Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks To Supplement the Record on the 600 MHz Band Plan, 31472-31475 [2013-12484]
Download as PDF
31472
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 488 and 489
[CMS–3255–N]
Medicare and Medicaid Programs;
Survey, Certification and Enforcement
Procedures; Extension of Comment
Period
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the
comment period.
AGENCY:
This notice extends the
comment period for the Survey,
Certification and Enforcement
Procedures proposed rule, which was
published in the April 5, 2013 Federal
Register (78 FR 20564 through 20581).
In the proposed rule, we proposed to
revise the survey, certification, and
enforcement procedures related to CMS
oversight of national accreditation
organizations (AOs). These revisions
would implement certain provisions
under the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act of 2008
(MIPPA). The proposed revisions would
also clarify and strengthen our oversight
of AOs that apply for, and are granted,
recognition and approval of an
accreditation program in accordance
with the Social Security Act. The
comment period for the proposed rule,
which would have ended on June 4,
2013, is extended to July 5, 2013.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published in the April 5,
2013 Federal Register (78 FR 20564
through 20581) is extended to July 5,
2013.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–3255–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
1. You may submit electronic
comments on this regulation to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address only: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–3255–P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore,
MD 21244–8016.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:26 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address only: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: CMS–3255–P, Mail
Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments before the close
of the comment period to either of the
following addresses: A. For delivery in
Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Room 445–
G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
readily available to persons without
Federal government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave
their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the
building. A stamp-in clock is available
for persons wishing to retain a proof of
filing by stamping in and retaining an
extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
7195 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
Submission of comments on
paperwork requirements. You may
submit comments on this document’s
paperwork requirements by following
the instructions at the end of the
‘‘Collection of Information
Requirements’’ section in this
document.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Melanson, (410) 786–0310;
Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786–6899;
or Marilyn Dahl, (410) 786–8665.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
April 5, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR
20564 through 20581), we published the
Survey, Certification and Enforcement
Procedures proposed rule that proposed
to revise the survey, certification, and
enforcement procedures related to CMS
oversight of national accreditation
organizations (AOs). These revisions
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would implement certain provisions
under MIPPA. The proposed revisions
would also clarify and strengthen our
oversight of AOs that apply for, and are
granted, recognition and approval of an
accreditation program in accordance
with the Social Security Act.
Because of the scope of the requested
information and inquiries received from
several industry and professional
organizations/associations regarding the
need for additional time to respond to
our request, we are extending the
comment period until July 5, 2013.
Dated: May 17, 2013.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–12462 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[GN Docket No. 12–268; DA 13–1157]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Seeks To Supplement the Record on
the 600 MHz Band Plan
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission’s Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau seeks
further comment on how certain band
plan approaches can best accommodate
market variation, particularly in markets
where available spectrum is
constrained. Although the Commission
continues to consider all band plan
proposals in the record, this document
seeks additional comment on certain
variations of the ‘‘Down from 51’’ band
plan framework in order to develop a
more robust record on these concepts.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
June 14, 2013. Submit reply comments
on or before June 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit
comments, identified by GN Docket No.
12–268, DA 13–1157, 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
Malmud at 202–418–0006, or via email
at Paul.Malmud@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
supplemental public notice on the 600
MHz Band Plan, GN Docket No. 12–268,
DA 13–1157, released on May 17, 2013.
The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–A257, 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, TTY (202) 488–5562, 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/DA 13–
1157A1doc. 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).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• For ECFS filers, generally, only one
copy of an electronic submission must
be filed. If multiple docket or
rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of the proceeding, commenters
must transmit one electronic copy of the
comments to each docket or rulemaking
number referenced in the caption. In
completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:26 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
rulemaking numbers. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet email. To get filing instructions
for email comments, commenters
should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov,
and should include the following words
in the body of the message, ‘‘get form.’’
A sample form and directions will be
sent in reply.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, commenters 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, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street 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.
• Parties shall also serve one copy
with the Commission’s copy contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202)
488–5300, or via email to
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
• 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).
• 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–
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31473
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.
Summary
I. Introduction
1. In Expanding the Economic and
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Through Incentive Auctions 77 FR
69934 November 21, 2012 (NPRM), the
Commission sought public comment on
creating a 600 MHz wireless band plan
from the spectrum made available for
flexible use through the broadcast
television incentive auction. The
Commission identified five key policy
goals that would provide the framework
for adopting a wireless band plan:
Utility, certainty, interchangeability,
quantity and interoperability. The
majority of commenters support many
features of the proposed band plan
framework that aim to achieve these
goals, but express a broader range of
views on how and where to configure
the uplink and downlink blocks in the
band plan. To evaluate and quantify the
technical tradeoffs associated with
configuring the uplink and downlink
bands, the Commission hosted a public
workshop. At the workshop,
stakeholders discussed a variety of
technical aspects to consider in creating
a 600 MHz wireless band plan,
including mobile antenna issues,
harmonics interference,
intermodulation, and high power
services in the duplex gap.
2. As discussed in the workshop,
many stakeholders support the ‘‘Down
from 51’’ band plan proposal—or a
variation of it—in which the
Commission would clear broadcast
television channels starting at channel
51 and expand downward: The uplink
band would begin at channel 51 (698
MHz), followed by a duplex gap, and
then the downlink band. The workshop
made clear that support for a Down from
51 band plan framework is primarily
based on concerns over high power
services in the duplex gap and antenna
design issues.
3. The Down from 51 proposals in the
record generally limit the amount of
market variation that can be achieved,
however. Specifically, most of these
proposals are targeted at repurposing a
specific amount of paired spectrum
nationwide, and provide limited options
for how to offer less spectrum in
constrained markets, or additional
spectrum in individual markets, and
only under certain scenarios. In the
NPRM, the Commission expressed a
strong interest in establishing a band
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
31474
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
plan framework that is flexible enough
to accommodate market variation, i.e.,
offering varying amounts of spectrum in
different geographic locations,
depending on the spectrum available.
Further, although the majority of
commenters argue that the Commission
should prioritize offering paired
spectrum blocks over unpaired blocks,
some variations of the Down from 51
band plan limit the amount of paired
spectrum that can be offered. Under the
policy framework set forth by the
Commission, the Down from 51
approaches in the record appear to favor
certainty of the operating environment
over the utility of providing the
maximum amount of spectrum through
flexibility to offer a greater quantity of
spectrum in geographic areas where
more spectrum is available.
4. In the NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on a number of band
plan proposals. Emphasizing its goals of
balancing flexibility with certainty
while maximizing the amount of
spectrum we can make available for
wireless broadband services in each
geographic area, the Commission
recognized that other band plans are
possible that may achieve the
Commission’s goals. Consequently, the
Commission sought comment on the
band plan approaches described in the
NPRM, any variations on those
approaches, and also invited
commenters to propose their own band
plans. To advance the Commission’s
goal of maintaining flexibility to offer
different amounts of spectrum in
different geographic markets, we seek
further comment on how certain Down
from 51 band plan approaches can best
address the potential for market
variation, particularly in markets where
available spectrum is constrained.
Although the Commission continues to
consider all band plan proposals in the
record, we seek additional comment on
certain variations of the Down from 51
band plan, as described below, to
develop a more robust record on these
concepts. We invite commenters to
discuss the relative merits of all of the
band plan proposals and their variations
in the record. Further, we also seek
comment on which band plan other
countries would be most likely to adopt
to allow for global harmonization of the
600 MHz spectrum.
II. ‘‘Down From 51 Reversed’’ Band
Plan Variation
5. We seek comment on a variation of
the Down from 51 band plan in which
we reverse the configuration of the
uplink and downlink blocks (‘‘Down
from 51 Reversed’’). Under a Down from
51 Reversed band plan, the Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:26 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
would clear broadcast television
channels starting at channel 51 and
expand downward: the downlink band
would begin after a guard band at
channel 51 (698 MHz), followed by a
duplex gap, and then the uplink band.
The uplink band could extend past
channel 37, either nationwide or in
certain markets, depending on the
amount of repurposed spectrum.
6. As discussed in the NPRM, the
Commission proposed a structure to
keep the downlink spectrum band
consistent nationwide while allowing
variations in the amount of uplink
spectrum available in any geographic
area to promote interoperability and
accommodate market variation. By
reversing the uplink and downlink
bands, the Down from 51 Reversed band
plan framework can maintain a uniform
downlink band nationwide and allow
for market variation in the amount of
uplink spectrum offered without placing
high power services in the duplex gap.
7. We seek comment on the Down
from 51 Reversed band plan variation.
Are there any special considerations or
rules that would be necessary in
implementing this approach? We also
seek comment on technical issues
associated with the Down from 51
Reversed band plan. Specifically, we
request comment on how this band plan
approach would affect the ability of
wireless broadband providers to utilize
the 600 MHz band effectively,
particularly in terms of network and
device design. Further, we seek
comment on whether the Down from 51
Reversed approach would provide
greater flexibility with respect to market
variation than other Down from 51 band
plan proposals. We ask commenters to
discuss the tradeoffs associated with
accommodating market variation under
the Down from 51 Reversed band plan
and the other band plan proposals in the
record.
8. Guard Bands. Like other band plan
proposals, in a Down from 51 Reversed
band plan, we must implement guard
bands to ensure all spectrum blocks are
as technically and functionally
interchangeable as possible.
Specifically, we would need to
implement a guard band at the top of
the 600 MHz wireless band between the
600 MHz downlink band and the lower
700 MHz uplink band to protect these
services from interfering with one
another. Similarly, we would need to
implement a guard band at the lower
end of the 600 MHz wireless band
between the 600 MHz uplink band and
broadcast television stations. We seek
comment on the appropriate size of the
guard bands under this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9. Channel 37. Under a Down from 51
Reversed band plan, it is possible that
600 MHz wireless operations could be
adjacent to radio astronomy (RA) and
wireless medical telemetry services
(WMTS) operations in channel 37,
conceivably on both sides, if the 600
MHz uplink band extends below
channel 37. Would the Down from 51
Reversed band plan require additional
measures to protect existing channel 37
operations? If so, how would these
measures affect the ability of wireless
providers to utilize the adjacent
spectrum? We also seek comment on a
proposal to apply the spectral mask for
TV white space devices (47 CFR
15.709(c)(4)) to prevent interference and
protect existing channel 37 WMTS
operations from interference if mobile
uplink operations (rather than wireless
downlink operations) are on both sides
of channel 37. Further, in the event that
the Commission can repurpose more
than 84 megahertz of spectrum, yielding
an uplink band that would extend
below channel 37, wireless uplink
operations will be both above and below
channel 37. If this occurs, the duplex
spacing for paired blocks with uplink
blocks below channel 37 would be
greater than for paired blocks with
uplink blocks above channel 37 because
wireless operations cannot operate on
channel 37. We seek comment on the
effects of this variable duplex spacing,
and how this affects network and/or
device design. We seek comment on
other issues relating to existing channel
37 operations under the Down from 51
Reversed band plan approach.
III. Down From 51 With TV In the
Duplex Gap In Constrained Markets
10. We also seek comment on how the
Commission should address constrained
markets where less spectrum is
available if it adopts a version of the
Down from 51 band plan that has been
more generally discussed in the record
and the workshop, with the 600 MHz
uplink band beginning at channel 51,
adjacent to the 700 MHz band uplink
band. Specifically, should the
Commission place television stations in
the duplex gap in more constrained
markets? Although we recognize that
some commenters have concerns about
allowing high power services to operate
in the duplex gap, is this less
problematic if it occurs only in certain
markets? As compared to a Down from
51 Reversed band plan, which
alternative would allow the Commission
to offer as many paired spectrum blocks
as possible? Which band plan approach
is preferable if the Commission decides
to accommodate market variation?
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
IV. Down From 51 TDD Approach
11. In addition, we seek further
comment on using a Down from 51 band
plan framework with unpaired TDD
blocks (‘‘Down from 51 TDD’’). Under a
Down from 51 TDD band plan, the band
would begin after a guard band at
channel 51 (698 MHz) and expand
downward, followed by a guard band
between wireless operations and
broadcast television operations at the
lower edge of the 600 MHz wireless
band. As in the other Down from 51
band plan proposals, the band could
extend past channel 37, either
nationwide or in certain markets,
depending on the amount of repurposed
spectrum, which may also require the
Commission to protect existing channel
37 operations.
12. Although the Down from 51 TDD
band plan would require guard bands at
both ends of the 600 MHz wireless
band, no duplex gap is necessary.
Further, the Down from 51 TDD band
plan would allow for market variation
without placing television stations in
the duplex gap. Although a TDD band
plan could not support market variation
through variable uplink, it could
support market variation through an
alternative approach that aligns the
amount of repurposed spectrum in
constrained markets with the expected
filter configurations.
13. We seek additional comment on
this Down from 51 TDD band plan.
Specifically, we seek comment on the
tradeoffs associated with implementing
the Down from 51 TDD band plan as
compared to the other Down from 51
band plan variations that also
accommodate market variation. Which
band plan provides the most flexibility
while maintaining the best certainty
about the operating environment?
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Procedural Matters
14. Ex Parte Presentations—PermitBut-Disclose Proceeding: This matter
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the ex parte rules. Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and
arguments presented generally is
required. Other requirements pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set
forth in § 1.1206(b) of the rules.
15. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis: The NPRM in this proceeding
included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:26 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential
impact of the Commission’s proposal on
small entities. The matters discussed in
this notice do not modify in any way the
IRFA we previously issued.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth Milkman,
Chief. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–12484 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 369
[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0020]
RIN–2126–AB48
Rescission of Quarterly Financial
Reporting Requirements
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.
AGENCY:
FMCSA proposes to eliminate
the quarterly financial reporting
requirements for certain for-hire motor
carriers of property (Form QFR) and forhire motor carriers of passengers (Form
MP–1). This paperwork burden can be
removed without an adverse impact on
safety or the Agency´s ability to
maintain effective commercial
regulatory oversight over the for-hire
trucking and passenger-carrying
industries.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments by
July 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number FMCSA–
2012–0020 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Comments’’
portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31475
If
you have questions on this proposal,
email or call Ms. Vivian Oliver, Office
of Research and Information
Technology, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone 202–366–2974; email
Vivian.Oliver@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Participation and Comments
If you would like to participate in this
rulemaking, you may submit comments
and related materials. All comments
received will be posted, without change,
to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you
have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA–2012–0020),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so the Agency can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘FMCSA–2012–0020’’ in the ‘‘Search’’
box, and then click the ‘‘Search’’ button
to the right of the white box. Click on
the top ‘‘Comment Now’’ box which
appears next to the notice. Fill in your
contact information, as desired and your
comment, uploading documents if
appropriate. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 81⁄2; by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.
FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the
comment period and may change this
proposed rule based on your comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘FMCSA–2012–0020’’ in the ‘‘Search’’
box and then click on ‘‘Search.’’ Click
on the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ link and
all the information for the notice, and
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31472-31475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12484]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[GN Docket No. 12-268; DA 13-1157]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks To Supplement the Record
on the 600 MHz Band Plan
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau seeks further comment on how certain band plan approaches can
best accommodate market variation, particularly in markets where
available spectrum is constrained. Although the Commission continues to
consider all band plan proposals in the record, this document seeks
additional comment on certain variations of the ``Down from 51'' band
plan framework in order to develop a more robust record on these
concepts.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 14, 2013. Submit reply
comments on or before June 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket
No. 12-268, DA 13-1157, 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
[[Page 31473]]
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 Malmud at 202-418-0006, or via
email at Paul.Malmud@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
supplemental public notice on the 600 MHz Band Plan, GN Docket No. 12-
268, DA 13-1157, released on May 17, 2013. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY-A257, 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,
TTY (202) 488-5562, 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/DA 13-1157A1doc. 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).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
For ECFS filers, generally, only one copy of an electronic
submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of the proceeding, commenters must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking numbers. Parties may
also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing
instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
reply.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
commenters 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,
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street 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.
Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's
copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or
via email to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
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).
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.
Summary
I. Introduction
1. In Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions 77 FR 69934 November 21, 2012
(NPRM), the Commission sought public comment on creating a 600 MHz
wireless band plan from the spectrum made available for flexible use
through the broadcast television incentive auction. The Commission
identified five key policy goals that would provide the framework for
adopting a wireless band plan: Utility, certainty, interchangeability,
quantity and interoperability. The majority of commenters support many
features of the proposed band plan framework that aim to achieve these
goals, but express a broader range of views on how and where to
configure the uplink and downlink blocks in the band plan. To evaluate
and quantify the technical tradeoffs associated with configuring the
uplink and downlink bands, the Commission hosted a public workshop. At
the workshop, stakeholders discussed a variety of technical aspects to
consider in creating a 600 MHz wireless band plan, including mobile
antenna issues, harmonics interference, intermodulation, and high power
services in the duplex gap.
2. As discussed in the workshop, many stakeholders support the
``Down from 51'' band plan proposal--or a variation of it--in which the
Commission would clear broadcast television channels starting at
channel 51 and expand downward: The uplink band would begin at channel
51 (698 MHz), followed by a duplex gap, and then the downlink band. The
workshop made clear that support for a Down from 51 band plan framework
is primarily based on concerns over high power services in the duplex
gap and antenna design issues.
3. The Down from 51 proposals in the record generally limit the
amount of market variation that can be achieved, however. Specifically,
most of these proposals are targeted at repurposing a specific amount
of paired spectrum nationwide, and provide limited options for how to
offer less spectrum in constrained markets, or additional spectrum in
individual markets, and only under certain scenarios. In the NPRM, the
Commission expressed a strong interest in establishing a band
[[Page 31474]]
plan framework that is flexible enough to accommodate market variation,
i.e., offering varying amounts of spectrum in different geographic
locations, depending on the spectrum available. Further, although the
majority of commenters argue that the Commission should prioritize
offering paired spectrum blocks over unpaired blocks, some variations
of the Down from 51 band plan limit the amount of paired spectrum that
can be offered. Under the policy framework set forth by the Commission,
the Down from 51 approaches in the record appear to favor certainty of
the operating environment over the utility of providing the maximum
amount of spectrum through flexibility to offer a greater quantity of
spectrum in geographic areas where more spectrum is available.
4. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a number of band
plan proposals. Emphasizing its goals of balancing flexibility with
certainty while maximizing the amount of spectrum we can make available
for wireless broadband services in each geographic area, the Commission
recognized that other band plans are possible that may achieve the
Commission's goals. Consequently, the Commission sought comment on the
band plan approaches described in the NPRM, any variations on those
approaches, and also invited commenters to propose their own band
plans. To advance the Commission's goal of maintaining flexibility to
offer different amounts of spectrum in different geographic markets, we
seek further comment on how certain Down from 51 band plan approaches
can best address the potential for market variation, particularly in
markets where available spectrum is constrained. Although the
Commission continues to consider all band plan proposals in the record,
we seek additional comment on certain variations of the Down from 51
band plan, as described below, to develop a more robust record on these
concepts. We invite commenters to discuss the relative merits of all of
the band plan proposals and their variations in the record. Further, we
also seek comment on which band plan other countries would be most
likely to adopt to allow for global harmonization of the 600 MHz
spectrum.
II. ``Down From 51 Reversed'' Band Plan Variation
5. We seek comment on a variation of the Down from 51 band plan in
which we reverse the configuration of the uplink and downlink blocks
(``Down from 51 Reversed''). Under a Down from 51 Reversed band plan,
the Commission would clear broadcast television channels starting at
channel 51 and expand downward: the downlink band would begin after a
guard band at channel 51 (698 MHz), followed by a duplex gap, and then
the uplink band. The uplink band could extend past channel 37, either
nationwide or in certain markets, depending on the amount of repurposed
spectrum.
6. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission proposed a structure to
keep the downlink spectrum band consistent nationwide while allowing
variations in the amount of uplink spectrum available in any geographic
area to promote interoperability and accommodate market variation. By
reversing the uplink and downlink bands, the Down from 51 Reversed band
plan framework can maintain a uniform downlink band nationwide and
allow for market variation in the amount of uplink spectrum offered
without placing high power services in the duplex gap.
7. We seek comment on the Down from 51 Reversed band plan
variation. Are there any special considerations or rules that would be
necessary in implementing this approach? We also seek comment on
technical issues associated with the Down from 51 Reversed band plan.
Specifically, we request comment on how this band plan approach would
affect the ability of wireless broadband providers to utilize the 600
MHz band effectively, particularly in terms of network and device
design. Further, we seek comment on whether the Down from 51 Reversed
approach would provide greater flexibility with respect to market
variation than other Down from 51 band plan proposals. We ask
commenters to discuss the tradeoffs associated with accommodating
market variation under the Down from 51 Reversed band plan and the
other band plan proposals in the record.
8. Guard Bands. Like other band plan proposals, in a Down from 51
Reversed band plan, we must implement guard bands to ensure all
spectrum blocks are as technically and functionally interchangeable as
possible. Specifically, we would need to implement a guard band at the
top of the 600 MHz wireless band between the 600 MHz downlink band and
the lower 700 MHz uplink band to protect these services from
interfering with one another. Similarly, we would need to implement a
guard band at the lower end of the 600 MHz wireless band between the
600 MHz uplink band and broadcast television stations. We seek comment
on the appropriate size of the guard bands under this proposal.
9. Channel 37. Under a Down from 51 Reversed band plan, it is
possible that 600 MHz wireless operations could be adjacent to radio
astronomy (RA) and wireless medical telemetry services (WMTS)
operations in channel 37, conceivably on both sides, if the 600 MHz
uplink band extends below channel 37. Would the Down from 51 Reversed
band plan require additional measures to protect existing channel 37
operations? If so, how would these measures affect the ability of
wireless providers to utilize the adjacent spectrum? We also seek
comment on a proposal to apply the spectral mask for TV white space
devices (47 CFR 15.709(c)(4)) to prevent interference and protect
existing channel 37 WMTS operations from interference if mobile uplink
operations (rather than wireless downlink operations) are on both sides
of channel 37. Further, in the event that the Commission can repurpose
more than 84 megahertz of spectrum, yielding an uplink band that would
extend below channel 37, wireless uplink operations will be both above
and below channel 37. If this occurs, the duplex spacing for paired
blocks with uplink blocks below channel 37 would be greater than for
paired blocks with uplink blocks above channel 37 because wireless
operations cannot operate on channel 37. We seek comment on the effects
of this variable duplex spacing, and how this affects network and/or
device design. We seek comment on other issues relating to existing
channel 37 operations under the Down from 51 Reversed band plan
approach.
III. Down From 51 With TV In the Duplex Gap In Constrained Markets
10. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address
constrained markets where less spectrum is available if it adopts a
version of the Down from 51 band plan that has been more generally
discussed in the record and the workshop, with the 600 MHz uplink band
beginning at channel 51, adjacent to the 700 MHz band uplink band.
Specifically, should the Commission place television stations in the
duplex gap in more constrained markets? Although we recognize that some
commenters have concerns about allowing high power services to operate
in the duplex gap, is this less problematic if it occurs only in
certain markets? As compared to a Down from 51 Reversed band plan,
which alternative would allow the Commission to offer as many paired
spectrum blocks as possible? Which band plan approach is preferable if
the Commission decides to accommodate market variation?
[[Page 31475]]
IV. Down From 51 TDD Approach
11. In addition, we seek further comment on using a Down from 51
band plan framework with unpaired TDD blocks (``Down from 51 TDD'').
Under a Down from 51 TDD band plan, the band would begin after a guard
band at channel 51 (698 MHz) and expand downward, followed by a guard
band between wireless operations and broadcast television operations at
the lower edge of the 600 MHz wireless band. As in the other Down from
51 band plan proposals, the band could extend past channel 37, either
nationwide or in certain markets, depending on the amount of repurposed
spectrum, which may also require the Commission to protect existing
channel 37 operations.
12. Although the Down from 51 TDD band plan would require guard
bands at both ends of the 600 MHz wireless band, no duplex gap is
necessary. Further, the Down from 51 TDD band plan would allow for
market variation without placing television stations in the duplex gap.
Although a TDD band plan could not support market variation through
variable uplink, it could support market variation through an
alternative approach that aligns the amount of repurposed spectrum in
constrained markets with the expected filter configurations.
13. We seek additional comment on this Down from 51 TDD band plan.
Specifically, we seek comment on the tradeoffs associated with
implementing the Down from 51 TDD band plan as compared to the other
Down from 51 band plan variations that also accommodate market
variation. Which band plan provides the most flexibility while
maintaining the best certainty about the operating environment?
V. Procedural Matters
14. Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding: This
matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-
sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is
required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written
presentations are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules.
15. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: The NPRM in this
proceeding included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact of the
Commission's proposal on small entities. The matters discussed in this
notice do not modify in any way the IRFA we previously issued.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth Milkman,
Chief. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-12484 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P