20190402–00427, 

SES–LIC–20190402–00450, SES–LIC–20190402– 

00451, SES–LIC–20190405–00453; OneWeb 

Application File No. SES–LIC–20190930–01217; 

OneWeb Application File No. SES–LIC–20190930– 

01237. 

44Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I 

Auction (Auction 904) Closes: Winning Bidders 

Announced, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 13888, 

Appx. A. (2020). 

Auction 102, the Commission licensed 

700 megahertz of spectrum for flexible 

use in the 24 GHz band. In Auction 103 

the Commission licensed 3,400 

megahertz of spectrum for flexible use 

in the upper 37 GHz band, the 39 GHz 

band, and the 47 GHz band. Also in 

2019, the Commission proposed to 

reconfigure the 900 MHz band to 

facilitate the development of broadband 

technologies and services.32 The 

Commission has also taken steps to 

provide new opportunities for 

innovators and experimenters between 

95 GHz and 3 THz.33 In 2018, the 

Commission proposed providing greater 

flexibility to current EBS licensees and 

new opportunities to obtain unused 

spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band 34 and 

changed the rules governing Priority 

Access Licenses (PALs) to spur 5G 

investment and deployment in the 3.5 

GHz band. In 2017, the Commission 

completed Auction 1002, licensing 70 

megahertz of spectrum for flexible use 

in the 600 MHz band. 

13. The MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition 

also preceded a 2016 processing round 

to accept NGSO FSS applications and 

petitions for market access in several 

frequency bands and the Commission’s 

reforms to its NGSO FSS rules.35 In 

2017, the Commission granted the first 

of the new generation requests—a 

petition for market access by WorldVu 

Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a 

planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO 

satellite system of 720 satellites 

authorized by the United Kingdom in 

the 10.7–12.7 GHz Band (in addition to 

several other bands).36 The Commission 

concluded that ‘‘the pendency of the 

MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition for 

Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason 

to delay or deny these requests to use 

the band under the existing NGSO FSS 

allocation and service rules.’’ 37 In 

granting this request, however, the 

Commission conditioned access to the 

12 GHz band on the outcome of the 

MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition and any 

other rulemaking initiated on the 

Commission’s own motion.38 The 

Commission also agreed with comments 

of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that 

MVDDS should not have to protect any 

non-fixed NGSO–FSS operations in the 

band, if authorized in the future, 

because such operations had not been 

contemplated under the longstanding 

first-in-time MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing 

approach.39

14. The Commission subsequently 

granted five additional NGSO FSS 

requests to use bands that include 12 

GHz band (among others).40 Each grant 

is subject to modification to bring it into 

conformance with any rules or policies 

adopted by the Commission in the 

future; the market-access grants to Space 

Norway, Kepler, and Theia also state 

that this condition includes any earth 

station licenses granted in the future. In 

all but the Space Norway Order, the 

Commission expressly stated that the 

any investments made toward 

operations in the bands authorized in 

the United States assume the risk that 

operations may be subject to additional 

conditions or requirements as a result of 

any future Commission actions, and all 

of the orders directly or indirectly 

referenced the MVDDS 5G Coalition 

Petition.41 Parties disagree about the 

scope and applicability of these 

conditions.42

15. Since the Commission granted 

these requests, OneWeb, Kepler 

Communications (Kepler) and SpaceX 

have launched the first satellites of their 

authorized constellations and additional 

launches are scheduled in 2021. To 

date, OneWeb has launched 110 

satellites and Kepler has launched 2 

satellites. SpaceX has deployed more 

than 900 satellites that use the 12 GHz 

band among other bands, which now 

makes it the largest satellite 

constellation in the world.43 In addition, 

through the Commission’s Rural Digital 

Opportunity Fund reverse auction, 

SpaceX received $88.5 million in 

annual support for ten years (or $885 

million total) to provide broadband 

service to 642,925 locations.44 SpaceX 

claims that its service is capable of 

providing downlink/uplink speeds of 

103/42 megabits-per-second and a 

consistently observed median latency of 

30 milliseconds. 

16. In its most recent filing, the 

MVDDS 5G Coalition continues to ask 

the Commission to consider 

modernizing MVDDS rules and to 

protect MVDDS interests in the band. 

While the MVDDS 5G Coalition 

originally contended that 5G terrestrial 

use and NGSO FSS use are 

incompatible, other proponents of 

flexible use (such as two-way mobile)— 

including some of the members of the 

MVDDS 5G Coalition—recently have 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13271 

45See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President, 

Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, at 2 

(filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020 Ex Parte); 

Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM– 

11768, at 2–3 (filed Sept. 21, 2020) (RS Access Sept. 

21, 2020 Ex Parte); DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte 

at 4 (stating that ‘‘since the 2016 studies, 

developments in the satellite industry indicate that 

NGSO FSS constellations possess geostationary-like 

functions and properties that could prove more 

compatible with 5G services in the 12 GHz Band 

than the last-generation NGSO earth stations.’’). 

46Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105– 

33, 111 Stat 251, 268–69 sec. 3005 Flexible Use of 

Electromagnetic Spectrum (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

303(y)). See also 47 CFR 2.106, 27.2, 27.3. 

47The Commission notes the 12 GHz band has 

not been proposed at the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU) for 5G or 

International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) 

use at this time. Intelsat Opposition at 3; MVDDS 

5G Coalition Reply at 6; Letter From Grover G. 

Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, et 

al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket 

No. RM–11768, at 3 (filed Oct. 16, 2020) (ATR Oct. 

16, 2020 Ex Parte); Letter from Thomas A. Schatz, 

President, Citizens Against Government Waste, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM– 

11768, at 3 (filed Oct. 22, 2020) (CAGW Oct. 22, 

2020 Ex Parte). The Commission seeks comment on 

the pertinence of this observation. 

48See Letter from David Goldman, Director of 

Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, Attach. A, 

Questions Necessary to Balance the 12 GHz NPRM, 

at 3–4 (filed Jan. 6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex 

Parte). 

suggested the possibility of sharing in 

the band.45 Meanwhile, OneWeb, AT&T 

Services, Inc. (AT&T), SpaceX, Intelsat 

License LLC (Intelsat), SES S.A. (SES), 

Kepler, and others contend that sharing 

remains impossible between NGSO FSS 

and terrestrial two-way mobile 

operations. 

II. Discussion 

17. The Commission has long been 

committed to ensuring that spectrum is 

put to its highest and best use. As such, 

the Commission commence this 

rulemaking proceeding to consider 

whether the current rules for the use of 

12 GHz best serve the public interest. As 

a threshold matter, therefore, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

weigh the spectrum the Commission has 

already made available for 5G over the 

past four years and the hundreds of 

satellites that have been launched by the 

NGSO FSS operators in considering 

whether it is technically feasible to add 

additional or expanded spectrum rights 

in the 12 GHz band without causing 

harmful interference to incumbent 

licensees (and, if so, whether a 

balancing of public interest benefits 

would support taking that step). In the 

sections below, the Commission seeks 

comment on two potential approaches 

to future use of the 12 GHz band: 

Increasing terrestrial use of the shared 

band or continuing with the current 

framework. The Commission seeks 

comment on each approach, including 

the costs and benefits, in order to 

pursue the Commission’s goals of 

putting spectrum to its highest-value 

and most efficient use while protecting 

incumbent operations in the band from 

harmful interference. 

A. Enhanced Opportunities for Shared 

Use of the Band 

18. First, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it can increase 

opportunities for shared use of the band 

while protecting incumbents from 

harmful interference. The MVDDS 5G 

Coalition argues that technological 

advances since the creation of MVDDS 

in 2000 justify revisiting the rules for 

terrestrial use of the band. Specifically, 

the MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts that 

terrestrial flexible use service is 

compatible with DBS service due to 

technological advances, such as targeted 

small-cell deployments and advanced 

antenna techniques like beamforming 

and beamsteering, which allow better 

control of transmitter energy and 

therefore can protect DBS. Other 

proponents of terrestrial, flexible use of 

the band similarly argue that 

developments since the MVDDS 

Petition was submitted in 2016 open up 

the possibility of coexistence between 

DBS, terrestrial flexible use, and NGSO 

FSS operations, and they maintain that 

the complex technical issues this raises 

warrant a new Commission rulemaking. 

As such, the Commission seeks 

comment on adding a mobile service 

allocation throughout the 12 GHz band, 

whether coexistence between and 

among these competing services is 

technically achievable and, if so, what 

mechanisms the Commission might 

consider in facilitating such 

coexistence. 

19. The Commission notes that 

section 303(y) provides the Commission 

with authority to provide for flexible 

use operations only if: ‘‘(1) such use is 

consistent with international 

agreements to which the United States 

is a party; and (2) the Commission finds, 

after notice and opportunity for public 

comment, that (A) such an allocation 

would be in the public interest; (B) such 

use would not deter investment in 

communications services and systems, 

or technology development; and (C) 

such use would not result in harmful 

interference among users.’’ 46 The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

adding a mobile allocation to the 12 

GHz band to allow flexible, terrestrial 

use is consistent with this provision.47

In particular, the Commission seeks 

information on the status of 

technologies that have been developed 

or are currently in development that 

would allow for two-way mobile 

communications in the 12 GHz band, 

whether standards have been set related 

to such technologies, whether there are 

any international agreements on a band 

plan or air interface for the 12 GHz 

band, and the impact (if any) on 

international rights for U.S.-licensed 

systems that might be affected as a 

result of its providing for expanded 

shared use of the band.48

1. Protecting Satellite Incumbents From 

Harmful Interference 

20. The Commission seeks comment 

on the technical parameters that could 

allow additional terrestrial use of the 

band without causing harmful 

interference to incumbent operators. 

Among other things, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

allow two-way communications and 

flexible use of the band as well as what 

technical parameters would be 

appropriate for such new terrestrial 

operations. For example, assuming 

existing MVDDS service rules as the 

baseline, should the Commission 

eliminate or modify the EIRP restriction 

for terrestrial operators of 14.0 dBm per 

24 megahertz (¥16.0 dBW per 24 

megahertz)? 

21. Protecting DBS Operations. The 

MVDDS 5G Coalition and others assert 

that coexistence is feasible between 

those conducting two-way mobile 

operations and existing and future DBS 

receivers. They maintain that terrestrial 

operators could apply existing 

technology profiles and newly available 

ultra-high resolution imagery, neither of 

which was available in 2002, with 

modest adjustments to terrestrial site 

locations and radio frequency design 

parameters. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether, and to what 

extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s 

proposed licensing of two-way, mobile 

operations in the band, and its proposed 

elimination of the EIRP limit, would 

substantially redefine the scope of DBS 

operators’ obligations and potential 

burdens under the current regime. If 

flexible use is authorized in the band, 

should the burden of avoiding or 

correcting for interference to existing or 

future DBS subscribers be revised? Or 

should two-way and/or mobile licensees 

be subject to the same requirements for 

protecting DBS subscribers that 

currently apply to other services in the 

band? How could other factors—such as 

geographic separation, transmitter 

power constraints on terrestrial 

operations, and other siting parameters 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

49See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 19; 

MVDDS 5G Coalition Comments at 6 & n.21 (citing 

Coexistence 1 at 4). AT&T had argued that there 

may be potential statutory issues including whether 

proposed two-way, mobile use of the band would 

require an independent technical analysis showing 

that DBS would be protected. AT&T Opposition at 

2 & n.4 (citing section 1012 of the LOCAL TV Act). 

In December 2018, however, this provision the 

LOCAL TV Act was stricken. Public Law 106–553, 

114 Stat. 2762, 265–66 sec. 1012 Prevention of 

Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, 

stricken by Public Law 115–334, 132 Stat. 4490, 

4777–78 sec. 6603 Amendments to Local TV Act. 

50A highly elliptical orbit is a highly eccentrical 

orbit with a low perigee and a high apogee. Perigee 

is the point in a satellite’s orbit closest to the earth, 

while apogee is the point in orbit farthest from the 

earth. The orbital pattern follows the curve on an 

ellipse. 

for flexible-use base stations—minimize 

the risk of interference to DBS users? 

22. The MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts 

that sharing between two-way, higher 

EIRP mobile operations and DBS, is 

possible through careful selection of 

areas to deploy mobile broadband, 

modest adjustments to radiofrequency 

design parameters, elimination of 

interference through geographic 

separation, absorption in the clutter, 

transmitter power constraints on 

terrestrial operations, and other 

mechanisms. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such an approach 

is feasible, both as a technical and a 

practical manner. The Commission 

seeks comment on the costs and benefits 

of such an approach. 

23. The MVDDS 5G Coalition also 

suggests that keeping terrestrial signals 

below the applicable EPFD limit at all 

DBS antenna locations generally could 

avoid harmful interference to existing 

DBS subscribers regardless of the EIRP 

or whether the operations are fixed or 

mobile, or one- or two-way.49 Do 

commenters agree? AT&T notes that 

DBS customers can install dishes 

anywhere on their premises and 

sometimes even on moving vehicles, 

and that DBS operators do not have 

access to granular location data for their 

receive terminal installations. Does the 

Coalition’s proposed solution resolve 

that concern? Can cell-site EIRP or 

location be engineered to mitigate any 

potential interference? What are 

appropriate EIRP considerations for base 

and mobile stations? Given that all DBS 

earth stations look toward the southern 

sky for communication with GSO space 

stations orbiting at the equatorial plane, 

and given that high-gain antennas are 

necessary for base stations, can base 

station location and/or antenna 

orientation be situated to provide 

greater protection to DBS earth stations? 

What is the impact of base station height 

with respect to interference? Will lower 

base station height reduce the potential 

for interference to both DBS and NGSO? 

What are the potential costs associated 

with this solution? 

24. AT&T counters that although oneway services currently permitted under 

MVDDS licenses may coexist with DBS, 

two-way mobile service would create an 

untenable interference environment for 

DBS subscribers. Specifically, AT&T 

contends that enabling two-way, mobile 

use—which would include transient 

signals from unpredictable locations 

and angles—would make it impossible 

to model and avoid interference to DBS 

receivers, and that it would be 

‘‘exceptionally difficult for the DBS 

operator to trace or identify’’ the cause 

of interference as the signal moved. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

view. 

25. Protecting NGSO FSS Operations. 

SpaceX asserts the technical studies 

submitted by the MVDDS 5G Coalition 

demonstrate that ‘‘while coexistence 

between DBS and 5G MVDDS would 

prove feasible within limits, coexistence 

between NGSO FSS and 5G MVDDS 

would not prove feasible, without 

substantial constraints on one or both 

services,’’ and that ‘‘MVDDS licensees 

cannot deploy two way 5G services in 

the 12.2–12.7 GHz band without 

overwhelming NGSO FSS operations, 

even under the current rules, 

notwithstanding new 5G deployment 

architectures and newly available highresolution ground-obstacle data.’’ 

SpaceX also points out that one such 

2016 study assumes ‘‘an overly 

optimistic 30dB of NGSO user antenna 

discrimination toward the horizon and 

still determines that extreme 

interference (C/I = 0dB) into the NGSO 

receiver will occur from a single 5G 

mobile device that is 1,000 meters away 

operating at EIRP of 23dBm per 24MHz 

in free space conditions.’’ SpaceX 

argues that ‘‘[e]xtending this analysis to 

a more relevant threshold of I/N of ¥6 

to ¥12dB yields the conclusion that a 

single 5G mobile device could cause 

interference at a distance of greater than 

10km in free space conditions,’’ and that 

‘‘[m]ore than one 5G mobile device in 

the vicinity would increase this 

distance.’’ Accordingly, SpaceX asks 

how DISH would ensure that its 5G 

mobile users are always tens of 

kilometers from the nearest NGSO user 

antenna on the ground, or 

approximately 10 kilometers away for 

single 5G mobile devices, with larger 

separation distances necessary for 

multiple 5G devices? Furthermore, it 

asks if such separation distances are 

really a practical solution as NGSO FSS 

users become ubiquitously deployed in 

the near future? Finally, it inquires if 

under this scheme, 5G operations in an 

area would cease operations if notified 

by an NGSO operator of observed 

interference? 

26. DISH asserts that technological 

developments in the satellite industry 

may have increased the degree to which 

NGSO FSS constellations and flexible 

use, including two-way mobile service, 

may coexist. Specifically, DISH 

maintains that current-generation NGSO 

FSS constellations possess 

geostationary-like functions and 

properties that could prove more 

compatible with flexible use than lastgeneration NGSO earth stations. DISH 

asserts that to the extent NGSO FSS 

satellites maintain a highly elliptical 

orbit and time their active operations to 

align with the perigee of their orbit in 

a manner intended to simulate the 

operation of a GSO system,50 such 

operations presumably would be in a 

better position to coexist with flexible 

use operations than a standard NGSO 

FSS system. DISH further contends that, 

given the large number of satellites 

contemplated by these systems, an 

NGSO FSS antenna should be expected 

to operate with a much narrower field 

of view as opposed to one encompassing 

all realistic azimuths and elevation 

angles. Thus, DISH asserts that, at some 

level of concentration, large numbers of 

NGSO FSS satellites could operate for 

interference purposes like fixed DBS 

licensees, because the receiving earth 

stations would be directed at a limited 

number of proximate points in lowEarth orbit instead of at a nearly 

limitless array of different points 

throughout the sky. 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on the technical analyses submitted to 

date, as well as further information and 

studies related to the feasibility, costs, 

and benefits of sharing among these 

services. To what extent does NGSO 

satellite systems operate in a manner 

described by DISH? In other words, do 

all NGSO systems operate in highly 

elliptical orbits or with earth stations 

pointed toward fixed locations in the 

sky? If not, are there plans for NGSO 

system operators to modify their 

systems in this manner? What would be 

the implication on latency for end users 

if NGSO FSS systems were modified to 

highly elliptical orbits? What is the 

practical range of azimuth and elevation 

angles over which NGSO earth stations 

are expected to operate? SpaceX notes 

that existing NGSO FSS systems are 

authorized to operate down to 10-degree 

elevation angles in the U.S. and 

questions whether terrestrial uses could 

be added to the band while still 

protecting NGSO licensees that use 

these elevation angles. What level of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13273 

51See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p). 

See also 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD 

level beyond 3 km from an MVDDS station to ¥135 

dBW/m2 in any 4 kHz measured and/or calculated 

at the surface of the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting 

location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 

km of any qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent 

mutual agreement of the licensees). 

52 47 CFR 15.407(d)(3); Unlicensed Use of the 6 

GHz Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3888–89, 

paras. 98–103(2020); Use of the 5.850–5.925 GHz 

Band, First Report and Order, Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed 

Modification, ET Docket No. 19–138, FCC 20–164, 

para. 61 (adopted Nov. 18, 2020). 

53See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 

Services in the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz Bands (2 GHz bands), WT Docket Nos. 12–70 

and 04–356, ET Docket No. 10–142, Report and 

Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC 

Rcd 16102, 16220–22, 16224, paras. 319–21, 331– 

32, (2012) (modifying incumbent MSS licensees to 

allow widespread terrestrial authorizations); 

Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules 

to Govern the Operation of Wireless 

Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT 

Docket No. 07–293, Report and Order and Second 

Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710, 11712, 11723, 

paras. 2, 29 (2010) (modifying rules to enable the 

deployment of mobile broadband services by 

incumbent terrestrial licensees). 

NGSO FSS satellite concentration 

would ensure that NGSO receiving earth 

stations would be directed at a limited 

number of proximate points in lowEarth orbit? How many earth stations do 

NGSO operators expect to deploy? What 

methods can base and mobile stations 

use to avoid causing harmful 

interference to NGSO receive stations? 

Commenters that contend that 

coexistence is feasible should address 

whether, given the existing technical 

rules, sufficient spectrum will be 

available to support new terrestrial 

service and describe the potential costs 

associated with any solution. 

28. The Commission notes that NGSO 

interests and various other parties argue 

that expanding terrestrial rights to 

include flexible use, including two-way, 

mobile service in the 12 GHz band, 

could create harmful interference that 

would jeopardize their offerings, and 

undermine the investments that they 

have made in the band. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate technical criteria that would 

be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from 

harmful interference from higher-power, 

two-way mobile operations. Would the 

existing interference criteria in the 

MVDDS rules be sufficient? 51 How 

would an NGSO FSS operator or 

subscriber identify the source of any 

interference received in the event that 

mobile operations are authorized in the 

band? SpaceX argues that, because the 

Commission has permitted blanket 

authorizations for earth stations in the 

band (enabling millions of consumer 

earth stations to ubiquitously 

proliferate), it would be impossible to 

track these consumer deployments in 

real-time, much less prevent harmful 

interference to them by transient and 

unpredictable mobile operations. 

SpaceX also points out that the sharing 

studies submitted by the MVDDS 

Coalition confirm that 5G use would 

clearly overwhelm NGSO FSS 

operations. Given the potential for 

NGSO FSS operations to provide much 

needed service in rural and other 

underserved areas, The Commission 

seeks comment on the costs and benefits 

of adding terrestrial two-way mobile 

services to the band. 

29. In response to the assertions from 

SpaceX and other NGSO operators about 

the potential for harmful interference, 

DISH argues that NGSO FSS service is 

not dependent on the 12 GHz band; it 

contends that, ‘‘[i]f the FCC were to 

repurpose the 12 GHz band for 

terrestrial 5G services, SpaceX would 

retain nearly 97% of all spectrum and 

nearly 94% of all space-to-earth 

spectrum made available for its 

proposed NGSO FSS system.’’ In 

response, several NGSO operators argue 

that the entirety of the two gigahertz of 

spectrum from 10.7 GHz to 12.7 GHz 

currently licensed to several NGSO FSS 

operators for downlink operations is 

necessary for NGSO FSS deployment. 

SpaceX argues there are additional 

constraints in the other portions of 

10.95–12.2; for example, 10.95–11.7 has 

further non-harmful interference 

protections due to terrestrial being 

primary, which could affect consumer 

earth stations in this portion of the 

band. Others argue that harmful 

interference to NGSO operators in the 

500 megahertz of the 12 GHz band 

would negatively affect NGSO 

operators’ ability to split equally the 

remaining 1.5 gigahertz of spectrum 

during in-line interference events. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

views, but reiterate that it is focused on 

protecting incumbent licensees, 

including incumbent NGSO operators, 

from harmful interference in this 

proceeding. 

30. Other Technical Means of 

Protecting Satellite Incumbents. One 

additional approach to protecting 

incumbents would be to restrict new 

terrestrial operations to indoor use. The 

Commission has adopted this approach 

to permit unlicensed devices to share 

spectrum with licensed services in 

several bands.52 Such indoor devices 

could be used for providing internet 

connectivity as well as connecting 

internet-of-things devices in both 

consumer and industrial applications. 

The Commission’s Technological 

Advisory Council 5G/IoT/O–RAN 

working group recommended that the 

Commission consider private spectrum 

for enterprise internet-of-things devices 

in locations such as confined geographic 

areas, buildings, and campuses. Could 

indoor 12 GHz unlicensed devices meet 

this need? Would restricting new 

terrestrial devices to indoor uses enable 

them to co-exist with satellite services? 

What power level would the indoor 

devices need to be limited to avoid 

causing harmful interference to satellite 

services (and would it be materially 

higher than if the Commission assumes 

outdoor use for the new terrestrial 

operations)? What would be the costs 

and benefits of this approach? 

2. Assigning New Terrestrial Use Rights 

31. The Commission next seeks 

comment on how it should assign any 

new terrestrial service rights. Given that 

MVDDS licensees themselves have 

terrestrial usage rights in large 

geographic areas across the United 

States, the Commission seeks comment 

on three approaches to authorize any 

new terrestrial rights in the band: (1) 

Modifying the licenses of existing 

licensees under section 316 of the 

Communications Act, (2) auctioning off 

overlay licenses in the band, and (3) 

authorizing underlay use of the band. 

32. First, should the Commission 

consider modifying existing incumbent 

licenses using its section 316 authority 

to allow increased terrestrial operational 

flexibility? In this band, because there 

are several types of existing 

incumbents—DBS, MVDDS, and 

NGSO—there are several potential 

options for expanding terrestrial rights. 

One option would be to expand the 

rights of existing terrestrial licensees to 

allow them to provide 5G terrestrial 

services. For instance, when the 

Commission authorized mobile use in 

the 28 GHz band, it granted mobile 

rights to existing fixed licensees, after 

finding that such an approach would 

expedite service, and that separating 

‘‘fixed’’ and ‘‘mobile’’ rights into 

different bundles could create 

unnecessary complexity and potential 

for interference. Similarly, the 

Commission has modified other licenses 

in the past to increase the flexibility 

afforded to incumbents to put spectrum 

to its highest and best use.53 Do similar 

reasons support modifying the MVDDS 

licenses to incorporate greater 

flexibility? Or are there distinctions that 

suggest the Commission should adopt a 

different approach here? 

33. Another option would be to grant 

flexible terrestrial use rights to the 

incumbent satellite operators. As 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13274 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

54 In the 900 MHz Report and Order, the 

Commission realigned the band and established a 

transition mechanism based primarily on 

negotiations between prospective broadband 

licensees and existing narrowband incumbent 

licensees. Review of the Commission’s Rules 

Governing the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report 

and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and 

Orders, WT Docket No. 17–200, FCC 20–67, (May 

14, 2020). 

55See 47 CFR 27.1411–27.1424, Expanding 

Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket 

No. 18–122, Report and Order and Order of 

Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020). 

See also AT&T Aug. 6, 2020 Ex Parte at 6. 

56 47 CFR 101.1413(b) (‘‘The substantial service 

requirement is defined as a service that is sound, 

favorable, and substantially above a level of 

mediocre service which might minimally warrant 

renewal.’’). At the end of each period, ‘‘the 

Commission will consider factors such as: (1) 

whether the licensee’s operations service niche 

markets or focus on serving populations outside of 

areas serviced by other MVDDS licensees; (2) 

whether the licensee’s operations serve populations 

with limited access to telecommunications services; 

and (3) a demonstration of service to a significant 

portion of the population or land area of the 

licensed area.’’ Id. 

SpaceX notes, the Commission granted 

terrestrial rights to the AWS–4 band to 

existing satellite licensees based on an 

assumption that closely coordinated 

satellite and terrestrial operations would 

be necessary to overcome interference 

issues. Would affording flexible use 

rights to incumbent satellite operators 

best ensure that these services do not 

experience harmful interference? 

34. Under the current regulatory 

regime in the band, DBS operators have 

priority over the other services, 

including both MVDDS and NGSO 

licensees. Should the Commission grant 

flexible terrestrial use rights to DBS 

licensees based on their priority status? 

One of the potential challenges to such 

an approach, however, involves the 

different ways in which DBS rights and 

terrestrial rights are generally assigned. 

While the DBS operators have exclusive 

rights to transmit from each of their 

orbital slots, they have non-exclusive 

rights in terms of geographic coverage 

(i.e., they jointly share the right to 

transmit across the United States using 

the 12.2–12.7 GHz band). In contrast, in 

order to encourage investment and 

innovation by terrestrial licensees, the 

Commission generally assigns new 

terrestrial use licenses on an exclusive 

geographic basis. Given that each DBS 

operator in the band uses the full 12 

GHz band on a shared basis with the 

other DBS operator, if the Commission 

awarded flexible terrestrial use rights to 

both incumbents, how should the 

flexible terrestrial use rights be 

awarded? Could the Commission leave 

this matter to commercial negotiations 

between the parties? If so, would such 

an approach lead to an efficient 

outcome? If the Commission cannot rely 

solely on negotiation between the DBS 

operators, how would it reconcile 

conflicts between the DBS operators 

over how to apportion terrestrial rights? 

The Commission notes that, under 

section 309(j) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, if mutually 

exclusive applications for initial 

licenses are received, it must use 

competitive bidding to resolve the 

mutual exclusivity. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether, and how, 

the process of negotiating and assigning 

terrestrial rights to DBS operators could 

occur without triggering this 

requirement. 

35. Alternatively, the Commission 

could grant flexible terrestrial use rights 

to NGSO operators in addition to DBS 

operators. The Commission notes that 

this option would create at least two 

complications. First, there would need 

to be negotiations between a 

significantly larger number of 

operators—there are currently only two 

DBS operators, while there have been 

six NGSO authorizations granted for use 

of the 12 GHz band. Second, the 

apportionment of terrestrial rights 

would be further complicated by the 

fact that one set of operators (DBS) 

currently has superior rights to the other 

set of operators (NGSO). Could the 

Commission rely on commercial 

negotiations to achieve an efficient 

outcome between these operators, and if 

not, would it be possible to resolve 

differences in a manner that both 

comports with section 309(j) and 

achieves an efficient and expeditious 

outcome? 

36. Second, should the Commission 

auction overlay licenses for the band? 

Some commenters argue that this 

approach would ensure that the new 

flexible-use licenses are assigned to 

entities that are capable of rapidly 

deploying in the band. If the 

Commission was to adopt this overlay 

license approach, it expects that new 

licensees would not be able to deploy 

operations that would cause harmful 

interference to incumbent operations 

absent an agreement to the contrary. 

What rights, if any, should overlay 

licensees have to relocate incumbent 

operations? Specifically, should the 

Commission authorize only voluntary 

relocation of incumbent operations, 

either for a limited period or in 

perpetuity? 54 Or should the 

Commission allow mandatory relocation 

of such operations, either immediately 

or after some period of time to allow 

negotiations? If the Commission was to 

authorize mandatory relocation, should 

the new licensees be responsible for 

finding or consolidating incumbent 

operations (while ensuring such 

operators can continue with 

substantially similar operations and are 

held harmless financially)? Or should 

the Commission designate some portion 

of the 12 GHz band or another spectrum 

band for such relocation? What 

parameters would the Commission need 

to put down to ensure efficient use of 

new overlay licenses while protecting 

incumbents? Would a transition 

mechanism like the one used in 3.7–4.2 

GHz, including accelerated relocation 

payments for incumbents to encourage 

them to voluntarily make the spectrum 

available for two-way mobile flexible 

use in an expeditious manner, be 

appropriate for some or all incumbents 

in this band? 55

37. Third, should new terrestrial 

operations come in the form of an 

underlay? Under this type of approach, 

any additional terrestrial operations 

likely would need to be authorized at 

low power and would need to operate 

on an opportunistic basis, not causing 

harmful interference to—nor seeking 

protection from harmful interference 

by—the incumbent primary services in 

the band. For example, if the technical 

analysis were to show only that lowpower, two-way operations were 

feasible, would a low-power, unlicensed 

underlay make the most sense, as 

advocated by Public Knowledge? 

Specifically, Public Knowledge argues 

that making 500 megahertz of spectrum 

available on an unlicensed or licensedby-rule basis could allow for new Wi-Fi 

6 uses which the Commission has 

previously supported in the 6 GHz 

proceeding. If the Commission adopts 

such an approach, could it rely on its 

traditional part 15 rules for such an 

underlay? Alternatively, should the 

Commission consider the auctioning of 

underlay licenses or licensing underlay 

use by rule? The Commission notes that 

any users of such an underlay would be 

required to fully protect all DBS, NGSO 

FSS, and MVDDS operations. Given this 

requirement, the Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of an 

underlay approach. 

38. In deciding how to assign new 

terrestrial rights, the Commission notes 

that several commenters contend that 

MVDDS licensees have failed to provide 

meaningful commercial service in the 

band. As a construction requirement, 

MVDDS licensees must make a showing 

of substantial service at the end of five 

years into the license period and ten 

years into the license period.56 The 

Commission established a safe harbor 

for MVDDS of actual delivery of service 

to customers via four separate 

transmitting locations per million 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13275 

57See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO 

FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and 

Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 

Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 

Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98–206, 

17 FCC Rcd 9612, para. 177 (2002). 

58The MVDDS licensee in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, reports that it has deployed a large-scale 

broadband internet service offering that reaches 

more than 900,000 people (or approximately 50 

percent of the population) in the Albuquerque 

geographic license area. See RS Access, LLC, ULS 

File No. 0008742312, Required Notification for Call 

Sign WQAR 561, Substantial Service Showing 

Supplement at 43–49. ‘‘To build a high-speed, highpower broadband network, RSA/MDS required a 

waiver from the FCC of certain MVDDS operating 

constraints—namely, the EIRP levels.’’ Id. at 43 

(note omitted). RS Access states that the waiver 

allows a single transmitter to replicate the service 

quality of multiple MVDDS transmitters operating 

elsewhere without a waiver. Id. at 43. 

population in their license area.57 The 

Commission is aware of only one 

current wide-area commercial MVDDS 

deployment, in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.58 Apart from the showing for 

the Albuquerque license, other licensees 

report meeting the Commission’s 

substantial service construction 

requirement for each license based on 

the safe harbor for MVDDS. Although 

MVDDS licensees point out that they 

met the required construction 

benchmarks and claim that they have 

plans for future service, these licensees 

also contend that the current technical 

rules for MVDDS are prohibitively 

restrictive. Should the Commission 

delay expanding flexible-use rights in 

the 12 GHz band until such time as the 

Bureau resolves any issues associated 

with MVDDS licensee’s substantial 

showing filings, as suggested by 

SpaceX? While the Commission expects 

that the Bureau will carefully examine 

the licensees’ filings for compliance 

with the applicable rules, it also seeks 

comment on the current status of 

MVDDS network construction. In what 

areas are MVDDS licensees currently 

providing services and in what areas do 

licensees anticipate offering services in 

the near term? 

3. Approaches to Sharing 

39. If coexistence among the coprimary services, i.e., DBS, NGSO FSS, 

MVDDS incumbents, and the proposed 

flexible-use service (i.e., two-way, 

mobile service) is technically feasible 

without resulting in harmful 

interference to any incumbent service, 

the Commission next seeks comment on 

the appropriate means to facilitate such 

shared use. The Commission recognizes 

that its technical analysis as well as 

public interest considerations will guide 

its approach to sharing, and it seeks 

comment on whether particular 

approaches to sharing depend on certain 

results of its technical analysis (for 

example, is one approach more 

appropriate than another if it kept a 

maximum EIRP for terrestrial 

operations?). 

40. Service-Rule Sharing. The 

Commission first seeks comment on 

whether the operating parameters 

proposed by the MVDDS 5G Coalition— 

specifically modifying the power levels 

available to terrestrial operations and 

modifying some of the coordination 

requirements—are sufficient to enable 

new terrestrial operations. What are the 

maximum power levels and the most 

flexibility that could be granted to new 

terrestrial operations with simple 

service-rule sharing while still 

protecting incumbents from harmful 

interference? Commenters should 

discuss the potential benefits and value 

of terrestrial operations under these 

conditions. 

41. Geographic Sharing. Would 

geographic sharing protect and facilitate 

use of DBS and NGSO FSS in some 

areas without precluding new flexibleuse deployment elsewhere? Would 

geographic sharing allow higher-power 

terrestrial operations in certain areas 

rather than others? How should such 

geographic sharing be structured? Do 

subscribers of satellite services typically 

receive these services in more rural 

areas? What are the propagation 

characteristics of this band with respect 

to mobile system coverage? What is the 

cell size? Like other, higher-frequency 

5G bands, will cell size be limited to a 

few hundred meters based on line-ofsite conditions? Can smaller sized cells 

provide the flexibility necessary to 

mitigate any potential interference with 

respect to DBS (or NGSO) satellite 

service operations either before or after 

deployment of the network? What are 

the potential costs and benefits of 

geographic sharing? 

42. According to AT&T, the MVDDS 

5G Coalition’s proposal would result in 

‘‘some fixed, low-power base stations in 

‘unique geographic conditions’ away 

from the millions of DBS users 

sprinkled through virtually every 

community, perhaps in ‘urban canyons’ 

or other places where satellites might 

not reach.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on this view. 

43. Dynamic Sharing Between Full 

Power Terrestrial and Satellite. 

Federated Wireless claims that 

‘‘industry [has] confidence in the ability 

of dynamic spectrum sharing 

technologies to enable new and 

innovative uses in [ ] spectrum, while 

protecting incumbent operations.’’ 

Parties such as DISH, DSA, Federated 

Wireless, Public Knowledge, RS Access, 

and WeLink argue that new dynamic 

spectrum sharing techniques, such as 

spectrum access systems (SASs) that 

were developed for the Citizens 

Broadband Radio Service and the 

automated frequency coordination 

(AFC) approach established for 

unlicensed access in the 6 GHz band, 

could facilitate increased terrestrial use 

of the 12 GHz band. How could 

dynamic sharing mechanisms facilitate 

continued use by DBS, NGSO FSS, and 

MVDDS incumbents, while also 

accommodating potential new uses such 

as two-way mobile service? 

44. What improvements have there 

been in dynamic spectrum technology 

that might enable flexible use and 

sharing among these services? For 

example, are database-based 

coordination systems sophisticated 

enough to account for earth stations’ 

receiving data from both thousands of 

NGSO satellites as well as DBS 

receivers, thus permitting mobile 

terrestrial use while preventing harmful 

interference to all incumbent users? 

How would such a system work? Is 

there any history of successful dynamic 

spectrum sharing involving widely 

deployed satellites and ubiquitous 

terrestrial services? 

45. How long would it take to develop 

an automated frequency coordination 

mechanism for the services in this 

band? To what extent could the 

Commission leverage existing 

technologies (either the SASs created for 

the 3.5 GHz band or the AFC being 

developed for the 6 GHz band) to 

perform these functions? Would an 

entirely new system need to be 

developed? To the extent the 

Commission could repurpose an 

existing system, what benefits or tradeoffs would there be between using an 

existing system versus creating an 

entirely new dynamic-use system 

specifically tailored to the 12 GHz band? 

Would such a spectrum sharing system 

be able to satisfy the spectrum access 

needs for all the current and potential 

future satellite and terrestrial operators? 

If so, would it be worth the cost and 

burden of such a system to the 

respective services? 

46. If the Commission choose a 

dynamic sharing approach, it would 

propose to follow the existing 

prioritization of services for protection, 

with DBS continuing to receive the 

highest protection, followed by NGSO 

FSS and MVDDS. How should the 

Commission assign priority under this 

approach to new terrestrial operations? 

And should the Commission assign 

priority between NGSO FSS and 

MVDDS uses? Should the Commission 

continue to apply a ‘‘first-in-time’’ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

59AT&T Oct. 16, 2020 Ex Parte at 2. According 

to AT&T, DBS receivers are tied to subscriber 

addresses, not specific coordinates, and subscribers 

have the right to move their dish from one location 

to another on their property without no notification 

requirement. Id. 

60See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.139(a) (requiring NGSO 

FSS licensees to maintain a subscriber database in 

a format that can be readily shared with MVDDS 

licensees for the purpose of determining 

compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna 

spacing requirement relating to qualifying existing 

NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set forth in 

§ 101.129); 101.103(f)(1) (prior to the construction 

or addition of an MVDDS transmitting antenna, the 

MVDDS licensee shall provide notice of intent to 

construct the proposed antenna site to NGSO FSS 

licensees operating in the 12 GHz band and 

maintain an internet website of all existing 

transmitting sites and transmitting antennas that are 

scheduled for operation within one year, including 

the ‘‘in-service’’ dates); 101.129(b) (MVDDS 

licensees must not locate transmitting antennas 

within 10 km of any qualifying NGSO FSS 

receiver); 101.1440(b) (for each proposed 

transmitter, MVDDS licensees must conduct a 

survey to determine the location of all DBS 

customers of record that may potentially be affected 

by the introduction of its MVDDS service). 

61SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte, Attach. A at 2– 

3. 

approach in the context of a more 

dynamic sharing environment? 

47. The Commission seeks comment 

on how a dynamic sharing mechanism 

would incorporate legacy DBS 

consumer equipment? AT&T has 

expressed concern that DBS is unlike a 

fixed service because DBS receivers are 

deployed ubiquitously, with some 

installed on vehicles and thus 

effectively mobile, and because exact 

geographic coordinates are not known.59

Could these conditions be remedied and 

could the Commission seek information 

to obtain greater granularity of location, 

information on DBS end-user 

equipment, the height of such 

equipment at the installation location 

and any technical aspects relevant for 

coordination? How would a dynamic 

frequency sharing coordination 

mechanism determine the presence and 

potential for interference from terrestrial 

services to DBS? How would such a 

mechanism incorporate legacy NGSO 

FSS consumer terminals? If current DBS 

or NGSO FSS end-user equipment or 

databases are not able to support some 

type of coordination mechanism, should 

the Commission adopt a requirement to 

incorporate such equipment going 

forward? Should legacy equipment be 

grandfathered and allowed to operate 

until a specified end date? The 

Commission notes that to receive 

protection from new proposed MVDDS 

transmitters, NGSO FSS licensees must 

already maintain a database of fixed 

subscriber earth stations, in a format 

that can be readily shared with MVDDS 

licensees.60 Would such a database 

similarly facilitate protection from new 

terrestrial mobile two-way services? 

How should the Commission address 

any consumer privacy concerns, or 

protection of proprietary and 

confidential business information, that 

might arise from the use of one or more 

databases to facilitate shared use among 

competing services? 61

48. If the Commission decides to give 

priority to new terrestrial flexible-use 

services, vis-a`-vis NGSO FSS or 

MVDDS, should it consider an approach 

similar to that taken in the 3.5 GHz 

band, in which it auctioned Priority 

Access Licenses (PALs) to promote 

innovative use while protecting 

incumbents? Federated Wireless argues 

that the auction of PALs in 3.5 GHz 

band could serve as a model for how to 

facilitate shared use in the 12 GHz band. 

SpaceX, however, argues that there are 

important distinctions between the 3.5 

GHz band and the 12 GHz band that 

make it infeasible to auction PALs in 

this band. For example, SpaceX asserts 

that there are far fewer earth stations in 

the 3.5 GHz band than the 12 GHz band 

because FSS use in the former is limited 

to international inter-continental 

systems and is subject to case-by-case 

electromagnetic compatibility analysis. 

In addition, according to SpaceX, 

blanket earth station licensing in 12 

GHz means that there are many more 

receivers in the band that cannot be 

adequately tracked (including DBS 

receivers). The Commission seeks 

comment on these views. 

49. More broadly, how would 

dynamic spectrum sharing affect 

existing services? Would it reduce the 

incentives of existing operators to invest 

in deployment? During the period in 

which a sharing technology was 

developed, would it prevent the band 

from being put to its most productive 

use? Or would it facilitate new 

investment and innovation in this band? 

50. Opportunistic Use of the Band. 

Are there other approaches the 

Commission could adopt to enable 

operation of opportunistic use of the 12 

GHz band? What technical and 

operational rules would be needed to 

ensure such systems do not cause 

harmful interference to incumbent 

systems? Considering the spectral needs 

of DBS, MVDDS, NGSO FSS, would 

there be usable spectrum in enough 

geographic areas to allow for more than 

de minimis opportunistic use? Would 

there be enough interest in such use to 

spur equipment manufacturing? 

Commenters that believe there is a 

potential approach should specifically 

address the potential value created 

through sharing and costs of the 

proposed solution. 

51. DSA argues that the Commission 

could promote far more intensive use of 

the band by authorizing coordinated 

access to vacant 12 GHz spectrum on a 

secondary basis. It contends that such 

an approach would ‘‘provide spectrumas-infrastructure to fixed wireless ISPs 

and other broadband network providers 

[that operate] in underserved’’ areas, 

including rural and tribal communities. 

DSA argues that the Commission could 

adopt rules for opportunistic access to 

locally vacant spectrum in the 12 GHz 

band that operate in much the same way 

as the 3.5 GHz band rules authorize 

General Authorized Access (GAA) to 

unused PAL spectrum. Should 

coordinated, shared use of the band for 

high-capacity fixed wireless services be 

authorized on an opportunistic, 

unlicensed, or licensed-by-rule basis? 

52. Could the 12 GHz band support 

opportunistic use of unused spectrum 

on a localized basis, such as for highcapacity fixed wireless in rural and less 

densely populated areas? What 

technical and operational rules would 

be needed for such usage to ensure that 

incumbent services are protected from 

harmful interference? Would the 

benefits of opportunistic use outweigh 

the costs, such as the complexity it 

would create and the coordination 

burden it would place on incumbents? 

53. Could such operation be permitted 

based on sensing technology or a 

database (such as a SAS)? What 

provisions would be needed under 

either type of regime to prevent harmful 

interference to other services? 

B. Maintaining the Current Framework 

54. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the costs of 

accommodating new services in the 

band, including the potential for 

adverse impact or additional burden on 

existing services, exceed the benefits. 

Several commenters argue that the 

existing rules and services in the band 

allow for intense and efficient use of 

this spectrum, and that changes to the 

band are therefore unnecessary. For 

example, SpaceX’s Starlink system has 

commenced testing of its service in 

multiple states, and SpaceX asserts it 

will begin commercial broadband 

service to rural users by the end of 2020. 

SpaceX cites support from several 

organizations for its Starlink system, 

such as the Hoh Indian Tribe in 

Washington who has stated that 

‘‘because of NGSO service, the tribe 

‘finally has broadband, distributed to its 

community in only a matter of weeks’ 

and that the Commission should 

‘maintain the careful and successful 

balance that allows the 12 GHz 

frequency band to provide this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13277 

62Under the approach that the Commission 

adopted for NGSO FSS and MVDDS sharing, first 

in-time NGSO FSS receivers and first in-time 

MVDDS transmitting systems are afforded more and 

easier use of the shared 12 GHz band than 

subsequent deployments. The Commission 

concluded that such a result is equitable and 

consistent with the co-primary status of NGSO FSS 

and MVDDS. See MVDDS Second Report & Order, 

17 FCC Rcd at 9659, para. 111; see also OneWeb 

Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5370 para. 8. 

63Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 

3550–3650 MHz Band Closes; Winning Bidders 

Announced for Auction 105, Public Notice, 35 FCC 

Rcd 9287 (2020); Expanding Flexible Use in the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz Band, Report and Order, Order Proposing 

Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020), Facilitating 

Shared Use in the 3100–3550 MHz Band, Report 

and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 11078 (2020). 

64See, e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Seeks Comment on Petitions of Seven Licensees for 

Waiver of Multichannel Video Distribution and 

Data Service Technical Rules, WT Docket No. 15– 

218, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 9953 (WTB BD 

2015) (petitioners seek waivers of 47 CFR 101.113 

note 11, 101.147(p), 101.1407, and 101.1411(a), to 

use the 12 GHz band for two-way, point-to-point 

operation at an EIRP up to 55 dBm). 

service.’ ’’ SpaceX was a winning bidder 

in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund 

Phase I auction, where it won $888.5 

million to deploy high-speed broadband 

to unserved homes and businesses over 

a ten-year period. SpaceX claims that its 

service is capable of providing 

downlink/uplink speeds of 103/42 

megabits-per-second and a consistently 

observed median latency of 30 

milliseconds. According to SpaceX, 

making changes to the band potentially 

could threaten its planned operations 

while doing little to close the digital 

divide. How might this uncertainty 

affect future investment in new systems, 

whether in 12 GHz or in other frequency 

bands? What actions can the 

Commission take in this proceeding to 

ensure that the locations successfully 

bid for through the RDOF process get 

access to the broadband internet access 

service committed to through that 

program? SpaceX further claims that 

NGSO systems have the potential to 

provide low latency 5G backhaul using 

12 GHz band spectrum. Could 

maintaining the current framework 

allow NGSO-provided backhaul to 

proliferate? Alternatively, would 

allowing terrestrial mobile service in the 

band harm NGSOs’ ability to provide 

backhaul? If terrestrial mobile and 

satellite-based backhaul services cannot 

both be provided in the band, then 

which service would best serve the 

public interest? 

55. AT&T has repeatedly argued that 

adopting the proposals of the MVDDS 

5G Coalition would not adequately 

protect DBS operations in the 12 GHz 

band, which potentially could result in 

‘‘an untenable interference 

environment’’ for the tens of millions of 

DBS subscribers receiving programming 

via the 12 GHz Band. DISH, which is the 

other DBS provider in the band, 

disagrees and contends that MVDDS 5G 

Coalition’s two technical studies have 

demonstrated that geographic 

separation, transmitter power 

constraints on MVDDS operations, and 

other siting parameters, as well as 

absorption due to clutter, can ensure 

that interference from terrestrial base 

stations to DBS users would rarely, if 

ever, occur. If the Commission 

maintains the current framework, then 

NGSO FSS and Fixed Service would 

continue to operate on a co-primary, 

non-harmful interference basis to 

DBS.62 In that case, neither DBS nor 

NGSO FSS would be subjected to the 

uncertainty of new rules adopted for the 

band. Are the potential benefits of 

further action to facilitate flexible use 

for terrestrial services in the 12 GHz 

band outweighed by the potential 

uncertainty and the costs caused by 

granting terrestrial, flexible-use rights in 

this band? Should the Commission 

conclude that the appropriate balance 

between satellite and terrestrial use has 

already been struck by the framework 

currently in place, such that few or no 

revisions to the service rules are 

required? 

56. As noted above, the Commission 

has made a substantial amount of 

spectrum available for 5G services in the 

period since the 5G MVDDS Coalition 

filed its Petition. In particular, since that 

time, the Commission completed the 

post-auction transition of the 600 MHz 

band, making 70 megahertz of low-band 

spectrum available for 5G. The 

Commission completed three auctions 

of millimeter-wave spectrum, putting 

nearly five gigahertz of high-band 

spectrum into the market. At least one 

nationwide service provider has 

characterized this spectrum as 

instrumental to its 5G deployment 

plans. As for mid-band spectrum, the 

Commission has repurposed 480 

megahertz between 3550 and 3980 MHz 

and is on track to potentially repurpose 

an additional adjacent 100 megahertz in 

the 3.45 GHz band.63 Have intervening 

developments over the past four years, 

including the Commission’s work to 

make additional spectrum resources 

available for 5G and the number of 

NGSO systems that have been 

authorized to operate using 12 GHz 

band spectrum, counsel against making 

changes to the current framework for the 

12 GHz band? The Commission values 

the public interest benefits that could 

flow from NGSOs offering an affordable 

solution for delivering high-speed 

internet services to communities that 

might be more expensive to serve 

through other technologies. How should 

the potential public interest benefits of 

those services be balanced by the 

Commission as it proceeds with this 

rulemaking? 

57. The Commission noted in the 

OneWeb Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 

(2017), that NGSO FSS operators have 

access to other frequency bands, ‘‘such 

that even if NGSO FSS systems were 

precluded entirely from the 12.2–12.7 

GHz band,’’ OneWeb would still retain 

a measure of flexibility to provide its 

proposed services. Given the 

proliferation of NGSO authorizations 

and ongoing deployments, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

this remains the case, as well as the 

costs and benefits of maintaining the 

current framework. Additionally, the 

Commission adopted similar, though 

not identical, conditions in the various 

NGSO authorizations for use of the 12 

GHz band. The Commission seeks 

comment on the various conditions 

included in the NGSO authorizations 

and what effect (if any) these variations 

should have on its analysis. 

58. If the Commission maintains the 

current framework, should it make any 

revisions to the MVDDS technical rules 

within the existing regulatory 

framework so as to facilitate more robust 

terrestrial operations without causing 

harmful interference to satellite 

operations in the band? 64 The 

Commission notes that it contemplated 

that MVDDS service providers might 

petition for waivers of the technical 

rules and that, in denying a petition for 

reconsideration to increase the power 

limit for all MVDDS licenses, it was not 

prejudging whether a rationale for 

higher EIRP and EPFD limits in rural 

areas might have some technical merit 

in certain very specific circumstances. 

The Commission also stated that after it 

gained experience with MVDDS 

operations, it would entertain requests 

to modify the general EPFD and EIRP 

limits, if such experience provided 

sufficient justification for such action. 

The Commission invites comment on 

whether there are any other changes it 

could adopt in revising its existing rules 

that would improve the efficiency of 

incumbent use of the band. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

59. It is ordered, pursuant to the 

authority found in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

7, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 

316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 

301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

316, and §§ 1.407 and 1.411 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.407, 

1.411, the petition for rulemaking filed 

by the MVDDS 5G Coalition, RM–11768, 

is granted to the extent discussed herein 

and otherwise terminated, and this 

NPRM in the captioned docket(s) is 

adopted. 

60. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the IRAF, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04115 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–49; RM–11874; DA 21– 

158; FR ID 17525] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Augusta, Georgia 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Video Division has before 

it a petition for rulemaking filed 

November 27, 2020 (Petition) by Gray 

Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), 

the licensee of WRDW–TV (CBS), 

channel 12 (WRDW–TV or Station), 

Augusta, Georgia. The Petitioner 

requests the substitution of channel 27 

for channel 12 at Augusta, Georgia in 

the DTV Table of Allotments. 

In support of its channel substitution 

request, the Petitioner states that the 

Commission has recognized that VHF 

channels have certain propagation 

characteristics which may cause 

reception issues for some viewers, and 

also that the ‘‘reception of VHF signals 

require larger antennas . . . relative to 

UHF channels.’’ According to the 

Petitioner, ‘‘many of its viewers 

experience significant difficulty 

receiving WRDW–TV’s signal’’ and its 

channel substitution proposal will allow 

WRDW ‘‘to deliver a more reliable overthe-air signal to viewers.’’ The Petitioner 

further states that operation on channel 

27 will not result in any predicted loss 

of service and would result in a 

substantial increase in signal 

receivability for WRDW viewers. 

We believe that the Petitioner’s 

channel substitution proposal warrants 

consideration. Channel 27 can be 

substituted for channel 12 at Augusta, 

Georgia as proposed, in compliance 

with the principal community coverage 

requirements of section 73.625(a) of the 

Commission’s rules at coordinates 33– 

24–37.0 N and 81–50–36.0 W. In 

addition, we find that this channel 

change meets the technical 

requirements set forth in sections 73.616 

and 73.623 of the rules. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 7, 2021 and reply 

comments on or before April 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan 

Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Manley, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–0596 or Andrew.Manley@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 

21–49; RM–11874; DA 21–158, adopted 

February 12, 2021, and released 

February 12, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request 

materials in accessible formats (braille, 

large print, computer diskettes, or audio 

recordings), please send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that all ex parte contacts are prohibited 

from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued to the time the 

matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, 

however, exceptions to this prohibition, 

which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1204(a). 

See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the 

Commission’s rules for information 

regarding the proper filing procedures 

for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i) amend 

the Post-Transition Table of DTV 

Allotments under Illinois by revising 

the entry for Superior and York to read 

as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

Georgia 

* * * * * 

Augusta ......................... 27, 30, 31, 42 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04719 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS