Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services in the H Block-Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, 1166-1188 [2013-00157]
Download as PDF
1166
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
over the intended duration and
environment of use;
(ii) Labeling must include the clinical
training, if needed, for the safe use of
this device and information on the
patient population for which the device
has been demonstrated to be effective;
(iii) For devices that incorporate
electrical components, appropriate
analysis and testing must validate
electrical safety and electromagnetic
compatibility;
(iv) For devices containing software,
software verification, validation, and
hazard analysis must be performed;
(v) Any elements of the device that
may contact the patient device must be
demonstrated to be biocompatible; and
(vi) For over-the-counter devices,
human factors testing and analysis must
validate that the device design and
labeling are sufficient for lay use.
(c) Premarket notification. The CPR
aid device is exempt from the premarket
notification procedures in subpart E of
part 807 of this chapter if it is a
prescription use device that provides
feedback to the rescuer consistent with
the current American Heart Association
guidelines for CPR and in compliance
with the special controls under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, subject
to the limitations of exemptions in
§ 870.9.
Dated: January 2, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–00085 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1195
[Docket No. ATBCB–2012–0003]
RIN 3014–AA40
Medical Diagnostic Equipment
Accessibility Standards Advisory
Committee
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of advisory committee
meeting.
AGENCY:
The Medical Diagnostic
Equipment Accessibility Standards
Advisory Committee will hold its third
meeting. On July 5, 2012, the
Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access
Board) established the advisory
committee to make recommendations to
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Board on matters associated with
comments received and responses to
questions included in a previously
published Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on Medical
Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility
Standards.
The Committee will meet on
January 22, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. and on January 23, 2012, from
9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Access Board’s Conference Room,
1331 F Street NW., Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rex
Pace, Office of Technical and
Information Services, Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number (202) 272–0023
(Voice); (202) 272–0052 (TTY).
Electronic mail address: pace@accessboard.gov.
DATES:
On July 5,
2012, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) established an
advisory committee to make
recommendations to the Board on
matters associated with comments
received and responses to questions
included in a previously published
NPRM on Medical Diagnostic
Equipment Accessibility Standards. See
77 FR 6916 (February 9, 2012). The
NPRM and information related to the
proposed standards are available on the
Access Board’s Web site at: https://
www.access-board.gov/medicalequipment.htm.
The advisory committee will hold its
third meeting on January 22 and 23,
2013. The agenda includes the
following:
• Review of previous committee
work;
• Presentations by medical
practitioners and clinicians on the use
of medical diagnostic equipment in
relation to transfer surfaces;
• Continued discussion on
subcommittees based on medical
diagnostic equipment type;
• Continued discussion on transfer
surface height and size;
• Review and discussion on transfer
support location and configuration;
• Consideration of issues proposed by
committee members; and
• Discussion of administrative issues.
The preliminary meeting agenda,
along with information about the
committee, is available at the Access
Board’s Web site (https://www.accessboard.gov/medical-equipment.htm).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Committee meetings are open to the
public and interested persons can attend
the meetings and communicate their
views. Members of the public will have
opportunities to address the committee
on issues of interest to them during
public comment periods scheduled on
each day of the meeting.
The meetings will be accessible to
persons with disabilities. An assistive
listening system, computer assisted realtime transcription (CART), and sign
language interpreters will be provided.
Persons attending the meetings are
requested to refrain from using perfume,
cologne, and other fragrances for the
comfort of other participants (see
www.access-board.gov/about/policies/
fragrance.htm for more information).
Also, persons wishing to provide
handouts or other written information to
the committee are requested to provide
electronic formats to Rex Pace via email
prior to the meetings so that alternate
formats can be distributed to committee
members.
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–00071 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12–357; FCC 12–152]
Service Rules for the Advanced
Wireless Services in the H Block—
Implementing Section 6401 of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes rules for the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H
Block that would make available ten
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use.
The proposal would extend the widelydeployed Personal Communications
Services (PCS) band, which is used by
the four national providers as well as
regional and rural providers to offer
mobile service across the nation. The
additional spectrum for mobile use will
help ensure that the speed, capacity,
and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless
networks keeps pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 6, 2013. Submit reply
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
comments on or before March 6, 2013.
Written comments on the proposed
information collection requirements,
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104–13,
should be submitted on or before March
11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167. You may submit
comments, identified by FCC 12–152, or
by WT Docket No. 12–357, by any of the
following methods: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
• Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Daronco of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, at (202) 418–BITS. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Judith B.
Herman at (202) 418–0214, or via the
Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12–152,
adopted on December 11, 2012, and
released on December 17, 2012. The full
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Room CY–A257,
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300,
facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is
also available on the Commission’s Web
site at https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachment/FCC-12152A1doc. Alternative formats
(computer diskette, large print, audio
cassette, and Braille) are available by
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–
7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, or via email
to bmillin@fcc.gov.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should
reference the docket numbers in this
proceeding, FCC 12–152, or by WT
Docket No. 12–357.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D 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 hand or
messenger delivery, 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.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St., SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1167
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
D 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).
D Document FCC 12–152 contains
proposed information collection
requirements subject to the PRA. It will
be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507 of the PRA.
OMB, the general public, and other
Federal agencies are invited to comment
on the proposed information collection
requirements contained in this
document. PRA comments should be
submitted to Judith B. Herman at (202)
418–0214, or via the Internet at
PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser,
Office of Management and Budget, via
email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
D To view a copy of this information
collection request (ICR) submitted to
OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
(2) look for the section of the Web page
called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3)
click on the downward-pointing arrow
in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the
‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4)
select ‘‘Federal Communications
Commission’’ from the list of agencies
presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box,
(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the
right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6)
when the list of FCC ICRs currently
under review appears, look for the title
of this ICR and then click on the ICR
Reference Number. A copy of the FCC
submission to OMB will be displayed.
D Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis
This document contains proposed
new or modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we seek specific comment on how we
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1168
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060–[XXXX].
Title: Sections 1.946, 1.949, 1.2105(a),
etc.—Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) H Block.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, not-for-profit institutions,
and state, local, or tribal government.
Number of Respondents: 50
respondents; 50 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: .25
hours to .5 hours.
Frequency of Response: Annual, one
time, and on occasion reporting
requirements; recordkeeping
requirement; and third party disclosure
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. Statutory
authority for the information collection
is contained in 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47
U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155,
157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1404, and
1451.
Total Annual Burden: 14 hours.
Total Annual Cost: N/A.
Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality.
Needs and Uses: The Commission is
submitting this information collection to
the Office of Management and Budget as
a new collection. The Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes
rules for the Advanced Wireless
Services (AWS) H Block to make
available ten megahertz of spectrum for
flexible use, extending the current
Personal Communications Services
(PCS) band, which is used by the four
national providers as well as regional
and rural providers to offer mobile
service across the Nation. The NPRM
begins the Commission’s
implementation of the Congressional
directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum
Act) to grant new initial licenses for the
1915–1920 MHz (Lower H Block) and
1995–2000 MHz (Upper H Block) bands
through a system of competitive
bidding—unless doing so would cause
harmful interference to commercial
mobile service licensees in the 1930–
1995 MHz (PCS downlink) band.
Summary
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
I. Introduction
1. We propose rules for the Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) H Block that
would make available ten megahertz of
spectrum for flexible use. The proposal
would extend the widely-deployed
Personal Communications Services
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
(PCS) band, which is used by the four
national providers as well as regional
and rural providers to offer mobile
service across the nation. The additional
spectrum for mobile use will help
ensure that the speed, capacity, and
ubiquity of the nation’s wireless
networks keeps pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.
2. The Commission’s action is a first
step in implementing the Congressional
directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum
Act) that we grant new initial licenses
for the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands (the Lower H Block and
Upper H Block, respectively) through a
system of competitive bidding—unless
doing so would cause harmful
interference to commercial mobile
service licensees in the 1930–1995 MHz
(PCS downlink) band (collectively, the
Lower H Block and Upper H Block are
referred to as the ‘‘H Block’’).
II. Discussion
3. To implement the Spectrum Act
provisions pertaining to the H Block,
and in keeping with our goal of
expanding the amount of spectrum
available for wireless broadband
services, we propose terrestrial service
rules for the H Block that would
generally follow the Commission’s part
27 rules. In some instances, we propose
rules that are modified from part 27 to
account for issues unique to the H
Block, particularly to protect PCS
licensees from harmful interference.
With this NPRM, we seek comment on
a number of proposals regarding the
licensing, use, and assignment of the
spectrum, including the costs and
benefits of the proposals.
4. Although the Commission
previously sought comment on many of
these issues in the AWS–2 NPRM,
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–
2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–
2180 MHz Bands, 69 FR 63489 (Nov. 2,
2004) (AWS–2 NPRM), and the 2008
FNPRM, Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 2155–2175
MHz Band; Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1915–1920
MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz
and 2175–2180 MHz Bands, 73 FR
35995 (June 25, 2008) (2008 FNPRM),
wireless broadband technologies and
the wireless industry have evolved since
the Commission last sought comment on
these issues such that, in our
assessment, the development of a fresh
record is warranted. As a result, we will
adopt H Block rules based on the record
developed in response to this NPRM
(WT Docket No. 12–357). Parties may re-
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
file in this docket earlier comments with
any necessary updates.
5. For each of the issues identified
below, we seek comment on the most
efficient manner to address the issue.
Commenters should also identify the
various costs and benefits associated
with a particular proposal. We ask that
commenters take into account only
those costs and benefits that directly
result from the implementation of the
particular rules that could be adopted,
including any proposed requirement or
potential alternative requirement.
Further, to the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific
data and information, such as actual or
estimated dollar figures for each specific
cost or benefit addressed, along with a
description of how the data or
information was calculated or obtained,
and any supporting documentation or
other evidentiary support.
A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
6. We discuss the Spectrum Act’s four
main statutory elements related to the H
Block—allocation for commercial use,
flexible use, assignment of licenses, and
a determination regarding interference—
in greater detail below.
1. Allocation for Commercial Use
7. Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act
requires the Commission to allocate the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands for commercial use. The
Spectrum Act does not define the
phrase ‘‘allocate [the H Block] for
commercial use.’’ When this phrase is
read in the context of the Spectrum Act
as a whole, we conclude it requires the
Commission to make any changes
necessary to, or otherwise ensure that,
the Non-Federal Table of Allocations
reflects that the spectrum identified in
section 6401 can be used commercially
and licensed to non-federal entities
under flexible use service rules through
a system of competitive bidding. All of
the H Block spectrum is within the
1850–2000 MHz band, which is
allocated exclusively for non-federal,
fixed and mobile use on a primary basis
and designated for use in the
commercial PCS/AWS bands. We
believe the Commission’s prior
allocation of the H Block is fully
consistent with section 6401’s allocation
language because the existing allocation
is the broadest allocation possible
consistent with international
allocations. We further read section
6401 as directing the Commission to
maintain this existing allocation. Given
the requirement to license under
flexible use service rules, we do not
read the requirement to allocate the H
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Block for commercial use to specifically
limit eligible uses to commercial uses.
8. Therefore, we tentatively conclude
that the existing allocation of the H
Block for non-federal fixed and mobile
use on a primary basis meets the
allocation requirement of section
6401(b)(1)(A) for the H Block, and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
We seek comment on whether there are
any additional actions the Commission
should take to comply with the
requirement to allocate the H Block for
commercial use. We ask commenters
that believe further action is needed to
comply with Congress’s mandate to
detail what other action is necessary,
including the costs and benefits of such
action.
2. Flexible Use
9. Consistent with the Spectrum Act’s
mandate that we license the H Block
under flexible use service rules, we
propose service rules for the H Block
that permit a licensee to employ the
spectrum for any non-Federal use
permitted by the United States Table of
Frequency Allocations, subject to the
Commission’s part 27 flexible use and
other applicable rules (including service
rules to avoid harmful interference).
Congress recognized the potential
benefits of flexible spectrum allocations
and amended the Communications Act
in 1997 to add section 303(y), which
grants the Commission the authority to
adopt flexible allocations if certain
factors are met. Thus, we propose that
the H Block may be used for any fixed
or mobile service that is consistent with
the allocations for the band. If
commenters think any restrictions are
warranted, they should describe why
such restrictions are needed, quantify
the costs and benefits of any such
restrictions, and describe how such
restrictions would comport with the
statutory mandates of section 303(y) of
the Communications Act and section
6401 of the Spectrum Act.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
3. Assignment of Licenses
10. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum
Act requires the Commission to assign
initial licenses for the 1915–1920 and
1995–2000 MHz bands through a system
of competitive bidding pursuant to
section 309(j) of the Communications
Act. Accordingly, below, we seek
comment on proposals regarding
competitive bidding rules that would
apply to resolve any mutually exclusive
applications accepted for H Block
licenses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
4. Determination of No Harmful
Interference to the 1930–1995 MHz
Band
11. The Commission is prohibited
from granting initial licenses under the
Spectrum Act for the H Block if the
Commission determines that the H
Block ‘‘cannot be used without causing
harmful interference’’ to commercial
mobile licensees in the 1930–1995 MHz
band (PCS downlink band). We note
that the Spectrum Act does not define
the term ‘‘harmful interference,’’ and we
propose to use the existing definition of
‘‘harmful interference’’ in the
Commission’s rules. Under the
Commission’s rules harmful
interference is ‘‘[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 International
Telecommunications Union] Radio
Regulations.’’
12. Upper H Block. As detailed in the
Band Plan section below, the
Commission allocated this spectrum for
fixed and mobile use in 2003, and it
designated it for PCS/AWS base station
operations and proposed service rules to
that effect in 2004. During the eight
years that WT Docket No. 04–356 has
been pending, no party has filed
technical data and/or analysis
indicating that base station operations
in the Upper H Block would cause
harmful interference to licensees in the
PCS downlink band. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that licensing the
Upper H Block under flexible use
service rules will not cause harmful
interference to commercial mobile
licensees in the 1930–1995 MHz band.
We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
13. Lower H Block. In 2004 the
Commission designated this spectrum
for PCS/AWS mobile operations; paired
with Upper H Block, after concluding
that harmful interference from Lower H
Block to the PCS downlink band could
be addressed through appropriate
service rules. In WT Docket No. 04–356,
commenters vigorously debated the
power and out-of-band emission limits
necessary to avoid interference to
mobiles receiving in the PCS downlink
band. Four PCS licensees proposed
technical rules for Lower H Block to
avoid interference to PCS and at least
one PCS licensee continues to advocate
for one of the earlier proposals. As
discussed in detail below, we propose a
band plan and are seeking comment on
technical rules to avoid interference,
including the earlier proposals by PCS
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1169
licensees. Accordingly, we tentatively
conclude that it will be possible to
auction and license the Lower H Block
under flexible use service rules without
causing harmful interference to
commercial mobile licensees in the PCS
downlink (1930–1995 MHz) band. We
seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Regarding the proposed
band plan and technical issues
discussed in the sections below, we ask
that commenters proposing alternative
band plans and/or technical rules—
including any alternative proposals that
have been previously submitted to the
Commission—provide detailed analyses
of how their proposal will avoid
harmful interference to licensees in the
PCS downlink band.
14. Alternatives, if Harmful
Interference to PCS. If, contrary to our
expectation, the record results in a
determination that licensing the Upper
H Block, the Lower H Block, or both,
would cause harmful interference to
licensees in the PCS downlink band,
section 6401(b)(4) of the Spectrum Act
nullifies the initial requirement in
section 6401(b)(1)(a) that the
Commission to allocate the interfering
spectrum for commercial use. We do
not, however, believe that Congress
intended section 6401(b)(4)(a) to disturb
allocations adopted prior to the
Spectrum Act. Rather, Congress
intended section 6401(b)(4) to avoid
harmful interference to the millions of
existing customers of PCS licensees that
might otherwise result from
Commission actions implementing the
requirements in section 6401(b)(1)
related to H Block. Therefore, if we
determine that the Lower H Block, the
Upper H Block, or both, cannot be used
without causing harmful interference to
PCS licensees, we tentatively conclude
that we may not under the Spectrum
Act auction and grant initial licenses,
subject to flexible use service rules, for
the interfering spectrum. If we
determine that half of the H Block
cannot be auctioned and licensed, we
tentatively conclude that the statute
requires us to auction and license the
half of the H Block that would not cause
harmful interference to PCS downlinks
(i.e., either the Upper or Lower H
Block). Accordingly, we ask
commenters to address what should be
done in the alternative with the H Block
or any portion of the H Block that we
determine cannot be licensed under the
Spectrum Act due to harmful
interference to licensees in the PCS
downlink band. In particular, should
any such spectrum be designated for
Unlicensed PCS (UPCS)?
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1170
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
B. Band Plan
15. In the following sections, we
propose to license the H Block as paired
5 megahertz blocks, with the Upper H
Block used for high-power base stations
and the Lower H Block used for mobile
and low power fixed operations. We
further propose to license the H Block
by Economic Areas. We invite
commenters to propose other licensing
areas including for the Gulf of Mexico.
1. Block Configuration
16. In 2004, the Commission adopted
the AWS Sixth Report and Order,
Amendment of Part 2 of the
Commission’s Rules to Allocate
Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and
Fixed Services to Support the
Introduction of New Advanced Wireless
Services, Including Third Generation
Wireless Systems, 69 FR 62615 (Oct. 27,
2004), designating the H Block for
licensed fixed and mobile services,
including advanced wireless services,
and pairing the 1915–1920 MHz band
with the 1995–2000 MHz band. The
Commission decided to pair the 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands
because it found that pairing this
spectrum would promote efficient use of
the spectrum, would allow for the
introduction of high-value services, and
was otherwise preferable to the other
options that had been put forth.
17. In addition, the Commission
contemplated that mobile operations
would be conducted in the Lower H
Block. The Commission reasoned that
using the Lower H Block for low power
operations would be advantageous
because the adjacent 1910–1915 MHz
PCS band is used for mobile operations
and using the Lower H Block for high
power base station operations could
result in harmful interference to the PCS
band.
18. We see no reason to diverge from
the reasoning in the AWS Sixth Report
and Order. Accordingly, we tentatively
conclude that the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz bands should be paired
as a single band. In addition, we
propose that high power base station
operations will be prohibited in the
Lower H Block. We seek comments on
the costs and benefits of licensing the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands in this manner. We also seek
comment on alternate configurations of
the H Block. Commenters should
address any technical issues implicated
in an alternate band plan, and should
discuss the costs and benefits of any
alternative proposal.
2. Service Area
19. Geographic Area Licensing: We
propose to adopt a geographic area
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
licensing scheme for the H Block
because it is well-suited for the types of
fixed and mobile services that would
likely be deployed in these bands.
Additionally, geographic-area licensing
is consistent with the Commission’s
licensing approach for the AWS–1,
Broadband PCS, Commercial 700 MHz
bands, and AWS–4 bands. Based on the
Commission’s experience administering
these services, geographic area
licensing: (1) Provides licensees with
substantial flexibility to respond to
market demand, which results in
significant improvements in spectrum
utilization; (2) permits economies of
scale because licensees can coordinate
usage across an entire geographic area to
maximize spectrum use; and, (3)
reduces the regulatory burdens and
transaction costs because wide-area
licensing does not require site-by-site
approval so a licensee can aggregate its
service territories without incurring the
administrative costs and delays
associated with site-by-site licensing.
We seek comment on this approach,
including the costs and benefits of
adopting a geographic area licensing
scheme.
20. In the event that commenters do
not support geographic-area licensing
for the H Block, commenters should
explain their position and identify any
alternative licensing proposals that they
support, including the costs and
benefits associated with such alternative
proposals. Commenters should also
address how an alternative licensing
approach would be consistent with the
statutory requirement to assign licenses
in the H Block through competitive
bidding and the statutory objectives that
the Commission is required to promote
in establishing methodologies for
competitive bidding.
21. Service Area Size. We seek to
adopt a service area size for the H Block
that meets several statutory goals. These
include facilitating access to spectrum
by both small and large providers,
providing for the efficient use of the
spectrum, encouraging deployment of
wireless broadband services to
consumers, especially those in rural
areas, and promoting investment in and
rapid deployment of new technologies
and services consistent with our
obligations under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act.
22. To accomplish these goals, we
propose to license the H Block on an
Economic Area (EA) basis. The adjacent
bands, both PCS and AWS–4, are
licensed on an EA basis. EAs are small
enough to provide spectrum access
opportunities for smaller carriers but
also may be aggregated up to larger
license areas to achieve economies of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
scale. We seek comment on this
approach and ask commenters to
discuss and quantify the economic,
technical, and other public interest
considerations of any particular
geographic scheme for this band, as well
as the impact that any such scheme
would have on rural service and
competition.
23. We also seek comment on whether
we should license the H Block on a
nationwide basis. We seek comment on
the extent to which nationwide licenses
maximize or limit the opportunity for
licensees to provide the widest array of
services, and whether nationwide
licenses provide the necessary
incentives to foster the growth of
existing technologies and the
development of new technologies. We
also ask commenters to compare the
advantages and disadvantages of
nationwide licensing to those of
licensing by EAs, including economic
and financial considerations.
24. In response to the AWS–2 NPRM,
some commenters argued that licensing
the H Block using smaller geographic
areas than EAs would accommodate its
possible use as complementary
spectrum to existing PCS offerings.
Other commenters agreed and also
noted that small and rural wireless
providers would benefit if the
Commission licensed the H Block using
smaller geographic areas than EAs.
Would licensing the H Block by areas
smaller than EAs (e.g., Cellular Market
Areas comprising Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural
Service Areas (RSAs)) facilitate its use
by smaller and rural operators? Would
the benefits of smaller licenses outweigh
any potential diseconomies of scale? We
also seek comment on whether we
should license the H Block by BTAs and
the associated costs and benefits of this
approach. Are there other geographic
licensing methods that would better
meet the stated goals for this band?
3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico
25. In addition, we seek comment on
how to license the Gulf of Mexico.
Should the Gulf of Mexico be part of
another service area(s) or should we
separately license a service area(s) to
cover the Gulf of Mexico? Are there any
public interest benefits that would be
served by creating a Gulf of Mexico
licensing area? Further, would the
interests of the land based licensees be
protected if we proceeded to license the
Gulf of Mexico? Commenters that
advocate a separate service area(s) to
cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss
what boundaries should be used, and
whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
necessary due to the unique radio
propagation characteristics and antenna
siting challenges that exist for Gulf
licensees.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
C. Technical Issues
26. As discussed above, we are
proposing that the Upper H Block be
used for base station (i.e., high power)
operations, and the Lower H Block for
mobile and other low-power operations.
In this section we consider whether
technical standards generally applicable
to AWS and PCS stations are
appropriate for these bands, or whether
different standards are necessary to
provide interference protection to
services operating in adjacent spectrum
bands. In light of the Spectrum Act, and
our assessment of the relevant public
interest benefits, a key goal in this
proceeding is to develop technical rules
that will permit optimal use of the H
Block without causing harmful
interference to commercial mobile
service licensees in the 1930–1995 MHz
PCS band. In responding to our
inquiries, we ask commenting parties to
provide test data and specific technical
analysis to support their positions.
1. Upper H Block: 1995–2000 MHz
27. Immediately below the Upper H
Block is the 1930–1995 MHz PCS band,
which is used for base station transmit/
mobile receive (i.e., downlink). The
Commission has tentatively concluded
that base stations operating in the Upper
H Block would be compatible with
similar use of the spectrum below 1995
MHz, and there would be no need to
apply technical standards more
restrictive than those established for
other AWS stations. The record
developed in WT Docket No. 04–356
does not demonstrate any disagreement
with this approach.
28. Immediately above the Upper H
Block is the 2000–2020 MHz band,
which is allocated on a co-primary basis
for Fixed, Mobile, and Mobile Satellite
(Earth-to-space, i.e., for uplink mobile
transmit/satellite receive). In the AWS–
4 Report and Order, we adopted service
rules under which 2000–2020 MHz will
be licensed terrestrially for mobile
transmit/base station receive. Service
Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200
MHz Bands, FCC 12–151. The
Commission has previously concluded
that there is potential for mutual
interference between these two bands,
and in WT Docket No. 04–356 MSS
commenters raised concerns. In the
AWS–4 Report and Order, we
concluded that the public interest is
best served by requiring AWS–4 uplinks
to operate at lower power levels in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
2000–2005 MHz and emit lower
emissions below 2000 MHz. We further
concluded that 2 GHz MSS operators
and AWS–4 licensees must accept any
harmful interference from future, lawful
operations in the Upper H Block due to
out of band emissions in the 2000–2005
MHz band or receiver overload from
transmitters operating within the 1995–
2000 MHz band.
a. Upper H Block Power Limits
29. We also propose to adopt the
standard base station power limits that
apply to AWS and PCS stations: 1640
watts peak equivalent isotropically
radiated power (EIRP) in non-rural areas
and 3280 watts peak EIRP in rural areas.
We seek comment on this proposal.
b. Upper H Block Out of Band
Emissions Limits
30. Given the considerations
addressed above, we propose an out-of
band-emission (OOBE) limit for base
stations of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where
P is the transmit power in watts, outside
of the 1995–2000 MHz band. To provide
some interference mitigation to AWS–4
uplink operations above 2000 MHz
while ensuring that all of the Upper H
Block spectrum can be used for more
valuable downlink operations, we
propose a further OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz. We seek
comment on our proposals and any
alternative proposals, including
comments on the associated costs and
benefits of each proposal.
c. Co-Channel Interference Between
Licensees Operating in Adjacent
Regions
31. If we ultimately decide to license
this band on the basis of geographic
service areas that are less than
nationwide (e.g., EAs), we will have to
ensure that such licensees do not cause
interference to co-channel systems
operating along their common
geographic borders. In other services,
the Commission has offered either a
‘‘boundary limit’’ or a ‘‘coordination’’
approach to provide interference
protection between co-channel licensees
operating in these bands. Both
approaches have certain advantages and
disadvantages. For example,
coordination would likely minimize the
potential for interference to coordinated
stations, but could also impose
unnecessary costs in coordinating
facilities that have a low potential for
interference. A boundary limit approach
would establish an accepted standard,
which would enable licensees to deploy
facilities in boundary areas without the
need for coordination; but could require
some additional planning between
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1171
licensees to ensure that potential
interference does not occur.
32. In other bands where spectrum
has been allocated for fixed and mobile
services, we have uniformly adopted the
boundary limit method to minimize cochannel interference. For example, for
the PCS and AWS–1 bands, which are
closest in frequency to the H Block,
there is a field strength limit of 47
dBmV/m at the boundary of licensed
geographic areas. We propose that the
boundary limit approach should be
adopted for the H Block as the means for
protecting licensees from co-channel
interference at their borders, and
propose to specify a boundary field
strength limit of 47 dBmV/m. We seek
comment on these proposals. We also
ask whether, if the boundary limit
method is adopted, we should permit
licensees operating in adjoining areas to
employ alternative, agreed-upon signal
limits at their common borders.
2. Lower H Block: 1915–1920 MHz
33. Immediately below the Lower H
Block is the 1850–1915 MHz PCS band,
which is used for mobile transmit/base
receive. Use of the Lower H Block for
mobile transmit/base receive, as we
have proposed, would be compatible
with this adjacent PCS band. Thus there
would be no need to apply technical
standards more restrictive than those
established for AWS and PCS stations to
protect PCS operations below 1915
MHz.
34. Above the Lower H Block is the
1920–1930 MHz unlicensed PCS (UPCS)
band, which does not require
protection, and the 1930–1995 PCS base
transmit/mobile receive band. The latter
presents protection challenges for use of
the Lower H Block. The Commission
has previously concluded that there is
potential for mobile transmitters in the
1915–1920 MHz band to cause out-ofband and overload interference to
mobile receivers in the 1930–1995 MHz
band, but only when certain worst-case
conditions are all present. Specifically,
‘‘[t]he worst case occurs when the
mobile transmitter is operating at
maximum power (near the edge of its
service area) at the upper edge of the
band (near 1920 MHz) and the mobile
receiver is trying to receive a weak
signal (near the edge of its service area)
at the lower edge of the band (near 1930
MHz) and only free space loss is
considered.’’ Additionally, both mobiles
must be in close proximity to each
other, less than a few meters, and in
line-of-sight conditions. The
Commission found that the confluence
of these worst-case circumstances is
very infrequent and the risk of actual
interference is further mitigated by
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1172
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
normal network management practices
such as handoff and power
management. Nevertheless, the
Commission concluded that technical
standards more restrictive for Lower H
Block than those established for PCS
may be appropriate to avoid impairing
incumbent PCS operations above 1930
MHz.
35. The Spectrum Act sharply focuses
these concerns by requiring us to
auction the H Block spectrum unless we
determine that the frequencies cannot
be used without causing harmful
interference to commercial mobile
service licensees in the frequencies
between 1930 MHz and 1995 MHz (PCS
downlink). We therefore wish to review
previous proposals for Lower H Block
power and emissions limits, evaluate
how the interference environment may
have changed since those earlier
discussions, and determine what limits
are appropriate for the current
environment, and whether they may be
increased in the future.
a. Lower H Block Power Limits
36. Several parties have expressed
concern about the potential for
intermodulation interference, which can
result from receiver overload, impacting
PCS user equipment (UEs) receiving in
the PCS B Block (1950–1965 MHz). In
the 2008 FNPRM, the Commission
proposed a limit on the EIRP from H
Block mobile transmitters of +23 dBm/
MHz. In response, Sprint and Verizon
Wireless (both licensees of significant
portions of PCS including B Block) and
Nextel reiterated their 2005 proposal for
gradated power limits to avoid
interference to PCS as follows: A limit
on mobile EIRP of +6 dBm/MHz in the
1917–1920 MHz band, and a limit of
+30 dBm/MHz in the 1915–1917 MHz
band. This proposal was supported by
testing of a variety of mobiles
commissioned by CTIA in 2004. Sprint
has repeatedly and recently stated that
the H Block can be auctioned and
licensed without interfering with PCS
operations by using these earlierproposed, gradated power limits. AT&T,
also a licensee of a significant portion of
PCS spectrum, including the B Block,
did not concur with the plan put forth
by Sprint, Verizon and Nextel and
submitted an alternative solution. AT&T
proposed a uniform, ‘‘technologically
neutral,’’ ¥13 dBm/MHz power limit on
the Lower H Block to protect PCS,
arguing that the split-band approach
favored CDMA over GSM and wideband
technologies, such as W–CDMA and
UMTS/HSPA. In response to the AWS–
4 NPRM AT&T favored leaving the H
Block idle to serve as a guard band to
protect AWS–4 and PCS. More recently,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
AT&T argues in the alternative that if
the Commission proceeds with an
auction of the entire H Block despite
AT&T’s concerns, we should adopt
technical rules to protect PCS devices
from harmful interference including
appropriate power limits on H Block
mobiles.
37. We seek to establish technical
requirements that will support flexible
use of this spectrum in accordance with
the Spectrum Act without causing
harmful interference to PCS licensees.
The record in WT Docket No. 04–356
was largely developed between four and
eight years ago. Since then, the mobile
broadband industry, including the
wireless network equipment sector, has
undergone a rapid evolution. The
marketplace has seen greater adoption
of wideband technologies such as
UMTS and LTE, as well as the
authorization and launch of PCS
services in the G Block. Advances in
mobile device development have
unleashed new designs and ushered in
the advent of the smartphone. We seek
comment on how changes in the
industry may have affected the
assumptions underlying previous
analyses. How have filtering techniques
and duplex design improved? Given
that the Commission’s intentions to
authorize mobile service in the H Block
have been known in the industry since
at least 2004, have better duplexer filters
been employed in user equipment? How
has the population of mobile devices
changed, what is the mix of
technologies in use in the marketplace,
and what is the performance of this new
generation of devices?
38. We seek comment on the
appropriate power limit for 1915–1920
MHz mobile devices in order to prevent
interference to PCS operations.
Commenters are asked to submit
detailed technical analyses or studies in
support of their recommendations and
are encouraged to provide test data
wherever possible. The assumptions
that underpin the analyses should
identify how harmful interference is
defined. What probability of
interference is deemed acceptable (what
percentage of mobiles, what percentage
of locations)? For example, the
Commission’s earlier proposal, 23 dBm/
MHz, was based on a mobile separation
of two meters between users, while
others argued for a one-meter
separation. Likewise, is defining
harmful interference based on
degradation to a receiver’s noise floor
appropriate for a system which is
inherently interference-limited? If
stricter limitations on mobile transmit
power are deemed necessary to protect
current legacy devices, should the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
power limits sunset after a period of
time, allowing time for new, more
resilient mobiles to comprise the bulk of
the mobile population? How much time
will licensees need to obtain and deploy
UEs with the better filters, if better
filters are still needed? How long will
consumers’ legacy UEs need to be
protected? We also seek comment on the
costs and benefits of alternative power
limits.
39. The 1915–1920 MHz band is also
allocated for fixed services, so fixed
stations will be allowed to operate in
the band. However, because fixed
station antennas are generally located
some distance above ground level, the
possibility of interference from fixed
stations to PCS mobiles will likely be
less than the anticipated interference
from 1915–1920 MHz mobiles to PCS
mobiles. We therefore believe that
1915–1920 MHz fixed stations should
be permitted to employ a higher power
level than mobiles operating in that
band. We seek comment as to what that
power level should be.
b. Lower H Block Out of Band
Emissions Limits
40. The Commission has previously
concluded that, in certain
circumstances, attenuating transmitter
OOBEs by 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB is
appropriate to minimize harmful
electromagnetic interference between
operators. This limit is generally
applied in cases where adjacent services
have similar characteristics, such as
base-to-base or mobile-to-mobile and
adhere to similar power limits. This
limit has served well as a basis for
development of industry standards
which may impose tighter limits in
some cases. An OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB applies to most of the
services authorized under parts 24 and
27. In particular, this is the limit
imposed on transmitters operating in
both the 1930–1995 MHz PCS band and
the 1920–1930 MHz UPCS band
adjacent to the Lower H Block. As both
of these services in adjacent bands
provide for mobiles with similar power,
the same OOBE limit appears
appropriate for the Lower H Block. The
Commission therefore proposes to
require attenuation of 43 + 10 log10 (P)
to emissions from transmitters in the
1915–1920 MHz band.
41. The risk of mobile-to-mobile
interference discussed below may
require a further OOBE limitation to
protect against the potential for
interference from the out-of band
emissions of Lower H Block transmitters
into PCS mobiles receiving in the 1930–
1995 MHz band. Currently, the
Commission’s rules require licensees
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
operating in the 1850–1915 MHz PCS
band to comply with the 43 + 10 log10
P dB OOBE limit at the edge of their
authorized spectrum block. This level of
required attenuation of emissions with
respect to the transmitter power can be
translated into a power spectral density
of ¥13 dBm/MHz for out-of-band
emissions. We are aware that PCSindustry standards require equipment
manufacturers to incorporate a stronger
OOBE suppression capability in PCS
mobiles. In the 2008 FNPRM, the
Commission proposed a stricter limit on
out of band emissions from Lower H
Block transmitters of ¥60 dBm/MHz in
the frequency range of 1930–1990 MHz
(PCS downlink band), equivalent to an
attenuation of 90 + 10 log10 (P) dB. The
joint proposal of Sprint, Verizon and
Nextel requested a limit of ¥76 dBm/
MHz. Their analysis assumed a onemeter separation and mobile receivers
operating in noise-limited faded signal
conditions, and included test data
commissioned by CTIA. Most of the
mobiles tested met this limit. The ¥76
dBm/MHz specification is also the
industry standard for CDMA devices
under TIA–98F. Ericsson and Motorola
submitted comments supporting the use
of industry standards as the basis for
OOBE limits and cited ¥61 dBm/MHz
for the GSM Standard, with Motorola
citing ¥76 dBm/MHz for the CDMA
standard. Ericsson provided a later
submission specifically supporting a
limit of ¥66 dBm/MHz. Motorola,
responding to CTIA’s measurements,
noted the failure of two GSM devices to
meet the tighter CDMA-based OOBE
limits of ¥76 dBm/MHz and thus
advocated a limit of ¥71 dBm/100 kHz,
which is equivalent to ¥61 dBm/MHz.
42. As discussed earlier, there has
been considerable technological
advancement in devices and
technologies deployed in the mobile
broadband industry since this issue was
last under review. We note that many of
the arguments for proposed OOBE limits
were linked to industry standards at the
time. The 3GPP standard for emerging
4G technology allows for a higher level
of OOBE, generally ¥50 dBm/MHz in
most bands, but has implemented a
limit of ¥40 dBm/MHz in several
bands. The current LTE standards for
the use in PCS requires mobiles in
1850–1915 MHz to meet a limit of ¥50
dBm/MHz in 1930–1995 MHz. In this
and the concurrent AWS–4 proceeding,
Sprint has expressed support for an
OOBE limit of ¥40 dBm/MHz from
AWS–4 transmitters into the PCS
downlink band at 1930–1995 MHz. In
the AWS–4 Report and Order we apply
the limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
is equivalent to ¥40 dBm/MHz, to all
emissions below 2000 MHz. We believe
that the current capabilities for mobile
device manufacturers will support this
level of tolerance for interference. Given
that other operations may already be
imposing out-of-band emissions at the
¥40 dBm/MHz level, should the
Commission adopt this limit specifically
for Lower H Block emissions in the
1930–1995 MHz range?
43. The consensus from the record
developed in WT Docket No. 04–356
supports the creation of a specific OOBE
limit for emissions from Lower H Block
transmitters into the 1930–1995 MHz
band, even though no other PCS mobiles
are subject to such tighter limits in this
band. We seek comment on the
appropriate OOBE limit for the Lower H
Block necessary to prevent interference
to PCS operations. Commenters are
asked to submit detailed technical
analyses or studies in support of their
recommendations and are encouraged to
provide test data wherever possible. As
with comments regarding power limits,
the assumptions that underpin the
analyses should identify how harmful
interference is defined. What probability
of interference is deemed acceptable
(what percentage of mobiles, what
percentage of locations)? For example,
the Commission’s earlier proposal was
based on a mobile separation of two
meters between users, while others
argued for a one-meter separation.
Commenters should also discuss if
certain limits favor or prohibit certain
technologies, and are therefore not
technologically neutral. For example,
would imposing a limit of ¥76 dBm/
MHz favor CDMA2000 over LTE,
because CDMA2000 specifies ¥76
dBm/MHz for this band, while LTE
specifies only ¥50 dBm/MHz? If stricter
limitations on OOBE are deemed
necessary to protect current legacy
devices, should these limits sunset after
a period of time, allowing time for new,
more resilient mobiles to comprise the
bulk of the mobile population? How
much time will licensees need to obtain
and deploy UEs with the better filters?
How long will consumers’ legacy UEs
need to be protected? We also seek
comment on the costs and benefits of
alternative OOBE limits.
44. To fully define an emissions limit,
the Commission’s rules generally
specify details on how to measure the
power of the emissions, such as the
measurement bandwidth. For the
Broadband PCS band, the measurement
bandwidth used to determine
compliance with this limit for mobile
stations is one MHz or greater, with
some modification in the one-MHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1173
to the frequency block where a
resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of
the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. We
believe that it is reasonable to apply this
same procedure to transmissions in the
1915–1920 MHz band.
3. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
45. Section 27.57(c) of our rules
provides that AWS–1 operations are
subject to international agreements with
Mexico and Canada. We propose to use
this approach for the H Block. Until
such time as any adjusted agreements
between the United States, Mexico and/
or Canada can be agreed to, operations
must not cause harmful interference
across the border, consistent with the
terms of the agreements currently in
force. We note that our proposed rules,
and any rules that may ultimately
become effective pursuant to the abovecaptioned proceeding, may need to be
modified to comply with any future
agreements with Canada and Mexico
regarding the use of the H Block. We
seek comment on this issue, including
the costs and benefits, and on any
alternative approaches to this issue.
4. Other Technical Issues
46. Part 27 contains several additional
technical rules applicable to all part 27
services, including § 27.51 (Equipment
authorization), § 27.52 (RF safety),
§ 27.54 (Frequency stability), § 27.56
(Antennas structures; air navigation
safety), and § 27.63 (Disturbance of AM
broadcast station antenna patterns). As
we are proposing to license the H Block
as Advanced Wireless Services under
part 27, we propose that all of these part
27 technical rules should apply to all H
Block licenses and licensees, including
licensees who acquire their licenses
through partitioning or disaggregation.
We seek comment on this approach
including comments on the associated
costs and benefits.
47. We recognize that H Block,
governed under part 27 rules, is
adjacent to Broadband PCS spectrum
administered under part 24. The
adjacent blocks are harmonized with the
same uplink/downlink configuration. It
is possible that the licensee of a PCS G
Block geographic area may also acquire
the authorization for the adjoining H
Block through the competitive bidding
process. In that event, the licensee may
wish to deploy a wider channel
bandwidth operating across both bands,
and we believe that such flexibility is
appropriate. For one thing, wider
channel bandwidths may provide higher
data rates and potentially more efficient
use of the spectrum. The potential for
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1174
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
methods for apportioning the relocation
costs among H Block licensees,
including what method of allocating
relocation costs would be most
advantageous to reimbursing UTAM and
for providing certainty for bidders. The
AWS–2 NPRM also sought comment on
what rules should govern the allocation
of relocation costs among multiple AWS
licensees in the 1915–1920 MHz band.
Because UTAM requested that
reimbursement payments from AWS
licensees be due as a precondition to the
granting of a license, the Commission
sought comment on whether it would be
advantageous to require AWS licensees
to reimburse UTAM for its band clearing
costs ‘‘earlier than the commencement
of actual service.’’ To the extent that the
Commission opted not to do so, the
Commission also sought comment on
whether it should specify when AWS
entrants will be considered to have
commenced operations.
51. In deciding how to apportion
UTAM’s reimbursement among H Block
licensees in the 1915–1920 MHz band,
we believe it is important to provide
auction bidders with reasonable
certainty as to the range of the
reimbursement obligation associated
with each license under various auction
outcomes. We also believe it is
important for UTAM to be fully
reimbursed as soon as possible given
that UTAM cleared the band over ten
years ago. Accordingly, we propose to
require H Block licensees to pay a pro
rata amount of the 25 percent owed to
UTAM based on the gross winning bids
of the initial H Block auction.
Specifically, we propose that the
reimbursement amount owed (‘‘RN’’) be
determined by dividing the gross
winning bid (‘‘GWB’’) for an H Block
license (i.e., an individual EA) by the
sum of the gross winning bids for all H
Block licenses won in the initial auction
and then multiplying by $12,629,857. In
other words, the cost-sharing formula
would read as follows:
52. This formula would ensure that
UTAM receives full reimbursement after
the first auction by effectively
apportioning the reimbursement costs
associated with any unsold H Block
licenses among the winning bidders of
H Block licenses in the first auction—
with an exception in the event a
successful bidder’s long-form
application is not filed or granted, and
a contingency to cover an unlikely
scenario. We further propose that
winning bidders of H Block licenses in
the first auction of this spectrum would
not have a right to seek reimbursement
from other H Block licensees including
for licenses awarded in subsequent
auctions. We believe this approach
would avoid recordkeeping burdens and
potential disputes and that it is
appropriate given that—in the event that
most licenses are awarded—the
reimbursement obligation for an
individual license will represent but a
fraction of overall reimbursement to
UTAM. We seek comment on our
proposals including the following
D. Cost Sharing
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1. 1915–1920 MHz Band
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
EP08JA13.011
48. The 1915–1920 MHz band is a
subset of a larger band at 1910–1930
MHz that is allocated for Fixed and
Mobile services on a primary basis. In
1993, the Commission designated the
1910–1930 MHz band for use by
Unlicensed Personal Communications
Service (UPCS) devices. Prior to 1993,
the 1910–1930 MHz band was allocated
for Fixed services and used for fixed
point to point microwave links. To
facilitate the introduction of UPCS
systems, the Commission designated the
Unlicensed PCS Ad Hoc Committee for
2 GHz Microwave Transition and
Management (now known as ‘‘UTAM,
Inc.’’) as the sole entity to coordinate
and manage the transition. In
accordance with the Commission’s
policies established in the Emerging
Technologies proceeding, UTAM
subsequently relocated virtually all of
the incumbent microwave links, thereby
clearing the 1910–1930 MHz band for
use by UPCS systems.
49. In 2003, the Commission sought
comment on re-designating all or a
portion of the 1910–1920 MHz segment
for AWS use. In 2004, the Commission
re-designated the 1910–1915 MHz band
from the UPCS to Fixed and Mobile
services and assigned that spectrum to
Sprint Nextel, Inc. (‘‘Sprint’’) as
replacement spectrum for Sprint’s
operations being relocated from the 800
MHz band. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission re-designated the 1915–
1920 MHz band from UPCS for use by
licensed AWS operations. In so doing,
the Commission acknowledged that
‘‘UTAM must be fully and fairly
reimbursed for relocating incumbent
microwave users in this band’’ and
agreed ‘‘that UTAM should be made
whole for the investments it has made
in clearing the UPCS bands.’’ Relative to
the Lower H Block, the Commission
specifically concluded that ‘‘UTAM is
entitled to reimbursement of twenty-five
percent—on a pro-rata basis—of the
total costs it has incurred, including its
future payment obligations for links it
has relocated, as of the date that a new
entrant gains access to the 1915–1920
MHz spectrum band.’’ The Commission
also determined that AWS licensees
would be required to pay their portion
of the 25 percent of costs prior to
commencement of their operations.
50. In the AWS–2 NPRM, the
Commission requested comments on
this situation raises questions about the
possible effects of the combined blocks
operating under different rule parts.
Under the technical rules proposed
herein, the limits on OOBE and power
are similar, but not precisely the same.
We anticipate that the licensee’s
combined operations should satisfy the
more restrictive limit if a conflict arises.
For example, an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB applies to both the Upper
G Block and the Upper H block.
However, the Upper H Block has an
additional requirement to meet an
OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB above
2005 MHz. The combined operations of
both blocks would still need to meet
this tighter restriction above 2005 MHz.
We further propose that to the extent a
service provider establishes unified
operations across the adjacent blocks,
the operator may choose not to observe
emission limits strictly between its
adjacent block licenses in a geographic
area, so long as it complies with other
Commission rules and is not adversely
affecting the operations of other parties
by virtue of exceeding the emission
limit. We seek comment on this
observation. We also seek comment to
identify potential conflicts between the
two rule parts under this scenario and
proposals on how they could be
reconciled. Commenters should discuss
and quantify any costs and benefits
associated with such combined
operations and any effects on
competition, innovation and
investment.
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
believe that it will not disincentivize
parties from filing applications or
impose a burden on winning bidders to
reimburse UTAM within 30 days of the
grant of their long-form applications.
We seek comment on the above
proposals, including the costs and
benefits.
Because certain EAs, such as for the
Gulf of Mexico, have a relative value
that is not directly tied to population,
our proposal seeks to allow the market
to determine the value of each EA
license and the associated amount of the
reimbursement obligation. However,
parties can comment on alternative costsharing formulas, including one based
on population as described below. We
seek comment on our proposals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
2. 1995–2000 MHz Band
55. The 1995–2000 MHz band is part
of the 1990–2025 MHz band that the
Commission reallocated from the
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) to
emerging technologies such as PCS,
AWS, and MSS. Consistent with the
relocation principles established by the
Commission, each new entrant had an
independent responsibility to relocate
incumbent BAS licensees. In addition,
as a general rule, the Commission’s
traditional cost-sharing principles are
applicable to the 1990–2025 MHz band.
Sprint, which is the PCS licensee at
1990–1995 MHz, completed the BAS
transition for the entire 35 megahertz in
2010. In 2011, Sprint notified the
Commission that it entered in a private
settlement with DISH to resolve the
dispute with MSS licensees with respect
to MSS licensees’ obligation to
reimburse Sprint for their share of the
BAS relocation costs. Accordingly, the
only remaining cost-sharing obligations
in the 1990–2025 MHz band are
attributable to the remaining,
unassigned ten megahertz of spectrum
in the 1990–2025 MHz band: 1995–2000
MHz and 2020–2025 MHz.
56. In the AWS Sixth Report and
Order, the Commission determined that
all new entrants to the 1990–2025 MHz
band may be required to bear a
proportional share of the costs incurred
in the BAS clearance, on a pro rata basis
according to the amount of spectrum
each licensee is assigned. However, the
Commission did not decide specifically
how to allocate that share. In the AWS–
2 NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on how the reimbursement
rights and obligations of each AWS
licensee could be most efficiently and
equitably allocated if the H Block were
licensed on a geographic area basis
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
other than as a nationwide license. To
the extent that not all spectrum in the
1990–2025 MHz band would have been
licensed, the Commission sought
comment on whether to require those
entrants who are licensed at that time to
bear a pro rata share of the relocation
costs based on the amount of spectrum
they have been assigned relative to the
amount of 1990–2025 MHz spectrum
that has been licensed. In addition, the
Commission also sought comment on
whether to impose reimbursement
obligations on later arriving new
entrants, on the appropriate length of
such an obligation, and on the
mechanism for applying those
obligations.
57. Consistent with the Commission’s
intent that all entrants to the 1990–2025
MHz band bear a proportional share of
the costs incurred in the BAS clearance
on a pro rata basis according to the
amount of spectrum each entrant is
assigned, H Block licensees will be
responsible for reimbursing Sprint for
one-seventh of the BAS relocation costs
(i.e., the proportional share of the costs
associated with Sprint relocating 5
megahertz of BAS spectrum that will be
used by H Block entrants). We believe
it is important to provide auction
bidders with reasonable certainty as to
the range of the reimbursement
obligation associated with each license
under various auction outcomes. We
also believe it is important for Sprint to
be fully reimbursed as soon as possible
given that Sprint cleared the H Block so
H Block licensees will receive
unencumbered spectrum. Accordingly,
we propose to require H Block licensees
to reimburse Sprint based on the gross
winning bids of the initial H Block
auction. Specifically, we propose that
the reimbursement amount owed
(‘‘RN’’) be determined by dividing the
gross winning bid (‘‘GWB’’) for an H
Block license (i.e., an individual EA) by
the sum of the gross winning bids for all
H Block licenses won in the initial
auction and then multiplying by
$94,875,516. In other words, the costsharing formula would read as follows:
58. This formula would ensure that
Sprint receives full reimbursement after
the first auction by effectively
apportioning the reimbursement costs
associated with any unsold H Block
licenses among the winning bidders of
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
EP08JA13.012
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
contingency: in the unlikely event that
licenses covering less than 40 percent of
the population of the United States are
awarded in the first auction, we propose
that winning bidders—in the first
auction of this spectrum as well as in
subsequent auctions—will be required
to timely pay UTAM their pro rata share
calculated by dividing the population of
the individual EA awarded at auction by
the total U.S. population and then
multiplying by $12,629,857. This
contingent proposal would ensure that
UTAM is reimbursed as soon as possible
while also protecting winning bidders of
H Block licenses from bearing an undue
burden of the reimbursement obligation
due to UTAM. We seek comment on our
proposal.
53. Alternatively, we specifically seek
comment on the relative costs and
benefits of adopting a population based
cost-sharing formula as the general rule
for the H Block. We acknowledge that
using a population based approach in
all events would offer bidders certainty
as to the obligation attached to each
license but this approach could also
defer UTAM’s full reimbursement
indefinitely if less than all of the
licenses are awarded during the initial
auction.
54. We further propose that winning
bidders promptly pay UTAM the
amount owed, as calculated pursuant to
the formula that we adopt, within 30
days of grant of their long form
applications for the licenses. For PCS
and AWS–1, and AWS–4, cost sharing
obligations are triggered when a licensee
proposes to operate a base station in an
area cleared of incumbents by another
licensee. In this case, however, UTAM’s
members received no benefit for
clearing the Lower H Block nationwide
over ten years ago, and the Commission
determined in 2003 that the new PCS/
AWS licensees entering the band would
reap the benefits of UTAM’s efforts and
that UTAM should be fully reimbursed.
Moreover, as noted above, given the
relative fraction of overall
reimbursement to UTAM that will be
owed by each winning bidder, we
1175
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1176
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
H Block licenses in the first auction—
with an exception in the event a
successful bidder’s long-form
application is not filed or granted, and
a contingency to cover an unlikely
scenario. We further propose that
winning bidders of H Block licenses in
the first auction of this spectrum would
not have a right to seek reimbursement
from other H Block licensees including
for licenses awarded in subsequent
auctions. We believe this approach
would avoid recordkeeping burdens and
potential disputes and that it is
appropriate given that—in the event that
most licenses are awarded—the
reimbursement obligation for an
individual license will represent but a
fraction of overall reimbursement to
Sprint. We seek comment on our
proposals including the following
contingency: In the unlikely event that
licenses covering less than 40 percent of
the population of the United States are
awarded in the first auction, we propose
that winning bidders—in the first
auction of this spectrum as well as in
subsequent auctions—will be required
to timely pay Sprint their pro rata share
calculated by dividing the population of
the individual EA awarded at auction by
the total U.S. population and then
multiplying by $94,875,516. This
contingent proposal would ensure that
Sprint is reimbursed as soon as possible
while also protecting winning bidders of
H Block licenses from bearing an undue
burden of the reimbursement obligation
due to Sprint. We seek comment on our
proposal.
59. Alternatively, we specifically seek
comment on the relative costs and
benefits of adopting a population based
cost-sharing formula as the general rule
for the H Block. We acknowledge that
using a population based approach in
all events would offer bidders certainty
as to the obligation attached to each
license but this approach could also
defer Sprint’s full reimbursement
indefinitely if less than all of the
licenses are awarded during the initial
auction.
60. We further propose that winning
bidders promptly pay Sprint the amount
owed, as calculated pursuant to the
formula that we adopt, within 30 days
of grant of their long form applications
for the licenses. For PCS and AWS–1,
and AWS–4, cost sharing obligations are
triggered when a licensee proposes to
operate a base station in an area cleared
of incumbents by another licensee. In
this case, rather than Sprint itself
benefiting from its band clearing efforts,
other entrants in the band will reap the
benefits of Sprint’s efforts. Accordingly,
we find no significant reason to treat
Sprint any differently than UTAM and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
propose that Sprint be fully reimbursed
by AWS licensees that will benefit from
Sprint’s clearing of the H Block.
Moreover, as noted above, given the
relative fraction of overall
reimbursement to Sprint that will be
owed by each winning bidder, we
believe that it will not disincentivize
parties from filing applications or
impose a burden on winning bidders to
reimburse Sprint within 30 days of the
grant of their long-form applications.
We seek comment on the above
proposals, including the costs and
benefits.
61. Consistent with precedent, we
propose a specific date on which the
reimbursement obligation adopted
above will terminate. In recent
instances, the relocation and costsharing obligations sunset ten years after
the first ET license is issued in the
respective band. To the extent that
Sprint had not completed the relocation
of BAS from the 1990–2025 MHz band,
BAS operations in the band would have
become secondary after December 9,
2013. However, in this instance, we do
not believe that the public interest
would be served by adopting December
9, 2013 as the sunset date for
terminating the requirement that H
Block licensees collectively reimburse
Sprint for one-seventh of the BAS
relocation costs. Rather, we propose a
sunset date for the cost-sharing
obligations of H Block licensees to
Sprint that is ten years after the first H
Block license is issued in the band. We
find that a number of factors support
our proposal. As discussed above,
Sprint relocated BAS incumbents from
the 1995–2000 MHz band, even though
H Block licensees and not Sprint itself
will reap the benefits of Sprint’s
relocation of BAS. In addition, the
integrated nature of BAS operations
required relocations on a market-bymarket basis, and such a requirement
would have imposed significant costs
on individual H Block entrants because
isolated, link-by-link relocation was
infeasible. It therefore served the public
interest for Sprint to undertake the
relocation on an integrated, nationwide
basis. Because H Block licenses have yet
to be auctioned and because interested
applicants will be able to calculate their
reimbursement obligation to Sprint in
bidding on licenses, we do not believe
that our proposal imposes a burden on
the winning bidders of H Block licenses.
We seek comment on our proposed
sunset date, including the costs and
benefits.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and
Operating Rules
62. We are proposing licensing and
operating rules that will provide H
Block licensees with the flexibility to
provide any fixed or mobile service that
is consistent with the allocations for this
spectrum. Specifically, we are seeking
comment on the appropriate license
term, criteria for renewal, and other
licensing and operating rules pertaining
to the H Block. In addition, we seek
comment on the potential impact of all
of our proposals on competition. In
addressing these issues, commenters
should discuss the costs and benefits
associated with these proposals and any
alternative that commenters propose.
1. Regulatory Status
63. We propose to apply the
regulatory status provisions of § 27.10 of
the Commission’s rules to licensees in
the H Block. The Commission’s current
mobile service license application
requires an applicant for mobile services
to identify the regulatory status of the
service(s) it intends to provide because
service offerings may bear on eligibility
and other statutory and regulatory
requirements. Under part 27, the
Commission permits applicants who
may wish to provide both common
carrier and non-common carrier services
(or to switch between them) under a
single license to request status as both
a common carrier and a non-common
carrier. Thus, a part 27 applicant is not
required to choose between providing
common carrier and non-common
carrier services. We propose to adopt
this same approach here. Licensees in
the H Block would be able to provide all
allowable services anywhere within
their licensed area at any time,
consistent with their regulatory status.
We believe that this approach is likely
to achieve efficiencies in the licensing
and administrative process, and provide
flexibility to the marketplace. We seek
comment on the appropriate licensing
approach and ask that commenters
discuss the costs and benefits of their
proposed licensing approach.
64. We further propose that applicants
and licensees in the H Block be required
to indicate a regulatory status for any
services they choose to provide. Apart
from this designation of regulatory
status, we do not propose to require
applicants to describe the services they
seek to provide. We caution potential
applicants that an election to provide
service on a common carrier basis
typically requires that the elements of
common carriage be present; otherwise
the applicant must choose non-common
carrier status. If potential applicants are
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
unsure of the nature of their services
and their classification as common
carrier services, they may submit a
petition with their applications, or at
any time, requesting clarification and
including service descriptions for that
purpose. We propose to apply this
framework to H Block licensees and
seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of this
proposal.
65. We also propose that if a licensee
were to change the service or services it
offers such that it would be inconsistent
with its regulatory status, the licensee
must notify the Commission. A change
in a licensee’s regulatory status would
not require prior Commission
authorization, provided the licensee was
in compliance with the foreign
ownership requirements of section
310(b) of the Communications Act that
would apply as a result of the change,
consistent with the Commission’s rules
for AWS–1 spectrum. Consistent with
our part 27 rules, we propose to require
licensees to file the notification within
30 days of a change made without the
need for prior Commission approval,
except that a different time period may
apply where the change results in the
discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of the existing service. We
seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
2. Ownership Restrictions
a. Foreign Ownership Reporting
66. We propose to apply the
provisions of § 27.12 of the
Commission’s rules to applicants for
licenses in the H Block. Section 27.12
implements section 310 of the
Communications Act, including foreign
ownership and citizenship requirements
that restrict the issuance of licenses to
certain applicants. An applicant
requesting authorization to provide
services in this band other than
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical
en route, and aeronautical fixed services
would be subject to the restrictions in
section 310(a), but not to the additional
restrictions in section 310(b). An
applicant requesting authorization for
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical
en route, or aeronautical fixed services
would be subject to both sections 310(a)
and 310(b). We do not believe that
applicants for this band should be
subject to different obligations in
reporting their foreign ownership based
on the type of service authorization
requested in the application.
Consequently, we propose to require all
applicants to provide the same foreign
ownership information, which covers
both sections 310(a) and 310(b),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:42 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
regardless of which service they propose
to provide in the band. We note,
however, that we would be unlikely to
deny a license to an applicant
requesting to provide exclusively
services that are not subject to section
310(b), solely because its foreign
ownership would disqualify it from
receiving a license if the applicant had
applied for authority to provide such
services. However, if any such licensee
later desires to provide any services that
are subject to the restrictions in section
310(b) we would require the licensee to
apply to the Commission for an
amended license, and we would
consider issues related to foreign
ownership at that time. We request
comment on this proposal, including
any costs and benefits.
b. Eligibility and Mobile Spectrum
Holding Policies
67. We propose to adopt an open
eligibility standard for the H Block. We
believe that adopting such a standard
should encourage efforts to develop new
technologies, products and services,
while helping to ensure efficient use of
this spectrum. An open eligibility
standard is consistent with the
Commission’s past practice for mobile
wireless spectrum allocations, as well as
with section 6404 of the Spectrum Act.
We seek comment on our open
eligibility approach.
68. We note that an open eligibility
approach would not affect citizenship,
character, or other generally applicable
qualifications that may apply under our
rules. Additionally, section 6004 of the
Spectrum Act restricts participation in
auctions required under the Spectrum
Act, which includes the H Block, by
‘‘person[s] who [have] been, for reasons
of national security, barred by any
agency of the Federal Government from
bidding on a contract, participating in
an auction, or receiving a grant.’’ We
seek comment on our proposal to
address this issue in the competitive
bidding procedures section below.
Further, as the Commission observed in
the Incentive Auction NPRM, Expanding
the Economic and Innovation
Opportunities of Spectrum Through
Incentive Auctions, 77 FR 69934 (Nov.
21, 2012) (Incentive Auction NPRM),
section 6004 does not address eligibility
to acquire licenses on the secondary
market from the initial or subsequent
licensee. We seek comment on whether
section 6004 permits or requires the
Commission to restrict eligibility of the
persons described therein to acquire
licenses in the secondary market, and
whether and to what extent such
restriction is consistent with other
provisions of the Communications Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1177
If such restrictions should be
implemented, should we do so by
requiring certifications in applications
similar to those required under our rules
for enforcement of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988? Would it be permissible
and appropriate to address such
situations on a case-by-case basis in
light of the specific facts and
circumstances? Should we apply the
same attribution rules in doing so,
where the relevant person is not the sole
owner of the proposed licensee?
69. We seek comment generally on
whether and how to address any mobile
spectrum holdings issues involving H
Block spectrum in order to meet our
statutory requirements and our goals for
the H Block. Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the
Communications Act provides that in
designing systems of competitive
bidding, the Commission shall
‘‘promot[e] economic opportunity and
competition and ensur[e] that new and
innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by
avoiding excessive concentration of
licenses.’’ More recently, section 6404 of
the Spectrum Act recognizes the
Commission’s authority ‘‘to adopt and
enforce rules of general applicability,
including rules concerning spectrum
aggregation that promote competition.’’
We note that we recently initiated a
proceeding to revisit the mobile
spectrum holdings policies that apply to
both transactions and auctions. In the
past, the Commission has sought
comment on these issues with respect to
particular spectrum bands prior to
auctioning spectrum licenses.
70. We seek comment on whether the
acquisition of H Block spectrum should
be subject to the same general mobile
spectrum holding policies applicable to
frequency bands that the Commission
has determined to be available and
suitable for wireless services.
Alternatively, depending on the specific
rules and requirements that apply to H
Block spectrum, should we distinguish
H Block spectrum for purposes of
evaluating mobile spectrum holdings?
Commenters should discuss and
quantify any costs and benefits
associated with any proposals on the
applicability of spectrum holdings
policies to H Block spectrum.
3. License Term, Performance
Requirements, Renewal Criteria,
Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
a. License Term
71. We propose to establish a 10-year
term for licenses for the H Block. The
Communications Act does not specify a
term limit for AWS band licenses. The
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1178
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Commission has adopted 10-year
license terms for most wireless radio
services licenses. To maintain this
consistency among wireless services, in
the AWS–2 NPRM, the Commission
proposed that H Block licenses have a
term of 10 years. We continue to believe
that a 10-year license term is
appropriate, and consequently propose,
a 10 year license term for the H Block
spectrum. We seek comment on this
proposal, including any costs and
benefits of the proposal. In addition, we
invite commenters to submit alternate
proposals for the appropriate license
term, which should similarly include a
discussion on the costs and benefits.
72. Under our license term proposal,
if a license in these bands is partitioned
or disaggregated, any partitionee or
disaggregatee would be authorized to
hold its license for the remainder of the
partitioner’s or disaggregator’s original
license term. This approach is similar to
the partitioning provisions the
Commission adopted for BRS, for
broadband PCS licensees, for the 700
MHz band licensees, and for AWS–1
licenses at 1710–1755 MHz and 2110–
2155 MHz, and AWS–4. We emphasize
that nothing in our proposal is intended
to enable a licensee, by partitioning or
disaggregating the license, to confer
greater rights than it was awarded under
the terms of its license grant. Similarly,
nothing in our proposal is intended to
enable any partitionee or disaggregatee
to obtain rights in excess of those
previously possessed by the underlying
licensee. We seek comment on these
proposals, including the cost and
benefits thereof.
b. Performance Requirements
73. The Commission establishes
performance requirements to promote
the efficient deployment of wireless
services, including to rural areas, and
ensure that spectrum is used. Over the
years, the Commission has applied
different performance and construction
requirements to different spectrum
bands. For example, within four (4)
years, an AWS–4 licensee must provide
reliable terrestrial signal coverage and
offer terrestrial service to at least forty
(40) percent of its total AWS–4
population. Within seven (7) years, an
AWS–4 licensee must provide reliable
terrestrial signal coverage and offer
terrestrial service to at least seventy (70)
percent of the population in each of its
license areas. Similarly, for licensees
operating in the 2.3 GHz Wireless
Communications Services (WCS) band,
the Commission adopted performance
requirements that included a
population-based construction
requirements (40 percent of the license
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
area’s population within four (4) years
and 75 percent within six-and-a-half
(6.5) years) and reporting requirements.
In the AWS–2 NPRM, the Commission
broadly sought comment on whether it
should establish any specific
performance requirements in the H
Block, including interim performance
requirements.
74. Today, we continue to believe that
performance requirements play a critical
role in ensuring that licensed spectrum
does not lie fallow, and now propose to
establish the following performance
requirements. We seek comment on the
following buildout requirements for the
H Block:
• H Block Interim Buildout
Requirement: Within four (4) years, an
H Block licensee shall provide signal
coverage and offer service to at least
forty (40) percent of the population in
each of its license areas.
• H Block Final Buildout
Requirement: By the end of the license
term, i.e., within ten (10) years, an H
Block licensee shall provide signal
coverage and offer service to at least
seventy (70) percent of the population
in each of its license areas.
75. We propose these performance
requirements in an effort to foster
deployment expeditiously in the H
Block for the provision of wireless,
terrestrial broadband service, and to
enable the Commission to take
appropriate corrective action should
such deployment fail to occur.
Specifically, the interim benchmark at
four years would ensure that a licensee
begins deploying facilities quickly,
thereby evidencing meaningful
utilization of the spectrum. At the same
time, by proposing a relatively low
population threshold in the interim
benchmark, we acknowledge that largescale network deployment may ramp up
over time as equipment becomes
available and a customer base is
established. In addition, by proposing a
final buildout requirement timeline of
ten years, we believe we allow a
reasonable amount of time for any H
Block licensee to attain nationwide
scale.
76. We seek comment on these
proposed buildout requirements. We
encourage comment on whether our
proposals represent the appropriate
balance between requirements that are
too low as to not result in meaningful
buildout and those that would be so
high as to be unattainable. We also seek
comment on whether other benchmarks
represent more appropriate
requirements? Commenters should
discuss and quantify how any supported
buildout requirements will affect
investment and innovation as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discuss and quantify other costs and
benefits associated with the proposal.
77. Agreements between H Block and
AWS–4 licensees. In the AWS–4 Report
and Order, we permit AWS–4 licensees
to enter into private operator-to-operator
agreements with all 1995–2000 MHz
licensees to so that AWS–4 operations
above 2000 MHz may have an OOBE
level in excess of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB
into the 1995–2000 MHz band. In the
event that an AWS–4 licensee reaches
such an agreement with all 1995–2000
MHz licensees, should the H Block
licensees’ performance requirements be
reduced or eliminated because
accepting a higher OOBE level increases
the use of the 2000–2005 MHz band?
Implementing such an approach would
enable a market-based solution for
AWS–4 licensees who seek to remove
technical rules designed to protect the H
Block, by allowing them to acquire H
Block licenses at auction (or, later, on
the secondary market) and prioritize
deployment of AWS–4 over H Block.
78. Penalties for Failure to Meet
Construction Requirements. Along with
construction benchmarks, we seek to
adopt meaningful and enforceable
consequences, or penalties, for failing to
meet the benchmarks. Building on what
we have learned from other bands and
considering the unique characteristics of
the H Block, we propose and seek
comment, including on the costs and
benefits, of the following penalties in
the event an H Block licensee fails to
satisfy its buildout requirements:
• In the event an H Block licensee
fails to meet the H Block Interim
Buildout Requirement in its license
area, the term of the license shall be
reduced by two years.
• In the event an H Block licensee
fails to meet the H Block Final Buildout
Requirement in its license area, the H
Block license for each license area in
which it fails to meet the buildout
requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action.
79. We further propose that, in the
event a licensee’s authority to operate
terminates, the licensee’s spectrum
rights would become available for
reassignment pursuant to the
competitive bidding provisions of
section 309(j). Further, consistent with
the Commission’s rules for other
spectrum bands, including AWS–1 and
the Broadband Radio Service, we
propose that any H Block licensee who
forfeits its license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining the license.
80. Compliance Procedures.
Consistent with § 1.946(d) of the
Commission’s rules, we propose to
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
require H Block licensees to
demonstrate compliance with the
performance requirements by filing a
construction notification within 15 days
of the relevant milestone certifying that
they have met the applicable
performance benchmark. Further, we
propose that each construction
notification include electronic coverage
maps and supporting documentation,
which must be truthful and accurate
and must not omit material information
that is necessary for the Commission to
determine compliance with its
performance requirements.
81. Electronic coverage maps must
accurately depict the boundaries of each
license area in the licensee’s service
territory. If a licensee does not provide
reliable signal coverage to an entire
license area, we propose that its map
must accurately depict the boundaries
of the area or areas within each license
area not being served. Further, we
propose that each licensee also must file
supporting documentation certifying the
type of service it is providing for each
licensed area within its service territory
and the type of technology used to
provide such service. Supporting
documentation must include the
assumptions used to create the coverage
maps, including the propagation model
and the signal strength necessary to
provide reliable service with the
licensee’s technology.
c. Renewal Criteria
82. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the
Communications Act, the Commission
may require renewal applicants to ‘‘set
forth such facts as the Commission by
regulation may prescribe as to the
citizenship, character, and financial,
technical, and other qualifications of the
applicant to operate the station’’ as well
as ‘‘such other information as it may
require.’’ We propose to adopt H Block
license renewal requirements consistent
with those adopted in the 700 MHz First
Report and Order and the AWS–4
Report and Order, which form the basis
of the renewal paradigm proposed in
our Wireless Radio Services Renewal
NPRM. See Service Rules for the 698–
746, 747–762 and 777–792 MHz Bands,
72 FR 24238 (May 2, 2007) (700 MHz
First Report and Order); AWS–4 Report
and Order; Amendment of parts 1, 22,
24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To
Establish Uniform License Renewal,
Discontinuance of Operation, and
Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum
Disaggregation Rules and Policies for
Certain Wireless Radio Services, 75 FR
38959 (July 7, 2010) (WRS Renewal
NPRM and Order). We emphasize that,
as the Commission made clear in these
proceedings, a licensee’s performance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
showing and its renewal showing are
two distinct showings. A performance
showing provides a snapshot in time of
the level of a licensee’s service, while a
renewal showing provides information
regarding the level and types of service
provided over the entire license term.
83. We propose that applicants for
renewal of H Block licenses file a
‘‘renewal showing,’’ in which they
demonstrate that they have provided,
and are continuing to provide, service to
the public, and that they are compliant
with the Communications Act and the
Commission’s rules and policies. In the
700 MHz First Report and Order, the
Commission explained that in the
renewal context, the Commission
considers ‘‘a variety of factors including
the level and quality of service, whether
service was ever interrupted or
discontinued, whether service has been
provided to rural areas, and any other
factors associated with a licensee’s level
of service to the public.’’ As we adopted
in the AWS–4 Report and Order, we also
propose to consider the extent to which
service is provided to qualifying tribal
lands. We propose that these same
factors should be considered when
evaluating renewal showings for the H
Block and seek comment on this
approach. Commenters should discuss
and quantify the costs and benefits of
this approach.
84. As explained above, today we are
proposing that H Block licensees meet
four and ten-year performance
obligations. We therefore seek comment
on whether the public interest would be
served by awarding H Block licensees
renewal expectancies where they
maintain the level of service
demonstrated at the ten year
performance benchmark through the
end of their license term, provided that
they have otherwise complied with the
Communications Act and the
Commission’s rules and policies during
their license term. We also seek
comment on whether H Block licensees
should obtain a renewal expectancy for
subsequent license terms, if they
continue to provide at least the level of
service demonstrated at the ten year
performance benchmark through the
end of any subsequent license terms.
Commenters should discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of this
approach.
85. Finally, consistent with the AWS–
4 Report and Order, the 700 MHz First
Report and Order and the WRS
Renewals NPRM and Order, we propose
to prohibit the filing of mutually
exclusive renewal applications, and that
if a license is not renewed, the
associated spectrum would be returned
to the Commission for reassignment. We
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1179
seek comment on these proposals,
including on the associated costs and
benefits.
d. Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
86. We also request comment on the
Commission’s rules governing the
permanent discontinuance of
operations, which are intended to afford
licensees operational flexibility to use
their spectrum efficiently while
ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle
for extended periods. Under
§ 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules,
an authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is ‘‘permanently
discontinued.’’ For the H Block, we
propose to define ‘‘permanently
discontinued’’ as a period of 180
consecutive days during which a
licensee does not operate and does not
serve at least one subscriber that is not
affiliated with, controlled by, or related
to the provider. We believe this
definition strikes an appropriate balance
between our twin goals of providing
licensees operational flexibility while
ensuring that spectrum does not lie
fallow. Licensees would not be subject
to this requirement until the date of the
first performance requirement
benchmark, which is proposed as 4
years from the license grant, so they will
have adequate time to construct their
network. In addition, consistent with
§ 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules,
we propose that, if an H Block licensee
permanently discontinues service, the
licensee must notify the Commission of
the discontinuance within 10 days by
filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and
requesting license cancellation. An
authorization will automatically
terminate without specific Commission
action if service is permanently
discontinued even if a licensee fails to
file the required form. We seek
comment on these proposals, including
the associated costs and benefits.
4. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
87. The Commission’s part 27 rules
generally allow for geographic
partitioning and spectrum
disaggregation. Geographic partitioning
refers to the assignment of geographic
portions of a license to another licensee
along geopolitical or other boundaries.
Spectrum disaggregation refers to the
assignment of discrete amounts of
spectrum under the license to another
entity. Disaggregation allows for
multiple transmitters in the same
geographic area operated by different
companies on adjacent frequencies in
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1180
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
the same band. As the Commission
noted when first establishing
partitioning and disaggregation rules,
allowing such flexibility could facilitate
the efficient use of spectrum by enabling
licensees to make offerings directly
responsive to market demands for
particular types of services, increasing
competition by allowing market entry
by new entrants, and expediting
provision of services that might not
otherwise be provided in the near term.
88. We propose to permit partitioning
and disaggregation by licensees in the H
Block. To ensure that the public interest
would be served if partitioning or
disaggregation is allowed, we propose
requiring each H Block licensee that is
a party to a partitioning, disaggregation
or combination of both to independently
meet the applicable performance and
renewal requirements. We believe this
approach would facilitate efficient
spectrum use, while enabling service
providers to configure geographic area
licenses and spectrum blocks to meet
their operational needs. We seek
comment on these proposals.
Commenters should discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of these
proposals with respect to competition,
innovation, and investment.
89. We also seek comment on whether
the Commission should adopt
additional or different mechanisms to
encourage partitioning and/or
disaggregation of H Block spectrum and
the extent to which such policies
ultimately may promote more service,
especially in rural areas. Commenters
should discuss and quantify the costs
and benefits of promoting more service
using mechanisms to encourage
partitioning and disaggregation of H
Block spectrum, including the effects of
the proposal.
b. Spectrum Leasing
90. In 2003, in order to promote more
efficient use of terrestrial wireless
spectrum through secondary market
transactions, while also eliminating
regulatory uncertainty, the Commission
adopted a comprehensive set of policies
and rules to govern spectrum-leasing
arrangements between terrestrial
licensees and spectrum lessees. These
policies and rules enable terrestriallybased Wireless Radio Service licensees
holding ‘‘exclusive use’’ spectrum rights
to lease some or all of the spectrum
usage rights associated with their
licenses to third party spectrum lessees,
which then are permitted to provide
wireless services consistent with the
underlying license authorization.
Through these actions, the Commission
sought to promote more efficient,
innovative, and dynamic use of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
terrestrial spectrum, expand the scope
of available wireless services and
devices, enhance economic
opportunities for accessing spectrum,
and promote competition among
terrestrial wireless service providers. In
2004, the Commission built upon this
spectrum leasing framework by
establishing immediate approval
procedures for certain categories of
terrestrial spectrum leasing
arrangements and extending the
spectrum leasing policies to additional
Wireless Radio Services.
91. We propose that the spectrum
leasing policies and rules established in
those proceedings be applied to the H
Block in the same manner that those
policies apply to other part 27 services.
We seek comment on this proposal.
Commenters should discuss the effects
on competition, innovation and
investment, and on extending our
secondary spectrum leasing policies and
rules to the H Block.
5. Other Operating Requirements
92. Even though licenses in the H
Block may be issued pursuant to one
rule part, licensees in this band may be
required to comply with rules contained
in other parts of the Commission’s rules
by virtue of the particular services they
provide. For example:
• Applicants and licensees would be
subject to the application filing
procedures for the Universal Licensing
System, set forth in part 1 of our rules.
• Licensees would be required to
comply with the practices and
procedures listed in part 1 of our rules
for license applications, adjudicatory
proceedings, etc.
• Licensees would be required to
comply with the Commission’s
environmental provisions, including
§ 1.1307.
• Licensees would be required to
comply with the antenna structure
provisions of part 17 of our rules.
• To the extent a licensee provides a
Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such
service would be subject to the
provisions of part 20 of the
Commission’s rules, including 911/E911
and hearing aid-compatibility
requirements, along with the provisions
in the rule part under which the license
was issued. Part 20 applies to all CMRS
providers, even though the stations may
be licensed under other parts of our
rules.
• To the extent a licensee provides
interconnected VoIP services, the
licensee would be subject to the E911
service requirements set forth in part 9
of our rules.
• The application of general
provisions of parts 22, 24, 27, or 101
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would include rules related to equal
employment opportunity, etc.
93. We seek comment on whether we
need to modify any of these rules to
ensure that H Block licensees are
covered under the necessary provisions.
We seek comment on applying these
rules to the H Block spectrum and
specifically on any rules that would be
affected by our proposal to apply
elements of the framework of these
parts, whether separately or in
conjunction with other requirements.
What are the potential problems that
may be associated with the
Commission’s adoption of any of these
potential requirements, and how do
they compare to the potential benefits?
6. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and
the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands
94. The Commission currently has
under consideration various provisions
and policies intended to promote greater
use of spectrum over Tribal lands. We
propose to extend any rules and policies
adopted in that proceeding to any
licenses that may be issued through
competitive bidding in this proceeding.
We seek comment on this proposal,
including any costs and benefits.
F. Procedures for Any H Block Licenses
Subject to Assignment by Competitive
Bidding
95. As discussed above, if we adopt a
geographic area licensing scheme for the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands, we will resolve mutually
exclusive applications through
competitive bidding, consistent with
our statutory mandate.
1. Application of Part 1 Competitive
Bidding Rules
96. We propose that the Commission
would conduct any auction for H Block
licenses in conformity with the general
competitive bidding rules set forth in
part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission’s
rules, and substantially consistent with
the competitive bidding procedures that
have been employed in previous
auctions. Specifically, we propose to
employ the part 1 rules governing
competitive bidding design, designated
entity preferences, unjust enrichment,
application and payment procedures,
reporting requirements, and the
prohibition on certain communications
between auction applicants. Under this
proposal, such rules would be subject to
any modifications that the Commission
may adopt for its part 1 general
competitive bidding rules in the future.
In addition, consistent with our longstanding approach, auction-specific
matters such as the competitive bidding
design and mechanisms, as well as
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
minimum opening bids and/or reserve
prices, would be determined by the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
pursuant to its delegated authority. We
seek comment on this approach,
including the costs and benefits of this
approach. We also seek comment on
whether any of our part 1 rules would
be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in the H Block.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
2. Revision to Part 1 Certification
Procedures
97. Section 6004 of the Spectrum Act
prohibits ‘‘a person who has been, for
reasons of national security, barred by
any agency of the Federal Government
from bidding on a contract, participating
in an auction, or receiving a grant’’ from
participating in a system of competitive
bidding under section 309(j) required to
be conducted under Title VI of the
Spectrum Act. Accordingly, we propose
to require that an auction applicant
certify, under penalty of perjury, that it
and all of the related individuals and
entities required to be disclosed on the
short-form application are not such
persons. For purposes of this
certification, we propose to define
‘‘person’’ as an individual, partnership,
association, joint-stock company, trust,
or corporation. We also propose to
define ‘‘reasons of national security’’ to
mean matters relating to the national
defense and foreign relations of the
United States. Our existing rules also
include various certifications that a
party must make in any application to
participate in competitive bidding. As
with other required certifications,
failure to include the required
certification by the applicable filing
deadline would render the application
unacceptable for filing, and the
application would be dismissed with
prejudice. We seek comment on this
proposal.
3. Small Business Provisions for
Geographic Area Licenses
98. In authorizing the Commission to
use competitive bidding, Congress
mandated that the Commission ‘‘ensure
that small businesses, rural telephone
companies, and businesses owned by
members of minority groups and women
are given the opportunity to participate
in the provision of spectrum-based
services.’’ In addition, section
309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act
provides that, in establishing eligibility
criteria and bidding methodologies, the
Commission shall promote ‘‘economic
opportunity and competition * * * by
avoiding excessive concentration of
licenses and by disseminating licenses
among a wide variety of applicants,
including small businesses, rural
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
telephone companies, and businesses
owned by members of minority groups
and women.’’ One of the principal
means by which the Commission fulfills
this mandate is through the award of
bidding credits to small businesses.
99. The Commission has previously
stated that it would define eligibility
requirements for small businesses on a
service-specific basis, taking into
account the capital requirements and
other characteristics of each particular
service in establishing the appropriate
threshold. Further, the Commission,
while standardizing many auction rules,
has determined that it would continue
a service-by-service approach to
defining small businesses.
100. In the event that the Commission
assigns exclusive geographic area
licenses for the H Block, we believe that
this spectrum would be employed for
purposes similar to those for which the
AWS–1 band is used. We therefore
propose to establish the same small
business size standards and associated
bidding credits for the H Block as the
Commission adopted for the AWS–1
band. We note that these small business
size standards and associated bidding
credits were proposed for the AWS–1
band because of the similarities between
the AWS–1 service and the broadband
PCS service and the Commission
followed this approach when proposing
small business size standards and
associated bidding credits in the AWS 2
NPRM. Thus, we propose to define a
small business as an entity with average
gross revenues for the preceding three
years not exceeding $40 million, and a
very small business as an entity with
average gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $15 million.
We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of the
proposal.
101. We propose to provide small
businesses with a bidding credit of 15
percent and very small businesses with
a bidding credit of 25 percent, as set
forth in the standardized schedule in
part 1 of our rules. We seek comment on
the use of these standards and
associated bidding credits, with
particular focus on the appropriate
definitions of small businesses and very
small businesses as they may relate to
the size of the geographic area to be
served and the spectrum allocated to
each license. Commenters should
discuss and quantify any costs or
benefits associated with these standards
and associated bidding credits as they
relate to the proposed geographic areas.
In discussing these issues, commenters
are requested to address and quantify
the expected capital requirements for
services in these bands and other
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1181
characteristics of the service.
Commenters are also invited to use
comparisons with other services for
which the Commission has already
established auction procedures as a
basis for their comments and any
quantification of costs and benefits
regarding the appropriate small business
size standards.
102. In establishing the criteria for
small business bidding credits, we
acknowledge the difficulty in accurately
predicting the market forces that will
exist at the time these frequencies are
licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of
services that will be offered over these
bands may require adjustment
depending upon ongoing technological
developments and changes in market
conditions.
103. We seek comment on whether
the small business provisions we
propose today are sufficient to promote
participation by businesses owned by
minorities and women, as well as rural
telephone companies. To the extent that
commenters propose additional
provisions to ensure participation by
minority-owned or women-owned
businesses, they should address how
such provisions should be crafted to
meet the relevant standards of judicial
review.
104. In addition, we note that under
our part 1 rules, a winning bidder for a
market will be eligible to receive a
bidding credit for serving a qualifying
tribal land within that market, provided
that it complies with the applicable
competitive bidding rules. The
Commission currently has under
consideration various provisions and
policies intended to promote greater use
of spectrum over tribal lands. We
propose to extend any rules and policies
adopted in that proceeding to any H
Block licenses that may be assigned
through competitive bidding. We seek
comment on this proposal.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
105. The proceedings this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking initiate 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
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1182
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
106. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines specified
in the NPRM for comments. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
C. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
107. Wireless broadband is a key
component of economic growth, job
creation and global competitiveness
because consumers are increasingly
using wireless broadband services to
assist them in their everyday lives. The
explosive growth of wireless broadband
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
services has created increased demand
for wireless spectrum, which is
expected to continue increasing, despite
technological developments that allow
for more efficient spectrum use.
Unleashing more spectrum for
broadband is essential to meeting this
demand In this NPRM, we seek to
increase the nation’s supply of spectrum
for mobile broadband by proposing
rules for licensed fixed and mobile
services, including advanced wireless
services (AWS), in the H Block. These
service rules would make available 10
MHz of spectrum for flexible use in
accordance with the Spectrum Act,
without causing harmful interference to
PCS licensees. In proposing terrestrial
service rules for the band, which
include technical rules to protect
against harmful interference, licensing
rules to establish geographic license
areas and spectrum block sizes, and
performance requirements to promote
robust buildout, we advance toward
enabling rapid and efficient deployment
in the band. We do so by proposing
service, technical, assignment, and
licensing rules for this spectrum that
generally follow the Commission’s part
27 rules that generally govern flexible
use terrestrial wireless service—except
that in order to protect PCS licenses, our
proposed rules are more stringent in
certain respects. Overall, these
proposals are designed to provide for
flexible use of this spectrum by allowing
licensees to choose their type of service
offerings, to encourage innovation and
investment in mobile broadband use in
this spectrum, and to provide a stable
regulatory environment in which
broadband deployment would be able to
develop through the application of
standard terrestrial wireless rules. The
market-oriented licensing framework for
these bands would ensure that this
spectrum is efficiently utilized and will
foster the development of new and
innovative technologies and services, as
well as encourage the growth and
development of broadband services,
ultimately leading to greater benefits to
consumers.
D. Legal Basis
108. The proposed action is
authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309,
310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404, and
1451 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309,
310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404, and
1451.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
109. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
110. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards that encompass entities
that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of
2009, small businesses represented
99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in
the United States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,761 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
111. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite). The NPRM
proposes to apply various Commission
policies and rules to terrestrial service
in the MSS bands. We cannot predict
who may in the future become a
licensee or lease spectrum for terrestrial
use in these bands. In general, any
wireless telecommunications provider
would be eligible to become an
Advanced Wireless Service licensee or
lease spectrum from the MSS or AWS
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
licensees. This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and
maintaining switching and transmission
facilities to provide communications via
the airwaves. Establishments in this
industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum,
such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and
wireless video services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Under
the present and prior categories, the
SBA has deemed a wireless business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census
data for 2007 show that there were 1,383
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 1,368 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 15 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Similarly, according
to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, we estimate that
the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
F. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
112. This NPRM contains new
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the NPRM
will apply to all entities in the same
manner. The Commission believes that
applying the same rules equally to all
entities in this context promotes
fairness. The Commission does not
believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with
the rules will unduly burden small
entities. The revisions the Commission
adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining
access to valuable wireless spectrum.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
113. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new or modified
information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. In
addition, we note that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on
how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.
G. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
114. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
115. The proposal to license the H
Block under Economic Areas (EA)
geographic size licenses will provide
regulatory parity with other AWS bands
that are licensed on an EA basis, such
as AWS–1 licenses. Additionally,
assigning H Block in EA geographic
areas would allow H Block licensees to
make adjustments to suit their
individual needs. EA license areas are
small enough to provide spectrum
access opportunities for smaller carriers.
EA license areas also nest within and
may be aggregated up to larger license
areas. Depending on the licensing
mechanism we adopt, licensees may
adjust their geographic coverage through
auction or through secondary markets.
This proposal should enable H Block
providers, or any entities, whether large
or small, providing service in other
AWS bands to more easily adjust their
spectrum to build their networks
pursuant to individual business plans.
116. The technical rules of the NPRM
will protect entities operating in nearby
spectrum bands from harmful
interference, which may include small
entities. These technical rules are based
on the rules for AWS–1 spectrum, with
specific additions or modifications
designed to protect broadband PCS
services operating in the 1930–1995
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1183
MHz band, as well as future services
operating in the 2020–2025 MHz band.
117. The NPRM proposal pertaining to
how the H Block licenses will be
assigned includes proposals to assist
small entities in competitive bidding.
Specifically, small entities will benefit
from the proposal to provide small
businesses with a bidding credit of 15
percent and very small businesses with
a bidding credit of 25 percent. Providing
small businesses and very small
businesses with bidding credits will
provide an economic benefit to small
entities by making it easier for small
entities to acquire spectrum or access to
spectrum in these bands.
118. The NPRM also proposes to
provide H Block licensees with the
flexibility to provide any fixed or
mobile service that is consistent with
the allocations for this spectrum, which
is consistent with other spectrum
allocated or designated for licensed
fixed and mobile services, e.g., AWS–1.
The NPRM further proposes to generally
license this spectrum under the
Commission’s market-oriented part 27
rules, except that certain restrictions
would apply. These proposals include
applying the Commission’s secondary
market policies and rules to all
transactions involving the use of H
Block bands for terrestrial services,
which will provide greater
predictability and regulatory parity with
bands licensed for terrestrial mobile
broadband service. This proposal
should make it easier for H Block
providers to enter secondary market
arrangements involving terrestrial use of
their spectrum. The secondary market
rules apply equally to all entities,
whether small or large. As a result, we
believe that this proposal will provide
an economic benefit to small entities by
making it easier for entities, whether
large or small, to enter into secondary
market arrangements for H Block
spectrum.
H. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
119. None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
120. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301,
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319,
324, 332, 333, 1404, and 1451 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310,
316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404, and 1451,
that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is hereby adopted.
121. It is further ordered that notice
is hereby given of the proposed
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1184
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
regulatory changes described in this
notice and that comment is sought on
these proposals.
122. It is further ordered that the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
adopted.
123. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and
27
Communications common carriers,
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 1 and 27 as follows:
§ 1.2105 Bidding application and
certification procedures; prohibition of
certain communications.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) For auctions required to be
conducted under Title VI of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112–96) the Commission
may require certification under penalty
of perjury that the applicant and all of
the person(s) disclosed under paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section are not person(s)
who have been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant. For the purposes of
this certification, the term ‘‘person’’
means an individual, partnership,
association, joint-stock company, trust,
or corporation, and the term ‘‘reasons of
national security’’ means matters
relating to the national defense and
foreign relations of the United States.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1—PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE
PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
■
1. The authority citation for part 1 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r),
309 and 1404.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303,
307, 309, 332, 336, 337, and 1451 unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.949 is amended by adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.949
§ 27.1
4. The authority citation for part 27 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Application for renewal of license.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Renewal Showing. An applicant
for renewal of a geographic-area
authorization in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 service bands must
make a renewal showing, independent
of its performance requirements, as a
condition of renewal. The showing must
include a detailed description of the
applicant’s provision of service during
the entire license period and address:
(1) The level and quality of service
provided by the applicant (e.g., the
population served, the area served, the
number of subscribers, the services
offered);
(2) The date service commenced,
whether service was ever interrupted,
and the duration of any interruption or
outage;
(3) The extent to which service is
provided to rural areas;
(4) The extent to which service is
provided to qualifying tribal land as
defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and
(5) Any other factors associated with
the level of service to the public.
■ 3. Section 1.2105 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(2)(xii) to read as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
5. Section 27.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
Basis and purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(10) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 27.4 is amended by revising
the definition of ‘‘Advanced wireless
service (AWS)’’ to read as follows:
§ 27.4
Terms and definitions.
Advanced wireless service (AWS). A
radiocommunication service licensed
pursuant to this part for the frequency
bands specified in § 27.5(h) or § 27.5(j).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 27.5 is amended by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 27.5
Frequencies.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. The paired 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands are available
for assignment on an Economic Area
basis.
■ 8. Section 27.6 is amended by adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 27.6
*
PO 00000
Service areas.
*
*
Frm 00031
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
(i) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. AWS service areas for the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands are based on Economic Areas
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section.
■ 9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 27.13
License period.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. Authorizations for 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands
will have a term not to exceed ten years
from the date of issuance or renewal.
■ 10. Section 27. 14 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraphs
(a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (q)
to read as follows:
§ 27.14 Construction requirements; criteria
for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the
exception of WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 788–
793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–
2310 MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands,
Block B in the 2310–2315 MHz and
2355–2360 MHz bands, Block C in the
2315–2320 MHz band, and Block D in
the 2345–2350 MHz band, and with the
exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a
showing of ‘‘substantial service’’ in their
license area within the prescribed
license term set forth in § 27.13. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings
do not apply to WCS licensees holding
authorizations for the 698–746 MHz,
747–762 MHz, and 777–792 MHz bands
and licensees holding AWS
authorizations for the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS
authorizations in the spectrum blocks
enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or
(q) of this section, including any
licensee that obtained its license
pursuant to the procedures set forth in
paragraph (j) of this section, shall
demonstrate compliance with
performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the
Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark,
in accordance with the provisions set
forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(q) The following provisions apply to
any licensee holding an AWS
authorization in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands (an ‘‘H
Block licensee’’):
(1) An H Block licensee shall provide
signal coverage and offer service within
four (4) years from the date of the initial
license to at least forty (40) percent of
the total population in each service area
that it has licensed in the 1915–1920
MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands (‘‘H
Block Interim Buildout Requirement’’).
(2) An H Block licensee shall provide
signal coverage and offer service within
ten (10) years from the date of the initial
license to at least seventy (70) percent
of the population in each of its licensed
areas in the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz bands (‘‘H Block Final
Buildout Requirement’’).
(3) If an H Block licensee fails to
establish that it meets the H Block
Interim Buildout Requirement for a
particular licensed area, then the H
Block Final Buildout Requirement (in
this paragraph (q)) and the H Block
license term (as set forth in § 27.13) for
each license area in which it fails to
meet the H Block Interim Buildout
Requirement shall be accelerated by two
years (from ten to eight years).
(4) If an H Block licensee fails to
establish that it meets the H Block Final
Buildout Requirement for a particular
licensed areas in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands, its
authorization for each license area in
which it fails to meet the H Block Final
Buildout Requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action. The H Block licensee that has its
license automatically terminate under
paragraph (q) of this subsection will be
ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later
date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with
these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently
available U.S. Census Data at the time
of measurement and shall base their
measurements of population served on
areas no larger than the Census Tract
level. The population within a specific
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) will only be deemed served
by the licensee if it provides signal
coverage to and offers service within the
specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier). To the extent the
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) extends beyond the
boundaries of a license area, a licensee
with authorizations for such areas may
only include the population within the
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) towards meeting the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
performance requirement of a single,
individual license.
■ 11. Section 27.15 is amended by
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(d)(1)(i); adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
revising the first sentence in paragraph
(d)(2)(i), and adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii)
to read as follows:
§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and
spectrum disaggregation.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands; the following rules apply to WCS
and AWS licensees holding
authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands, the
following rules apply for purposes of
implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each
party to a geographic partitioning must
individually meet any service-specific
performance requirements (i.e.,
construction and operation
requirements). If a partitioner or
partitionee fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or
before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be
those enumerated in § 27.14(q).
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands;
the following rules apply to WCS and
AWS licensees holding authorizations
for purposes of implementing the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 27.14. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands, the
following rules apply for purposes of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1185
implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each
party to a spectrum disaggregation must
individually meet any service-specific
performance requirements (i.e.,
construction and operation
requirements). If a disaggregator or a
disagregatee fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or
before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be
those enumerated in § 27.14(q).
■ 12. Section 27.17 is added to read as
follows:
§ 27.17 Discontinuance of service in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands.
(a) Termination of Authorization. A
licensee’s AWS authorization in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action,
without specific Commission action, if
it permanently discontinues service
after meeting the H Block Interim
Buildout Requirement specified in
§ 27.14.
(b) Permanent discontinuance of
service is defined as 180 consecutive
days during which a licensee holding
AWS authority in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands does not
operate or, in the case of a commercial
mobile radio service provider, does not
provide service to at least one subscriber
that is not affiliated with, controlled by,
or related to the providing carrier.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of
the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands that permanently
discontinues service as defined in this
section must notify the Commission of
the discontinuance within 10 days by
filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting
license cancellation. An authorization
will automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if service is
permanently discontinued as defined in
this section, even if a licensee fails to
file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
■ 13. Section 27.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) introductory text,
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) introductory
text, and adding paragraph (d)(7), to
read as follows:
§ 27.50
Power limits and duty cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The following power and antenna
height requirements apply to stations
transmitting in the 1710–1755 MHz,
2110–2155 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz or the 2110–2155 MHz band and
located in any county with population
density of 100 or fewer persons per
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1186
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics
from the Bureau of the Census, is
limited to:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz or the 2110–2155 MHz band and
situated in any geographic location
other than that described in paragraph
(d)(1) is limited to:
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Fixed, mobile and portable (handheld) stations operating in the 1915–
1920 MHz band are limited to 1 Watt
EIRP, except that the total power of any
portion of an emission that falls within
the 1917–1920 MHz band may not
exceed 4 milliwatts (6 dBm).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 27.53 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
§ 27.53
Emission limits.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
*
*
*
*
(h) AWS Emission Limits. (1) General
Protection Levels. Except as otherwise
specified below, for operations in the
1710–1755 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz,
1915–1920 MHz, and 1995–2000 MHz
bands, the power of any emission
outside a licensee’s frequency block
shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10
log10(P) dB.
(2) Additional Protection Levels.
Notwithstanding the foregoing
paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
(i) For operations in the 1915–1920
MHz band, the power of any emission
above 1930 MHz shall be attenuated
below the transmitter power (P) in watts
by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(ii) For operations in the 1995–2000
MHz band, the power of any emission
above 2005 MHz shall be attenuated
below the transmitter power (P) in watts
by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(3) Measurement Procedure.
(i) Compliance with this provision is
based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater.
However, in the 1 megahertz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the
licensee’s frequency block, a resolution
bandwidth of at least one percent of the
emission bandwidth of the fundamental
emission of the transmitter may be
employed. The emission bandwidth is
defined as the width of the signal
between two points, one below the
carrier center frequency and one above
the carrier center frequency, outside of
which all emissions are attenuated at
least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring the emission
limits, the nominal carrier frequency
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
§ 27.55
Power strength limits.
(a) * * *
(1) 1995–2000, 2110–2155, 2305–
2320, 2345–2360 MHz bands: 47 dBmV/
m.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Section 27.57 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 27.57
International coordination.
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
shall be adjusted as close to the
licensee’s frequency block edges, both
upper and lower, as the design permits.
(iii) The measurements of emission
power can be expressed in peak or
average values, provided they are
expressed in the same parameters as the
transmitter power.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Section 27.55 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Jkt 229001
*
*
*
*
(c) Operation in the 1710–1755 MHz,
1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz and
2110–2155 MHz bands is subject to
international agreements with Mexico
and Canada.
■ 17. Add subpart K to part 27 to read
as follows:
Subpart K—1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz
Licensing and Competitive Bidding
Provisions
Sec.
27.1001 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.
27.1002 Reimbursement obligation of AWS
licensees at 1915–1920 MHz.
Reimbursement Obligations of AWS
Licensees at 1915–1920 and 1995–2000 MHz
Sec.
27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of AWS
licensees at 1915–1920 MHz.
27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of AWS
licensees at 1995–2000 MHz.
27.1041 Termination of Cost-Sharing
Obligations.
Licensing and Competitive Bidding
Provisions
§ 27.1001 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial
applications for 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz band licenses are
subject to competitive bidding. The
general competitive bidding procedures
set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in
this subpart.
§ 27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business
provisions:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(a)(1) A small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities
with which it has an attributable
material relationship, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities
with which it has an attributable
material relationship, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder
that qualifies as a small business as
defined in this section or a consortium
of small businesses may use the bidding
credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of
this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business as
defined in this section or a consortium
of very small businesses may use the
bidding credit specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
Reimbursement Obligations of AWS
Licensees at 1915–1920 and 1995–2000
MHz
§ 27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of
AWS licensees at 1915–1920 MHz.
AWS licensees of the H Block (1915–
1920 MHz paired with 1995–2000 MHz)
are collectively responsible for
reimbursing UTAM, Inc. a pro rata
share of the expenses that UTAM, Inc.
has incurred from relocating and
clearing incumbent Fixed Microwave
Service (FS) licensees from the 1910–
1930 MHz band. Specifically, within 30
days of grant of its long-form
application, AWS licensees in the 1915–
1920 MHz band, which constitutes 25
percent of the 1910–1930 MHz band,
shall, on a pro rata shared basis as set
forth in paragraph (a) in this section
reimburse 25 percent of the total
relocation costs incurred by UTAM, Inc.
(a) To the extent that H Block licenses
awarded in the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, at least
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, the amount owed to UTAM,
Inc. by the winning bidder of each
individual H Block license awarded in
the first auction will be determined by
dividing the gross winning bid (‘‘GWB’’)
for each individual H Block license (i.e.,
an Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of
the gross winning bids for all H Block
licenses awarded in the first auction,
and then multiplying by $12,629,857.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
1187
(d) For purposes of compliance with
this section, licensees should determine
population based on 2000 U.S. Census
Data or such other data or
measurements that the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and
comment process for the auction
procedures.
AWS licensees of the H Block (1915–
1920 MHz paired with 1995–2000 MHz)
are collectively responsible for
reimbursing Sprint Nextel, Inc. or a
successor in interest to Sprint Nextel,
Inc. (Sprint), a pro rata share of the
eligible expenses that Sprint has
incurred from relocating and clearing
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS),
Cable Television Relay Service (CARS),
and Local Television Transmission
Service (LTTS) incumbents from the
1990–2025 MHz band. Specifically,
within 30 days of grant of its long-form
application, AWS licensees in the 1995–
2000 MHz band, which constitutes oneseventh of the 35 megahertz of spectrum
at 1990–2025 MHz, shall, on a pro rata
shared basis as set forth below in this
section reimburse one-seventh of the
eligible expenses incurred by Sprint.
(a) To the extent that H Block licenses
awarded in the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, at least
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, the amount owed to Sprint
by the winning bidder of each
individual H Block license awarded in
the first auction will be determined by
dividing the gross winning bid (‘‘GWB’’)
for each individual H Block license (i.e.,
an Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of
the gross winning bids for all H Block
licenses awarded in the first auction,
and then multiplying by $94,875,516.
Except as provided in paragraphs (b)
and (c), an AWS licensee that obtains a
license for a market not awarded in the
first H Block auction will not have a
reimbursement obligation to Sprint.
(b) The Commission imposes payment
obligations on bidders that withdraw
provisionally winning bids during the
course of an auction, on those that
default on payments due after an
auction closes, and on those that are
disqualified. See 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(2)(i).
In the first auction, a winning bidder of
an EA license that is not awarded a
license for any reason will be deemed to
have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to Sprint that will be paid to
Sprint by the licensee acquiring the EA
license at reauction. The amount owed
to Sprint by the licensee acquiring the
EA license at reauction will be based on
the gross winning bid for the EA license
in the first auction. Accordingly, an
applicant at reauction will know with
certainty the reimbursement obligation
it will owe for each EA license subject
to this paragraph (b).
(c) To the extent that H Block licenses
awarded in the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, less than
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, then the amount owed to
Sprint shall be more equitably dispersed
across all EA licenses based on the
relative population of the EA to the
population of the United States.
Specifically, the amount that the
licensee of an individual H Block
license must reimburse Sprint shall be
calculated by dividing the population of
the individual EA by the total U.S.
population, and then multiplying by
$94,875,516.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
§ 27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of
AWS licensees at 1995–2000 MHz.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
EP08JA13.015
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, then the amount owed to
UTAM, Inc. shall be more equitably
dispersed across all EA licenses based
on the relative population of the EA to
the population of the United States.
Specifically, the amount that the
licensee of an individual H Block
license must reimburse UTAM, Inc.
shall be calculated by dividing the
population of the individual BTA by the
total U.S. population, and then
multiplying by $12,629,857.
EP08JA13.014
have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to UTAM, Inc. that will be
paid to UTAM, Inc. by the licensee
acquiring the EA license at reauction.
The amount owed to UTAM, Inc. by the
licensee acquiring the EA license at
reauction will be based on the gross
winning bid for the EA license in the
initial auction. Accordingly, an
applicant at reauction will know with
certainty the reimbursement obligation
it will owe for each EA license subject
to this paragraph (b).
(c) To the extent that H Block licenses
awarded in the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, less than
EP08JA13.013
Except as provided in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section, an AWS licensee
that obtains a license for a market not
awarded in the first H Block auction
will not have a reimbursement
obligation to UTAM, Inc.
(b) The Commission imposes payment
obligations on bidders that withdraw
provisionally winning bids during the
course of an auction, on those that
default on payments due after an
auction closes, and on those that are
disqualified. See 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(2)(i).
In the initial auction, a winning bidder
of an EA license that is not awarded a
license for any reason will be deemed to
1188
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
§ 27.1041 Termination of Cost-Sharing
Obligations.
(a) The cost-sharing obligation
adopted in this subpart will sunset ten
years after the first H Block license is
issued in the band.
(b) An H Block licensee must satisfy
in full its payment obligations under
this subpart K within thirty days of the
grant of its long-form application. The
failure to timely satisfy a payment
obligation in full prior to the applicable
sunset date will not terminate the debt
owed or a party’s right to collect the
debt.
[FR Doc. 2013–00157 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 95
[GN Docket No. 12–354; FCC 12–148]
Commercial Operations in the 3550–
3650 MHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes to create a new
Citizens Broadband Radio Service under
part 95 of its rules for shared small cell
use in the 3550–3650 MHz band (3.5
GHz Band). The Commission seeks
comment on other techniques that could
be used to manage access within the 3.5
GHz band as well as protections for
incumbent Department of Defense (DoD)
and Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) users.
The Commission also seeks comment on
how the unique characteristics of small
cells may help reduce the need for
geographic protections and enable
shared access of the 3.5 GHz Band
across the widest possible geographic
footprint. In addition, the Commission
offers a supplemental proposal to
integrate the 3650–3700 MHz band
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
within the proposed Citizens Broadband
Service, thereby encompassing an
additional 50 megahertz of contiguous
spectrum. This approach would
leverage the benefits of small cell
technology to enable widespread
broadband access to the 3.5 GHz Band
while minimizing the possibility of
harmful interference to incumbent DoD
and FSS users.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 20, 2013 and reply comments
on or before March 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 12–354, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://fjallfoss.
fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Mail: All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East
Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD
20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Powell, Attorney Advisor, Wireless
Bureau’s Mobility Division, at (202)
744–3597 or Paul.Powell@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order
(NPRM), in GN Docket No. 12–354, FCC
12–148, adopted and released December
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12, 2012. The full text of this document
is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text may be purchased from
the Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202)488–5300, facsimile (202)
488–5563, or via email at
Fcc@bcpiweb.com. The full text may
also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities by sending an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Synopsis of the NPRM
I. Introduction
1. With this NPRM, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) propose to create a new
Citizens Broadband Service in the 3550–
3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band)
currently utilized for military and
satellite operations, which will promote
two major advances that enable more
efficient use of radio spectrum: small
cells and spectrum sharing. The 3.5 GHz
Band was identified by the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) for shared
federal and non-federal use in the 2010
Fast Track Report. See NTIA, An
Assessment of the Near-Term Viability
of Accommodating Wireless Broadband
Systems et al, at https://www.ntia.doc.
gov/files/ntia/publications/fasttrack
evaluation_11152010.pdf. Our proposal
builds on our experience with spectrum
sharing in the television white spaces
(TVWS), proposes ideas teed up in our
recent Notice of Inquiry on Dynamic
Spectrum Access technologies, and
broadly reflects recommendations made
in a recent report by the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST). See PCAST,
Report to the President: Realizing the
Full Potential of Government-Held
Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_
spectrum_report_final_july_20_
2012.pdf. We also seek comment on
whether to include under these
proposed new, flexible rules the
neighboring 3650–3700 MHz band,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
EP08JA13.016
(d) For purposes of compliance with
this section, licensees should determine
population based on 2000 U.S. Census
Data or such other data or
measurements that the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and
comment process for the auction
procedures.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1166-1188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00157]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12-357; FCC 12-152]
Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services in the H Block--
Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules for the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H Block that would make available ten
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use. The proposal would extend the
widely-deployed Personal Communications Services (PCS) band, which is
used by the four national providers as well as regional and rural
providers to offer mobile service across the nation. The additional
spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and
ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.
DATES: Submit comments on or before February 6, 2013. Submit reply
[[Page 1167]]
comments on or before March 6, 2013. Written comments on the proposed
information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13, should be submitted on or before
March 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,
via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-
5167. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 12-152, or by WT
Docket No. 12-357, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Daronco of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS. For
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-152, adopted on December 11, 2012, and
released on December 17, 2012. The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is also available on the
Commission's Web site at https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-12-152A1doc. Alternative formats (computer diskette,
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via email to
bmillin@fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should
reference the docket numbers in this proceeding, FCC 12-152, or by WT
Docket No. 12-357.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] 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 hand or messenger delivery, 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.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
[ssquf] 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).
[ssquf] Document FCC 12-152 contains proposed information
collection requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507 of
the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements
contained in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Judith
B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov and to
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.
[ssquf] To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4)
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR and
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to
OMB will be displayed.
[ssquf] Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This document contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we
[[Page 1168]]
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-[XXXX].
Title: Sections 1.946, 1.949, 1.2105(a), etc.--Service Rules for
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H Block.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit
institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.
Number of Respondents: 50 respondents; 50 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours to .5 hours.
Frequency of Response: Annual, one time, and on occasion reporting
requirements; recordkeeping requirement; and third party disclosure
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Statutory authority for the information collection is contained in 15
U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157,
225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1404, and 1451.
Total Annual Burden: 14 hours.
Total Annual Cost: N/A.
Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality.
Needs and Uses: The Commission is submitting this information
collection to the Office of Management and Budget as a new collection.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes rules for the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H Block to make available ten
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use, extending the current Personal
Communications Services (PCS) band, which is used by the four national
providers as well as regional and rural providers to offer mobile
service across the Nation. The NPRM begins the Commission's
implementation of the Congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial
licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz (Lower H Block) and 1995-2000 MHz (Upper
H Block) bands through a system of competitive bidding--unless doing so
would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees
in the 1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink) band.
Summary
I. Introduction
1. We propose rules for the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H
Block that would make available ten megahertz of spectrum for flexible
use. The proposal would extend the widely-deployed Personal
Communications Services (PCS) band, which is used by the four national
providers as well as regional and rural providers to offer mobile
service across the nation. The additional spectrum for mobile use will
help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's
wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile
service.
2. The Commission's action is a first step in implementing the
Congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) that we grant new initial licenses for the
1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H
Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding--unless
doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service
licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink) band (collectively, the
Lower H Block and Upper H Block are referred to as the ``H Block'').
II. Discussion
3. To implement the Spectrum Act provisions pertaining to the H
Block, and in keeping with our goal of expanding the amount of spectrum
available for wireless broadband services, we propose terrestrial
service rules for the H Block that would generally follow the
Commission's part 27 rules. In some instances, we propose rules that
are modified from part 27 to account for issues unique to the H Block,
particularly to protect PCS licensees from harmful interference. With
this NPRM, we seek comment on a number of proposals regarding the
licensing, use, and assignment of the spectrum, including the costs and
benefits of the proposals.
4. Although the Commission previously sought comment on many of
these issues in the AWS-2 NPRM, Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz Bands, 69 FR 63489 (Nov. 2, 2004) (AWS-2 NPRM), and the 2008
FNPRM, Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175
MHz Band; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920
MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, 73 FR 35995
(June 25, 2008) (2008 FNPRM), wireless broadband technologies and the
wireless industry have evolved since the Commission last sought comment
on these issues such that, in our assessment, the development of a
fresh record is warranted. As a result, we will adopt H Block rules
based on the record developed in response to this NPRM (WT Docket No.
12-357). Parties may re-file in this docket earlier comments with any
necessary updates.
5. For each of the issues identified below, we seek comment on the
most efficient manner to address the issue. Commenters should also
identify the various costs and benefits associated with a particular
proposal. We ask that commenters take into account only those costs and
benefits that directly result from the implementation of the particular
rules that could be adopted, including any proposed requirement or
potential alternative requirement. Further, to the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual
or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit
addressed, along with a description of how the data or information was
calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other
evidentiary support.
A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
6. We discuss the Spectrum Act's four main statutory elements
related to the H Block--allocation for commercial use, flexible use,
assignment of licenses, and a determination regarding interference--in
greater detail below.
1. Allocation for Commercial Use
7. Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to
allocate the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands for commercial use.
The Spectrum Act does not define the phrase ``allocate [the H Block]
for commercial use.'' When this phrase is read in the context of the
Spectrum Act as a whole, we conclude it requires the Commission to make
any changes necessary to, or otherwise ensure that, the Non-Federal
Table of Allocations reflects that the spectrum identified in section
6401 can be used commercially and licensed to non-federal entities
under flexible use service rules through a system of competitive
bidding. All of the H Block spectrum is within the 1850-2000 MHz band,
which is allocated exclusively for non-federal, fixed and mobile use on
a primary basis and designated for use in the commercial PCS/AWS bands.
We believe the Commission's prior allocation of the H Block is fully
consistent with section 6401's allocation language because the existing
allocation is the broadest allocation possible consistent with
international allocations. We further read section 6401 as directing
the Commission to maintain this existing allocation. Given the
requirement to license under flexible use service rules, we do not read
the requirement to allocate the H
[[Page 1169]]
Block for commercial use to specifically limit eligible uses to
commercial uses.
8. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the existing allocation
of the H Block for non-federal fixed and mobile use on a primary basis
meets the allocation requirement of section 6401(b)(1)(A) for the H
Block, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We seek comment
on whether there are any additional actions the Commission should take
to comply with the requirement to allocate the H Block for commercial
use. We ask commenters that believe further action is needed to comply
with Congress's mandate to detail what other action is necessary,
including the costs and benefits of such action.
2. Flexible Use
9. Consistent with the Spectrum Act's mandate that we license the H
Block under flexible use service rules, we propose service rules for
the H Block that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-
Federal use permitted by the United States Table of Frequency
Allocations, subject to the Commission's part 27 flexible use and other
applicable rules (including service rules to avoid harmful
interference). Congress recognized the potential benefits of flexible
spectrum allocations and amended the Communications Act in 1997 to add
section 303(y), which grants the Commission the authority to adopt
flexible allocations if certain factors are met. Thus, we propose that
the H Block may be used for any fixed or mobile service that is
consistent with the allocations for the band. If commenters think any
restrictions are warranted, they should describe why such restrictions
are needed, quantify the costs and benefits of any such restrictions,
and describe how such restrictions would comport with the statutory
mandates of section 303(y) of the Communications Act and section 6401
of the Spectrum Act.
3. Assignment of Licenses
10. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to
assign initial licenses for the 1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz bands
through a system of competitive bidding pursuant to section 309(j) of
the Communications Act. Accordingly, below, we seek comment on
proposals regarding competitive bidding rules that would apply to
resolve any mutually exclusive applications accepted for H Block
licenses.
4. Determination of No Harmful Interference to the 1930-1995 MHz Band
11. The Commission is prohibited from granting initial licenses
under the Spectrum Act for the H Block if the Commission determines
that the H Block ``cannot be used without causing harmful
interference'' to commercial mobile licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band
(PCS downlink band). We note that the Spectrum Act does not define the
term ``harmful interference,'' and we propose to use the existing
definition of ``harmful interference'' in the Commission's rules. Under
the Commission's rules harmful interference is ``[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 International Telecommunications Union] Radio Regulations.''
12. Upper H Block. As detailed in the Band Plan section below, the
Commission allocated this spectrum for fixed and mobile use in 2003,
and it designated it for PCS/AWS base station operations and proposed
service rules to that effect in 2004. During the eight years that WT
Docket No. 04-356 has been pending, no party has filed technical data
and/or analysis indicating that base station operations in the Upper H
Block would cause harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink
band. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that licensing the Upper H
Block under flexible use service rules will not cause harmful
interference to commercial mobile licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band.
We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
13. Lower H Block. In 2004 the Commission designated this spectrum
for PCS/AWS mobile operations; paired with Upper H Block, after
concluding that harmful interference from Lower H Block to the PCS
downlink band could be addressed through appropriate service rules. In
WT Docket No. 04-356, commenters vigorously debated the power and out-
of-band emission limits necessary to avoid interference to mobiles
receiving in the PCS downlink band. Four PCS licensees proposed
technical rules for Lower H Block to avoid interference to PCS and at
least one PCS licensee continues to advocate for one of the earlier
proposals. As discussed in detail below, we propose a band plan and are
seeking comment on technical rules to avoid interference, including the
earlier proposals by PCS licensees. Accordingly, we tentatively
conclude that it will be possible to auction and license the Lower H
Block under flexible use service rules without causing harmful
interference to commercial mobile licensees in the PCS downlink (1930-
1995 MHz) band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Regarding
the proposed band plan and technical issues discussed in the sections
below, we ask that commenters proposing alternative band plans and/or
technical rules--including any alternative proposals that have been
previously submitted to the Commission--provide detailed analyses of
how their proposal will avoid harmful interference to licensees in the
PCS downlink band.
14. Alternatives, if Harmful Interference to PCS. If, contrary to
our expectation, the record results in a determination that licensing
the Upper H Block, the Lower H Block, or both, would cause harmful
interference to licensees in the PCS downlink band, section 6401(b)(4)
of the Spectrum Act nullifies the initial requirement in section
6401(b)(1)(a) that the Commission to allocate the interfering spectrum
for commercial use. We do not, however, believe that Congress intended
section 6401(b)(4)(a) to disturb allocations adopted prior to the
Spectrum Act. Rather, Congress intended section 6401(b)(4) to avoid
harmful interference to the millions of existing customers of PCS
licensees that might otherwise result from Commission actions
implementing the requirements in section 6401(b)(1) related to H Block.
Therefore, if we determine that the Lower H Block, the Upper H Block,
or both, cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS
licensees, we tentatively conclude that we may not under the Spectrum
Act auction and grant initial licenses, subject to flexible use service
rules, for the interfering spectrum. If we determine that half of the H
Block cannot be auctioned and licensed, we tentatively conclude that
the statute requires us to auction and license the half of the H Block
that would not cause harmful interference to PCS downlinks (i.e.,
either the Upper or Lower H Block). Accordingly, we ask commenters to
address what should be done in the alternative with the H Block or any
portion of the H Block that we determine cannot be licensed under the
Spectrum Act due to harmful interference to licensees in the PCS
downlink band. In particular, should any such spectrum be designated
for Unlicensed PCS (UPCS)?
[[Page 1170]]
B. Band Plan
15. In the following sections, we propose to license the H Block as
paired 5 megahertz blocks, with the Upper H Block used for high-power
base stations and the Lower H Block used for mobile and low power fixed
operations. We further propose to license the H Block by Economic
Areas. We invite commenters to propose other licensing areas including
for the Gulf of Mexico.
1. Block Configuration
16. In 2004, the Commission adopted the AWS Sixth Report and Order,
Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction
of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, 69 FR 62615 (Oct. 27, 2004), designating the H Block for
licensed fixed and mobile services, including advanced wireless
services, and pairing the 1915-1920 MHz band with the 1995-2000 MHz
band. The Commission decided to pair the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz bands because it found that pairing this spectrum would promote
efficient use of the spectrum, would allow for the introduction of
high-value services, and was otherwise preferable to the other options
that had been put forth.
17. In addition, the Commission contemplated that mobile operations
would be conducted in the Lower H Block. The Commission reasoned that
using the Lower H Block for low power operations would be advantageous
because the adjacent 1910-1915 MHz PCS band is used for mobile
operations and using the Lower H Block for high power base station
operations could result in harmful interference to the PCS band.
18. We see no reason to diverge from the reasoning in the AWS Sixth
Report and Order. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the 1915-
1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands should be paired as a single band. In
addition, we propose that high power base station operations will be
prohibited in the Lower H Block. We seek comments on the costs and
benefits of licensing the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands in this
manner. We also seek comment on alternate configurations of the H
Block. Commenters should address any technical issues implicated in an
alternate band plan, and should discuss the costs and benefits of any
alternative proposal.
2. Service Area
19. Geographic Area Licensing: We propose to adopt a geographic
area licensing scheme for the H Block because it is well-suited for the
types of fixed and mobile services that would likely be deployed in
these bands. Additionally, geographic-area licensing is consistent with
the Commission's licensing approach for the AWS-1, Broadband PCS,
Commercial 700 MHz bands, and AWS-4 bands. Based on the Commission's
experience administering these services, geographic area licensing: (1)
Provides licensees with substantial flexibility to respond to market
demand, which results in significant improvements in spectrum
utilization; (2) permits economies of scale because licensees can
coordinate usage across an entire geographic area to maximize spectrum
use; and, (3) reduces the regulatory burdens and transaction costs
because wide-area licensing does not require site-by-site approval so a
licensee can aggregate its service territories without incurring the
administrative costs and delays associated with site-by-site licensing.
We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of
adopting a geographic area licensing scheme.
20. In the event that commenters do not support geographic-area
licensing for the H Block, commenters should explain their position and
identify any alternative licensing proposals that they support,
including the costs and benefits associated with such alternative
proposals. Commenters should also address how an alternative licensing
approach would be consistent with the statutory requirement to assign
licenses in the H Block through competitive bidding and the statutory
objectives that the Commission is required to promote in establishing
methodologies for competitive bidding.
21. Service Area Size. We seek to adopt a service area size for the
H Block that meets several statutory goals. These include facilitating
access to spectrum by both small and large providers, providing for the
efficient use of the spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless
broadband services to consumers, especially those in rural areas, and
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
services consistent with our obligations under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act.
22. To accomplish these goals, we propose to license the H Block on
an Economic Area (EA) basis. The adjacent bands, both PCS and AWS-4,
are licensed on an EA basis. EAs are small enough to provide spectrum
access opportunities for smaller carriers but also may be aggregated up
to larger license areas to achieve economies of scale. We seek comment
on this approach and ask commenters to discuss and quantify the
economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of any
particular geographic scheme for this band, as well as the impact that
any such scheme would have on rural service and competition.
23. We also seek comment on whether we should license the H Block
on a nationwide basis. We seek comment on the extent to which
nationwide licenses maximize or limit the opportunity for licensees to
provide the widest array of services, and whether nationwide licenses
provide the necessary incentives to foster the growth of existing
technologies and the development of new technologies. We also ask
commenters to compare the advantages and disadvantages of nationwide
licensing to those of licensing by EAs, including economic and
financial considerations.
24. In response to the AWS-2 NPRM, some commenters argued that
licensing the H Block using smaller geographic areas than EAs would
accommodate its possible use as complementary spectrum to existing PCS
offerings. Other commenters agreed and also noted that small and rural
wireless providers would benefit if the Commission licensed the H Block
using smaller geographic areas than EAs. Would licensing the H Block by
areas smaller than EAs (e.g., Cellular Market Areas comprising
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs))
facilitate its use by smaller and rural operators? Would the benefits
of smaller licenses outweigh any potential diseconomies of scale? We
also seek comment on whether we should license the H Block by BTAs and
the associated costs and benefits of this approach. Are there other
geographic licensing methods that would better meet the stated goals
for this band?
3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico
25. In addition, we seek comment on how to license the Gulf of
Mexico. Should the Gulf of Mexico be part of another service area(s) or
should we separately license a service area(s) to cover the Gulf of
Mexico? Are there any public interest benefits that would be served by
creating a Gulf of Mexico licensing area? Further, would the interests
of the land based licensees be protected if we proceeded to license the
Gulf of Mexico? Commenters that advocate a separate service area(s) to
cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be used,
and whether special interference protection criteria or performance
requirements are
[[Page 1171]]
necessary due to the unique radio propagation characteristics and
antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf licensees.
C. Technical Issues
26. As discussed above, we are proposing that the Upper H Block be
used for base station (i.e., high power) operations, and the Lower H
Block for mobile and other low-power operations. In this section we
consider whether technical standards generally applicable to AWS and
PCS stations are appropriate for these bands, or whether different
standards are necessary to provide interference protection to services
operating in adjacent spectrum bands. In light of the Spectrum Act, and
our assessment of the relevant public interest benefits, a key goal in
this proceeding is to develop technical rules that will permit optimal
use of the H Block without causing harmful interference to commercial
mobile service licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band. In responding
to our inquiries, we ask commenting parties to provide test data and
specific technical analysis to support their positions.
1. Upper H Block: 1995-2000 MHz
27. Immediately below the Upper H Block is the 1930-1995 MHz PCS
band, which is used for base station transmit/mobile receive (i.e.,
downlink). The Commission has tentatively concluded that base stations
operating in the Upper H Block would be compatible with similar use of
the spectrum below 1995 MHz, and there would be no need to apply
technical standards more restrictive than those established for other
AWS stations. The record developed in WT Docket No. 04-356 does not
demonstrate any disagreement with this approach.
28. Immediately above the Upper H Block is the 2000-2020 MHz band,
which is allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed, Mobile, and Mobile
Satellite (Earth-to-space, i.e., for uplink mobile transmit/satellite
receive). In the AWS-4 Report and Order, we adopted service rules under
which 2000-2020 MHz will be licensed terrestrially for mobile transmit/
base station receive. Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, FCC 12-151. The Commission
has previously concluded that there is potential for mutual
interference between these two bands, and in WT Docket No. 04-356 MSS
commenters raised concerns. In the AWS-4 Report and Order, we concluded
that the public interest is best served by requiring AWS-4 uplinks to
operate at lower power levels in 2000-2005 MHz and emit lower emissions
below 2000 MHz. We further concluded that 2 GHz MSS operators and AWS-4
licensees must accept any harmful interference from future, lawful
operations in the Upper H Block due to out of band emissions in the
2000-2005 MHz band or receiver overload from transmitters operating
within the 1995-2000 MHz band.
a. Upper H Block Power Limits
29. We also propose to adopt the standard base station power limits
that apply to AWS and PCS stations: 1640 watts peak equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in non-rural areas and 3280 watts
peak EIRP in rural areas. We seek comment on this proposal.
b. Upper H Block Out of Band Emissions Limits
30. Given the considerations addressed above, we propose an out-of
band-emission (OOBE) limit for base stations of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where P is the transmit power in watts,
outside of the 1995-2000 MHz band. To provide some interference
mitigation to AWS-4 uplink operations above 2000 MHz while ensuring
that all of the Upper H Block spectrum can be used for more valuable
downlink operations, we propose a further OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz. We seek comment on our
proposals and any alternative proposals, including comments on the
associated costs and benefits of each proposal.
c. Co-Channel Interference Between Licensees Operating in Adjacent
Regions
31. If we ultimately decide to license this band on the basis of
geographic service areas that are less than nationwide (e.g., EAs), we
will have to ensure that such licensees do not cause interference to
co-channel systems operating along their common geographic borders. In
other services, the Commission has offered either a ``boundary limit''
or a ``coordination'' approach to provide interference protection
between co-channel licensees operating in these bands. Both approaches
have certain advantages and disadvantages. For example, coordination
would likely minimize the potential for interference to coordinated
stations, but could also impose unnecessary costs in coordinating
facilities that have a low potential for interference. A boundary limit
approach would establish an accepted standard, which would enable
licensees to deploy facilities in boundary areas without the need for
coordination; but could require some additional planning between
licensees to ensure that potential interference does not occur.
32. In other bands where spectrum has been allocated for fixed and
mobile services, we have uniformly adopted the boundary limit method to
minimize co-channel interference. For example, for the PCS and AWS-1
bands, which are closest in frequency to the H Block, there is a field
strength limit of 47 dB[mu]V/m at the boundary of licensed geographic
areas. We propose that the boundary limit approach should be adopted
for the H Block as the means for protecting licensees from co-channel
interference at their borders, and propose to specify a boundary field
strength limit of 47 dB[mu]V/m. We seek comment on these proposals. We
also ask whether, if the boundary limit method is adopted, we should
permit licensees operating in adjoining areas to employ alternative,
agreed-upon signal limits at their common borders.
2. Lower H Block: 1915-1920 MHz
33. Immediately below the Lower H Block is the 1850-1915 MHz PCS
band, which is used for mobile transmit/base receive. Use of the Lower
H Block for mobile transmit/base receive, as we have proposed, would be
compatible with this adjacent PCS band. Thus there would be no need to
apply technical standards more restrictive than those established for
AWS and PCS stations to protect PCS operations below 1915 MHz.
34. Above the Lower H Block is the 1920-1930 MHz unlicensed PCS
(UPCS) band, which does not require protection, and the 1930-1995 PCS
base transmit/mobile receive band. The latter presents protection
challenges for use of the Lower H Block. The Commission has previously
concluded that there is potential for mobile transmitters in the 1915-
1920 MHz band to cause out-of-band and overload interference to mobile
receivers in the 1930-1995 MHz band, but only when certain worst-case
conditions are all present. Specifically, ``[t]he worst case occurs
when the mobile transmitter is operating at maximum power (near the
edge of its service area) at the upper edge of the band (near 1920 MHz)
and the mobile receiver is trying to receive a weak signal (near the
edge of its service area) at the lower edge of the band (near 1930 MHz)
and only free space loss is considered.'' Additionally, both mobiles
must be in close proximity to each other, less than a few meters, and
in line-of-sight conditions. The Commission found that the confluence
of these worst-case circumstances is very infrequent and the risk of
actual interference is further mitigated by
[[Page 1172]]
normal network management practices such as handoff and power
management. Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that technical
standards more restrictive for Lower H Block than those established for
PCS may be appropriate to avoid impairing incumbent PCS operations
above 1930 MHz.
35. The Spectrum Act sharply focuses these concerns by requiring us
to auction the H Block spectrum unless we determine that the
frequencies cannot be used without causing harmful interference to
commercial mobile service licensees in the frequencies between 1930 MHz
and 1995 MHz (PCS downlink). We therefore wish to review previous
proposals for Lower H Block power and emissions limits, evaluate how
the interference environment may have changed since those earlier
discussions, and determine what limits are appropriate for the current
environment, and whether they may be increased in the future.
a. Lower H Block Power Limits
36. Several parties have expressed concern about the potential for
intermodulation interference, which can result from receiver overload,
impacting PCS user equipment (UEs) receiving in the PCS B Block (1950-
1965 MHz). In the 2008 FNPRM, the Commission proposed a limit on the
EIRP from H Block mobile transmitters of +23 dBm/MHz. In response,
Sprint and Verizon Wireless (both licensees of significant portions of
PCS including B Block) and Nextel reiterated their 2005 proposal for
gradated power limits to avoid interference to PCS as follows: A limit
on mobile EIRP of +6 dBm/MHz in the 1917-1920 MHz band, and a limit of
+30 dBm/MHz in the 1915-1917 MHz band. This proposal was supported by
testing of a variety of mobiles commissioned by CTIA in 2004. Sprint
has repeatedly and recently stated that the H Block can be auctioned
and licensed without interfering with PCS operations by using these
earlier-proposed, gradated power limits. AT&T, also a licensee of a
significant portion of PCS spectrum, including the B Block, did not
concur with the plan put forth by Sprint, Verizon and Nextel and
submitted an alternative solution. AT&T proposed a uniform,
``technologically neutral,'' -13 dBm/MHz power limit on the Lower H
Block to protect PCS, arguing that the split-band approach favored CDMA
over GSM and wideband technologies, such as W-CDMA and UMTS/HSPA. In
response to the AWS-4 NPRM AT&T favored leaving the H Block idle to
serve as a guard band to protect AWS-4 and PCS. More recently, AT&T
argues in the alternative that if the Commission proceeds with an
auction of the entire H Block despite AT&T's concerns, we should adopt
technical rules to protect PCS devices from harmful interference
including appropriate power limits on H Block mobiles.
37. We seek to establish technical requirements that will support
flexible use of this spectrum in accordance with the Spectrum Act
without causing harmful interference to PCS licensees. The record in WT
Docket No. 04-356 was largely developed between four and eight years
ago. Since then, the mobile broadband industry, including the wireless
network equipment sector, has undergone a rapid evolution. The
marketplace has seen greater adoption of wideband technologies such as
UMTS and LTE, as well as the authorization and launch of PCS services
in the G Block. Advances in mobile device development have unleashed
new designs and ushered in the advent of the smartphone. We seek
comment on how changes in the industry may have affected the
assumptions underlying previous analyses. How have filtering techniques
and duplex design improved? Given that the Commission's intentions to
authorize mobile service in the H Block have been known in the industry
since at least 2004, have better duplexer filters been employed in user
equipment? How has the population of mobile devices changed, what is
the mix of technologies in use in the marketplace, and what is the
performance of this new generation of devices?
38. We seek comment on the appropriate power limit for 1915-1920
MHz mobile devices in order to prevent interference to PCS operations.
Commenters are asked to submit detailed technical analyses or studies
in support of their recommendations and are encouraged to provide test
data wherever possible. The assumptions that underpin the analyses
should identify how harmful interference is defined. What probability
of interference is deemed acceptable (what percentage of mobiles, what
percentage of locations)? For example, the Commission's earlier
proposal, 23 dBm/MHz, was based on a mobile separation of two meters
between users, while others argued for a one-meter separation.
Likewise, is defining harmful interference based on degradation to a
receiver's noise floor appropriate for a system which is inherently
interference-limited? If stricter limitations on mobile transmit power
are deemed necessary to protect current legacy devices, should the
power limits sunset after a period of time, allowing time for new, more
resilient mobiles to comprise the bulk of the mobile population? How
much time will licensees need to obtain and deploy UEs with the better
filters, if better filters are still needed? How long will consumers'
legacy UEs need to be protected? We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of alternative power limits.
39. The 1915-1920 MHz band is also allocated for fixed services, so
fixed stations will be allowed to operate in the band. However, because
fixed station antennas are generally located some distance above ground
level, the possibility of interference from fixed stations to PCS
mobiles will likely be less than the anticipated interference from
1915-1920 MHz mobiles to PCS mobiles. We therefore believe that 1915-
1920 MHz fixed stations should be permitted to employ a higher power
level than mobiles operating in that band. We seek comment as to what
that power level should be.
b. Lower H Block Out of Band Emissions Limits
40. The Commission has previously concluded that, in certain
circumstances, attenuating transmitter OOBEs by 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB is appropriate to minimize harmful
electromagnetic interference between operators. This limit is generally
applied in cases where adjacent services have similar characteristics,
such as base-to-base or mobile-to-mobile and adhere to similar power
limits. This limit has served well as a basis for development of
industry standards which may impose tighter limits in some cases. An
OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB applies to most of the
services authorized under parts 24 and 27. In particular, this is the
limit imposed on transmitters operating in both the 1930-1995 MHz PCS
band and the 1920-1930 MHz UPCS band adjacent to the Lower H Block. As
both of these services in adjacent bands provide for mobiles with
similar power, the same OOBE limit appears appropriate for the Lower H
Block. The Commission therefore proposes to require attenuation of 43 +
10 log10 (P) to emissions from transmitters in the 1915-1920
MHz band.
41. The risk of mobile-to-mobile interference discussed below may
require a further OOBE limitation to protect against the potential for
interference from the out-of band emissions of Lower H Block
transmitters into PCS mobiles receiving in the 1930-1995 MHz band.
Currently, the Commission's rules require licensees
[[Page 1173]]
operating in the 1850-1915 MHz PCS band to comply with the 43 + 10
log10 P dB OOBE limit at the edge of their authorized
spectrum block. This level of required attenuation of emissions with
respect to the transmitter power can be translated into a power
spectral density of -13 dBm/MHz for out-of-band emissions. We are aware
that PCS-industry standards require equipment manufacturers to
incorporate a stronger OOBE suppression capability in PCS mobiles. In
the 2008 FNPRM, the Commission proposed a stricter limit on out of band
emissions from Lower H Block transmitters of -60 dBm/MHz in the
frequency range of 1930-1990 MHz (PCS downlink band), equivalent to an
attenuation of 90 + 10 log10 (P) dB. The joint proposal of
Sprint, Verizon and Nextel requested a limit of -76 dBm/MHz. Their
analysis assumed a one-meter separation and mobile receivers operating
in noise-limited faded signal conditions, and included test data
commissioned by CTIA. Most of the mobiles tested met this limit. The -
76 dBm/MHz specification is also the industry standard for CDMA devices
under TIA-98F. Ericsson and Motorola submitted comments supporting the
use of industry standards as the basis for OOBE limits and cited -61
dBm/MHz for the GSM Standard, with Motorola citing -76 dBm/MHz for the
CDMA standard. Ericsson provided a later submission specifically
supporting a limit of -66 dBm/MHz. Motorola, responding to CTIA's
measurements, noted the failure of two GSM devices to meet the tighter
CDMA-based OOBE limits of -76 dBm/MHz and thus advocated a limit of -71
dBm/100 kHz, which is equivalent to -61 dBm/MHz.
42. As discussed earlier, there has been considerable technological
advancement in devices and technologies deployed in the mobile
broadband industry since this issue was last under review. We note that
many of the arguments for proposed OOBE limits were linked to industry
standards at the time. The 3GPP standard for emerging 4G technology
allows for a higher level of OOBE, generally -50 dBm/MHz in most bands,
but has implemented a limit of -40 dBm/MHz in several bands. The
current LTE standards for the use in PCS requires mobiles in 1850-1915
MHz to meet a limit of -50 dBm/MHz in 1930-1995 MHz. In this and the
concurrent AWS-4 proceeding, Sprint has expressed support for an OOBE
limit of -40 dBm/MHz from AWS-4 transmitters into the PCS downlink band
at 1930-1995 MHz. In the AWS-4 Report and Order we apply the limit of
70 + 10 log10(P) dB, which is equivalent to -40 dBm/MHz, to
all emissions below 2000 MHz. We believe that the current capabilities
for mobile device manufacturers will support this level of tolerance
for interference. Given that other operations may already be imposing
out-of-band emissions at the -40 dBm/MHz level, should the Commission
adopt this limit specifically for Lower H Block emissions in the 1930-
1995 MHz range?
43. The consensus from the record developed in WT Docket No. 04-356
supports the creation of a specific OOBE limit for emissions from Lower
H Block transmitters into the 1930-1995 MHz band, even though no other
PCS mobiles are subject to such tighter limits in this band. We seek
comment on the appropriate OOBE limit for the Lower H Block necessary
to prevent interference to PCS operations. Commenters are asked to
submit detailed technical analyses or studies in support of their
recommendations and are encouraged to provide test data wherever
possible. As with comments regarding power limits, the assumptions that
underpin the analyses should identify how harmful interference is
defined. What probability of interference is deemed acceptable (what
percentage of mobiles, what percentage of locations)? For example, the
Commission's earlier proposal was based on a mobile separation of two
meters between users, while others argued for a one-meter separation.
Commenters should also discuss if certain limits favor or prohibit
certain technologies, and are therefore not technologically neutral.
For example, would imposing a limit of -76 dBm/MHz favor CDMA2000 over
LTE, because CDMA2000 specifies -76 dBm/MHz for this band, while LTE
specifies only -50 dBm/MHz? If stricter limitations on OOBE are deemed
necessary to protect current legacy devices, should these limits sunset
after a period of time, allowing time for new, more resilient mobiles
to comprise the bulk of the mobile population? How much time will
licensees need to obtain and deploy UEs with the better filters? How
long will consumers' legacy UEs need to be protected? We also seek
comment on the costs and benefits of alternative OOBE limits.
44. To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules
generally specify details on how to measure the power of the emissions,
such as the measurement bandwidth. For the Broadband PCS band, the
measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for
mobile stations is one MHz or greater, with some modification in the
one-MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block
where a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be
employed. We believe that it is reasonable to apply this same procedure
to transmissions in the 1915-1920 MHz band.
3. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
45. Section 27.57(c) of our rules provides that AWS-1 operations
are subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada. We
propose to use this approach for the H Block. Until such time as any
adjusted agreements between the United States, Mexico and/or Canada can
be agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across the
border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force.
We note that our proposed rules, and any rules that may ultimately
become effective pursuant to the above-captioned proceeding, may need
to be modified to comply with any future agreements with Canada and
Mexico regarding the use of the H Block. We seek comment on this issue,
including the costs and benefits, and on any alternative approaches to
this issue.
4. Other Technical Issues
46. Part 27 contains several additional technical rules applicable
to all part 27 services, including Sec. 27.51 (Equipment
authorization), Sec. 27.52 (RF safety), Sec. 27.54 (Frequency
stability), Sec. 27.56 (Antennas structures; air navigation safety),
and Sec. 27.63 (Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns).
As we are proposing to license the H Block as Advanced Wireless
Services under part 27, we propose that all of these part 27 technical
rules should apply to all H Block licenses and licensees, including
licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation. We seek comment on this approach including comments on
the associated costs and benefits.
47. We recognize that H Block, governed under part 27 rules, is
adjacent to Broadband PCS spectrum administered under part 24. The
adjacent blocks are harmonized with the same uplink/downlink
configuration. It is possible that the licensee of a PCS G Block
geographic area may also acquire the authorization for the adjoining H
Block through the competitive bidding process. In that event, the
licensee may wish to deploy a wider channel bandwidth operating across
both bands, and we believe that such flexibility is appropriate. For
one thing, wider channel bandwidths may provide higher data rates and
potentially more efficient use of the spectrum. The potential for
[[Page 1174]]
this situation raises questions about the possible effects of the
combined blocks operating under different rule parts. Under the
technical rules proposed herein, the limits on OOBE and power are
similar, but not precisely the same. We anticipate that the licensee's
combined operations should satisfy the more restrictive limit if a
conflict arises. For example, an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB applies to both the Upper G Block and the Upper H block.
However, the Upper H Block has an additional requirement to meet an
OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz. The
combined operations of both blocks would still need to meet this
tighter restriction above 2005 MHz. We further propose that to the
extent a service provider establishes unified operations across the
adjacent blocks, the operator may choose not to observe emission limits
strictly between its adjacent block licenses in a geographic area, so
long as it complies with other Commission rules and is not adversely
affecting the operations of other parties by virtue of exceeding the
emission limit. We seek comment on this observation. We also seek
comment to identify potential conflicts between the two rule parts
under this scenario and proposals on how they could be reconciled.
Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs and benefits
associated with such combined operations and any effects on
competition, innovation and investment.
D. Cost Sharing
1. 1915-1920 MHz Band
48. The 1915-1920 MHz band is a subset of a larger band at 1910-
1930 MHz that is allocated for Fixed and Mobile services on a primary
basis. In 1993, the Commission designated the 1910-1930 MHz band for
use by Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) devices. Prior
to 1993, the 1910-1930 MHz band was allocated for Fixed services and
used for fixed point to point microwave links. To facilitate the
introduction of UPCS systems, the Commission designated the Unlicensed
PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2 GHz Microwave Transition and Management (now
known as ``UTAM, Inc.'') as the sole entity to coordinate and manage
the transition. In accordance with the Commission's policies
established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding, UTAM subsequently
relocated virtually all of the incumbent microwave links, thereby
clearing the 1910-1930 MHz band for use by UPCS systems.
49. In 2003, the Commission sought comment on re-designating all or
a portion of the 1910-1920 MHz segment for AWS use. In 2004, the
Commission re-designated the 1910-1915 MHz band from the UPCS to Fixed
and Mobile services and assigned that spectrum to Sprint Nextel, Inc.
(``Sprint'') as replacement spectrum for Sprint's operations being
relocated from the 800 MHz band. Shortly thereafter, the Commission re-
designated the 1915-1920 MHz band from UPCS for use by licensed AWS
operations. In so doing, the Commission acknowledged that ``UTAM must
be fully and fairly reimbursed for relocating incumbent microwave users
in this band'' and agreed ``that UTAM should be made whole for the
investments it has made in clearing the UPCS bands.'' Relative to the
Lower H Block, the Commission specifically concluded that ``UTAM is
entitled to reimbursement of twenty-five percent--on a pro-rata basis--
of the total costs it has incurred, including its future payment
obligations for links it has relocated, as of the date that a new
entrant gains access to the 1915-1920 MHz spectrum band.'' The
Commission also determined that AWS licensees would be required to pay
their portion of the 25 percent of costs prior to commencement of their
operations.
50. In the AWS-2 NPRM, the Commission requested comments on methods
for apportioning the relocation costs among H Block licensees,
including what method of allocating relocation costs would be most
advantageous to reimbursing UTAM and for providing certainty for
bidders. The AWS-2 NPRM also sought comment on what rules should govern
the allocation of relocation costs among multiple AWS licensees in the
1915-1920 MHz band. Because UTAM requested that reimbursement payments
from AWS licensees be due as a precondition to the granting of a
license, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be
advantageous to require AWS licensees to reimburse UTAM for its band
clearing costs ``earlier than the commencement of actual service.'' To
the extent that the Commission opted not to do so, the Commission also
sought comment on whether it should specify when AWS entrants will be
considered to have commenced operations.
51. In deciding how to apportion UTAM's reimbursement among H Block
licensees in the 1915-1920 MHz band, we believe it is important to
provide auction bidders with reasonable certainty as to the range of
the reimbursement obligation associated with each license under various
auction outcomes. We also believe it is important for UTAM to be fully
reimbursed as soon as possible given that UTAM cleared the band over
ten years ago. Accordingly, we propose to require H Block licensees to
pay a pro rata amount of the 25 percent owed to UTAM based on the gross
winning bids of the initial H Block auction. Specifically, we propose
that the reimbursement amount owed (``RN'') be determined by dividing
the gross winning bid (``GWB'') for an H Block license (i.e., an
individual EA) by the sum of the gross winning bids for all H Block
licenses won in the initial auction and then multiplying by
$12,629,857. In other words, the cost-sharing formula would read as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.011
52. This formula would ensure that UTAM receives full reimbursement
after the first auction by effectively apportioning the reimbursement
costs associated with any unsold H Block licenses among the winning
bidders of H Block licenses in the first auction--with an exception in
the event a successful bidder's long-form application is not filed or
granted, and a contingency to cover an unlikely scenario. We further
propose that winning bidders of H Block licenses in the first auction
of this spectrum would not have a right to seek reimbursement from
other H Block licensees including for licenses awarded in subsequent
auctions. We believe this approach would avoid recordkeeping burdens
and potential disputes and that it is appropriate given that--in the
event that most licenses are awarded--the reimbursement obligation for
an individual license will represent but a fraction of overall
reimbursement to UTAM. We seek comment on our proposals including the
following
[[Page 1175]]
contingency: in the unlikely event that licenses covering less than 40
percent of the population of the United States are awarded in the first
auction, we propose that winning bidders--in the first auction of this
spectrum as well as in subsequent auctions--will be required to timely
pay UTAM their pro rata share calculated by dividing the population of
the individual EA awarded at auction by the total U.S. population and
then multiplying by $12,629,857. This contingent proposal would ensure
that UTAM is reimbursed as soon as possible while also protecting
winning bidders of H Block licenses from bearing an undue burden of the
reimbursement obligation due to UTAM. We seek comment on our proposal.
53. Alternatively, we specifically seek comment on the relative
costs and benefits of adopting a population based cost-sharing formula
as the general rule for the H Block. We acknowledge that using a
population based approach in all events would offer bidders certainty
as to the obligation attached to each license but this approach could
also defer UTAM's full reimbursement indefinitely if less than all of
the licenses are awarded during the initial auction.
54. We further propose that winning bidders promptly pay UTAM the
amount owed, as calculated pursuant to the formula that we adopt,
within 30 days of grant of their long form applications for the
licenses. For PCS and AWS-1, and AWS-4, cost sharing obligations are
triggered when a licensee proposes to operate a base station in an area
cleared of incumbents by another licensee. In this case, however,
UTAM's members received no benefit for clearing the Lower H Block
nationwide over ten years ago, and the Commission determined in 2003
that the new PCS/AWS licensees entering the band would reap the
benefits of UTAM's efforts and that UTAM should be fully reimbursed.
Moreover, as noted above, given the relative fraction of overall
reimbursement to UTAM that will be owed by each winning bidder, we
believe that it will not disincentivize parties from filing
applications or impose a burden on winning bidders to reimburse UTAM
within 30 days of the grant of their long-form applications. We seek
comment on the above proposals, including the costs and benefits.
2. 1995-2000 MHz Band
55. The 1995-2000 MHz band is part of the 1990-2025 MHz band that
the Commission reallocated from the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS)
to emerging technologies such as PCS, AWS, and MSS. Consistent with the
relocation principles established by the Commission, each new entrant
had an independent responsibility to relocate incumbent BAS licensees.
In addition, as a general rule, the Commission's traditional cost-
sharing principles are applicable to the 1990-2025 MHz band. Sprint,
which is the PCS licensee at 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS
transition for the entire 35 megahertz in 2010. In 2011, Sprint
notified the Commission that it entered in a private settlement with
DISH to resolve the dispute with MSS licensees with respect to MSS
licensees' obligation to reimburse Sprint for their share of the BAS
relocation costs. Accordingly, the only remaining cost-sharing
obligations in the 1990-2025 MHz band are attributable to the
remaining, unassigned ten megahertz of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz
band: 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz.
56. In the AWS Sixth Report and Order, the Commission determined
that all new entrants to the 1990-2025 MHz band may be required to bear
a proportional share of the costs incurred in the BAS clearance, on a
pro rata basis according to the amount of spectrum each licensee is
assigned. However, the Commission did not decide specifically how to
allocate that share. In the AWS-2 NPRM, the Commission sought comment
on how the reimbursement rights and obligations of each AWS licensee
could be most efficiently and equitably allocated if the H Block were
licensed on a geographic area basis other than as a nationwide license.
To the extent that not all spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band would
have been licensed, the Commission sought comment on whether to require
those entrants who are licensed at that time to bear a pro rata share
of the relocation costs based on the amount of spectrum they have been
assigned relative to the amount of 1990-2025 MHz spectrum that has been
licensed. In addition, the Commission also sought comment on whether to
impose reimbursement obligations on later arriving new entrants, on the
appropriate length of such an obligation, and on the mechanism for
applying those obligations.
57. Consistent with the Commission's intent that all entrants to
the 1990-2025 MHz band bear a proportional share of the costs incurred
in the BAS clearance on a pro rata basis according to the amount of
spectrum each entrant is assigned, H Block licensees will be
responsible for reimbursing Sprint for one-seventh of the BAS
relocation costs (i.e., the proportional share of the costs associated
with Sprint relocating 5 megahertz of BAS spectrum that will be used by
H Block entrants). We believe it is important to provide auction
bidders with reasonable certainty as to the range of the reimbursement
obligation associated with each license under various auction outcomes.
We also believe it is important for Sprint to be fully reimbursed as
soon as possible given that Sprint cleared the H Block so H Block
licensees will receive unencumbered spectrum. Accordingly, we propose
to require H Block licensees to reimburse Sprint based on the gross
winning bids of the initial H Block auction. Specifically, we propose
that the reimbursement amount owed (``RN'') be determined by dividing
the gross winning bid (``GWB'') for an H Block license (i.e., an
individual EA) by the sum of the gross winning bids for all H Block
licenses won in the initial auction and then multiplying by
$94,875,516. In other words, the cost-sharing formula would read as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.012
Because certain EAs, such as for the Gulf of Mexico, have a relative
value that is not directly tied to population, our proposal seeks to
allow the market to determine the value of each EA license and the
associated amount of the reimbursement obligation. However, parties can
comment on alternative cost-sharing formulas, including one based on
population as described below. We seek comment on our proposals.
58. This formula would ensure that Sprint receives full
reimbursement after the first auction by effectively apportioning the
reimbursement costs associated with any unsold H Block licenses among
the winning bidders of
[[Page 1176]]
H Block licenses in the first auction--with an exception in the event a
successful bidder's long-form application is not filed or granted, and
a contingency to cover an unlikely scenario. We further propose that
winning bidders of H Block licenses in the first auction of this
spectrum would not have a right to seek reimbursement from other H
Block licensees including for licenses awarded in subsequent auctions.
We believe this approach would avoid recordkeeping burdens and
potential disputes and that it is appropriate given that--in the event
that most licenses are awarded--the reimbursement obligation for an
individual license will represent but a fraction of overall
reimbursement to Sprint. We seek comment on our proposals including the
following contingency: In the unlikely event that licenses covering
less than 40 percent of the population of the United States are awarded
in the first auction, we propose that winning bidders--in the first
auction of this spectrum as well as in subsequent auctions--will be
required to timely pay Sprint their pro rata share calculated by
dividing the population of the individual EA awarded at auction by the
total U.S. population and then multiplying by $94,875,516. This
contingent proposal would ensure that Sprint is reimbursed as soon as
possible while also protecting winning bidders of H Block licenses from
bearing an undue burden of the reimbursement obligation due to Sprint.
We seek comment on our proposal.
59. Alternatively, we specifically seek comment on the relative
costs and benefits of adopting a population based cost-sharing formula
as the general rule for the H Block. We acknowledge that using a
population based approach in all events would offer bidders certainty
as to the obligation attached to each license but this approach could
also defer Sprint's full reimbursement indefinitely if less than all of
the licenses are awarded during the initial auction.
60. We further propose that winning bidders promptly pay Sprint the
amount owed, as calculated pursuant to the formula that we adopt,
within 30 days of grant of their long form applications for the
licenses. For PCS and AWS-1, and AWS-4, cost sharing obligations are
triggered when a licensee proposes to operate a base station in an area
cleared of incumbents by another licensee. In this case, rather than
Sprint itself benefiting from its band clearing efforts, other entrants
in the band will reap the benefits of Sprint's efforts. Accordingly, we
find no significant reason to treat Sprint any differently than UTAM
and propose that Sprint be fully reimbursed by AWS licensees that will
benefit from Sprint's clearing of the H Block. Moreover, as noted
above, given the relative fraction of overall reimbursement to Sprint
that will be owed by each winning bidder, we believe that it will not
disincentivize parties from filing applications or impose a burden on
winning bidders to reimburse Sprint within 30 days of the grant of
their long-form applications. We seek comment on the above proposals,
including the costs and benefits.
61. Consistent with precedent, we propose a specific date on which
the reimbursement obligation adopted above will terminate. In recent
instances, the relocation and cost-sharing obligations sunset ten years
after the first ET license is issued in the respective band. To the
extent that Sprint had not completed the relocation of BAS from the
1990-2025 MHz band, BAS operations in the band would have become
secondary after December 9, 2013. However, in this instance, we do not
believe that the public interest would be served by adopting December
9, 2013 as the sunset date for terminating the requirement that H Block
licensees collectively reimburse Sprint for one-seventh of the BAS
relocation costs. Rather, we propose a sunset date for the cost-sharing
obligations of H Block licensees to Sprint that is ten years after the
first H Block license is issued in the band. We find that a number of
factors support our proposal. As discussed above, Sprint relocated BAS
incumbents from the 1995-2000 MHz band, even though H Block licensees
and not Sprint itself will reap the benefits of Sprint's relocation of
BAS. In addition, the integrated nature of BAS operations required
relocations on a market-by-market basis, and such a requirement would
have imposed significant costs on individual H Block entrants because
isolated, link-by-link relocation was infeasible. It therefore served
the public interest for Sprint to undertake the relocation on an
integrated, nationwide basis. Because H Block licenses have yet to be
auctioned and because interested applicants will be able to calculate
their reimbursement obligation to Sprint in bidding on licenses, we do
not believe that our proposal imposes a burden on the winning bidders
of H Block licenses. We seek comment on our proposed sunset date,
including the costs and benefits.
E. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules
62. We are proposing licensing and operating rules that will
provide H Block licensees with the flexibility to provide any fixed or
mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for this
spectrum. Specifically, we are seeking comment on the appropriate
license term, criteria for renewal, and other licensing and operating
rules pertaining to the H Block. In addition, we seek comment on the
potential impact of all of our proposals on competition. In addressing
these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and benefits
associated with these proposals and any alternative that commenters
propose.
1. Regulatory Status
63. We propose to apply the regulatory status provisions of Sec.
27.10 of the Commission's rules to licensees in the H Block. The
Commission's current mobile service license application requires an
applicant for mobile services to identify the regulatory status of the
service(s) it intends to provide because service offerings may bear on
eligibility and other statutory and regulatory requirements. Under part
27, the Commission permits applicants who may wish to provide both
common carrier and non-common carrier services (or to switch between
them) under a single license to request status as both a common carrier
and a non-common carrier. Thus, a part 27 applicant is not required to
choose between providing common carrier and non-common carrier
services. We propose to adopt this same approach here. Licensees in the
H Block would be able to provide all allowable services anywhere within
their licensed area at any time, consistent with their regulatory
status. We believe that this approach is likely to achieve efficiencies
in the licensing and administrative process, and provide flexibility to
the marketplace. We seek comment on the appropriate licensing approach
and ask that commenters discuss the costs and benefits of their
proposed licensing approach.
64. We further propose that applicants and licensees in the H Block
be required to indicate a regulatory status for any services they
choose to provide. Apart from this designation of regulatory status, we
do not propose to require applicants to describe the services they seek
to provide. We caution potential applicants that an election to provide
service on a common carrier basis typically requires that the elements
of common carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-
common carrier status. If potential applicants are
[[Page 1177]]
unsure of the nature of their services and their classification as
common carrier services, they may submit a petition with their
applications, or at any time, requesting clarification and including
service descriptions for that purpose. We propose to apply this
framework to H Block licensees and seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of this proposal.
65. We also propose that if a licensee were to change the service
or services it offers such that it would be inconsistent with its
regulatory status, the licensee must notify the Commission. A change in
a licensee's regulatory status would not require prior Commission
authorization, provided the licensee was in compliance with the foreign
ownership requirements of section 310(b) of the Communications Act that
would apply as a result of the change, consistent with the Commission's
rules for AWS-1 spectrum. Consistent with our part 27 rules, we propose
to require licensees to file the notification within 30 days of a
change made without the need for prior Commission approval, except that
a different time period may apply where the change results in the
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the existing service. We
seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits.
2. Ownership Restrictions
a. Foreign Ownership Reporting
66. We propose to apply the provisions of Sec. 27.12 of the
Commission's rules to applicants for licenses in the H Block. Section
27.12 implements section 310 of the Communications Act, including
foreign ownership and citizenship requirements that restrict the
issuance of licenses to certain applicants. An applicant requesting
authorization to provide services in this band other than broadcast,
common carrier, aeronautical en route, and aeronautical fixed services
would be subject to the restrictions in section 310(a), but not to the
additional restrictions in section 310(b). An applicant requesting
authorization for broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, or
aeronautical fixed services would be subject to both sections 310(a)
and 310(b). We do not believe that applicants for this band should be
subject to different obligations in reporting their foreign ownership
based on the type of service authorization requested in the
application. Consequently, we propose to require all applicants to
provide the same foreign ownership information, which covers both
sections 310(a) and 310(b), regardless of which service they propose to
provide in the band. We note, however, that we would be unlikely to
deny a license to an applicant requesting to provide exclusively
services that are not subject to section 310(b), solely because its
foreign ownership would disqualify it from receiving a license if the
applicant had applied for authority to provide such services. However,
if any such licensee later desires to provide any services that are
subject to the restrictions in section 310(b) we would require the
licensee to apply to the Commission for an amended license, and we
would consider issues related to foreign ownership at that time. We
request comment on this proposal, including any costs and benefits.
b. Eligibility and Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies
67. We propose to adopt an open eligibility standard for the H
Block. We believe that adopting such a standard should encourage
efforts to develop new technologies, products and services, while
helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum. An open eligibility
standard is consistent with the Commission's past practice for mobile
wireless spectrum allocations, as well as with section 6404 of the
Spectrum Act. We seek comment on our open eligibility approach.
68. We note that an open eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications
that may apply under our rules. Additionally, section 6004 of the
Spectrum Act restricts participation in auctions required under the
Spectrum Act, which includes the H Block, by ``person[s] who [have]
been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an
auction, or receiving a grant.'' We seek comment on our proposal to
address this issue in the competitive bidding procedures section below.
Further, as the Commission observed in the Incentive Auction NPRM,
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through
Incentive Auctions, 77 FR 69934 (Nov. 21, 2012) (Incentive Auction
NPRM), section 6004 does not address eligibility to acquire licenses on
the secondary market from the initial or subsequent licensee. We seek
comment on whether section 6004 permits or requires the Commission to
restrict eligibility of the persons described therein to acquire
licenses in the secondary market, and whether and to what extent such
restriction is consistent with other provisions of the Communications
Act. If such restrictions should be implemented, should we do so by
requiring certifications in applications similar to those required
under our rules for enforcement of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988?
Would it be permissible and appropriate to address such situations on a
case-by-case basis in light of the specific facts and circumstances?
Should we apply the same attribution rules in doing so, where the
relevant person is not the sole owner of the proposed licensee?
69. We seek comment generally on whether and how to address any
mobile spectrum holdings issues involving H Block spectrum in order to
meet our statutory requirements and our goals for the H Block. Section
309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act provides that in designing
systems of competitive bidding, the Commission shall ``promot[e]
economic opportunity and competition and ensur[e] that new and
innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people
by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses.'' More recently,
section 6404 of the Spectrum Act recognizes the Commission's authority
``to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules
concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' We note
that we recently initiated a proceeding to revisit the mobile spectrum
holdings policies that apply to both transactions and auctions. In the
past, the Commission has sought comment on these issues with respect to
particular spectrum bands prior to auctioning spectrum licenses.
70. We seek comment on whether the acquisition of H Block spectrum
should be subject to the same general mobile spectrum holding policies
applicable to frequency bands that the Commission has determined to be
available and suitable for wireless services. Alternatively, depending
on the specific rules and requirements that apply to H Block spectrum,
should we distinguish H Block spectrum for purposes of evaluating
mobile spectrum holdings? Commenters should discuss and quantify any
costs and benefits associated with any proposals on the applicability
of spectrum holdings policies to H Block spectrum.
3. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Criteria, Permanent
Discontinuance of Operations
a. License Term
71. We propose to establish a 10-year term for licenses for the H
Block. The Communications Act does not specify a term limit for AWS
band licenses. The
[[Page 1178]]
Commission has adopted 10-year license terms for most wireless radio
services licenses. To maintain this consistency among wireless
services, in the AWS-2 NPRM, the Commission proposed that H Block
licenses have a term of 10 years. We continue to believe that a 10-year
license term is appropriate, and consequently propose, a 10 year
license term for the H Block spectrum. We seek comment on this
proposal, including any costs and benefits of the proposal. In
addition, we invite commenters to submit alternate proposals for the
appropriate license term, which should similarly include a discussion
on the costs and benefits.
72. Under our license term proposal, if a license in these bands is
partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be
authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's
or disaggregator's original license term. This approach is similar to
the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for BRS, for
broadband PCS licensees, for the 700 MHz band licensees, and for AWS-1
licenses at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz, and AWS-4. We emphasize
that nothing in our proposal is intended to enable a licensee, by
partitioning or disaggregating the license, to confer greater rights
than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant. Similarly,
nothing in our proposal is intended to enable any partitionee or
disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed
by the underlying licensee. We seek comment on these proposals,
including the cost and benefits thereof.
b. Performance Requirements
73. The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote
the efficient deployment of wireless services, including to rural
areas, and ensure that spectrum is used. Over the years, the Commission
has applied different performance and construction requirements to
different spectrum bands. For example, within four (4) years, an AWS-4
licensee must provide reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer
terrestrial service to at least forty (40) percent of its total AWS-4
population. Within seven (7) years, an AWS-4 licensee must provide
reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to
at least seventy (70) percent of the population in each of its license
areas. Similarly, for licensees operating in the 2.3 GHz Wireless
Communications Services (WCS) band, the Commission adopted performance
requirements that included a population-based construction requirements
(40 percent of the license area's population within four (4) years and
75 percent within six-and-a-half (6.5) years) and reporting
requirements. In the AWS-2 NPRM, the Commission broadly sought comment
on whether it should establish any specific performance requirements in
the H Block, including interim performance requirements.
74. Today, we continue to believe that performance requirements
play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie
fallow, and now propose to establish the following performance
requirements. We seek comment on the following buildout requirements
for the H Block:
H Block Interim Buildout Requirement: Within four (4)
years, an H Block licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its
license areas.
H Block Final Buildout Requirement: By the end of the
license term, i.e., within ten (10) years, an H Block licensee shall
provide signal coverage and offer service to at least seventy (70)
percent of the population in each of its license areas.
75. We propose these performance requirements in an effort to
foster deployment expeditiously in the H Block for the provision of
wireless, terrestrial broadband service, and to enable the Commission
to take appropriate corrective action should such deployment fail to
occur. Specifically, the interim benchmark at four years would ensure
that a licensee begins deploying facilities quickly, thereby evidencing
meaningful utilization of the spectrum. At the same time, by proposing
a relatively low population threshold in the interim benchmark, we
acknowledge that large-scale network deployment may ramp up over time
as equipment becomes available and a customer base is established. In
addition, by proposing a final buildout requirement timeline of ten
years, we believe we allow a reasonable amount of time for any H Block
licensee to attain nationwide scale.
76. We seek comment on these proposed buildout requirements. We
encourage comment on whether our proposals represent the appropriate
balance between requirements that are too low as to not result in
meaningful buildout and those that would be so high as to be
unattainable. We also seek comment on whether other benchmarks
represent more appropriate requirements? Commenters should discuss and
quantify how any supported buildout requirements will affect investment
and innovation as well as discuss and quantify other costs and benefits
associated with the proposal.
77. Agreements between H Block and AWS-4 licensees. In the AWS-4
Report and Order, we permit AWS-4 licensees to enter into private
operator-to-operator agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to so
that AWS-4 operations above 2000 MHz may have an OOBE level in excess
of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB into the 1995-2000 MHz band. In the
event that an AWS-4 licensee reaches such an agreement with all 1995-
2000 MHz licensees, should the H Block licensees' performance
requirements be reduced or eliminated because accepting a higher OOBE
level increases the use of the 2000-2005 MHz band? Implementing such an
approach would enable a market-based solution for AWS-4 licensees who
seek to remove technical rules designed to protect the H Block, by
allowing them to acquire H Block licenses at auction (or, later, on the
secondary market) and prioritize deployment of AWS-4 over H Block.
78. Penalties for Failure to Meet Construction Requirements. Along
with construction benchmarks, we seek to adopt meaningful and
enforceable consequences, or penalties, for failing to meet the
benchmarks. Building on what we have learned from other bands and
considering the unique characteristics of the H Block, we propose and
seek comment, including on the costs and benefits, of the following
penalties in the event an H Block licensee fails to satisfy its
buildout requirements:
In the event an H Block licensee fails to meet the H Block
Interim Buildout Requirement in its license area, the term of the
license shall be reduced by two years.
In the event an H Block licensee fails to meet the H Block
Final Buildout Requirement in its license area, the H Block license for
each license area in which it fails to meet the buildout requirement
shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
79. We further propose that, in the event a licensee's authority to
operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would become
available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's
rules for other spectrum bands, including AWS-1 and the Broadband Radio
Service, we propose that any H Block licensee who forfeits its license
for failure to meet its performance requirements would be precluded
from regaining the license.
80. Compliance Procedures. Consistent with Sec. 1.946(d) of the
Commission's rules, we propose to
[[Page 1179]]
require H Block licensees to demonstrate compliance with the
performance requirements by filing a construction notification within
15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that they have met the
applicable performance benchmark. Further, we propose that each
construction notification include electronic coverage maps and
supporting documentation, which must be truthful and accurate and must
not omit material information that is necessary for the Commission to
determine compliance with its performance requirements.
81. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries
of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, we
propose that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area
or areas within each license area not being served. Further, we propose
that each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying
the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its
service territory and the type of technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the
signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the
licensee's technology.
c. Renewal Criteria
82. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act, the
Commission may require renewal applicants to ``set forth such facts as
the Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship,
character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the
applicant to operate the station'' as well as ``such other information
as it may require.'' We propose to adopt H Block license renewal
requirements consistent with those adopted in the 700 MHz First Report
and Order and the AWS-4 Report and Order, which form the basis of the
renewal paradigm proposed in our Wireless Radio Services Renewal NPRM.
See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, 72 FR
24238 (May 2, 2007) (700 MHz First Report and Order); AWS-4 Report and
Order; Amendment of parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To
Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and
Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies
for Certain Wireless Radio Services, 75 FR 38959 (July 7, 2010) (WRS
Renewal NPRM and Order). We emphasize that, as the Commission made
clear in these proceedings, a licensee's performance showing and its
renewal showing are two distinct showings. A performance showing
provides a snapshot in time of the level of a licensee's service, while
a renewal showing provides information regarding the level and types of
service provided over the entire license term.
83. We propose that applicants for renewal of H Block licenses file
a ``renewal showing,'' in which they demonstrate that they have
provided, and are continuing to provide, service to the public, and
that they are compliant with the Communications Act and the
Commission's rules and policies. In the 700 MHz First Report and Order,
the Commission explained that in the renewal context, the Commission
considers ``a variety of factors including the level and quality of
service, whether service was ever interrupted or discontinued, whether
service has been provided to rural areas, and any other factors
associated with a licensee's level of service to the public.'' As we
adopted in the AWS-4 Report and Order, we also propose to consider the
extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal lands. We
propose that these same factors should be considered when evaluating
renewal showings for the H Block and seek comment on this approach.
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this
approach.
84. As explained above, today we are proposing that H Block
licensees meet four and ten-year performance obligations. We therefore
seek comment on whether the public interest would be served by awarding
H Block licensees renewal expectancies where they maintain the level of
service demonstrated at the ten year performance benchmark through the
end of their license term, provided that they have otherwise complied
with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and policies
during their license term. We also seek comment on whether H Block
licensees should obtain a renewal expectancy for subsequent license
terms, if they continue to provide at least the level of service
demonstrated at the ten year performance benchmark through the end of
any subsequent license terms. Commenters should discuss and quantify
the costs and benefits of this approach.
85. Finally, consistent with the AWS-4 Report and Order, the 700
MHz First Report and Order and the WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, we
propose to prohibit the filing of mutually exclusive renewal
applications, and that if a license is not renewed, the associated
spectrum would be returned to the Commission for reassignment. We seek
comment on these proposals, including on the associated costs and
benefits.
d. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
86. We also request comment on the Commission's rules governing the
permanent discontinuance of operations, which are intended to afford
licensees operational flexibility to use their spectrum efficiently
while ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle for extended periods.
Under Sec. 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, an authorization
will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if
service is ``permanently discontinued.'' For the H Block, we propose to
define ``permanently discontinued'' as a period of 180 consecutive days
during which a licensee does not operate and does not serve at least
one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related
to the provider. We believe this definition strikes an appropriate
balance between our twin goals of providing licensees operational
flexibility while ensuring that spectrum does not lie fallow. Licensees
would not be subject to this requirement until the date of the first
performance requirement benchmark, which is proposed as 4 years from
the license grant, so they will have adequate time to construct their
network. In addition, consistent with Sec. 1.955(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules, we propose that, if an H Block licensee permanently
discontinues service, the licensee must notify the Commission of the
discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and
requesting license cancellation. An authorization will automatically
terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently
discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the required form. We
seek comment on these proposals, including the associated costs and
benefits.
4. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
87. The Commission's part 27 rules generally allow for geographic
partitioning and spectrum disaggregation. Geographic partitioning
refers to the assignment of geographic portions of a license to another
licensee along geopolitical or other boundaries. Spectrum
disaggregation refers to the assignment of discrete amounts of spectrum
under the license to another entity. Disaggregation allows for multiple
transmitters in the same geographic area operated by different
companies on adjacent frequencies in
[[Page 1180]]
the same band. As the Commission noted when first establishing
partitioning and disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could
facilitate the efficient use of spectrum by enabling licensees to make
offerings directly responsive to market demands for particular types of
services, increasing competition by allowing market entry by new
entrants, and expediting provision of services that might not otherwise
be provided in the near term.
88. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by
licensees in the H Block. To ensure that the public interest would be
served if partitioning or disaggregation is allowed, we propose
requiring each H Block licensee that is a party to a partitioning,
disaggregation or combination of both to independently meet the
applicable performance and renewal requirements. We believe this
approach would facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling
service providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum
blocks to meet their operational needs. We seek comment on these
proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of these proposals with respect to competition, innovation,
and investment.
89. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or
disaggregation of H Block spectrum and the extent to which such
policies ultimately may promote more service, especially in rural
areas. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of
promoting more service using mechanisms to encourage partitioning and
disaggregation of H Block spectrum, including the effects of the
proposal.
b. Spectrum Leasing
90. In 2003, in order to promote more efficient use of terrestrial
wireless spectrum through secondary market transactions, while also
eliminating regulatory uncertainty, the Commission adopted a
comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern spectrum-leasing
arrangements between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees. These
policies and rules enable terrestrially-based Wireless Radio Service
licensees holding ``exclusive use'' spectrum rights to lease some or
all of the spectrum usage rights associated with their licenses to
third party spectrum lessees, which then are permitted to provide
wireless services consistent with the underlying license authorization.
Through these actions, the Commission sought to promote more efficient,
innovative, and dynamic use of the terrestrial spectrum, expand the
scope of available wireless services and devices, enhance economic
opportunities for accessing spectrum, and promote competition among
terrestrial wireless service providers. In 2004, the Commission built
upon this spectrum leasing framework by establishing immediate approval
procedures for certain categories of terrestrial spectrum leasing
arrangements and extending the spectrum leasing policies to additional
Wireless Radio Services.
91. We propose that the spectrum leasing policies and rules
established in those proceedings be applied to the H Block in the same
manner that those policies apply to other part 27 services. We seek
comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss the effects on
competition, innovation and investment, and on extending our secondary
spectrum leasing policies and rules to the H Block.
5. Other Operating Requirements
92. Even though licenses in the H Block may be issued pursuant to
one rule part, licensees in this band may be required to comply with
rules contained in other parts of the Commission's rules by virtue of
the particular services they provide. For example:
Applicants and licensees would be subject to the
application filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set
forth in part 1 of our rules.
Licensees would be required to comply with the practices
and procedures listed in part 1 of our rules for license applications,
adjudicatory proceedings, etc.
Licensees would be required to comply with the
Commission's environmental provisions, including Sec. 1.1307.
Licensees would be required to comply with the antenna
structure provisions of part 17 of our rules.
To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service, such service would be subject to the provisions of part
20 of the Commission's rules, including 911/E911 and hearing aid-
compatibility requirements, along with the provisions in the rule part
under which the license was issued. Part 20 applies to all CMRS
providers, even though the stations may be licensed under other parts
of our rules.
To the extent a licensee provides interconnected VoIP
services, the licensee would be subject to the E911 service
requirements set forth in part 9 of our rules.
The application of general provisions of parts 22, 24, 27,
or 101 would include rules related to equal employment opportunity,
etc.
93. We seek comment on whether we need to modify any of these rules
to ensure that H Block licensees are covered under the necessary
provisions. We seek comment on applying these rules to the H Block
spectrum and specifically on any rules that would be affected by our
proposal to apply elements of the framework of these parts, whether
separately or in conjunction with other requirements. What are the
potential problems that may be associated with the Commission's
adoption of any of these potential requirements, and how do they
compare to the potential benefits?
6. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to
Tribal Lands
94. The Commission currently has under consideration various
provisions and policies intended to promote greater use of spectrum
over Tribal lands. We propose to extend any rules and policies adopted
in that proceeding to any licenses that may be issued through
competitive bidding in this proceeding. We seek comment on this
proposal, including any costs and benefits.
F. Procedures for Any H Block Licenses Subject to Assignment by
Competitive Bidding
95. As discussed above, if we adopt a geographic area licensing
scheme for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, we will resolve
mutually exclusive applications through competitive bidding, consistent
with our statutory mandate.
1. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
96. We propose that the Commission would conduct any auction for H
Block licenses in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules
set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that
have been employed in previous auctions. Specifically, we propose to
employ the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design,
designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and
payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on
certain communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal,
such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission
may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the
future. In addition, consistent with our long-standing approach,
auction-specific matters such as the competitive bidding design and
mechanisms, as well as
[[Page 1181]]
minimum opening bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined by the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau pursuant to its delegated authority.
We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of
this approach. We also seek comment on whether any of our part 1 rules
would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses
in the H Block.
2. Revision to Part 1 Certification Procedures
97. Section 6004 of the Spectrum Act prohibits ``a person who has
been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an
auction, or receiving a grant'' from participating in a system of
competitive bidding under section 309(j) required to be conducted under
Title VI of the Spectrum Act. Accordingly, we propose to require that
an auction applicant certify, under penalty of perjury, that it and all
of the related individuals and entities required to be disclosed on the
short-form application are not such persons. For purposes of this
certification, we propose to define ``person'' as an individual,
partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation.
We also propose to define ``reasons of national security'' to mean
matters relating to the national defense and foreign relations of the
United States. Our existing rules also include various certifications
that a party must make in any application to participate in competitive
bidding. As with other required certifications, failure to include the
required certification by the applicable filing deadline would render
the application unacceptable for filing, and the application would be
dismissed with prejudice. We seek comment on this proposal.
3. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
98. In authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding,
Congress mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small businesses,
rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority
groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the
provision of spectrum-based services.'' In addition, section
309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act provides that, in establishing
eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall
promote ``economic opportunity and competition * * * by avoiding
excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among
a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups
and women.'' One of the principal means by which the Commission
fulfills this mandate is through the award of bidding credits to small
businesses.
99. The Commission has previously stated that it would define
eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific
basis, taking into account the capital requirements and other
characteristics of each particular service in establishing the
appropriate threshold. Further, the Commission, while standardizing
many auction rules, has determined that it would continue a service-by-
service approach to defining small businesses.
100. In the event that the Commission assigns exclusive geographic
area licenses for the H Block, we believe that this spectrum would be
employed for purposes similar to those for which the AWS-1 band is
used. We therefore propose to establish the same small business size
standards and associated bidding credits for the H Block as the
Commission adopted for the AWS-1 band. We note that these small
business size standards and associated bidding credits were proposed
for the AWS-1 band because of the similarities between the AWS-1
service and the broadband PCS service and the Commission followed this
approach when proposing small business size standards and associated
bidding credits in the AWS 2 NPRM. Thus, we propose to define a small
business as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very small business as an
entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million. We seek comment on this proposal, including the
costs and benefits of the proposal.
101. We propose to provide small businesses with a bidding credit
of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25
percent, as set forth in the standardized schedule in part 1 of our
rules. We seek comment on the use of these standards and associated
bidding credits, with particular focus on the appropriate definitions
of small businesses and very small businesses as they may relate to the
size of the geographic area to be served and the spectrum allocated to
each license. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs or
benefits associated with these standards and associated bidding credits
as they relate to the proposed geographic areas. In discussing these
issues, commenters are requested to address and quantify the expected
capital requirements for services in these bands and other
characteristics of the service. Commenters are also invited to use
comparisons with other services for which the Commission has already
established auction procedures as a basis for their comments and any
quantification of costs and benefits regarding the appropriate small
business size standards.
102. In establishing the criteria for small business bidding
credits, we acknowledge the difficulty in accurately predicting the
market forces that will exist at the time these frequencies are
licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of services that will be offered
over these bands may require adjustment depending upon ongoing
technological developments and changes in market conditions.
103. We seek comment on whether the small business provisions we
propose today are sufficient to promote participation by businesses
owned by minorities and women, as well as rural telephone companies. To
the extent that commenters propose additional provisions to ensure
participation by minority-owned or women-owned businesses, they should
address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant
standards of judicial review.
104. In addition, we note that under our part 1 rules, a winning
bidder for a market will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for
serving a qualifying tribal land within that market, provided that it
complies with the applicable competitive bidding rules. The Commission
currently has under consideration various provisions and policies
intended to promote greater use of spectrum over tribal lands. We
propose to extend any rules and policies adopted in that proceeding to
any H Block licenses that may be assigned through competitive bidding.
We seek comment on this proposal.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
105. The proceedings this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiate
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
[[Page 1182]]
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
Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
106. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The Commission will send
a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
107. Wireless broadband is a key component of economic growth, job
creation and global competitiveness because consumers are increasingly
using wireless broadband services to assist them in their everyday
lives. The explosive growth of wireless broadband services has created
increased demand for wireless spectrum, which is expected to continue
increasing, despite technological developments that allow for more
efficient spectrum use. Unleashing more spectrum for broadband is
essential to meeting this demand In this NPRM, we seek to increase the
nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by proposing rules for
licensed fixed and mobile services, including advanced wireless
services (AWS), in the H Block. These service rules would make
available 10 MHz of spectrum for flexible use in accordance with the
Spectrum Act, without causing harmful interference to PCS licensees. In
proposing terrestrial service rules for the band, which include
technical rules to protect against harmful interference, licensing
rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes,
and performance requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance
toward enabling rapid and efficient deployment in the band. We do so by
proposing service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this
spectrum that generally follow the Commission's part 27 rules that
generally govern flexible use terrestrial wireless service--except that
in order to protect PCS licenses, our proposed rules are more stringent
in certain respects. Overall, these proposals are designed to provide
for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their
type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in
mobile broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable
regulatory environment in which broadband deployment would be able to
develop through the application of standard terrestrial wireless rules.
The market-oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure
that this spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the
development of new and innovative technologies and services, as well as
encourage the growth and development of broadband services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
D. Legal Basis
108. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333,
1404, and 1451 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319,
324, 332, 333, 1404, and 1451.
E. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
109. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
110. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of 2009, small businesses represented
99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to
the SBA. Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is
not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
111. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
NPRM proposes to apply various Commission policies and rules to
terrestrial service in the MSS bands. We cannot predict who may in the
future become a licensee or lease spectrum for terrestrial use in these
bands. In general, any wireless telecommunications provider would be
eligible to become an Advanced Wireless Service licensee or lease
spectrum from the MSS or AWS
[[Page 1183]]
licensees. This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating
and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as
cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and
wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size
standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of
1000 employees or more. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these,
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
F. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
112. This NPRM contains new information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements resulting from the
NPRM will apply to all entities in the same manner. The Commission
believes that applying the same rules equally to all entities in this
context promotes fairness. The Commission does not believe that the
costs and/or administrative burdens associated with the rules will
unduly burden small entities. The revisions the Commission adopts
should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable wireless
spectrum.
113. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
G. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
114. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
115. The proposal to license the H Block under Economic Areas (EA)
geographic size licenses will provide regulatory parity with other AWS
bands that are licensed on an EA basis, such as AWS-1 licenses.
Additionally, assigning H Block in EA geographic areas would allow H
Block licensees to make adjustments to suit their individual needs. EA
license areas are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities
for smaller carriers. EA license areas also nest within and may be
aggregated up to larger license areas. Depending on the licensing
mechanism we adopt, licensees may adjust their geographic coverage
through auction or through secondary markets. This proposal should
enable H Block providers, or any entities, whether large or small,
providing service in other AWS bands to more easily adjust their
spectrum to build their networks pursuant to individual business plans.
116. The technical rules of the NPRM will protect entities
operating in nearby spectrum bands from harmful interference, which may
include small entities. These technical rules are based on the rules
for AWS-1 spectrum, with specific additions or modifications designed
to protect broadband PCS services operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band,
as well as future services operating in the 2020-2025 MHz band.
117. The NPRM proposal pertaining to how the H Block licenses will
be assigned includes proposals to assist small entities in competitive
bidding. Specifically, small entities will benefit from the proposal to
provide small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very
small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent. Providing small
businesses and very small businesses with bidding credits will provide
an economic benefit to small entities by making it easier for small
entities to acquire spectrum or access to spectrum in these bands.
118. The NPRM also proposes to provide H Block licensees with the
flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent
with the allocations for this spectrum, which is consistent with other
spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and mobile
services, e.g., AWS-1. The NPRM further proposes to generally license
this spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part 27 rules,
except that certain restrictions would apply. These proposals include
applying the Commission's secondary market policies and rules to all
transactions involving the use of H Block bands for terrestrial
services, which will provide greater predictability and regulatory
parity with bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service.
This proposal should make it easier for H Block providers to enter
secondary market arrangements involving terrestrial use of their
spectrum. The secondary market rules apply equally to all entities,
whether small or large. As a result, we believe that this proposal will
provide an economic benefit to small entities by making it easier for
entities, whether large or small, to enter into secondary market
arrangements for H Block spectrum.
H. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
119. None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
120. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404,
and 1451 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324,
332, 333, 1404, and 1451, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
hereby adopted.
121. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed
[[Page 1184]]
regulatory changes described in this notice and that comment is sought
on these proposals.
122. It is further ordered that the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is adopted.
123. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
Communications common carriers, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 27 as
follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309 and 1404.
0
2. Section 1.949 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.949 Application for renewal of license.
* * * * *
(c) Renewal Showing. An applicant for renewal of a geographic-area
authorization in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 service bands must
make a renewal showing, independent of its performance requirements, as
a condition of renewal. The showing must include a detailed description
of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license
period and address:
(1) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant
(e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of
subscribers, the services offered);
(2) The date service commenced, whether service was ever
interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(3) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(4) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal
land as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and
(5) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the
public.
0
3. Section 1.2105 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(xii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.2105 Bidding application and certification procedures;
prohibition of certain communications.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) For auctions required to be conducted under Title VI of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96)
the Commission may require certification under penalty of perjury that
the applicant and all of the person(s) disclosed under paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section are not person(s) who have been, for reasons
of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government
from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a
grant. For the purposes of this certification, the term ``person''
means an individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company,
trust, or corporation, and the term ``reasons of national security''
means matters relating to the national defense and foreign relations of
the United States.
* * * * *
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
4. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
0
5. Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 27.4 is amended by revising the definition of ``Advanced
wireless service (AWS)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 27.4 Terms and definitions.
Advanced wireless service (AWS). A radiocommunication service
licensed pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in
Sec. 27.5(h) or Sec. 27.5(j).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 27.5 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(j) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. The paired 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands are available for assignment on an Economic
Area basis.
0
8. Section 27.6 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(i) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. AWS service areas for
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
0
9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(i) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. Authorizations for 1915-
1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands will have a term not to exceed ten
years from the date of issuance or renewal.
0
10. Section 27. 14 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraphs (a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (q) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements; criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz
bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the
722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz
bands, Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands, Block A in the
2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and
2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in
the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in
Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792
MHz bands and licensees holding AWS authorizations for the 1915-1920
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. * * *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or (q) of this section,
including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to the
procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall
demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 1185]]
(q) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS
authorization in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (an ``H
Block licensee''):
(1) An H Block licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service within four (4) years from the date of the initial license to
at least forty (40) percent of the total population in each service
area that it has licensed in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands
(``H Block Interim Buildout Requirement'').
(2) An H Block licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service within ten (10) years from the date of the initial license to
at least seventy (70) percent of the population in each of its licensed
areas in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (``H Block Final
Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If an H Block licensee fails to establish that it meets the H
Block Interim Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed area, then
the H Block Final Buildout Requirement (in this paragraph (q)) and the
H Block license term (as set forth in Sec. 27.13) for each license
area in which it fails to meet the H Block Interim Buildout Requirement
shall be accelerated by two years (from ten to eight years).
(4) If an H Block licensee fails to establish that it meets the H
Block Final Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed areas in the
1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, its authorization for each
license area in which it fails to meet the H Block Final Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
The H Block licensee that has its license automatically terminate under
paragraph (q) of this subsection will be ineligible to regain it if the
Commission makes the license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population
served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population
within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will
only be deemed served by the licensee if it provides signal coverage to
and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area,
a licensee with authorizations for such areas may only include the
population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier)
towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual
license.
0
11. Section 27.15 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (d)(1)(i); adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii); revising the first
sentence in paragraph (d)(2)(i), and adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands; the following rules apply to
WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. *
* *
* * * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14.
Each party to a geographic partitioning must individually meet any
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and
operation requirements). If a partitioner or partitionee fails to meet
any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required
date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated
in Sec. 27.14(q).
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in
1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS
and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing
the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. * * *
* * * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14.
Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must individually meet any
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and
operation requirements). If a disaggregator or a disagregatee fails to
meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the
required date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those
enumerated in Sec. 27.14(q).
0
12. Section 27.17 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 27.17 Discontinuance of service in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz bands.
(a) Termination of Authorization. A licensee's AWS authorization in
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, without specific Commission action,
if it permanently discontinues service after meeting the H Block
Interim Buildout Requirement specified in Sec. 27.14.
(b) Permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180
consecutive days during which a licensee holding AWS authority in the
1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands does not operate or, in the case
of a commercial mobile radio service provider, does not provide service
to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by,
or related to the providing carrier.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz bands that permanently discontinues service as defined in this
section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days
by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An
authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this
section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting
license cancellation.
0
13. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory
text, paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) introductory text, and adding paragraph
(d)(7), to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 1915-1920
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz or the 2110-2155 MHz band and located in any county with
population density of 100 or fewer persons per
[[Page 1186]]
square mile, based upon the most recently available population
statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is limited to:
* * * * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz or the 2110-2155 MHz band and situated in any geographic
location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) is limited to:
* * * * *
(7) Fixed, mobile and portable (hand-held) stations operating in
the 1915-1920 MHz band are limited to 1 Watt EIRP, except that the
total power of any portion of an emission that falls within the 1917-
1920 MHz band may not exceed 4 milliwatts (6 dBm).
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(h) AWS Emission Limits. (1) General Protection Levels. Except as
otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-
2155 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the power of any
emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be attenuated below
the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(2) Additional Protection Levels. Notwithstanding the foregoing
paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
(i) For operations in the 1915-1920 MHz band, the power of any
emission above 1930 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(ii) For operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, the power of any
emission above 2005 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(3) Measurement Procedure.
(i) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1
megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately
outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, a resolution
bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. The emission
bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one
below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center
frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB
below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block
edges, both upper and lower, as the design permits.
(iii) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak
or average values, provided they are expressed in the same parameters
as the transmitter power.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a) * * *
(1) 1995-2000, 2110-2155, 2305-2320, 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47
dB[micro]V/m.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 27.57 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(c) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz
and 2110-2155 MHz bands is subject to international agreements with
Mexico and Canada.
0
17. Add subpart K to part 27 to read as follows:
Subpart K--1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions
Sec.
27.1001 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.
27.1002 Reimbursement obligation of AWS licensees at 1915-1920 MHz.
Reimbursement Obligations of AWS Licensees at 1915-1920 and 1995-2000
MHz
Sec.
27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of AWS licensees at 1915-1920 MHz.
27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of AWS licensees at 1995-2000 MHz.
27.1041 Termination of Cost-Sharing Obligations.
Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions
Sec. 27.1001 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands subject to
competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general
competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business provisions:
(a)(1) A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses
may use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as
defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may
use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this
chapter.
Reimbursement Obligations of AWS Licensees at 1915-1920 and 1995-2000
MHz
Sec. 27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of AWS licensees at 1915-1920
MHz.
AWS licensees of the H Block (1915-1920 MHz paired with 1995-2000
MHz) are collectively responsible for reimbursing UTAM, Inc. a pro rata
share of the expenses that UTAM, Inc. has incurred from relocating and
clearing incumbent Fixed Microwave Service (FS) licensees from the
1910-1930 MHz band. Specifically, within 30 days of grant of its long-
form application, AWS licensees in the 1915-1920 MHz band, which
constitutes 25 percent of the 1910-1930 MHz band, shall, on a pro rata
shared basis as set forth in paragraph (a) in this section reimburse 25
percent of the total relocation costs incurred by UTAM, Inc.
(a) To the extent that H Block licenses awarded in the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, at least forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, the amount owed to UTAM, Inc. by
the winning bidder of each individual H Block license awarded in the
first auction will be determined by dividing the gross winning bid
(``GWB'') for each individual H Block license (i.e., an Economic Area
(EA)) by the sum of the gross winning bids for all H Block licenses
awarded in the first auction, and then multiplying by $12,629,857.
[[Page 1187]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.013
Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, an
AWS licensee that obtains a license for a market not awarded in the
first H Block auction will not have a reimbursement obligation to UTAM,
Inc.
(b) The Commission imposes payment obligations on bidders that
withdraw provisionally winning bids during the course of an auction, on
those that default on payments due after an auction closes, and on
those that are disqualified. See 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(2)(i). In the initial
auction, a winning bidder of an EA license that is not awarded a
license for any reason will be deemed to have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to UTAM, Inc. that will be paid to UTAM, Inc. by the
licensee acquiring the EA license at reauction. The amount owed to
UTAM, Inc. by the licensee acquiring the EA license at reauction will
be based on the gross winning bid for the EA license in the initial
auction. Accordingly, an applicant at reauction will know with
certainty the reimbursement obligation it will owe for each EA license
subject to this paragraph (b).
(c) To the extent that H Block licenses awarded in the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, less than forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, then the amount owed to UTAM, Inc.
shall be more equitably dispersed across all EA licenses based on the
relative population of the EA to the population of the United States.
Specifically, the amount that the licensee of an individual H Block
license must reimburse UTAM, Inc. shall be calculated by dividing the
population of the individual BTA by the total U.S. population, and then
multiplying by $12,629,857.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.014
(d) For purposes of compliance with this section, licensees should
determine population based on 2000 U.S. Census Data or such other data
or measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction
procedures.
Sec. 27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of AWS licensees at 1995-2000
MHz.
AWS licensees of the H Block (1915-1920 MHz paired with 1995-2000
MHz) are collectively responsible for reimbursing Sprint Nextel, Inc.
or a successor in interest to Sprint Nextel, Inc. (Sprint), a pro rata
share of the eligible expenses that Sprint has incurred from relocating
and clearing Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable Television Relay
Service (CARS), and Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS)
incumbents from the 1990-2025 MHz band. Specifically, within 30 days of
grant of its long-form application, AWS licensees in the 1995-2000 MHz
band, which constitutes one-seventh of the 35 megahertz of spectrum at
1990-2025 MHz, shall, on a pro rata shared basis as set forth below in
this section reimburse one-seventh of the eligible expenses incurred by
Sprint.
(a) To the extent that H Block licenses awarded in the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, at least forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, the amount owed to Sprint by the
winning bidder of each individual H Block license awarded in the first
auction will be determined by dividing the gross winning bid (``GWB'')
for each individual H Block license (i.e., an Economic Area (EA)) by
the sum of the gross winning bids for all H Block licenses awarded in
the first auction, and then multiplying by $94,875,516.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.015
Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), an AWS licensee that
obtains a license for a market not awarded in the first H Block auction
will not have a reimbursement obligation to Sprint.
(b) The Commission imposes payment obligations on bidders that
withdraw provisionally winning bids during the course of an auction, on
those that default on payments due after an auction closes, and on
those that are disqualified. See 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(2)(i). In the first
auction, a winning bidder of an EA license that is not awarded a
license for any reason will be deemed to have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to Sprint that will be paid to Sprint by the licensee
acquiring the EA license at reauction. The amount owed to Sprint by the
licensee acquiring the EA license at reauction will be based on the
gross winning bid for the EA license in the first auction. Accordingly,
an applicant at reauction will know with certainty the reimbursement
obligation it will owe for each EA license subject to this paragraph
(b).
(c) To the extent that H Block licenses awarded in the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, less than forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, then the amount owed to Sprint
shall be more equitably dispersed across all EA licenses based on the
relative population of the EA to the population of the United States.
Specifically, the amount that the licensee of an individual H Block
license must reimburse Sprint shall be calculated by dividing the
population of the individual EA by the total U.S. population, and then
multiplying by $94,875,516.
[[Page 1188]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JA13.016
(d) For purposes of compliance with this section, licensees should
determine population based on 2000 U.S. Census Data or such other data
or measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction
procedures.
Sec. 27.1041 Termination of Cost-Sharing Obligations.
(a) The cost-sharing obligation adopted in this subpart will sunset
ten years after the first H Block license is issued in the band.
(b) An H Block licensee must satisfy in full its payment
obligations under this subpart K within thirty days of the grant of its
long-form application. The failure to timely satisfy a payment
obligation in full prior to the applicable sunset date will not
terminate the debt owed or a party's right to collect the debt.
[FR Doc. 2013-00157 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P