Auction of H Block Licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 96, 45524-45533 [2013-18184]
Download as PDF
45524
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
competing applications may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502–8659. Although the
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and five copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
More information about this project,
including a copy of the application, can
be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’
link of Commission’s Web site at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P–14497) in
the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–18064 Filed 7–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[AU Docket No. 13–178; DA 13–1540]
Auction of H Block Licenses in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
Bands; Comment Sought on
Competitive Bidding Procedures for
Auction 96
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
intention to hold an auction of H Block
licenses in the 1915–1920 and 1995–
2000 MHz bands. This document also
seeks comment on competitive bidding
procedures for Auction 96.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 5, 2013, and reply comments are
due on or before August 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to
this public notice must refer to AU
Docket No. 13–178. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau strongly
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
encourages interested parties to file
comments electronically, and request
that an additional copy of all comments
and reply comments be submitted
electronically to the following address:
auction96@fcc.gov. Comments may be
submitted 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://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
■ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. 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, Attn: WTB/ASAD, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
■ 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. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Auctions and Spectrum Access Division:
For auction legal questions: Valerie
Barrish at (202) 418–0660; for general
auction questions: Jeff Crooks at (202)
4188–0660 or Debbie Smith or Linda
Sanderson at (717) 338–2868.
Broadband Division: For H Block
service rule questions: Matthew Pearl
(legal) or Janet Young (technical) at
(202) 418–2487.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Auction 96 Comment
Public Notice released on July 15, 2013.
The complete text of the Auction 96
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment Public Notice, including all
attachments and related Commission
documents, is available for public
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday
through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Auction 96
Comment Public Notice and its
attachments, as well as related
Commission documents, also may be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone 202–488–5300, fax
202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI
at its Web site: https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering
documents from BCPI, please provide
the appropriate FCC document number,
for example, DA 13–1540. The Auction
96 Comment Public Notice and related
documents also are available on the
Internet at the Commission’s Web site:
https://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/96/, or
by using the search function for AU
Docket No. 13–178 on the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) Web page at https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/.
I. Introduction
1. The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (Bureau) announces its intention
to hold an auction of licenses in the
1915–1920 MHz (Lower H Block) and
1995–2000 MHz (Upper H Block) bands
(collectively, the H Block), and seeks
comment on the procedures to be used
for this auction. The staff will be
prepared to conduct this auction, which
will be designated as Auction 96, by or
as early as January 14, 2014.
2. The Commission is offering the
licenses in Auction 96 pursuant to the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act).
The Spectrum Act requires, among other
things, that the Commission allocate for
commercial use and license spectrum in
the H Block using a system of
competitive bidding no later than
February 23, 2015.
II. Licenses To Be Offered In Auction 96
A. Description of Licenses
3. In the H Block Report and Order,
FCC 13–88, the Commission concluded
that licenses for H Block spectrum
should be awarded on an Economic
Areas (EA) basis in all areas, including
the Gulf of Mexico. Auction 96 will
offer one license for each of the 176
EAs. The Lower H Block and Upper H
Block frequencies will be licensed as
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
paired 5 megahertz blocks, with each
license having a total bandwidth of 10
megahertz; 1915–1920 MHz for mobile
and low power fixed (i.e., uplink)
operations and 1995–2000 MHz for base
station and fixed (i.e., downlink)
operations. A complete list of the
licenses offered in Auction 96 is
available in Attachment A to the
Auction 96 Comment Public Notice.
B. Cost-Sharing Obligations
4. The spectrum in the Lower H Block
and the Upper H Block is subject to
cost-sharing requirements related to the
past clearing and relocation of
incumbent users from these bands.
Consistent with its long-standing policy
that cost-sharing obligations for both the
Lower H Block and the Upper H Block
be apportioned on a pro rata basis
against the relocation costs attributable
to the particular band, the Commission
adopted cost-sharing rules in the H
Block Report and Order that require H
Block licensees to pay a pro rata share
of expenses previously incurred by
UTAM, Inc. (UTAM) and by Sprint
Nextel, Inc. (Sprint) in clearing
incumbents from the Lower H Block and
the Upper H Block, respectively.
5. Under the cost sharing formula
adopted in the H Block Report and
Order, the reimbursement amount owed
to UTAM with respect to the 1915–1920
MHz band will be determined by
dividing the gross winning bid for an H
Block license by the sum of the gross
winning bids for all H Block licenses
won in Auction 96 and then multiplying
that result by $12,629,857—the total
amount owed to UTAM for clearing the
Lower H Block. The H Block Report and
Order adopted the same cost-sharing
formula for the Upper H Block (1995–
2000 MHz band) related to Sprint’s
clearing costs of $94,875,516.
6. Winning bidders are required to
pay UTAM and Sprint, as applicable,
the reimbursement amounts owed
within thirty days after the grant of the
winning bidders’ long-form license
applications.
7. The Commission also adopted a
contingency plan in the H Block Report
and Order that will be triggered in the
unlikely event that licenses won in this
auction cover less than forty percent of
the U.S. population. If such an event
occurs, winning bidders—in this
auction and in subsequent H Block
auctions—will be required to timely pay
UTAM and Sprint, respectively, their
pro rata share calculated by dividing the
population of the individual EA by the
total U.S. population and then
multiplying this quotient by
$12,629,857 for UTAM and by
$94,875,516 for Sprint.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
45525
8. The cost-sharing rules and
contingency plan adopted in the H
Block Report and Order are designed to
ensure that UTAM and Sprint receive
full reimbursement after this auction by
effectively apportioning the
reimbursement costs associated with
any unsold H Block licenses among the
winning bidders, except in cases where
the contingency plan is triggered or a
successful bidder’s long-form
application is not filed or granted. If any
of the licenses won in this auction are
not awarded, the license at issue will be
deemed to have triggered a
reimbursement obligation that will be
paid by the licensee acquiring the
license in a subsequent auction.
decisions regarding participation in the
auction.
12. The Bureau strongly encourages
participants in Auction 96 to continue
such research throughout the auction.
The due diligence considerations
mentioned in the Auction 96 Comment
Public Notice do not constitute an
exhaustive list of steps that should be
undertaken prior to participating in this
auction. As always, the burden is on the
potential bidder to determine how much
research to undertake, depending upon
the specific facts and circumstances
related to its interests.
III. Due Diligence
9. Each potential bidder is solely
responsible for investigating and
evaluating all technical and marketplace
factors that may have a bearing on the
value of the licenses that it is seeking in
this auction. Each bidder is responsible
for assuring that, if it wins a license, it
will be able to build and operate
facilities in accordance with the
Commission’s rules. The Commission
makes no representations or warranties
about the use of this spectrum for
particular services. Each applicant
should be aware that a Commission
auction represents an opportunity to
become a Commission licensee, subject
to certain conditions and regulations. A
Commission auction does not constitute
an endorsement by the Commission of
any particular service, technology, or
product, nor does a Commission license
constitute a guarantee of business
success.
10. An applicant should perform its
due diligence research and analysis
before proceeding, as it would with any
new business venture. Each potential
bidder should perform technical
analyses and/or refresh any previous
analyses to assure itself that, should it
become a winning bidder for any
Auction 96 license, it will be able to
build and operate facilities that will
fully comply with all applicable
technical and regulatory requirements.
The Bureau strongly encourages each
applicant to inspect any prospective
transmitter sites located in, or near, the
geographic area for which it plans to
bid; confirm the availability of such
sites; and familiarize itself with the
Commission’s rules regarding the
National Environmental Policy Act.
11. The Bureau strongly encourages
each applicant to conduct its own
research prior to Auction 96 in order to
determine the existence of pending
administrative, rulemaking, or judicial
proceedings that might affect its
13. The Commission directed the
Bureau, under its existing delegated
authority, to seek comment on a variety
of auction-specific procedures prior to
the start of each auction. The Bureau
therefore seeks comment on the
following issues relating to the conduct
of Auction 96.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
IV. Bureau Seeks Comment on Auction
Procedures
A. Auction Design
i. Simultaneous Multiple-Round
Auction—With or Without Package
Bidding
14. The Bureau proposes to conduct
Auction 96 using a simultaneous
multiple-round (SMR) auction format.
An SMR auction offers every license for
bid at the same time and consists of
successive bidding rounds in which
eligible bidders may place bids.
Typically, bidding remains open on all
licenses until bidding stops on every
license.
15. The Bureau additionally proposes
to incorporate provisions for a simple
form of package bidding into the
simultaneous multiple-round auction.
In particular, the Bureau proposes to use
a form of package bidding called
hierarchical package bidding (HPB) in
which, in addition to being able to bid
on individual licenses, bidders would
also be able to bid on certain tiered,
non-overlapping packages of licenses.
The Commission concluded in the H
Block Report and Order that the H Block
spectrum should be licensed on an EA
basis. Consistent with that conclusion,
the Bureau proposes that the basic
bidding tier under HPB be individual
EA licenses. The H Block Report and
Order also noted that the decision to
license at the EA level would facilitate
aggregations at the larger Major
Economic Area (MEA) and Regional
Economic Area Grouping (REAG) levels.
The Bureau therefore seeks comment on
the use of predefined packages of EAs
in MEAs and potentially larger packages
such as REAGs, as well as a package
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45526
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
comprising all markets in the
contiguous 48 states. The Bureau seeks
more detailed comment on its proposals
and on various alternatives.
16. By permitting only nonoverlapping packages at each tier (for
example, a given EA could be included
in only one MEA, which in turn could
be included in only one REAG), HPB
considerably simplifies bidder strategy
and computational complexity
compared to some other forms of
package bidding. The pricing rules used
with HPB are transparent and make it
clear to bidders how package bids are
evaluated relative to individual bids,
hence making it easier than in more
complex package bidding formats for
bidders interested in individual licenses
to compete with bidders interested in
packages. As a result of these and other
advantages, HPB and similar packaging
formats have performed well in tests of
overall auction efficiency. Auction 96 is
the first H Block auction and a single
complete set of nationwide EA licenses
is available. Consequently, offering
predefined packages might allow for
significant economies of scale that may
well correspond to a variety of business
plans. Bidders that wish smaller or more
tailored aggregations than the allowable
predefined packages would be able to
bid on individual EAs instead of or in
addition to the predefined packages.
17. The Bureau used a variant of HPB
in Auction 73 under considerably
different circumstances. Most notably,
in Auction 73 the Bureau implemented
SMR bidding across the five available
blocks of licenses and determined that
package bidding would be permitted in
only one of the blocks. Further, if the
aggregate reserve price that was
applicable to the package bidding block
in Auction 73 was not met, the
performance and public interest
requirements pertaining to the licenses
in the block would change significantly.
As a result, special procedures were
needed to allow bidders to shift their
bidding across the multiple available
blocks, the rest of which were subject to
a different bidding format. Those
complicating factors—and their
implications for bidder strategies—are
not present in Auction 96, which
includes only a single block of licenses.
Hence, the bidding rules implementing
HPB would be considerably simpler
than those for Auction 73.
18. Briefly, HPB as proposed for
Auction 96 could be implemented as
follows. The Bureau would determine
the predefined packages according to a
non-overlapping hierarchical structure,
with an initial tier consisting of
individual EA licenses. The Bureau
could adopt a two-tier structure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
composed simply of the initial tier of
EAs and MEA packages. Any
subsequent tiers could consist of nonoverlapping packages of the licenses in
the initial tier and all subsidiary tiers.
For example, if the Bureau were to
adopt MEA, REAG, and nationwide
packages, these packages would all nest
accordingly (e.g., EAs nest to MEAs,
MEAs nest to REAGs, and REAGs nest
to the national package). The winning
set of bids could consist of bids from
various tiers, as long as each license is
included in only one winning bid. That
is, in the four-tier construct, the
winning set could potentially include
individual licenses in one part of the
country, MEA packages in other areas,
and potentially REAG packages as well,
provided the value of all of these
individual and package bids exceeds a
bid on a nationwide package. A bidder
may place bids on any combination of
individual licenses or packages.
19. After each round, the Commission
would determine the combination of
package and/or single license bids that
yields the highest gross amount, and
those bids would become provisionally
winning. When determining
provisionally winning bids, the FCC
Auction System would consider each
bidder’s highest bid on each license or
package placed up to that point in the
auction, regardless of whether the bids
were provisionally winning after the
rounds in which they were placed.
Considering these bids from previous
rounds makes it possible for new bids
on individual licenses to combine with
other bids in order to compete with bids
on packages. The provisionally winning
bids would be determined by comparing
aggregate gross bid amounts, at each
tier, for various combinations of package
and individual license bids.
20. The Bureau seeks comment
generally on its proposed simultaneous
multiple-round auction format with
hierarchical package bidding. Would
HPB balance aggregation needs with
tractability, transparency, and
simplicity? The Bureau seeks comment
also on what packages should be
available for various tiers. Should the
Bureau allow a simple structure of EAs
and MEAs, or some other set of tiers of
MEAs, REAGs, and/or a nationwide
package? Alternatively, would the
Bureau standard SMR auction format
without package bidding sufficiently
accommodate economies of scale or
other complementarities? If the Bureau
does not implement package bidding for
Auction 96, it proposes to conduct the
auction using standard SMR procedures.
21. The Bureau proposes to conduct
Auction 96 as a single round sealed bid
auction. While not as common for
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
spectrum auctions as the SMR format,
the Bureau has previously used the
single round sealed bid format. The
Bureau proposes this alternative
because Auction 96 offers licenses in
only a single spectrum block and a
single round auction may simplify the
process for bidders and reduce the costs
of auction participation. In a single
round format the Bureau could also
offer one or more tiers of nonoverlapping packages for HPB. The
Bureau seeks comment on any design
features of the sealed bid format (e.g.,
first-price or second-price). The Bureau
seeks comment on this alternative
proposal and on any other auction
formats it should consider for Auction
96.
ii. Anonymous Bidding
22. In several prior Commission
auctions, the Bureau has adopted
procedures to limit the disclosure of
certain bidder-specific information until
after the auction. Consistent with that
practice, the Bureau proposes to adopt
certain procedures for limited
information disclosure or anonymous
bidding for Auction 96. Specifically, the
Bureau proposes to withhold, until after
the close of bidding, public release of (1)
bidders’ license selections on their
short-form applications (FCC Form 175),
(2) the amounts of bidders’ upfront
payments and bidding eligibility, and
(3) information that may reveal the
identities of bidders placing bids and
taking other bidding-related actions.
23. Under these proposed limited
information procedures, the amount of
every bid placed and whether a bid was
withdrawn would be disclosed after the
close of every round, but the identities
of bidders placing specific bids or
withdrawals (if permitted) and the net
bid amounts would not be disclosed
until after the close of the auction.
24. Bidders would have access to
additional information about their own
bids. For example, bidders would be
able to view their own level of
eligibility, before and during the
auction, through the FCC Auction
System.
25. Moreover, for the purpose of
complying with 47 CFR 1.2105(c),
which prohibits certain
communications between applicants
(formerly referred to as the anticollusion rule), applicants would be
made aware of other applicants with
which they will not be permitted to
cooperate, collaborate, or
communicate—including discussing
bids, bidding strategies, or post-auction
market structure. Specifically, the
Bureau would notify separately each
applicant with a short-form application
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
on file for participation in Auction 96
whether applicants with short-form
applications to participate in a pending
auction, including but not limited to
Auction 96, have applied for licenses in
any of the same or overlapping
geographic areas as that applicant.
26. After the close of bidding, bidders’
license selections, upfront payment
amounts, bidding eligibility, bids, and
other bidding-related actions would be
made publicly available.
27. The Bureau seeks comment on the
details of its proposal for implementing
anonymous bidding in Auction 96. The
Bureau also seeks comment on
alternatives to the use of anonymous
bidding procedures for Auction 96.
When the Commission originally
proposed limited information disclosure
procedures, it did so in response to
analysis suggesting that under certain
circumstances the competitiveness and
economic efficiency of a simultaneous
multiple-round auction may be
enhanced if such information is
withheld until after the close of the
auction. The Bureau encourages parties
to provide information about the
benefits and costs of complying with
limited information procedures as
compared with the benefits and costs of
alternative procedures that would
provide for the disclosure of more
information on bidder identities and
interests in the auction. If commenters
believe that the Bureau should not
adopt procedures to limit the disclosure
of certain bidder-specific information
until after the auction, they should
explain their reasoning.
B. Auction Structure
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
i. Bidding Rounds
28. Under the Bureau’s proposal to
use an SMR format, Auction 96 will
consist of sequential bidding rounds.
The initial bidding schedule will be
announced in a public notice to be
released at least one week before the
start of the auction.
29. The Commission will conduct
Auction 96 over the Internet using the
FCC Auction System. Bidders will also
have the option of placing bids by
telephone through a dedicated, toll-free
Auction Bidder Line. The toll-free
telephone number for the Auction
Bidder Line will be provided to
qualified bidders prior to the start of the
auction.
30. The Bureau proposes to retain the
discretion to change the bidding
schedule in order to foster an auction
pace that reasonably balances speed
with the bidders’ need to study round
results and adjust their bidding
strategies. Under this proposal, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Bureau may change the amount of time
for bidding rounds, the amount of time
between rounds, or the number of
rounds per day, depending upon
bidding activity and other factors. The
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
Commenters on this issue should
address the role of the bidding schedule
in managing the pace of the auction,
specifically discussing the tradeoffs in
managing auction pace by bidding
schedule changes, by changing the
activity requirements or bid amount
parameters, or by using other means.
ii. Stopping Rule
31. The Bureau has discretion to
establish stopping rules before or during
multiple round auctions in order to
complete the auction within a
reasonable time. For Auction 96, under
its SMR proposal, the Bureau proposes
to employ a simultaneous stopping rule
approach. Using a simultaneous
stopping rule means all licenses remain
available for bidding until bidding stops
on every license. More specifically,
bidding will close on all licenses and
packages after the first round in which
no bidder submits any new bids, applies
a proactive waiver, or withdraws any
provisionally winning bids (if
withdrawals are permitted). Thus, under
the Bureau’s SMR proposal, unless the
Bureau announces alternative stopping
procedures, the simultaneous stopping
rule will be used in this auction, and
bidding will remain open on all licenses
until bidding stops on every license,
regardless of whether bids are placed on
individual licenses or packages of
licenses. Consequently, it is not possible
to determine in advance how long
Auction 96 will last.
32. Further, the Bureau proposes to
retain the discretion to exercise any of
the following options during Auction
96: (a) Use a modified version of the
simultaneous stopping rule. The
modified stopping rule would close the
auction for all licenses after the first
round in which no bidder applies a
waiver, withdraws a provisionally
winning bid, or places any new bids on
a license or package for which it is not
the provisionally winning bidder. Thus,
absent any other bidding activity, a
bidder placing a new bid on a license
or package for which it is the
provisionally winning bidder would not
keep the auction open under this
modified stopping rule; (b) Use a
modified version of the simultaneous
stopping rule that would close the
auction for all licenses after the first
round in which no bidder applies a
waiver, withdraws a provisionally
winning bid, or places any new bids on
a license or package that is not FCC
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45527
held. Thus, absent any other bidding
activity, a bidder placing a new bid on
a license that does not already have a
provisionally winning bid (an FCC-held
license) would not keep the auction
open under this modified stopping rule;
(c) Use a modified version of the
simultaneous stopping rule that
combines (a) and (b); (d) Declare that the
auction will end after a specified
number of additional rounds (special
stopping rule). If the Bureau invokes
this special stopping rule, it will accept
bids in the specified final round(s), after
which the auction will close; or (e) Keep
the auction open even if no bidder
places any new bids, applies a waiver,
or withdraws (if withdrawals are
permitted) any provisionally winning
bids. In this event, the effect will be the
same as if a bidder had applied a
waiver. The activity rule will apply as
usual, and a bidder with insufficient
activity will either lose bidding
eligibility or use a waiver.
33. The Bureau proposes to exercise
these options only in certain
circumstances, for example, where the
auction is proceeding unusually slowly
or quickly, there is minimal overall
bidding activity, or it appears likely that
the auction will not close within a
reasonable period of time or will close
prematurely. Before exercising these
options, the Bureau is likely to attempt
to change the pace of the auction by, for
example, changing the number of
bidding rounds per day and/or the
minimum acceptable bids. The Bureau
proposes to retain the discretion to
exercise any of these options with or
without prior announcement during the
auction. The Bureau seeks comment on
these proposals.
iii. Information Relating to Auction
Delay, Suspension, or Cancellation
34. For Auction 96, the Bureau
proposes that it may delay, suspend, or
cancel the auction in the event of a
natural disaster, technical obstacle,
administrative or weather necessity,
evidence of an auction security breach
or unlawful bidding activity, or for any
other reason that affects the fair and
efficient conduct of competitive
bidding. The Bureau will notify
participants of any such delay,
suspension or cancellation by public
notice and/or through the FCC Auction
System’s announcement function. If the
auction is delayed or suspended, the
Bureau may, in its sole discretion, elect
to resume the auction starting from the
beginning of the current round or from
some previous round, or cancel the
auction in its entirety. Network
interruption may cause the Bureau to
delay or suspend the auction. The
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45528
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
Bureau emphasize that it will exercise
this authority solely at its discretion,
and note that the exercise of the
Bureau’s authority in this regard is not
intended to be a substitute for situations
in which bidders may wish to apply
their activity rule waivers. The Bureau
seeks comment on this proposal.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Auction Procedures
i. Upfront Payments and Bidding
Eligibility
35. The Bureau has delegated
authority and discretion to determine an
appropriate upfront payment for each
license being auctioned, taking into
account such factors as the efficiency of
the auction process and the potential
value of similar licenses. An upfront
payment is a refundable deposit made
by each bidder to establish its eligibility
to bid on licenses. Upfront payments
that are related to the specific licenses
being auctioned protect against
frivolous or insincere bidding and
provide the Commission with a source
of funds from which to collect payments
owed at the close of the auction. For
Auction 96, the Bureau proposes to
make the upfront payments equal to the
proposed minimum opening bids. The
upfront payments for each license are
set forth in Attachment A to the Auction
96 Comment Public Notice. The Bureau
seeks comment on this proposal.
36. The Bureau further proposes that
the amount of the upfront payment
submitted by a bidder will determine its
initial bidding eligibility in bidding
units. The Bureau proposes to assign
each license a specific number of
bidding units, equal to one bidding unit
per dollar of the upfront payment
proposed for the license. The specific
bidding units for each license are set
forth in Attachment A to the Auction 96
Comment Public Notice. The number of
bidding units for a given license is fixed
and does not change during the auction
as prices change. A bidder’s upfront
payment is not attributed to specific
licenses or packages of licenses. Rather,
a bidder may place bids on any
combination of the licenses it selected
on its short-form application (FCC Form
175), provided that the total number of
bidding units associated with those
licenses does not exceed its current
eligibility. A bidder cannot increase its
eligibility during the auction; it can only
maintain its eligibility or decrease its
eligibility. Thus, in calculating its
upfront payment amount and hence its
initial bidding eligibility, an applicant
must determine the maximum number
of bidding units on which it may wish
to bid (or hold provisionally winning
bids) in any single round and submit an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
upfront payment amount covering that
total number of bidding units. The
Bureau requests comment on these
proposals.
37. Under HPB procedures, the
number of bidding units for a package
equals the sum of the bidding units for
the licenses in that package. The
bidding units for a license and a
package including that license will be
counted only once in determining
bidding eligibility. Thus, when an
applicant calculates its upfront payment
amount by determining the maximum
number of bidding units on which it
may wish to bid in any single round (in
addition to its current provisionally
winning bids), it should count the
bidding units associated with each
license only once even if it may wish to
bid on an individual license and a
package containing that license. The
Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals.
ii. Activity Rule
38. In order to ensure that an SMR
auction closes within a reasonable
period of time, an activity rule requires
bidders to bid actively throughout the
auction, rather than wait until late in
the auction before participating. A
bidder’s activity in a round will be the
sum of the bidding units associated with
any licenses upon which it places bids
during the current round and the
bidding units associated with any
licenses for which it holds provisionally
winning bids placed in previous rounds.
The bidding units associated with a
given license will be counted only once
in a bidder’s activity calculation for the
round, even if the bidder places
multiple bids including the license—for
example, places a bid on a license and
a bid on a package including that
license. Bidders are required to be active
on a specific percentage of their current
bidding eligibility during each round of
the auction. Failure to maintain the
requisite activity level will result in the
use of an activity rule waiver, if any
remain, or a reduction in the bidder’s
eligibility, possibly curtailing or
eliminating the bidder’s ability to place
additional bids in the auction.
39. The Bureau proposes to divide the
auction into at least two stages, each
characterized by a different activity
requirement. The auction will start in
Stage One. The Bureau proposes to
advance the auction to the next stage by
announcement during the auction. In
exercising this discretion, the Bureau
will consider a variety of measures of
auction activity, including but not
limited to the percentage of bidding
units associated with licenses on which
there are new bids, the number of new
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
bids, and the increase in revenue. The
Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals.
40. The Bureau proposes the
following activity requirements, while
noting again that the Bureau retains the
discretion to change stages unilaterally
by announcement during the auction.
Stage One: In each round of the first
stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to
maintain its current bidding eligibility
is required to be active on bidding units
associated with licenses representing at
least 80 percent of its current bidding
eligibility, counting the bidding units
associated with a bid on an individual
license and a package including that
license only once. Failure to maintain
the required activity level will result in
the use of an activity rule waiver or a
reduction in the bidder’s bidding
eligibility for the next round of bidding.
During Stage One, a bidder’s reduced
eligibility for the next round will be
calculated by multiplying the bidder’s
current round activity by five-fourths
(5⁄4). Stage Two: In each round of the
second stage, a bidder desiring to
maintain its current bidding eligibility
is required to be active on 95 percent of
its current bidding eligibility. Failure to
maintain the required activity level will
result in the use of an activity rule
waiver or a reduction in the bidder’s
bidding eligibility for the next round of
bidding. During Stage Two, a bidder’s
reduced eligibility for the next round
will be calculated by multiplying the
bidder’s current round activity by
twenty-nineteenths (20/19).
41. The Bureau requests comment on
these activity requirements. Under this
proposal, the Bureau will retain the
discretion to change the activity
requirements during the auction. For
example, the Bureau could decide to
add an additional stage with a higher
activity requirement, not to transition to
Stage Two if it believes the auction is
progressing satisfactorily under the
Stage One activity requirement, or to
transition to Stage Two with an activity
requirement that is higher or lower than
the 95 percent proposed herein. If the
Bureau exercises this discretion, it will
alert bidders by announcement in the
FCC Auction System.
iii. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing
Eligibility
42. When a bidder’s eligibility in the
current round is below the required
minimum level, it may preserve its
current level of eligibility through an
activity rule waiver. An activity rule
waiver applies to an entire round of
bidding, not to a particular bid. Activity
rule waivers, which can be either
proactive or automatic, are principally a
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss
of bidding eligibility in the event that
exigent circumstances prevent it from
bidding in a particular round.
43. The FCC Auction System assumes
that a bidder that does not meet the
activity requirement would prefer to use
an activity rule waiver (if available)
rather than lose bidding eligibility.
Therefore, the system will automatically
apply a waiver at the end of any bidding
round in which a bidder’s activity level
is below the minimum required unless
(1) the bidder has no activity rule
waivers remaining, or (2) the bidder
overrides the automatic application of a
waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby
meeting the activity requirement. If a
bidder has no waivers remaining and
does not satisfy the required activity
level, the bidder’s current eligibility will
be permanently reduced, possibly
curtailing or eliminating the ability to
place additional bids in the auction.
44. A bidder with insufficient activity
may wish to reduce its bidding
eligibility rather than use an activity
rule waiver. If so, the bidder must
affirmatively override the automatic
waiver mechanism during the bidding
round by using the reduce eligibility
function in the FCC Auction System. In
this case, the bidder’s eligibility is
permanently reduced to bring it into
compliance with the activity rule.
Reducing eligibility is an irreversible
action; once eligibility has been
reduced, a bidder will not be permitted
to regain its lost bidding eligibility, even
if the round has not yet closed.
45. Under the proposed simultaneous
stopping rule, a bidder may apply an
activity rule waiver proactively as a
means to keep the auction open without
placing a bid. If a bidder proactively
applies an activity rule waiver (using
the apply waiver function in the FCC
Auction System) during a bidding round
in which no bids are placed or
withdrawn, the auction will remain
open and the bidder’s eligibility will be
preserved. An automatic waiver applied
by the FCC Auction System in a round
in which there are no new bids,
withdrawals, or proactive waivers will
not keep the auction open. A bidder
cannot apply a proactive waiver after
bidding in a round, and applying a
proactive waiver will preclude it from
placing any bids in that round.
Applying a waiver is irreversible; once
a proactive waiver is submitted, it
cannot be unsubmitted, even if the
round has not yet closed.
46. Consistent with recent
Commission auctions, the Bureau
proposes that each bidder in Auction 96
be provided with a total of three activity
rule waivers that may be used at the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
bidder’s discretion during the course of
the auction. The Bureau seeks comment
on this proposal.
iv. Reserve Price and Minimum
Opening Bids
47. The Commission has directed the
Bureau to seek comment on the use of
a minimum opening bid amount and/or
reserve price prior to the start of each
auction.
48. Normally, a reserve price is an
absolute minimum price below which
an item or items will not be sold in a
given auction. If a reserve price is
utilized, the specific amount of the
reserve price may be disclosed or
undisclosed. A minimum opening bid,
on the other hand, is the minimum bid
price set at the beginning of the auction
below which no bids are accepted. It is
generally used to accelerate the
competitive bidding process. It is
possible for the minimum opening bid
and the reserve price to be the same
amount.
49. Among other factors the Bureau
must consider in deciding whether to
employ either or both of these
mechanisms is the amount of spectrum
being auctioned, levels of incumbency,
the availability of technology to provide
service, the size of the geographic
service areas, the extent of interference
with other spectrum bands, and any
other relevant factors that could have an
impact on the spectrum being
auctioned.
a. Reserve Price
50. The Commission is statutorily
obliged to consider and balance a
variety of public interests and objectives
when establishing service rules and
licensing procedures with respect to the
public spectrum resource. These
objectives include promoting recovery
for the public a portion of the value of
that resource. With respect to the H
Block licenses being offered in Auction
96, the Spectrum Act specifically directs
that proceeds from an auction of H
Block spectrum be deposited into the
Public Safety Trust Fund and be used
for, among other things, funding (or
reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury for
the funding) of the nationwide,
interoperable public safety broadband
network by the First Responder Network
Authority. In view of the various public
interest objectives it must consider, the
Bureau proposes to establish a reserve
price for the H Block licenses offered in
Auction 96. The Bureau further
proposes to utilize an aggregate reserve
price based on the aggregate of the gross
bids for the H Block licenses, rather
than license-by-license reserve prices.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45529
The Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals.
51. The Bureaus seeks comment on
the implementation of a reserve price.
What factors should the Bureau
consider in determining the amount of
the reserve? Should the Bureau disclose
the amount of the reserve price publicly
prior to the auction, or should the
reserve price amount remain
undisclosed? The Bureau also seeks
comment on how to evaluate unsold
licenses in determining whether an
aggregate reserve price has been met.
The Bureau encourages commenters to
address any additional specific issues
related to the use of reserve prices. The
Bureau asks that commenters describe
in detail the specific factors that lead
them to their conclusions.
b. Minimum Opening Bids
52. The Bureau proposes to establish
minimum opening bid amounts for
Auction 96. The Bureau believes a
minimum opening bid amount, which
has been used in other auctions, is an
effective bidding tool for accelerating
the competitive bidding process.
53. For Auction 96 the Bureau
proposes to calculate minimum opening
bid amounts on a license-by-license
basis using a formula based on
bandwidth and license area population,
similar to the Bureau’s approach in
many previous spectrum auctions. The
Bureau proposes to use a calculation
based on $0.07 per megahertz of
bandwidth per population (per MHzpop). Additionally, the Bureau proposes
to incorporate pricing information from
previous auctions to tailor the results of
its calculation to the relative prices for
each EA. For this the Bureau proposes
to create an index of the relative price
of each EA using the winning bid
amounts for the EA licenses of paired
spectrum from Auctions 66 and 73. This
modification to the use of $0.07 per
MHz-pop results in amounts ranging
from less than $0.01 per MHz-pop to
$0.16 per MHz-pop. The Bureau further
proposes a minimum of $1,000 per
license. For the license covering the
Gulf of Mexico, the Bureau proposes to
set the minimum opening bid at
$20,000. The minimum opening bid
amount for a package will equal the sum
of the minimum opening bid amounts
for all of the licenses in that package.
54. The proposed minimum opening
bid amount for each H Block license
available in Auction 96, calculated
pursuant to these procedures, is set
forth in Attachment A of the Auction 96
Comment Public Notice. For packages,
the Bureau proposes that the minimum
opening bid amount of a package will
equal the sum of the minimum opening
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45530
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
bid amounts for all of the licenses in
that package.
55. The Bureau seeks comment on all
of these proposals concerning minimum
opening bids. If commenters believe that
these minimum opening bid amounts
will result in unsold licenses, or are not
reasonable amounts, they should
explain why this is so and comment on
the desirability of an alternative
approach. If a commenter requests a
lower minimum opening bid amount for
a specific license, it should justify the
requested change in detail. If
commenters disagree with the Bureau’s
proposed use of $0.07 per MHz-pop, its
approach to tailoring minimum opening
bid amounts to account for relative
prices among the EAs in past auctions,
or its selection of which past results to
consider, the Bureau asks commenters
to support their claims with valuation
analyses and suggested minimum
opening bid amount levels or formulas.
56. In establishing minimum opening
bid amounts, the Bureau particularly
seeks comment on factors that could
reasonably have an impact on valuation
of the licenses being auctioned,
including the amount of spectrum being
auctioned, levels of incumbency, the
availability of technology to provide
service, the size of the service areas, the
size of the geographic service areas,
issues of interference with other
spectrum bands and any other relevant
factors. The Bureau also seeks comment
on whether the public interest would be
served by having no minimum opening
bid amount.
57. Commenters may also wish to
address the general role of minimum
opening bids in managing the pace of
the auction. For example, commenters
could compare using minimum opening
bids—e.g., by setting higher minimum
opening bids to reduce the number of
rounds it takes licenses to reach their
final prices—to other means of
controlling auction pace, such as
changes to bidding schedules or activity
requirements.
v. Bid Amounts
58. The Bureau proposes that, in each
round, an eligible bidder will be able to
place a bid on a given license or package
using one or more pre-defined bid
amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC
Auction System interface will list the
acceptable bid amounts for each license
and package. The Bureau proposes to
calculate bid amounts in the following
manner.
a. Minimum Acceptable Bids
59. The first of the acceptable bid
amounts is called the minimum
acceptable bid amount. The minimum
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
acceptable bid amount for a license will
be equal to its minimum opening bid
amount until there is a provisionally
winning bid on the license itself or on
a package that includes the license. The
minimum acceptable bid amount for a
package will be the sum of the
minimum acceptable bid amounts for
the licenses in the package. The Bureau
proposes to calculate minimum
acceptable bids based on current price
estimates and an activity-based formula.
60. After there is a provisionally
winning bid covering a license, the FCC
Auction System will determine a
current price estimate (CPE) for each
license in each round as a basis for
calculating minimum acceptable bids.
The CPE is the provisionally winning
bid for the license, or—if the
provisionally winning bid covering the
license is a package bid—a proxy for an
individual license bid calculated as a
share of the provisionally winning
package bid. Attachment B to the
Auction 96 Comment Public Notice
describes in more detail the proposed
mechanism for determining CPEs in an
HPB auction format.
61. Once CPEs are calculated,
minimum acceptable bids are then
determined for each license as the
amount of the CPE plus a percentage of
the CPE. The percentage is calculated
using an activity-based formula. In
general, the percentage will be higher
when many bidders are bidding on a
license, or on a package containing a
license, than when few bidders are
bidding on a license.
62. The percentage of the CPE used to
establish the minimum acceptable bid
amount is calculated based on an
activity index at the end of each round.
The activity index is a weighted average
of (a) the number of distinct bidders
placing a bid on the license, including
package bids, in that round, and (b) the
activity index from the prior round.
Specifically, the activity index is equal
to a weighting factor times the number
of bidders placing a bid covering the
license in the most recent bidding round
plus one minus the weighting factor
times the activity index from the prior
round. The additional percentage is
determined as one plus the activity
index times a minimum percentage
amount, with the result not to exceed a
given maximum. The additional
percentage is then multiplied by the
CPE amount to obtain the minimum
acceptable bid for the next round. The
Bureau proposes initially to set the
weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum
percentage at 0.1 (10%), and the
maximum percentage at 0.25 (25%).
Hence, at these initial settings, the
minimum acceptable bid for a license
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will be between ten percent and twentyfive percent higher than the CPE,
depending upon the bidding activity
covering the license. Equations and
examples are shown in Attachment C of
the Auction 96 Comment Public Notice.
The Bureau seeks comment on whether
to use this activity-based formula or a
different approach. For example, should
the Bureau use a fixed percentage above
the CPE?
b. Additional Bid Amounts
63. The Bureau proposes to calculate
any additional bid amounts using the
minimum acceptable bid amount and a
bid increment percentage—more
specifically, by multiplying the
minimum acceptable bid by one plus
successively higher multiples of the bid
increment percentage. If, for example,
the bid increment percentage is 5
percent, the calculation of the first
additional acceptable bid amount is
(minimum acceptable bid amount) * (1
+ 0.05), rounded, or (minimum
acceptable bid amount) * 1.05, rounded;
the second additional acceptable bid
amount equals the minimum acceptable
bid amount times one plus two times
the bid increment percentage, rounded,
or (minimum acceptable bid amount) *
1.10, rounded; etc. The Bureau will
round the results using the
Commission’s standard rounding
procedures for auctions. The Bureau
proposes initially to set the bid
increment percentage at 5 percent.
64. For Auction 96 the Bureau
proposes to begin the auction with three
acceptable bid amounts per license (the
minimum acceptable bid amount and
two additional bid amounts) and one
acceptable bid amount per package (the
minimum acceptable bid amount and no
additional bid amounts). More
acceptable bidding amounts are
proposed for licenses than for packages
to help ensure that bids on individual
licenses or on smaller packages can
compete with bids on larger packages,
even when there may not be active
competition on all the separate
components of the large package.
c. Bid Amount Changes
65. The Bureau retains the discretion
to change the minimum acceptable bid
amounts, the additional bid amounts,
the number of acceptable bid amounts,
and the parameters of the formulas used
to calculate minimum acceptable bid
amounts and additional bid amounts if
the Bureau determines that
circumstances so dictate. Further, the
Bureau retains the discretion to do so on
a license-by-license and package-bypackage basis. The Bureau also retains
the discretion to limit (a) the amount by
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
which a minimum acceptable bid for a
license may increase compared with the
corresponding CPE, and (b) the amount
by which an additional bid amount may
increase compared with the
immediately preceding acceptable bid
amount. For example, the Bureau could
set a $10 million limit on increases in
minimum acceptable bid amounts over
CPEs. Thus, if the activity-based
formula calculates a minimum
acceptable bid amount that is $20
million higher than the CPE on a
license, the minimum acceptable bid
amount would instead be capped at $10
million above the CPE. The Bureau
seeks comment on the circumstances
under which it should employ such a
limit, factors it should consider when
determining the dollar amount of the
limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such
a limit or changing other parameters—
such as changing the minimum
acceptable bid percentage, the bid
increment percentage, or the number of
acceptable bid amounts. If the Bureau
exercises this discretion, it will alert
bidders by announcement in the FCC
Auction System.
66. The Bureau seeks comment on its
proposals. If commenters disagree with
the Bureau’s proposed acceptable bid
amounts, they should suggest an
alternative number of acceptable bid
amounts to use at the beginning of the
auction, an alternative number to use
later in the auction, and whether the
same number of bid amounts should be
used for both licenses and packages.
Commenters may wish to address the
role of the minimum acceptable bids
and the number of acceptable bid
amounts in managing the pace of the
auction and the tradeoffs in managing
auction pace by changing the bidding
schedule, activity requirements, or bid
amounts, or by using other means.
vi. Provisionally Winning Bids
67. Provisionally winning bids are
bids that would become final winning
bids if the auction were to close in that
given round. At the end of a bidding
round, the FCC Auction System
determines which combination of
individual and package bids together
yields the highest aggregate gross bid
amount, taking into consideration each
bidder’s highest bid on each license or
package submitted up to that point in
the auction. These bids become the
provisionally winning bids for the
round.
68. If identical high bid amounts are
submitted on a license or package in any
given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC
Auction System will use a random
number generator to select a single
provisionally winning bid from among
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
the tied bids. (The Auction System
assigns a random number to each bid
when the bid is entered. The tied bid
with the highest random number wins
the tiebreaker.) The remaining bidders,
as well as the provisionally winning
bidder, can submit higher bids in
subsequent rounds. However, if the
auction were to end with no other bids
being placed, the winning bidder would
be the one that placed the provisionally
winning bid.
69. The set of provisionally winning
bids is determined after every round in
which new bids are submitted. The
provisionally winning bids at the end of
the auction become winning bids
provided that any applicable reserve
prices have been met. The Bureau
reminds bidders that provisionally
winning bids count toward activity for
purposes of the activity rule.
vii. Bid Removal
70. For Auction 96, the Bureau
proposes the following bid removal
procedures. Before the close of a
bidding round, a bidder has the option
of removing any bid placed in that
round. By removing a selected bid in the
FCC Auction System, a bidder may
effectively undo any bid placed within
that round. Once a round closes, a
bidder may no longer remove a bid. The
Bureau seeks comment on this bid
removal proposal.
viii. Bid Withdrawal
71. Under the Bureau’s proposal to
use SMR with HPB procedures, the
Bureau proposes not to permit any bids,
provisionally winning or otherwise, to
be dropped or withdrawn from
consideration in Auction 96. The
benefits that bidders may realize from
withdrawing bids in a typical SMR
auction are minimized under the
proposed package bidding format. In
addition, in an SMR auction with
package bidding there are significant
risks associated with bid withdrawals
that are not present in an SMR auction
without package bidding. As the
Commission has previously explained,
under its typical SMR auction format
without package bidding, allowing bid
withdrawals facilitates efficient
aggregation of licenses and the pursuit
of backup strategies as information
becomes available during the course of
an auction. The Commission noted,
however, that in some instances bidders
may seek to withdraw bids for improper
reasons. The Bureau, therefore, has
discretion in managing the auction to
limit the number of withdrawals to
prevent any bidding abuses.
72. Under the HPB auction format that
the Bureau proposes for Auction 96, the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45531
potential benefits of withdrawn or
dropped bids in facilitating aggregations
are far lower than they would be in a
typical SMR auction. While the
predetermined packages may not
coincide with the all or nothing
aggregation needs of all bidders, the
hierarchical packages should
significantly reduce the overall risk that
bidders will win only some of the
licenses in a desired set. Therefore, to
the extent that package bids allow
bidders to avoid such risk, withdrawals
are less useful to bidders. Further,
because the licenses available in
Auction 96 consist of a single frequency
block, bidders will not need to use
withdrawals to pursue backup strategies
in other blocks, as they sometimes have
in other Commission spectrum auctions
conducted with SMR procedures. At the
same time, in an auction with package
bidding, dropping bids from
consideration can have negative effects
that would not arise in a typical SMR
auction. Withdrawals by one bidder on
licenses subject to package bidding can
be more disruptive to the bidding
strategies of others than withdrawals on
licenses not subject to package bidding.
In a non-package bidding auction,
whether a bid on a license becomes
provisionally winning depends only
upon the bids submitted for that license.
In contrast, whether a bid becomes
provisionally winning on a license
subject to package bidding depends
upon the bids submitted for that license,
the bids submitted for the packages
containing that license, and the bids
submitted for other licenses in those
packages. Consequently, a withdrawn
bid on a license subject to package
bidding has the potential to alter the
composition of the provisionally
winning set of bids, and may adversely
affect other bidders. Moreover, because
bidders interested in single licenses or
smaller packages need their bids to
combine with the bids by other bidders
in order to be competitive with bids on
larger packages, having even nonprovisionally winning bids withdrawn
from consideration can adversely affect
their ability to compete. In addition,
because CPEs for a license depend in
part on package bids including the
license, the process for determining
current price estimates is more stable—
and less subject to undesirable
manipulation—if bids cannot be
withdrawn from consideration. Hence,
because of the potential under the
proposed package bidding auction
format for withdrawn bids,
provisionally winning or not, to affect
auction dynamics and the bidding
strategies of other bidders, the Bureau
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45532
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
proposes not to allow any bids to be
withdrawn after the round in which
they were placed has closed.
73. The Bureau seeks comment on
this proposal not to allow bids to be
withdrawn or removed from
consideration under its proposed HPB
auction procedures. If bidders disagree
with this proposal, the Bureau asks
them to support their arguments by
taking into account the structure of the
H Block inventory, the impact on
auction dynamics and the pricing
mechanism, and the effects on the
bidding strategies of other bidders. In
the event the Bureau does not utilize
HPB procedures with an SMR format,
should it allow bid withdrawals? In the
past, when the Bureau has allowed bid
withdrawals in SMR auctions, it
typically limited withdrawn bids to a
maximum of three rounds, and
sometimes set a lower limit on the
number of withdrawal rounds. What
would be the appropriate number of
rounds in Auction 96 if the Bureau
permits bid withdrawals?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
D. Post-Auction Payments
i. Apportioning Package Bids
74. In package bidding, when a bidder
places an all-or-nothing bid on a
package of licenses, there will be no
identifiable bid amounts on the
individual licenses that compose the
package. However, the Commission’s
competitive bidding rules and
procedures assume that the amount of
each bid on an individual license
always is known. For example, rules for
calculating the amount of small
business, new entrant, or tribal land
bidding credits presume that the
winning bid on the license is known.
Similarly, in determining the amount of
a default or withdrawal payment, which
involves a comparison between the
withdrawing or defaulting bidder’s bid
and a subsequent bid, the rules assume
that there are bid amounts for
individual licenses. Accordingly, the
Commission adopted a rule providing
that, in advance of each auction with
package bidding, the Commission shall
establish a methodology for determining
how to estimate the price or bid on an
individual license included in a package
of licenses.
75. The Bureau proposes that under
its HPB procedures, it will use final
CPEs as an estimate of the price or bid
on an individual license for the purpose
of later apportioning package bids.
Therefore, when regulatory calculations
require individual license bid amounts,
the Bureau will divide the package bid
amount among the licenses composing
the package in proportion to the final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
round CPEs for the licenses. The Bureau
seeks comment on this proposal.
ii. Interim Withdrawal Payment
Percentage
76. The Bureau seeks comment
related to its proposal to use HPB
procedures on not permitting any bids,
provisionally winning or otherwise, to
be withdrawn or dropped from
consideration in Auction 96. Under the
Bureau’s proposal, it would have no
need to determine an appropriate
interim withdrawal payment
percentage.
77. The Bureau seeks comment,
however, on the appropriate interim
withdrawal payment percentage to
apply if it allows withdrawals under
procedures for an SMR auction without
package bidding for Auction 96.
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment
on the percentage of a withdrawn bid
that should be assessed as an interim
withdrawal payment in the event that a
final withdrawal payment cannot be
determined at the close of the auction.
In general, the Commission’s rules
provide that a bidder that withdraws a
bid during an auction is subject to a
withdrawal payment equal to the
difference between the amount of the
withdrawn bid and the amount of the
winning bid in the same or subsequent
auction(s). If a bid is withdrawn and no
subsequent higher bid is placed and/or
the license is not won in the same
auction, the final withdrawal payment
cannot be calculated until after the close
of a subsequent auction in which a
higher bid for the license (or the
equivalent to the license) is placed or
the license is won. When that final
payment cannot yet be calculated, the
bidder responsible for the withdrawn
bid is assessed an interim bid
withdrawal payment, which will be
applied toward any final bid withdrawal
payment that is ultimately assessed. 47
CFR 1.2104(g)(1) requires that the
percentage of the withdrawn bid to be
assessed as an interim bid withdrawal
payment be between three percent and
twenty percent and that it be set in
advance of the auction.
78. The Commission has determined
that the level of the interim withdrawal
payment in a particular auction will be
based on the nature of the service and
the inventory of the licenses being
offered. The Commission has noted that
it may impose a higher interim
withdrawal payment percentage to deter
the anti-competitive use of withdrawals
when, for example, bidders likely will
not need to aggregate the licenses being
offered in the auction, such as when few
licenses are offered that are on adjacent
frequencies or in adjacent areas, or
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
when there are few synergies to be
captured by combining licenses.
However, as the Bureau has discussed
in connection with its proposal to use
package bidding for Auction 96, there
may be significant benefits for some
bidders from aggregating EA licenses.
Hence, if the Bureau does not use
package bidding, withdrawals may be
useful to protect bidders against
incomplete aggregations in Auction 96.
Balancing the potential need for bidders
to use withdrawals to avoid winning
incomplete combinations of licenses
with the Bureau’s interest in deterring
undesirable strategic use of
withdrawals, the Bureau proposes a
percentage below the maximum twenty
percent permitted under the current
rules but above the three percent
previously provided by the
Commission’s rules. Specifically, the
Bureau proposes to establish an interim
bid withdrawal payment of fifteen
percent of the withdrawn bid for this
auction. The Bureau seeks comment on
this proposal.
iii. Additional Default Payment
Percentage
79. Any winning bidder that defaults
or is disqualified after the close of an
auction (i.e., fails to remit the required
down payment within the prescribed
period of time, fails to submit a timely
long-form application, fails to make full
and timely final payment, or is
otherwise disqualified) is liable for a
default payment under 47 CFR
1.2104(g)(2). This payment consists of a
deficiency payment, equal to the
difference between the amount of the
Auction 96 bidder’s winning bid and
the amount of the winning bid the next
time a license covering the same
spectrum is won in an auction, plus an
additional payment equal to a
percentage of the defaulter’s bid or of
the subsequent winning bid, whichever
is less.
80. The percentage of the bid that a
defaulting bidder must pay in addition
to the deficiency will depend on the
auction format ultimately chosen for a
particular auction. In auctions with
package bidding, as the Bureau propose
to use in Auction 96, the additional
payment is set, pursuant to 47 CFR
1.2104(g)(2)(ii), at twenty-five percent of
the applicable bid. This higher level
reflects the fact that a defaulted winning
bid in an auction with package bidding
may affect multiple licenses and
perhaps all of the other licenses being
offered.
81. In non-package auctions, the
amount can range from three percent up
to a maximum of twenty percent,
established in advance of the auction
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
and based on the nature of the service
and the inventory of the licenses being
offered, and so, the Bureau seeks
comment on an appropriate additional
default payment percentage in the event
it does not conduct Auction 96 with
package bidding procedures. Defaults
weaken the integrity of the auction
process and may impede the
deployment of service to the public, and
an additional default payment of up to
twenty percent will be more effective in
deterring defaults than the three percent
used in some earlier auctions. At the
same time, the Bureau does not believe
the detrimental effects of any defaults in
Auction 96 are likely to be unusually
great. Balancing these considerations,
the Bureau proposes to establish an
additional default payment for Auction
96 of fifteen percent of the applicable
bid. The Bureau seeks comment on this
proposal.
V. Ex Parte Rules
82. This proceeding has been
designated as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s 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 is generally
required. Other provisions pertaining to
oral and written ex parte presentations
in permit-but-disclose proceedings are
set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access
Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2013–18184 Filed 7–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 12–375; DA 13–1446]
Data on Service Contracts Included in
Record of Inmate Calling Service Rates
Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
notifies the public that certain publiclyavailable inmate calling services (ICS)
contracts may be considered as part of
the record in this proceeding. On June
6, 2013, the Bureau submitted a letter
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
into the record noting that certain
readily-available information may be
relevant to a number of issues raised in
this proceeding and may be considered
as part of the record. In addition, the
Bureau submitted a letter into the record
on June 21, 2013, noting that certain
readily-available U.S. Census data may
be considered in this proceeding. A
public notice announcing the submittals
was released on June 26, 2013. A copy
of the letters is attached.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Haledjian, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy
Division, (202) 418–1520 or
gregory.haledjian@fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Public
Notice, WC Docket No. 12–375; DA 13–
1446, released June 26, 2013. The
complete 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
document may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at https://
www.bcpiweb.com.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Communications Commission.
Kalpak Gude,
Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
June 6, 2013
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services, WC Docket No. 12–375
Dear Ms. Dortch:
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in this docket considers whether
changes to our rules are necessary to
ensure just and reasonable ICS rates for
interstate, long distance calling at
publicly- and privately-administered
correctional facilities.1
With this letter, the Wireline
Competition Bureau notes that the
following readily-available information
may be relevant to a number of issues
raised in the proceeding and may be
considered as part of the record in this
1 Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC
Docket No. 12–375, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
27 FCC Rcd 16629 (2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45533
proceeding: certain prison phone
contract information referred to in the
record in this proceeding 2 and available
at https://prisonphonejustice.org/PrisonPhone-Kickbacks.aspx.3
Respectfully Submitted,
llllllllllllllllll
l
Jamie N. Susskind,
Acting Legal Advisor to the Bureau
Chief Wireline Competition Bureau;
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
June 21, 2013
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services, WC Docket No. 12–375
Dear Ms. Dortch:
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in this docket considers whether
changes to our rules are necessary to
ensure just and reasonable rates for
inmate calling services (ICS) for
interstate calling at publicly- and
privately- administered correctional
facilities.1
With this letter, the Wireline
Competition Bureau notes that the
following readily-available information
may be relevant to a number of issues
raised in the proceeding and may be
considered as part of the record in this
proceeding: data on the overall U.S.
distribution of incarceration facility
sizes that may be used as a basis for this
order and obtained from the U.S. Census
Bureau, Census of State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, 2005;2 U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates
at Midyear 2007;3 U.S. Census Bureau,
Census of Jail Facilities, 2006;4 and
2 See Human Rights Defense Center Comments,
WC Docket No. 12–375, at 2 and 11 (filed Mar. 25,
2013).
3 See https://www.prisonphonejustice.org/PrisonPhone-Kickbacks.aspx (last visited June 6, 2013).
1 Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC
Docket No. 12–375, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
27 FCC Rcd 16629 (2012).
2 See James J. Stephan, Census of State and
Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005, BUREAU OF
JUSTICE STATISTICS, October 1, 2008, available at
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=530
(last visited June 20, 2013) (data summary); Study
No. 24642, NATIONAL ARCHIVE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
DATA, AVAILABLE AT https://dx.doi.org/10.3886/
ICPSR24642.v2 (last visited June 20 2013) (actual
dataset).
3 See Todd D. Minton & William J. Sabol, Jail
Inmates at Midyear 2007, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
STATISTICS, June 6, 2008, available at https://
www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1005 (last
visited June 20, 2013).
4 See James J. Stephan & Georgette Walsh, Census
of Jail Facilities, 2006, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
STATISTICS, December 20, 2011, available at https://
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
Continued
29JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45524-45533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18184]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[AU Docket No. 13-178; DA 13-1540]
Auction of H Block Licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz Bands; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction
96
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the intention to hold an auction of H
Block licenses in the 1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz bands. This document
also seeks comment on competitive bidding procedures for Auction 96.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 5, 2013, and reply comments
are due on or before August 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to this public notice must refer to
AU Docket No. 13-178. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau strongly
encourages interested parties to file comments electronically, and
request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be
submitted electronically to the following address: auction96@fcc.gov.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
[squf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[squf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[squf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and four copies of each filing. 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, Attn: WTB/ASAD, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[squf] 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. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
[squf] 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.
[squf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[squf] 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: For auction legal questions:
Valerie Barrish at (202) 418-0660; for general auction questions: Jeff
Crooks at (202) 4188-0660 or Debbie Smith or Linda Sanderson at (717)
338-2868. Broadband Division: For H Block service rule questions:
Matthew Pearl (legal) or Janet Young (technical) at (202) 418-2487.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Auction 96 Comment
Public Notice released on July 15, 2013. The complete text of the
Auction 96 Comment Public Notice, including all attachments and related
Commission documents, is available for public inspection and copying
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday
or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. The Auction 96 Comment Public Notice and its attachments, as
well as related Commission documents, also may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at
its Web site: https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from
BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example,
DA 13-1540. The Auction 96 Comment Public Notice and related documents
also are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: https://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/96/, or by using the search function for AU
Docket No. 13-178 on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) Web page at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
I. Introduction
1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announces its
intention to hold an auction of licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz (Lower H
Block) and 1995-2000 MHz (Upper H Block) bands (collectively, the H
Block), and seeks comment on the procedures to be used for this
auction. The staff will be prepared to conduct this auction, which will
be designated as Auction 96, by or as early as January 14, 2014.
2. The Commission is offering the licenses in Auction 96 pursuant
to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum
Act). The Spectrum Act requires, among other things, that the
Commission allocate for commercial use and license spectrum in the H
Block using a system of competitive bidding no later than February 23,
2015.
II. Licenses To Be Offered In Auction 96
A. Description of Licenses
3. In the H Block Report and Order, FCC 13-88, the Commission
concluded that licenses for H Block spectrum should be awarded on an
Economic Areas (EA) basis in all areas, including the Gulf of Mexico.
Auction 96 will offer one license for each of the 176 EAs. The Lower H
Block and Upper H Block frequencies will be licensed as
[[Page 45525]]
paired 5 megahertz blocks, with each license having a total bandwidth
of 10 megahertz; 1915-1920 MHz for mobile and low power fixed (i.e.,
uplink) operations and 1995-2000 MHz for base station and fixed (i.e.,
downlink) operations. A complete list of the licenses offered in
Auction 96 is available in Attachment A to the Auction 96 Comment
Public Notice.
B. Cost-Sharing Obligations
4. The spectrum in the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block is
subject to cost-sharing requirements related to the past clearing and
relocation of incumbent users from these bands. Consistent with its
long-standing policy that cost-sharing obligations for both the Lower H
Block and the Upper H Block be apportioned on a pro rata basis against
the relocation costs attributable to the particular band, the
Commission adopted cost-sharing rules in the H Block Report and Order
that require H Block licensees to pay a pro rata share of expenses
previously incurred by UTAM, Inc. (UTAM) and by Sprint Nextel, Inc.
(Sprint) in clearing incumbents from the Lower H Block and the Upper H
Block, respectively.
5. Under the cost sharing formula adopted in the H Block Report and
Order, the reimbursement amount owed to UTAM with respect to the 1915-
1920 MHz band will be determined by dividing the gross winning bid for
an H Block license by the sum of the gross winning bids for all H Block
licenses won in Auction 96 and then multiplying that result by
$12,629,857--the total amount owed to UTAM for clearing the Lower H
Block. The H Block Report and Order adopted the same cost-sharing
formula for the Upper H Block (1995-2000 MHz band) related to Sprint's
clearing costs of $94,875,516.
6. Winning bidders are required to pay UTAM and Sprint, as
applicable, the reimbursement amounts owed within thirty days after the
grant of the winning bidders' long-form license applications.
7. The Commission also adopted a contingency plan in the H Block
Report and Order that will be triggered in the unlikely event that
licenses won in this auction cover less than forty percent of the U.S.
population. If such an event occurs, winning bidders--in this auction
and in subsequent H Block auctions--will be required to timely pay UTAM
and Sprint, respectively, their pro rata share calculated by dividing
the population of the individual EA by the total U.S. population and
then multiplying this quotient by $12,629,857 for UTAM and by
$94,875,516 for Sprint.
8. The cost-sharing rules and contingency plan adopted in the H
Block Report and Order are designed to ensure that UTAM and Sprint
receive full reimbursement after this auction by effectively
apportioning the reimbursement costs associated with any unsold H Block
licenses among the winning bidders, except in cases where the
contingency plan is triggered or a successful bidder's long-form
application is not filed or granted. If any of the licenses won in this
auction are not awarded, the license at issue will be deemed to have
triggered a reimbursement obligation that will be paid by the licensee
acquiring the license in a subsequent auction.
III. Due Diligence
9. Each potential bidder is solely responsible for investigating
and evaluating all technical and marketplace factors that may have a
bearing on the value of the licenses that it is seeking in this
auction. Each bidder is responsible for assuring that, if it wins a
license, it will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance
with the Commission's rules. The Commission makes no representations or
warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Each
applicant should be aware that a Commission auction represents an
opportunity to become a Commission licensee, subject to certain
conditions and regulations. A Commission auction does not constitute an
endorsement by the Commission of any particular service, technology, or
product, nor does a Commission license constitute a guarantee of
business success.
10. An applicant should perform its due diligence research and
analysis before proceeding, as it would with any new business venture.
Each potential bidder should perform technical analyses and/or refresh
any previous analyses to assure itself that, should it become a winning
bidder for any Auction 96 license, it will be able to build and operate
facilities that will fully comply with all applicable technical and
regulatory requirements. The Bureau strongly encourages each applicant
to inspect any prospective transmitter sites located in, or near, the
geographic area for which it plans to bid; confirm the availability of
such sites; and familiarize itself with the Commission's rules
regarding the National Environmental Policy Act.
11. The Bureau strongly encourages each applicant to conduct its
own research prior to Auction 96 in order to determine the existence of
pending administrative, rulemaking, or judicial proceedings that might
affect its decisions regarding participation in the auction.
12. The Bureau strongly encourages participants in Auction 96 to
continue such research throughout the auction. The due diligence
considerations mentioned in the Auction 96 Comment Public Notice do not
constitute an exhaustive list of steps that should be undertaken prior
to participating in this auction. As always, the burden is on the
potential bidder to determine how much research to undertake, depending
upon the specific facts and circumstances related to its interests.
IV. Bureau Seeks Comment on Auction Procedures
13. The Commission directed the Bureau, under its existing
delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific
procedures prior to the start of each auction. The Bureau therefore
seeks comment on the following issues relating to the conduct of
Auction 96.
A. Auction Design
i. Simultaneous Multiple-Round Auction--With or Without Package Bidding
14. The Bureau proposes to conduct Auction 96 using a simultaneous
multiple-round (SMR) auction format. An SMR auction offers every
license for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding
rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids. Typically, bidding
remains open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license.
15. The Bureau additionally proposes to incorporate provisions for
a simple form of package bidding into the simultaneous multiple-round
auction. In particular, the Bureau proposes to use a form of package
bidding called hierarchical package bidding (HPB) in which, in addition
to being able to bid on individual licenses, bidders would also be able
to bid on certain tiered, non-overlapping packages of licenses. The
Commission concluded in the H Block Report and Order that the H Block
spectrum should be licensed on an EA basis. Consistent with that
conclusion, the Bureau proposes that the basic bidding tier under HPB
be individual EA licenses. The H Block Report and Order also noted that
the decision to license at the EA level would facilitate aggregations
at the larger Major Economic Area (MEA) and Regional Economic Area
Grouping (REAG) levels. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the use
of predefined packages of EAs in MEAs and potentially larger packages
such as REAGs, as well as a package
[[Page 45526]]
comprising all markets in the contiguous 48 states. The Bureau seeks
more detailed comment on its proposals and on various alternatives.
16. By permitting only non-overlapping packages at each tier (for
example, a given EA could be included in only one MEA, which in turn
could be included in only one REAG), HPB considerably simplifies bidder
strategy and computational complexity compared to some other forms of
package bidding. The pricing rules used with HPB are transparent and
make it clear to bidders how package bids are evaluated relative to
individual bids, hence making it easier than in more complex package
bidding formats for bidders interested in individual licenses to
compete with bidders interested in packages. As a result of these and
other advantages, HPB and similar packaging formats have performed well
in tests of overall auction efficiency. Auction 96 is the first H Block
auction and a single complete set of nationwide EA licenses is
available. Consequently, offering predefined packages might allow for
significant economies of scale that may well correspond to a variety of
business plans. Bidders that wish smaller or more tailored aggregations
than the allowable predefined packages would be able to bid on
individual EAs instead of or in addition to the predefined packages.
17. The Bureau used a variant of HPB in Auction 73 under
considerably different circumstances. Most notably, in Auction 73 the
Bureau implemented SMR bidding across the five available blocks of
licenses and determined that package bidding would be permitted in only
one of the blocks. Further, if the aggregate reserve price that was
applicable to the package bidding block in Auction 73 was not met, the
performance and public interest requirements pertaining to the licenses
in the block would change significantly. As a result, special
procedures were needed to allow bidders to shift their bidding across
the multiple available blocks, the rest of which were subject to a
different bidding format. Those complicating factors--and their
implications for bidder strategies--are not present in Auction 96,
which includes only a single block of licenses. Hence, the bidding
rules implementing HPB would be considerably simpler than those for
Auction 73.
18. Briefly, HPB as proposed for Auction 96 could be implemented as
follows. The Bureau would determine the predefined packages according
to a non-overlapping hierarchical structure, with an initial tier
consisting of individual EA licenses. The Bureau could adopt a two-tier
structure composed simply of the initial tier of EAs and MEA packages.
Any subsequent tiers could consist of non-overlapping packages of the
licenses in the initial tier and all subsidiary tiers. For example, if
the Bureau were to adopt MEA, REAG, and nationwide packages, these
packages would all nest accordingly (e.g., EAs nest to MEAs, MEAs nest
to REAGs, and REAGs nest to the national package). The winning set of
bids could consist of bids from various tiers, as long as each license
is included in only one winning bid. That is, in the four-tier
construct, the winning set could potentially include individual
licenses in one part of the country, MEA packages in other areas, and
potentially REAG packages as well, provided the value of all of these
individual and package bids exceeds a bid on a nationwide package. A
bidder may place bids on any combination of individual licenses or
packages.
19. After each round, the Commission would determine the
combination of package and/or single license bids that yields the
highest gross amount, and those bids would become provisionally
winning. When determining provisionally winning bids, the FCC Auction
System would consider each bidder's highest bid on each license or
package placed up to that point in the auction, regardless of whether
the bids were provisionally winning after the rounds in which they were
placed. Considering these bids from previous rounds makes it possible
for new bids on individual licenses to combine with other bids in order
to compete with bids on packages. The provisionally winning bids would
be determined by comparing aggregate gross bid amounts, at each tier,
for various combinations of package and individual license bids.
20. The Bureau seeks comment generally on its proposed simultaneous
multiple-round auction format with hierarchical package bidding. Would
HPB balance aggregation needs with tractability, transparency, and
simplicity? The Bureau seeks comment also on what packages should be
available for various tiers. Should the Bureau allow a simple structure
of EAs and MEAs, or some other set of tiers of MEAs, REAGs, and/or a
nationwide package? Alternatively, would the Bureau standard SMR
auction format without package bidding sufficiently accommodate
economies of scale or other complementarities? If the Bureau does not
implement package bidding for Auction 96, it proposes to conduct the
auction using standard SMR procedures.
21. The Bureau proposes to conduct Auction 96 as a single round
sealed bid auction. While not as common for spectrum auctions as the
SMR format, the Bureau has previously used the single round sealed bid
format. The Bureau proposes this alternative because Auction 96 offers
licenses in only a single spectrum block and a single round auction may
simplify the process for bidders and reduce the costs of auction
participation. In a single round format the Bureau could also offer one
or more tiers of non-overlapping packages for HPB. The Bureau seeks
comment on any design features of the sealed bid format (e.g., first-
price or second-price). The Bureau seeks comment on this alternative
proposal and on any other auction formats it should consider for
Auction 96.
ii. Anonymous Bidding
22. In several prior Commission auctions, the Bureau has adopted
procedures to limit the disclosure of certain bidder-specific
information until after the auction. Consistent with that practice, the
Bureau proposes to adopt certain procedures for limited information
disclosure or anonymous bidding for Auction 96. Specifically, the
Bureau proposes to withhold, until after the close of bidding, public
release of (1) bidders' license selections on their short-form
applications (FCC Form 175), (2) the amounts of bidders' upfront
payments and bidding eligibility, and (3) information that may reveal
the identities of bidders placing bids and taking other bidding-related
actions.
23. Under these proposed limited information procedures, the amount
of every bid placed and whether a bid was withdrawn would be disclosed
after the close of every round, but the identities of bidders placing
specific bids or withdrawals (if permitted) and the net bid amounts
would not be disclosed until after the close of the auction.
24. Bidders would have access to additional information about their
own bids. For example, bidders would be able to view their own level of
eligibility, before and during the auction, through the FCC Auction
System.
25. Moreover, for the purpose of complying with 47 CFR 1.2105(c),
which prohibits certain communications between applicants (formerly
referred to as the anti-collusion rule), applicants would be made aware
of other applicants with which they will not be permitted to cooperate,
collaborate, or communicate--including discussing bids, bidding
strategies, or post-auction market structure. Specifically, the Bureau
would notify separately each applicant with a short-form application
[[Page 45527]]
on file for participation in Auction 96 whether applicants with short-
form applications to participate in a pending auction, including but
not limited to Auction 96, have applied for licenses in any of the same
or overlapping geographic areas as that applicant.
26. After the close of bidding, bidders' license selections,
upfront payment amounts, bidding eligibility, bids, and other bidding-
related actions would be made publicly available.
27. The Bureau seeks comment on the details of its proposal for
implementing anonymous bidding in Auction 96. The Bureau also seeks
comment on alternatives to the use of anonymous bidding procedures for
Auction 96. When the Commission originally proposed limited information
disclosure procedures, it did so in response to analysis suggesting
that under certain circumstances the competitiveness and economic
efficiency of a simultaneous multiple-round auction may be enhanced if
such information is withheld until after the close of the auction. The
Bureau encourages parties to provide information about the benefits and
costs of complying with limited information procedures as compared with
the benefits and costs of alternative procedures that would provide for
the disclosure of more information on bidder identities and interests
in the auction. If commenters believe that the Bureau should not adopt
procedures to limit the disclosure of certain bidder-specific
information until after the auction, they should explain their
reasoning.
B. Auction Structure
i. Bidding Rounds
28. Under the Bureau's proposal to use an SMR format, Auction 96
will consist of sequential bidding rounds. The initial bidding schedule
will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week
before the start of the auction.
29. The Commission will conduct Auction 96 over the Internet using
the FCC Auction System. Bidders will also have the option of placing
bids by telephone through a dedicated, toll-free Auction Bidder Line.
The toll-free telephone number for the Auction Bidder Line will be
provided to qualified bidders prior to the start of the auction.
30. The Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to change the
bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably
balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust
their bidding strategies. Under this proposal, the Bureau may change
the amount of time for bidding rounds, the amount of time between
rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding
activity and other factors. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding
schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing
the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by
changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by
using other means.
ii. Stopping Rule
31. The Bureau has discretion to establish stopping rules before or
during multiple round auctions in order to complete the auction within
a reasonable time. For Auction 96, under its SMR proposal, the Bureau
proposes to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. Using a
simultaneous stopping rule means all licenses remain available for
bidding until bidding stops on every license. More specifically,
bidding will close on all licenses and packages after the first round
in which no bidder submits any new bids, applies a proactive waiver, or
withdraws any provisionally winning bids (if withdrawals are
permitted). Thus, under the Bureau's SMR proposal, unless the Bureau
announces alternative stopping procedures, the simultaneous stopping
rule will be used in this auction, and bidding will remain open on all
licenses until bidding stops on every license, regardless of whether
bids are placed on individual licenses or packages of licenses.
Consequently, it is not possible to determine in advance how long
Auction 96 will last.
32. Further, the Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to
exercise any of the following options during Auction 96: (a) Use a
modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. The modified
stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first
round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally
winning bid, or places any new bids on a license or package for which
it is not the provisionally winning bidder. Thus, absent any other
bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license or package
for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the
auction open under this modified stopping rule; (b) Use a modified
version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction
for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder applies a
waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid, or places any new bids
on a license or package that is not FCC held. Thus, absent any other
bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license that does not
already have a provisionally winning bid (an FCC-held license) would
not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule; (c) Use a
modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that combines (a)
and (b); (d) Declare that the auction will end after a specified number
of additional rounds (special stopping rule). If the Bureau invokes
this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the specified final
round(s), after which the auction will close; or (e) Keep the auction
open even if no bidder places any new bids, applies a waiver, or
withdraws (if withdrawals are permitted) any provisionally winning
bids. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had
applied a waiver. The activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder
with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use
a waiver.
33. The Bureau proposes to exercise these options only in certain
circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually
slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it
appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable
period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these
options, the Bureau is likely to attempt to change the pace of the
auction by, for example, changing the number of bidding rounds per day
and/or the minimum acceptable bids. The Bureau proposes to retain the
discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior
announcement during the auction. The Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals.
iii. Information Relating to Auction Delay, Suspension, or Cancellation
34. For Auction 96, the Bureau proposes that it may delay, suspend,
or cancel the auction in the event of a natural disaster, technical
obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction
security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason
that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. The
Bureau will notify participants of any such delay, suspension or
cancellation by public notice and/or through the FCC Auction System's
announcement function. If the auction is delayed or suspended, the
Bureau may, in its sole discretion, elect to resume the auction
starting from the beginning of the current round or from some previous
round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may
cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. The
[[Page 45528]]
Bureau emphasize that it will exercise this authority solely at its
discretion, and note that the exercise of the Bureau's authority in
this regard is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which
bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. The Bureau seeks
comment on this proposal.
C. Auction Procedures
i. Upfront Payments and Bidding Eligibility
35. The Bureau has delegated authority and discretion to determine
an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking
into account such factors as the efficiency of the auction process and
the potential value of similar licenses. An upfront payment is a
refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish its eligibility to
bid on licenses. Upfront payments that are related to the specific
licenses being auctioned protect against frivolous or insincere bidding
and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect
payments owed at the close of the auction. For Auction 96, the Bureau
proposes to make the upfront payments equal to the proposed minimum
opening bids. The upfront payments for each license are set forth in
Attachment A to the Auction 96 Comment Public Notice. The Bureau seeks
comment on this proposal.
36. The Bureau further proposes that the amount of the upfront
payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding
eligibility in bidding units. The Bureau proposes to assign each
license a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit
per dollar of the upfront payment proposed for the license. The
specific bidding units for each license are set forth in Attachment A
to the Auction 96 Comment Public Notice. The number of bidding units
for a given license is fixed and does not change during the auction as
prices change. A bidder's upfront payment is not attributed to specific
licenses or packages of licenses. Rather, a bidder may place bids on
any combination of the licenses it selected on its short-form
application (FCC Form 175), provided that the total number of bidding
units associated with those licenses does not exceed its current
eligibility. A bidder cannot increase its eligibility during the
auction; it can only maintain its eligibility or decrease its
eligibility. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount and hence
its initial bidding eligibility, an applicant must determine the
maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to bid (or hold
provisionally winning bids) in any single round and submit an upfront
payment amount covering that total number of bidding units. The Bureau
requests comment on these proposals.
37. Under HPB procedures, the number of bidding units for a package
equals the sum of the bidding units for the licenses in that package.
The bidding units for a license and a package including that license
will be counted only once in determining bidding eligibility. Thus,
when an applicant calculates its upfront payment amount by determining
the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to bid in any
single round (in addition to its current provisionally winning bids),
it should count the bidding units associated with each license only
once even if it may wish to bid on an individual license and a package
containing that license. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
ii. Activity Rule
38. In order to ensure that an SMR auction closes within a
reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid
actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the
auction before participating. A bidder's activity in a round will be
the sum of the bidding units associated with any licenses upon which it
places bids during the current round and the bidding units associated
with any licenses for which it holds provisionally winning bids placed
in previous rounds. The bidding units associated with a given license
will be counted only once in a bidder's activity calculation for the
round, even if the bidder places multiple bids including the license--
for example, places a bid on a license and a bid on a package including
that license. Bidders are required to be active on a specific
percentage of their current bidding eligibility during each round of
the auction. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will
result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a
reduction in the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or
eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the
auction.
39. The Bureau proposes to divide the auction into at least two
stages, each characterized by a different activity requirement. The
auction will start in Stage One. The Bureau proposes to advance the
auction to the next stage by announcement during the auction. In
exercising this discretion, the Bureau will consider a variety of
measures of auction activity, including but not limited to the
percentage of bidding units associated with licenses on which there are
new bids, the number of new bids, and the increase in revenue. The
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
40. The Bureau proposes the following activity requirements, while
noting again that the Bureau retains the discretion to change stages
unilaterally by announcement during the auction. Stage One: In each
round of the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain
its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on bidding
units associated with licenses representing at least 80 percent of its
current bidding eligibility, counting the bidding units associated with
a bid on an individual license and a package including that license
only once. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result
in the use of an activity rule waiver or a reduction in the bidder's
bidding eligibility for the next round of bidding. During Stage One, a
bidder's reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by
multiplying the bidder's current round activity by five-fourths (\5/
4\). Stage Two: In each round of the second stage, a bidder desiring to
maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on 95
percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the
required activity level will result in the use of an activity rule
waiver or a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility for the next
round of bidding. During Stage Two, a bidder's reduced eligibility for
the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current
round activity by twenty-nineteenths (20/19).
41. The Bureau requests comment on these activity requirements.
Under this proposal, the Bureau will retain the discretion to change
the activity requirements during the auction. For example, the Bureau
could decide to add an additional stage with a higher activity
requirement, not to transition to Stage Two if it believes the auction
is progressing satisfactorily under the Stage One activity requirement,
or to transition to Stage Two with an activity requirement that is
higher or lower than the 95 percent proposed herein. If the Bureau
exercises this discretion, it will alert bidders by announcement in the
FCC Auction System.
iii. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing Eligibility
42. When a bidder's eligibility in the current round is below the
required minimum level, it may preserve its current level of
eligibility through an activity rule waiver. An activity rule waiver
applies to an entire round of bidding, not to a particular bid.
Activity rule waivers, which can be either proactive or automatic, are
principally a
[[Page 45529]]
mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the
event that exigent circumstances prevent it from bidding in a
particular round.
43. The FCC Auction System assumes that a bidder that does not meet
the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver
(if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the
system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding
round in which a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required
unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining, or (2)
the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing
eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has
no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level,
the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly
curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the
auction.
44. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its
bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the
bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism
during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in
the FCC Auction System. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is
permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the activity rule.
Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has
been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding
eligibility, even if the round has not yet closed.
45. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may
apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the
auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an
activity rule waiver (using the apply waiver function in the FCC
Auction System) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or
withdrawn, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility
will be preserved. An automatic waiver applied by the FCC Auction
System in a round in which there are no new bids, withdrawals, or
proactive waivers will not keep the auction open. A bidder cannot apply
a proactive waiver after bidding in a round, and applying a proactive
waiver will preclude it from placing any bids in that round. Applying a
waiver is irreversible; once a proactive waiver is submitted, it cannot
be unsubmitted, even if the round has not yet closed.
46. Consistent with recent Commission auctions, the Bureau proposes
that each bidder in Auction 96 be provided with a total of three
activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion
during the course of the auction. The Bureau seeks comment on this
proposal.
iv. Reserve Price and Minimum Opening Bids
47. The Commission has directed the Bureau to seek comment on the
use of a minimum opening bid amount and/or reserve price prior to the
start of each auction.
48. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below
which an item or items will not be sold in a given auction. If a
reserve price is utilized, the specific amount of the reserve price may
be disclosed or undisclosed. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand,
is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below
which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the
competitive bidding process. It is possible for the minimum opening bid
and the reserve price to be the same amount.
49. Among other factors the Bureau must consider in deciding
whether to employ either or both of these mechanisms is the amount of
spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of
technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service
areas, the extent of interference with other spectrum bands, and any
other relevant factors that could have an impact on the spectrum being
auctioned.
a. Reserve Price
50. The Commission is statutorily obliged to consider and balance a
variety of public interests and objectives when establishing service
rules and licensing procedures with respect to the public spectrum
resource. These objectives include promoting recovery for the public a
portion of the value of that resource. With respect to the H Block
licenses being offered in Auction 96, the Spectrum Act specifically
directs that proceeds from an auction of H Block spectrum be deposited
into the Public Safety Trust Fund and be used for, among other things,
funding (or reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury for the funding) of the
nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network by the First
Responder Network Authority. In view of the various public interest
objectives it must consider, the Bureau proposes to establish a reserve
price for the H Block licenses offered in Auction 96. The Bureau
further proposes to utilize an aggregate reserve price based on the
aggregate of the gross bids for the H Block licenses, rather than
license-by-license reserve prices. The Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals.
51. The Bureaus seeks comment on the implementation of a reserve
price. What factors should the Bureau consider in determining the
amount of the reserve? Should the Bureau disclose the amount of the
reserve price publicly prior to the auction, or should the reserve
price amount remain undisclosed? The Bureau also seeks comment on how
to evaluate unsold licenses in determining whether an aggregate reserve
price has been met. The Bureau encourages commenters to address any
additional specific issues related to the use of reserve prices. The
Bureau asks that commenters describe in detail the specific factors
that lead them to their conclusions.
b. Minimum Opening Bids
52. The Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bid amounts
for Auction 96. The Bureau believes a minimum opening bid amount, which
has been used in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool for
accelerating the competitive bidding process.
53. For Auction 96 the Bureau proposes to calculate minimum opening
bid amounts on a license-by-license basis using a formula based on
bandwidth and license area population, similar to the Bureau's approach
in many previous spectrum auctions. The Bureau proposes to use a
calculation based on $0.07 per megahertz of bandwidth per population
(per MHz-pop). Additionally, the Bureau proposes to incorporate pricing
information from previous auctions to tailor the results of its
calculation to the relative prices for each EA. For this the Bureau
proposes to create an index of the relative price of each EA using the
winning bid amounts for the EA licenses of paired spectrum from
Auctions 66 and 73. This modification to the use of $0.07 per MHz-pop
results in amounts ranging from less than $0.01 per MHz-pop to $0.16
per MHz-pop. The Bureau further proposes a minimum of $1,000 per
license. For the license covering the Gulf of Mexico, the Bureau
proposes to set the minimum opening bid at $20,000. The minimum opening
bid amount for a package will equal the sum of the minimum opening bid
amounts for all of the licenses in that package.
54. The proposed minimum opening bid amount for each H Block
license available in Auction 96, calculated pursuant to these
procedures, is set forth in Attachment A of the Auction 96 Comment
Public Notice. For packages, the Bureau proposes that the minimum
opening bid amount of a package will equal the sum of the minimum
opening
[[Page 45530]]
bid amounts for all of the licenses in that package.
55. The Bureau seeks comment on all of these proposals concerning
minimum opening bids. If commenters believe that these minimum opening
bid amounts will result in unsold licenses, or are not reasonable
amounts, they should explain why this is so and comment on the
desirability of an alternative approach. If a commenter requests a
lower minimum opening bid amount for a specific license, it should
justify the requested change in detail. If commenters disagree with the
Bureau's proposed use of $0.07 per MHz-pop, its approach to tailoring
minimum opening bid amounts to account for relative prices among the
EAs in past auctions, or its selection of which past results to
consider, the Bureau asks commenters to support their claims with
valuation analyses and suggested minimum opening bid amount levels or
formulas.
56. In establishing minimum opening bid amounts, the Bureau
particularly seeks comment on factors that could reasonably have an
impact on valuation of the licenses being auctioned, including the
amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the
availability of technology to provide service, the size of the service
areas, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference
with other spectrum bands and any other relevant factors. The Bureau
also seeks comment on whether the public interest would be served by
having no minimum opening bid amount.
57. Commenters may also wish to address the general role of minimum
opening bids in managing the pace of the auction. For example,
commenters could compare using minimum opening bids--e.g., by setting
higher minimum opening bids to reduce the number of rounds it takes
licenses to reach their final prices--to other means of controlling
auction pace, such as changes to bidding schedules or activity
requirements.
v. Bid Amounts
58. The Bureau proposes that, in each round, an eligible bidder
will be able to place a bid on a given license or package using one or
more pre-defined bid amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC Auction
System interface will list the acceptable bid amounts for each license
and package. The Bureau proposes to calculate bid amounts in the
following manner.
a. Minimum Acceptable Bids
59. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum
acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a license
will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a
provisionally winning bid on the license itself or on a package that
includes the license. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a package
will be the sum of the minimum acceptable bid amounts for the licenses
in the package. The Bureau proposes to calculate minimum acceptable
bids based on current price estimates and an activity-based formula.
60. After there is a provisionally winning bid covering a license,
the FCC Auction System will determine a current price estimate (CPE)
for each license in each round as a basis for calculating minimum
acceptable bids. The CPE is the provisionally winning bid for the
license, or--if the provisionally winning bid covering the license is a
package bid--a proxy for an individual license bid calculated as a
share of the provisionally winning package bid. Attachment B to the
Auction 96 Comment Public Notice describes in more detail the proposed
mechanism for determining CPEs in an HPB auction format.
61. Once CPEs are calculated, minimum acceptable bids are then
determined for each license as the amount of the CPE plus a percentage
of the CPE. The percentage is calculated using an activity-based
formula. In general, the percentage will be higher when many bidders
are bidding on a license, or on a package containing a license, than
when few bidders are bidding on a license.
62. The percentage of the CPE used to establish the minimum
acceptable bid amount is calculated based on an activity index at the
end of each round. The activity index is a weighted average of (a) the
number of distinct bidders placing a bid on the license, including
package bids, in that round, and (b) the activity index from the prior
round. Specifically, the activity index is equal to a weighting factor
times the number of bidders placing a bid covering the license in the
most recent bidding round plus one minus the weighting factor times the
activity index from the prior round. The additional percentage is
determined as one plus the activity index times a minimum percentage
amount, with the result not to exceed a given maximum. The additional
percentage is then multiplied by the CPE amount to obtain the minimum
acceptable bid for the next round. The Bureau proposes initially to set
the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage at 0.1 (10%), and
the maximum percentage at 0.25 (25%). Hence, at these initial settings,
the minimum acceptable bid for a license will be between ten percent
and twenty-five percent higher than the CPE, depending upon the bidding
activity covering the license. Equations and examples are shown in
Attachment C of the Auction 96 Comment Public Notice. The Bureau seeks
comment on whether to use this activity-based formula or a different
approach. For example, should the Bureau use a fixed percentage above
the CPE?
b. Additional Bid Amounts
63. The Bureau proposes to calculate any additional bid amounts
using the minimum acceptable bid amount and a bid increment
percentage--more specifically, by multiplying the minimum acceptable
bid by one plus successively higher multiples of the bid increment
percentage. If, for example, the bid increment percentage is 5 percent,
the calculation of the first additional acceptable bid amount is
(minimum acceptable bid amount) * (1 + 0.05), rounded, or (minimum
acceptable bid amount) * 1.05, rounded; the second additional
acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times
one plus two times the bid increment percentage, rounded, or (minimum
acceptable bid amount) * 1.10, rounded; etc. The Bureau will round the
results using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for
auctions. The Bureau proposes initially to set the bid increment
percentage at 5 percent.
64. For Auction 96 the Bureau proposes to begin the auction with
three acceptable bid amounts per license (the minimum acceptable bid
amount and two additional bid amounts) and one acceptable bid amount
per package (the minimum acceptable bid amount and no additional bid
amounts). More acceptable bidding amounts are proposed for licenses
than for packages to help ensure that bids on individual licenses or on
smaller packages can compete with bids on larger packages, even when
there may not be active competition on all the separate components of
the large package.
c. Bid Amount Changes
65. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum
acceptable bid amounts, the additional bid amounts, the number of
acceptable bid amounts, and the parameters of the formulas used to
calculate minimum acceptable bid amounts and additional bid amounts if
the Bureau determines that circumstances so dictate. Further, the
Bureau retains the discretion to do so on a license-by-license and
package-by-package basis. The Bureau also retains the discretion to
limit (a) the amount by
[[Page 45531]]
which a minimum acceptable bid for a license may increase compared with
the corresponding CPE, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid
amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable
bid amount. For example, the Bureau could set a $10 million limit on
increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over CPEs. Thus, if the
activity-based formula calculates a minimum acceptable bid amount that
is $20 million higher than the CPE on a license, the minimum acceptable
bid amount would instead be capped at $10 million above the CPE. The
Bureau seeks comment on the circumstances under which it should employ
such a limit, factors it should consider when determining the dollar
amount of the limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such a limit or
changing other parameters--such as changing the minimum acceptable bid
percentage, the bid increment percentage, or the number of acceptable
bid amounts. If the Bureau exercises this discretion, it will alert
bidders by announcement in the FCC Auction System.
66. The Bureau seeks comment on its proposals. If commenters
disagree with the Bureau's proposed acceptable bid amounts, they should
suggest an alternative number of acceptable bid amounts to use at the
beginning of the auction, an alternative number to use later in the
auction, and whether the same number of bid amounts should be used for
both licenses and packages. Commenters may wish to address the role of
the minimum acceptable bids and the number of acceptable bid amounts in
managing the pace of the auction and the tradeoffs in managing auction
pace by changing the bidding schedule, activity requirements, or bid
amounts, or by using other means.
vi. Provisionally Winning Bids
67. Provisionally winning bids are bids that would become final
winning bids if the auction were to close in that given round. At the
end of a bidding round, the FCC Auction System determines which
combination of individual and package bids together yields the highest
aggregate gross bid amount, taking into consideration each bidder's
highest bid on each license or package submitted up to that point in
the auction. These bids become the provisionally winning bids for the
round.
68. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a license or
package in any given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC Auction System
will use a random number generator to select a single provisionally
winning bid from among the tied bids. (The Auction System assigns a
random number to each bid when the bid is entered. The tied bid with
the highest random number wins the tiebreaker.) The remaining bidders,
as well as the provisionally winning bidder, can submit higher bids in
subsequent rounds. However, if the auction were to end with no other
bids being placed, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the
provisionally winning bid.
69. The set of provisionally winning bids is determined after every
round in which new bids are submitted. The provisionally winning bids
at the end of the auction become winning bids provided that any
applicable reserve prices have been met. The Bureau reminds bidders
that provisionally winning bids count toward activity for purposes of
the activity rule.
vii. Bid Removal
70. For Auction 96, the Bureau proposes the following bid removal
procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the
option of removing any bid placed in that round. By removing a selected
bid in the FCC Auction System, a bidder may effectively undo any bid
placed within that round. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer
remove a bid. The Bureau seeks comment on this bid removal proposal.
viii. Bid Withdrawal
71. Under the Bureau's proposal to use SMR with HPB procedures, the
Bureau proposes not to permit any bids, provisionally winning or
otherwise, to be dropped or withdrawn from consideration in Auction 96.
The benefits that bidders may realize from withdrawing bids in a
typical SMR auction are minimized under the proposed package bidding
format. In addition, in an SMR auction with package bidding there are
significant risks associated with bid withdrawals that are not present
in an SMR auction without package bidding. As the Commission has
previously explained, under its typical SMR auction format without
package bidding, allowing bid withdrawals facilitates efficient
aggregation of licenses and the pursuit of backup strategies as
information becomes available during the course of an auction. The
Commission noted, however, that in some instances bidders may seek to
withdraw bids for improper reasons. The Bureau, therefore, has
discretion in managing the auction to limit the number of withdrawals
to prevent any bidding abuses.
72. Under the HPB auction format that the Bureau proposes for
Auction 96, the potential benefits of withdrawn or dropped bids in
facilitating aggregations are far lower than they would be in a typical
SMR auction. While the predetermined packages may not coincide with the
all or nothing aggregation needs of all bidders, the hierarchical
packages should significantly reduce the overall risk that bidders will
win only some of the licenses in a desired set. Therefore, to the
extent that package bids allow bidders to avoid such risk, withdrawals
are less useful to bidders. Further, because the licenses available in
Auction 96 consist of a single frequency block, bidders will not need
to use withdrawals to pursue backup strategies in other blocks, as they
sometimes have in other Commission spectrum auctions conducted with SMR
procedures. At the same time, in an auction with package bidding,
dropping bids from consideration can have negative effects that would
not arise in a typical SMR auction. Withdrawals by one bidder on
licenses subject to package bidding can be more disruptive to the
bidding strategies of others than withdrawals on licenses not subject
to package bidding. In a non-package bidding auction, whether a bid on
a license becomes provisionally winning depends only upon the bids
submitted for that license. In contrast, whether a bid becomes
provisionally winning on a license subject to package bidding depends
upon the bids submitted for that license, the bids submitted for the
packages containing that license, and the bids submitted for other
licenses in those packages. Consequently, a withdrawn bid on a license
subject to package bidding has the potential to alter the composition
of the provisionally winning set of bids, and may adversely affect
other bidders. Moreover, because bidders interested in single licenses
or smaller packages need their bids to combine with the bids by other
bidders in order to be competitive with bids on larger packages, having
even non-provisionally winning bids withdrawn from consideration can
adversely affect their ability to compete. In addition, because CPEs
for a license depend in part on package bids including the license, the
process for determining current price estimates is more stable--and
less subject to undesirable manipulation--if bids cannot be withdrawn
from consideration. Hence, because of the potential under the proposed
package bidding auction format for withdrawn bids, provisionally
winning or not, to affect auction dynamics and the bidding strategies
of other bidders, the Bureau
[[Page 45532]]
proposes not to allow any bids to be withdrawn after the round in which
they were placed has closed.
73. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal not to allow bids to
be withdrawn or removed from consideration under its proposed HPB
auction procedures. If bidders disagree with this proposal, the Bureau
asks them to support their arguments by taking into account the
structure of the H Block inventory, the impact on auction dynamics and
the pricing mechanism, and the effects on the bidding strategies of
other bidders. In the event the Bureau does not utilize HPB procedures
with an SMR format, should it allow bid withdrawals? In the past, when
the Bureau has allowed bid withdrawals in SMR auctions, it typically
limited withdrawn bids to a maximum of three rounds, and sometimes set
a lower limit on the number of withdrawal rounds. What would be the
appropriate number of rounds in Auction 96 if the Bureau permits bid
withdrawals?
D. Post-Auction Payments
i. Apportioning Package Bids
74. In package bidding, when a bidder places an all-or-nothing bid
on a package of licenses, there will be no identifiable bid amounts on
the individual licenses that compose the package. However, the
Commission's competitive bidding rules and procedures assume that the
amount of each bid on an individual license always is known. For
example, rules for calculating the amount of small business, new
entrant, or tribal land bidding credits presume that the winning bid on
the license is known. Similarly, in determining the amount of a default
or withdrawal payment, which involves a comparison between the
withdrawing or defaulting bidder's bid and a subsequent bid, the rules
assume that there are bid amounts for individual licenses. Accordingly,
the Commission adopted a rule providing that, in advance of each
auction with package bidding, the Commission shall establish a
methodology for determining how to estimate the price or bid on an
individual license included in a package of licenses.
75. The Bureau proposes that under its HPB procedures, it will use
final CPEs as an estimate of the price or bid on an individual license
for the purpose of later apportioning package bids. Therefore, when
regulatory calculations require individual license bid amounts, the
Bureau will divide the package bid amount among the licenses composing
the package in proportion to the final round CPEs for the licenses. The
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
ii. Interim Withdrawal Payment Percentage
76. The Bureau seeks comment related to its proposal to use HPB
procedures on not permitting any bids, provisionally winning or
otherwise, to be withdrawn or dropped from consideration in Auction 96.
Under the Bureau's proposal, it would have no need to determine an
appropriate interim withdrawal payment percentage.
77. The Bureau seeks comment, however, on the appropriate interim
withdrawal payment percentage to apply if it allows withdrawals under
procedures for an SMR auction without package bidding for Auction 96.
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on the percentage of a withdrawn
bid that should be assessed as an interim withdrawal payment in the
event that a final withdrawal payment cannot be determined at the close
of the auction. In general, the Commission's rules provide that a
bidder that withdraws a bid during an auction is subject to a
withdrawal payment equal to the difference between the amount of the
withdrawn bid and the amount of the winning bid in the same or
subsequent auction(s). If a bid is withdrawn and no subsequent higher
bid is placed and/or the license is not won in the same auction, the
final withdrawal payment cannot be calculated until after the close of
a subsequent auction in which a higher bid for the license (or the
equivalent to the license) is placed or the license is won. When that
final payment cannot yet be calculated, the bidder responsible for the
withdrawn bid is assessed an interim bid withdrawal payment, which will
be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that is ultimately
assessed. 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1) requires that the percentage of the
withdrawn bid to be assessed as an interim bid withdrawal payment be
between three percent and twenty percent and that it be set in advance
of the auction.
78. The Commission has determined that the level of the interim
withdrawal payment in a particular auction will be based on the nature
of the service and the inventory of the licenses being offered. The
Commission has noted that it may impose a higher interim withdrawal
payment percentage to deter the anti-competitive use of withdrawals
when, for example, bidders likely will not need to aggregate the
licenses being offered in the auction, such as when few licenses are
offered that are on adjacent frequencies or in adjacent areas, or when
there are few synergies to be captured by combining licenses. However,
as the Bureau has discussed in connection with its proposal to use
package bidding for Auction 96, there may be significant benefits for
some bidders from aggregating EA licenses. Hence, if the Bureau does
not use package bidding, withdrawals may be useful to protect bidders
against incomplete aggregations in Auction 96. Balancing the potential
need for bidders to use withdrawals to avoid winning incomplete
combinations of licenses with the Bureau's interest in deterring
undesirable strategic use of withdrawals, the Bureau proposes a
percentage below the maximum twenty percent permitted under the current
rules but above the three percent previously provided by the
Commission's rules. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to establish an
interim bid withdrawal payment of fifteen percent of the withdrawn bid
for this auction. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
iii. Additional Default Payment Percentage
79. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the
close of an auction (i.e., fails to remit the required down payment
within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-
form application, fails to make full and timely final payment, or is
otherwise disqualified) is liable for a default payment under 47 CFR
1.2104(g)(2). This payment consists of a deficiency payment, equal to
the difference between the amount of the Auction 96 bidder's winning
bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time a license covering
the same spectrum is won in an auction, plus an additional payment
equal to a percentage of the defaulter's bid or of the subsequent
winning bid, whichever is less.
80. The percentage of the bid that a defaulting bidder must pay in
addition to the deficiency will depend on the auction format ultimately
chosen for a particular auction. In auctions with package bidding, as
the Bureau propose to use in Auction 96, the additional payment is set,
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2)(ii), at twenty-five percent of the
applicable bid. This higher level reflects the fact that a defaulted
winning bid in an auction with package bidding may affect multiple
licenses and perhaps all of the other licenses being offered.
81. In non-package auctions, the amount can range from three
percent up to a maximum of twenty percent, established in advance of
the auction
[[Page 45533]]
and based on the nature of the service and the inventory of the
licenses being offered, and so, the Bureau seeks comment on an
appropriate additional default payment percentage in the event it does
not conduct Auction 96 with package bidding procedures. Defaults weaken
the integrity of the auction process and may impede the deployment of
service to the public, and an additional default payment of up to
twenty percent will be more effective in deterring defaults than the
three percent used in some earlier auctions. At the same time, the
Bureau does not believe the detrimental effects of any defaults in
Auction 96 are likely to be unusually great. Balancing these
considerations, the Bureau proposes to establish an additional default
payment for Auction 96 of fifteen percent of the applicable bid. The
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
V. Ex Parte Rules
82. This proceeding has been designated as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 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 is generally required. Other provisions pertaining
to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose
proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2013-18184 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P