Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block-Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, 50213-50258 [2013-19779]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 159
August 16, 2013
Part III
Federal Communications Commission
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block—Implementing
Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 Related to the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz Bands; Final
Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50214
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12–357; FCC 13–88]
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services H Block—Implementing
Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Related to the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission adopts rules to auction and
license ten megahertz of paired
spectrum at 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz—the H Block. This action
implements the Congressional directive
in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act)
that we grant new initial licenses for
these spectrum bands through a system
of competitive bidding. In so doing, we
extend the widely deployed broadband
Personal Communications Services
(PCS) band, which is used by the four
national wireless providers, as well as
regional and rural providers, to offer
mobile service across the United States.
This additional spectrum for mobile use
will help ensure that the speed,
capacity, and ubiquity of the Nation’s
wireless networks keep pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile
services.
SUMMARY:
Effective September 16, 2013
except for 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii),
27.12, and 27.17, which contain
information collection requirements that
have not been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
Control Number 3060–1184. The
Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of those sections.
We also note that several rules that
are not being amended herein are
subject to OMB review because they are
imposing a new information collection
upon a new group of respondents, i.e.,
the H Block licensees. The rules in
question are 47 CFR 1.946 and 27.10.
The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the approval of information
collection for those sections.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Judith B. Herman, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554 or via the Internet at Judith B.
Herman@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Pearl of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, at (202) 418–BITS or
Matthew.Pearl@fcc.gov. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, contact Judith B. Herman at
(202) 418–0214, or via email at PRA@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s H Block
Report and Order, FCC 13–88, adopted
on June 27, 2013 and released on June
27, 2013. The full text of this document
is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202)
488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or
via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The
complete text is also available on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_
Business/2013/db0627/FCC–13–
88A1.pdf. Alternative formats
(computer diskette, large print, audio
cassette, and Braille) are available by
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–
7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, or via email
to bmillin@fcc.gov.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Today we increase the Nation’s
supply of spectrum for flexible-use
services, including mobile broadband,
by adopting rules to auction and license
ten megahertz of paired spectrum at
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz—
the H Block. This action implements the
Congressional directive in the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 (Spectrum Act) that we grant new
initial licenses for these spectrum bands
through a system of competitive
bidding. In so doing, we extend the
widely deployed broadband Personal
Communications Services (PCS) band,
which is used by the four national
wireless providers, as well as regional
and rural providers, to offer mobile
service across the United States. This
additional spectrum for mobile use will
help ensure that the speed, capacity,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and ubiquity of the Nation’s wireless
networks keep pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile
services.
II. Background
2. In February 2012, Congress enacted
Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum
Act). The Spectrum Act includes several
provisions to make more spectrum
available for commercial use, including
through a system of competitive
bidding, and to improve public safety
communications. Among other things,
the Spectrum Act states that the
Commission, by February 23, 2015,
shall allocate the H Block bands—1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz—for
commercial use, and through a system
of competitive bidding grant new initial
licenses for the use of each band, subject
to flexible use service rules. Congress
provided, however, that if the
Commission determines that either of
the bands cannot be used without
causing harmful interference to
commercial licensees in 1930–1995
MHz (PCS downlink), then the
Commission shall not allocate such
band for commercial use or grant new
licenses for the use of such band.
Additionally, Sections 6401(c)(4) and
6413 of the Spectrum Act specify that
the proceeds from an auction of licenses
in the 1995–2000 MHz band and in the
1915–1920 MHz band shall be deposited
in the Public Safety Trust Fund. Section
6413 of the Spectrum Act specifies how
the funds deposited into the Public
Safety Trust Fund shall be used, and
these purposes include the funding of
(or reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury
for the funding of) the nationwide,
interoperable public safety broadband
network by the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet). The rules we adopt
today will enable the H Block spectrum
to be the first spectrum specified by the
Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction,
and thus likely will represent the first
steps toward this statutory goal.
3. In response to the Spectrum Act
and to help meet the growing demand
for wireless spectrum, in December
2012, the Commission adopted the H
Block NPRM. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to increase the
Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile
broadband by applying Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) flexible use
wireless service rules in 10 megahertz of
spectrum adjoining the widely deployed
Broadband PCS (PCS) band, at 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz.
4. The H Block NPRM also represents
a renewed Commission effort to bring
this spectrum to market. The
Commission first proposed licensing,
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
operating, and technical rules for this
spectrum band in 2004. The 2004 AWS–
2 NPRM sought comment on strict
power and out-of-band emission (OOBE)
limits for mobile transmissions in the
1915–1920 MHz band, because of
concerns about potential harmful
interference to PCS mobile reception.
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–
2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–
2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 04–
356, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19
FCC Rcd 19263 (2004). In response to
those proposals, most commenters
agreed with such concerns. In 2008, the
Commission issued a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in which it
sought to supplement the record.
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–
2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–
2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket Nos. 07–
195, 04–356, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9859 (2008).
Those 2008 proposals included strict
OOBE limits for the Lower H Block of
90 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, within the
PCS band, and a power limit of 23 dBm/
MHz Equivalent Isotropically Radiated
Power (EIRP). The record again reflected
the commenters’ calls for strict
interference limits, particularly the
OOBE limit, in 1915–1920 MHz to avoid
harmful interference to PCS mobile
receivers. In the 2008 NPRM, the
Commission also proposed prohibiting
mobile transmissions in the 1995–2000
MHz band, and proposed the typical
interference rule of an OOBE limit of 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for base and
fixed stations for emissions outside of
the 1995–2000 MHz band, and a power
limit of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions
less than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz
for emissions greater than 1 MHz in
non-rural areas and double these power
limits in rural areas.
5. The spectral proximity of the
AWS–4 Band (2000–2020 MHz and
2180–2200 MHz) to the Upper H Block
is relevant to the present discussion.
The Commission’s December 2012
AWS–4 Report and Order established
licensing, operating, and technical rules
for terrestrial AWS–4 operations in the
2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz
bands. The technical rules for the AWS–
4 uplink at 2000–2020 MHz balanced
the public interest benefits associated
with potential uses of the relevant
bands. Specifically, the Commission
placed limited restrictions on AWS–4
uplink operations that allow for flexible
use of the AWS–4 band while also
potentially enabling full flexible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
downlink use of the 1995–2000 MHz
band. The Commission explained that it
based its determination on, among other
things, the asymmetrical nature of
broadband traffic (with more downlink
than uplink being used), the fact that
any limitations on AWS–4 were more
than offset by the considerable increase
in flexibility that the Commission was
providing AWS–4 licensees by granting
them terrestrial use rights under the
Commission’s part 27 rules. In sum, the
Commission stated that the AWS–4
technical rules would enable both the
AWS–4 band and the 1995–2000 MHz
band to be used for providing flexible
use services in the most efficient
manner possible.
6. In December 2012, the Commission
adopted the H Block NPRM. Comments
on the H Block NPRM were due on
February 6, 2013 and replies were due
March 6, 2013. Fifteen comments and
seven replies were filed in response to
the H Block NPRM. In addition, as
permitted under our rules, numerous ex
parte presentations have been submitted
into the record.
7. As observed in the H Block NPRM,
circumstances have changed in the
years since the Commission previously
sought comment on the H Block
spectrum bands. Wireless broadband
technologies and the wireless
broadband industry have evolved
considerably. Additionally, Congress
enacted the Spectrum Act. Accordingly,
we provided notice that our
determinations here would be based
solely on the record developed in
response to the H Block NPRM, and we
invited parties to re-file in this docket
earlier comments with any necessary
updates.
III. Discussion
8. In this H Block Report and Order,
we implement the Spectrum Act
provisions pertaining to the H Block and
build upon recent Commission actions
to increase the availability of spectrum
for wireless use by adopting rules to
grant licenses for the H Block for
terrestrial fixed and mobile use via a
system of competitive bidding. As
explained below, we adopt H Block
terrestrial service, technical, and
licensing rules that generally follow the
Commission’s part 27 flexible use rules,
modified as necessary to account for
issues unique to the H Block bands.
Specifically, we take the following
actions:
• We find that the Commission’s
prior action to allocate the H Block for
Fixed and Mobile use satisfies the
requirement of the Spectrum Act that
we allocate this spectrum for
commercial use.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50215
• We find that we are required to
adopt flexible use service rules for the
H Block and that we are required to
license this spectrum using a system of
competitive bidding, unless we
determine that either the 1915–1920
MHz band or the 1995–2000 MHz band
cannot be used without causing harmful
interference to the broadband PCS
downlink band at 1930–1995 MHz.
• We find that, consistent with the
technical rules we adopt, the use of both
the 1915–1920 MHz band and the 1995–
2000 MHz band can occur without
causing harmful interference to
broadband PCS downlink operations at
1930–1995 MHz.
• We adopt as the H Block band plan
the 1915–1920 MHz band paired with
the 1995–2000 MHz band, configured as
5 + 5 megahertz blocks, and licensed on
an Economic Area (EA) basis.
• We adopt technical rules for the H
Block, including rules governing the
relationship of the H Block bands to
adjacent and nearby bands, with a
particular focus on adopting rules for
the 1915–1920 MHz band that protect
operations in the broadband PCS band
at 1930–1995, as required by the
Spectrum Act.
• We adopt technical rules that
authorize the 1915–1920 MHz band for
mobile and low power fixed operations
(uplink) and the 1995–2000 MHz band
for base and fixed operations
(downlink).
• We adopt cost sharing rules that
require H Block licensees to pay a pro
rata share of expenses previously
incurred by UTAM, Inc. and by Sprint
in clearing incumbents from the 1915–
1920 MHz band and the 1995–2000
MHz band, respectively.
• We adopt a variety of flexible use
regulatory, licensing, and operating
rules for H Block licensees.
• We adopt procedures to assign H
Block licenses through a system of
competitive bidding.
A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
9. The Spectrum Act, among other
requirements, provides that the
Commission shall allocate for
commercial use and license using a
system of competitive bidding the H
Block no later than February 23, 2015.
10. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum
Act provides that for certain spectrum
bands, including H Block, the
Commission must allocate the spectrum
for commercial use and grant new initial
licenses for that spectrum through a
system of competitive bidding by
February 23, 2015. Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
Section 6401(b), 47 U.S.C. 1451(b).
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50216
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
However, section 6401(b) also provides
that the Commission may not allocate
the H Block for commercial use nor
grant H Block licenses should it
determine that such spectrum cannot be
used without causing harmful
interference to commercial mobile
service licensees operating in the
frequencies between 1930 megahertz
and 1995 megahertz.
11. To implement these requirements,
in the H Block NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on the Spectrum Act’s
four main statutory elements relating to
the H Block: (1) Allocation for
commercial use; (2) flexible use; (3)
assignment of licenses; and (4) a
determination regarding interference.
Below, we address the relevant
comments and discuss our conclusions.
1. Allocation for Commercial Use
12. The Spectrum Act requires the
Commission to allocate the H Block
spectrum bands, 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz, for commercial use. As
the Commission observed in the H Block
NPRM, the Spectrum Act does not
define the phrase, ‘‘allocate . . . for
commercial use.’’ The Commission
posited that the Spectrum Act requires
us to make any necessary changes to the
Non-Federal Table of Allocations to
reflect that the H Block bands could be
used commercially by, and licensed to,
non-Federal entities under flexible use
service rules unless the band cannot be
used without causing harmful
interference to commercial mobile
service licensees in the PCS downlink
band. The Commission observed that
the H Block spectrum’s pre-existing
allocation was for non-Federal, Fixed
and Mobile use on a primary basis and
designated for use in the commercial
PCS/AWS bands, and that this prior
allocation appeared to be fully
consistent with section 6401 of the
Spectrum Act. The Commission sought
comment on this tentative conclusion.
In response, commenters agreed with
the Commission’s tentative conclusion
that the H Block’s existing allocation
met the requirements of the Spectrum
Act.
13. We find that the existing
allocation of the H Block for nonFederal Fixed and Mobile use on a
primary basis meets the ‘‘commercial
use’’ allocation requirement of section
6401(b)(1)(A) of the Spectrum Act. As
the record indicates, the Commission
has already allocated both blocks of the
H Block spectrum for non-Federal Fixed
and Mobile use on a primary basis.
Specifically, in 2004, the Commission
adopted the present spectrum pairing.
Thus, no further action to allocate the H
Block spectrum bands for commercial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
use pursuant to the Spectrum Act is
necessary.
2. Flexible Use
14. The Spectrum Act also requires
the Commission to license the H Block
under flexible use service rules. In the
H Block NPRM, the Commission
proposed that any service rules adopted
for the H Block permit a licensee to
employ the spectrum for any nonFederal use permitted by the United
States Table of Frequency Allocations,
subject to our part 27 flexible use and
other applicable rules, including service
rules to avoid harmful interference. Part
27 licensees must also comply with
other Commission rules of general
applicability. See 47 CFR 27.3; see also
infra section III.E.6. (Regulatory Issues,
Other Operating Requirements). In
addition, flexible use in international
border areas is subject to any existing or
future international agreements. See
infra section III.C.3. (Canadian and
Mexican Coordination). Thus, the
Commission proposed the H Block may
be used for any fixed or mobile service
that is consistent with the allocations
for the band. Commenters uniformly
supported this proposal.
15. We adopt the Commission’s
proposal to license the H Block under
flexible use service rules. We find the
Spectrum Act’s direction on this matter
clear and direct—we are required to
grant licenses ‘‘subject to flexible-use
service rules.’’ Accordingly, adopting
the flexible use service rules for the H
Block, which we do in the sections
below, will give effect to the legislative
mandate. Adoption of flexible use
service rules, moreover, is consistent
with prior congressional and
Commission actions that promote
flexible spectrum allocations and the
record before us. As CCA comments,
flexible use allows licensees to innovate
and ‘‘rapidly respond to changing
consumer demands for wireless services
. . . [and] encourage[s] the similarly
timely deployment of innovative
commercial wireless services to the
public.’’
3. Assignment of Licenses
16. The Spectrum Act mandates that
the Commission grant new initial
licenses for the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz bands through a system
of competitive bidding pursuant section
309(j) of the Communications Act. In
the H Block NPRM, the Commission
proposed applying competitive bidding
rules to resolve any mutually exclusive
applications accepted for H Block
licenses. Parties uniformly supported
the Commission’s proposal to assign the
H Block spectrum through a system of
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
competitive bidding. For example,
MetroPCS voiced its support that the
Commission was correctly interpreting
the Spectrum Act and that the H Block
should be licensed through competitive
bidding. We agree and find that the
Spectrum Act’s requirement that we
grant H Block licenses ‘‘through a
system of competitive bidding’’ clear
and unambiguous. Thus, as detailed
below, we adopt rules to govern the use
of a competitive bidding process for
licensing the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz bands.
4. Determination of No Harmful
Interference to the 1930–1995 MHz
Band
17. The Spectrum Act states that the
Commission may not allocate for
commercial use or license the H Block
if the Commission ‘‘determines that’’ the
H Block ‘‘cannot be used without
causing harmful interference to
commercial mobile licensees’’ in the
1930–1995 MHz band (PCS downlink
band). Neither the Spectrum Act nor the
Communications Act defines the term
‘‘harmful interference.’’ In performing
its statutory role to maximize the public
interest in the spectrum, the
Commission has adopted a definition
for this term, as well as for the
unmodified term ‘‘interference.’’
Commission rule 2.1(c) defines
‘‘interference’’ to mean ‘‘[t]he effect of
unwanted energy due to one or a
combination of emissions, radiations, or
inductions upon reception in a
radiocommunication system, manifested
by any performance degradation,
misinterpretation, or loss of information
which could be extracted in the absence
of such unwanted energy.’’ That same
rule defines ‘‘harmful interference’’ to
mean ‘‘[i]nterference which endangers
the functioning of a radionavigation
service or of other safety services or
seriously degrades, obstructs, or
repeatedly interrupts a
radiocommunication service operating
in accordance with [the International
Telecommunications Union] Radio
Regulations.’’ In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to use this
definition of harmful interference in
performing the analysis required by the
Spectrum Act. No party opposed the use
of this definition.
18. We find it appropriate to use the
Commission’s existing definition of
harmful interference. We presume that
Congress was aware of this rule,
defining both interference and harmful
interference, when it crafted the
Spectrum Act and used the term
harmful interference. Because the
Spectrum Act offers no alternative to the
Commission’s pre-existing definition of
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
harmful interference, we believe it
reasonable to conclude that Congress
intended for it to apply to the situation
here. See Hall v. U.S., 132 S.Ct. 1882,
1889 (2012) (‘‘We assume that Congress
is aware of existing law when it passes
legislation[.]’’ (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Applying the existing
definition of harmful interference to the
Spectrum Act provision at issue, we
find that we may not allocate for
commercial use or license the H Block
if we determine that the H Block cannot
be used without causing serious
degradation, obstruction, or repeated
interruption to commercial mobile
licensees in the PCS downlink band. We
further find that we need not set
technical rules so restrictive as to
prevent all instances of interference, as
opposed to harmful interference.
Determining ex ante when operations in
one band will seriously degrade,
obstruct, or repeatedly interrupt
operations in another band necessarily
involves the Commission examining the
particular interference scenario that is
likely to arise and exercising its
predictive judgment, which is entitled
to deference. See Northpoint
Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 414 F.3d 61, 69
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (deferring to the
Commission’s interpretation of
‘‘harmful interference’’ as the phrase
was applied under the Rural Local
Broadcast Signal Act of 1999); see also
American Radio Relay League, Inc. v.
FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(‘‘considerable deference’’ on ‘‘highly
technical question’’ involving harmful
interference). For example, in 1999,
Congress adopted a statute that directed
the Commission to ‘‘ensure that no
facility [to be newly] licensed or
authorized under the [newly enacted
Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act of
1999] . . . cause [] harmful interference
to the primary users of that spectrum.’’
In determining technical rules to ensure
that the incumbent primary operators
were not subject to harmful interference,
the Commission established interference
parameters designed such that the
presence of the new operators’ signals
‘‘would not be perceptible to the
[incumbent operator’s] customer in most
cases.’’ The DC Circuit found this
‘‘qualitative requirement’’ to represent a
reasonable application of the
Commission’s harmful interference
definition. Northpoint, 414 F.3d at 69–
71. In this similar statutory
circumstance, we now establish
technical rules (below) for the H Block
that will permit use of this block
without causing harmful interference
(although not necessarily eliminating all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
interference) to PCS downlink
operations.
a. Upper H Block: 1995–2000 MHz
19. The Commission allocated the
1995–2000 MHz band for fixed and
mobile use in 2003. In 2004, this
spectrum was designated for PCS/AWS
base station operations and the
Commission proposed service rules.
Before the H Block NPRM in December
2012, no party had filed technical data
or analysis indicating that base station
operations in the Upper H Block would
cause harmful interference to licensees
in the PCS downlink band. Accordingly,
in the H Block NPRM, the Commission
tentatively concluded that base station
operations in the Upper H Block posed
no likelihood of harmful interference to
PCS operations in the 1930–1995 MHz
band and that licensing of the Upper H
Block could proceed.
20. In light of the technical rules we
impose on operations in the Upper H
Block, described below, we conclude
that operations in the 1995–2000 MHz
band will not cause harmful
interference to PCS operations in the
1930–1995 MHz band. The rules we
adopt herein determine the Upper H
Block will be used for base station (i.e.,
downlink) transmissions. As the 1930–
1995 MHz PCS band is used for
downlink transmissions, the 1995–2000
MHz band, in many respects, will
operate as an extension of the PCS band.
As explained below, in contrast to an
uplink band adjacent to a downlink
band, similarly used bands (i.e.,
downlink next to downlink) generally
do not raise difficult interference
scenarios. More specifically, the
technical rules we adopt include power
limits and OOBE limits for operations in
the Upper H Block that are comparable
to limits already imposed upon PCS
licensees governing the transmission of
electromagnetic signals into adjacent
PCS bands to prevent harmful
interference. As the technical rules we
impose for the Upper H Block reflect
similar technical constraints as the
existing PCS rules—and these rules
have allowed robust service to develop
in these bands—we find no basis to
conclude that the 1995–2000 MHz band
‘‘cannot be used without causing
harmful interference’’ to PCS downlink
operators at 1930–1995 MHz.
Additionally, in response to the H Block
NPRM, no commenters raised concerns
about the potential for harmful
interference from the Upper H Block
into the 1930–1995 MHz band. In sum,
because the 1995–2000 MHz band is
adjacent to another downlink band, the
technical rules we adopt are comparable
to the existing PCS rules for preventing
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50217
harmful interference and the record
demonstrates no concern for harmful
interference from the 1995–2000 MHz
band into PCS operations in 1930–1995
MHz, we determine the Upper H Block
can be allocated for commercial use,
assigned via a system of competitive
bidding, and licensed subject to flexible
use service rules without causing
harmful interference to PCS pursuant to
the Spectrum Act.
b. Lower H Block: 1915–1920 MHz
21. In designating the 1915–1920 MHz
band for PCS/AWS mobile operations in
2004, the Commission concluded that
any harmful interference from the
Lower H Block to the PCS downlink
band (i.e., 1930–1995 MHz) could be
addressed through service and technical
rules. Subsequently, in the H Block
NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded that it would be possible to
license the Lower H Block under
flexible service rules without causing
harmful interference to commercial
mobile licensees in the 1930–1995 MHz
band. Acknowledging the prior
concerns with mobile operations in
1915–1920 MHz, the Commission
sought comment on the proposed band
plan and service rules, and it
specifically sought technical analysis on
the potential for harmful interference
into the PCS downlink band. In
response, parties submitted four
technical studies and offered numerous
comments discussing the potential for
harmful interference from Lower H
Block operations into operations in the
1930–1995 MHz band. As detailed
below, commenters suggest that, with
appropriate technical rules, deployment
in the Lower H Block can occur without
causing harmful interference to the
1930–1995 MHz PCS band.
22. We adopt the Commission’s
tentative conclusion set forth in the H
Block NPRM, and determine that
operations in the 1915–1920 MHz band,
subject to appropriate technical rules,
will not cause harmful interference to
PCS operations in the 1930–1995 MHz
band. As we explain below, in
designating the Lower H Block for
uplink use, we must address the issue
of uplink spectrum in close frequency
proximity to the downlink spectrum in
the 1930–1995 MHz PCS band. Our
analysis is based on our prior findings
with respect to similar services, our
experience evaluating the probabilistic
nature of mobile-to-mobile interference,
and our evaluation of the technical
studies submitted into the record that
examine this specific scenario. Notably,
the proponents of these studies
acknowledge that the interference
scenario at issue—namely, mobile-to-
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50218
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mobile interference between mobile
transmitters operating in the Lower H
Block and mobile receivers operating in
the PCS downlink band—is inherently a
probabilistic one. That is, a number of
low probability events all need to occur
before an actual Lower H Block
transmission would seriously degrade,
obstruct, or repeatedly interrupt the
ability of the PCS mobile device to
receive the PCS signal. As such, the
rules we establish below are designed to
prevent harmful interference. These
rules are not, nor could they reasonably
be, designed to prevent all possible
instances of interference generally. In
sum, we find the technical rules we
adopt below will enable commercial use
of the Lower H Block without causing
harmful interference to PCS operations
in the 1930–1995 MHz band.
Accordingly, we find no basis to
conclude that the 1915–1920 MHz band
‘‘cannot be used without causing
harmful interference’’ to PCS downlink
operators at 1930–1995 MHz. We
therefore determine, consistent with our
findings above, that the Lower H Block
can be allocated for commercial use,
assigned via a system of competitive
bidding, and licensed subject to flexible
use service rules pursuant to the
Spectrum Act. Consequently, we reject
Savari’s proposal that we make the
1915–1920 MHz band a combination
unlicensed PCS (UPCS) and licensed
low power band. See Savari Comments
at 14; infra Section III.B.1. (Band Plan,
Block Configuration).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
B. Band Plan
23. Band plans establish parameters
and provide licensees with certainty as
to the spectrum they are authorized to
use. Here, Congress has identified the H
Block bands—1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz—as the frequencies for
the band plan. To establish the specific
band plan for these frequencies, the
Commission must determine the block
configuration, whether to license the
blocks on a geographic area basis and,
if so, the appropriate service area. In the
H Block NPRM, the Commission
proposed licensing the H Block as
paired 5 megahertz blocks, with the
Upper H Block used for high power base
stations and the Lower H Block used for
mobile and low power fixed operations.
The Commission also proposed
licensing the H Block on a geographic
licensing scheme based on Economic
Areas (EAs). Finally, the Commission
also sought comment on how best to
license spectrum in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Commission sought comment on
these proposals, including on their
associated costs and benefits.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
24. In the band plan, based on the
record before us, we adopt the H Block
band plan of 1915–1920 MHz paired
with 1995–2000 MHz, configured as 5 +
5 megahertz blocks, and will license the
H Block on an EA basis, including for
the Gulf of Mexico. In so doing, we find
that 1915–1920 MHz shall be used for
mobile and low power fixed (i.e.,
uplink) operations and 1995–2000 MHz
shall be used for base station and fixed
(i.e., downlink) operations.
1. Block Configuration
25. In 2004, the Commission
designated the H Block for licensed
fixed and mobile services, including
advanced wireless services. The
Commission further decided to pair
1915–1920 MHz with 1995–2000 MHz
because it found that doing so would
promote efficient use of the spectrum
and allow for the introduction of
commercial wireless mobile and fixed
services. The Commission also observed
that it would be advantageous to use the
Lower H Block for low power or mobile
operations as the adjacent 1910–1915
MHz band is used by PCS mobile
operations, and that high power base
stations in the band could result in
harmful interference to operations in the
PCS band.
26. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission observed there was no
apparent reason to alter the proposed
pairing or use of the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands. To ensure
the PCS bands were adequately
protected from harmful interference due
to operations in the Lower H Block, the
Commission also proposed to prohibit
high power base station operations in
1915–1920 MHz. In response to these
proposals, commenters generally
supported the Commission’s goal of
maintaining the pairing of the H Block
spectrum and the designated uplink/
downlink bands. Additionally, some
commenters addressed the
Commission’s inquiry for alternative
configurations of the H Block, which we
discuss below. No party presented cost
or benefit data in support of its position.
27. We adopt the proposal to maintain
the pairing of 1915–1920 MHz with
1995–2000 MHz. In doing so, we
observe that Congress, in enacting the
Spectrum Act and directing us to
license these bands, did not express
disagreement with the Commission’s
earlier determination to pair these
bands. We find this approach in the
public interest and find that the benefits
of this approach likely outweigh any
potential costs. As several commenters
discuss, pairing the lower and upper
portions of the H Block will promote the
efficient use of this spectrum and allow
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for the proliferation of wireless services.
In addition, consistent with the record,
we expect that adopting the paired
spectrum band plan will facilitate the
deployment of wireless fixed and
mobile services in rural areas. Further,
by licensing the H Block as a paired
band, we allay the concerns some
commenters expressed about the risk of
a stranded, standalone block of
spectrum that may be unsuitable for
mobile broadband use.
28. Additionally, configuring the H
Block as a 5 + 5 megahertz band will
allow for flexibility and efficiency in the
deployment of wireless services and
technologies. Five megahertz blocks can
support a variety of wireless broadband
technologies. While we do not prescribe
a specific technology for use in the H
Block, we expect that most users of the
band will deploy 4G or 3G Frequency
Division Duplex (FDD) technologies.
Various globally-standardized
technologies, including Wideband-Code
Division Multiple Access (W–CDMA),
High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), and
their variants, use 5 + 5 megahertz
paired blocks when deployed as FDD.
Long Term Evolution (LTE), which
commenters indicate is the most likely
technology to be deployed in the H
Block in the near term, supports a
variety of block sizes, including
multiples of 5 megahertz. Thus, as C
Spire comments, adopting a 5 + 5
megahertz band plan allows an operator
using today’s LTE technology to deploy
in the band.
29. In adopting this band plan, we
also adopt the proposal to prohibit high
powered fixed and base station
operations in the Lower H band, i.e.,
1915–1920 MHz. Limiting base station
operations to the 1995–2000 MHz band
will reduce the potential for harmful
interference to PCS operations. Because
the PCS spectrum immediately
proximate to the Lower H Block is used
for mobile operations, a high powered
signal emanating from 1915–1920 MHz,
such as from a base station, may cause
harmful interference due to receiver
overload. As we discuss below and have
concluded previously, the power limits
necessary to avoid this potential
problem preclude the use of base
stations in this band. Therefore, based
on the record before us, we determine
the 1915–1920 MHz band will be used
for mobile operations (uplink) and the
1995–2000 MHz band will be used for
base station operations (downlink).
30. Alternatives. Our decision today
to pair 1915–1920 MHz band with the
1995–2000 MHz band moots concerns
that some commenters have raised
regarding the possibility of either band
standing alone. Specifically, by pairing
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
these two spectrum bands together,
neither the Lower H Block nor Upper H
Block will become a standalone
‘‘stranded’’ five megahertz block. In
addition, we find it unnecessary to
address Savari’s suggestion that, as part
of its plan to have the Commission
license the H Block as a low power
guard manager band, the Commission
permit the H Block licensee to partner
the 1915–1920 MHz band with
unlicensed PCS channels in the adjacent
1920–1930 MHz band. Because we
decline to adopt Savari’s predicate
proposal that the H Block be licensed
under a low power guard band manager
approach, we need not reach the issue
of ‘‘partnership’’ with adjacent UPCS
channels.
31. Interoperability. As discussed
below, the H Block spectrum is adjacent
to the PCS spectrum and the technical
rules we adopt for the H Block would
permit the H Block effectively to be
operated as an extension of the PCS
band. The Commission historically has
been interested in promoting
interoperability, beginning with the
licensing of cellular spectrum. Although
the Commission did not adopt a rule to
require band-wide interoperability for
PCS, it stressed the importance of
interoperability by acknowledging
industry efforts to establish voluntary
interoperability standards. We continue
to believe that interoperability is an
important aspect of future deployment
of mobile broadband services and
generally serves the public interest. We
note that no party has requested that we
impose an interoperability requirement
here to further the public interest. We
strongly encourage all stakeholders in
this ecosystem to develop new
equipment in a manner that promotes,
rather than hinders, interoperability. We
intend to closely monitor the
development of the equipment market
in the H block and neighboring PCS
band as well as other future
developments in this band in order to
assess whether additional action will
need to be taken to promote
interoperability.
2. Service Area
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
a. Geographic Area Licensing
32. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to adopt a
geographic area licensing approach for
the H Block, reasoning that such an
approach is well-suited for the types of
fixed and mobile services that would
likely be deployed in these bands.
33. We adopt a geographic area
licensing scheme for the H Block for the
reasons that the Commission articulated
in the H Block NPRM, namely that it is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
well-suited for the types of fixed and
mobile services that we expect to be
deployed in the H Block and will
maintain consistency with numerous
other bands. Given the record before us,
we conclude that this approach is in the
public interest and that the benefits of
geographic area licensing likely
outweigh any potential costs. We find it
particularly significant that geographic
area licensing in the H Block is
consistent with the Commission’s
licensing approach for other similar
commercial bands, including AWS–1,
Broadband PCS, Commercial 700 MHz,
and AWS–4. As the Commission has
observed in the past, geographic
licensing also carries many additional
benefits, including: (1) Providing
licensees with substantial flexibility to
respond to market demand, which
results in significant improvements in
spectrum utilization and allows new
and innovative technologies to rapidly
develop; (2) permitting economies of
scale because licensees can coordinate
usage across an entire geographic area to
maximize spectrum use; and (3)
reducing regulatory burdens and
transaction costs because wide-area
licensing does not require site-by-site
approval, thus allowing a licensee to
aggregate its service territories without
incurring the administrative costs and
delays associated with site-by-site
licensing. Further, geographic area
licensing in the H Block will allow the
Commission to assign initial licenses
through a system of competitive bidding
in accordance with the Spectrum Act.
Finally, we observe that the record
supports geographic area licensing for
the H Block, which no commenter has
opposed.
b. Service Area Size
34. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to license the H
Block on an Economic Area (EA) basis.
The Commission sought comment on
this approach and asked commenters to
discuss and quantify the economic,
technical, and other public interest
considerations of any particular
geographic licensing scheme for this
band, as well as the impact that any
such scheme would have on rural
service and competition. Alternatively,
the Commission sought comment on
nationwide licensing for the H Block,
including whether it would maximize or
limit the opportunity for licensees to
provide the widest array of services and
would provide the necessary incentives
to expand existing technologies and
create new ones. The Commission
requested that commenters compare the
advantages and disadvantages of
nationwide licensing to those of EA
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50219
licensing. Further, the Commission
sought comment on licensing areas
smaller than EAs for the H Block,
including whether it would facilitate
use by smaller and rural operators and
whether the benefits of such an
approach would outweigh the potential
diseconomies of scale. Finally, the
Commission requested comment on
whether there are any other geographic
licensing methods for the H Block that
would better meet the Commission’s
goals.
35. Comments on the proposal were
mixed. Some commenters, including
both small and large carriers, supported
EA-based licensing, while other
commenters opposed EAs and
advocated license areas smaller than
EAs. While one commenter supported
either nationwide or large regional (i.e.,
Major Economic Areas) licenses, several
other commenters opposed such a
licensing scheme. One party also
supported ‘‘roadway or highway
license[s].’’ No party, however, provided
cost or benefit data to support its
position.
36. We will license the H Block on an
EA basis. As explained below, licensing
based on EAs has been used for similar
bands and is a useful and appropriate
geographic approach. We believe that
licensing the H Block on an EA basis
will help us to meet several statutory
goals, including providing for the
efficient use of spectrum; encouraging
deployment of wireless broadband
services to consumers; and promoting
investment in and rapid deployment of
new technologies and services. Given
the record before us, we conclude that
licensing the H Block on an EA basis is
in the public interest and that the
benefits of this approach likely
outweigh any potential costs.
37. We believe that licensing on an
EA-basis strikes the appropriate balance
in license size for this band. We find it
particularly significant that the two
bands adjacent to the H Block, PCS G
Block and AWS–4, are licensed on an
EA basis. As the record indicates,
adopting the same size geographic area
as is used in adjacent bands may
encourage rapid deployment in and use
of the spectrum. Thus, to the extent that
licensees for either of those bands
ultimately obtain licenses for the H
Block, EAs may present opportunities
for efficiencies that other geographic
license sizes would not offer. For
example, AT&T states that EA-based
licensing here would be consistent with
the Commission’s adoption of EA-based
licensing in other spectrum bands that
will likely be used for mobile
broadband. Sprint, moreover, states that
the consistent use of EA-based licensing
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50220
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
in PCS, AWS–4, and now H Block will
encourage quick deployment in the H
Block spectrum.
38. We also believe that licensing this
band using EAs will facilitate access to
spectrum for both small and large
carriers. We believe that it will facilitate
access by smaller carriers because EAs
are small enough to provide spectrum
access opportunities to such carriers. At
the same time, EAs are large enough that
large carriers can aggregate them up to
larger license areas, including into
Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and
Regional Economic Area Groupings
(REAGs), thus achieving economies of
scale.
39. Several commenters supported
EA-based licensing. For example, as
stated above, AT&T and Sprint support
EA-based licensing because this band is
adjacent to other bands that have been
licensed on an EA-basis. MetroPCS
explains that EA-based licensing helps
to ensure that the bidder that most
highly values the spectrum in a
particular area acquires that license. C
Spire argues that EA-based licensing
would ‘‘allow for efficient geographic
aggregation of licenses. And CCA asserts
there are numerous advantages to EAbased licensing, including that it
provides ‘‘rural and regional carriers
[with] reasonable opportunities to bid.’’
40. Other commenters opposed EAs as
either too large or too small.
Commenters proposing smaller
geographic license areas advocated for
Cellular Market Areas (CMAs),
including both Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas
(RSAs). They argued that small and
rural carriers cannot afford EAs and
that, because EAs include both urban
and rural areas, large carriers that
purchase EAs can focus their buildout
efforts on urban centers to the detriment
of rural customers. Another commenter
argued that that the H Block should be
licensed on a larger-than-EA basis either
on a nationwide basis or on a Major
Economic Area (MEA).
41. On balance, we are not persuaded
that we should adopt geographic license
areas smaller or larger than EAs. Rather,
we find that—for the H Block—licensing
the spectrum on an EA basis best
balances the Commission’s public
interest goals of encouraging
widespread geographic buildout
(including in rural areas) and providing
licensees with sufficient flexibility to
scale their networks. We find this
particularly so because, as explained
above, EA-based licensing will make H
Block consistent with two adjacent
bands. Moreover, we note that CMAs do
not ‘‘nest’’ easily into EAs, which could
make it more difficult for licensees to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
aggregate license areas to match the
neighboring bands. Finally, to the extent
that an entity desires to obtain access to
H Block spectrum for less than an EA
geographic area, secondary market
transactions (e.g. partitioning) offer a
possible way to obtain such access.
42. Finally, we observe that Savari
argues that, if the FCC adopts EA-based
licensing, it should issue ‘‘roadway
licenses’’ that cover highways and areas
near highways; areas that, it implies,
may lie between EAs. We disagree. To
the extent that this commenter suggests
that the FCC should issue roadway
licenses between EAs, we are not aware
of geographic areas that exist between
EAs. More generally, we believe that
EA, rather than roadway, licenses will
lead to more widespread service to
consumers in this band. Further, we
believe the public interest lies in
covering as much area as possible given
the economics of the band. In many
cases, even in very rural areas, this may
extend beyond roadways.
3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico
43. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
whether and, if so, how to license the
Gulf of Mexico. The Commission sought
comment on whether the Gulf should be
included as part of larger service areas,
or whether the Gulf should be licensed
separately.
44. We will license the H Block for
the Gulf of Mexico. We find it
appropriate to follow Commission
precedent from the AWS–1 and AWS–
4 bands, both of which licensed the Gulf
as a separate EA license. Moreover, the
only party who commented on this
issue supports the proposal to make
available an EA license for the Gulf.
Finally, we determine to apply the
existing definition of the Gulf of Mexico
EA contained in section 27.6 of the
Commission rules when licensing the
Gulf. Specifically, the Gulf of Mexico
service area is comprised of the water
area of the Gulf of Mexico starting 12
nautical miles from the U.S. Gulf coast
and extending outward.
C. Technical Issues
45. Pursuant to the statutory direction
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the Commission adopts rules
for commercial spectrum in a manner
that furthers and maximizes the public
interest. Notably, when developing
policies for a particular band, the
Commission looks at other bands that
might be affected, particularly the
adjacent bands. Consequently, the
Commission must often balance
competing interests of adjacent bands,
and potentially competing public
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interest considerations, when crafting
rules. Because the rules for one band,
particularly the interference protection
rules, affect the use and value of other
bands and thus the public interest
benefits that can be realized through the
use of those adjacent bands, we take a
holistic view when establishing the
technical rules for each spectrum band.
46. In this section, we adopt the
technical operating rules (e.g.,
interference rules) that will govern H
Block operations and licensees. In
general, our aim in establishing
technical rules is to maximize the
flexible use of spectrum while
appropriately protecting operations in
neighboring bands. Here, we also
specifically consider our statutory
obligations set forth in the Spectrum Act
with respect to the 1930–1995 MHz
broadband PCS band, which specifically
requires us to determine whether either
of the H Block bands ‘‘cannot be used
without causing harmful interference to
commercial mobile service licensees in
the [1930–1995 MHz PCS band].’’
47. We base the technical rules we
adopt below on the rules for the AWS
and PCS spectrum bands, which have
similar characteristics to the H Block
and that we therefore expect would
permit optimal use of the H Block by its
licensees. In applying these rules to the
H Block, we specifically adopt rules to
adequately protect operations in
adjacent bands, including the existing
1930–1995 MHz broadband PCS
downlink band and the 2000–2020 MHz
AWS–4 uplink band. Finally, given the
record before us and the analyses
provided below, we conclude that the
benefits of the technical rules we adopt
herein likely outweigh any potential
costs.
1. Upper H Block: 1995–2000 MHz
48. The Upper H Block is immediately
above the 1930–1995 MHz PCS band,
which is subject to the Spectrum Act’s
harmful interference provision. The PCS
band currently is used for base station
transmit/mobile receive (i.e., downlink)
purposes. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission tentatively concluded that
operating base stations in 1995–2000
MHz would be compatible with similar
use of the spectrum in the 1930–1995
MHz band, and that more restrictive
technical standards than those
established for other AWS stations in
similar bands would be unnecessary to
protect the PCS band from harmful
interference. No technical concerns
were raised in the record about
interference between the Upper H Block
and PCS base stations operating below
1995 MHz. As stated above, the 1995–
2000 MHz Upper H band will serve as
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
downlink spectrum and is thus
compatible with adjacent downlink
operations below the band.
49. The Upper H Block is also situated
immediately below the 2000–2020 MHz
band, which is allocated on a coprimary basis for Fixed, Mobile, and
Mobile Satellite (Earth-to-space, i.e., for
mobile transmit/satellite or base station
receive), and is licensed for both Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) and AWS–4
terrestrial wireless services. The
Commission recently adopted service
rules that permit use of the 2000–2020
MHz band for terrestrial mobile-to-base
(uplink) transmissions. In so doing, the
Commission concluded that certain
protections were needed to avoid
harmful interference between the Upper
H Block and 2000–2020 MHz band.
Having weighed various public interest
considerations, the Commission
imposed certain limited power
restrictions and out-of-band emission
(OOBE) limits on AWS–4 uplinks to
preserve the capability for full flexible
use of the Upper H Block. Additionally,
the Commission concluded that 2 GHz
MSS operators and AWS–4 licensees
must accept harmful interference from
future, lawful operations in the Upper H
Block due to either Upper H Block
OOBEs into the 2000–2005 MHz portion
of the AWS–4 uplink band or to Upper
H Block in-band power (receiver
overload) into the AWS–4 uplink band.
DISH Network Corp.’s (DISH) AWS–4
and 2 GHz MSS subsidiaries accepted
the Order of Proposed Modification,
which accompanied the AWS–4 Report
and Order and which, thus, included
these requirements. Commission staff
subsequently issued an Order of
Modification and issued modified
licenses. Nothing in our discussion
below is intended to revisit these
determinations.
a. Upper H Block Power Limits
50. We adopt transmitter power limits
for the Upper H Block that will
maximize the full flexible use of the
spectrum while ensuring against
harmful interference to adjacent PCS
operations and, in the case of the AWS–
4 band, adequately protecting adjacent
operations due to receiver overload.
Receiver overload may result when
signals outside of the receiver’s nominal
bandwidth cause the receiver to
experience an increased noise level or
produce non-linear responses. In setting
power limits, we balance the power
necessary to ensure successful
communication in the band against the
level of interference that adjacent
services can tolerate based on their
operational needs and the public
interests served. In doing so here, we
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
ensure against harmful interference to
the adjacent PCS band and, in the case
of the adjacent AWS–4 band, set a
power limit necessary to ensure
successful communication by H Block
licensees based on the public interest
balancing the Commission established
in the AWS–4 Report and Order.
51. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed and sought
comment on adopting the standard base
station power limits applicable to AWS
and PCS stations. These power limits
are 1640 watts equivalent isotropically
radiated power (EIRP) for emissions
with less than a 1 MHz channel
bandwidth and 1640 watts/MHz for
emissions greater than 1 MHz in nonrural areas. In rural areas, i.e., counties
with population densities of 100
persons or fewer per square mile, the
power limits are 3280 watts EIRP for
emissions with less than a 1 MHz
channel bandwidth and 3280 watts/
MHz EIRP for emissions greater than 1
MHz. The AWS and PCS rules also
require providers operating in excess of
the 1640 watts/1640 watts/MHz EIRP to
coordinate with adjacent block licensees
within 120 km. Except as detailed
below, commenters generally supported
these proposed power limits.
52. For H Block operations in the
1995–2000 MHz band, we adopt a
power limit for operations in non-rural
areas of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions
less than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz
for emissions greater than 1 MHz. We
adopt a power limit for operations in
rural areas of 3280 watts EIRP for
emissions less than 1 MHz and 3280
watts/MHz for emissions greater than 1
MHz. For purposes of this rule, a rural
area refers to a county with a population
density of 100 persons or fewer per
square mile. Further, we allow
operations in excess of the EIRP of 1640
watts and 1640 watts/MHz limits after
coordination with adjacent PCS G Block
licensees within 120 km, as is allowed
for similar operations in the AWS and
PCS services. We adopt these power
limits because they are the same as
those for base stations in other AWS
services, including AWS–1 services and
the recently adopted limits for AWS–4
base stations and substantially the same
as for PCS base stations. Most parties
that commented on this issue supported
adopting these power limits. As both
Sprint and U.S. Cellular observed, the
Commission has consistently proposed
and adopted these power limits for
other services. Additionally, Sprint
commented that such power levels will
provide adequate protection for PCS
licensees in neighboring spectrum
bands. No party claimed otherwise.
Based on the record and our prior
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50221
experience with similar services, we
conclude that these power limits are
consistent with the Spectrum Act’s
requirement for avoiding harmful
interference to the adjacent PCS band.
Further, because these limits reflect
established measures of efficient use of
spectrum for similar services in other
bands, we believe they are consistent
with the goals of ensuring full, robust,
commercial service for mobile
broadband, as set forth in the AWS–4
Report and Order.
53. In adopting these power limits for
H Block base stations, we acknowledge
that wording in the H Block NPRM may
have led to confusion on the part of one
commenter (DISH). In the H Block
NPRM, the Commission specifically
‘‘propose[d] to adopt the standard base
station power limits that apply to AWS
and PCS stations,’’ but did not include
the power density limit for emissions
greater than 1 megahertz in
summarizing the existing rules, despite
the fact that the Commission’s AWS and
PCS rules explicitly include such limits.
In supporting the proposed power
limits, Sprint correctly referenced
‘‘standard power limits of 1640 watts/
MHz for non-rural areas and 3280 watts/
MHz for non-rural areas.’’ In its Reply,
DISH claimed that the Commission
intended for the Upper H Block power
to be measured across the entire 5
megahertz of the band, and that Sprint
was improperly seeking to measure the
power across one megahertz, thereby
increasing the radiated power by 7 dB
within the Upper H Block. We disagree.
The Commission’s intent was to propose
Upper H Block power limits that would
be measured across one megahertz (for
emissions greater than one megahertz).
In any event, we now determine to
measure power limits in a manner
consistent with the PCS and AWS
bands. Accordingly, we now adopt the
standard AWS base station power
limits, as described above, based on the
record presented in response to the H
Block NPRM.
54. Further, to the extent DISH may be
arguing for lower power limits than
those in other AWS bands and the PCS
band, its argument is unsupported and
misplaced. DISH’s statement that some
existing PCS equipment (we are not
aware of equipment presently existing
for the H Block band) may operate at
lower maximum power levels is not in
and of itself dispositive of the
appropriate maximum permissible
power levels. Rather, this argument
appears simply to present an example of
PCS equipment operating well within
the applicable PCS rules.
55. We also reject DISH’s argument
that symmetrical power reductions for
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50222
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the H Block are necessary. DISH
suggested that, should the Commission
determine that (1) full-power operations
of the Lower H Block would cause
harmful interference into the PCS band
and, (2) it is necessary to mediate this
effect by reducing the power limits of
the mobiles transmitting in the Lower H
Block, then the Commission should
adopt similarly reduced power limits for
the Upper H Block (1995–2000 MHz).
DISH explained that, ‘‘[f]or instance, if
the Commission decides to limit the H
Block uplink transmit power across
1915–1920 MHz to 13 dBm, as opposed
to the typical [3rd Generation
Partnership Protect] 3GPP power level
of 23 dBm, then the base station
radiated power should accordingly be
reduced by 10 dB to 164 Watts, as
opposed to the Commission’s proposal
of 1640 watts.’’ Because, as explained
below, we do not reduce the permissible
power levels for mobile devices in the
Lower H Block below the 23 dBm level
discussed by DISH, we dismiss as moot
DISH’s argument to apply symmetrical
power restrictions both to the lower and
upper bands.
56. In sum, we adopt a power limit of
1640 watts EIRP for emissions with less
than 1 MHz channel bandwidth and
1640 watts/MHz for emissions greater
than 1 MHz in non-rural areas and of
3280 watts EIRP for emissions with less
than a 1 MHz channel bandwidth and
3280 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions
greater than 1 MHz in rural areas as
sufficient to protect PCS licensees in the
1930–1995 MHz band from harmful
interference and to adequately protect
AWS uplink operations, while enabling
H Block licensees to operate full power
base stations. Further, we allow
operations in excess of the EIRP of 1640
watts and 1640 watts/MHz limits after
coordination with adjacent PCS G Block
licensees within 120 km, as is allowed
for similar operations in the AWS and
PCS services.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
b. Upper H Block Out-of-Band
Emissions Limits
57. To minimize or eliminate harmful
interference between adjacent spectrum
blocks, the Commission’s rules
generally limit the amount of radio
frequency (‘‘RF’’) power that may be
emitted outside of, or in a range of
frequencies outside of, the assigned
block of an RF transmission. In both the
PCS and AWS–1 bands, for example, the
Commission established an OOBE limit
that requires emissions outside a
licensee’s assigned spectrum block be
attenuated by a level of at least 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where P is the transmit
power in watts.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
58. To protect operations in adjacent
and nearby bands above and below the
Upper H Block, the Commission
proposed, and sought comment on
(including on the associated costs and
benefits), a general OOBE limit for H
Block base stations of 43 + 10 log10 (P)
dB, where P is the transmit power in
watts, outside of the 1995–2000 MHz
band. This is consistent with the OOBE
limits of the adjacent PCS operations
within the 1930–1995 MHz band. In
addition to this general limit, the
Commission proposed that H Block
operations meet a more stringent OOBE
limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P)
is the transmitter power in watts,
between 2005 MHz and 2020 MHz to
provide interference mitigation to
AWS–4 terrestrial uplink operations. As
the Commission observed, this
additional proposed interference
protection is meant to ensure that all of
the Upper H Block spectrum can be
used for downlink operations, while
affording additional protections to most
of the AWS–4 uplink band. Commenters
generally supported the proposed OOBE
limits into the 1930–1995 MHz PCS
band, but several commenters proposed
alternative OOBE limits for emissions
above 2000 MHz. Although a few
commenters made general assertions
regarding the costs of adopting certain
OOBE limits, no party submitted any
cost or benefit data.
59. For the reasons discussed below,
except as otherwise specified, we adopt
the proposed OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, for Upper H Block base
station transmissions outside of 1995–
2000 MHz, including into the 1930–
1995 MHz and 2000–2005 MHz bands.
We also establish an OOBE limit of 70
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for
transmissions from the Upper H Block
into the 2005–2020 MHz AWS–4 band.
We find that this approach both protects
the 1930–1995 MHz band and the 2005–
2020 MHz portion of the AWS–4 band
from harmful interference, and provides
adequate protection to the adjacent,
lowest five megahertz of the AWS–4
band at 2000–2005 MHz. Thus, these
OOBE limits allow us to meet the
requirements set forth in the Spectrum
Act with regard to the PCS downlink
band, and to best manage the use of
these spectrum bands in the public
interest, consistent with the balancing
we established in the AWS–4
proceeding. Further, as detailed below,
our evaluation of the record and our
consideration of how best to serve the
public interest demonstrate that the
various alternative proposals for OOBE
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
limits put forth by commenters do not
sufficiently balance the use of the H
Block and use of the neighboring
spectrum bands.
60. General OOBE Limit. We adopt an
OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Upper H Block transmissions
outside of the 1995–2000 MHz band,
except as described below. We
anticipate that H Block systems will be
similar in design to PCS and AWS–1,
which have effectively relied on the 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE limit in the
Commission’s rules to prevent harmful
interference to operations in adjacent
and nearby bands. The record also
contains support for this OOBE limit.
We therefore adopt an OOBE limit of 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for
transmitters operating in the Upper H
Block, except as detailed below.
61. Emissions into PCS. We adopt and
apply the general OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, for Upper H Block
transmissions into 1930–1995 MHz. The
record demonstrates support for our
decision as commenters support the
proposed 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB for base
station transmissions from the 1995–
2000 MHz band into the PCS bands
located in 1930–1995 MHz. For
example, U.S. Cellular and Sprint
support an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB as the emissions restriction
imposed on operations in the 1995–
2000 MHz band. With respect to
emissions into PCS, no party has
opposed this limit. Moreover, inasmuch
as the Upper H Block can be viewed
from a technical perspective as an
extension of the 1930–1995 MHz PCS
band because they are both adjacent
downlink bands, the 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB
OOBE limit that applies between
adjacent PCS downlink blocks logically
should also apply to Upper H Block
emissions into the 1930–1995 MHz PCS
bands. Thus, to protect PCS operations
in the 1930–1995 MHz band from
harmful interference, we adopt an
OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB for
Upper H Block base transmissions.
62. Emissions into AWS–4. We adopt
an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Upper H Block transmissions
into 2000–2005 MHz and an OOBE limit
of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for Upper H
Block transmissions into 2005–2020
MHz. We find these limits appropriately
balance the difficult technical
challenges associated with the Upper H
Block (i.e., downlink) being adjacent to
the 2000–2020 MHz AWS–4 band (i.e.,
uplink), which the Commission
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
addressed in the AWS–4 Report and
Order. As the Commission previously
observed, uplink spectrum bands that
are adjacent to downlink spectrum
bands raise difficult interference issues
that require balancing the needs of both
bands. In striking this balance, the
Commission must determine what
technical limits are appropriate, because
the rules for one band affect the use and
value of other bands, and the
Commission seeks to maximize the
efficient use of all bands. In the AWS–
4 proceeding, for example, the
Commission weighed the potential
interference issues between the 2000–
2020 MHz AWS–4 band and the 1995–
2000 MHz H Block band. The
Commission’s assessment concluded
that, to protect the utility of the Upper
H Block, (1) AWS–4 uplink operations
must meet a relatively strict OOBE limit
of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into the 1995–
2000 MHz band and into the 1930–1995
MHz PCS band, and (2) AWS–4 and 2
GHz MSS licensees would be required
to accept harmful interference from
lawful operations in the 1995–2000
MHz band if such interference is due to
OOBE into the 2000–2005 MHz band or
due to receiver overload into the 2000–
2020 MHz band. In now establishing the
technical rules for the Upper H Block,
it is appropriate to likewise recognize
the impact operations in this band may
have on licensees above 2000 MHz.
63. In assessing the needs of both
Upper H Block and AWS–4 uplink
band, we start from an understanding of
the current interference environment.
Under the Commission’s rules,
emissions from the PCS downlink band
at 1930–1995 MHz, including the G
Block (1990–1995 MHz), into the AWS–
4 uplink band at 2000–2020 MHz are
limited to 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where
(P) is the transmitter power in watts.
Our rules, however, are not the only
factors affecting the operation and
performance of AWS–4 systems. Both
Sprint and DISH cite the 3GPP
standards to support their differing
cases for the OOBE limit into the AWS–
4 band. These standards allow for an
OOBE limit of ¥30 dBm/MHz
(equivalent to attenuation of 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB) into the 2000–2010 MHz
band, dropping to ¥49 dBm/MHz
(equivalent to 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB) in
the 2010–2020 MHz band. Additionally,
the 3GPP standard noted that OOBE
limits would only apply 5 MHz or
farther from the edge of the PCS base
station’s operating band. This allows 5
megahertz within which the
transmitter’s output can roll off to meet
the tighter limits.
64. Sprint (which holds all of the
licenses for the PCS G Block, as well as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
some licenses for other PCS blocks)
advocated for a limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P)
dB across the 2005–2020 MHz band and
DISH (which holds all of the AWS–4
licenses) advocated for a more stringent
79 + 10 log10 (P) dB limit across the
2005–2020 MHz band. In other words,
relatively speaking, DISH would prefer
that we impose greater restrictions on
the transmissions from the Upper H
Block into the AWS–4 band, while
Sprint would prefer lesser restrictions
on those Upper H Block transmissions.
Both Sprint and DISH cite 3GPP
standards in arguing for their preferred
OOBE limits. Historically, while the
Commission may take into
consideration the determinations of
third party technical standards
organizations, such as 3GPP, the
Commission also considers other factors
not relevant to standards organizations.
For instance, the Commission
necessarily takes into account its
enabling, and any other relevant,
statute, which would not be binding on
a third party standards organization. We
are required, for example, to manage
spectrum in the public interest, and to
‘‘generally encourage the larger and
more effective use of radio in the public
interest.’’ Private standards bodies may
have other bases for their
determinations, which may reflect
compromises among the participants
that are not subject to the statutory
mandates that must inform our actions.
Accordingly, while the Commission
may independently incorporate industry
standards based on the particular record
before it, it does not typically adopt
such interference standards as
Commission rules. We again decline to
do so here. Further, inasmuch as the
OOBE limit we establish herein
represents a ceiling, not a floor, industry
remains free to set a more restrictive
value through technical standards
bodies, such as 3GPP.
65. In maximizing the usefulness of
both bands, we seek to set appropriate
limits on OOBE such that the overall
interference imposed on AWS–4 uplink
operations is no more than currently
exists, to the greatest extent possible,
without imposing a harsh and undue
burden on Upper H Block downlink
operations. We therefore adopt an OOBE
limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P)
is the transmitter power in watts, for all
Upper H Block emissions above 2000
MHz, including the 2000–2005 MHz
portion of the AWS–4 band, except for
transmissions into 2005–2020 MHz. As
discussed above, this emission limit (10
log10) is the same level of protection that
the Commission’s rules currently
provide AWS–4 operations from
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50223
transmissions from existing PCS
downlink operations in the 1930–1995
MHz band. For Upper H Block
transmissions into 2005–2020 MHz, we
adopt a more stringent OOBE limit of 70
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts. This layered
approach, encompassing one set of
interference standards for emissions
into the first five megahertz and a more
stringent limit on emissions into the
remaining fifteen megahertz, provides
some flexibility for the H Block operator
to design the emission characteristics of
its system to meet the tougher OOBE
limits into the 2005–2020 MHz band.
This approach, moreover, was
contemplated by the Commission in the
AWS–4 Report and Order where the
Commission, in requiring AWS–4
licensees to accept certain interference
in the AWS–4 uplink band, stated that
‘‘base station transmit filters need 1 to
5 megahertz to roll off to a low level of
emissions.’’ In addition, under the 3GPP
standards, out-of-band emissions from
PCS LTE operations must satisfy an
OOBE limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB at
2000–2010 MHz and then transition
sharply to satisfy a much stricter limit
of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB at 2010–2020
MHz. As a practical matter, however,
out-of-band emissions tend to roll off
smoothly and do not mimic the step
functions of the limits set by standards
bodies, such as 3GPP. As a result, the
emissions from LTE operations in the
PCS band will naturally decrease
smoothly from the 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB
level at 2000 MHz to the 79 + 10 log10
(P) dB from 2010–2020 MHz. The limit
we set at 2005 MHz—70 + 10 log10 (P)
dB—approximates the emissions level
that we expect would arise at 2005 MHz
as emissions roll off between 2000 MHz
and 2010 MHz. Therefore, we expect
that the overall harmful interference risk
on the AWS–4 A Block operator from
future H Block operators would be no
more than exists today from existing
PCS operators. That is, just as PCS
operations are not expected to cause
harmful OOBE interference at 2005–
2020 MHz, nor are H Block operations
expected to cause OOBE interference at
the limit we set here.
66. In response to the Commission’s
proposed OOBE limits into the AWS–4
uplink band, parties commented that
the proposed limits were both too
lenient and too strict. DISH argued that
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB is insufficient to
protect AWS–4 and 2 GHz MSS
operations in 2000–2005 MHz and that
70 + 10 log10 (P) dB is insufficient
protection for operations in 2005–2010
MHz. Rather, DISH suggested a threefold approach to protect AWS–4/2 GHz
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50224
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
MSS operations. DISH proposed an
OOBE limit of 55 + 10 log10 (P) dB for
emissions in the 2000–2005 MHz band,
an OOBE limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB
for emissions above 2005 MHz, and an
OOBE limit of 116 + 10 log10 (P) dB for
co-located sites. Conversely, Sprint
opposed the H Block NPRM’s proposal
of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz
as imposing too stringent a restriction
on Upper H Block transmissions and
recommended an OOBE limit of 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB into and above 2005.
67. We reject both proposals as
improperly balanced, with the DISH
proposal overly burdensome for a full
powered, flexible use H Block and the
Sprint proposal too burdensome on
AWS–4 operations and unnecessary to
allow the Upper H Block licensees full,
flexible use of that spectrum.
68. First, we reject DISH’s proposal
that Upper H Block operations be
restricted to an OOBE limit of 55 + 10
log10 (P) dB between 2000 and 2005
MHz. As discussed above, we establish
an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB
between 2000 and 2005 MHz and
believe this represents an appropriate
balance between ensuring the utility of
the Upper H Block and the AWS–4
uplink band. A level of 55, rather than
43, plus 10 log10 (P) dB would be 32
times more stringent and would thus
restrain the full use of the H Block.
DISH argues that this OOBE level is
necessary because aggregate power from
all H Block base stations in the direction
of the satellite would inadequately
protect the satellite. We agree with
Sprint and U.S. Cellular that DISH’s
argument is an inappropriate collateral
attack on the AWS–4 Report and Order
and our related order modifying the
licenses of DISH’s subsidiaries, which
they have accepted. The Commission
explicitly addressed the issue of how to
balance Upper H Block interference into
the 2000–2005 MHz band, for both
terrestrial and MSS operations, in the
AWS–4 Report and Order. There the
Commission stated:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
to the extent that future operations in the
1995–2000 MHz band, operating within the
rules established for use of the 1995–2000
MHz band, cause harmful interference to
AWS–4 operations or MSS operations due to
. . . OOBE in the 2000–2005 MHz portion of
the AWS–4 and 2 GHz MSS uplink band . . .
AWS–4 and 2 GHz MSS licenses must accept
this interference.
We therefore reject DISH’s proposed
OOBE limit of 55 + 10 log10 (P) dB
between 2000 and 2005 MHz because it
conflicts with the full potential use of
the H Block and would be inconsistent
with the AWS–4 Report and Order.
69. Second, we reject DISH’s proposal
for an OOBE limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
dB at and above 2005 MHz. DISH
argued this limit is needed to protect
AWS–4 terrestrial operations in 2005–
2020 MHz. We disagree. We find that
some of the assumptions underlying
DISH’s analysis are overly conservative,
such as the use of a one kilometer
spacing between base stations in both
the interfering system and the victim
system in determining the minimum
coupling loss (MCL). As a result, we
find an OOBE limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P)
dB at 2005 MHz to be too restrictive on
Upper H Block operations. While DISH
has asserted that meeting an OOBE limit
more stringent than 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB
would not be difficult for the H Block
operator to meet, the evidence it cites
does not support the conclusion that an
H Block operator could meet an OOBE
limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB at 2005
MHz. In the three test reports cited by
DISH, each LTE base station is shown to
exceed the Commission’s limit of 43 +
10 log10 (P) dB by 10 dB or more. For
instance, the Samsung test report shows
that the base station may be able to meet
60 + 10 log10 (P) dB within the AWS–
4 band. However, none of the test
results show whether the base stations
would be able to meet DISH’s proposed
limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB. In addition,
we find that an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB, as opposed to a limit of 79
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, is more consistent
with the balancing of interference
concerns between the AWS–4 and H
Block bands discussed in the AWS–4
Report and Order, particularly in light
of the Commission’s determination in
that order to require AWS–4 operations
to protect future Upper H block
operations using an OOBE limit of 70 +
10 log10 (P) dB. Thus, to avoid harmful
OOBE interference to AWS–4 operations
at 2005–2020 MHz, we find an OOBE
limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into 2005–
2020 MHz is necessary.
70. DISH further argued that an OOBE
limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB at 2005 MHz
is consistent with 3GPP specifications.
As an initial matter, as we stated above,
while the Commission may take into
consideration the determinations of
third party technical standards
organizations such as 3GPP, the
Commission also considers other factors
not relevant to standards organizations.
Moreover, we observe that, while the
DISH proposed OOBE limit is contained
in the 3GPP specification for LTE base
stations, the limit is for bands other than
Bands 23, 2, and 25. Bands 23, 2, and
25 represent the AWS–4 operations,
PCS operations in the 1930–1990 MHz
band, and PCS + G Block operations in
the 1930–1995 MHz band, respectively.
Thus, the 3GPP specification, on its own
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
terms, does not apply to the interference
scenario at issue here. There is a
separate set of OOBE limits that apply
to these nearby bands. Notably, the
relevant 3GPP specification for Band 25
only requires 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB
between 2000 and 2010 MHz due to its
proximity to the AWS–4 band. 3GPP
does not require PCS operations to meet
the more stringent 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB
limit until at least 15 MHz above the
PCS band (i.e., above 2010 MHz). Thus,
DISH’s suggestion that 3GPP standards
provide an example of more stringent
OOBE limits is misplaced. We also
observe that, as Sprint asserted, current
Commission rules allow for much lower
attenuation for existing PCS systems,
including the G Block, over the entire
AWS–4 band.
71. Third, we reject DISH’s proposed
OOBE limit for co-located sites.
Specifically, DISH sought an OOBE
limit of at least 116 + 10 log10 (P) dB for
sites containing both an AWS–4 base
station and an H Block base station.
DISH argued, ‘‘when two base stations
are co-located, significantly less path
loss is encountered, and a much higher
interference level may be present at the
victim receiver,’’ which requires more
stringent filters. DISH cited a 3GPP LTE
standard recommendation for colocation that stated a limit of ¥96 dBm/
100 kHz may be applied for the
protection of other base station
receivers. Co-location with other
communication systems is a common
industry practice to resolve coexistence
issues. Yet the Commission typically
does not impose separate OOBE
requirements on co-located sites in
other systems operating under either
part 24 or part 27. Instead, these
interference concerns are routinely
negotiated between the affected parties,
taking advantage of the flexibility
afforded by our rules for affected parties
to resolve interference issues at spectral
and geographic boundaries. Because colocation is a network design decision,
network operators possess incentives to
deploy in an efficient and productive
manner that minimizes potential
harmful interference. In some cases,
interference scenarios can be improved
through the use of co-location.
Additionally, our rules contain a
savings provision. In the case that
harmful interference results from OOBE,
the Commission may, at its discretion,
require greater attenuation than the
specified limits. Furthermore, while not
dispositive of our regulatory
determination, the 3GPP standards
DISH references specifically exempt
base station transmitters operating
within 10 megahertz of the affected
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
receiver’s operating band, which is the
case here. Indeed, the standard itself
states that ‘‘the current state-of-the-art
technology does not allow a single
generic solution for co-location with
other systems’’ and points to site
engineering solutions. In sum, we find
that to impose a limit of 116 + 10 log10
(P) on the Upper H Block would be
unduly burdensome on the licensee and
that setting any OOBE for the specific
case of co-location would be
inconsistent with general Commission
practice. Therefore, we decline to
establish a rule pertaining to co-location
interference issues.
72. We also reject Sprint’s proposal to
adopt a 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB attenuation
requirement from 2005–2020 MHz.
Sprint argued an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB would significantly increase
the cost of deployment in the Upper H
Block, but made no attempt to quantify
this cost or provide any cost data.
According to Sprint, such increases in
costs both could stifle interest in an
auction of the H Block and would not
provide any substantive improvement in
interference. This argument is
inconsistent with Sprint’s agreement in
the 3GPP standards process to protect
operations in the 2010–2020 MHz band
at a level of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB. In
addition, DISH asserted that an OOBE
limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB is
insufficient to protect AWS–4
operations. We agree with DISH. In this
instance, a stricter OOBE limit is
warranted because the Upper H Block
(downlink) is adjacent to the AWS–4/2
GHz MSS uplink band, which raises real
interference concerns. An OOBE limit of
70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, as opposed to a
limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB, is more
consistent with the balancing of
interference concerns between the
AWS–4 and H Block bands discussed in
the AWS–4 Report and Order,
particularly in light of the Commission’s
determination in that order to require
AWS–4 operations to protect future
Upper H block operations using an
OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB.
Thus, to avoid harmful OOBE
interference to AWS–4 operations at
2005–2020 MHz, we find an OOBE limit
of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into 2005–2020
MHz is necessary.
73. Measurement Procedure. Finally,
to fully define an emissions limit, the
Commission’s rules generally specify
details of the measurement procedure to
determine the power of the emissions,
such as the measurement bandwidth.
For AWS–1, for example, the
measurement bandwidth used to
determine compliance with this limit
for both mobile stations and base
stations is generally 1 megahertz, with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
some modification within the first 1
MHz. The Commission also applied the
same OOBE measurement procedure to
AWS–4 and to PCS operations. To treat
the Upper H Block in an equivalent
manner to these similar bands, we
therefore adopt the same requirement
that compliance with the emissions
limits established herein will be
determined by using a 1 MHz
measurement bandwidth.
c. Co-Channel Interference Between
Licensees Operating in Adjacent
Regions
74. As discussed above, we determine
to license the H Block on an EA
geographic license area basis. The
Commission observed in the H Block
NPRM that should the H Block be
licensed on a less than nationwide
basis, it would be necessary to ensure
that licensees do not cause harmful
interference to co-channel systems
operating along their common
geographic boundaries. To resolve any
such interference, the Commission
proposed adopting a boundary limit
approach, with a specific boundary field
strength limit of 47 dBmV/m. The
Commission also sought comment on
whether licensees operating in adjoining
areas should be permitted to employ
alternative, agreed-upon signal limits at
their common borders. With one
exception, commenters did not oppose
the Commission’s proposals to protect
adjacent licensees from co-channel
interference. Sprint, however, argued
that the field strength limit be adjusted
to accommodate for varying channel
bandwidths.
75. We adopt the proposed boundary
limit approach for co-channel
interference. As discussed above, the
Commission will license the H Block on
a geographic area basis that is less than
nationwide, i.e., an EA basis. To prevent
licensees that operate systems along
common geographic borders from
causing harmful interference to one
another, the Commission must provide
operating limits to ensure such licensees
do not cause interference to co-channel
systems. Adopting a boundary limit
approach establishes a default standard,
which will enable licensees to deploy
facilities in boundary areas without the
need for prior coordination. Licensees
may use this operating limit as a starting
point for negotiations to exceed the
limits with agreement of adjacent area
licensees. Moreover, in other bands
where spectrum has been allocated for
fixed and mobile services, similar to the
H Block, the Commission has uniformly
adopted the boundary limit method to
minimize harmful co-channel
interference. For instance, the PCS,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50225
AWS–1, and AWS–4 bands all use a
boundary limit approach. In response to
the Commission’s proposal, commenters
favored the boundary limit approach
over a coordination requirement. For
example, Sprint comments that
‘‘applying a boundary limit consistent
with prior proceedings can enable
future H Block licensees to deploy
facilities in boundary areas without the
delays associated with significant precoordination efforts while protecting
adjacent licensees from co-channel
interference at their borders.’’
Additionally, no commenter proposed a
coordination approach for limiting cochannel systems from interfering with
one another. Consequently, we find that
a boundary limit approach is the best
method to address potential harmful cochannel interference between licensees
operating in adjacent geographic
regions.
76. We set the field strength limit at
the boundary at 47 dBmV/m. As the
Commission observed in the H Block
NPRM, in other bands where spectrum
has been allocated for fixed and mobile
services and licensed for flexible use,
similar to the H Block, the Commission
has generally adopted a boundary field
strength limit of 47 dBmV/m. For
example, in the PCS, AWS–1, and
AWS–4 bands, the Commission adopted
a field strength limit of 47 dBmV/m at
the boundary of licensed geographic
areas. Because this limit has worked
well in limiting co-channel interference
in other bands, we find it appropriate to
adopt it here for the similarly situated
Upper H Block.
77. In adopting this boundary limit,
we decline to adopt the alternative limit
proposed by Sprint in its Reply. While
supporting the boundary limit approach
used in other bands, Sprint asserted that
we should modify the boundary limit to
set a reference measurement bandwidth.
In making this recommendation, Sprint
claimed that because today’s LTE
transmissions operate on wider
channels than earlier technologies such
as CDMA or Digital AMPS, a 47 dBmV/
m limit will effectively result in a
comparatively lower field strength limit.
Specifically, Sprint proposed to adjust
the field strength limit from 47 dBmV/
m to 62 dBmV/m per MHz. Sprint argued
that the power spectral density for a 30
kHz Digital AMPS carrier at a 47 dBmV/
m field strength is equivalent to a 62
dBmV/m LTE carrier with a 1 MHz
bandwidth, adjusting the field strength
limit by the ratio of the bandwidths
(10*log10(1 MHz/30 kHz) = 15 dB).
Sprint stated that its proposed boundary
limit would better enable 4G–LTE
buildout of the H Block while also
providing the appropriate interference
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50226
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
protections. Sprint further suggested
that the boundary limits with Canada
and Mexico should similarly be based
on power density levels.
78. Although we agree with Sprint on
a conceptual level that a boundary limit
that adjusts for large differences in
channel bandwidths may be
appropriate, we are not persuaded that
Sprint’s proposed limit represents the
optimal solution. Sprint derived the
value for the field strength based on a
comparison against a 30 kHz Digital
Amps signal. Other technologies may be
a more appropriate reference upon
which to base the value for the field
strength. Also, there are other metrics
that may be used to limit the signal at
the boundary, such as power flux
density. We observe that the
Commission has already adopted a
bandwidth-independent approach when
setting boundary limits with Canada
and Mexico. For example, certain
international limits are expressed as a
power flux density (i.e., dBW/m2/MHz),
a measure of power, whereas field
strength is a measurement of voltage. As
Sprint noted, other parties have
proposed to set boundary limits in a
bandwidth neutral manner, but there is
no established consensus on what the
value of the limit should be. With no
consensus regarding an alternative
boundary limit approach, and not
having received record input from any
other party on Sprint’s proposal, we are
not prepared to adopt it at this time. We
intend to explore the issue of whether
to apply a measurement bandwidth to
co-channel boundary limits in future
service rules proceedings and we
encourage all interested parties to
explore this issue in such proceedings
to develop a full record of the technical
concerns and ramifications of such an
approach.
79. Finally, we adopt the
Commission’s proposal that adjacent
affected area licensees may voluntarily
agree upon higher field strength
boundary levels that the 47 dBmV/m we
adopt above. This concept is already
codified in the field strength rules for
both PCS and AWS services, as Sprint
acknowledged. No party opposed
extending this approach to the H Block.
Accordingly, to maintain consistency
with the PCS and AWS bands, we
permit adjacent area licensees to agree
to a higher field strength limit.
2. Lower H Block: 1915–1920 MHz
80. The Lower H Block is immediately
above the 1850–1915 MHz PCS band,
which is used for mobile transmit/base
receive (i.e., uplink) purposes. As the
Commission observed, use of the Lower
H Block as proposed in the H Block
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
NPRM is compatible with this adjacent
PCS band. Accordingly, the Commission
stated that technical standards more
restrictive than those already
established for AWS and PCS stations to
protect PCS operations below 1915 MHz
likely would not be necessary.
81. The Lower H Block is also situated
immediately below the 1920–1930 MHz
band, which is allocated for Unlicensed
PCS purposes (UPCS) and the 1930–
1995 MHz PCS base transmit/mobile
receive (i.e., downlink) band. As
explained below, UPCS operations are
not entitled to interference protection
from appropriately licensed operators in
the Lower H Block. The 1930–1995 MHz
band, however, presents technical
challenges for use of the Lower H Block.
As detailed below, when certain worstcase conditions are present, the
potential exists for mobile transmitters
in the 1915–1920 MHz band to cause
harmful interference to mobile receivers
in the 1930–1995 MHz band.
82. As discussed above, the Spectrum
Act requires the Commission to conduct
an auction of the H Block spectrum
unless we determine that the H Block
frequencies cannot be used without
causing harmful interference to
commercial mobile service licensees
operating between 1930–1995 MHz
(PCS downlink). Against this backdrop,
commenters generally argued that the
Commission should carefully examine
the issue of mobile power limits for the
Lower H Block and that, if possible,
these limits should be based on
technical studies. Four parties
submitted technical reports into the
record that address the possibility of
Lower H Block operations causing
harmful interference to PCS operations
in the 1930–1995 MHz band. Sprint
filed a test report accompanying its
Reply filing. On April 18, 2013, Verizon
Wireless submitted a technical study.
On May 13, 2013, and May 14, 2013, TMobile and AT&T separately filed a
joint test report.
83. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test
Reports. Both Sprint and Verizon
Wireless contracted with V–COMM
Telecommunications Engineering (V–
COMM) to conduct tests on the effects
of mobile operations in the Lower H
Block on several of each operator’s
existing CDMA handsets. The handset’s
receiver performance was tested against
interference due to overload (i.e.,
blocking), intermodulation, and OOBE.
84. AT&T and T-Mobile Study. AT&T
and T-Mobile contracted with 7Layers
to perform tests on the effects of mobile
operations in the Lower H block on
several of each operator’s existing GSM,
UMTS and LTE handsets. The mobile
receiver’s performance was tested
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
against interference due to overload,
intermodulation and OOBE.
85. We discuss these test reports and
the interference scenarios they
examined more fully below. At the
outset, however, we observe that AT&T,
Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless
all stated that, subject to appropriate
power limits and OOBE limits, mobile
operations in the Lower H Block can
occur without causing harmful
interference to PCS operations in the
PCS band at 1930–1995 MHz. Based on
our analysis of the record, which we
explain in detail in the sections
immediately below, we agree that
appropriate technical rules will ensure
that mobile or low power fixed
operations in the Lower H Block do not
cause harmful interference to PCS
downlink operations.
a. Lower H Block Power Limits
86. We adopt transmitter power limits
for the Lower H Block that will
maximize the full flexible use of the
spectrum while protecting adjacent
operations from harmful interference
due to receiver overload. As explained
above, receiver overload may result
when signals outside of the receiver’s
nominal bandwidth cause the receiver
to experience an increased noise level or
produce non-linear responses.
Accordingly, we must examine the
power limits necessary to avoid harmful
interference to PCS downlink licensees
under the Spectrum Act and, within this
constraint, maximize full flexible use of
the Lower H Block.
87. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission observed that parties
commenting in earlier dockets had
expressed concern regarding power
limits for the Lower H Block. These
comments argued for the establishment
of power limits for operation in the
Lower H Block that would adequately
protect PCS operations in the 1930–
1995 MHz band. As discussed above,
since these earlier comments, the
mobile broadband industry has
undergone rapid evolution and new
technologies have been developed and
adopted. These advances prompted the
Commission to seek comment on how
newer filtering techniques and duplex
designs have improved to adjust for
potential harmful interference.
Specifically, the Commission sought
comment on an appropriate power limit
for 1915–1920 MHz mobile devices in
light of these advances.
88. The Commission also observed
that the 1915–1920 MHz band is
allocated for fixed services, but that the
possibility of interference from fixed
station antennas to PCS mobiles will
likely be less than anticipated
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
interference from Lower H Block
mobiles to PCS mobiles because fixed
devices are generally located at a fixed
height above the ground and thus are
vertically separated from PCS mobile
devices. Accordingly, the Commission
sought comment on what the power
level should be for fixed stations
operating in the Lower H Block.
89. The record contains three
technical studies that examined the
potential for Lower H Block operations
to cause harmful interference, including
overload, intermodulation and
interference from out-of-band emissions,
to PCS downlink operations. All of
these studies assumed that the Lower H
Block device would be an LTE FDD
mobile device. The Sprint Test Report
and the Verizon Wireless Test Report
both used existing CDMA devices for
the PCS devices. The AT&T/T-Mobile
Study used LTE, UMTS, and GSM PCS
devices. The studies included testing of
the receiver performance of existing PCS
devices against overload interference, as
well as intermodulation interference
that would be caused, in part, by
receiver overload. As stated above,
receiver overload occurs when the
power from a signal outside of the
receiver’s operating frequency range
causes the receiver’s performance to
degrade. A strong radio frequency (RF)
signal can cause the detector in the
receiver to operate in a non-linear
manner, thereby reducing its ability to
decode the desired signal.
Intermodulation interference may occur
when two RF frequencies pass through
a non-linear element in the receive path
of the receiver. Two signals at different
frequencies passing through a nonlinearity will mix and create new
frequencies that are related to the sum
and the difference of the original
signals. These are termed
intermodulation products. Although the
non-linearity may be caused by
hardware flaws, the most common cause
of intermodulation interference—and
the historical concern for the bands at
issue—is from non-linearity that results
from receiver overload. Notably, in
earlier tests, third order intermodulation
products were found to occur within the
PCS mobile receiver’s B Block frequency
range (1950–1965 MHz) due to the
mixing the of the PCS mobile device’s
transmitter frequency (1870–1885 MHz)
with the Lower H Block mobile device’s
transmitter frequency (1915–1920 MHz).
Below, we describe the three tests, first
presenting the test set-up for all of the
tests, followed by the results for all of
the tests.
90. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test
Reports—Test Setup. In performing tests
for Sprint and for Verizon Wireless, V–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
COMM tested the performance of a
number of each operator’s existing
CDMA devices against overload and
intermodulation interference using the
same test procedure. Although both
types of interference may be caused by
strong power levels, the effects of the
interference are seen at different
receiver frequencies. The greatest
potential for overload occurs where the
edge of the receiver’s passband is closest
to the transmitter’s operating frequency
range. Therefore, tests for overload were
conducted with the receiver tuned to
the lowest channel in the PCS A Block,
closest to the Lower H Block. The tests
for intermodulation were conducted at
three different receiver operating
frequencies within the PCS B Block
downlink band.
91. In the testing, V–COMM subjected
each of the PCS CDMA receivers to
several different interfering signals, each
with different center frequencies,
channel bandwidths and types of
modulation. The set of interfering
signals were 5 MHz, 3 MHz or 1.4 MHz
bandwidth LTE carriers, centered at
1917.5 MHz, 1916.5 MHz and 1919
MHz, respectively. The types of
modulation used represented several
worst case conditions, such as
maximizing power at the control
channels located near the edges of the
band, a fully loaded device with all
resource blocks allocated, or all power
concentrated in a single resource block
located on a frequency where it would
be most likely to create intermodulation
products.
92. In total, twelve different types of
interfering signals were tested for each
device. First, the receiver sensitivity of
each device was measured to determine
the minimum received power level at
which the device would perform
properly in the absence of noise.
Successful operation was defined as a
0.5% Frame Error Rate (FER). The level
of the desired signal was set at either 1
dB or 3 dB above the measured
sensitivity level. Then an interfering
signal was introduced and its power
level increased until the same 0.5%
Frame Error Rate was achieved, marking
the 1 dB or 3 dB receiver desensitization
level. The 1 dB or 3 dB desensitization
level is the power of the interfering
signal at which the receiver’s sensitivity
is degraded by 1 dB or 3 dB,
respectively. For each test case, both the
1 dB receiver desensitization and 3 dB
receiver desensitization levels were
recorded.
93. V–COMM then related the
interference levels measured in each test
case to their effect on the user’s
experience in two scenarios. In so
doing, V–COMM determined the power
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50227
level of the out-of-band emissions at the
output of the H Block transmitter
necessary to generate the measured
interference levels at the PCS receiver’s
antenna terminals. The difference
between these two signal levels is
determined primarily by the distance
between the transmitting and receiving
devices and by the manner in which the
user is handling the device, which
affects the amount of head and/or body
losses in the transmission path. The two
user scenarios were: (1) Both the
transmitting and receiving mobile
devices were assumed to be held in the
user’s hand, as would be likely for data
use; and (2) both the transmitting and
receiving mobile devices were assumed
to be held to the user’s head, as would
be likely for a voice call. The analysis
then set forth assumptions of 3 dB for
body loss, 8 dB for head loss, a 0 dBi
receive antenna gain for both mobile
devices, a separation of 1 meter, and
free space path loss to the two user
scenarios. Application of these
assumptions determined the effective
interfering signal level at the receiver
input of ¥21 dBm and of ¥31 dBm,
respectively, for the data and voice user
scenarios. The device was deemed to
operate normally if the power level of
the interfering signal that caused
receiver desensitization exceeded these
values.
94. AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report—Test
Setup. AT&T and T-Mobile developed a
joint test plan to test the performance of
several of each operator’s GSM, UMTS
and LTE devices against interference
due to receiver overload,
intermodulation and out-of-band
emissions from an H Block mobile
transmitter. The tests were performed by
7Layers, a third party. Because much of
the 7Layers testing took place after the
filing of the Sprint Test Report, AT&T
and T-Mobile included several test cases
that subjected their devices to similar
conditions to those used by Sprint. The
test report, submitted jointly by AT&T
and T-Mobile, did not provide details of
the test setup used. However it did
identify several differences between the
7Layers tests and those performed by V–
COMM for Sprint and Verizon Wireless.
The most significant difference between
the test plans is how the desired signal
level was set. The 7Layers tests initially
set the level of the desired signal at 3
dB above the reference sensitivity level
set by the 3GPP standard for the
technology under test. To provide a
more direct comparison to the Sprint
and Verizon Wireless test reports,
however, 7Layers then performed its
tests using the sensitivity measured for
each device individually, both at 1 dB
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50228
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
above measured sensitivity and again at
3 dB above measured sensitivity.
Despite characterizing the set of test
conditions using a 1 dB desensitization
level as representing worst case
scenarios, the AT&T Test Report used
this assumption in reaching its
conclusions. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report did so, while at the same time it
raised particular concern about the
usefulness of testing to 1 dB of
desensitization above each device’s
measured sensitivity, stating that ‘‘it is
not typically used during conformance
or performance testing, primarily
because the measurement uncertainty
associated with it is rather high. The
measurement metric (throughput or
BER/FER) displays highly non-linear
behavior.’’
95. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report
is different from the Sprint and Verizon
Wireless test reports in other ways, as
well. Notably, 7Layers subjected each
PCS receiver to two different interfering
signals to simulate an H Block mobile
device. Both signals represented 5
megahertz LTE carriers operating at a
center frequency of 1917.5 MHz, but
used different resource block
allocations. One signal spread the
mobile’s power over all 25 resource
blocks representing a fully loaded
mobile, while the other concentrated the
mobile’s power in 5 resource blocks, but
did not define which five blocks were
assigned. By comparison, the Sprint and
Verizon Wireless test reports used a
total of twelve different LTE signals.
Another significant difference in the test
plans is that the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report included for the UMTS PCS
devices two desired signal conditions,
reflecting both lightly loaded and
heavily loaded cell conditions for these
devices, whereas the Sprint and Verizon
Wireless test reports used one signal
condition. The AT&T/T-Mobile used
two conditions to simulate ‘‘cell
breathing’’ on a CDMA network. In the
heavily loaded scenario, the power
allocated to each user in the downlink
spectrum was reduced and the effective
cell coverage was reduced.
96. AT&T and T-Mobile reported
results for two GSM devices, up to three
UMTS devices (depending on the test
scenario), and one LTE device. These
results note the power of the interfering
signal that would create the specified
degradation of the receiver. AT&T and
T-Mobile also interpreted the results
differently than Sprint and Verizon
Wireless, using slightly different
assumptions for the user scenario.
AT&T and T-Mobile used 25 dBm EIRP
as the actual operating power of the H
Block mobile, rather than using the
nominal 23 dBm EIRP assumed by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
Verizon Wireless and Sprint. The
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report also did not
include any body loss for either the
transmitting or receiving mobile. The
report therefore used an interfering
signal level of ¥13 dBm as a pass/fail
criterion. For point of comparison,
Sprint and Verizon Wireless set a ¥21
dBm criterion for the level of allowed
interference for the data user scenario.
The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report also
observed that the receive antenna gain
used by Sprint and Verizon Wireless
was likely optimistic, stating that most
mobile receivers have a ¥1.5 to ¥3
dBm antenna gain. However, the AT&T/
T-Mobile Test Report still adopted the 0
dBi value as it is typically used in link
budget calculations.
97. Sprint Interference Tests—Results.
In the Sprint Test Report, in the tests for
receiver overload from Lower H Block
in the PCS A Block, all six Sprint
devices tested met the 3 dB
desensitization level at a separation of 1
meter for all 24 test cases (12 interfering
signals, 2 user scenarios). Four of the six
devices met the 1 dB desensitization
level at a separation of 1 meter, with the
exception of one device for three test
cases (out of the twenty-four total cases
tested for that device). That device in
that single case experienced blocking at
2 dB below the target level of ¥21 dBm
for data use, which is equivalent to a
separation of 1.3 meters. The other two
Sprint devices experienced a 1 dB
desensitization of their receivers at
distances significantly greater than 1
meter in a majority of cases. V–COMM
observed that the average interfering
signal level that caused a 1 dB
desensitization of the receiver was ¥22
dBm for a majority of devices,
equivalent to a 1.1 meter separation.
98. In the Sprint Test Report, in tests
for intermodulation and overload of the
PCS B Block receiver, the results
showed better performance than were
observed for overload alone in the PCS
A Block. Again, as with the overload
tests, all devices met the 3 dB
desensitization level for all test cases.
Moreover, all devices experienced less
than 1 dB of desensitization for the
voice call in all instances. There were
fewer failures in the data use scenario
as well, with four of the six devices
meeting the 1 dB desensitization level at
less than 1 meter for data use. The other
two devices experienced a 1 dB
desensitization of their noise floor at
distances of greater than 1 meter in half
or more of the cases. These results for
intermodulation were significantly
better than were the results from testing
in 2004.
99. After observing the difference in
the results for the 1 dB and 3 dB
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
desensitization levels, V–COMM
conducted a test using the worst case
interfering signal at a 2 dB
desensitization level. At this level, all
devices passed under the two user
scenarios for both overload in the PCS
A Block and overload plus
intermodulation in the PCS B Block. In
other words, no PCS device experienced
a 2 dB or greater rise in the noise floor
at a 1 meter separation from an H Block
mobile device operating at 23 dBm,
which is full power under the 3GPP LTE
specification.
100. Verizon Wireless Test Report—
Results. In the Verizon Wireless Test
Report, in the tests for receiver overload
from Lower H Block in the PCS A Block,
all eight Verizon Wireless devices met
the 3 dB desensitization level for all test
cases. Four of Verizon Wireless’s eight
devices met the 1 dB desensitization
level at a separation of 1 meter for both
user scenarios. Of the other four
devices, two experienced overload at
the 1 dB desensitization level in
approximately half of the test cases. V–
COMM observed that the average
interference levels for 1 dB
desensitization for the six best devices
was ¥21 dBm, which represents an H
Block device transmitting at a 1 meter
separation and at full power under the
3GPP LTE specification of 23 dBm EIRP.
101. In the tests for intermodulation
and overload of the PCS B Block
receiver, Verizon Wireless observed
better performance than it observed for
overload alone in the PCS A Block. As
with the overload tests, all devices met
the 3 dB desensitization level for all test
cases. Six of the eight devices met the
1 dB desensitization level at 1 meter of
separation for all of the voice call
scenarios. There were ten instances out
of a total of 144 (combination of six
devices, two user scenarios and 12
interfering signals) in which the device
experienced more than 1 dB of
desensitization at a 1 meter separation.
The two poorest performing devices
experienced a 1 dB desensitization of
the receiver at a distance of 1 meter in
approximately half of the user scenarios.
These results for intermodulation were
significantly better than were the results
from testing in 2004.
102. Just as it did for Sprint, V–
COMM also conducted a set of tests
using the worst case interfering signal at
a 2 dB desensitization level. At this
level, all devices passed for the two user
scenarios for both overload in the PCS
A Block and overload plus
intermodulation in the PCS B Block. In
other words, no device experienced
more than a 2 dB rise of the noise floor
at a 1 meter separation from an H Block
mobile device operating at 23 dBm,
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
which is full power under the 3GPP LTE
specification.
103. AT&T and T-Mobile Test
Report—Results. The AT&T/T-Mobile
Test Report stated that ‘‘all three airlink
technologies displayed reasonable
immunity to blocking and/or overload
from an emulated H Block device.’’ In
the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report, under
typical design conditions for light
traffic, seven of the ten test cases met
their stated criteria. The two GSM
devices did not meet their interference
criteria of ¥13 dBm, and ‘‘display[ed]
noticeable performance impairment
when the H Block device transmits at a
power level within 2dB from its
nominal maximum output power.’’ As
explained above, AT&T and T-Mobile
assessed the test results under different
assumptions than did Sprint and
Verizon Wireless. Based on examination
of the test reports by Commission staff,
under the data use scenario defined by
Sprint and Verizon Wireless, all of
AT&T and T-Mobile’s devices would
meet the criteria for receiver overload
corresponding to 3 dB desensitization,
for either worst case or typical design.
Under 1 dB desensitization performance
conditions, AT&T and T-Mobile’s
devices met their criteria in only one of
six test cases.
104. In the tests for intermodulation,
the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report stated
that ‘‘[n]o B Block performance
impairment was noted . . . until the
device was exposed to very high H
Block signal levels.’’ Using AT&T and TMobile’s assumptions, we observe their
devices met their criteria in 15 of 18 test
cases, over all desensitization levels,
when lightly loaded. Based on
Commission staff examination, all of the
devices would have passed under Sprint
and Verizon Wireless’s user scenarios.
105. Looking separately at the results
for the UMTS devices under high traffic
conditions, the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
report recorded more sensitivity to
interference than under light traffic for
the typical design case. Two of four
receiver blocking test cases met their
stated criteria, as did two of the four
intermodulation test cases. We observe
that all eight high traffic test cases
would meet the criteria under the Sprint
and Verizon Wireless data use scenario.
Looking at a total of eight test cases for
blocking (two devices, two interfering
signal types, and two desensitization
levels) and eight test cases for
intermodulation, the UMTS devices
were unable to meet the target BER
under high traffic conditions before any
interfering signal was applied in all but
two of the sixteen cases. In other words,
the devices were unable to perform
acceptably in the complete absence of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
interference when the desire signal was
set at only 1 dB or 3 dB above the
device’s sensitivity in high traffic.
106. Power Limit Proposals Based on
Interference Testing. As a result of these
studies, the four largest wireless
providers all proposed the Commission
adopt mobile and fixed power limits of
25 dBm EIRP, which is equivalent to a
power limit of 300 milliwatts EIRP.
First, in submitting its initial test
results, Sprint concluded that
‘‘intermodulation interference is no
longer a significant threat to today’s PCS
devices.’’ With regard to receiver
overload, Sprint determined that the
‘‘potential for receiver blocking in
today’s PCS devices has decreased
significantly to a point where blocking
interference is unlikely.’’ Based on the
evidence provided in the test data,
Sprint proposed that a mobile power
limit of 23 dB EIRP with a +/¥ 2 dB
tolerance would protect adjacent PCS
devices in the 1930–1995 MHz band.
Second, Verizon Wireless recognized a
similar improvement in the performance
of its devices over time, stating that the
newly tested devices ‘‘showed less
sensitivity to interference than they did
in 2004.’’ Specifically, the Verizon
Wireless Test Report concluded that
‘‘based on receiver blocking test results,
an H-Block mobile power limit of +23
dBm EIRP will prevent interference to
the majority of PCS CDMA devices
tested at 1 meter device separation.’’
Relying on the tests, Verizon Wireless
stated that a power limit of 25 dBm
EIRP ‘‘is the minimum needed to protect
existing PCS operations from substantial
interference.’’ Third, T-Mobile generally
supported the 25 dBm EIRP proposed by
Sprint and Verizon Wireless. T-Mobile
was concerned, however, that H Block
operations at a power level within 2 dB
of the nominal maximum output power
of 23 dBm could cause harmful
interference for consumers with GSM
devices and therefore requested that the
Commission ‘‘require future H Block
licensees . . . provide notification to
PCS A Block licensees when they turn
on service in the H Block on a marketby-market basis.’’ Fourth, AT&T stated
that it ‘‘supports an H Block power limit
of +23 dBm (+/¥ 2 dB) as ‘‘sufficient to
ensure reasonable coexistence between
LTE devices operating in the FCC’s
proposed H Block and UMTS and LTE
devices operating in the PCS A and B
Blocks.’’ AT&T further stated that ‘‘by
the time LTE is widely deployed in the
Lower H Block, GSM usage in the PCS
Downlink Band on AT&T’s network will
be much less common than today, as
AT&T deploys advanced technologies.’’
107. Based on the record before us, we
adopt a power limit for fixed and mobile
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50229
devices operating in the Lower H Block
of 300 milliwatts EIRP, which is
equivalent to 25 dBm EIRP. As stated
above and in the H Block NPRM, earlier
testing conducted in 2005 identified the
primary concern with full power mobile
operations in the Lower H Block as
intermodulation interference to PCS B
Block receivers, with some additional
concern regarding overload interference
to PCS A Block receivers. The primary
remedy to address receiver overload and
intermodulation is through limits on
mobile transmit power. At that time,
parties argued for a severe reduction in
the permissible mobile transmit power
limit, such as imposing very strict
power limits (e.g., 6 dBm EIRP) on the
1917–1920 MHz portion of the band, to
address this problem. As detailed above,
all of the studies showed that
technological improvements over the
past several years have resulted in
mobile devices in the PCS band that can
tolerate or mitigate against greater
interference levels before overload or
intermodulation interference rises to the
level of causing harmful interference. In
particular, while the testing performed
in earlier years showed intermodulation
interference to be a significant concern
(and a much greater concern than
overload interference), the new testing
does not identify intermodulation as
causing harmful interference. For
example, in describing the results for
both the Sprint Test Report and the
Verizon Wireless Test Report, V–COMM
stated that ‘‘CDMA devices tested
generally showed less sensitivity (better
rejection) to intermodulation
interference as compared to [r]eceiver
[b]locking—this is different from the
2004 devices tested.’’
108. Consistent with the results of
their studies, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile,
and Verizon Wireless all proposed a
power limit of 25 dBm EIRP, which is
equivalent to 300 milliwatts EIRP, for
operations in the entire Lower H Block.
For example, Sprint ‘‘recommend[ed]
that the Commission adopt a uniform H
Block mobile device power limit of +23
dBm EIRP, with a +/¥ 2 dB
implementation margin of tolerance
. . . to protect adjacent PCS operations
above 1930 MHz.’’ Verizon Wireless
similarly stated that a power limit of 25
dBm EIRP is ‘‘the minimum needed to
protect existing PCS operations from
substantial interference.’’ AT&T and TMobile, in their joint test report, stated
that a full power H Block mobile will
not create significant impairment to
UMTS or LTE devices, but that GSM
devices ‘‘display noticeable
performance impairment when the H
Block device transmits at a power level
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50230
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
within 2 dB from its nominal maximum
output power or 23 dBm.’’ In proposing
a power limit of 25 dBm EIRP based on
tests that showed significant instances
of observed interference, the parties
implicitly stated that the overall
probability of interference was
sufficiently low that it was deemed
acceptable and did not rise to the level
of harmful interference. No party
opposed 25 dBm EIRP as a power limit
across the Lower H Block or suggested
that this power limit would lead to
harmful interference to operations
outside of the Lower H Block.
109. We adopt the proposed limit of
25 dBm EIRP, which is equivalent to
300 milliwatts EIRP, as the power limit
for mobile and low power fixed
operations in the entire Lower H Block
and find, consistent with the Spectrum
Act harmful interference condition, that
operations subject to this power limit
will not cause harmful interference to
operations in the PCS downlink band.
In adopting a power limit of 300
milliwatts EIRP, we observe that this
limit is lower than the limits for other,
comparable bands. For example, the
power limit for mobile operations in the
lower PCS Band (1850–1915 MHz) and
in the AWS–4 Band is 2 watts EIRP, and
in the AWS–1 Band is 1 watt EIRP. We
nevertheless adopt the 300 milliwatts
EIRP limit because it will protect against
harmful interference to the PCS band, as
required by statute, while enabling
mobile devices deployed in the Lower H
Block to operate at power levels
sufficient to provide generally robust
service quality, consistent with our goal
of enabling efficient use of the band.
Notably, in performing the testing and
reaching the recommendations, the tests
all were conducted assuming an LTE
mobile device operating at the
maximum power level indicated in the
3GPP LTE specifications—23 dBm.
Consequently, adopting a power limit at
300 milliwatts (23 dBm, plus a 2 dBm
tolerance) will enable the most likely H
Block devices to operate without
suffering any actual power restriction.
That is, this power limit will permit
mobile devices using LTE technology to
operate at full power based on their
design specifications. Moreover, 300
milliwatts EIRP is the level uniformly
supported by the interference tests in
the record as protecting against harmful
interference into the 1930–1995 MHz
PCS band.
110. Although we expect that setting
the power limit at 300 milliwatts EIRP
will not negatively affect mobile
operations in either the Lower H Block
or the 1930–1995 MHz PCS band, we
observe that the test reports may not
have fully captured the probabilistic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
nature of the interference scenario and
that some of the assumptions used in
performing the calculations in the
interference tests may be overly
conservative. It is important to identify
these concerns with the test report
inputs now so that they can be
accounted for in future interference
studies submitted to the Commission
and because they also affect our analysis
of OOBE interference, below. For the
purpose of establishing the appropriate
power limits, including under the
Spectrum Act, the Commission
determines what transmitter power level
will prevent harmful interference, not
simply detectable interference. For
mobile-to-mobile interference, this is a
probabilistic assessment. As we discuss
further below in the discussion of OOBE
limits, we find that the studies do not
sufficiently account for the low
probability of mobile-to-mobile
interference actually occurring.
111. We are also concerned with some
of the specific assumptions used in the
test reports. In its analysis of the test
data and stated conclusions for both the
Sprint Test Report and the Verizon
Wireless Test Report, V–COMM bases
its conclusions on a number of
assumptions, some of which may not be
the most appropriate assumptions for
calculating interference limits between
nearby mobile systems. V–COMM bases
its conclusions on the receiver’s
performance assuming a 1 meter
separation between devices, a 1 dB
desensitization level, and a data use
case, which assumes 3 dB body loss and
no head loss. Similarly, the AT&T/TMobile Test Report based its
conclusions on a 1 meter device
separation and a 1dB desensitization
level. Further, unlike Verizon Wireless
and Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile made
no provision for head or body loss.
112. First, one of several factors that
will determine the likelihood of this
probabilistic interference actually
occurring is the separation distance
between the mobile devices. As
discussed below, a 2 meter separation
between devices is a more appropriate
separation distance than the 1 meter
separation distance used in the studies.
The Commission has adopted a 2 meter
separation in the evaluation of other
mobile-to-mobile interference scenarios,
most recently in the AWS–4 proceeding.
Further, AT&T and T-Mobile’s concerns
regarding the usefulness of testing under
worst case conditions were
demonstrated by the results for the high
traffic test cases. The tested UMTS
devices were unable to perform reliably
under high traffic conditions,
irrespective of the interference
environment. Thus, the AT&T/T-Mobile
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
test report lacks sufficient evidence to
support any determination of harmful
interference under high traffic
conditions.
113. Second, as explained further
below in setting OOBE limits, a 3 dB
desensitization level is a more
appropriate criterion than a 1 dB level
upon which to judge harmful
interference to mobile devices in
cellular networks, which are designed to
work in the presence of interference. For
example, we observe that industry
technical specifications for many types
of devices that are currently used in the
PCS band allow for a 3 dB degradation
of the receiver sensitivity. The 3GPP2
standard for CDMA mobile devices sets
the receiver performance requirements
for intermodulation spurious response
and receiver blocking based on a desired
signal level of 3 dB above the reference
sensitivity level. Based on the 3GPP2
standard for intermodulation, a CDMA
device operating at 1% FER with a
desired signal 3 dB above the reference
sensitivity level is defined in the
standard to be operating normally, and
thus may be judged as not experiencing
harmful interference. Similarly, the
3GPP standards for UMTS and LTE
technologies allow the receiver
sensitivity to degrade by 3 dB in
response to interference. The LTE
standard for receiver blocking is,
moreover, is based on a desired signal
level 6 dB above the receiver’s reference
sensitivity, requiring the receiver to
perform in the presence of a strong
interferer.
114. Third, as explained below, we
believe it more appropriate to assume
that the devices will be subject to both
head and body loss, rather than just
body loss. In both the Sprint Test Report
and the Verizon Wireless Test Report,
V–COMM tested for two different user
scenarios. In one scenario, it assumed
body loss only (that is, signal loss from
proximity to the body, but not the
head)—the data scenario. In the other
scenario, it assumed signal loss from
both the user’s body and head—the
voice scenario. For the data user
scenario, V–COMM used a figure of 3
dB for body loss; for the voice scenario,
it used 3 dB for body loss and another
5 dB for head loss. AT&T and T-Mobile
did not apply any head or body loss in
their analysis of the test results. As we
describe further below, we believe it is
more reasonable to use the voice user
scenario, which includes both head and
body loss assumptions, when
determining interference rules.
115. We discuss our concerns with
the use of these assumptions more fully
below in establishing the OOBE limit.
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
116. Nevertheless, because, as
explained above, the power limit that
results from these tests will permit the
deployment of full power H Block
mobile devices in the 1915–1920 MHz
band while also protecting commercial
mobile service licensees in the 1930–
1995 MHz band from harmful
interference due to receiver overload,
we find it unnecessary to adjust the
studies for purposes of establishing
power limits for operations in this band.
Accordingly, we find it in the public
interest, and consistent with the
Spectrum Act’s condition to protect the
PCS downlink band from harmful
interference, to set the power limit for
mobile and fixed use in the 1915–1920
MHz band at 300 milliwatts EIRP.
b. Lower H Block Out-of-Band
Emissions Limits
117. To minimize harmful
interference between adjacent spectrum
blocks, the Commission’s rules
generally limit the amount of RF power
that may be emitted outside of the
assigned block of an RF transmission.
As explained below, we establish an
OOBE limit for transmissions outside of
the 1915–1920 MHz band of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, except that for
emissions into the 1930–1995 MHz
band we set an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts.
118. To minimize harmful
electromagnetic interference between
operators, the Commission has
previously concluded that, in certain
circumstances, attenuating transmitter
OOBE by 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P)
is the transmitter power in watts, is
appropriate. This limit is generally
applied in cases where adjacent services
have similar characteristics, such as
base-to-base or mobile-to-mobile and
adhere to similar power limits. As such,
this limit applies to most of the services
authorized under parts 24 and 27,
including transmitters operating in
adjacent blocks in the 1850–1915 MHz
PCS band, which is adjacent to the
Lower H Block. The Commission
proposed requiring the attenuation level
of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, to emissions
from transmitters in the 1915–1920 MHz
band, generally. As explained above, the
Spectrum Act requires additional
analysis with regard to Lower H Block
transmissions into the 1930–1995 MHz
band. As stated in the H Block NPRM
and above, the proximity of mobile-tomobile operations may require stricter
OOBE limits than the Commission
might impose in other interference
scenarios. Specifically, the Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
proposed an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10
(P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, for emissions into the
1930–1995 MHz PCS Band. Finally, the
Commission proposed to apply the
measurement procedure used in the PCS
band to these OOBE limits.
119. As explained above, the record
contains three studies that examined the
appropriate technical parameters for H
Block operations needed to avoid
causing harmful interference, including
OOBE interference, to existing PCS
downlink operations at 1930–1995
MHz.
120. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test
Reports—Test Setup. For the Sprint Test
Report and the Verizon Wireless Test
Report, V–COMM tested both Sprint
and Verizon Wireless devices for their
performance against out-of-band
emissions. Two interference cases were
tested. For both sets of tests, the CDMA
device was tuned to the PCS A Block
and subjected to a desired signal
representing first a 1 dB desensitization
level, and, second, a 3 dB
desensitization level, from the device’s
measured sensitivity level. A co-channel
additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)
signal representing the interfering H
Block device was then injected into the
device’s RF antenna port. The power
level of the interfering signal level was
increased until the FER was no more
than 0.5%, and the results recorded.
121. AT&T and T-Mobile Test
Reports—Test Setup. As discussed
above, AT&T and T-Mobile did not
provide details of their test setup, but
noted some differences with Sprint and
Verizon Wireless’s test plan. In
performing that evaluation, a key
difference from the V–COMM tests was
that 7Layers set the desired signal level
according to typical design at the
device’s reference sensitivity.
Additional tests were conducted to
determine the levels at which 1 dB and
3 dB degradation of the device’s
measured sensitivity occurs. The AT&T/
T-Mobile Test Report did not include
GSM devices in the typical design
conditions. We observe that the analysis
within the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report
did not calculate the necessary OOBE
limit directly from the results, but
simply decided whether the limit
calculated in the V–COMM tests would
be sufficient.
122. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test
Reports—Test Results. For the Sprint
Test Report and the Verizon Wireless
Test Report, V–COMM reported an
average interference level of ¥107 dBm
when the desired signal was at the 3 dB
desensitization level, and an average
interference level of ¥113 dBm when
the desired signal was at the 1 dB
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50231
desensitization level. Examining the
same two user scenarios as for the
blocking and intermodulation tests, V–
COMM interpreted these results as
equivalent to an OOBE limit ¥53 dBm/
MHz for the voice user scenario at the
3 dB desensitization level and 1 meter
of separation between devices, and ¥63
dBm/MHz for the data use scenario
under the same conditions. For the 1 dB
desensitization level, the results showed
an equivalent OOBE level of ¥59 dBm/
MHz for voice use and ¥69 dBm/MHz
for data use. V–COMM stated that an
OOBE limit of ¥69 dBm/MHz would
prevent desensitization of more than 1
dB for devices at a 1 meter separation.
It further stated that an additional
implementation margin of 3 dB would
be appropriate, resulting in a
recommended OOBE limit of ¥66 dBm/
MHz based on the data use scenario. V–
COMM asserted that this limit would be
‘‘consistent with OOBE limits proposed
in the FCC NPRM[s] in 2004 and 2008’’
and ‘‘also consistent with 3GPP OOBE
limits for UMTS and HSPA devices.’’
123. AT&T and T-Mobile Test
Reports—Test Results. The AT&T/TMobile Test Report stated that the OOBE
tests ‘‘showed the greatest difference
between airlink technologies.’’ The
report noted that ‘‘UMTS and LTE
displayed good immunity to wideband
noise emissions from a nearby H Block
transmitter.’’ The report also stated that
‘‘GSM devices displayed relatively poor
rejection of OOBE interference.’’ In the
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report, the average
interference level for typical design
conditions that produced 3 dB of
desensitization of the receiver was
¥93.8 dBm. Similarly, the average
interference levels for worst case
conditions were ¥109.64 dBm and
¥104.8 dBm for 1 dB and 3 dB
desensitization levels, respectively. This
compares to the average levels of ¥113
dBm and ¥107 dBm for 1 dB and 3 dB
desensitization levels, respectively,
reported by both Sprint and Verizon
Wireless.
124. OOBE Proposals Based on
Interference Testing. Based on the
testing, the parties generally proposed
that the Commission adopt an OOBE
limit of ¥66 dBm/MHz, which is
equivalent to 96 + 10 log10 (P) dB (where
(P) is the transmitter power in watts) for
Lower H Block emissions into the 1930–
1995 MHz band. Sprint, however,
recognized that this level may be overly
stringent. Sprint suggested that, if the
low probability of the occurrence of the
factors needed for mobile-to-mobile
interference were fully taken into
account, the necessary OOBE
attenuation could be lower. Sprint then
observed that ‘‘[t]he 3GPP OOBE
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50232
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
standards for similar mobile-to-mobile
coexistence situations are more
typically ¥50 dBm/MHz [i.e., 80 + 10
log10 (P) dB] (or ¥40 dBm/MHz [i.e., 70
+ 10 log10 (P) dB] when the two bands
have little separation).’’ Verizon
Wireless disagreed with Sprint, arguing
that, ‘‘[a]lthough Sprint is correct as to
the circumstances in which interference
will occur, [Sprint] is wrong to imply
that these circumstances occur only
rarely.’’ Instead, Verizon Wireless
argues that ‘‘mobile devices are most
likely to be located very near each other
at indoor locations where users are
likely to receive a weaker signal . . .
[which is] precisely what [OOBE] limits
are designed to protect against.’’ Neither
AT&T nor T-Mobile addressed Sprint’s
suggestion that the OOBE could be set
at a less stringent level than 96 + 10
log10 (P) dB. T-Mobile, while supporting
the 96 + 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE limit,
expressed concern that the AT&T/TMobile Test Report showed that GSM
devices had ‘‘a relatively poor rejection
of OOBE interference at a separation
distance of 1 meter.’’ To address this
concern, T-Mobile requested that the
Commission require H Block licensees
to notify PCS A Block licensees on a
market-by-market basis when the H
Block licensees turn on service. TMobile explained that this ‘‘would
enable full use of the H Block for LTE
service while also assisting PCS
licensees in network planning to reduce
the probability of interference.’’
125. For the reasons discussed below,
except as otherwise specified, we adopt
the proposed OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, for Lower H Block
transmissions outside of 1915–1920
MHz. We adopt this limit below 1915
MHz and above 1920 MHz, with
additional protections required for the
1930–1995 MHz band. For emissions
into the 1930–1995 MHz band, we
establish an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10
(P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts.
126. Emissions below 1915 MHz. We
adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P)
dB where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Lower H Block transmissions
below 1915 MHz. Immediately below
the Lower H Block is the 1850–1915
MHz PCS band, which is used for
mobile transmit/base receive. As the
Commission observed in the H Block
NPRM, because it is anticipated that the
Lower H Block systems will be similar
in design to PCS and AWS–1, use of the
1915–1920 MHz band would be
compatible with this adjacent PCS
spectrum. That is, both bands will serve
as mobile uplink bands. Thus, the
OOBE level currently in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
Commission’s rules to protect adjacent
PCS uplink blocks from harmful
interference from each other should also
be sufficient to protect PCS blocks in the
1850–1915 MHz band from Lower H
Block emissions. Additionally, the
OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB
where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, has effectively served to prevent
harmful interference to operations in
bands adjacent and nearby to PCS and
AWS–1 operations. The Commission
thus tentatively concluded that a more
restrictive OOBE limit than those
established for PCS and AWS–1
transmissions was not necessary for
Lower H Block transmissions below
1915 MHz; a conclusion now supported
by the record. As Sprint comments,
‘‘[n]o industry commenter disputes the
Commission’s conclusion that [Lower]
H Block uplink operations would not
cause harmful interference to PCS
operations located immediately below
the uplink at 1850–1915 MHz.’’ We
therefore adopt an OOBE limit of 43 +
10 log10 (P) dB where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for Lower H
Block operations below 1915 MHz.
127. Emissions above 1920 MHz.
Except as specified below for emissions
into the 1930–1995 MHz band, we adopt
an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Lower H Block transmissions
above 1920 MHz. The OOBE limit of 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, applies to
most of the services authorized under
parts 24 and 27, which have effectively
relied on this limit in the Commission’s
rules to prevent harmful interference to
operations in adjacent bands. We
authorize H Block under part 27, and
thus anticipate that H Block systems
will be similar in design to PCS and
AWS–1. Additionally, with respect to
the immediately adjacent 1920–1930
MHz band, that band is designated for
unlicensed use and operations in that
band are required to accept interference
from licensed operations, including
those in the Lower H Block.
Furthermore, except as discussed below
regarding the 1930–1995 MHz band, no
commenter opposed an OOBE limit of
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB above 1920 MHz.
Therefore, we adopt an OOBE limit of
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, for Lower H
Block transmissions above 1920 MHz,
subject to the exceptions below.
128. Emissions into 1930–1995 MHz.
In order to prevent harmful interference
into the PCS downlink band at 1930–
1995 MHz, as required by statute, we
adopt a requirement that out-of band
emissions into the 1930–1995 MHz
band be attenuated below the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
transmitter power level by at least 70 +
10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, (equivalent
to ¥40 dBm/MHz) for fixed and mobile
devices operating in the Lower H Block.
We conclude that as a result of our
adoption of this OOBE limit, licensees
in the 1930–1995 MHz band will not
experience a level of interference that
seriously degrades, obstructs, or
repeatedly interrupts their services. We
base our finding on Commission
precedent, experience with the
probabilistic nature of mobile-to-mobile
interference, and analysis of the test
data submitted into the record.
129. Commission Precedent. We find
an OOBE limit at 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where (P) is the mobile transmitter
power in watts, is consistent with
Commission precedent. The interference
scenario before us involves setting
limits for Lower H Block mobile device
out-of-band emissions that prevent
harmful interference to PCS devices in
the 1930–1995 MHz band. Last year, in
the AWS–4 Report and Order, the
Commission addressed the issue of
mobile-to-mobile interference from
AWS–4 mobile devices operating in the
AWS–4 2000–2020 MHz uplink band to
operations in the PCS downlink band
and to future Upper H Block operations
in 1930–2000 MHz. In the AWS–4
proceeding, the Commission had
proposed an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10
(P) dB, where P is the transmitter power
in watts, from AWS–4 operations in the
2000–2020 MHz band into frequencies
below 2000 MHz. The Commission
proposed this attenuation level because
it was previously set forth in the part 25
rules for Ancillary Terrestrial
Component (ATC) operations in the
2000–2020 MHz band into spectrum
below 1995 MHz. Parties in the AWS–
4 proceeding generally supported the
proposed OOBE level, and no party to
that proceeding proposed an alternative
limit. After reviewing the record before
it—a record compiled after enactment of
the Spectrum Act—the Commission
adopted a maximum attenuation level of
70 + 10 log10 (P) dB for AWS–4
transmissions into both the Upper H
Block below 2000 MHz and the PCS
band below 1995 MHz.
130. The scenario in the AWS–4
proceeding is on point with that facing
us here. In both cases the interference
scenario is mobile-to-mobile
interference. In both cases, the
Commission was faced with establishing
an OOBE limit for transmissions from
nearby operations into the PCS
downlink band at 1930–1995 MHz. In
the AWS–4 proceeding, the Commission
also examined the same interference
scenario into the immediately adjacent
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Upper H Block. Further, in one
important respect, the interference
scenario before us now represents a
scenario less likely to result in harmful
interference than the one we addressed
in the AWS–4 proceeding. Specifically,
the Lower H Block is 10 megahertz away
from the PCS downlink band, whereas
the AWS–4 uplink band is 5 megahertz
away from the PCS band and directly
adjacent to the Upper H Block. Lower H
Block operators will thus have 10
megahertz of frequency separation from
the PCS band for emissions from their
devices to roll off, while AWS–4
operators have no frequency separation
for roll off between the AWS–4 uplink
band and the Upper H Block. Stated
otherwise, the interference scenarios
here and in the AWS–4 proceeding
effectively bookend the 1930–2000 MHz
frequencies, with the emissions entering
those from frequencies from below 1930
MHz and from above 2000 MHz needing
to meet the same attenuation levels, but
with Lower H Block operators having 10
megahertz rather than 5 megahertz or
zero megahertz of separation in which
to roll off to achieve the limit.
Accordingly, we find it consistent with
AWS–4 precedent to set the OOBE limit
for Lower H Block operations into 1930–
1995 MHz at 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where
(P) is the mobile transmitter power in
watts.
131. In adopting the 70 + 10 log10 (P)
dB OOBE limit also set in the AWS–4
proceeding, we observe that this limit is
the most stringent limit in the
Commission’s rules for operations in a
commercial uplink band protecting
another band. For example, for the 800
MHz cellular band and the Lower and
Upper 700 MHz bands (generally), the
Commission adopted an OOBE limit of
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB (with a
measurement bandwidth of 100 kHz,
which is equivalent to 33+ 10 log10 (P)
dB with a measurement bandwidth of 1
MHz); and for the broadband PCS band,
the AWS–1 band, and the AWS–4 band
(except below 2000 MHz), the
Commission adopted a mask of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB (with a measurement
bandwidth of 1 MHz). Moreover, within
these bands are examples of mobile-tomobile interference scenarios at
frequency separation distances similar
to those that exist between the Lower H
Block and the PCS downlink band. For
example, Lower 700 MHz C Block
mobile devices are required to attenuate
transmissions at 43+ 10 log10 (P) dB
(with a measurement bandwidth of at
least 100 kHz) above 716 MHz,
including into the Lower 700 MHz A
Block downlink band at 728 MHz.
Similarly, in determining the OOBE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
limit for Upper 700 MHz C Block mobile
devices into the nearby public safety
downlink band, the Commission set the
limit at the equivalent of 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB (with a measurement bandwidth
of 1 MHz). In addition, when 3GPP
decided that public safety mobile
devices required greater protection than
the Commission limit, it set a higher
limit of 65 + 10 log10 (P) dB (with a
measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or
greater). As part of the 3GPP
deliberations, Verizon Wireless, a
licensee of significant Upper 700 MHz
C Block spectrum, agreed that this level
provided sufficient protection to our
Nation’s first responders. Yet, here, in
the H Block proceeding, wireless
providers are advocating for a limit that
is 31 dB (i.e., more than 1,000 times)
more stringent than the protection
afforded public safety. We would
expect, to the contrary, that protection
levels sufficient for public safety would
normally be sufficient to protect
commercial mobile service providers.
132. Not only is the OOBE limit of 96
+ 10 log10 (P) dB much more stringent
than the limits the Commission has
adopted in any other band, it may be
very difficult to realize. Sprint
submitted a presentation from Avago
Technologies that showed one solution
using an FBAR (Film Bulk Acoustic
Resonator) filter to meet the OOBE limit.
The proposed filter was designed to
support a single ten megahertz passband
covering only the PCS G Block and the
proposed H Block. As Sprint is the sole
licensee for the PCS G Block, the filter
design is very specialized for Sprint’s
purposes and is unlikely to be useable
by other operators that may need to use
larger passbands or other more
commonly used filter technologies. It is
important that the limits we set for H
Block operations maximize the utility of
the band for all potential licensees and
provide for the public good.
133. Probabilistic Interference. In
evaluating the interference scenario
here, it is important to account for its
probabilistic nature. In order for mobileto-mobile harmful interference actually
to occur, a number of worst case factors
must all happen in conjunction with
each other. These factors include that
the two mobile devices (1) must be in
operation at the same time, (2) must be
located in very close proximity to each
other, (3) must remain in close
proximity for a significant period of
time (i.e., proximity must not be
transient), (4) must be operating in a
weak signal environment with both (a)
the interfering mobile transmitter
operating at maximum power and (b)
the PCS mobile receiver receiving a
weak signal and using frequencies most
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50233
likely to lead to interference (e.g., the
interfering device must be capable of
using the Lower H Block, actually
transmitting on the Lower H Block, and
transmitting on a resource block(s) near
the upper edge of that band; the PCS
device must similarly be operating on a
receiver frequency near or at the lower
edge of the PCS band), and (5) must be
operating in a line of sight environment
with respect to each other. Indeed, the
Commission has described this issue for
these bands previously, stating that
‘‘[t]he worst case occurs when the
mobile transmitter is operating at
maximum power (near the edge of its
service area) at the upper edge of the
band (near 1920 MHz) and the mobile
receiver is trying to receive a weak
signal (near the edge of its service area)
at the lower edge of the band (near 1930
MHz) and only free space loss is
considered.’’
134. In addition, mobile devices do
not transmit continuously; rather, they
transmit data in bursts. For example, for
LTE devices, mobile data is organized in
resource blocks, which allocate a set of
subcarrier frequencies for a 1 ms
(millisecond) time interval. The
frequency and duration of these bursts,
or number of allocated resource blocks,
depends upon traffic loads and signal
conditions. For interference to PCS
mobile devices to occur the H Block
mobile must be transmitting in the same
time interval that the PCS device is
receiving. Thus, by transmitting in
bursts, the likely use of LTE devices in
the H Block would further dilute the
probability of interference occurring. In
addition, wireless networks constantly
measure performance and seek to switch
devices to alternative resources to
improve call quality (e.g., handoff to
another channel or another base
station).
135. The record supports this
description of the factors that generally
need to occur to give rise to mobile-tomobile interference. For example, Sprint
stated that ‘‘many factors come into play
for such mobile-to-mobile interference.’’
It observed that interference would only
occur if ‘‘(1) the PCS device is
attempting to receive a weak signal at
the bottom end of the PCS band; (2) the
two mobile devices are located very
near to each other; and (3) the H block
device is transmitting at the same
instant, with high power and in the
resource blocks at the upper end of the
H block.’’ Verizon Wireless concurred,
expressly stating that ‘‘Sprint is correct
as to the circumstances in which
interference will occur.’’ Accordingly,
we reiterate that mobile-to-mobile
interference will occur only in specific
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50234
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
situations, such as those described
above.
136. The risk of mobile-to-mobile
interference occurring is influenced by
the low probability of these worst-case
circumstances occurring—they may
occur, but do so infrequently—and by
network management practices, such as
hand off and power management, that
are designed to mitigate against harmful
interference. For example, Sprint states
that LTE ‘‘spreads across the bandwidth,
dynamically controlling the power and
number of subcarriers assigned to a
particular device and reducing the need
for constraining OOBE limits.’’
Moreover, as Sprint observes,
‘‘[p]robability certainly plays a large
factor as to when [the above] conditions
would occur in the real world.’’ We
believe that the probability of each of
the described mobile-to-mobile
interactions actually occurring is small
individually, and quite small viewed in
combination. Thus, we disagree with
Verizon Wireless’s assertion that the
combination of circumstances resulting
in interference does not ‘‘occur only
rarely . . . [because] mobile devices are
most likely to be located very near to
each other at indoor locations where
users are likely to receive a weaker
signal.’’ Although the confluence of
worst case scenarios may occur more
often indoors than outdoors, it does not
necessarily follow that these situations
occur indoors with any frequency; nor
has Verizon Wireless provided any
evidence showing that these factors
occur frequently indoors. Further, in
areas where wireless providers
anticipate recurring high density use of
mobile devices, providers typically
engineer their networks to provide
robust coverage, including for indoor
locations.
137. We apply our discussion of the
probabilistic nature of mobile-to-mobile
interference to our evaluations of the
test reports, immediately below.
138. Test Reports. While we believe it
appropriate to act consistently with the
Commission’s recent determination in
the AWS–4 proceeding that an
attenuation limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where P is the transmitter power in
watts, from the AWS–4 uplink band into
the PCS downlink band at 1930–1995
MHz to set that same limit here for
transmissions from the Lower H Block
into the PCS downlink band, we believe
it appropriate to test this conclusion
against the test reports submitted into
the record here. As explained above,
parties submitted three test reports into
the record. We assess these reports
based on our engineering expertise and
with the goal of auctioning the Lower H
Block in a manner that maximizes its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
usefulness while protecting the PCS
band from harmful interference, as
required by the Spectrum Act.
139. We have a number of concerns
with the test reports. In particular, as we
discuss above, although we do not
question the science behind the reports,
we find a number of assumptions used
by the parties in their interference tests
are overly conservative for use in setting
reasonable OOBE limits. Specifically,
we find the testing (1) failed to fully
account for the low probability of
mobile-to-mobile interference, (2)
assumed an overly conservative
required separation distance of 1 meter,
(3) relied on limiting interference to an
overly conservative 1 dB desensitization
level, (4) relied on an overly restrictive
user scenario that accounted for body
loss only, as opposed to head and body
loss, and (5) included an unnecessary
manufacturer’s tolerance. We address
each of our concerns with the test
reports, below, in turn.
140. First, the test reports do not fully
account for the highly probabilistic
nature of OOBE interference from the
Lower H Block into the PCS downlink
band. As explained above, many low
probability factors must occur in
conjunction for interference to occur in
a mobile-to-mobile scenario. Because
our charge is to prevent harmful
interference, rather than all interference,
accounting for the likelihood that an
instance of interference will occur is
important in assessing whether the
interference scenario rises to the level of
harmful interference. For example, as
the Commission has said previously,
whether the user would actually notice
the interference may be an important
element of determining if interference is
harmful. Except for one factor—
separation between devices, which we
discuss immediately below—no
information provided in the test reports
indicates that they accounted (or
attempted to account) for the
probabilistic nature of the interference.
Because the test reports did not fully
account for the probabilistic nature of
the interference at issue, we believe they
overstate the protection from OOBE
interference needed by licensees
operating in the 1930–1995 MHz band.
141. Second, we examine the one
probabilistic factor included in the test
reports—separation distance. The
selection of the separation distance
between devices is a key factor in
determining the probability of that
interference could occur. As stated
above, the Sprint Test Report, the
Verizon Wireless Test Report, and the
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report all assumed
a separation of 1 meter between devices.
A 1 meter separation is often used as a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
minimum separation distance in
industry analyses of mobile-to-mobile
interference. Distances of less than 1
meter risk the possibility that near field
antenna coupling effects may distort the
propagation between the two devices
and undermine the assumption of free
space path loss. Again, as discussed
earlier, the simple presence of
interference is not necessarily the same
as harmful interference. To determine
what interference is sufficient to be
considered harmful, one should
consider whether there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions
necessary to create that interference will
occur. The Commission has previously
supported a separation of 2 meters as an
appropriate assumption for the purposes
of determining an acceptable level of
interference. For example, in the AWS
Sixth Report and Order, the
Commission expressed support for a 2
meter separation distance, stating that
‘‘this short distance coupled with the
low probability of occurrence of the
worst-case scenario (both mobiles at the
edge of coverage, both operating at the
edge of the band, both simultaneously
active, and both in close proximity to
each other), make interference of this
nature highly unlikely.’’ More recently,
in the AWS–4 Report and Order, the
Commission found it reasonable to rely
on the 2 meter separation distance
proposed by Motorola Mobility in
calculating interference limits.
Accordingly, we believe that a 1 meter
separation distance represents an overly
conservative value and that it is a more
realistic scenario to assume that the
devices at issue are likely to be at least
2 meters apart.
142. Third, we turn to inputs used in
the test reports that are not associated
with the probabilistic nature of the
interference scenario, and start with the
desensitization level. While the reports
use a 1 dB desensitization level, we
believe a 3 dB level is more appropriate.
The Sprint and Verizon Wireless test
reports include results of the testing for
both the 1 dB and 3 dB desensitization
levels, but focused their analysis of the
results on the 1 dB desensitization level.
For purposes of the AT&T/T-Mobile
Test Report, AT&T and T-Mobile
designed their test plan to use a 3 dB
desensitization of the receiver’s
sensitivity. The desensitization was
based on the device’s reference
sensitivity per the standard for the
technology, rather than by the
individual device’s measured sensitivity
(the approach used by Sprint and
Verizon Wireless). AT&T and T-Mobile
described this test strategy as a typical
design test, observing that most link
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
budgets, which drive the design of the
network, use the standard’s reference
sensitivity. Further, they stated that the
reference sensitivity, as opposed to the
individual device’s measured sensitivity
allows all devices ‘‘to be tested in
exactly the same environment’’ for a
better comparison of device
performance.
143. A 1 dB desensitization level is
defined as the level of interference at
which the effective noise floor of the
system will rise by 1 dB, that is, the
receiver sensitivity will be reduced by 1
dB. This occurs when the interfering
signal level is 6 dB below the noise floor
of the receiver. Similarly, 3 dB
desensitization occurs when the level of
interference is equal to the level of the
receiver’s system noise. 1 dB
desensitization is most commonly used
as an interference protection criterion
for noise-limited receiver systems.
However, mobile cellular systems are
inherently interference-limited; that is,
the prevailing interference is greater
than noise sources. These systems are
designed to perform in a strong
interference environment, much of
which is often self-generated, coming
from other network elements (e.g., other
nearby base stations in the same or
adjacent bands).
144. We believe that a noise-limited
interference criterion (1 dB
desensitization) is too restrictive for
modern cellular systems. This is
reflected in industry standards for
receiver performance, such as the
3GPP2 standard for CDMA devices. As
described above, the 3GPP2 standard for
cdma2000 mobile devices sets several
receiver performance requirements,
including response to receiver overload
(blocking) and intermodulation. For
example, 3GPP2 Requirement 3.5.2 for
Single Tone Desensitization, similar to
the intermodulation tests performed by
V–COMM, sets the level of the desired
signal at either 3 dB or 10 dB above the
reference sensitivity level. Similarly,
under the 3GPP2 standard, receiver
blocking also permits sensitivity to
degrade by 3 dB above its reference
level in the presence of overload
interference while maintaining a 10%
FER. CDMA is not the only technology
to require the receiver to operate
properly in the presence of interference.
The 3GPP standard for UMTS and LTE
devices specifies an in-band blocking
requirement that sets the interfering
signal level 6 dB or more above the
reference sensitivity level. Further, for
GSM, the desired signal is set at 3 dB
above reference sensitivity for in-band
and out-of-band blocking. These
examples demonstrate that a
desensitization of 3 dB in the presence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
of a specific interferer is acceptable in
the above standards for determining
receiver performance and may be
considered normal operation. In other
words, these standards bodies have
considered a 3 dB desensitization level
as an acceptable level of performance
and have not viewed it as indicative of
harmful interference. In addition, in
other proceedings, other parties and the
Commission have used a 3 dB
desensitization of the receiver in
analyzing similar mobile-to-mobile
interference scenarios. For example, in
addressing a similar mobile-to-mobile
interference scenario in the AWS–4
proceeding, the Commission viewed as
reasonable a 3 dB desensitization level
recommended by Motorola Mobility.
Finally, although the AT&T/T-Mobile
Test Report used a 1 dB desensitization
level for its conclusions, the report
states that a 1 dB desensitization level
is not typical. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report characterized the desired signal
conditions used in the Sprint and
Verizon Wireless tests as representing
worst case conditions. The report noted
that ‘‘the disadvantage to this approach
is that we utilize an operating point that
is probably well above the device’s
actual sensitivity. Thus, a stronger
interfering signal is required to realize
impairment in performance.’’ Moreover,
in specifically commenting on the
appropriate desensitization level, the
report states: ‘‘The 1 dB desense point
was used by AT&T/T-Mobile only
because this is one of two operating
points utilized in the filings from Sprint
and Verizon Wireless. It is not typically
used during conformance or
performance testing, primarily because
the measurement uncertainty associated
with it is rather high. The measurement
metric (throughput or BER/FER)
displays highly non-linear behavior.’’
We observe that neither Sprint nor
Verizon Wireless explain why they used
a 1 dB desensitization level. We
therefore find that the 3 dB
desensitization level to be a more
appropriate metric for determining the
presence of harmful interference.
145. Fourth, we assess the two user
scenarios contained in the Sprint Test
Report and the Verizon Wireless Test
Report and the different assumptions
contained in the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report. In the Sprint and Verizon
Wireless reports, V–COMM made
certain assumptions on how the device
would be used and set up two user
scenarios, one simulating data use and
the other simulating a user making a
voice call. V–COMM assumed that,
during data use, the device would be in
held in the user’s hand and would
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50235
experience 3 dB in body loss. If both the
interfering and receiving devices were
held in the hand, a total of 6 dB of body
losses would occur. In the case of a user
making a voice call, where the device
was held to the user’s head, there would
be 8 dB of combined head and body
losses. Thus, if both the transmitting
and receiving users were engaged in a
voice call, there would be a total of 16
dB of head and body losses. The
analysis provided in the AT&T/TMobile Test Report made no provision
for either head or body loss in setting
the criteria for their analysis. The report
stated, however, that ‘‘additional losses,
such as those attributable to the
presence of the user’s hand, holding the
device to the head, etc., would reduce
both the Lower H Block power level and
OOBE further.’’ This statement
effectively acknowledges that head and
body loss may be appropriate, yet the
report does not apply any in the
analysis.
146. The specific values of head and
body loss can be affected by a number
of factors, particularly frequency, and
do not have uniformly accepted values.
For example, in the recently concluded
AWS–4 proceeding, Motorola assumed a
10 dB head and body loss. Both Sprint
and Verizon Wireless have adopted an
8 dB head and body loss in their
respective test reports. We accept these
proposed values for body loss and head
loss as within the range of
reasonableness for our calculations here.
V–COMM calculated the OOBE limit
required under both user scenarios. The
OOBE limit proposed by both Sprint
and Verizon Wireless was based on the
assumption that both devices are being
used for data. In previous Commission
analyses of mobile-to-mobile
interference, however, the user scenario
has been for voice use; that is, in prior
Commission analysis, the total losses
attributable to head and body losses
have been in the range of as much as 6
to 10 dB for each device (both the
transmitting and receiving device).
Moreover, interference does not affect
voice and data in the same manner. The
user is much more likely to notice
interference during a voice call than
during data use. The provision of voice
service requires low latency in the
transmission link. Therefore, noise due
to interference can be immediately
perceptible to the voice user. Harmful
interference potentially can cause the
voice call to terminate. Data traffic, on
the other hand, can be much more
sporadic, even under good signal
conditions, and can often tolerate some
data losses. If interference prevents data
from being received and properly
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50236
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
decoded, the information may be
retransmitted until it is received
correctly. This retransmission may
cause delays in the data transmission,
and effectively slow the data throughput
rate, but the data session likely will
continue through to completion.
Significantly, these delays are likely
imperceptible to the user in most data
scenarios. As explained above, we
consider that interference should be
judged harmful when it is readily
perceptible to the user in most cases.
Consequently, because instances of
interference are more likely to be
perceptible to the voice user than to the
data user, we find it more appropriate
to use the voice user case when setting
the appropriate attenuation level
necessary to avoid OOBE interference.
147. Fifth, we are concerned that the
Sprint Test Report and the Verizon
Wireless Test Report use a 3 dB
‘‘implementation margin’’ to adjust the
proposed OOBE limit. The AT&T/TMobile Test Report did not include an
implementation margin. It is not clear
what issue an implementation margin is
designed to address or why it is
appropriate. In using a 3 dB
implementation margin, the test reports
adjust the proposed OOBE limit from
¥69 dBm/MHz to ¥66 dBm/MHz (i.e.,
from 99 + 10 log10 (P) dB to 96 + 10 log10
(P) dB). Thus, unlike all of the test
report inputs discussed above, inclusion
of this input results in making the
OOBE less strict. The Sprint and
Verizon Wireless test reports state that
the adjusted OOBE limit ‘‘is consistent
with OOBE limits proposed in the FCC
NPRM in 2004 and 2008 . . . [and] with
3GPP OOBE limits for UMTS and HSPA
devices . . . . OOBE of all devices
tested in 2004 comply with ¥66 dBm/
MHz . . . pursuant to CTIA’s H-Block
tests.’’ No reason was provided to
support a need for the OOBE limit we
are now establishing to be consistent
with earlier testing or earlier
Commission proposals. Rather, as we
explain above, technology has advanced
considerably since earlier tests were
performed and we would expect that the
purpose of any new testing would be to
provide temporally relevant data, not to
match earlier data. Thus, we question
the propriety of including this
implementation margin.
148. In light of all of these concerns
with the test reports, we decline to use
them as the basis to establish the OOBE
limit for Lower H Block emissions into
the 1930–1995 MHz band. Rather, as
explained above, we find it more
appropriate to rely on Commission
precedent for the same mobile-to-mobile
interference scenario we face here, but
from the other end of the PCS band, to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
establish the OOBE limit. We find that
relying on this precedent is preferable to
making the numerous adjustments that
would be necessary to rely on the
studies, particularly given that it may
not be possible to fully adjust the
studies to account for all of the issues
detailed above, including, in particular,
the probabilistic nature of the
interference. Finally, we observe that
our rules contain a savings provision
that permits the Commission, in the
event that harmful interference occurs,
to require greater attenuation than the
level we set here.
149. Measurement Procedure. The
Commission proposed to apply the
measurement procedure used in the
immediately adjacent PCS uplink band
(1850–1915 MHz) to the OOBE limit set
for the Lower H Block. For this PCS
band, the measurement bandwidth for
mobile stations is one megahertz or
greater, with some modification in the
one-megahertz bands immediately
outside and adjacent to the frequency
block where a resolution bandwidth of
at least one percent of the emission
bandwidth of the fundamental emission
of the transmitter may be employed. No
party commented on this proposal. To
treat mobile operations in the Lower H
Block in an equivalent manner to
mobile operation in the adjacent PCS
band, we therefore adopt the
Commission’s measurement procedure
proposal.
150. Commenter Notification
Proposal. We adopt a proposal set forth
by T-Mobile to require Lower H Block
licensees to notify operators in the A
Block of the PCS downlink band (1930–
1945 MHz) when the H Block licensee
turns on service. T-Mobile proposed to
require H Block licensees ‘‘to provide
notification to PCS A Block licensees
when they turn on service in the H
Block on a market-by-market basis.’’ TMobile argues that this requirement is
needed because ‘‘GSM devices may not
be adequately protected’’ by our Lower
H Block power limit and OOBE limit
rules. T-Mobile asserts that this
notification requirement would ‘‘assist[]
PCS licensees in network planning to
reduce the probability of interference.’’
151. For the reasons stated above, we
cannot determine that PCS licensees
will experience harmful interference
from Lower H Block operations.
Nevertheless, we adopt a notification
requirement out of an abundance of
caution and in light of the specific
statutory condition requiring that H
Block operations not cause harmful
interference to PCS licensees. Although
the Commission does not generally
require part 27 licensees to provide
notification to operators in adjacent or
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
nearby bands when they commence
service, the Commission has done so in
at least one instance. Specifically, the
Commission has required providers of
2.3 GHz WCS, a part 27 service, to
provide notification to certain providers
operating in nearby spectrum with
notice 30 days before commencing
operations of a new transmitting site.
Here, we have a statute that requires H
Block operations not cause harmful
interference to PCS downlink operations
and a PCS licensee with considerable
operations in the lower portion of the
PCS A Block—the spectrum in closest
proximity to the Lower H Block—stating
that a notification requirement would
‘‘assist PCS licensees in network
planning to reduce the probability of
interference.’’ Thus, while we believe
that the technical rules we adopt above
are sufficient to prevent harmful
interference from Lower H Block
operations to PCS licensees operations
in the 1930–1995 MHz band, we find
adoption of a notification requirement
appropriate as an additional safeguard
against harmful interference. In the
event, contrary to our predictive
judgment, that we determine following
such notification that H Block uplink
operations do result in harmful
interference to A Block PCS downlink
operations in any particular location, we
will take appropriate action to address
such situations.
152. In adopting this notification
requirement, we provide basic
parameters for how the notification
shall be provided. We do so to avoid
confusion, despite the lack of details
contained in the T-Mobile proposal. TMobile requested H Block licensees
provide PCS A Block licensees with
notification when the H Block licensee
‘‘turn[s] on service’’ on a ‘‘market-bymarket basis.’’ T-Mobile did not define
these terms. Because the interference
scenario between the Lower H Block
and the PCS downlink band is one of
mobile-to-mobile interference, we find it
logical (for the sole purpose of the
notification requirement we adopt here)
to equate turning on service to when a
consumer mobile device begins to
operate in the band, i.e., when service
is first provided to a consumer. In
addition, we find it logical to relate the
term market (for the sole purpose of the
notification requirement we adopt here)
to the geographic license area we adopt
for the H Block—Economic Areas (EAs).
Accordingly, we require each Lower H
Block licensee to provide all PCS A
Block (1930–1945 MHz) licensees
within the geographic scope of the
Lower H Block license with written
notification that the H Block licensee
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
has begun providing service; such
notice must be provided on the date
when the Lower H Block licensee first
begins to provide service to a consumer
using the Lower H Block.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
3. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
153. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to apply the
approach used by AWS–1 operations to
coordinate with Canada and Mexico to
H Block operations. We adopt this
approach and observe that because of
our shared borders with Canada and
Mexico, the Commission routinely
works in conjunction with the United
States Department of State and
Canadian and Mexican government
officials to ensure the efficient use of the
spectrum as well as interference-free
operations in the border areas. Until
such time as any adjusted agreements,
as needed, between the United States,
Mexico and/or Canada can be agreed to,
operations must not cause harmful
interference across the border,
consistent with the terms of the
agreements currently in force. We note
that further modifications of the rules
might be necessary in order to comply
with any future agreements with Canada
and Mexico regarding the use of these
bands.
4. Other Technical Issues
154. In addition to the specific
technical issues addressed above, the
Commission also proposed applying
additional part 27 rules to the H Block
band. Specifically, the Commission
proposed applying the following rule
sections: § 27.51 (Equipment
Authorization); § 27.52 (RF Safety);
§ 27.54 (Frequency Stability); § 27.56
(Antenna structures; air navigation
safety); and § 27.63 (Disturbance of AM
broadcast station antenna patterns). The
Commission reasoned that because H
Block will be licensed as an Advanced
Wireless Service under part 27, these
rules should apply to all licensees of H
Block spectrum, including licensees
who acquire their H Block license
through partitioning or disaggregation.
No commenters opposed this proposal.
In the H Block NPRM, the Commission
directed commenters desiring to address
a change in the Commission’s RF
exposure standards to file in both the H
Block proceeding and in ET Docket No.
03–137. See H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd
at 16276 para. 53 n.95. Numerous
parties submitted comments, replies, or
ex parte filings into either the H Block
proceeding or ET Docket No. 03–137, or
in most instances into both dockets,
advocating that the Commission reexamine its RF exposure standards. On
March 27, 2013, the Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
adopted a First Report and Order,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
and Notice of Inquiry on RF exposure
issues. See Reassessment of Federal
Communications Commission
Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and
Policies, ET Docket No. 13–84, Notice of
Inquiry, and Proposed Changes in the
Commission’s rules Regarding Human
Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields, ET Docket No.
03–137, First Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
28 FCC Rcd 3498 (2013). ET Docket No.
03–137 is mainly procedural, and does
not reach the issue of whether the
Commission’s limits on human
exposure to RF energy are appropriate.
ET Docket No. 13–84 is a new docket in
which the Commission seeks
information and comment as to whether
it should undertake a rulemaking to
revise its existing RF exposure
standards. We hereby incorporate
comments addressing the RF exposure
standards filed in the H Block
proceeding, as well as those in ET
Docket No. 03–137, until the release
date of this H Block Report and Order,
into the open proceeding on RF
exposure issues in ET Docket No. 13–84,
as appropriate. Further, the Commission
will periodically monitor the H Block
proceeding for 30 days following
publication of the H Block Report and
Order in the Federal Register to ensure
that any additional misfiled relevant
comments addressing the RF exposure
standards are appropriately considered
in ET Docket No. 13–84. Accordingly,
because these rules generally apply to
all part 27 services, and because, as we
explain above, we find it appropriate to
license the H Block under our part 27
regulatory framework, we conclude that
the potential benefits of our proposal
would outweigh any potential costs and
adopt the proposal to apply these
additional part 27 rules to licensees of
H Block.
155. In the H Block NPRM the
Commission observed that H Block
spectrum is adjacent to Broadband PCS
spectrum, which is administered under
part 24, and that it is therefore possible
that a single entity could obtain licenses
for both bands in the same geographic
area and seek to deploy a wider channel
bandwidth in that area across both
bands. If we permit operations under
such a scenario, we need to determine
which rule part should govern the
combined operations across the band. In
the H Block NPRM, the Commission
proposed to allow such operations and,
should there be a conflict in the rules
applicable to both bands, to apply the
more restrictive rule across the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50237
combined operations. No party
commented on these proposals. We
continue to believe it is in the public
interest to permit operations across the
PCS downlink band and the Upper H
Block in the event that an entity obtains
licenses to operate in the same
geographic area in both bands. In
particular, because we adopt an EAbased licensing scheme for H Block, and
the PCS G Block, 1990–1995 MHz has
been licensed on an EA basis, we
believe that by allowing an operator to
unify operations across adjacent blocks
may benefit the public interest by
providing consumers with better, more
affordable services through increased
service coverage and eliminate
redundancy. To ensure that this
decision does not negatively affect
adjacent band licensees, we also adopt
the Commission’s proposal to apply the
more restrictive rule across the
combined band in situations where the
part 24 and part 27 interference or other
technical rules differ. For example, in
the event a single licensee operates in a
unified manner in a geographic area
across both the PCS G Block at 1990–
1995 MHz and the Upper H Block, that
entity would be required to comply with
the H Block requirement for OOBEs
from the combined 1990–2000 MHz
band into frequencies above 2000 MHz.
D. Cost-Sharing
156. Background—1915–1920 MHz
Band. The 1915–1920 MHz band has
historically been a subset of a larger
band at 1910–1930 MHz that is
currently allocated for Fixed and Mobile
services on a primary basis. Before 1993,
the 1910–1930 MHz band was allocated
for Fixed services and used for fixed
point-to-point microwave links. In 1993,
the Commission designated the 1910–
1930 MHz band for use by Unlicensed
Personal Communications Service
(UPCS) devices. To facilitate the
introduction of UPCS systems, the
Commission designated the Unlicensed
PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2 GHz
Microwave Transition and Management
(now known as ‘‘UTAM, Inc.’’) as the
sole entity to coordinate and manage the
transition. In accordance with the
Commission’s policies established in
the Emerging Technologies proceeding,
UTAM subsequently relocated virtually
all of the incumbent microwave links,
thereby clearing the 1910–1930 MHz
band for use by UPCS systems.
157. In 2003, the Commission sought
comment on re-designating all or a
portion of the 1910–1920 MHz segment
for AWS use. In 2004, the Commission
re-designated the 1910–1915 MHz band
from the UPCS to Fixed and Mobile
services and assigned that spectrum to
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50238
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Sprint Nextel, Inc. (‘‘Sprint’’) as
replacement spectrum for Sprint’s
operations being relocated from the 800
MHz band. Sprint then reimbursed
UTAM soon after it received its licenses
for the 1910–1915 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands from the Commission.
Shortly after re-designating the 1910–
1915 MHz band, the Commission also
re-designated the 1915–1920 MHz band
from UPCS to use by licensed AWS
operations. In so doing, the Commission
acknowledged that ‘‘UTAM must be
fully and fairly reimbursed for
relocating incumbent microwave users
in this band’’ and determined ‘‘that
UTAM should be made whole for the
investments it has made in clearing the
UPCS bands.’’ Relative to the Lower H
Block, the Commission specifically
concluded that ‘‘UTAM is entitled to
reimbursement of twenty-five percent—
on a pro-rata basis—of the total costs it
has incurred . . . as of the date that a
new entrant gains access to the 1915–
1920 MHz spectrum band.’’ The
Commission also determined that AWS
licensees would be required to pay their
portion of the twenty-five percent of
costs prior to commencement of their
operations. In total, the relocation costs
attributable to the Upper H Block
licenses amounts to $12,629,857.
158. 1995–2000 MHz Band. The
1995–2000 MHz band is part of the
1990–2025 MHz band that the
Commission reallocated from the
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) to
emerging technologies such as PCS,
AWS, and Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS). Consistent with the relocation
and cost-sharing principles first
established in the Commission’s
Emerging Technologies proceeding,
each new entrant had an independent
responsibility to relocate incumbent
BAS licensees. Under these procedures,
the first new entrant into the band that
incurs relocation expenses for the
relocation of incumbents from portions
of the band that the new entrant will not
occupy is, as a general matter, eligible
to obtain reimbursement from
subsequent entrants in the band. More
specifically, the Commission
determined that an AWS entrant’s costsharing obligation for the 1995–2000
MHz band will be triggered upon the
final grant of the long form application
for each of its licenses. Sprint, which is
the PCS licensee at 1990–1995 MHz,
completed the BAS transition for the
entire 35 megahertz in 2010. In 2011,
Sprint notified the Commission that it
entered into a private settlement with
DISH to resolve the dispute with MSS
licensees with respect to MSS licensees’
obligation to reimburse Sprint for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
MSS licensees’ shares of the BAS
relocation costs related to the 2000–
2020 MHz band. Accordingly, the only
remaining cost-sharing obligations in
the 1990–2025 MHz band are
attributable to the remaining,
unassigned ten megahertz of spectrum
in the 1990–2025 MHz band: 1995–2000
MHz and 2020–2025 MHz. Because the
1995–2000 MHz band represents oneseventh of the relocated BAS spectrum,
the relocation costs collectively
attributable to the Upper H Block
licenses amounts to a total of
$94,875,516.
159. H Block NPRM. In the 2012 H
Block NPRM, the Commission again
sought comment on how to apportion
UTAM’s reimbursement among Lower H
Block licensees and Sprint’s
reimbursement among Upper H Block
licensees. The Commission observed
that it is important to provide auction
bidders with reasonable certainty as to
the range of the reimbursement
obligation associated with each license
under various auction outcomes.
Further, with regard to the Lower H
Block, the Commission also expressed
concern that the rules enable UTAM to
be fully reimbursed as soon as possible
given that UTAM cleared the band over
ten years ago. The Commission therefore
proposed to require Lower H Block
licensees to pay a pro rata amount of the
twenty-five percent owed to UTAM
based on the gross winning bids of the
initial H Block auction. Specifically, the
Commission proposed that the
reimbursement amount owed (‘‘RN’’) be
determined by dividing the gross
winning bid (‘‘GWB’’) for an H Block
license (i.e., an individual EA) by the
sum of the gross winning bids for all H
Block licenses won in the initial auction
and then multiplying by $12,629,857,
the total amount owed to UTAM for
clearing the 1915–1920 MHz band. This
amount—$12,629,857—is the amount
UTAM has identified for years as the
amount collectively owed by future
Lower H Block licensees to UTAM for
UTAM’s clearing of the 1910–1930 MHz
band; that is, this amount represents
one-fourth of UTAM’s total
reimbursable clearing costs for the
entire 1910–1930 MHz band. See UTAM
Comments at 3; Letter from Michael
Stima, Managing Director, UTAM, Inc.
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WT
Docket No. 04–356, at Attach. 1 (filed
May 21, 2007); H Block NPRM, 27 FCC
Rcd at 16278 para. 58. No party has
disputed this amount in the record
before us. The Commission also
observed that Sprint has already cleared
the Upper H Block, thereby enabling
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
licensees to benefit from the band
clearing as soon as they obtain licenses.
The Commission thus proposed the
same cost-sharing formula for the upper
band, as it did for the lower band,
applying Sprint’s (rather than UTAM’s)
clearing costs of $94,875,516 in the
formula for the Upper H Block.
160. The Commission proposed these
formulas in an effort to ensure that
UTAM and Sprint receive full
reimbursement after the first auction by
effectively apportioning the
reimbursement costs associated with
any unsold H Block licenses among the
winning bidders of all of the licenses
sold in the first auction—with an
exception in the event a successful
bidder’s long-form application is not
filed or granted, and subject to one
contingency, discussed below. The
Commission imposes payment
obligations on bidders that withdraw
provisionally winning bids during the
course of an auction, on those that
default on payments due after an
auction closes, and on those that are
disqualified. See 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(2)(i).
To the extent such were to occur and a
winning bidder were not awarded a
license, the Commission proposed that
the EA license at issue be deemed to
have triggered a reimbursement
obligation that will be paid to UTAM by
the licensee acquiring the license at a reauction. Further, the Commission
proposed that winning bidders of H
Block licenses in the first auction would
not have a right to seek reimbursement
from other H Block licensees including
for licenses granted as a result of
subsequent auctions. The Commission
sought comment on these proposals,
including on their associated costs and
benefits.
161. In addition, the Commission
sought comment on the relative costs
and benefits of adopting its alternative
population based cost-sharing formula
as the general rule for the H Block. The
Commission acknowledged that using a
population based approach in all events
would offer bidders greater certainty as
to the obligation attached to each
license, but would decrease the
likelihood that UTAM would be fully
compensated for clearing the band after
the initial auction.
162. Regardless of which basis the
Commission adopts for its cost-sharing
formula, the Commission proposed a
contingency that would be triggered in
the unlikely event that licenses cover
less than forty percent of the population
of the United States won in the first
auction. In such a scenario the
population would be measured using
2010 Census data, which is the most
recent decennial census data. The
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Commission proposed that, in such an
event, winning bidders—in the first
auction, as well as in subsequent
auctions—would be required to timely
pay UTAM and Sprint, respectively,
their pro rata share calculated by
dividing the population of the
individual EA granted as a result of
auction by the total U.S. population and
then multiplying this quotient by
$12,629,857 for UTAM and by
$94,875,516 for Sprint. This
contingency would ensure that UTAM
and Sprint are reimbursed as soon as
possible while also protecting H Block
winning bidders from bearing an undue
burden of the reimbursement
obligations due to UTAM and to Sprint.
163. The Commission also sought
comment, including on the costs and
benefits, on the appropriate sunset date
for the reimbursement obligation for the
Upper H Block. Specifically, the
Commission proposed a sunset date for
cost-sharing obligations of Upper H
Block licensees to Sprint of ‘‘ten years
after the first [AWS Upper] H Block
license is issued in the band.’’ The
Commission reasoned, in part, that
because bidders can internalize their
reimbursement costs into their bids for
H Block licenses, and because winning
bidders are the ultimate beneficiaries of
the band clearing, this sunset date does
not impose undue burdens on the H
Block winning bidders.
164. Finally, the Commission
proposed that winning bidders must pay
UTAM and Sprint, respectively, the
amount owed, as calculated pursuant to
the formula ultimately adopted by the
Commission, within thirty days of grant
of their long-form license applications.
The Commission sought comment on
this proposal, including on its
associated costs and benefits.
165. The Record. Commenters
generally supported the adoption of
reimbursement formulas that apportion
the relocation costs attributable to the
Lower H Block and attributable to the
Upper H Block, respectively, on a pro
rata basis among H Block licensees.
Commenters were mixed on whether we
should adopt a cost-sharing formula that
is based on gross winning bids or
population. For example, C Spire and
MetroPCS argued that a population
based formula provide bidders with
greater certainty as to their
reimbursement obligations. CCA and
Sprint opposed a population based
formula, arguing that it could delay final
reimbursement for UTAM and Sprint in
the event that all geographic areas are
not licensed in the initial auction.
Commenters supported the
Commission’s proposal to require
prompt payment of cost-sharing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
reimbursement obligations. Sprint,
moreover, proposed that the
Commission take the additional step of
not issuing the actual licenses until
reimbursement payments are made.
Finally, Sprint is the only party that
commented on the proposed sunset date
for the Upper H Block cost-sharing
requirements, arguing in support of the
Commission’s proposal.
166. We adopt the cost-sharing
proposals and formulas made by the
Commission in the H Block NPRM both
for the Lower H Block and for the Upper
H Block. We conclude, given the record
before us and Commission precedent,
that this approach is in the public
interest and that the benefits of this
approach likely outweigh any potential
costs. First, as detailed above, the
Commission has long established that
cost-sharing obligations for both the
Lower H Block and the Upper H Block
should be apportioned on a pro rata
basis against the relocation costs
attributable to the particular band.
Consistent with the record before us, we
follow that precedent here.
167. Second, we adopt cost-sharing
formulas based on gross winning bids,
rather than on license area populations.
Such an approach will enable both
UTAM and Sprint, who cleared the
respective bands years ago, to receive
full reimbursement after the first
auction, as it results in apportioning the
reimbursement associated with any
unsold H Block licenses among the
winning bidders in the first auction. We
also adopt the Commission’s proposal in
the H Block NPRM, which was
supported by the only commenter that
addressed it, Sprint, that winning
bidders in the first auction may not seek
reimbursement from other H Block
licensees, including for licenses granted
as a result of subsequent auctions. As
we explained in the H Block NPRM and
Sprint echoed in its comments, this
approach is fair and will minimize
record keeping burdens and the
likelihood of disputes between parties.
A gross winning bids approach is also
superior to a population approach
because it better reflects the market
value associated with each license at the
time of the auction. For example, some
license areas, such as the Gulf of
Mexico, may have a relative value that
is not directly tied to population. In
such a case, a population-based formula
may not fairly apportion relocation costs
among the winning bidders. In response
to concerns that a gross winning bids
approach can lead to greater uncertainty
if fewer licenses are sold, however, we
adopt the contingency proposed in the
H Block NPRM—if licenses won in the
first auction cover less than forty
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50239
percent of the population of the United
States, then the cost-sharing formula
will be based on population in the first
auction, as well as in subsequent
actions. In such a scenario the
population would be measured using
2010 Census data, which is the most
recent decennial census data.
168. Third, to avoid confusion, we
reiterate the Commission’s earlier
findings that Sprint may not receive
reimbursement for the same costs both
from AWS entrants into the Upper H
Block and from the 800 MHz true-up.
For example, in the 2010 BAS Order, the
Commission:
adopt[ed] a policy affirming . . . that Sprint
[ ] may not both receive credits in the 800
MHz true-up and receive reimbursement
from the . . . AWS entrants for the same costs.
This has been the rule since the cost sharing
requirements were adopted in the 800 MHz
R&O, and is necessary; to prevent Sprint [ ]
from receiving an unjustified windfall, and
no party has objected to this conclusion.
169. Fourth, we adopt the
Commission’s proposal to require
winning bidders to pay UTAM and
Sprint, respectively, the amounts owed
within thirty days of the grant of the
winning bidders’ long-form license
applications. For PCS, AWS–1, and
AWS–4 licensees, cost-sharing
obligations are triggered when a licensee
proposes to operate a base station in an
area cleared of incumbents by another
licensee. In this case, however, for the
Lower H Block, UTAM’s members
received no benefit for clearing the
spectrum nationwide over ten years ago,
and the Commission determined in
2003 that the new PCS/AWS licensees
entering the band would reap the
benefits of UTAM’s efforts and that
UTAM should be fully reimbursed.
Similarly, for the Upper H Block, rather
than Sprint itself benefiting from its
clearing efforts (except if Sprint is the
winning bidder), other entrants in the
band will reap the benefits of Sprint’s
clearing efforts. Consequently, we find it
appropriate to set the deadline for H
Block winning bidders to reimburse
UTAM and Sprint, respectively, at thirty
days after the grant of long-form license
applications.
170. This prompt payment
requirement protects the integrity of the
Commission’s Emerging Technologies
band clearing and cost-sharing policies,
including demonstrating fairness to
UTAM and Sprint, both of whom will
receive reimbursement years after
clearing the band to the benefit of
others. We believe that the benefit of
process integrity along with the benefit
of prompt payment to UTAM and to
Sprint significantly outweighs any
potential costs to winning bidders
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50240
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
resulting from their pay their
reimbursements promptly (i.e., within
thirty days of the grant of their longform applications). All parties who
commented on this issue supported the
proposed prompt payment requirement.
Further, we believe that our requirement
that AWS winning bidders must pay
their cost-sharing obligation within
thirty days is consistent with the general
approach to payment timing for costsharing that the Commission has
applied to AWS spectrum, and is
consistent with the 2010 BAS Order’s
approach to payment timing in the
Upper H Block in particular. There, at
a time when the total costs for clearing
the Upper H Block were not yet known,
the Commission required AWS entrants
in that spectrum band to make payment
within thirty days of receiving
documentation of Sprint’s ultimate
clearing costs. Now, these costs are
known for both the Lower H Block and
the Upper H Block, and have been for
some time. Thus, we find it appropriate
to start the thirty-day reimbursement
clock from the date on which the AWS
entrants cost-sharing obligations inure—
i.e., upon final grant of the long-form
application for each of their licenses.
171. Fifth, we decline to adopt
Sprint’s proposal that, in addition to the
thirty-day prompt payment requirement,
the Commission should not issue Upper
H Block licenses until payment has been
made. We decline to adopt this proposal
because it is inconsistent with the
Commission’s findings on this issue in
the 2010 BAS Order. There, the
Commission expressly declined to adopt
policies or procedures in the event that
a party fails to pay its cost-sharing
reimbursements. Instead, the
Commission determined to ‘‘address
complaints regarding failure to make
requirement payments . . . through our
existing enforcement mechanisms.’’
Sprint has provided no rationale for
why we should reverse this
determination now, and we decline to
do so.
172. Because we are requiring
winning bidders to pay Sprint within
thirty days of grant of their long form
applications, we expect that Upper H
Block licensees will reimburse Sprint
well before any sunset date. However, if
licenses covering less than forty percent
of the population of the United States
are granted as a result of the first
auction, licensees in subsequent
auctions will incur an obligation to
reimburse Sprint at a later date, which
could make the sunset date relevant.
Therefore, we will adopt the
Commission’s proposal to set a sunset
date for the cost-sharing obligations of
Upper H Block licensees to Sprint of ten
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
(10) years after the first Upper H Block
licenses is issued. This approach is
consistent with the record. It is also
consistent with the Commission’s
general Emerging Technologies
precedent, where relocation and costsharing obligations generally sunset ten
years after the first emerging
technologies licenses is issued in the
relevant band. In addition, setting tenyear sunset date should not impose a
significant burden on H Block winning
bidders because the H Block licenses
have not yet been assigned and because
interested applicants will be able to
factor their reimbursement obligations
to Sprint into their bids.
E. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and
Operating Rules
173. The regulatory framework we
adopt below establishes the license
term, criteria for renewal, and other
licensing and operating rules that will
govern operations in the H Block. In the
H Block NPRM, the Commission
proposed generally to apply to the H
Block the Commission’s market-oriented
part 27 rules, including, in particular,
the Commission’s part 27 rules
applicable to other AWS bands, and the
Commission’s wireless rules that are
generally applicable across multiple
commercial bands. As detailed below,
we adopt the proposals contained in the
H Block NPRM on these matters except
where otherwise indicated.
1. Regulatory Status
174. Background. In the H Block
NPRM, the Commission proposed to
apply the regulatory status provisions of
section 27.10 of the Commission’s rules
to H Block licensees. The Commission’s
current service license application
requires applicants for and licensees of
fixed or mobile services to identify the
regulatory status of the services they
intend to provide because service
offerings may bear on other statutory
and regulatory requirements.
Specifically, Section 27.10 permits
applicants and licensees to request
common carrier status, non-common
carrier status, private internal
communications status, or a
combination of these options, for
authorization in a single license (or to
switch between them). Part 27
applicants therefore may, but are not
required to, choose between providing
common carrier and non-common
carrier services. Thus, licensees would
be able to provide all allowable services
anywhere within their licensed areas,
consistent with their regulatory status.
Apart from this designation of
regulatory status, the Commission did
not propose to require applicants to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
describe the services they seek to
provide. Finally, the Commission
proposed that, if a licensee changes the
service or services it offers such that its
regulatory status would change, the
licensee would be required to notify the
Commission. A change in a licensee’s
regulatory status would not require
prior Commission authorization,
provided the licensee was in
compliance with the foreign ownership
requirements of section 310(b) of the
Communications Act that would apply
as a result of the change consistent with
the Commission’s rules for AWS–1
spectrum. The Commission sought
comment on this regulatory status
proposal, including the associated costs
and benefits. Only one commenter,
CCA, directly addressed the
Commission’s proposal, requesting that
licensees be permitted to ‘‘to provide all
allowable services throughout their
licensed area,’’ while not being required
to specify their regulatory status.
175. We adopt the Commission’s
proposal to apply section 27.10 of our
rules to the H Block. Under this flexible
regulatory approach, H Block licensees
may provide common carrier, noncommon carrier, private internal
communications or any combination of
these services, so long as the provision
of service otherwise complies with
applicable service rules. We find that
this broad licensing framework is likely
to achieve efficiencies in the licensing
and administrative process and will
provide flexibility to the marketplace,
thus encouraging licensees to develop
new and innovative services. Thus,
based on the record before us, we
conclude that this approach is in the
public interest and that its benefits
likely outweigh any potential costs.
176. We therefore require H Block
applicants and licensees to identify the
regulatory status of the services or
services they intend to provide.
Applicants and licensees are not
required to describe their particular
services in detail, but only to designate
the regulatory status of the services. We
remind potential applicants that an
election to provide service on a common
carrier basis typically requires that the
elements of common carriage be
present; otherwise, applicants must
choose non-common carrier status. If
potential applicants are unsure of the
nature of their services and their
classification as common carrier
services, they may submit a petition
with their applications, or at any time,
requesting clarification and including
service descriptions for that purpose.
177. The only commenter that directly
addressed the Commission’s proposal,
CCA, stated that ‘‘H Block licensees
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
should not be required to choose
between providing common carrier and
non-common carrier services’’ and that
they should not ‘‘be required to describe
the services they intend to provide prior
to obtaining a license.’’ According to
CCA, the FCC should adopt a rule that
permits H Block licensees ‘‘to provide
all allowable services throughout their
licensed area at any time, consistent
with their regulatory status.’’ To the
extent that CCA is asking that H Block
licensees be able to provide all
allowable services and be permitted to
request common carrier status as well as
non-common carrier status, these
propositions are already embodied in
the rule that we adopt. And to the extent
that CCA is asking that H Block
licensees not be required to describe the
services they seek to provide beyond
designating their regulatory status, that
proposition is also already embodied in
the rule that we adopt. To the extent,
however, that CCA is arguing that H
Block licensees should not be required
to designate their regulatory status, we
must disagree. This requirement applies
to all part 27 services and licensees. By
requiring part 27 licensees to designate
their regulatory status, the Commission
is able to determine whether licensees
are subject to Title II and governed by
common carrier requirements. Applying
this requirement to H Block licensees
results in the same regulatory treatment
for such licensees as exists for other part
27 licensees, as this rule generally
applies to all part 27 licensees.
178. Finally, consistent with the
application of this rule for other bands
and with the Commission’s proposal in
the H Block NPRM, we determine that,
if a licensee elects to change the service
or services it offers such that its
regulatory status would change, it must
notify the Commission within thirty
days of making the change. A change in
the licensee’s regulatory status will not
require prior Commission authorization,
provided the licensee is in compliance
with the foreign ownership
requirements of section 310(b) of the
Communications Act that apply as a
result of the change. We note, however,
that a different time period (other than
thirty days) may apply, as determined
by the Commission, where the change
results in the discontinuance, reduction,
or impairment of the existing service.
2. Ownership Restrictions
a. Foreign Ownership Restrictions
179. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission observed that sections
310(a) and 310(b) of the
Communications Act impose foreign
ownership and citizenship requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
that restrict the issuance of licenses to
certain applicants. The Commission
proposed to apply Section 27.12 of the
Commission’s rules, which implements
section 310, to applicants for licenses in
the H Block. With respect to filing
applications, the Commission proposed
that all applicants provide the same
foreign ownership information, which
covers both sections 310(a) and 310(b),
regardless of whether they propose to
provide common carrier or noncommon carrier service in the band. The
Commission sought comment on this
proposal, including the associated costs
and benefits.
180. In order to fulfill our statutory
obligations under section 310 of the
Communications Act, we determine that
all H Block applicants and licensees
shall be subject to the provisions of
section 27.12 of the Commission’s rules.
All such entities are subject to section
310(a), which prohibits licenses from
being ‘‘granted to or held by any foreign
government or the representative
thereof.’’ In addition, any applicant or
licensee that would provide a common
carrier, aeronautical en route, or
aeronautical fixed service would also be
subject to the foreign ownership and
citizenship requirements of section
310(b).
181. No commenters opposed (or
commented on) the Commission’s
proposal to require all H Block
applicants and licensees to provide the
same foreign ownership information in
their filings, regardless of the type of
service the licensee would provide
using its authorization. We believe that
applicants for this band should not be
subject to different obligations in
reporting their foreign ownership based
on the type of service authorization
requested in the application and that the
benefits of a uniform approach outweigh
any potential costs. Therefore, we will
require all H Block applicants and
licensees to provide the same foreign
ownership information, which covers
both sections 310(a) and 310(b),
regardless of which service they propose
to provide in the band. We expect,
however, that we would be unlikely to
deny a license to an applicant
requesting to provide services
exclusively that are not subject to
section 310(b), solely because its foreign
ownership would disqualify it from
receiving a license if the applicant had
applied for authority to provide section
310(b) services. However, if any such
licensee later desires to provide any
services that are subject to the
restrictions in section 310(b), we would
require that licensee to apply to the
Commission for an amended license,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50241
and we would consider issues related to
foreign ownership at that time.
b. Eligibility
182. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to adopt an open
eligibility standard for the H Block. The
Commission explained that opening the
H Block to as wide a range of licensees
as possible would encourage efforts to
develop new technologies, products,
and services, while helping to ensure
efficient use of this spectrum.
183. Additionally, the Commission
explained that Section 6004 of the
Spectrum Act does not address
eligibility to acquire licenses through
transfers, assignments, or other
secondary market mechanisms from the
initial or subsequence licensee. Section
6004 prohibits a person from
participating in an auction if they
‘‘ha[ve] been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant.’’ The Commission
sought comment on whether this
provision permits or requires the
Commission to restrict eligibility of
persons acquiring licenses on the
secondary market, whether and to what
extent such a restriction is consistent
with other provisions of the
Communications Act, and what
procedures and rules, if any, should
apply to persons acquiring licenses on
the secondary market. We also asked
how to attribute ownership under this
provision for applicants that are not
individuals.
184. No commenters addressed
whether and how Section 6004 applies
to secondary market transactions.
However, one commenter, AT&T,
addressed the larger issue of the open
eligibility proposal by commenting that
it supports such an approach.
185. We find that nothing in the
record demonstrates that we should
adopt restrictions on open eligibility.
Therefore, we find that open eligibility
for the H Block is consistent with our
statutory mandate to promote the
development and rapid deployment of
new technologies, products, and
services; economic opportunity and
competition; and the efficient and
intensive use of the electromagnetic
spectrum. We conclude, based on the
record before us, that the potential
benefits of open eligibility for the H
Block outweigh any potential costs.
186. On the issue of whether Section
6004 of the Spectrum Act applies to
transfers, assignments, or other
secondary market mechanisms, which
no commenter addressed, we determine
that this section does indeed apply to
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50242
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
such transactions. The Commission
generally does not allow parties to avoid
statutory or regulatory requirements
through use of secondary markets. We
conclude that it is reasonable to assume
that Congress did not intend to permit
persons barred on national security
grounds from ‘‘participating in an
auction’’ for certain licenses to acquire
those same licenses in such an indirect
fashion. In any event, given the policies
reflected in section 6004, we conclude
that it is appropriate to exercise our
independent authority under section
308(b) of the Communications Act to
extend such a national security bar to
the acquisition of Commission licenses
through the secondary market. Further,
we determine that applicants requesting
approval for a secondary market
transaction must certify that the
applicants are not persons barred from
participating in an auction by section
6004 of the Spectrum Act. Until we
have revised appropriate applications
forms to add a certification, we will
require applicants for spectrum subject
to section 6004 to include a certification
as an attachment to the application. For
applicants that are not individuals, we
will apply the same attribution standard
that we are adopting for short-form
applications.
3. Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies
187. Access to spectrum is a critical
and necessary input for the provision of
mobile wireless services, and ensuring
the availability of sufficient spectrum is
crucial to promoting the competition
that drives innovation and investment.
Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the
Communications Act provides that, in
designing systems of competitive
bidding, the Commission shall
‘‘promot[e] economic opportunity and
competition and ensur[e] that new and
innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by
avoiding excessive concentration of
licenses.’’ Section 6404 of the Spectrum
Act recognizes the Commission’s
authority ‘‘to adopt and enforce rules of
general applicability, including rules
concerning spectrum aggregation that
promote competition.’’ In September
2012, the Commission initiated a
proceeding to review the mobile
spectrum holdings policies that
currently apply to both transactions and
competitive bidding. The Commission
indicated that, during the pendency of
this proceeding, the Commission will
continue to apply its current case-bycase approach to evaluate mobile
spectrum holdings during its
consideration of secondary market
transactions and initial spectrum
licensing after auctions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
188. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
whether and how to address any mobile
spectrum holdings issues in the H
Block, consistent with any statutory
requirements and our goals for this
spectrum. The Commission also sought
comment on whether the acquisition of
H Block spectrum should be subject to
the same general mobile spectrum
holding policies that apply to frequency
bands that are available and suitable for
wireless services. Conversely, the
Commission sought comment on
whether to distinguish H Block
spectrum from other bands for purposes
of evaluating mobile spectrum holdings.
The Commission asked that commenters
discuss and quantify any costs and
benefits associated with the proposals
that they put forth.
189. We received a limited number of
comments on these issues. A few
commenters argued that the
Commission should take concrete steps
to prevent large carriers from acquiring
H Block spectrum, including adopting a
bright line spectrum aggregation limit
before any H Block auction, while one
commenter argued that such an
approach would not serve the public
interest. With respect to appropriate
timing of such determinations, a few
commenters argued that the
Commission should complete the
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
proceeding before applying any revised
spectrum holdings policies to H Block
licensing.
190. We find that the limited record
on mobile spectrum holdings policies in
this proceeding does not support
addressing here the issue of whether the
acquisition of H Block spectrum should
be subject to the mobile spectrum
holding policies that apply to frequency
bands that are available and suitable for
wireless services, particularly given the
pendency of the Mobile Spectrum
Holdings Policies proceeding. We
observe that parties commenting on
spectrum holdings issues in the H Block
rulemaking generally raise issues with
broader applicability to the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings rulemaking, rather
than issues related to the characteristics
of the H Block.
4. License Term, Performance
Requirements, Renewal Criteria,
Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
a. License Term
191. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed a license term for
H Block spectrum rights of ten years.
The Communications Act does not
require a specific term for spectrum
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
licenses, and the Commission has
adopted ten-year terms for many
wireless radio services. In addition, the
Commission proposed that, if an H
Block license is partitioned or
disaggregated, any partitionee or
disaggregatee would be authorized to
hold its license for the remainder of the
partitioner’s or disaggregator’s original
license term. The Commission sought
comment on these proposals, including
the associated costs and benefits, and
several commenters responded that they
approved of the proposed license terms.
192. We adopt a license term for H
Block spectrum rights of ten years and
subsequent renewal terms of ten years
and we modify section 27.13 of the
Commission’s rules to reflect these
determinations. Given the record before
us, we find that this approach is in the
public interest and find that its benefits
outweigh any potential costs. C Spire, TMobile, and U.S. Cellular expressed
support for ten-year license terms, and
no commenter opposed license terms of
that length. C Spire stated that a tenyear license term would be ‘‘appropriate
because it would provide consistency
with other spectrum blocks and afford
each licensee more than enough time to
design, acquire the necessary equipment
and devices, and deploy facilities across
nearly all of the licensed area.’’ U.S.
Cellular and T-Mobile also pointed out
that by imposing a ten-year license term,
the Commission would be treating H
Block the same way it treats many
wireless services. We agree that our
decision to license H Block in ten-year
terms is consistent with most other part
27 services and with services using
similar spectrum, such as the PCS
spectrum that is adjacent to the H Block.
193. In addition, we adopt the
Commission’s proposal that, if an H
Block license is partitioned or
disaggregated, any partitionee or
disaggregatee would be authorized to
hold its license for the remainder of the
partitioner’s or disaggregator’s original
license term. No commenter addressed
this proposal. We note, however, that
this proposal is similar to the
partitioning and disaggregation
provisions that the Commission adopted
for BRS, broadband PCS, 700 MHz,
AWS–1, and AWS–4. We emphasize
that nothing in this action is intended
to enable a licensee, by partitioning or
disaggregation, to be able to confer
greater rights than it was awarded under
the terms of its license grant; nor would
any partitionee or disaggregatee obtain
rights in excess of those previously
possessed by the underlying
Commission licensee.
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
b. Performance Requirements
194. The Commission establishes
performance requirements to maximize
the productive use of spectrum, to
encourage licensees to rapidly provide
service to customers, and to promote the
provision of innovative services in all
license areas, including rural areas. We
continue to believe that performance
requirements play a critical role in
ensuring that licensed spectrum does
not lie fallow. We therefore adopt
performance requirements that will
ensure the rapid deployment of wireless
service in the H Block, while giving
licensees sufficient flexibility to deploy
services according to their business
plans. Specifically, we adopt the
following buildout requirements:
• H Block Interim Buildout
Requirement: Within four (4) years, a
licensee shall provide reliable signal
coverage and offer service to at least
forty (40) percent of the population in
each of its license areas.
• H Block Final Buildout
Requirement: Within ten (10) years, a
licensee shall provide reliable signal
coverage and offer service to at least
seventy-five (75) percent of the
population in each of its license areas.
In addition, we adopt the following
penalties for failure to meet the buildout
benchmarks:
• Failure to Meet H Block Interim
Buildout Requirement: Where a licensee
fails to meet the H Block Interim
Buildout Requirement in its license
area, the H Block license term and the
Final Buildout Requirement shall be
accelerated by two years (for both the
license term and final requirement, from
ten to eight years).
• Failure to Meet H Block Final
Buildout Requirement: Where a licensee
fails to meet the H Block Final Buildout
Requirement in any EA, its
authorization for each EA in which it
fails to meet the requirement shall
terminate automatically without
Commission action.
195. We find, based on the record
before us, that these performance
requirements are in the public interest
and that the benefits of these
requirements outweigh any potential
costs. We explain the rationale for these
performance requirements below.
196. Background. In the H Block
NPRM, the Commission proposed that,
as an interim buildout requirement, a
licensee must, within four years,
provide signal coverage and service to at
least forty percent of its total licensearea population. The Commission
proposed that, as a final buildout
requirement, a licensee must, within ten
years, provide signal coverage and offer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
service to at least seventy percent of the
population in each license area it holds.
For both the interim and final
milestones, the Commission proposed
EA-based requirements. The
Commission explained that a four-year
interim benchmark would ensure that
licensees deploy facilities quickly,
while a relatively low population
threshold of forty percent acknowledges
that large-scale network deployment
may ramp up as equipment becomes
available and a customer base is
established. The Commission also
explained that a ten-year final
benchmark allows a reasonable amount
of time for any H Block licensee to
attain nationwide scale. The
Commission sought comment on these
proposed buildout requirements,
including on whether the proposals
struck the appropriate balance between
being so low as to not result in
meaningful buildout and being so high
as to be unattainable. The Commission
also sought comment on whether other
benchmarks represent more appropriate
requirements, asking that commenters
discuss and quantify any costs and
benefits associated with different
proposals.
197. The Commission proposed
specific consequences, or penalties, in
the event a licensee fails to satisfy its
buildout requirements. The Commission
proposed that, if a licensee fails to meet
the interim benchmark in its license
area, the term of the license would be
reduced by two years. And the
Commission proposed that, if a licensee
fails to meet the final benchmark, the H
Block license for each license area in
which it fails to meet the buildout
requirement would automatically
terminate without Commission action.
198. Commenters generally supported
the Commission’s proposals, but some
had specific recommendations for
modifying them. Several commenters
supported the proposed forty percent
interim buildout requirement, while
others proposed a slightly less stringent
benchmark or opposed any interim
benchmark at all. Commenters generally
supported the proposed seventy percent
final buildout requirement, with
individual commenters proposing a
slightly more or less stringent
benchmark. However, commenters
generally opposed the proposed
penalties for failure to satisfy the
interim and final buildout requirements.
(i) Benchmarks
199. Consistent with the
Commission’s approach to performance
benchmarks in other bands—including
the AWS–4 band, the 2.3 GHz WCS
band, and the Upper 700 MHz C-
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50243
Block—we adopt objective interim and
final buildout benchmarks. Requiring H
Block licensees to meet our performance
requirements—providing reliable
coverage and service to at least forty
percent of the population in each
license area in four years and at least
seventy-five percent of the population
in each license area in ten years—will
further the public interest by ensuring
that spectrum will be put to use and by
promoting the rapid deployment of new
broadband services to the American
public. It will also provide licensees
with certainty regarding their
construction obligations. These
performance requirements are
reasonable, both temporally and
quantitatively, and will enable the
Commission to take appropriate
corrective action should the required
deployment fail to occur. Further, we
observe that commenters generally
agreed with the proposed performance
requirements, albeit with some of those
commenters seeking slight
modifications.
200. EA-Based and Population-Based
Benchmarks. As discussed above, we
are adopting an EA-based H Block band
plan requirement and not a nationwide
band plan. Setting buildout benchmarks
on an EA basis is consistent with our
general approach of assigning H Block
spectrum rights under the Commission’s
part 27 rules, which includes permitting
any licensee to avail itself of the
Commission’s secondary market
mechanisms. Additionally, we will
measure interim and final buildout
benchmarks using percentages of license
area population because using a
population-based measure is more
consistent with the Commission’s
practice in other similar bands.
201. We reject the arguments of some
commenters that the benchmarks should
instead be measured geographically.
While we agree that it is important to
ensure service is provided in rural areas,
we believe that population-based
benchmarks are necessary to ensure that
H Block licensees have flexibility to
scale their networks in a cost efficient
manner while they are attempting to
meet performance requirements.
Specifically, because of the substantial
capital investment and logistical
challenges associated with a licensee
building out a network, we believe that
measuring benchmarks within an EA
according to population is more
appropriate. We also agree with
MetroPCS that population served is a
more accurate measure of useful
coverage for this band. Finally, while
we are adopting population-based
benchmarks for the H Block, nothing in
this decision forecloses the
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50244
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
consideration of geographic-based
benchmarks in other bands, particularly
if such bands have different technical
characteristics or service rules based on
factors specific to those bands.
202. Interim Benchmark. We find,
consistent with the record, that a fouryear construction milestone provides a
reasonable time frame for a licensee to
deploy its network and offer widespread
service. Indeed, no party suggested that
a longer time frame would be necessary.
We also find that requiring forty percent
buildout at this interim milestone
would serve the public interest.
Commenters were generally supportive
of this requirement, and it is consistent
with the interim benchmark for all
licensees in the AWS–4 band and for
licensees in the 700 MHz band that are
subject to a population-based
benchmark. It is also similar to the
Commission’s interim benchmark in the
2.3 GHz band, where mobile and pointto-multipoint licensees had 3.5 years to
provide reliable coverage to forty
percent of the population of each
license area. Thus, based on our review
of the record and Commission
precedent, we adopt an interim
performance benchmark of forty percent
buildout at the four-year milestone.
203. We are not persuaded by
MetroPCS’s argument that interim
benchmarks are unrealistic and
counterproductive, and that licensees
have sufficient financial incentives to
build out quickly without these
benchmarks. We find that the
performance requirements we adopt in
the H Block will provide licensees with
an ability to scale networks in a cost
efficient manner while also ensuring
that the vast majority of the population
will have access to wireless broadband
services by the final benchmark. And
while we recognize that licensees in
many cases have economic incentives to
build out, we believe that objective
performance requirements are an
important means of ensuring that there
is meaningful deployment of broadband
services in the H Block in the near
future, consistent with our obligations
to adopt rules and license spectrum in
the public interest.
204. We disagree with U.S. Cellular
and C Spire that thirty-five percent of
total population is a more appropriate
benchmark, and we disagree with Sprint
that in cases where a licensee acquires
multiple EA licenses, the benchmark
should be thirty-five percent of the total
population covered by all EA licenses.
While we believe that forty percent and
thirty-five percent are both realistic
interim buildout requirements, we find
that a forty percent benchmark will
better ensure that underutilized
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
spectrum is quickly utilized for the
benefit of consumers in the public
interest. U.S. Cellular claims that a
thirty-five percent benchmark is more
consistent with the Commission’s
treatment of the 700 MHz band;
however, the thirty-five percent interim
benchmark in the 700 MHz band only
applied geographic-based, not
population-based, benchmarks for the
700 MHz A and B blocks. In contrast,
700 MHz C Block, which is subject to
population-based benchmarks, had an
interim benchmark of 40 percent.
Because all H Block licensees will be
subject to a population-based
benchmark, not a geographic-based
benchmark, the example of the 700 MHz
band actually suggests that we should
adopt a forty-percent interim buildout
requirement. Finally, we decline to
adopt Sprint’s proposal, which would
allow a licensee with multiple EA
licenses to meet the interim benchmark
while underutilizing some of those EAs
for no other reason than the fact that it
acquired more than one EA. Where, as
here, we are assigning initial licenses for
spectrum, we expect applicants will file
for spectrum licenses only in areas in
which they intend to put the spectrum
to use.
205. Final Benchmark. We find,
consistent with the record, that a final
ten-year construction milestone
provides a reasonable time frame for a
licensee to deploy its network and offer
widespread service. We note that none
of the commenters suggested that a
different time frame would be necessary
for the final benchmark. However, in
response to the record, we modify the
proposed final buildout requirement in
terms of the percentage of population
that must be served. While several
commenters supported the proposed
seventy percent final buildout
requirement, AT&T proposed that the
buildout requirement be seventy-five
percent of total population of each EA
by the end of the license term. It stated
that the Upper 700 MHz C Block
buildout requirements should be the
default buildout standard, arguing that a
default standard would ‘‘reduce
uncertainty for potential licensees and
streamline its own regulatory process,
expediting deployment and service to
the public.’’ It also pointed out that a
seventy-five percent benchmark would
‘‘ensure a rapid deployment of mobile
broadband services while affording
licensees adequate flexibility to deploy
service.’’
206. While we decline to adopt a
standard buildout requirement for all
bands in this proceeding, we agree that
the final benchmark should be set at
seventy-five percent, rather than seventy
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
percent. In our view, a final benchmark
of seventy-five percent is more closely
aligned with final benchmarks in other
similar bands, including 700 MHz and
AWS–4. Specifically, for the 700 MHz C
Block, the Commission adopted a ten
year performance benchmark and a
seventy-five percent buildout
requirement. Applying a seventy-five
percent buildout requirement here,
where we similarly have a ten-year time
period, treats H Block licensees in a
similar manner as 700 MHz licensees.
Our decision is also consistent with last
year’s AWS–4 Report and Order, in
which the Commission adopted a lower
benchmark level of seventy percent,
along with a shorter time frame of seven
years.
(ii) Agreements Between H Block and
AWS–4 Licensees
207. The Commission also sought
comment on whether performance
requirements should be relaxed if an
AWS–4 licensee reaches private
operator-to-operator agreements with all
1995–2000 MHz licensees so that AWS–
4 operations above 2000 MHz may
operate with a more relaxed OOBE limit
than 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into the 1995–
2000 MHz band. The Commission
received no comments on this issue, and
accordingly, we decline to adopt an
alternative performance requirement
that would apply if an AWS–4 operator
entered into such agreements. Should
that situation arise, parties may petition
the Commission for any necessary relief
at that time.
(iii) Penalties for Failure To Meet
Construction Requirements
208. We adopt the H Block NPRM
proposed penalties for failure to meet
the interim and final benchmarks. These
penalties will provide meaningful and
enforceable consequences and are
necessary to ensure that licensees utilize
the spectrum in the public interest.
Further, we find these penalties
appropriate to ensure that the buildout
requirements fulfill their purpose of
bringing about timely deployment
without being unnecessarily strict.
209. Penalties for Failure to Meet the
Interim Benchmark. We adopt the
proposal in the H Block NPRM that, if
a licensee fails to meet the H Block
Interim Buildout Requirement in any
EA, the term of the license shall be
reduced by two years. If this interim
penalty is triggered, the license term
will be eight years instead of ten years,
and therefore the licensee will be
required to meet the end-of-term
benchmark on an accelerated eight-year
schedule, as well. We acknowledge that
in the H Block NPRM that the main text
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of the NPRM did not match the text of
the proposed rule. H Block NPRM, 27
FCC Rcd at 16289 para. 81, 16303 App.
A, § 27.14(q)(2). The main text of the
NPRM stated that the final buildout
requirement would need to be met ‘‘[b]y
the end of the license term,’’ which
would be ten years if the interim
requirement was satisfied but only eight
years if the interim requirement was not
satisfied. H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at
16289 para. 81. The text of the proposed
rules, however, stated that the final
buildout requirement needed to be met
within ten years of the grant of the
license, thus suggesting that the interim
penalty would result in a two-year
reduction in the license term but not in
the final performance benchmark. H
Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16303 App.
A, § 27.14(q)(2). We therefore clarify
that, in the event that a licensee fails to
meet the interim benchmark, that both
the term of the license and the term of
the final performance benchmark will
be reduced from ten years to eight years.
U.S. Cellular, which was the only
commenter to directly address the
proposed interim buildout penalty,
expressed support for a two-year license
term reduction. Additionally, we
believe that this penalty is sufficiently
serious to promote rapid deployment of
service to the H Block, while still giving
licensees that fail to meet it an
opportunity to meet the final benchmark
and put their spectrum to use.
210. Penalties for Failure to Meet the
Final Benchmark. We adopt the
proposal in the H Block NPRM that, if
a licensee fails to meet the H Block
Final Buildout Requirement in any EA,
the licensee’s authority for each such
area shall terminate automatically
without Commission action. By only
terminating specific licenses where a
licensee fails to meet the final
benchmark in a particular license area,
a licensee’s customers in other license
areas would not be adversely affected.
In doing so, we are adopting the final
buildout penalty that the Commission
proposed in the H Block NPRM, even
though we are slightly modifying the
final buildout requirement that the
Commission had proposed. We see no
persuasive reason that increasing the
final buildout requirement from seventy
percent to seventy-five percent of the
population of a licensed area provides a
basis for changing the penalty for failure
to meet the final buildout benchmark.
211. AT&T and U.S. Cellular both
opposed the proposed penalties. They
argued that automatic termination is too
punitive, would negatively affect
investment and auction participation
and revenues, and would harm the
public. We disagree with these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
assertions. First, as a general matter, we
expect that the probability is small of
licensees not meeting the performance
requirements because of the costs of
meeting them. Further, we expect
licensees will generally deploy in excess
of the levels set in the buildout
benchmarks and that these requirements
generally represent a floor, not a ceiling,
in a licensee’s buildout. As for the
assertion that automatic termination is
too punitive, the Commission has
explained in the past that we do not
consider automatic termination to be
overly punitive or unfair, particularly
given that the Commission has applied
this approach to nearly all
geographically licensed wireless
services. Further, the Commission has
rejected the argument, and we do so
again here, that an automatic
termination penalty would deter capital
investment, observing that the wireless
industry has invested billions of dollars
and has flourished under this paradigm
in other spectrum bands. For the same
reason, we believe that an automatic
termination penalty will have little
effect on auction participation. Finally,
we do not agree that automatic
termination would harm the public
because, even if a customer loses service
when a licensee loses its spectrum
rights, we expect that a future licensee
for that EA would ultimately serve more
customers.
212. We are not persuaded by the
AT&T and U.S. Cellular argument that
the Commission should adopt a keepwhat-you-use approach instead of an
automatic termination penalty. AT&T
maintained that keep-what-you-use
rather than automatic termination is
consistent with the requirements
applicable to other comparable services;
to support this assertion, it cited the
rules that apply to the commercial
licenses in 700 MHz. We observe,
however, that the keep-what-you-use
approach in 700 MHz is the exception
rather than the rule and that the
Commission adopted that approach for
700 MHz band spectrum, in part, in
light of other specific service rule
determinations for that band, including
the specific geographic license areas
used for parts of that band (e.g., CMAs
for the 700 MHz B Block). The
Commission generally applies automatic
termination as the remedy for failure to
build out part 27 licenses. Indeed, the
Commission has characterized
automatic license termination as ‘‘a
common remedy for failure to build part
27 flexible use licenses.’’ We believe
that an automatic termination approach
for the H Block will promote prompt
buildout and will appropriately
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50245
penalize a licensee for not meeting its
performance obligations in a particular
EA. We therefore decline to adopt a
keep-what-you-use approach.
213. We further adopt the H Block
NPRM’s proposal that, if a license
terminates, the spectrum would become
available for assignment under the
competitive bidding provisions of
section 309(j) of our rules. We also
adopt the Commission’s proposal that
any H Block licensee that forfeits its H
Block operating authority for failure to
meet the H Block Final Buildout
Requirement shall be precluded from
regaining that license. These rules are
consistent with the Commission’s rules
for other spectrum bands, such as AWS–
1, AWS–4, and the Broadband Radio
Service.
(iv) Compliance Procedures
214. We adopt the proposal in the H
Block NPRM to apply to the H Block
rule section 1.946(d) of our rules, which
requires that licensees demonstrate
compliance with the new performance
requirements by filing a construction
notification within fifteen days of the
relevant milestone certifying that they
have met the applicable performance
benchmark. Additionally, we adopt the
proposal in the H Block NPRM to
require that each construction
notification include electronic coverage
maps and supporting documentation,
which must be truthful and accurate
and must not omit material information
that is necessary for the Commission to
determine compliance with its
performance requirements.
215. We emphasize that electronic
coverage maps must accurately depict
the boundaries of each license area in
the licensee’s service territory. If a
licensee does not provide reliable signal
coverage to an entire EA, its map must
accurately depict the boundaries of the
area or areas within each EA not being
served. Each licensee also must file
supporting documentation certifying the
type of service it is providing for each
EA within its service territory and the
type of technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation
must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the
propagation model and the signal
strength necessary to provide reliable
service with the licensee’s technology.
216. The licensee must use the most
recently available decennial U.S. Census
Data at the time of measurement to meet
the population-based buildout
requirements. Specifically, the licensee
must base its claims of population
served on areas no larger than the
Census Tract level.
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50246
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
c. Renewal Criteria
217. As the Commission explained in
the H Block NPRM, section 308(b) of the
Communications Act recognizes the
Commission’s authority to require
renewal applicants to ‘‘set forth such
facts as the Commission by regulation
may prescribe as to the citizenship,
character, and financial, technical, and
other qualifications of the applicant to
operate the station’’ as well as ‘‘such
other information as it may require.’’
The Commission proposed to adopt H
Block license renewal requirements that
are consistent with those adopted in the
700 MHz First Report and Order and the
AWS–4 Report and Order.
218. The Commission proposed that
applicants for renewal of H Block
licenses file a ‘‘renewal showing,’’ in
which they demonstrate that they have
been and are continuing to provide
service to the public, and are compliant
with the Communications Act and with
the Commission’s rules and policies.
The Commission proposed that the
same factors that were applied in the
AWS–4 Report and Order and the 700
MHz First Report and Order, be used
when the Commission evaluates
renewal showings for the H Block.
Specifically, the Commission proposed
that a renewal showing for the H Block
include: the level and quality of service,
whether service was ever interrupted or
discontinued, whether service has been
provided to rural areas, the extent to
which service is provided to qualifying
Tribal lands, and any other factors
associated with a licensee’s level of
service to the public.
219. The Commission also sought
comment on whether the public interest
would be served by awarding H Block
licensees renewal expectancies if they
maintained the level of service
demonstrated at the ten-year
performance benchmark through the
end of their license term, provided that
they have otherwise complied with the
Communications Act and the
Commission’s rules and policies during
their license term. The Commission
sought comment on whether H Block
licensees should obtain renewal
expectancies for subsequent license
terms, if they continue to provide at
least the level of service demonstrated at
the ten-year performance benchmark
through the end of any subsequent
license terms.
220. Finally, the Commission
proposed that, consistent with the
AWS–4 Report and Order and the 700
MHz First Report and Order, we would
not allow the filing of any competing
applications to requests for license
renewal, and that if a license is not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
renewed, the associated spectrum
would be returned to the Commission
for assignment.
221. The Commission sought
comment on these proposals, including
the associated costs and benefits.
Comments were mixed regarding the
primary proposal to impose renewal
requirements consistent with those
adopted in the 700 MHz First Report
and Order and the AWS–4 Report and
Order with one commenter offering
qualified support for the proposed
renewal standard, and other
commenters opposed to it.
222. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the
Communications Act and consistent
with the Commission’s rules as they
apply to other similar bands, we find
that all H Block licensees seeking
renewal of their authorizations at the
end of their license term must file a
renewal application, demonstrating that
they have been and are continuing to
provide service to the public over the
license term (or, if consistent with the
licensee’s regulatory status, it used the
spectrum for private, internal
communication), and are otherwise
complying with the Commission’s rules
and policies (including any applicable
performance requirements) and with the
Communications Act. In so finding, we
emphasize, as the Commission has done
repeatedly in recent years, that the
concept of a renewal showing is distinct
from a performance showing. A
performance showing provides a
snapshot in time of the level of a
licensee’s service, while a renewal
showing provides information regarding
the level and types of service provided
over the entire license term. As the
Commission has explained in setting
rules for other bands, a licensee that
meets the applicable performance
requirements might nevertheless fail to
meet the renewal requirements.
Specifically, we adopt the following
renewal criteria requirements. We
require the renewal showing to include
a detailed description of the renewal
applicant’s provision of service during
the entire license period and discuss: (1)
The level and quality of service
provided by the applicant (e.g., the
population served, the area served, the
number of subscribers, the services
offered); (2) the date service
commenced, whether service was ever
interrupted, and the duration of any
interruption or outage; (3) the extent to
which service is provided to rural areas;
(4) the extent to which service is
provided to qualifying Tribal land as
defined in section 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of the
Commission’s rules; and (5) any other
factors associated with the level of
service to the public. A licensee must
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
also demonstrate at renewal that it has
substantially complied with all
applicable Commission rules and
policies, and the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, including any
applicable performance requirements.
Based on the record before us and the
analysis provided below, we find these
requirements to be in the public interest
and that their benefits outweigh any
likely costs.
223. In addition, as the Commission
did in the 700 MHz First Report and
Order and the AWS–4 Report and Order,
we will not permit the filing of
competing applications against a
licensee’s renewal application. If a
license is not renewed, the associated
spectrum will be returned to the
Commission and then made available
for assignment. We agree with Sprint—
which offered support for the proposed
renewal standard—that the proposed
standard is consistent with Commission
precedent.
224. We are not persuaded by
commenters who opposed the proposed
renewal standard. For example,
MetroPCS and T-Mobile argued that the
FCC should refrain from imposing the
proposed renewal standard on H Block
licensees, claiming that the proposed
standard is vague. Additionally,
MetroPCS argued that the proposed
standard will undermine the renewal
expectancy that allows licensees to
secure long-term financing. We disagree.
Instead, we believe that the renewal
standard provides sufficient certainty.
For example, the renewal standard we
adopt today is based on that used for
700 MHz commercial licensees. We are
unaware of any significant effect on the
ability of 700 MHz applicants or
licensees to obtain financing resulting
from the use of this renewal standard in
the 700 MHz proceeding.
225. T-Mobile also pointed out that
the same renewal standard is under
consideration in the pending WRS
Renewals proceeding, and therefore
argued that the Commission should
more broadly address it there. We agree
with T-Mobile that the WRS Renewals
proceeding offers the Commission an
opportunity to comprehensively
consider whether it should adopt a
renewal standard that generally applies
to all bands, and if so, what that
standard should be. However, contrary
to T-Mobile’s suggestion that we are
departing from a generic renewal
standard by ‘‘uniquely’’ applying the
proposed renewal standard to the H
Block, the Commission has thus far
declined to adopt generic criteria for
renewal showings. Moreover, at least
two spectrum bands, 700 MHz and
AWS–4, have renewal criteria identical
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
or almost identical to those we adopt for
the H Block. Unless we make a
determination in this proceeding about
the renewal standard for H Block, our
service rules for this band would
include no clear, codified criteria for
license renewal and new licensees
would be faced with this uncertainty.
We also decline to delay adoption of the
H Block Report and Order until the
WRS Renewals proceeding is resolved,
because we find that the benefits of
adopting the H Block rules now far
outweigh the costs of not doing so. As
we explained above, completing the H
Block proceeding in the near term has
several benefits, including unleashing
more spectrum to address the surging
demand for mobile broadband services
and implementing an important
directive that Congress entrusted to the
Commission. While our determination
here should not be construed to
prejudge the issues and arguments
presented by the parties to the WRS
Renewals proceeding, we observe that
our action here is consistent with our
proposal in that docket.
226. Finally, we decline to adopt U.S.
Cellular’s proposal that the Commission
categorically provide licensees that
satisfy the performance requirements
with renewal expectancies. In the
ordinary course, we expect that
licensees that meet their interim
benchmark and maintain that level of
service while increasing service levels
towards compliance with the end-ofterm benchmark will likely be able to
demonstrate that they satisfy the
renewal criteria delineated above.
However, we decline to adopt the rule
U.S. Cellular proposes that equates mere
compliance with the performance
benchmarks with a renewal justification
because, as the Commission has
explained and as we reiterated above,
performance requirements and renewal
showings are two distinct requirements
that involve different showings, serve
different purposes, and have different
remedies. We decline to state
categorically that a licensee that simply
meets the interim and final performance
requirements will automatically obtain a
renewal expectancy. For example, a
licensee would be unlikely to obtain
renewal at the end of the license term
where it met the applicable ‘‘snap shot’’
interim benchmark by providing signal
coverage and offering service for a single
day just prior to the interim benchmark,
but then merely offers service once
every 180 days to avoid permanent
discontinuance of operation until
reaching the end-of-term benchmark.
We agree with U.S. Cellular that a
licensee that obtains a license renewal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
at the end of the initial license term
under the standard set forth above, and
then maintains or exceeds the end-ofterm seventy-five percent population
coverage and offering of service level
through subsequent license terms,
reasonably could expect, absent
extraordinary circumstances, that it
would receive subsequent license
renewal.
d. Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
227. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission requested comment on the
application of the rules governing the
permanent discontinuance of operations
to H Block operators. Under section
1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules,
an authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is ‘‘permanently
discontinued.’’ The Commission
proposed to define ‘‘permanently
discontinued’’ for the H Block spectrum
as a period of 180 consecutive days
during which a licensee does not
operate and does not serve at least one
subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to, the
provider. The Commission also
proposed that licensees would not be
subject to this requirement until the
date of the first performance
requirement benchmark, which was
proposed as four years from the license
grant.
228. In addition, the Commission
proposed that, consistent with section
1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, if
a licensee permanently discontinues
service, the licensee must notify the
Commission of the discontinuance
within ten days by filing FCC Form 601
or 605 and requesting license
cancellation. However, the Commission
explained that even if a licensee fails to
file the required form, an authorization
will automatically terminate without
specific Commission action if service is
permanently discontinued. The
Commission sought comment on these
proposals, including the associated
costs and benefits.
229. We determine that section
1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules
will apply to any H Block licensee and
find that the benefits of applying this
rule outweigh any potential costs of
doing so. Thus, an H Block operator’s
authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is ‘‘permanently
discontinued.’’ For providers that
identify their regulatory status as
common carrier or non-common carrier,
we define ‘‘permanently discontinued’’
as a period of 180 consecutive days
during which the licensee does not
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50247
provide service to at least one subscriber
that is not affiliated with, controlled by,
or related to, the provider in an EA (or
smaller service area in the case of a
partitioned EA license). We adopt a
different approach, however, for
licensees that use their licenses for
private, internal communications,
because such licensees generally do not
provide service to unaffiliated
subscribers. For such private, internal
communications, ‘‘permanent
discontinuance’’ shall be defined as a
period of 180 consecutive days during
which the licensee does not operate.
This approach is consistent with the
discontinuance rule that the
Commission has adopted for the
adjacent AWS–4 band, and the only
party to comment on this rule, TMobile, expressed support for this
approach.
230. We believe that using this
approach in H Block strikes the
appropriate balance between affording
licensees operational flexibility and
ensuring that licensed spectrum is
efficiently utilized. In addition, our
determination will ensure that spectrum
does not lie fallow and will facilitate
business and network planning by
providing certainty to licensees and
their investors. A licensee will not be
subject to the discontinuance rules until
the date it must meet its first
performance requirement benchmark
(four years from the license grant),
which provides the licensee with
adequate time to construct its network.
231. Furthermore, in accordance with
section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s
rules, if a licensee permanently
discontinues service, the licensee must
notify the Commission of the
discontinuance within ten days by filing
FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting
license cancellation. However, even if
the licensee fails to file the required
form requesting license cancellation, an
authorization will automatically
terminate without specific Commission
action if service is permanently
discontinued.
232. Finally, as the Commission has
previously explained, the operation of
so-called channel keepers, e.g., devices
that transmit test signals, tones, and/or
color bars, do not constitute ‘‘operation’’
under section 1.955(a)(3) or the
Commission’s other permanent
discontinuance rules.
5. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
233. Part 27 of the Commission’s rules
generally allows licensees to partition
and disaggregate their spectrum.
‘‘Partitioning’’ is the assignment of
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50248
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
geographic portions of a license to
another licensee along geopolitical or
other boundaries. ‘‘Disaggregation’’ is
the assignment of a discrete amount of
spectrum under the license to a
geographic licensee or qualifying entity.
Disaggregation allows for multiple
transmitters in the same geographic area
operated by different companies on
adjacent frequencies in the same band.
234. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed to permit
partitioning and disaggregation and
sought comment on this proposal. The
Commission’s part 27 rules for
terrestrial wireless service provide that
licensees may apply to partition their
licensed geographic service areas or
disaggregate their licensed spectrum at
any time following the grant of their
licenses. The Commission’s rules also
set forth the general requirements that
apply with regard to approving
applications for partitioning or
disaggregation, as well as other specific
requirements (e.g., performance
requirements) that would apply to
licensees that hold licenses created
through partitioning or disaggregation.
The Commission also proposed
requiring each licensee of H Block
authority who is a party to a
partitioning, disaggregation, or
combination of both to independently
meet the applicable performance and
renewal requirements. The Commission
sought comment on these proposals and
asked that commenters discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of these
proposals on competition, innovation,
and investment. Finally, the
Commission sought comment on
whether it should adopt additional or
different mechanisms to encourage
partitioning and/or disaggregation of H
Block spectrum and whether such
policies would promote service,
especially to rural areas; and asked that
commenters quantify the costs and
benefits of any such proposals. We
received several comments on this
issue, and all were supportive of the
Commission’s proposal to permit
partitioning and disaggregation of the H
Block.
235. We adopt the proposal in the H
Block NPRM to allow any H Block
licensee to partition its service areas or
disaggregate its spectrum. We conclude,
based on the record before us, that
permitting partitioning and
disaggregation is in the public interest
and that the benefits of permitting these
actions outweigh any potential costs.
We agree with the comments, which
were universally supportive of allowing
partitioning and disaggregation under
part 27. CCA stated that allowing H
Block licensees to partition and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
disaggregate would empower licensees
to respond to market demand following
the auction, thus spurring competition
for spectrum-based services and
fostering wireless innovation. MetroPCS
argued that in order to promote efficient
use of the H Block spectrum, the
Commission should permit partitioning
and disaggregation pursuant to the part
27 rules, which promote more efficient
use of the band by providing licensees
with additional flexibility and creating
consistency among the secondary
market rules for spectrum in different
bands.
236. As the Commission has
explained many times in the past,
partitioning and disaggregation promote
the efficient use of spectrum and help
to expedite the provision of service to
rural and other underserved areas of
America as well as to niche markets.
Further, by allowing H Block licensees
to partition and disaggregate to the same
degree as other wireless licensees
providing like services, the Commission
promotes competition among wireless
service providers.
237. We further conclude that the
public interest would be served by
requiring, as we proposed in the H
Block NPRM, each H Block licensee that
is a party to a partitioning or
disaggregation arrangement (or
combination of both) to independently
meet the applicable performance and
renewal requirements. As the
Commission observed in the AWS–4
Report and Order and the WRS NPRM,
this approach should facilitate efficient
spectrum usage and prevent the
avoidance of timely construction
through secondary market fiat, while
still providing operators with the
flexibility to design their networks
according to their operation and
business needs. No commenters
opposed (or commented on) this
approach.
b. Spectrum Leasing
238. In 2003, in an effort to promote
more efficient use of terrestrial wireless
spectrum through secondary market
transactions and to eliminate regulatory
uncertainty, the Commission adopted a
comprehensive set of policies and rules
governing spectrum leasing
arrangements between terrestrial
licensees and spectrum lessees. These
policies and rules permitted
terrestrially-based Wireless Radio
Service ‘‘licensees holding exclusive use
[spectrum] rights’’ to lease some or all
of the spectrum usage rights associated
with their licenses to third party
spectrum lessees, which then would be
permitted to provide wireless services
consistent with the underlying license
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
authorization. The Commission adopted
these policies and rules in order to
promote more efficient, innovative, and
dynamic use of the terrestrial spectrum,
to expand the scope of available
wireless services and devices, to
enhance economic opportunities for
accessing spectrum, and to promote
competition among terrestrial wireless
service providers. In 2004, the
Commission expanded on this spectrum
leasing framework by establishing
immediate approval procedures for
certain categories of terrestrial spectrum
leasing arrangements and extending the
spectrum leasing policies to additional
Wireless Radio Services. Since then, the
Commission has extended these policies
to still more Wireless Radio Services.
239. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed that the spectrum
leasing policies and rules established in
the above-mentioned proceedings be
applied to the H Block in the same
manner that those policies apply to
other part 27 services. The Commission
sought comment on this proposal,
including its effects on competition,
innovation, and investment. The
comments that the Commission received
were supportive of this proposal.
240. We adopt the proposal in the H
Block NPRM to apply to the H Block the
Commission’s current spectrum leasing
policies, rules, and procedures
contained in part 1 of the Commission’s
rules, in the same manner as those
policies, rules, and procedures apply to
other part 27 services. We find it in the
public interest to apply the same
comprehensive set of rules, policies,
and procedures governing spectrum
leasing arrangements between terrestrial
licensees and spectrum lessees that the
Commission has adopted for other
wireless spectrum bands to the H Block.
We believe that this decision will
encourage innovative arrangements and
investment in the H Block. We also
observe that ‘‘[f]or a particular spectrum
band, spectrum leasing policies
generally follow the same approach as
the partitioning and disaggregation
policies for the band.’’ Thus, our
decision to permit spectrum leasing of
H Block spectrum is consistent with our
determination above to permit
partitioning and disaggregation of H
Block spectrum.
241. The record unanimously
supports our decision. For example, we
agree with CCA that applying our
current spectrum leasing rules to H
Block will increase the use and utility
of the H Block by allowing a diverse
group of parties to efficiently and
dynamically use the spectrum. We also
agree with MetroPCS that applying our
current spectrum leasing rules will
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
promote the efficient use of H Block
spectrum and treat spectrum in different
bands consistently in applying
secondary market rules.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
6. Other Operating Requirements
242. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission explained that even though
licenses in the H Block may be issued
pursuant to one rule part, licensees in
this band might be required to comply
with rules contained in other parts of
the Commission’s rules by virtue of the
particular services they provide. The
Commission sought comment on
whether there are any provisions in
existing, service-specific rules that need
to be modified to ensure that H Block
licensees are covered under the
necessary Commission rules. In
addition, the Commission sought
comment on any rules that would be
affected by the proposal to apply
elements of the framework of these rule
parts, whether separately or in
conjunction with other requirements.
Finally, the Commission sought
comment on the costs and benefits
associated with the adoption of any
potential requirements. The
Commission received two comments in
response to this request, both of which
addressed the application of the
hearing-aid compatibility rules.
243. While we are generally adopting
part 27 rules for the H Block, in order
to maintain general consistency among
various wireless communication
services, we also require any licensee of
H Block operating authority to comply
with other rule parts that pertain
generally to wireless communication
services. For example, section 27.3 of
the Commission’s rules lists some of the
other rule parts applicable to wireless
communications service licensees
generally; we thus find it appropriate to
apply this and similar rules to the H
Block. Some of these other rule parts
will be applicable by virtue of the fact
that they apply to all licensees, and
others will apply depending on the type
of service that a licensee provides. For
example:
• Applicants and licensees will be
subject to the application filing
procedures for the Universal Licensing
System, set forth in part 1 of our rules.
• Licensees will be required to
comply with the practices and
procedures listed in part 1 of our rules
for license applications, adjudicatory
proceedings, etc.
• Licensees will be required to
comply with the Commission’s
environmental provisions, including
section 1.1307.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Licensees will be required to
comply with the antenna structure
provisions in part 17 of our rules.
• To the extent a licensee provides a
Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such
service is subject to the provisions in
part 20 of the Commission’s rules,
including 911/E911 requirements, along
with the provisions in the rule part
under which the license was issued.
• To the extent a licensee provides
interconnected VoIP services, the
licensee will be subject to the E911
service requirements set forth in part 9
of our rules.
• The application of general
provisions in parts 22, 24, 27, or 101
will include rules related to equal
employment opportunity, etc.
No commenter opposed this approach.
We conclude that maintaining
consistency among various wireless
communications services—including
the H Block—is in the public interest
and that the benefits of this approach
outweigh any potential costs.
244. On one issue in particular, we
specifically received comment seeking
the application of broader rules to H
Block licensees. On the issue of hearingaid compatibility, we conclude that our
Part 20 hearing-aid compatibility (HAC)
requirements will apply to H Block
services in the same manner and to the
same extent as those requirements apply
to any wireless services under the part
20 HAC rules. Thus, to the extent a
licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service, such service is subject to
the hearing-aid compatibility
requirements in part 20 of the
Commission’s rules.
245. The Hearing Industries
Association commented that the
Commission should ‘‘ensure the full
applicability of the hearing aid
compatibility rule as it unleashes new
spectrum—in this instance the H
Block.’’ It pointed out that ‘‘Congress
has clearly directed the Commission to
ensure that as devices continue to
advance into multifaceted devices
capable of more than traditional voice
capabilities that the HAC rules continue
to apply.’’ HIA also argued that as
technology advances and new spectrum
is unleashed, ‘‘the FCC must consider
function to ensure that hearing-aid users
are not locked out of fully participating
in the larger economy and society.’’
Thus, it argued that the HAC rules must
‘‘focus on whether a device is used for
two-way talk and how it couples with
the human ear more than the name of
the device or its advertised ‘primary’
purpose.’’ Another commenter
submitted arguments that addressed the
Commission’s HAC rules and Specific
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50249
Absorption Rate (SAR) emissions rules.
Mr. Johnson’s comments contained
general arguments that were not
specifically related to H Block.
246. We agree that the Commission’s
HAC rules should apply to services
provided in the H Block in the same
manner that they apply to services
provided in other bands. To the extent
that comments could be read as asking
for a broader review of the
Commission’s hearing-aid compatibility
rules (or the Commission’s RF safety
rules), however, we decline to conduct
such a review in this band-specific
proceeding because we do not believe
this proceeding is the appropriate
proceeding for us to conduct a general
review and revision of those rules.
7. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and
the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands
247. The H Block NPRM explained
that the Commission is currently
considering various provisions and
policies intended to promote greater use
of spectrum over Tribal lands. The
Commission proposed to extend any
rules and policies adopted in that
proceeding to any licenses that may be
issued through competitive bidding in
this proceeding. The Commission
sought comment on this proposal and
any costs and benefits associated with
it.
248. We adopt the proposal in the H
Block NPRM, deferring the application
of any rules and policies for facilitating
access to spectrum and the provision of
service to Tribal lands to the Tribal
Lands proceeding. Because that
proceeding is specifically focused on
promoting greater use of spectrum over
Tribal lands, we find that it is better
suited than the instant proceeding to
reach conclusions on that issue.
F. Procedures for Any H Block Licenses
Subject to Assignment by Competitive
Bidding
249. We will conduct any auction for
H Block licenses pursuant to our
standard competitive bidding rules
found in part 1, subpart Q of the
Commission’s rules and will provide
bidding credits for qualifying small
businesses, as proposed in the H Block
NPRM. Below we discuss our reasons
for adopting the relevant proposals.
1. Application of Part 1 Competitive
Bidding Rules
250. The Commission proposed to
conduct any auction for H Block
licenses in conformity with the general
competitive bidding rules set forth in
part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission’s
rules, and substantially consistent with
the competitive bidding procedures that
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50250
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
have been employed in previous
auctions. Additionally, the Commission
proposed to employ the part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design,
designated entity preferences, unjust
enrichment, application and payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and
the prohibition on certain
communications between auction
applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any
modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive
bidding rules in the future. The H Block
NPRM also sought comment on whether
any part 1 rules would be inappropriate
or should be modified for an auction of
licenses in the H Block bands.
251. Commenters generally support
our proposed use of standard
competitive bidding rules for an auction
of H Block licenses. One of those
commenters, MetroPCS, asserts that the
Commission should avoid the use of
procedures that may ‘‘unduly
complicate auctions’’ or otherwise
‘‘limit the ability of smaller bidders to
acquire spectrum.’’ Another argues that
the Commission should not depart from
its standard simultaneous multipleround format for an H Block auction.
Based on our review of the record and
our prior experience with conducting
auctions, we determine that the
Commission’s Part 1 bidding rules
should govern the conduct of any H
Block auction.
2. Revision to Part 1 Certification
Procedures
252. The H Block NPRM proposed to
implement the national security
restriction of section 6004 of the
Spectrum Act by adding a certification
to the short-form application filed by
auction applicants. Section 6004
prohibits ‘‘a person who has been, for
reasons of national security, barred by
any agency of the Federal Government
from bidding on a contract, participating
in an auction, or receiving a grant’’ from
participating in a system of competitive
bidding that is required to be conducted
by Title VI of the Spectrum Act.
Accordingly, the Commission proposed
to require that an auction applicant
certify, under penalty of perjury, that it
and all of the related individuals and
entities required to be disclosed on the
short-form application are not persons
who have ‘‘been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant.’’ For purposes of this
certification, the H Block NPRM
proposed to define ‘‘person’’ as an
individual, partnership, association,
joint-stock company, trust, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
corporation. It also proposed to define
‘‘reasons of national security’’ to mean
matters relating to the national defense
and foreign relations of the United
States. We received no comments on our
proposal to revise the part 1 certification
procedures to add a national security
certification requirement.
253. We will implement this
Spectrum Act mandate by adding a
national security certification to the
various other certifications that a party
must make in any application to
participate in competitive bidding as
required under our existing rules. As
with other required certifications, an
auction applicant’s failure to include
the required certification by the
applicable filing deadline would render
its short-form application unacceptable
for filing, and its application would be
dismissed with prejudice.
3. Small Business Provisions for
Geographic Area Licenses
254. As discussed in the H Block
NPRM, in authorizing the Commission
to use competitive bidding, Congress
mandated that the Commission ‘‘ensure
that small businesses, rural telephone
companies, and businesses owned by
members of minority groups and women
are given the opportunity to participate
in the provision of spectrum-based
services.’’ In addition, section
309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act
provides that, in establishing eligibility
criteria and bidding methodologies, the
Commission shall seek to promote a
number of objectives, including
‘‘economic opportunity and competition
. . . by avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses and by
disseminating licenses among a wide
variety of applicants, including small
businesses, rural telephone companies,
and businesses owned by members of
minority groups and women.’’ One of
the principal means by which the
Commission fulfills this mandate is
through the award of bidding credits to
small businesses.
255. In the Competitive Bidding
Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the Commission stated that it
would define eligibility requirements
for small businesses on a servicespecific basis, taking into account the
capital requirements and other
characteristics of each particular service
in establishing the appropriate
threshold. Further, in the Part 1 Third
Report and Order, the Commission,
while standardizing many auction rules,
determined that it would continue a
service-by-service approach to defining
the eligibility requirements for small
businesses.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
256. The Commission proposed in the
H Block NPRM to define a small
business as an entity with average gross
revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $40 million, and a very
small business as an entity with average
gross revenues for the preceding three
years not exceeding $15 million. Under
this proposal, small businesses would
be provided with a bidding credit of 15
percent and very small businesses with
a bidding credit of 25 percent,
consistent with the standardized
schedule in part 1 of our rules.
257. This proposal was modeled on
the small business size standards and
associated bidding credits that the
Commission adopted for the AWS–1
band. The Commission believed that the
H Block would be employed for
purposes similar to those for which the
AWS–1 Band is used. The H Block
NPRM noted that these small business
size standards and associated bidding
credits were proposed for the AWS–1
band because of the similarities between
the AWS–1 service and the broadband
PCS service and that the Commission
had followed this approach when
proposing small business size standards
and associated bidding credits in the
AWS–2 NPRM.
258. The Commission sought
comment on these proposals, including
the costs or benefits of these standards
and associated bidding credits,
especially as they relate to the proposed
EA-defined geographic area licensing
approach. The Commission specifically
sought comment on whether the small
business provisions we proposed are
sufficient to promote participation by
businesses owned by minorities and
women. Those addressing small
business credits generally support the
Commission’s proposals.
259. RTG supports the Commission’s
proposed bidding credits, and argues for
creation of an additional size standard
under which auction applicants with
average gross revenues not exceeding
$75 million for the preceding three
years would receive a 10 percent
bidding credit. RTG asserts that this
additional bidding credit tier would
help ‘‘slightly larger small and rural
telephone companies to compete for
spectrum with nationwide carriers on a
more level playing field.’’ Similarly,
Broadband Properties seeks adoption of
a 35 percent bidding discount for
‘‘smaller operators,’’ though it does not
state what size firm might be considered
to be a ‘‘smaller operator.’’ The
Commission has previously considered
and rejected RTG’s efforts to create an
additional rural telephone company
bidding credit. In so doing, the
Commission observed that RTG and
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
other proponents had been unable ‘‘to
demonstrate a historical lack of access
to capital that was the basis for
according bidding credits to small
businesses, minorities and women,’’ and
that ‘‘[i]n subsequent decisions, large
rural telcos have failed to demonstrate
any barriers to capital formation similar
to those faced by other designated
entities.’’ Moreover, RTG supplies no
additional information from which we
might conclude that entities with
average annual gross revenues of
between $40 and $75 million have faced
particular difficulties in attracting
capital. While we have not intended to
apply the part 1 bidding credit schedule
uniformly to all auctions without any
opportunity for the consideration of
alternative bidding credits, we continue
to believe that the schedule of size
standards and bidding credits described
in part 1 provide small businesses with
consistency and predictability. As
discussed above, we took the
characteristics of this service into
consideration when proposing the two
size standards and associated bidding
credits in the H Block NPRM.
Accordingly, we decline to adopt an
additional size standard and bidding
credit for the H block.
260. MetroPCS argues that we should
adopt a scale of bidding credits based on
an entity’s spectrum holdings in a
particular geographic area in lieu of
credits based on small business size.
MetroPCS would also bar an auction
applicant from acquiring any license
that would cause it to exceed the
spectrum screen in effect prior to the
allocation of the spectrum to be offered
at auction. AT&T and Sprint call on the
Commission to reject MetroPCS’s
alternative bidding credit plan. AT&T
argues that ‘‘[t]his proposal is little more
than an attempt to achieve . . .
restrictions on auction participation
based on spectrum holdings’’ which it
contends would be ‘‘anticompetitive
and unlawful.’’ We find that MetroPCS’s
proposal fundamentally involves issues
of spectrum aggregation policy, and that
those issues would be more properly
addressed in the separate Mobile
Spectrum Holdings Policies proceeding.
Thus we decline to replace our small
business bidding credit program with
MetroPCS’s alternative approach.
261. Based on our prior experience
with the use of bidding credits in
spectrum auctions, we believe that the
use of bidding credits is an effective tool
in achieving the statutory objective of
promoting participation by designated
entities in the provision of spectrumbased services. In the absence of small
business size standards and bidding
credits, designated entities might have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
less opportunity to obtain spectrum in
this band. The Commission believes that
continuing to extend such benefits to
the H Block would be consistent with
our statutory mandate. In light of the
similarities with the AWS–1 service, we
adopt these size standards and
associated bidding credits for small
businesses. We have requested SBA
approval of these size standards.
Moreover, we continue to believe that
use of the small business size standards
and credits set forth in the part 1
schedule provides consistency and
predictability for small businesses.
Specifically, we will define a small
business as an entity with average gross
revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $40 million, and a very
small business as an entity with average
gross revenues for the preceding three
years not exceeding $15 million. For the
H block, small businesses would be
provided with a bidding credit of 15
percent and very small businesses with
a bidding credit of 25 percent,
consistent with the standardized
schedule in part 1 of our rules. Given
the record before us and the benefits
discussed above, we conclude that the
potential benefits of our proposals
would likely outweigh any potential
costs.
IV. Procedural Matters
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
262. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires that an agency prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for notice
and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ Accordingly,
we have prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning
the possible impact of the rule changes
contained in the Report and Order on
small entities. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission
incorporated an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
No comments were filed addressing the
IRFA. Because we amend the rules in
this Report and Order, we have
included this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Report and Order
263. Demand for wireless broadband
services and the network capacity
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50251
associated with those services is
surging, resulting in a growing demand
for spectrum to support these services.
Adoption of smartphones increased at a
50 percent annual growth rate in 2011,
from 27 percent of U.S. mobile
subscribers in December 2010 to nearly
42 percent in December 2011. Further,
consumers have rapidly adopted the use
of tablets, which were first introduced
in January of 2010. By the end of 2012,
it was estimated that one in five
Americans—almost 70 million people—
would use a tablet. Between 2011 and
2017, mobile data traffic generated by
tablets is expected to grow at a
compound annual growth rate of 100
percent. New mobile applications and
services, such as high resolution video
communications, are also using more
bandwidth. For example, a single
smartphone can generate as much traffic
as thirty-five basic-feature mobile
phones, while tablets connected to 3G
and 4G networks use three times more
data than smartphones over the cellular
network. All of these trends, in
combination, are creating an urgent
need for more network capacity and, in
turn, for suitable spectrum.
264. The 2010 National Broadband
Plan recommended the Commission
undertake to make 500 megahertz of
spectrum available for broadband use
within ten years, including 300
megahertz within five years. The
Commission has taken numerous steps
to achieve these goals, including
recently adopting a notice of proposed
rulemaking on conducting the world’s
first incentive auction to repurpose
broadcast spectrum for wireless
broadband use, updating the
Commission’s rules for the 2.3 GHz
Wireless Communications Service
(WCS) band to permit the use of the
most advanced wireless technologies in
that band, and establishing service rules
to allow terrestrial mobile broadband in
the 2 GHz MSS bands.
265. In February 2012, Congress
enacted Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the
‘‘Spectrum Act’’). The Spectrum Act
includes several provisions to make
more spectrum available for commercial
use, including through auctions, and to
improve public safety communications.
Among other things, the Spectrum Act
requires the Commission, by February
23, 2015, to allocate the 1915–1920 MHz
band and the 1995–2000 MHz band
(collectively, the H Block) for
commercial use, and to auction and
grant new initial licenses for the use of
each spectrum band, subject to flexibleuse service rules. Congress provided,
however, that if the Commission
determined that either of the bands
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50252
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
could not be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial
licensees in 1930–1995 MHz (PCS
downlink), then the Commission was
prohibited from allocating that specific
band for commercial use or licensing it.
Additionally, Sections 6401(f) and 6413
of the Spectrum Act specify that the
proceeds from an auction of licenses in
the 1995–2000 MHz band and in the
1915–1920 MHz band shall be deposited
in the Public Safety Trust Fund and
used to fund the Nationwide Public
Safety Broadband Network (‘‘FirstNet’’).
The H Block spectrum could be the first
spectrum specified by the Spectrum Act
to be licensed by auction, and thus
could represent the first inflow of
auction revenues toward this statutory
goal.
266. In this Report and Order, we
increase the Nation’s supply of
spectrum for mobile broadband by
adopting rules for fixed and mobile
services, including advanced wireless
services in the H Block, 1915–1920 MHz
paired with 1995–2000 MHz. These
service rules will make available 10
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use
in accordance with the Spectrum Act,
without causing harmful interference to
Personal Communications Service (PCS)
licensees. In so doing, we also carry out
a recommendation in the National
Broadband Plan that the Commission
make available the provision of
Advanced Wireless Services in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
spectrum bands, thus increasing the
value of this spectrum to the public.
Specifically, we adopt service,
technical, and licensing rules that will
encourage innovation and investment in
mobile broadband and provide certainty
and a stable regulatory regime in which
broadband deployment can rapidly
occur. For example, we find the
spectrum is properly allocated for
commercial use as the Spectrum Act
requires, and authorize mobile and
lower power fixed operations in the
1915–1920 MHz band and base and
fixed operations in the 1995–2000 MHz
band. We also adopt service, technical,
assignment, and licensing rules for this
spectrum that generally follow the
Commission’s part 27 rules that govern
flexible use terrestrial wireless service—
except that in order to protect PCS
licenses, our rules are more stringent in
certain respects. The market-oriented
licensing framework for these bands
will ensure efficient spectrum
utilization and will foster the
development of new and innovative
technologies and services, as well as
encourage the growth and development
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
of broadband services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
B. Legal Basis
267. The action is authorized
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301,
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319,
324, 332, 333, 1404, and 1451 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310,
316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404, and 1451.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Will Apply
268. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
269. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards that encompass entities
that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of
2010, there were 27.9 million small
businesses in the United States,
according to the SBA. Additionally, a
‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.’’
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,761 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
270. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
category, census data for 2007 show that
there were 11,163 establishments that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 10,791 establishments had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 372 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be
affected by our proposed action.
Similarly, according to Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony, including cellular
service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, we estimate that
the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
271. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the Report
and Order will apply to all entities in
the same manner. The Commission
believes that applying the same rules
equally to all entities in this context
promotes fairness. The Commission
does not believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with
the rules will unduly burden small
entities. The revisions the Commission
adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining
access to valuable wireless spectrum.
272. Any applicants for licenses of H
Block will be required to file license
applications using the Commission’s
automated Universal Licensing System
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing
system that also serves as a powerful
information tool, one that enables
potential licensees to research
applications, licenses, and antennae
structures. It also keeps the public
informed with weekly public notices,
FCC rulemakings, processing utilities,
and a telecommunications glossary.
Licensees of H Block that must submit
long-form license applications must do
so through ULS using Form 601, FCC
Ownership Disclosure Information for
the Wireless Telecommunications
Services using FCC Form 602, and other
appropriate forms.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
273. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
274. As set forth in this Report and
Order, we will license the H Block
bands under Economic Areas (EA)
geographic size licenses. Utilizing EAs
in the H Block will provide regulatory
parity with other AWS bands that are
licensed on an EA basis, such as AWS–
1 B and C block licenses. Additionally,
assigning H Block in EA geographic
service areas will allow H Block
licensees to make adjustments to suit
their individual needs. Although some
commenters advocated for smaller or
larger sized licensed areas, such as
Cellular Market Areas or Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, we believe that EA
license areas are small enough to
provide spectrum access opportunities
for smaller carriers. EA license areas
also nest within and may be aggregated
up to larger license areas that have been
used by the Commission for other
services, such as Major Economic Areas
(MEAs) and Regional Economic Area
Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to
create larger service areas. Licensees
may also adjust their geographic
coverage through secondary markets.
These rules should enable licensees of
H Block spectrum, or any entities,
whether large or small, providing
service in other AWS bands to more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
easily adjust their spectrum holdings to
build their networks pursuant to
individual business plans. As a result,
we believe the ability of licensees to
adjust spectrum holdings will provide
an economic benefit by making it easier
for small entities to acquire spectrum or
access spectrum in these bands.
275. This Report and Order adopts
rules to protect licensees operating in
nearby spectrum bands from harmful
interference, which may include small
entities. The technical rules adopted in
the Report and Order are based on the
rules for AWS–1 spectrum, with specific
additions or modifications designed,
among other things, to protect
broadband PCS services operating in the
1930–1995 MHz band from harmful
interference, as well as future services
operating in the 2000–2020 MHz band.
We adopt specific Out-of-BandEmissions (OOBE) limits for the 1915–
1920 MHz band and the 1995–2000
MHz band. We base our decision on the
record, the probabilistic nature of
mobile-to-mobile interference, and the
statutory requirements of the Spectrum
Act. The record in this proceeding
contains three interference studies that
supported a specific OOBE limit of 96
+ 10 log10 (P) dB and a power limit of
300 milliwatts EIRP for the 1915–1920
MHz band. We adopt the power limit,
but conclude an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB is appropriate for the 1915–
1920 MHz band, which ensures full
flexible use of the band while also
protecting the 1930–1995 MHz PCS
band from harmful interference.
Although one party commented that
OOBE limits for the 1995–2000 MHz
band should be stricter than what the
Commission proposed or adopted in
this Report and Order, we concluded
those suggested limits were overly
burdensome. The technical rules in the
Report and Order will therefore allow
licensees of the H Block spectrum to
operate while also protecting licensees
in nearby spectrum from harmful
interference, some of whom may be
small entities, and meet the statutory
requirements of the Spectrum Act.
276. The Report and Order provides
licensees of H Block with the flexibility
to provide any fixed or mobile service
that is consistent with the allocations
for this spectrum, which is consistent
with other spectrum allocated or
designated for licensed fixed and mobile
services, e.g., AWS–1. The Report and
Order further provides for licensing of
this spectrum under the Commission’s
market-oriented part 27 rules. This
includes applying the Commission’s
secondary market policies and rules to
all transactions involving the use of H
Block bands, which will provide greater
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50253
predictability and regulatory parity with
bands licensed for mobile broadband
service. These rules should make it
easier for H Block providers to enter
secondary market arrangements
involving use of their spectrum. The
secondary market rules apply equally to
all entities, whether small or large. As
a result, we believe that this will
provide an economic benefit to small
entities by making it easier for entities,
whether large or small, to enter into
secondary market arrangements for H
Block spectrum.
277. The Report and Order adopts
rules pertaining to how the H Block
licenses will be assigned, including
rules to assist small entities in
competitive bidding. Specifically, small
entities will benefit from the proposal to
provide small businesses with a bidding
credit of 15 percent and very small
businesses with a bidding credit of 25
percent. Providing small businesses and
very small businesses with bidding
credits will provide an economic benefit
to small entities by making it easier for
small entities to acquire spectrum or
access to spectrum in these bands.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Rules
278. None.
279. Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis: This document contains new
or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. Prior to submission to OMB,
the Commission will publish a notice in
the Federal Register seeking public
comment on the new or modified
information collection requirement for
OMB 3060–1184. In addition, we note
that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we previously sought specific comment
on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.
280. In this present document, we
have assessed the effects of the policies
adopted in this Report and Order with
regard to information collection burdens
on small business concerns, and find
that these policies will benefit many
companies with fewer than 25
employees because the revisions we
adopt should provide small entities
with more information, more flexibility,
and more options for gaining access to
valuable wireless spectrum. In addition,
we have described impacts that might
affect small businesses, which includes
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50254
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
V. Ordering Clauses
281. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301,
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319,
324, 332, and 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and sections 6003, 6004, and
6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act
of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat.
156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301,
302(a), 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319,
324, 332, 333, 1403, 1404, and 1451,
that this Report and Order is hereby
ordered.
282. Effective September 16, 2013
except for 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii),
27.12, and 27.17, which contain
information collection requirements that
have not been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
Control Number 3060–1184. The
Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of those sections.
283. It is further ordered that the
amendments, adopted above and
specified in §§ 1.2105, 27.12, 27.14, and
27.17 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.2105, 27.12, 27.14, and 27.17, which
contain new or modified information
collection requirements that require
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, will become effective
after the Commission publishes a notice
in the Federal Register announcing
such approval and the relevant effective
date.
284. It is further ordered that the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis hereto is
adopted.
285. It is further ordered that,
pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send
a copy of this Report and Order to
Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office.
286. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and
27 as follows:
List of Subjects
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
most businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the FRFA in Appendix B
of the Report and Order, infra.
*
47 CFR Part 1
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
47 CFR Part 27
Communications common carriers,
Radio.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
PART 1—PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r),
309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
2. Section 1.2105 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(2)(xii) to read as
follows:
■
§ 1.2105 Bidding application and
certification procedures; prohibition of
certain communications.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) For auctions required to be
conducted under Title VI of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112–96), certification
under penalty of perjury that the
applicant and all of the person(s)
disclosed under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section are not person(s) who have
been, for reasons of national security,
barred by any agency of the Federal
Government from bidding on a contract,
participating in an auction, or receiving
a grant. For the purposes of this
certification, the term ‘‘person’’ means
an individual, partnership, association,
joint-stock company, trust, or
corporation, and the term ‘‘reasons of
national security’’ means matters
relating to the national defense and
foreign relations of the United States.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
3. The authority citation for part 27 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303,
307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, and 1451
unless otherwise noted.
4. Section 27.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
■
Basis and purpose.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 27.4 is amended by revising
the definition of ‘‘Advanced Wireless
Service (AWS)’’ to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Terms and definitions.
Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A
radiocommunication service licensed
pursuant to this part for the frequency
bands specified in § 27.5(h), 27.5(j), or
27.5(k).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 27.5 is amended by adding
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
§ 27.5
1. The authority citation for part 1 is
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 27.1
§ 27.4
Frequencies.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. The paired 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands are available
for assignment on an Economic Area
(EA) basis.
■ 7. Section 27.6 is amended by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 27.6
Service areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. AWS service areas for the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands are based on Economic Areas
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section.
■ 8. Section 27.12 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 27.12
Eligibility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) and in §§ 27.604, 27.1201, and
27.1202, any entity other than those
precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
hold a license under this part.
(b) A person described in 47 U.S.C.
1404(c) is ineligible to hold a license
that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13
(Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–96,
125 Stat. 156 (2012)) to be assigned by
a system of competitive bidding under
§ 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. 309(j).
■ 9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 27.13
License period.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands. Authorizations for 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands
will have a term not to exceed ten years
from the date of issuance or renewal.
■ 10. Section 27. 14 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraphs
(a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (r)
to read as follows:
§ 27.14 Construction requirements;
Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the
exception of WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 788–
793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–
2310 MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands,
Block B in the 2310–2315 MHz and
2355–2360 MHz bands, Block C in the
2315–2320 MHz band, and Block D in
the 2345–2350 MHz band, and with the
exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands,
must, as a performance requirement,
make a showing of ‘‘substantial service’’
in their license area within the
prescribed license term set forth in
§ 27.13. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings
do not apply to WCS licensees holding
authorizations for the 698–746 MHz,
747–762 MHz, and 777–792 MHz bands
or licensees holding AWS
authorizations for the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS
authorizations in the spectrum blocks
enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
(q), or (r) of this section, including any
licensee that obtained its license
pursuant to the procedures set forth in
paragraph (j) of this section, shall
demonstrate compliance with
performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the
Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark,
in accordance with the provisions set
forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(r) The following provisions apply to
any licensee holding an AWS
authorization in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands:
(1) A licensee shall provide signal
coverage and offer service within four
(4) years from the date of the initial
license to at least forty (40) percent of
the total population in each of its
licensed areas (‘‘Interim Buildout
Requirement’’).
(2) A licensee shall provide signal
coverage and offer service within ten
(10) years from the date of the initial
license to at least seventy-five (75)
percent of the population in each of its
licensed areas (‘‘Final Buildout
Requirement’’).
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that
it meets the Interim Buildout
Requirement for a particular licensed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:23 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
area, then the Final Buildout
Requirement (in this paragraph (r)) and
the license term (as set forth in
§ 27.13(j)) for each license area in which
it fails to meet the Interim Buildout
Requirement shall be accelerated by two
years (from ten to eight years).
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that
it meets the Final Buildout Requirement
for a particular licensed areas, its
authorization for each license area in
which it fails to meet the Final Buildout
Requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action and the licensee will be ineligible
to regain it if the Commission makes the
license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with
these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently
available U.S. Census Data at the time
of measurement and shall base their
measurements of population served on
areas no larger than the Census Tract
level. The population within a specific
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) will only be deemed served
by the licensee if it provides signal
coverage to and offers service within the
specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier). To the extent the
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) extends beyond the
boundaries of a license area, a licensee
with authorizations for such areas may
only include the population within the
Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) towards meeting the
performance requirement of a single,
individual license.
(6) An applicant for renewal of a
license covered by this paragraph (r)
must make a renewal showing,
independent of its performance
requirements, as a condition of renewal.
The showing must include a detailed
description of the applicant’s provision
of service during the entire license
period and address:
(i) The level and quality of service
provided by the applicant (e.g., the
population served, the area served, the
number of subscribers, the services
offered);
(ii) The date service commenced,
whether service was ever interrupted,
and the duration of any interruption or
outage;
(iii) The extent to which service is
provided to rural areas;
(iv) The extent to which service is
provided to qualifying tribal land as
defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i) of this
chapter; and
(v) Any other factors associated with
the level of service to the public.
■ 11. Section 27.15 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iii),
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50255
(d)(2)(i), and (d)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and
spectrum disaggregation.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–
2200 MHz bands; the following rules
apply to WCS and AWS licensees
holding authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Parties
to partitioning agreements have two
options for satisfying the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Under
the first option, the partitioner and
partitionee each certifies that it will
independently satisfy the substantial
service requirement for its respective
partitioned area. If a licensee
subsequently fails to meet its substantial
service requirement, its license will be
subject to automatic cancellation
without further Commission action.
Under the second option, the partitioner
certifies that it has met or will meet the
substantial service requirement for the
entire, pre-partitioned geographic
service area. If the partitioner
subsequently fails to meet its substantial
service requirement, only its license
will be subject to automatic cancellation
without further Commission action.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands, or the
2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz
bands, the following rules apply for
purposes of implementing the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 27.14. Each party to a geographic
partitioning must individually meet any
service-specific performance
requirements (i.e., construction and
operation requirements). If a partitioner
or partitionee fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or
before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be
those enumerated in § 27.14(q) for
2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz
licenses and those enumerated in
§ 27.14(r) for 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz licensees.
(2) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
50256
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding
authorizations for Block A in the 698–
704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands,
Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–
740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728
MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the
746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–
2200 MHz bands; the following rules
apply to WCS and AWS licensees
holding authorizations for purposes of
implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Parties
to disaggregation agreements have two
options for satisfying the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Under
the first option, the disaggregator and
disaggregatee each certifies that it will
share responsibility for meeting the
substantial service requirement for the
geographic service area. If the parties
choose this option and either party
subsequently fails to satisfy its
substantial service responsibility, both
parties’ licenses will be subject to
forfeiture without further Commission
action. Under the second option, both
parties certify either that the
disaggregator or the disaggregatee will
meet the substantial service requirement
for the geographic service area. If the
parties choose this option, and the party
responsible subsequently fails to meet
the substantial service requirement,
only that party’s license will be subject
to forfeiture without further
Commission action.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands,
the following rules apply for purposes
of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each
party to a spectrum disaggregation must
individually meet any service-specific
performance requirements (i.e.,
construction and operation
requirements). If a disaggregator or a
disaggregatee fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or
before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be
those enumerated in § 27.14(q) for
2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz
licenses and those enumerated in
§ 27.14(r) for 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz licensees.
12. Section 27.17 is revised to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
§ 27.17 Discontinuance of service in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands
or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz
bands.
(a) Termination of authorization. A
licensee’s AWS authorization in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–
2200 MHz bands will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission
action, if it permanently discontinues
service after meeting the respective
Interim Buildout Requirement as
specified in § 27.14(r) or AWS–4 Final
Buildout Requirement as specified in
§ 27.14(q).
(b) For licensees with common carrier
or non-common carrier regulatory status
that hold AWS authorizations in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–
2200 MHz bands, permanent
discontinuance of service is defined as
180 consecutive days during which a
licensee does not provide service to at
least one subscriber that is not affiliated
with, controlled by, or related to the
licensee. For licensees with private,
internal regulatory status that hold AWS
authorizations in the 1915–1920 MHz
and 1995–2000 MHz bands or the 2000–
2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands,
permanent discontinuance of service is
defined as 180 consecutive days during
which a licensee does not operate.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of
the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands or the 2000–2020 MHz and
2180–2200 MHz bands that permanently
discontinues service as defined in this
section must notify the Commission of
the discontinuance within 10 days by
filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting
license cancellation. An authorization
will automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if service is
permanently discontinued as defined in
this section, even if a licensee fails to
file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
■ 13. Section 27.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) introductory text,
paragraphs (d)(1) introductory text and
(d)(2) introductory text, and adding
paragraphs (d)(9) and (10), to read as
follows:
§ 27.50
Power limits and duty cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The following power and antenna
height requirements apply to stations
transmitting in the 1710–1755 MHz,
2110–2155 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz,
2180–2200 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, and
1995–2000 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, or 2180–2200
MHz band and located in any county
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with population density of 100 or fewer
persons per square mile, based upon the
most recently available population
statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
is limited to:
* * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz, the 2110–2155 MHz, or 2180–
2200 MHz band and situated in any
geographic location other than that
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section is limited to:
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Fixed, mobile and portable (handheld) stations operating in the 1915–
1920 MHz band are limited to 300
milliwatts EIRP.
(10) A licensee operating a base or
fixed station in the 1995–2000 MHz
band utilizing a power greater than 1640
watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/
MHz EIRP must be coordinated in
advance with all PCS G Block licensees
authorized to operate on adjacent
frequency blocks in the 1990–1995 MHz
band within 120 kilometers of the base
or fixed station operating in this band.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 27.53 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(1) and adding
paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (iv) to read as
follows:
§ 27.53
Emission limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) General protection levels. Except
as otherwise specified below, for
operations in the 1710–1755 MHz,
2110–2155 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz,
2180–2200 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, and
1995–2000 MHz bands, the power of
any emission outside a licensee’s
frequency block shall be attenuated
below the transmitter power (P) by at
least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(2) * * *
(iii) For operations in the 1915–1920
MHz band, the power of any emission
between 1930–1995 MHz shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P)
dB.
(iv) For operations in the 1995–2000
MHz band, the power of any emission
between 2005–2020 MHz shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P)
dB.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Section 27.55 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 27.55
Power strength limits.
(a)* * *
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(1) 1995–2000, 2110–2155, 2180–2200
MHz, 2305–2320, and 2345–2360 MHz
bands: 47 dBmV/m.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Section 27.57 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 27.57
International coordination.
(c) Operation in the 1710–1755 MHz,
2110–2155 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz,
1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, and
2180–2200 MHz bands is subject to
international agreements with Mexico
and Canada.
■ 17. Add subpart K to part 27 to read
as follows:
Subpart K—1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz
Sec.
Licensing and Competitive Bidding
Provisions
27.1001 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.
27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands
Reimbursement Obligation of Licensees at
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of
licensees at 1915–1920 MHz.
27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of
licensees at 1995–2000 MHz.
27.1041 Termination of cost-sharing
obligations.
Subpart K—1915–1920 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz
Licensing and Competitive Bidding
Provisions
§ 27.1001 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000
MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial
applications for 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz band licenses are
subject to competitive bidding. The
general competitive bidding procedures
set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in
this subpart.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
§ 27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915–
1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business
provisions:
(a)(1) A small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities
with which it has an attributable
material relationship, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
with which it has an attributable
material relationship, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder
that qualifies as a small business as
defined in this section or a consortium
of small businesses may use the bidding
credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of
this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business as
defined in this section or a consortium
of very small businesses may use the
bidding credit specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
Reimbursement Obligation of Licensees
at 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
§ 27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of
licensees at 1915–1920 MHz.
A licensee in the 1915–1920 MHz
band (Lower H Block) shall, within 30
days of grant of its long-form
application, reimburse 25 percent of the
total relocation costs incurred by
UTAM, Inc. for relocating and clearing
incumbent Fixed Microwave Service
(FS) licensees from the 1910–1930 MHz
band on a pro rata shared basis with
other Lower H Block licensees as set
forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section.
(a)(1) If Lower H Block licenses
granted as a result of the first auction for
this spectrum cover, collectively, at
least forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, the amount owed to UTAM,
Inc. by each individual Lower H Block
licensee (reimbursement amount owed
or RN) will be determined by dividing
the gross winning bid (GWB) for each
individual Lower H Block license (i.e.,
an Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of
the gross winning bids for all Lower H
Block licenses for which there is a
winning bid in the first auction, and
then multiplying by $12,629,857.
RN = (EA GWB ÷ Sum of GWBs) ×
$12,629,857.00
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section, a licensee that
obtains a license for a market in which
no license is granted as a result of the
first Lower H Block auction will not
have a reimbursement obligation to
UTAM, Inc.
(b) If Lower H Block licenses granted
as a result of the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, less than
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, then the pro rata amount
that the licensee of an individual Lower
H Block license must reimburse UTAM,
Inc. shall be calculated by dividing the
population of the individual EA by the
total U.S. population, and then
multiplying by $12,629,857. In this
event, the same population data, e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
50257
2010, used to calculate the RNs for
Lower H Block licenses granted as a
result of the first auction will apply to
subsequent auctions of Lower H Block
licenses that were not granted as a result
of an earlier auction of Lower H Block
licenses.
RN = (EA POP ÷ U.S. POP) ×
$12,629,857.00
(c) A winning bidder of a Lower H
Block license that is not granted a
license for any reason will be deemed to
have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to UTAM, Inc. This
obligation will be owed to UTAM, Inc.
by the licensee acquiring the Lower H
Block license through a subsequent
auction. The amount owed by the
licensee acquiring the Lower H Block
license at such auction will be the RN
calculated for the EA license based on
the first auction (calculated under
paragraphs (a) or (b), as applicable, of
this section).
(d) For purposes of compliance with
this section, licensees should determine
population based on 2010 U.S. Census
Data or such other data or
measurements that the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and
comment process for the auction
procedures.
(e) A payment obligation owed by a
Lower H Block licensees under this
section shall be made within thirty (30)
days of the grant of the license (i.e.,
grant of the long form application).
§ 27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of
licensees at 1995–2000 MHz.
A licensee in the 1995–2000 MHz
band (Upper H Block) shall, within 30
days of grant of its long-form
application, reimburse one-seventh of
the eligible expenses incurred by Sprint
Nextel, Inc. (Sprint) for relocating and
clearing Broadcast Auxiliary Service
(BAS), Cable Television Relay Service
(CARS), and Local Television
Transmission Service (LTTS)
incumbents from the 1990–2025 MHz
band, on a pro rata shared basis with
other Upper H Block licensees as set
forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section.
(a)(1) If Upper H Block licenses
granted as a result of the first auction for
this spectrum cover, collectively, at
least forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, the amount owed to Sprint
by the winning bidder of each
individual Upper H Block license
granted as a result of the first auction
will be determined by dividing the gross
winning bid (GWB) for each individual
Upper H Block license (i.e., an
Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of the
gross winning bids for all Upper H
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
50258
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Block licenses for which there is a
winning bid in the first auction, and
then multiplying by $94,875,516.
RN = (EA GWB ÷ Sum of GWBs) ×
$94,875,516
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section, a licensee that
obtains a license for a market in which
no license was granted as a result of the
first Upper H Block auction will not
have a reimbursement obligation to
Sprint.
(b) If Upper H Block licenses granted
as a result of the first auction for this
spectrum cover, collectively, less than
forty (40) percent of the nation’s
population, then the amount that the
licensee of an individual Upper H Block
license must reimburse Sprint shall be
calculated by dividing the population of
the individual EA by the total U.S.
population, and then multiplying by
$94,875,516. In this event, the same
population data, e.g., 2010, used to
calculate the RNs for Upper H Block
licenses granted as a result of the first
auction will apply to subsequent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Aug 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
auctions of Upper H Block licenses that
were not granted as a result of an earlier
auction of Upper H Block licenses.
RN = (EA POP ÷ U.S. POP) ×
$94,875,516
(c) A winning bidder of an Upper H
Block license that is not granted a
license for any reason will be deemed to
have triggered a reimbursement
obligation to Sprint. This obligation will
be owed to Sprint by the licensee
acquiring the Upper H Block license
through a subsequent auction. The
amount owed by the licensee acquiring
the EA license at such auction will be
based on the RN calculated for the EA
license based on the first auction
(calculated under paragraphs (a) or (b),
as applicable, of this section).
(d) For purposes of compliance with
this section, licensees should determine
population based on 2010 U.S. Census
Data or such other data or
measurements that the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
comment process for the auction
procedures.
(e) A payment obligation owed by a
Upper H Block licensees under this
section shall be made within thirty (30)
days of the grant of the license (i.e.,
grant of the long form application).
§ 27.1041 Termination of cost-sharing
obligations.
(a) The cost-sharing obligation
adopted in this subpart for the Lower H
Block and for the Upper H Block will
sunset ten years after the first license is
issued in the respective band.
(b) A Lower H Block licensee and an
Upper H Block licensee must satisfy in
full its payment obligations under this
subpart K within thirty days of the grant
of its long-form application. The failure
to timely satisfy a payment obligation in
full prior to the applicable sunset date
will not terminate the debt owed or a
party’s right to collect the debt.
[FR Doc. 2013–19779 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\16AUR3.SGM
16AUR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50213-50258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19779]
[[Page 50213]]
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 159
August 16, 2013
Part III
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--Implementing
Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 50214]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12-357; FCC 13-88]
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--
Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts rules to auction and
license ten megahertz of paired spectrum at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz--the H Block. This action implements the Congressional directive in
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act)
that we grant new initial licenses for these spectrum bands through a
system of competitive bidding. In so doing, we extend the widely
deployed broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) band, which
is used by the four national wireless providers, as well as regional
and rural providers, to offer mobile service across the United States.
This additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the
speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the Nation's wireless networks keep
pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile services.
DATES: Effective September 16, 2013 except for 47 CFR
1.2105(a)(2)(xii), 27.12, and 27.17, which contain information
collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Control Number 3060-1184. The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of those sections.
We also note that several rules that are not being amended herein
are subject to OMB review because they are imposing a new information
collection upon a new group of respondents, i.e., the H Block
licensees. The rules in question are 47 CFR 1.946 and 27.10. The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the approval of information collection for those sections.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
PRA@fcc.gov and to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission,
Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the
Internet at Judith B. Herman@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Pearl of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS or
Matthew.Pearl@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via
email at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's H
Block Report and Order, FCC 13-88, adopted on June 27, 2013 and
released on June 27, 2013. The full text of this document is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is also available on the
Commission's Web site at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0627/FCC-13-88A1.pdf. Alternative formats
(computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are
available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-
7365, or via email to bmillin@fcc.gov.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Today we increase the Nation's supply of spectrum for flexible-
use services, including mobile broadband, by adopting rules to auction
and license ten megahertz of paired spectrum at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz--the H Block. This action implements the Congressional
directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
(Spectrum Act) that we grant new initial licenses for these spectrum
bands through a system of competitive bidding. In so doing, we extend
the widely deployed broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS)
band, which is used by the four national wireless providers, as well as
regional and rural providers, to offer mobile service across the United
States. This additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that
the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the Nation's wireless networks
keep pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile services.
II. Background
2. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The Spectrum
Act includes several provisions to make more spectrum available for
commercial use, including through a system of competitive bidding, and
to improve public safety communications. Among other things, the
Spectrum Act states that the Commission, by February 23, 2015, shall
allocate the H Block bands--1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz--for
commercial use, and through a system of competitive bidding grant new
initial licenses for the use of each band, subject to flexible use
service rules. Congress provided, however, that if the Commission
determines that either of the bands cannot be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial licensees in 1930-1995 MHz (PCS
downlink), then the Commission shall not allocate such band for
commercial use or grant new licenses for the use of such band.
Additionally, Sections 6401(c)(4) and 6413 of the Spectrum Act specify
that the proceeds from an auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band
and in the 1915-1920 MHz band shall be deposited in the Public Safety
Trust Fund. Section 6413 of the Spectrum Act specifies how the funds
deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund shall be used, and these
purposes include the funding of (or reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury
for the funding of) the nationwide, interoperable public safety
broadband network by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).
The rules we adopt today will enable the H Block spectrum to be the
first spectrum specified by the Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction,
and thus likely will represent the first steps toward this statutory
goal.
3. In response to the Spectrum Act and to help meet the growing
demand for wireless spectrum, in December 2012, the Commission adopted
the H Block NPRM. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to
increase the Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by
applying Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) flexible use wireless service
rules in 10 megahertz of spectrum adjoining the widely deployed
Broadband PCS (PCS) band, at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz.
4. The H Block NPRM also represents a renewed Commission effort to
bring this spectrum to market. The Commission first proposed licensing,
[[Page 50215]]
operating, and technical rules for this spectrum band in 2004. The 2004
AWS-2 NPRM sought comment on strict power and out-of-band emission
(OOBE) limits for mobile transmissions in the 1915-1920 MHz band,
because of concerns about potential harmful interference to PCS mobile
reception. Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-
1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT
Docket No. 04-356, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263
(2004). In response to those proposals, most commenters agreed with
such concerns. In 2008, the Commission issued a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in which it sought to supplement the record.
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz,
1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket Nos.
07-195, 04-356, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9859
(2008). Those 2008 proposals included strict OOBE limits for the Lower
H Block of 90 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, within the PCS band, and a power limit of
23 dBm/MHz Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The record
again reflected the commenters' calls for strict interference limits,
particularly the OOBE limit, in 1915-1920 MHz to avoid harmful
interference to PCS mobile receivers. In the 2008 NPRM, the Commission
also proposed prohibiting mobile transmissions in the 1995-2000 MHz
band, and proposed the typical interference rule of an OOBE limit of 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for base and fixed stations for emissions outside of the 1995-
2000 MHz band, and a power limit of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions less
than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz for emissions greater than 1 MHz in non-
rural areas and double these power limits in rural areas.
5. The spectral proximity of the AWS-4 Band (2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz) to the Upper H Block is relevant to the present
discussion. The Commission's December 2012 AWS-4 Report and Order
established licensing, operating, and technical rules for terrestrial
AWS-4 operations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. The
technical rules for the AWS-4 uplink at 2000-2020 MHz balanced the
public interest benefits associated with potential uses of the relevant
bands. Specifically, the Commission placed limited restrictions on AWS-
4 uplink operations that allow for flexible use of the AWS-4 band while
also potentially enabling full flexible downlink use of the 1995-2000
MHz band. The Commission explained that it based its determination on,
among other things, the asymmetrical nature of broadband traffic (with
more downlink than uplink being used), the fact that any limitations on
AWS-4 were more than offset by the considerable increase in flexibility
that the Commission was providing AWS-4 licensees by granting them
terrestrial use rights under the Commission's part 27 rules. In sum,
the Commission stated that the AWS-4 technical rules would enable both
the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 MHz band to be used for providing
flexible use services in the most efficient manner possible.
6. In December 2012, the Commission adopted the H Block NPRM.
Comments on the H Block NPRM were due on February 6, 2013 and replies
were due March 6, 2013. Fifteen comments and seven replies were filed
in response to the H Block NPRM. In addition, as permitted under our
rules, numerous ex parte presentations have been submitted into the
record.
7. As observed in the H Block NPRM, circumstances have changed in
the years since the Commission previously sought comment on the H Block
spectrum bands. Wireless broadband technologies and the wireless
broadband industry have evolved considerably. Additionally, Congress
enacted the Spectrum Act. Accordingly, we provided notice that our
determinations here would be based solely on the record developed in
response to the H Block NPRM, and we invited parties to re-file in this
docket earlier comments with any necessary updates.
III. Discussion
8. In this H Block Report and Order, we implement the Spectrum Act
provisions pertaining to the H Block and build upon recent Commission
actions to increase the availability of spectrum for wireless use by
adopting rules to grant licenses for the H Block for terrestrial fixed
and mobile use via a system of competitive bidding. As explained below,
we adopt H Block terrestrial service, technical, and licensing rules
that generally follow the Commission's part 27 flexible use rules,
modified as necessary to account for issues unique to the H Block
bands. Specifically, we take the following actions:
We find that the Commission's prior action to allocate the
H Block for Fixed and Mobile use satisfies the requirement of the
Spectrum Act that we allocate this spectrum for commercial use.
We find that we are required to adopt flexible use service
rules for the H Block and that we are required to license this spectrum
using a system of competitive bidding, unless we determine that either
the 1915-1920 MHz band or the 1995-2000 MHz band cannot be used without
causing harmful interference to the broadband PCS downlink band at
1930-1995 MHz.
We find that, consistent with the technical rules we
adopt, the use of both the 1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz
band can occur without causing harmful interference to broadband PCS
downlink operations at 1930-1995 MHz.
We adopt as the H Block band plan the 1915-1920 MHz band
paired with the 1995-2000 MHz band, configured as 5 + 5 megahertz
blocks, and licensed on an Economic Area (EA) basis.
We adopt technical rules for the H Block, including rules
governing the relationship of the H Block bands to adjacent and nearby
bands, with a particular focus on adopting rules for the 1915-1920 MHz
band that protect operations in the broadband PCS band at 1930-1995, as
required by the Spectrum Act.
We adopt technical rules that authorize the 1915-1920 MHz
band for mobile and low power fixed operations (uplink) and the 1995-
2000 MHz band for base and fixed operations (downlink).
We adopt cost sharing rules that require H Block licensees
to pay a pro rata share of expenses previously incurred by UTAM, Inc.
and by Sprint in clearing incumbents from the 1915-1920 MHz band and
the 1995-2000 MHz band, respectively.
We adopt a variety of flexible use regulatory, licensing,
and operating rules for H Block licensees.
We adopt procedures to assign H Block licenses through a
system of competitive bidding.
A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
9. The Spectrum Act, among other requirements, provides that the
Commission shall allocate for commercial use and license using a system
of competitive bidding the H Block no later than February 23, 2015.
10. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum Act provides that for certain
spectrum bands, including H Block, the Commission must allocate the
spectrum for commercial use and grant new initial licenses for that
spectrum through a system of competitive bidding by February 23, 2015.
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Section 6401(b),
47 U.S.C. 1451(b).
[[Page 50216]]
However, section 6401(b) also provides that the Commission may not
allocate the H Block for commercial use nor grant H Block licenses
should it determine that such spectrum cannot be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees operating
in the frequencies between 1930 megahertz and 1995 megahertz.
11. To implement these requirements, in the H Block NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on the Spectrum Act's four main statutory
elements relating to the H Block: (1) Allocation for commercial use;
(2) flexible use; (3) assignment of licenses; and (4) a determination
regarding interference. Below, we address the relevant comments and
discuss our conclusions.
1. Allocation for Commercial Use
12. The Spectrum Act requires the Commission to allocate the H
Block spectrum bands, 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, for commercial
use. As the Commission observed in the H Block NPRM, the Spectrum Act
does not define the phrase, ``allocate . . . for commercial use.'' The
Commission posited that the Spectrum Act requires us to make any
necessary changes to the Non-Federal Table of Allocations to reflect
that the H Block bands could be used commercially by, and licensed to,
non-Federal entities under flexible use service rules unless the band
cannot be used without causing harmful interference to commercial
mobile service licensees in the PCS downlink band. The Commission
observed that the H Block spectrum's pre-existing allocation was for
non-Federal, Fixed and Mobile use on a primary basis and designated for
use in the commercial PCS/AWS bands, and that this prior allocation
appeared to be fully consistent with section 6401 of the Spectrum Act.
The Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion. In
response, commenters agreed with the Commission's tentative conclusion
that the H Block's existing allocation met the requirements of the
Spectrum Act.
13. We find that the existing allocation of the H Block for non-
Federal Fixed and Mobile use on a primary basis meets the ``commercial
use'' allocation requirement of section 6401(b)(1)(A) of the Spectrum
Act. As the record indicates, the Commission has already allocated both
blocks of the H Block spectrum for non-Federal Fixed and Mobile use on
a primary basis. Specifically, in 2004, the Commission adopted the
present spectrum pairing. Thus, no further action to allocate the H
Block spectrum bands for commercial use pursuant to the Spectrum Act is
necessary.
2. Flexible Use
14. The Spectrum Act also requires the Commission to license the H
Block under flexible use service rules. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed that any service rules adopted for the H Block
permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-Federal use
permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations, subject
to our part 27 flexible use and other applicable rules, including
service rules to avoid harmful interference. Part 27 licensees must
also comply with other Commission rules of general applicability. See
47 CFR 27.3; see also infra section III.E.6. (Regulatory Issues, Other
Operating Requirements). In addition, flexible use in international
border areas is subject to any existing or future international
agreements. See infra section III.C.3. (Canadian and Mexican
Coordination). Thus, the Commission proposed the H Block may be used
for any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations
for the band. Commenters uniformly supported this proposal.
15. We adopt the Commission's proposal to license the H Block under
flexible use service rules. We find the Spectrum Act's direction on
this matter clear and direct--we are required to grant licenses
``subject to flexible-use service rules.'' Accordingly, adopting the
flexible use service rules for the H Block, which we do in the sections
below, will give effect to the legislative mandate. Adoption of
flexible use service rules, moreover, is consistent with prior
congressional and Commission actions that promote flexible spectrum
allocations and the record before us. As CCA comments, flexible use
allows licensees to innovate and ``rapidly respond to changing consumer
demands for wireless services . . . [and] encourage[s] the similarly
timely deployment of innovative commercial wireless services to the
public.''
3. Assignment of Licenses
16. The Spectrum Act mandates that the Commission grant new initial
licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands through a system
of competitive bidding pursuant section 309(j) of the Communications
Act. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed applying competitive
bidding rules to resolve any mutually exclusive applications accepted
for H Block licenses. Parties uniformly supported the Commission's
proposal to assign the H Block spectrum through a system of competitive
bidding. For example, MetroPCS voiced its support that the Commission
was correctly interpreting the Spectrum Act and that the H Block should
be licensed through competitive bidding. We agree and find that the
Spectrum Act's requirement that we grant H Block licenses ``through a
system of competitive bidding'' clear and unambiguous. Thus, as
detailed below, we adopt rules to govern the use of a competitive
bidding process for licensing the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
bands.
4. Determination of No Harmful Interference to the 1930-1995 MHz Band
17. The Spectrum Act states that the Commission may not allocate
for commercial use or license the H Block if the Commission
``determines that'' the H Block ``cannot be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial mobile licensees'' in the 1930-1995
MHz band (PCS downlink band). Neither the Spectrum Act nor the
Communications Act defines the term ``harmful interference.'' In
performing its statutory role to maximize the public interest in the
spectrum, the Commission has adopted a definition for this term, as
well as for the unmodified term ``interference.'' Commission rule
2.1(c) defines ``interference'' to mean ``[t]he effect of unwanted
energy due to one or a combination of emissions, radiations, or
inductions upon reception in a radiocommunication system, manifested by
any performance degradation, misinterpretation, or loss of information
which could be extracted in the absence of such unwanted energy.'' That
same rule defines ``harmful interference'' to mean ``[i]nterference
which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of
other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly
interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with
[the International Telecommunications Union] Radio Regulations.'' In
the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to use this definition of
harmful interference in performing the analysis required by the
Spectrum Act. No party opposed the use of this definition.
18. We find it appropriate to use the Commission's existing
definition of harmful interference. We presume that Congress was aware
of this rule, defining both interference and harmful interference, when
it crafted the Spectrum Act and used the term harmful interference.
Because the Spectrum Act offers no alternative to the Commission's pre-
existing definition of
[[Page 50217]]
harmful interference, we believe it reasonable to conclude that
Congress intended for it to apply to the situation here. See Hall v.
U.S., 132 S.Ct. 1882, 1889 (2012) (``We assume that Congress is aware
of existing law when it passes legislation[.]'' (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Applying the existing definition of harmful
interference to the Spectrum Act provision at issue, we find that we
may not allocate for commercial use or license the H Block if we
determine that the H Block cannot be used without causing serious
degradation, obstruction, or repeated interruption to commercial mobile
licensees in the PCS downlink band. We further find that we need not
set technical rules so restrictive as to prevent all instances of
interference, as opposed to harmful interference. Determining ex ante
when operations in one band will seriously degrade, obstruct, or
repeatedly interrupt operations in another band necessarily involves
the Commission examining the particular interference scenario that is
likely to arise and exercising its predictive judgment, which is
entitled to deference. See Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 414 F.3d
61, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (deferring to the Commission's interpretation
of ``harmful interference'' as the phrase was applied under the Rural
Local Broadcast Signal Act of 1999); see also American Radio Relay
League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``considerable
deference'' on ``highly technical question'' involving harmful
interference). For example, in 1999, Congress adopted a statute that
directed the Commission to ``ensure that no facility [to be newly]
licensed or authorized under the [newly enacted Rural Local Broadcast
Signal Act of 1999] . . . cause [] harmful interference to the primary
users of that spectrum.'' In determining technical rules to ensure that
the incumbent primary operators were not subject to harmful
interference, the Commission established interference parameters
designed such that the presence of the new operators' signals ``would
not be perceptible to the [incumbent operator's] customer in most
cases.'' The DC Circuit found this ``qualitative requirement'' to
represent a reasonable application of the Commission's harmful
interference definition. Northpoint, 414 F.3d at 69-71. In this similar
statutory circumstance, we now establish technical rules (below) for
the H Block that will permit use of this block without causing harmful
interference (although not necessarily eliminating all interference) to
PCS downlink operations.
a. Upper H Block: 1995-2000 MHz
19. The Commission allocated the 1995-2000 MHz band for fixed and
mobile use in 2003. In 2004, this spectrum was designated for PCS/AWS
base station operations and the Commission proposed service rules.
Before the H Block NPRM in December 2012, no party had filed technical
data or analysis indicating that base station operations in the Upper H
Block would cause harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink
band. Accordingly, in the H Block NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded that base station operations in the Upper H Block posed no
likelihood of harmful interference to PCS operations in the 1930-1995
MHz band and that licensing of the Upper H Block could proceed.
20. In light of the technical rules we impose on operations in the
Upper H Block, described below, we conclude that operations in the
1995-2000 MHz band will not cause harmful interference to PCS
operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band. The rules we adopt herein
determine the Upper H Block will be used for base station (i.e.,
downlink) transmissions. As the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band is used for
downlink transmissions, the 1995-2000 MHz band, in many respects, will
operate as an extension of the PCS band. As explained below, in
contrast to an uplink band adjacent to a downlink band, similarly used
bands (i.e., downlink next to downlink) generally do not raise
difficult interference scenarios. More specifically, the technical
rules we adopt include power limits and OOBE limits for operations in
the Upper H Block that are comparable to limits already imposed upon
PCS licensees governing the transmission of electromagnetic signals
into adjacent PCS bands to prevent harmful interference. As the
technical rules we impose for the Upper H Block reflect similar
technical constraints as the existing PCS rules--and these rules have
allowed robust service to develop in these bands--we find no basis to
conclude that the 1995-2000 MHz band ``cannot be used without causing
harmful interference'' to PCS downlink operators at 1930-1995 MHz.
Additionally, in response to the H Block NPRM, no commenters raised
concerns about the potential for harmful interference from the Upper H
Block into the 1930-1995 MHz band. In sum, because the 1995-2000 MHz
band is adjacent to another downlink band, the technical rules we adopt
are comparable to the existing PCS rules for preventing harmful
interference and the record demonstrates no concern for harmful
interference from the 1995-2000 MHz band into PCS operations in 1930-
1995 MHz, we determine the Upper H Block can be allocated for
commercial use, assigned via a system of competitive bidding, and
licensed subject to flexible use service rules without causing harmful
interference to PCS pursuant to the Spectrum Act.
b. Lower H Block: 1915-1920 MHz
21. In designating the 1915-1920 MHz band for PCS/AWS mobile
operations in 2004, the Commission concluded that any harmful
interference from the Lower H Block to the PCS downlink band (i.e.,
1930-1995 MHz) could be addressed through service and technical rules.
Subsequently, in the H Block NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded
that it would be possible to license the Lower H Block under flexible
service rules without causing harmful interference to commercial mobile
licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band. Acknowledging the prior concerns
with mobile operations in 1915-1920 MHz, the Commission sought comment
on the proposed band plan and service rules, and it specifically sought
technical analysis on the potential for harmful interference into the
PCS downlink band. In response, parties submitted four technical
studies and offered numerous comments discussing the potential for
harmful interference from Lower H Block operations into operations in
the 1930-1995 MHz band. As detailed below, commenters suggest that,
with appropriate technical rules, deployment in the Lower H Block can
occur without causing harmful interference to the 1930-1995 MHz PCS
band.
22. We adopt the Commission's tentative conclusion set forth in the
H Block NPRM, and determine that operations in the 1915-1920 MHz band,
subject to appropriate technical rules, will not cause harmful
interference to PCS operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band. As we explain
below, in designating the Lower H Block for uplink use, we must address
the issue of uplink spectrum in close frequency proximity to the
downlink spectrum in the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band. Our analysis is based
on our prior findings with respect to similar services, our experience
evaluating the probabilistic nature of mobile-to-mobile interference,
and our evaluation of the technical studies submitted into the record
that examine this specific scenario. Notably, the proponents of these
studies acknowledge that the interference scenario at issue--namely,
mobile-to-
[[Page 50218]]
mobile interference between mobile transmitters operating in the Lower
H Block and mobile receivers operating in the PCS downlink band--is
inherently a probabilistic one. That is, a number of low probability
events all need to occur before an actual Lower H Block transmission
would seriously degrade, obstruct, or repeatedly interrupt the ability
of the PCS mobile device to receive the PCS signal. As such, the rules
we establish below are designed to prevent harmful interference. These
rules are not, nor could they reasonably be, designed to prevent all
possible instances of interference generally. In sum, we find the
technical rules we adopt below will enable commercial use of the Lower
H Block without causing harmful interference to PCS operations in the
1930-1995 MHz band. Accordingly, we find no basis to conclude that the
1915-1920 MHz band ``cannot be used without causing harmful
interference'' to PCS downlink operators at 1930-1995 MHz. We therefore
determine, consistent with our findings above, that the Lower H Block
can be allocated for commercial use, assigned via a system of
competitive bidding, and licensed subject to flexible use service rules
pursuant to the Spectrum Act. Consequently, we reject Savari's proposal
that we make the 1915-1920 MHz band a combination unlicensed PCS (UPCS)
and licensed low power band. See Savari Comments at 14; infra Section
III.B.1. (Band Plan, Block Configuration).
B. Band Plan
23. Band plans establish parameters and provide licensees with
certainty as to the spectrum they are authorized to use. Here, Congress
has identified the H Block bands--1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz--as
the frequencies for the band plan. To establish the specific band plan
for these frequencies, the Commission must determine the block
configuration, whether to license the blocks on a geographic area basis
and, if so, the appropriate service area. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission proposed licensing the H Block as paired 5 megahertz blocks,
with the Upper H Block used for high power base stations and the Lower
H Block used for mobile and low power fixed operations. The Commission
also proposed licensing the H Block on a geographic licensing scheme
based on Economic Areas (EAs). Finally, the Commission also sought
comment on how best to license spectrum in the Gulf of Mexico. The
Commission sought comment on these proposals, including on their
associated costs and benefits.
24. In the band plan, based on the record before us, we adopt the H
Block band plan of 1915-1920 MHz paired with 1995-2000 MHz, configured
as 5 + 5 megahertz blocks, and will license the H Block on an EA basis,
including for the Gulf of Mexico. In so doing, we find that 1915-1920
MHz shall be used for mobile and low power fixed (i.e., uplink)
operations and 1995-2000 MHz shall be used for base station and fixed
(i.e., downlink) operations.
1. Block Configuration
25. In 2004, the Commission designated the H Block for licensed
fixed and mobile services, including advanced wireless services. The
Commission further decided to pair 1915-1920 MHz with 1995-2000 MHz
because it found that doing so would promote efficient use of the
spectrum and allow for the introduction of commercial wireless mobile
and fixed services. The Commission also observed that it would be
advantageous to use the Lower H Block for low power or mobile
operations as the adjacent 1910-1915 MHz band is used by PCS mobile
operations, and that high power base stations in the band could result
in harmful interference to operations in the PCS band.
26. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission observed there was no
apparent reason to alter the proposed pairing or use of the 1915-1920
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. To ensure the PCS bands were adequately
protected from harmful interference due to operations in the Lower H
Block, the Commission also proposed to prohibit high power base station
operations in 1915-1920 MHz. In response to these proposals, commenters
generally supported the Commission's goal of maintaining the pairing of
the H Block spectrum and the designated uplink/downlink bands.
Additionally, some commenters addressed the Commission's inquiry for
alternative configurations of the H Block, which we discuss below. No
party presented cost or benefit data in support of its position.
27. We adopt the proposal to maintain the pairing of 1915-1920 MHz
with 1995-2000 MHz. In doing so, we observe that Congress, in enacting
the Spectrum Act and directing us to license these bands, did not
express disagreement with the Commission's earlier determination to
pair these bands. We find this approach in the public interest and find
that the benefits of this approach likely outweigh any potential costs.
As several commenters discuss, pairing the lower and upper portions of
the H Block will promote the efficient use of this spectrum and allow
for the proliferation of wireless services. In addition, consistent
with the record, we expect that adopting the paired spectrum band plan
will facilitate the deployment of wireless fixed and mobile services in
rural areas. Further, by licensing the H Block as a paired band, we
allay the concerns some commenters expressed about the risk of a
stranded, standalone block of spectrum that may be unsuitable for
mobile broadband use.
28. Additionally, configuring the H Block as a 5 + 5 megahertz band
will allow for flexibility and efficiency in the deployment of wireless
services and technologies. Five megahertz blocks can support a variety
of wireless broadband technologies. While we do not prescribe a
specific technology for use in the H Block, we expect that most users
of the band will deploy 4G or 3G Frequency Division Duplex (FDD)
technologies. Various globally-standardized technologies, including
Wideband-Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA), High Speed Packet
Access (HSPA), and their variants, use 5 + 5 megahertz paired blocks
when deployed as FDD. Long Term Evolution (LTE), which commenters
indicate is the most likely technology to be deployed in the H Block in
the near term, supports a variety of block sizes, including multiples
of 5 megahertz. Thus, as C Spire comments, adopting a 5 + 5 megahertz
band plan allows an operator using today's LTE technology to deploy in
the band.
29. In adopting this band plan, we also adopt the proposal to
prohibit high powered fixed and base station operations in the Lower H
band, i.e., 1915-1920 MHz. Limiting base station operations to the
1995-2000 MHz band will reduce the potential for harmful interference
to PCS operations. Because the PCS spectrum immediately proximate to
the Lower H Block is used for mobile operations, a high powered signal
emanating from 1915-1920 MHz, such as from a base station, may cause
harmful interference due to receiver overload. As we discuss below and
have concluded previously, the power limits necessary to avoid this
potential problem preclude the use of base stations in this band.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we determine the 1915-1920
MHz band will be used for mobile operations (uplink) and the 1995-2000
MHz band will be used for base station operations (downlink).
30. Alternatives. Our decision today to pair 1915-1920 MHz band
with the 1995-2000 MHz band moots concerns that some commenters have
raised regarding the possibility of either band standing alone.
Specifically, by pairing
[[Page 50219]]
these two spectrum bands together, neither the Lower H Block nor Upper
H Block will become a standalone ``stranded'' five megahertz block. In
addition, we find it unnecessary to address Savari's suggestion that,
as part of its plan to have the Commission license the H Block as a low
power guard manager band, the Commission permit the H Block licensee to
partner the 1915-1920 MHz band with unlicensed PCS channels in the
adjacent 1920-1930 MHz band. Because we decline to adopt Savari's
predicate proposal that the H Block be licensed under a low power guard
band manager approach, we need not reach the issue of ``partnership''
with adjacent UPCS channels.
31. Interoperability. As discussed below, the H Block spectrum is
adjacent to the PCS spectrum and the technical rules we adopt for the H
Block would permit the H Block effectively to be operated as an
extension of the PCS band. The Commission historically has been
interested in promoting interoperability, beginning with the licensing
of cellular spectrum. Although the Commission did not adopt a rule to
require band-wide interoperability for PCS, it stressed the importance
of interoperability by acknowledging industry efforts to establish
voluntary interoperability standards. We continue to believe that
interoperability is an important aspect of future deployment of mobile
broadband services and generally serves the public interest. We note
that no party has requested that we impose an interoperability
requirement here to further the public interest. We strongly encourage
all stakeholders in this ecosystem to develop new equipment in a manner
that promotes, rather than hinders, interoperability. We intend to
closely monitor the development of the equipment market in the H block
and neighboring PCS band as well as other future developments in this
band in order to assess whether additional action will need to be taken
to promote interoperability.
2. Service Area
a. Geographic Area Licensing
32. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a
geographic area licensing approach for the H Block, reasoning that such
an approach is well-suited for the types of fixed and mobile services
that would likely be deployed in these bands.
33. We adopt a geographic area licensing scheme for the H Block for
the reasons that the Commission articulated in the H Block NPRM, namely
that it is well-suited for the types of fixed and mobile services that
we expect to be deployed in the H Block and will maintain consistency
with numerous other bands. Given the record before us, we conclude that
this approach is in the public interest and that the benefits of
geographic area licensing likely outweigh any potential costs. We find
it particularly significant that geographic area licensing in the H
Block is consistent with the Commission's licensing approach for other
similar commercial bands, including AWS-1, Broadband PCS, Commercial
700 MHz, and AWS-4. As the Commission has observed in the past,
geographic licensing also carries many additional benefits, including:
(1) Providing licensees with substantial flexibility to respond to
market demand, which results in significant improvements in spectrum
utilization and allows new and innovative technologies to rapidly
develop; (2) permitting economies of scale because licensees can
coordinate usage across an entire geographic area to maximize spectrum
use; and (3) reducing regulatory burdens and transaction costs because
wide-area licensing does not require site-by-site approval, thus
allowing a licensee to aggregate its service territories without
incurring the administrative costs and delays associated with site-by-
site licensing. Further, geographic area licensing in the H Block will
allow the Commission to assign initial licenses through a system of
competitive bidding in accordance with the Spectrum Act. Finally, we
observe that the record supports geographic area licensing for the H
Block, which no commenter has opposed.
b. Service Area Size
34. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to license the H
Block on an Economic Area (EA) basis. The Commission sought comment on
this approach and asked commenters to discuss and quantify the
economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of any
particular geographic licensing scheme for this band, as well as the
impact that any such scheme would have on rural service and
competition. Alternatively, the Commission sought comment on nationwide
licensing for the H Block, including whether it would maximize or limit
the opportunity for licensees to provide the widest array of services
and would provide the necessary incentives to expand existing
technologies and create new ones. The Commission requested that
commenters compare the advantages and disadvantages of nationwide
licensing to those of EA licensing. Further, the Commission sought
comment on licensing areas smaller than EAs for the H Block, including
whether it would facilitate use by smaller and rural operators and
whether the benefits of such an approach would outweigh the potential
diseconomies of scale. Finally, the Commission requested comment on
whether there are any other geographic licensing methods for the H
Block that would better meet the Commission's goals.
35. Comments on the proposal were mixed. Some commenters, including
both small and large carriers, supported EA-based licensing, while
other commenters opposed EAs and advocated license areas smaller than
EAs. While one commenter supported either nationwide or large regional
(i.e., Major Economic Areas) licenses, several other commenters opposed
such a licensing scheme. One party also supported ``roadway or highway
license[s].'' No party, however, provided cost or benefit data to
support its position.
36. We will license the H Block on an EA basis. As explained below,
licensing based on EAs has been used for similar bands and is a useful
and appropriate geographic approach. We believe that licensing the H
Block on an EA basis will help us to meet several statutory goals,
including providing for the efficient use of spectrum; encouraging
deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers; and promoting
investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.
Given the record before us, we conclude that licensing the H Block on
an EA basis is in the public interest and that the benefits of this
approach likely outweigh any potential costs.
37. We believe that licensing on an EA-basis strikes the
appropriate balance in license size for this band. We find it
particularly significant that the two bands adjacent to the H Block,
PCS G Block and AWS-4, are licensed on an EA basis. As the record
indicates, adopting the same size geographic area as is used in
adjacent bands may encourage rapid deployment in and use of the
spectrum. Thus, to the extent that licensees for either of those bands
ultimately obtain licenses for the H Block, EAs may present
opportunities for efficiencies that other geographic license sizes
would not offer. For example, AT&T states that EA-based licensing here
would be consistent with the Commission's adoption of EA-based
licensing in other spectrum bands that will likely be used for mobile
broadband. Sprint, moreover, states that the consistent use of EA-based
licensing
[[Page 50220]]
in PCS, AWS-4, and now H Block will encourage quick deployment in the H
Block spectrum.
38. We also believe that licensing this band using EAs will
facilitate access to spectrum for both small and large carriers. We
believe that it will facilitate access by smaller carriers because EAs
are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities to such
carriers. At the same time, EAs are large enough that large carriers
can aggregate them up to larger license areas, including into Major
Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs),
thus achieving economies of scale.
39. Several commenters supported EA-based licensing. For example,
as stated above, AT&T and Sprint support EA-based licensing because
this band is adjacent to other bands that have been licensed on an EA-
basis. MetroPCS explains that EA-based licensing helps to ensure that
the bidder that most highly values the spectrum in a particular area
acquires that license. C Spire argues that EA-based licensing would
``allow for efficient geographic aggregation of licenses. And CCA
asserts there are numerous advantages to EA-based licensing, including
that it provides ``rural and regional carriers [with] reasonable
opportunities to bid.''
40. Other commenters opposed EAs as either too large or too small.
Commenters proposing smaller geographic license areas advocated for
Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), including both Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs). They argued that small and
rural carriers cannot afford EAs and that, because EAs include both
urban and rural areas, large carriers that purchase EAs can focus their
buildout efforts on urban centers to the detriment of rural customers.
Another commenter argued that that the H Block should be licensed on a
larger-than-EA basis either on a nationwide basis or on a Major
Economic Area (MEA).
41. On balance, we are not persuaded that we should adopt
geographic license areas smaller or larger than EAs. Rather, we find
that--for the H Block--licensing the spectrum on an EA basis best
balances the Commission's public interest goals of encouraging
widespread geographic buildout (including in rural areas) and providing
licensees with sufficient flexibility to scale their networks. We find
this particularly so because, as explained above, EA-based licensing
will make H Block consistent with two adjacent bands. Moreover, we note
that CMAs do not ``nest'' easily into EAs, which could make it more
difficult for licensees to aggregate license areas to match the
neighboring bands. Finally, to the extent that an entity desires to
obtain access to H Block spectrum for less than an EA geographic area,
secondary market transactions (e.g. partitioning) offer a possible way
to obtain such access.
42. Finally, we observe that Savari argues that, if the FCC adopts
EA-based licensing, it should issue ``roadway licenses'' that cover
highways and areas near highways; areas that, it implies, may lie
between EAs. We disagree. To the extent that this commenter suggests
that the FCC should issue roadway licenses between EAs, we are not
aware of geographic areas that exist between EAs. More generally, we
believe that EA, rather than roadway, licenses will lead to more
widespread service to consumers in this band. Further, we believe the
public interest lies in covering as much area as possible given the
economics of the band. In many cases, even in very rural areas, this
may extend beyond roadways.
3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico
43. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
and, if so, how to license the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission sought
comment on whether the Gulf should be included as part of larger
service areas, or whether the Gulf should be licensed separately.
44. We will license the H Block for the Gulf of Mexico. We find it
appropriate to follow Commission precedent from the AWS-1 and AWS-4
bands, both of which licensed the Gulf as a separate EA license.
Moreover, the only party who commented on this issue supports the
proposal to make available an EA license for the Gulf. Finally, we
determine to apply the existing definition of the Gulf of Mexico EA
contained in section 27.6 of the Commission rules when licensing the
Gulf. Specifically, the Gulf of Mexico service area is comprised of the
water area of the Gulf of Mexico starting 12 nautical miles from the
U.S. Gulf coast and extending outward.
C. Technical Issues
45. Pursuant to the statutory direction of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, the Commission adopts rules for commercial
spectrum in a manner that furthers and maximizes the public interest.
Notably, when developing policies for a particular band, the Commission
looks at other bands that might be affected, particularly the adjacent
bands. Consequently, the Commission must often balance competing
interests of adjacent bands, and potentially competing public interest
considerations, when crafting rules. Because the rules for one band,
particularly the interference protection rules, affect the use and
value of other bands and thus the public interest benefits that can be
realized through the use of those adjacent bands, we take a holistic
view when establishing the technical rules for each spectrum band.
46. In this section, we adopt the technical operating rules (e.g.,
interference rules) that will govern H Block operations and licensees.
In general, our aim in establishing technical rules is to maximize the
flexible use of spectrum while appropriately protecting operations in
neighboring bands. Here, we also specifically consider our statutory
obligations set forth in the Spectrum Act with respect to the 1930-1995
MHz broadband PCS band, which specifically requires us to determine
whether either of the H Block bands ``cannot be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees in the
[1930-1995 MHz PCS band].''
47. We base the technical rules we adopt below on the rules for the
AWS and PCS spectrum bands, which have similar characteristics to the H
Block and that we therefore expect would permit optimal use of the H
Block by its licensees. In applying these rules to the H Block, we
specifically adopt rules to adequately protect operations in adjacent
bands, including the existing 1930-1995 MHz broadband PCS downlink band
and the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 uplink band. Finally, given the record
before us and the analyses provided below, we conclude that the
benefits of the technical rules we adopt herein likely outweigh any
potential costs.
1. Upper H Block: 1995-2000 MHz
48. The Upper H Block is immediately above the 1930-1995 MHz PCS
band, which is subject to the Spectrum Act's harmful interference
provision. The PCS band currently is used for base station transmit/
mobile receive (i.e., downlink) purposes. In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission tentatively concluded that operating base stations in 1995-
2000 MHz would be compatible with similar use of the spectrum in the
1930-1995 MHz band, and that more restrictive technical standards than
those established for other AWS stations in similar bands would be
unnecessary to protect the PCS band from harmful interference. No
technical concerns were raised in the record about interference between
the Upper H Block and PCS base stations operating below 1995 MHz. As
stated above, the 1995-2000 MHz Upper H band will serve as
[[Page 50221]]
downlink spectrum and is thus compatible with adjacent downlink
operations below the band.
49. The Upper H Block is also situated immediately below the 2000-
2020 MHz band, which is allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed,
Mobile, and Mobile Satellite (Earth-to-space, i.e., for mobile
transmit/satellite or base station receive), and is licensed for both
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) and AWS-4 terrestrial wireless services.
The Commission recently adopted service rules that permit use of the
2000-2020 MHz band for terrestrial mobile-to-base (uplink)
transmissions. In so doing, the Commission concluded that certain
protections were needed to avoid harmful interference between the Upper
H Block and 2000-2020 MHz band. Having weighed various public interest
considerations, the Commission imposed certain limited power
restrictions and out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits on AWS-4 uplinks to
preserve the capability for full flexible use of the Upper H Block.
Additionally, the Commission concluded that 2 GHz MSS operators and
AWS-4 licensees must accept harmful interference from future, lawful
operations in the Upper H Block due to either Upper H Block OOBEs into
the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 uplink band or to Upper H Block
in-band power (receiver overload) into the AWS-4 uplink band. DISH
Network Corp.'s (DISH) AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS subsidiaries accepted the
Order of Proposed Modification, which accompanied the AWS-4 Report and
Order and which, thus, included these requirements. Commission staff
subsequently issued an Order of Modification and issued modified
licenses. Nothing in our discussion below is intended to revisit these
determinations.
a. Upper H Block Power Limits
50. We adopt transmitter power limits for the Upper H Block that
will maximize the full flexible use of the spectrum while ensuring
against harmful interference to adjacent PCS operations and, in the
case of the AWS-4 band, adequately protecting adjacent operations due
to receiver overload. Receiver overload may result when signals outside
of the receiver's nominal bandwidth cause the receiver to experience an
increased noise level or produce non-linear responses. In setting power
limits, we balance the power necessary to ensure successful
communication in the band against the level of interference that
adjacent services can tolerate based on their operational needs and the
public interests served. In doing so here, we ensure against harmful
interference to the adjacent PCS band and, in the case of the adjacent
AWS-4 band, set a power limit necessary to ensure successful
communication by H Block licensees based on the public interest
balancing the Commission established in the AWS-4 Report and Order.
51. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed and sought comment
on adopting the standard base station power limits applicable to AWS
and PCS stations. These power limits are 1640 watts equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for emissions with less than a 1
MHz channel bandwidth and 1640 watts/MHz for emissions greater than 1
MHz in non-rural areas. In rural areas, i.e., counties with population
densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, the power limits are
3280 watts EIRP for emissions with less than a 1 MHz channel bandwidth
and 3280 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions greater than 1 MHz. The AWS and
PCS rules also require providers operating in excess of the 1640 watts/
1640 watts/MHz EIRP to coordinate with adjacent block licensees within
120 km. Except as detailed below, commenters generally supported these
proposed power limits.
52. For H Block operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, we adopt a
power limit for operations in non-rural areas of 1640 watts EIRP for
emissions less than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz for emissions greater than
1 MHz. We adopt a power limit for operations in rural areas of 3280
watts EIRP for emissions less than 1 MHz and 3280 watts/MHz for
emissions greater than 1 MHz. For purposes of this rule, a rural area
refers to a county with a population density of 100 persons or fewer
per square mile. Further, we allow operations in excess of the EIRP of
1640 watts and 1640 watts/MHz limits after coordination with adjacent
PCS G Block licensees within 120 km, as is allowed for similar
operations in the AWS and PCS services. We adopt these power limits
because they are the same as those for base stations in other AWS
services, including AWS-1 services and the recently adopted limits for
AWS-4 base stations and substantially the same as for PCS base
stations. Most parties that commented on this issue supported adopting
these power limits. As both Sprint and U.S. Cellular observed, the
Commission has consistently proposed and adopted these power limits for
other services. Additionally, Sprint commented that such power levels
will provide adequate protection for PCS licensees in neighboring
spectrum bands. No party claimed otherwise. Based on the record and our
prior experience with similar services, we conclude that these power
limits are consistent with the Spectrum Act's requirement for avoiding
harmful interference to the adjacent PCS band. Further, because these
limits reflect established measures of efficient use of spectrum for
similar services in other bands, we believe they are consistent with
the goals of ensuring full, robust, commercial service for mobile
broadband, as set forth in the AWS-4 Report and Order.
53. In adopting these power limits for H Block base stations, we
acknowledge that wording in the H Block NPRM may have led to confusion
on the part of one commenter (DISH). In the H Block NPRM, the
Commission specifically ``propose[d] to adopt the standard base station
power limits that apply to AWS and PCS stations,'' but did not include
the power density limit for emissions greater than 1 megahertz in
summarizing the existing rules, despite the fact that the Commission's
AWS and PCS rules explicitly include such limits. In supporting the
proposed power limits, Sprint correctly referenced ``standard power
limits of 1640 watts/MHz for non-rural areas and 3280 watts/MHz for
non-rural areas.'' In its Reply, DISH claimed that the Commission
intended for the Upper H Block power to be measured across the entire 5
megahertz of the band, and that Sprint was improperly seeking to
measure the power across one megahertz, thereby increasing the radiated
power by 7 dB within the Upper H Block. We disagree. The Commission's
intent was to propose Upper H Block power limits that would be measured
across one megahertz (for emissions greater than one megahertz). In any
event, we now determine to measure power limits in a manner consistent
with the PCS and AWS bands. Accordingly, we now adopt the standard AWS
base station power limits, as described above, based on the record
presented in response to the H Block NPRM.
54. Further, to the extent DISH may be arguing for lower power
limits than those in other AWS bands and the PCS band, its argument is
unsupported and misplaced. DISH's statement that some existing PCS
equipment (we are not aware of equipment presently existing for the H
Block band) may operate at lower maximum power levels is not in and of
itself dispositive of the appropriate maximum permissible power levels.
Rather, this argument appears simply to present an example of PCS
equipment operating well within the applicable PCS rules.
55. We also reject DISH's argument that symmetrical power
reductions for
[[Page 50222]]
the H Block are necessary. DISH suggested that, should the Commission
determine that (1) full-power operations of the Lower H Block would
cause harmful interference into the PCS band and, (2) it is necessary
to mediate this effect by reducing the power limits of the mobiles
transmitting in the Lower H Block, then the Commission should adopt
similarly reduced power limits for the Upper H Block (1995-2000 MHz).
DISH explained that, ``[f]or instance, if the Commission decides to
limit the H Block uplink transmit power across 1915-1920 MHz to 13 dBm,
as opposed to the typical [3rd Generation Partnership Protect] 3GPP
power level of 23 dBm, then the base station radiated power should
accordingly be reduced by 10 dB to 164 Watts, as opposed to the
Commission's proposal of 1640 watts.'' Because, as explained below, we
do not reduce the permissible power levels for mobile devices in the
Lower H Block below the 23 dBm level discussed by DISH, we dismiss as
moot DISH's argument to apply symmetrical power restrictions both to
the lower and upper bands.
56. In sum, we adopt a power limit of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions
with less than 1 MHz channel bandwidth and 1640 watts/MHz for emissions
greater than 1 MHz in non-rural areas and of 3280 watts EIRP for
emissions with less than a 1 MHz channel bandwidth and 3280 watts/MHz
EIRP for emissions greater than 1 MHz in rural areas as sufficient to
protect PCS licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band from harmful
interference and to adequately protect AWS uplink operations, while
enabling H Block licensees to operate full power base stations.
Further, we allow operations in excess of the EIRP of 1640 watts and
1640 watts/MHz limits after coordination with adjacent PCS G Block
licensees within 120 km, as is allowed for similar operations in the
AWS and PCS services.
b. Upper H Block Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
57. To minimize or eliminate harmful interference between adjacent
spectrum blocks, the Commission's rules generally limit the amount of
radio frequency (``RF'') power that may be emitted outside of, or in a
range of frequencies outside of, the assigned block of an RF
transmission. In both the PCS and AWS-1 bands, for example, the
Commission established an OOBE limit that requires emissions outside a
licensee's assigned spectrum block be attenuated by a level of at least
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where P is the transmit power in
watts.
58. To protect operations in adjacent and nearby bands above and
below the Upper H Block, the Commission proposed, and sought comment on
(including on the associated costs and benefits), a general OOBE limit
for H Block base stations of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where P
is the transmit power in watts, outside of the 1995-2000 MHz band. This
is consistent with the OOBE limits of the adjacent PCS operations
within the 1930-1995 MHz band. In addition to this general limit, the
Commission proposed that H Block operations meet a more stringent OOBE
limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, between 2005 MHz and 2020 MHz to provide interference
mitigation to AWS-4 terrestrial uplink operations. As the Commission
observed, this additional proposed interference protection is meant to
ensure that all of the Upper H Block spectrum can be used for downlink
operations, while affording additional protections to most of the AWS-4
uplink band. Commenters generally supported the proposed OOBE limits
into the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band, but several commenters proposed
alternative OOBE limits for emissions above 2000 MHz. Although a few
commenters made general assertions regarding the costs of adopting
certain OOBE limits, no party submitted any cost or benefit data.
59. For the reasons discussed below, except as otherwise specified,
we adopt the proposed OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB,
where (P) is the transmitter power in watts, for Upper H Block base
station transmissions outside of 1995-2000 MHz, including into the
1930-1995 MHz and 2000-2005 MHz bands. We also establish an OOBE limit
of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power
in watts, for transmissions from the Upper H Block into the 2005-2020
MHz AWS-4 band. We find that this approach both protects the 1930-1995
MHz band and the 2005-2020 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band from harmful
interference, and provides adequate protection to the adjacent, lowest
five megahertz of the AWS-4 band at 2000-2005 MHz. Thus, these OOBE
limits allow us to meet the requirements set forth in the Spectrum Act
with regard to the PCS downlink band, and to best manage the use of
these spectrum bands in the public interest, consistent with the
balancing we established in the AWS-4 proceeding. Further, as detailed
below, our evaluation of the record and our consideration of how best
to serve the public interest demonstrate that the various alternative
proposals for OOBE limits put forth by commenters do not sufficiently
balance the use of the H Block and use of the neighboring spectrum
bands.
60. General OOBE Limit. We adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts,
for Upper H Block transmissions outside of the 1995-2000 MHz band,
except as described below. We anticipate that H Block systems will be
similar in design to PCS and AWS-1, which have effectively relied on
the 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE limit in the Commission's
rules to prevent harmful interference to operations in adjacent and
nearby bands. The record also contains support for this OOBE limit. We
therefore adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where
(P) is the transmitter power in watts, for transmitters operating in
the Upper H Block, except as detailed below.
61. Emissions into PCS. We adopt and apply the general OOBE limit
of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power
in watts, for Upper H Block transmissions into 1930-1995 MHz. The
record demonstrates support for our decision as commenters support the
proposed 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB for base station transmissions
from the 1995-2000 MHz band into the PCS bands located in 1930-1995
MHz. For example, U.S. Cellular and Sprint support an OOBE limit of 43
+ 10 log10 (P) dB as the emissions restriction imposed on
operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. With respect to emissions into
PCS, no party has opposed this limit. Moreover, inasmuch as the Upper H
Block can be viewed from a technical perspective as an extension of the
1930-1995 MHz PCS band because they are both adjacent downlink bands,
the 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE limit that applies between
adjacent PCS downlink blocks logically should also apply to Upper H
Block emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz PCS bands. Thus, to protect PCS
operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band from harmful interference, we
adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB for Upper H
Block base transmissions.
62. Emissions into AWS-4. We adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts,
for Upper H Block transmissions into 2000-2005 MHz and an OOBE limit of
70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Upper H Block transmissions into 2005-2020 MHz. We find
these limits appropriately balance the difficult technical challenges
associated with the Upper H Block (i.e., downlink) being adjacent to
the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 band (i.e., uplink), which the Commission
[[Page 50223]]
addressed in the AWS-4 Report and Order. As the Commission previously
observed, uplink spectrum bands that are adjacent to downlink spectrum
bands raise difficult interference issues that require balancing the
needs of both bands. In striking this balance, the Commission must
determine what technical limits are appropriate, because the rules for
one band affect the use and value of other bands, and the Commission
seeks to maximize the efficient use of all bands. In the AWS-4
proceeding, for example, the Commission weighed the potential
interference issues between the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 band and the 1995-
2000 MHz H Block band. The Commission's assessment concluded that, to
protect the utility of the Upper H Block, (1) AWS-4 uplink operations
must meet a relatively strict OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10
(P) dB into the 1995-2000 MHz band and into the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band,
and (2) AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS licensees would be required to accept
harmful interference from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band
if such interference is due to OOBE into the 2000-2005 MHz band or due
to receiver overload into the 2000-2020 MHz band. In now establishing
the technical rules for the Upper H Block, it is appropriate to
likewise recognize the impact operations in this band may have on
licensees above 2000 MHz.
63. In assessing the needs of both Upper H Block and AWS-4 uplink
band, we start from an understanding of the current interference
environment. Under the Commission's rules, emissions from the PCS
downlink band at 1930-1995 MHz, including the G Block (1990-1995 MHz),
into the AWS-4 uplink band at 2000-2020 MHz are limited to 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts.
Our rules, however, are not the only factors affecting the operation
and performance of AWS-4 systems. Both Sprint and DISH cite the 3GPP
standards to support their differing cases for the OOBE limit into the
AWS-4 band. These standards allow for an OOBE limit of -30 dBm/MHz
(equivalent to attenuation of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB) into the
2000-2010 MHz band, dropping to -49 dBm/MHz (equivalent to 79 + 10
log10 (P) dB) in the 2010-2020 MHz band. Additionally, the
3GPP standard noted that OOBE limits would only apply 5 MHz or farther
from the edge of the PCS base station's operating band. This allows 5
megahertz within which the transmitter's output can roll off to meet
the tighter limits.
64. Sprint (which holds all of the licenses for the PCS G Block, as
well as some licenses for other PCS blocks) advocated for a limit of 60
+ 10 log10 (P) dB across the 2005-2020 MHz band and DISH
(which holds all of the AWS-4 licenses) advocated for a more stringent
79 + 10 log10 (P) dB limit across the 2005-2020 MHz band. In
other words, relatively speaking, DISH would prefer that we impose
greater restrictions on the transmissions from the Upper H Block into
the AWS-4 band, while Sprint would prefer lesser restrictions on those
Upper H Block transmissions. Both Sprint and DISH cite 3GPP standards
in arguing for their preferred OOBE limits. Historically, while the
Commission may take into consideration the determinations of third
party technical standards organizations, such as 3GPP, the Commission
also considers other factors not relevant to standards organizations.
For instance, the Commission necessarily takes into account its
enabling, and any other relevant, statute, which would not be binding
on a third party standards organization. We are required, for example,
to manage spectrum in the public interest, and to ``generally encourage
the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.''
Private standards bodies may have other bases for their determinations,
which may reflect compromises among the participants that are not
subject to the statutory mandates that must inform our actions.
Accordingly, while the Commission may independently incorporate
industry standards based on the particular record before it, it does
not typically adopt such interference standards as Commission rules. We
again decline to do so here. Further, inasmuch as the OOBE limit we
establish herein represents a ceiling, not a floor, industry remains
free to set a more restrictive value through technical standards
bodies, such as 3GPP.
65. In maximizing the usefulness of both bands, we seek to set
appropriate limits on OOBE such that the overall interference imposed
on AWS-4 uplink operations is no more than currently exists, to the
greatest extent possible, without imposing a harsh and undue burden on
Upper H Block downlink operations. We therefore adopt an OOBE limit of
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for all Upper H Block emissions above 2000 MHz, including the
2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band, except for transmissions into
2005-2020 MHz. As discussed above, this emission limit (10
log10) is the same level of protection that the Commission's
rules currently provide AWS-4 operations from transmissions from
existing PCS downlink operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band. For Upper H
Block transmissions into 2005-2020 MHz, we adopt a more stringent OOBE
limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts. This layered approach, encompassing one set of
interference standards for emissions into the first five megahertz and
a more stringent limit on emissions into the remaining fifteen
megahertz, provides some flexibility for the H Block operator to design
the emission characteristics of its system to meet the tougher OOBE
limits into the 2005-2020 MHz band. This approach, moreover, was
contemplated by the Commission in the AWS-4 Report and Order where the
Commission, in requiring AWS-4 licensees to accept certain interference
in the AWS-4 uplink band, stated that ``base station transmit filters
need 1 to 5 megahertz to roll off to a low level of emissions.'' In
addition, under the 3GPP standards, out-of-band emissions from PCS LTE
operations must satisfy an OOBE limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P)
dB at 2000-2010 MHz and then transition sharply to satisfy a much
stricter limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB at 2010-2020 MHz. As
a practical matter, however, out-of-band emissions tend to roll off
smoothly and do not mimic the step functions of the limits set by
standards bodies, such as 3GPP. As a result, the emissions from LTE
operations in the PCS band will naturally decrease smoothly from the 60
+ 10 log10 (P) dB level at 2000 MHz to the 79 + 10
log10 (P) dB from 2010-2020 MHz. The limit we set at 2005
MHz--70 + 10 log10 (P) dB--approximates the emissions level
that we expect would arise at 2005 MHz as emissions roll off between
2000 MHz and 2010 MHz. Therefore, we expect that the overall harmful
interference risk on the AWS-4 A Block operator from future H Block
operators would be no more than exists today from existing PCS
operators. That is, just as PCS operations are not expected to cause
harmful OOBE interference at 2005-2020 MHz, nor are H Block operations
expected to cause OOBE interference at the limit we set here.
66. In response to the Commission's proposed OOBE limits into the
AWS-4 uplink band, parties commented that the proposed limits were both
too lenient and too strict. DISH argued that 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB is insufficient to protect AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS operations in
2000-2005 MHz and that 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB is insufficient
protection for operations in 2005-2010 MHz. Rather, DISH suggested a
three-fold approach to protect AWS-4/2 GHz
[[Page 50224]]
MSS operations. DISH proposed an OOBE limit of 55 + 10 log10
(P) dB for emissions in the 2000-2005 MHz band, an OOBE limit of 79 +
10 log10 (P) dB for emissions above 2005 MHz, and an OOBE
limit of 116 + 10 log10 (P) dB for co-located sites.
Conversely, Sprint opposed the H Block NPRM's proposal of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz as imposing too stringent a
restriction on Upper H Block transmissions and recommended an OOBE
limit of 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB into and above 2005.
67. We reject both proposals as improperly balanced, with the DISH
proposal overly burdensome for a full powered, flexible use H Block and
the Sprint proposal too burdensome on AWS-4 operations and unnecessary
to allow the Upper H Block licensees full, flexible use of that
spectrum.
68. First, we reject DISH's proposal that Upper H Block operations
be restricted to an OOBE limit of 55 + 10 log10 (P) dB
between 2000 and 2005 MHz. As discussed above, we establish an OOBE
limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB between 2000 and 2005 MHz and
believe this represents an appropriate balance between ensuring the
utility of the Upper H Block and the AWS-4 uplink band. A level of 55,
rather than 43, plus 10 log10 (P) dB would be 32 times more
stringent and would thus restrain the full use of the H Block. DISH
argues that this OOBE level is necessary because aggregate power from
all H Block base stations in the direction of the satellite would
inadequately protect the satellite. We agree with Sprint and U.S.
Cellular that DISH's argument is an inappropriate collateral attack on
the AWS-4 Report and Order and our related order modifying the licenses
of DISH's subsidiaries, which they have accepted. The Commission
explicitly addressed the issue of how to balance Upper H Block
interference into the 2000-2005 MHz band, for both terrestrial and MSS
operations, in the AWS-4 Report and Order. There the Commission stated:
to the extent that future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band,
operating within the rules established for use of the 1995-2000 MHz
band, cause harmful interference to AWS-4 operations or MSS
operations due to . . . OOBE in the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the
AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS uplink band . . . AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS licenses
must accept this interference.
We therefore reject DISH's proposed OOBE limit of 55 + 10
log10 (P) dB between 2000 and 2005 MHz because it conflicts
with the full potential use of the H Block and would be inconsistent
with the AWS-4 Report and Order.
69. Second, we reject DISH's proposal for an OOBE limit of 79 + 10
log10 (P) dB at and above 2005 MHz. DISH argued this limit
is needed to protect AWS-4 terrestrial operations in 2005-2020 MHz. We
disagree. We find that some of the assumptions underlying DISH's
analysis are overly conservative, such as the use of a one kilometer
spacing between base stations in both the interfering system and the
victim system in determining the minimum coupling loss (MCL). As a
result, we find an OOBE limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB at
2005 MHz to be too restrictive on Upper H Block operations. While DISH
has asserted that meeting an OOBE limit more stringent than 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB would not be difficult for the H Block operator
to meet, the evidence it cites does not support the conclusion that an
H Block operator could meet an OOBE limit of 79 + 10 log10
(P) dB at 2005 MHz. In the three test reports cited by DISH, each LTE
base station is shown to exceed the Commission's limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB by 10 dB or more. For instance, the Samsung
test report shows that the base station may be able to meet 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB within the AWS-4 band. However, none of the
test results show whether the base stations would be able to meet
DISH's proposed limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB. In addition,
we find that an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, as
opposed to a limit of 79 + 10 log10 (P) dB, is more
consistent with the balancing of interference concerns between the AWS-
4 and H Block bands discussed in the AWS-4 Report and Order,
particularly in light of the Commission's determination in that order
to require AWS-4 operations to protect future Upper H block operations
using an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB. Thus, to avoid
harmful OOBE interference to AWS-4 operations at 2005-2020 MHz, we find
an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into 2005-2020 MHz is
necessary.
70. DISH further argued that an OOBE limit of 79 + 10
log10 (P) dB at 2005 MHz is consistent with 3GPP
specifications. As an initial matter, as we stated above, while the
Commission may take into consideration the determinations of third
party technical standards organizations such as 3GPP, the Commission
also considers other factors not relevant to standards organizations.
Moreover, we observe that, while the DISH proposed OOBE limit is
contained in the 3GPP specification for LTE base stations, the limit is
for bands other than Bands 23, 2, and 25. Bands 23, 2, and 25 represent
the AWS-4 operations, PCS operations in the 1930-1990 MHz band, and PCS
+ G Block operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band, respectively. Thus, the
3GPP specification, on its own terms, does not apply to the
interference scenario at issue here. There is a separate set of OOBE
limits that apply to these nearby bands. Notably, the relevant 3GPP
specification for Band 25 only requires 60 + 10 log10 (P) dB
between 2000 and 2010 MHz due to its proximity to the AWS-4 band. 3GPP
does not require PCS operations to meet the more stringent 79 + 10
log10 (P) dB limit until at least 15 MHz above the PCS band
(i.e., above 2010 MHz). Thus, DISH's suggestion that 3GPP standards
provide an example of more stringent OOBE limits is misplaced. We also
observe that, as Sprint asserted, current Commission rules allow for
much lower attenuation for existing PCS systems, including the G Block,
over the entire AWS-4 band.
71. Third, we reject DISH's proposed OOBE limit for co-located
sites. Specifically, DISH sought an OOBE limit of at least 116 + 10
log10 (P) dB for sites containing both an AWS-4 base station
and an H Block base station. DISH argued, ``when two base stations are
co-located, significantly less path loss is encountered, and a much
higher interference level may be present at the victim receiver,''
which requires more stringent filters. DISH cited a 3GPP LTE standard
recommendation for co-location that stated a limit of -96 dBm/100 kHz
may be applied for the protection of other base station receivers. Co-
location with other communication systems is a common industry practice
to resolve coexistence issues. Yet the Commission typically does not
impose separate OOBE requirements on co-located sites in other systems
operating under either part 24 or part 27. Instead, these interference
concerns are routinely negotiated between the affected parties, taking
advantage of the flexibility afforded by our rules for affected parties
to resolve interference issues at spectral and geographic boundaries.
Because co-location is a network design decision, network operators
possess incentives to deploy in an efficient and productive manner that
minimizes potential harmful interference. In some cases, interference
scenarios can be improved through the use of co-location. Additionally,
our rules contain a savings provision. In the case that harmful
interference results from OOBE, the Commission may, at its discretion,
require greater attenuation than the specified limits. Furthermore,
while not dispositive of our regulatory determination, the 3GPP
standards DISH references specifically exempt base station transmitters
operating within 10 megahertz of the affected
[[Page 50225]]
receiver's operating band, which is the case here. Indeed, the standard
itself states that ``the current state-of-the-art technology does not
allow a single generic solution for co-location with other systems''
and points to site engineering solutions. In sum, we find that to
impose a limit of 116 + 10 log10 (P) on the Upper H Block
would be unduly burdensome on the licensee and that setting any OOBE
for the specific case of co-location would be inconsistent with general
Commission practice. Therefore, we decline to establish a rule
pertaining to co-location interference issues.
72. We also reject Sprint's proposal to adopt a 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB attenuation requirement from 2005-2020 MHz.
Sprint argued an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB would
significantly increase the cost of deployment in the Upper H Block, but
made no attempt to quantify this cost or provide any cost data.
According to Sprint, such increases in costs both could stifle interest
in an auction of the H Block and would not provide any substantive
improvement in interference. This argument is inconsistent with
Sprint's agreement in the 3GPP standards process to protect operations
in the 2010-2020 MHz band at a level of 79 + 10 log10 (P)
dB. In addition, DISH asserted that an OOBE limit of 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB is insufficient to protect AWS-4 operations. We
agree with DISH. In this instance, a stricter OOBE limit is warranted
because the Upper H Block (downlink) is adjacent to the AWS-4/2 GHz MSS
uplink band, which raises real interference concerns. An OOBE limit of
70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, as opposed to a limit of 60 + 10
log10 (P) dB, is more consistent with the balancing of
interference concerns between the AWS-4 and H Block bands discussed in
the AWS-4 Report and Order, particularly in light of the Commission's
determination in that order to require AWS-4 operations to protect
future Upper H block operations using an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB. Thus, to avoid harmful OOBE interference to
AWS-4 operations at 2005-2020 MHz, we find an OOBE limit of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB into 2005-2020 MHz is necessary.
73. Measurement Procedure. Finally, to fully define an emissions
limit, the Commission's rules generally specify details of the
measurement procedure to determine the power of the emissions, such as
the measurement bandwidth. For AWS-1, for example, the measurement
bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for both mobile
stations and base stations is generally 1 megahertz, with some
modification within the first 1 MHz. The Commission also applied the
same OOBE measurement procedure to AWS-4 and to PCS operations. To
treat the Upper H Block in an equivalent manner to these similar bands,
we therefore adopt the same requirement that compliance with the
emissions limits established herein will be determined by using a 1 MHz
measurement bandwidth.
c. Co-Channel Interference Between Licensees Operating in Adjacent
Regions
74. As discussed above, we determine to license the H Block on an
EA geographic license area basis. The Commission observed in the H
Block NPRM that should the H Block be licensed on a less than
nationwide basis, it would be necessary to ensure that licensees do not
cause harmful interference to co-channel systems operating along their
common geographic boundaries. To resolve any such interference, the
Commission proposed adopting a boundary limit approach, with a specific
boundary field strength limit of 47 dB[micro]V/m. The Commission also
sought comment on whether licensees operating in adjoining areas should
be permitted to employ alternative, agreed-upon signal limits at their
common borders. With one exception, commenters did not oppose the
Commission's proposals to protect adjacent licensees from co-channel
interference. Sprint, however, argued that the field strength limit be
adjusted to accommodate for varying channel bandwidths.
75. We adopt the proposed boundary limit approach for co-channel
interference. As discussed above, the Commission will license the H
Block on a geographic area basis that is less than nationwide, i.e., an
EA basis. To prevent licensees that operate systems along common
geographic borders from causing harmful interference to one another,
the Commission must provide operating limits to ensure such licensees
do not cause interference to co-channel systems. Adopting a boundary
limit approach establishes a default standard, which will enable
licensees to deploy facilities in boundary areas without the need for
prior coordination. Licensees may use this operating limit as a
starting point for negotiations to exceed the limits with agreement of
adjacent area licensees. Moreover, in other bands where spectrum has
been allocated for fixed and mobile services, similar to the H Block,
the Commission has uniformly adopted the boundary limit method to
minimize harmful co-channel interference. For instance, the PCS, AWS-1,
and AWS-4 bands all use a boundary limit approach. In response to the
Commission's proposal, commenters favored the boundary limit approach
over a coordination requirement. For example, Sprint comments that
``applying a boundary limit consistent with prior proceedings can
enable future H Block licensees to deploy facilities in boundary areas
without the delays associated with significant pre-coordination efforts
while protecting adjacent licensees from co-channel interference at
their borders.'' Additionally, no commenter proposed a coordination
approach for limiting co-channel systems from interfering with one
another. Consequently, we find that a boundary limit approach is the
best method to address potential harmful co-channel interference
between licensees operating in adjacent geographic regions.
76. We set the field strength limit at the boundary at 47
dB[micro]V/m. As the Commission observed in the H Block NPRM, in other
bands where spectrum has been allocated for fixed and mobile services
and licensed for flexible use, similar to the H Block, the Commission
has generally adopted a boundary field strength limit of 47 dB[micro]V/
m. For example, in the PCS, AWS-1, and AWS-4 bands, the Commission
adopted a field strength limit of 47 dB[micro]V/m at the boundary of
licensed geographic areas. Because this limit has worked well in
limiting co-channel interference in other bands, we find it appropriate
to adopt it here for the similarly situated Upper H Block.
77. In adopting this boundary limit, we decline to adopt the
alternative limit proposed by Sprint in its Reply. While supporting the
boundary limit approach used in other bands, Sprint asserted that we
should modify the boundary limit to set a reference measurement
bandwidth. In making this recommendation, Sprint claimed that because
today's LTE transmissions operate on wider channels than earlier
technologies such as CDMA or Digital AMPS, a 47 dB[micro]V/m limit will
effectively result in a comparatively lower field strength limit.
Specifically, Sprint proposed to adjust the field strength limit from
47 dB[micro]V/m to 62 dB[micro]V/m per MHz. Sprint argued that the
power spectral density for a 30 kHz Digital AMPS carrier at a 47
dB[micro]V/m field strength is equivalent to a 62 dB[micro]V/m LTE
carrier with a 1 MHz bandwidth, adjusting the field strength limit by
the ratio of the bandwidths (10*log10(1 MHz/30 kHz) = 15
dB). Sprint stated that its proposed boundary limit would better enable
4G-LTE buildout of the H Block while also providing the appropriate
interference
[[Page 50226]]
protections. Sprint further suggested that the boundary limits with
Canada and Mexico should similarly be based on power density levels.
78. Although we agree with Sprint on a conceptual level that a
boundary limit that adjusts for large differences in channel bandwidths
may be appropriate, we are not persuaded that Sprint's proposed limit
represents the optimal solution. Sprint derived the value for the field
strength based on a comparison against a 30 kHz Digital Amps signal.
Other technologies may be a more appropriate reference upon which to
base the value for the field strength. Also, there are other metrics
that may be used to limit the signal at the boundary, such as power
flux density. We observe that the Commission has already adopted a
bandwidth-independent approach when setting boundary limits with Canada
and Mexico. For example, certain international limits are expressed as
a power flux density (i.e., dBW/m\2\/MHz), a measure of power, whereas
field strength is a measurement of voltage. As Sprint noted, other
parties have proposed to set boundary limits in a bandwidth neutral
manner, but there is no established consensus on what the value of the
limit should be. With no consensus regarding an alternative boundary
limit approach, and not having received record input from any other
party on Sprint's proposal, we are not prepared to adopt it at this
time. We intend to explore the issue of whether to apply a measurement
bandwidth to co-channel boundary limits in future service rules
proceedings and we encourage all interested parties to explore this
issue in such proceedings to develop a full record of the technical
concerns and ramifications of such an approach.
79. Finally, we adopt the Commission's proposal that adjacent
affected area licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field
strength boundary levels that the 47 dB[micro]V/m we adopt above. This
concept is already codified in the field strength rules for both PCS
and AWS services, as Sprint acknowledged. No party opposed extending
this approach to the H Block. Accordingly, to maintain consistency with
the PCS and AWS bands, we permit adjacent area licensees to agree to a
higher field strength limit.
2. Lower H Block: 1915-1920 MHz
80. The Lower H Block is immediately above the 1850-1915 MHz PCS
band, which is used for mobile transmit/base receive (i.e., uplink)
purposes. As the Commission observed, use of the Lower H Block as
proposed in the H Block NPRM is compatible with this adjacent PCS band.
Accordingly, the Commission stated that technical standards more
restrictive than those already established for AWS and PCS stations to
protect PCS operations below 1915 MHz likely would not be necessary.
81. The Lower H Block is also situated immediately below the 1920-
1930 MHz band, which is allocated for Unlicensed PCS purposes (UPCS)
and the 1930-1995 MHz PCS base transmit/mobile receive (i.e., downlink)
band. As explained below, UPCS operations are not entitled to
interference protection from appropriately licensed operators in the
Lower H Block. The 1930-1995 MHz band, however, presents technical
challenges for use of the Lower H Block. As detailed below, when
certain worst-case conditions are present, the potential exists for
mobile transmitters in the 1915-1920 MHz band to cause harmful
interference to mobile receivers in the 1930-1995 MHz band.
82. As discussed above, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to
conduct an auction of the H Block spectrum unless we determine that the
H Block frequencies cannot be used without causing harmful interference
to commercial mobile service licensees operating between 1930-1995 MHz
(PCS downlink). Against this backdrop, commenters generally argued that
the Commission should carefully examine the issue of mobile power
limits for the Lower H Block and that, if possible, these limits should
be based on technical studies. Four parties submitted technical reports
into the record that address the possibility of Lower H Block
operations causing harmful interference to PCS operations in the 1930-
1995 MHz band. Sprint filed a test report accompanying its Reply
filing. On April 18, 2013, Verizon Wireless submitted a technical
study. On May 13, 2013, and May 14, 2013, T-Mobile and AT&T separately
filed a joint test report.
83. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test Reports. Both Sprint and
Verizon Wireless contracted with V-COMM Telecommunications Engineering
(V-COMM) to conduct tests on the effects of mobile operations in the
Lower H Block on several of each operator's existing CDMA handsets. The
handset's receiver performance was tested against interference due to
overload (i.e., blocking), intermodulation, and OOBE.
84. AT&T and T-Mobile Study. AT&T and T-Mobile contracted with
7Layers to perform tests on the effects of mobile operations in the
Lower H block on several of each operator's existing GSM, UMTS and LTE
handsets. The mobile receiver's performance was tested against
interference due to overload, intermodulation and OOBE.
85. We discuss these test reports and the interference scenarios
they examined more fully below. At the outset, however, we observe that
AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless all stated that, subject
to appropriate power limits and OOBE limits, mobile operations in the
Lower H Block can occur without causing harmful interference to PCS
operations in the PCS band at 1930-1995 MHz. Based on our analysis of
the record, which we explain in detail in the sections immediately
below, we agree that appropriate technical rules will ensure that
mobile or low power fixed operations in the Lower H Block do not cause
harmful interference to PCS downlink operations.
a. Lower H Block Power Limits
86. We adopt transmitter power limits for the Lower H Block that
will maximize the full flexible use of the spectrum while protecting
adjacent operations from harmful interference due to receiver overload.
As explained above, receiver overload may result when signals outside
of the receiver's nominal bandwidth cause the receiver to experience an
increased noise level or produce non-linear responses. Accordingly, we
must examine the power limits necessary to avoid harmful interference
to PCS downlink licensees under the Spectrum Act and, within this
constraint, maximize full flexible use of the Lower H Block.
87. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission observed that parties
commenting in earlier dockets had expressed concern regarding power
limits for the Lower H Block. These comments argued for the
establishment of power limits for operation in the Lower H Block that
would adequately protect PCS operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band. As
discussed above, since these earlier comments, the mobile broadband
industry has undergone rapid evolution and new technologies have been
developed and adopted. These advances prompted the Commission to seek
comment on how newer filtering techniques and duplex designs have
improved to adjust for potential harmful interference. Specifically,
the Commission sought comment on an appropriate power limit for 1915-
1920 MHz mobile devices in light of these advances.
88. The Commission also observed that the 1915-1920 MHz band is
allocated for fixed services, but that the possibility of interference
from fixed station antennas to PCS mobiles will likely be less than
anticipated
[[Page 50227]]
interference from Lower H Block mobiles to PCS mobiles because fixed
devices are generally located at a fixed height above the ground and
thus are vertically separated from PCS mobile devices. Accordingly, the
Commission sought comment on what the power level should be for fixed
stations operating in the Lower H Block.
89. The record contains three technical studies that examined the
potential for Lower H Block operations to cause harmful interference,
including overload, intermodulation and interference from out-of-band
emissions, to PCS downlink operations. All of these studies assumed
that the Lower H Block device would be an LTE FDD mobile device. The
Sprint Test Report and the Verizon Wireless Test Report both used
existing CDMA devices for the PCS devices. The AT&T/T-Mobile Study used
LTE, UMTS, and GSM PCS devices. The studies included testing of the
receiver performance of existing PCS devices against overload
interference, as well as intermodulation interference that would be
caused, in part, by receiver overload. As stated above, receiver
overload occurs when the power from a signal outside of the receiver's
operating frequency range causes the receiver's performance to degrade.
A strong radio frequency (RF) signal can cause the detector in the
receiver to operate in a non-linear manner, thereby reducing its
ability to decode the desired signal. Intermodulation interference may
occur when two RF frequencies pass through a non-linear element in the
receive path of the receiver. Two signals at different frequencies
passing through a non-linearity will mix and create new frequencies
that are related to the sum and the difference of the original signals.
These are termed intermodulation products. Although the non-linearity
may be caused by hardware flaws, the most common cause of
intermodulation interference--and the historical concern for the bands
at issue--is from non-linearity that results from receiver overload.
Notably, in earlier tests, third order intermodulation products were
found to occur within the PCS mobile receiver's B Block frequency range
(1950-1965 MHz) due to the mixing the of the PCS mobile device's
transmitter frequency (1870-1885 MHz) with the Lower H Block mobile
device's transmitter frequency (1915-1920 MHz). Below, we describe the
three tests, first presenting the test set-up for all of the tests,
followed by the results for all of the tests.
90. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test Reports--Test Setup. In
performing tests for Sprint and for Verizon Wireless, V-COMM tested the
performance of a number of each operator's existing CDMA devices
against overload and intermodulation interference using the same test
procedure. Although both types of interference may be caused by strong
power levels, the effects of the interference are seen at different
receiver frequencies. The greatest potential for overload occurs where
the edge of the receiver's passband is closest to the transmitter's
operating frequency range. Therefore, tests for overload were conducted
with the receiver tuned to the lowest channel in the PCS A Block,
closest to the Lower H Block. The tests for intermodulation were
conducted at three different receiver operating frequencies within the
PCS B Block downlink band.
91. In the testing, V-COMM subjected each of the PCS CDMA receivers
to several different interfering signals, each with different center
frequencies, channel bandwidths and types of modulation. The set of
interfering signals were 5 MHz, 3 MHz or 1.4 MHz bandwidth LTE
carriers, centered at 1917.5 MHz, 1916.5 MHz and 1919 MHz,
respectively. The types of modulation used represented several worst
case conditions, such as maximizing power at the control channels
located near the edges of the band, a fully loaded device with all
resource blocks allocated, or all power concentrated in a single
resource block located on a frequency where it would be most likely to
create intermodulation products.
92. In total, twelve different types of interfering signals were
tested for each device. First, the receiver sensitivity of each device
was measured to determine the minimum received power level at which the
device would perform properly in the absence of noise. Successful
operation was defined as a 0.5% Frame Error Rate (FER). The level of
the desired signal was set at either 1 dB or 3 dB above the measured
sensitivity level. Then an interfering signal was introduced and its
power level increased until the same 0.5% Frame Error Rate was
achieved, marking the 1 dB or 3 dB receiver desensitization level. The
1 dB or 3 dB desensitization level is the power of the interfering
signal at which the receiver's sensitivity is degraded by 1 dB or 3 dB,
respectively. For each test case, both the 1 dB receiver
desensitization and 3 dB receiver desensitization levels were recorded.
93. V-COMM then related the interference levels measured in each
test case to their effect on the user's experience in two scenarios. In
so doing, V-COMM determined the power level of the out-of-band
emissions at the output of the H Block transmitter necessary to
generate the measured interference levels at the PCS receiver's antenna
terminals. The difference between these two signal levels is determined
primarily by the distance between the transmitting and receiving
devices and by the manner in which the user is handling the device,
which affects the amount of head and/or body losses in the transmission
path. The two user scenarios were: (1) Both the transmitting and
receiving mobile devices were assumed to be held in the user's hand, as
would be likely for data use; and (2) both the transmitting and
receiving mobile devices were assumed to be held to the user's head, as
would be likely for a voice call. The analysis then set forth
assumptions of 3 dB for body loss, 8 dB for head loss, a 0 dBi receive
antenna gain for both mobile devices, a separation of 1 meter, and free
space path loss to the two user scenarios. Application of these
assumptions determined the effective interfering signal level at the
receiver input of -21 dBm and of -31 dBm, respectively, for the data
and voice user scenarios. The device was deemed to operate normally if
the power level of the interfering signal that caused receiver
desensitization exceeded these values.
94. AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report--Test Setup. AT&T and T-Mobile
developed a joint test plan to test the performance of several of each
operator's GSM, UMTS and LTE devices against interference due to
receiver overload, intermodulation and out-of-band emissions from an H
Block mobile transmitter. The tests were performed by 7Layers, a third
party. Because much of the 7Layers testing took place after the filing
of the Sprint Test Report, AT&T and T-Mobile included several test
cases that subjected their devices to similar conditions to those used
by Sprint. The test report, submitted jointly by AT&T and T-Mobile, did
not provide details of the test setup used. However it did identify
several differences between the 7Layers tests and those performed by V-
COMM for Sprint and Verizon Wireless. The most significant difference
between the test plans is how the desired signal level was set. The
7Layers tests initially set the level of the desired signal at 3 dB
above the reference sensitivity level set by the 3GPP standard for the
technology under test. To provide a more direct comparison to the
Sprint and Verizon Wireless test reports, however, 7Layers then
performed its tests using the sensitivity measured for each device
individually, both at 1 dB
[[Page 50228]]
above measured sensitivity and again at 3 dB above measured
sensitivity. Despite characterizing the set of test conditions using a
1 dB desensitization level as representing worst case scenarios, the
AT&T Test Report used this assumption in reaching its conclusions. The
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report did so, while at the same time it raised
particular concern about the usefulness of testing to 1 dB of
desensitization above each device's measured sensitivity, stating that
``it is not typically used during conformance or performance testing,
primarily because the measurement uncertainty associated with it is
rather high. The measurement metric (throughput or BER/FER) displays
highly non-linear behavior.''
95. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report is different from the Sprint and
Verizon Wireless test reports in other ways, as well. Notably, 7Layers
subjected each PCS receiver to two different interfering signals to
simulate an H Block mobile device. Both signals represented 5 megahertz
LTE carriers operating at a center frequency of 1917.5 MHz, but used
different resource block allocations. One signal spread the mobile's
power over all 25 resource blocks representing a fully loaded mobile,
while the other concentrated the mobile's power in 5 resource blocks,
but did not define which five blocks were assigned. By comparison, the
Sprint and Verizon Wireless test reports used a total of twelve
different LTE signals. Another significant difference in the test plans
is that the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report included for the UMTS PCS devices
two desired signal conditions, reflecting both lightly loaded and
heavily loaded cell conditions for these devices, whereas the Sprint
and Verizon Wireless test reports used one signal condition. The AT&T/
T-Mobile used two conditions to simulate ``cell breathing'' on a CDMA
network. In the heavily loaded scenario, the power allocated to each
user in the downlink spectrum was reduced and the effective cell
coverage was reduced.
96. AT&T and T-Mobile reported results for two GSM devices, up to
three UMTS devices (depending on the test scenario), and one LTE
device. These results note the power of the interfering signal that
would create the specified degradation of the receiver. AT&T and T-
Mobile also interpreted the results differently than Sprint and Verizon
Wireless, using slightly different assumptions for the user scenario.
AT&T and T-Mobile used 25 dBm EIRP as the actual operating power of the
H Block mobile, rather than using the nominal 23 dBm EIRP assumed by
Verizon Wireless and Sprint. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report also did not
include any body loss for either the transmitting or receiving mobile.
The report therefore used an interfering signal level of -13 dBm as a
pass/fail criterion. For point of comparison, Sprint and Verizon
Wireless set a -21 dBm criterion for the level of allowed interference
for the data user scenario. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report also observed
that the receive antenna gain used by Sprint and Verizon Wireless was
likely optimistic, stating that most mobile receivers have a -1.5 to -3
dBm antenna gain. However, the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report still adopted
the 0 dBi value as it is typically used in link budget calculations.
97. Sprint Interference Tests--Results. In the Sprint Test Report,
in the tests for receiver overload from Lower H Block in the PCS A
Block, all six Sprint devices tested met the 3 dB desensitization level
at a separation of 1 meter for all 24 test cases (12 interfering
signals, 2 user scenarios). Four of the six devices met the 1 dB
desensitization level at a separation of 1 meter, with the exception of
one device for three test cases (out of the twenty-four total cases
tested for that device). That device in that single case experienced
blocking at 2 dB below the target level of -21 dBm for data use, which
is equivalent to a separation of 1.3 meters. The other two Sprint
devices experienced a 1 dB desensitization of their receivers at
distances significantly greater than 1 meter in a majority of cases. V-
COMM observed that the average interfering signal level that caused a 1
dB desensitization of the receiver was -22 dBm for a majority of
devices, equivalent to a 1.1 meter separation.
98. In the Sprint Test Report, in tests for intermodulation and
overload of the PCS B Block receiver, the results showed better
performance than were observed for overload alone in the PCS A Block.
Again, as with the overload tests, all devices met the 3 dB
desensitization level for all test cases. Moreover, all devices
experienced less than 1 dB of desensitization for the voice call in all
instances. There were fewer failures in the data use scenario as well,
with four of the six devices meeting the 1 dB desensitization level at
less than 1 meter for data use. The other two devices experienced a 1
dB desensitization of their noise floor at distances of greater than 1
meter in half or more of the cases. These results for intermodulation
were significantly better than were the results from testing in 2004.
99. After observing the difference in the results for the 1 dB and
3 dB desensitization levels, V-COMM conducted a test using the worst
case interfering signal at a 2 dB desensitization level. At this level,
all devices passed under the two user scenarios for both overload in
the PCS A Block and overload plus intermodulation in the PCS B Block.
In other words, no PCS device experienced a 2 dB or greater rise in the
noise floor at a 1 meter separation from an H Block mobile device
operating at 23 dBm, which is full power under the 3GPP LTE
specification.
100. Verizon Wireless Test Report--Results. In the Verizon Wireless
Test Report, in the tests for receiver overload from Lower H Block in
the PCS A Block, all eight Verizon Wireless devices met the 3 dB
desensitization level for all test cases. Four of Verizon Wireless's
eight devices met the 1 dB desensitization level at a separation of 1
meter for both user scenarios. Of the other four devices, two
experienced overload at the 1 dB desensitization level in approximately
half of the test cases. V-COMM observed that the average interference
levels for 1 dB desensitization for the six best devices was -21 dBm,
which represents an H Block device transmitting at a 1 meter separation
and at full power under the 3GPP LTE specification of 23 dBm EIRP.
101. In the tests for intermodulation and overload of the PCS B
Block receiver, Verizon Wireless observed better performance than it
observed for overload alone in the PCS A Block. As with the overload
tests, all devices met the 3 dB desensitization level for all test
cases. Six of the eight devices met the 1 dB desensitization level at 1
meter of separation for all of the voice call scenarios. There were ten
instances out of a total of 144 (combination of six devices, two user
scenarios and 12 interfering signals) in which the device experienced
more than 1 dB of desensitization at a 1 meter separation. The two
poorest performing devices experienced a 1 dB desensitization of the
receiver at a distance of 1 meter in approximately half of the user
scenarios. These results for intermodulation were significantly better
than were the results from testing in 2004.
102. Just as it did for Sprint, V-COMM also conducted a set of
tests using the worst case interfering signal at a 2 dB desensitization
level. At this level, all devices passed for the two user scenarios for
both overload in the PCS A Block and overload plus intermodulation in
the PCS B Block. In other words, no device experienced more than a 2 dB
rise of the noise floor at a 1 meter separation from an H Block mobile
device operating at 23 dBm,
[[Page 50229]]
which is full power under the 3GPP LTE specification.
103. AT&T and T-Mobile Test Report--Results. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report stated that ``all three airlink technologies displayed
reasonable immunity to blocking and/or overload from an emulated H
Block device.'' In the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report, under typical design
conditions for light traffic, seven of the ten test cases met their
stated criteria. The two GSM devices did not meet their interference
criteria of -13 dBm, and ``display[ed] noticeable performance
impairment when the H Block device transmits at a power level within
2dB from its nominal maximum output power.'' As explained above, AT&T
and T-Mobile assessed the test results under different assumptions than
did Sprint and Verizon Wireless. Based on examination of the test
reports by Commission staff, under the data use scenario defined by
Sprint and Verizon Wireless, all of AT&T and T-Mobile's devices would
meet the criteria for receiver overload corresponding to 3 dB
desensitization, for either worst case or typical design. Under 1 dB
desensitization performance conditions, AT&T and T-Mobile's devices met
their criteria in only one of six test cases.
104. In the tests for intermodulation, the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report stated that ``[n]o B Block performance impairment was noted . .
. until the device was exposed to very high H Block signal levels.''
Using AT&T and T-Mobile's assumptions, we observe their devices met
their criteria in 15 of 18 test cases, over all desensitization levels,
when lightly loaded. Based on Commission staff examination, all of the
devices would have passed under Sprint and Verizon Wireless's user
scenarios.
105. Looking separately at the results for the UMTS devices under
high traffic conditions, the AT&T/T-Mobile Test report recorded more
sensitivity to interference than under light traffic for the typical
design case. Two of four receiver blocking test cases met their stated
criteria, as did two of the four intermodulation test cases. We observe
that all eight high traffic test cases would meet the criteria under
the Sprint and Verizon Wireless data use scenario. Looking at a total
of eight test cases for blocking (two devices, two interfering signal
types, and two desensitization levels) and eight test cases for
intermodulation, the UMTS devices were unable to meet the target BER
under high traffic conditions before any interfering signal was applied
in all but two of the sixteen cases. In other words, the devices were
unable to perform acceptably in the complete absence of interference
when the desire signal was set at only 1 dB or 3 dB above the device's
sensitivity in high traffic.
106. Power Limit Proposals Based on Interference Testing. As a
result of these studies, the four largest wireless providers all
proposed the Commission adopt mobile and fixed power limits of 25 dBm
EIRP, which is equivalent to a power limit of 300 milliwatts EIRP.
First, in submitting its initial test results, Sprint concluded that
``intermodulation interference is no longer a significant threat to
today's PCS devices.'' With regard to receiver overload, Sprint
determined that the ``potential for receiver blocking in today's PCS
devices has decreased significantly to a point where blocking
interference is unlikely.'' Based on the evidence provided in the test
data, Sprint proposed that a mobile power limit of 23 dB EIRP with a +/
- 2 dB tolerance would protect adjacent PCS devices in the 1930-1995
MHz band. Second, Verizon Wireless recognized a similar improvement in
the performance of its devices over time, stating that the newly tested
devices ``showed less sensitivity to interference than they did in
2004.'' Specifically, the Verizon Wireless Test Report concluded that
``based on receiver blocking test results, an H-Block mobile power
limit of +23 dBm EIRP will prevent interference to the majority of PCS
CDMA devices tested at 1 meter device separation.'' Relying on the
tests, Verizon Wireless stated that a power limit of 25 dBm EIRP ``is
the minimum needed to protect existing PCS operations from substantial
interference.'' Third, T-Mobile generally supported the 25 dBm EIRP
proposed by Sprint and Verizon Wireless. T-Mobile was concerned,
however, that H Block operations at a power level within 2 dB of the
nominal maximum output power of 23 dBm could cause harmful interference
for consumers with GSM devices and therefore requested that the
Commission ``require future H Block licensees . . . provide
notification to PCS A Block licensees when they turn on service in the
H Block on a market-by-market basis.'' Fourth, AT&T stated that it
``supports an H Block power limit of +23 dBm (+/- 2 dB) as ``sufficient
to ensure reasonable coexistence between LTE devices operating in the
FCC's proposed H Block and UMTS and LTE devices operating in the PCS A
and B Blocks.'' AT&T further stated that ``by the time LTE is widely
deployed in the Lower H Block, GSM usage in the PCS Downlink Band on
AT&T's network will be much less common than today, as AT&T deploys
advanced technologies.''
107. Based on the record before us, we adopt a power limit for
fixed and mobile devices operating in the Lower H Block of 300
milliwatts EIRP, which is equivalent to 25 dBm EIRP. As stated above
and in the H Block NPRM, earlier testing conducted in 2005 identified
the primary concern with full power mobile operations in the Lower H
Block as intermodulation interference to PCS B Block receivers, with
some additional concern regarding overload interference to PCS A Block
receivers. The primary remedy to address receiver overload and
intermodulation is through limits on mobile transmit power. At that
time, parties argued for a severe reduction in the permissible mobile
transmit power limit, such as imposing very strict power limits (e.g.,
6 dBm EIRP) on the 1917-1920 MHz portion of the band, to address this
problem. As detailed above, all of the studies showed that
technological improvements over the past several years have resulted in
mobile devices in the PCS band that can tolerate or mitigate against
greater interference levels before overload or intermodulation
interference rises to the level of causing harmful interference. In
particular, while the testing performed in earlier years showed
intermodulation interference to be a significant concern (and a much
greater concern than overload interference), the new testing does not
identify intermodulation as causing harmful interference. For example,
in describing the results for both the Sprint Test Report and the
Verizon Wireless Test Report, V-COMM stated that ``CDMA devices tested
generally showed less sensitivity (better rejection) to intermodulation
interference as compared to [r]eceiver [b]locking--this is different
from the 2004 devices tested.''
108. Consistent with the results of their studies, AT&T, Sprint, T-
Mobile, and Verizon Wireless all proposed a power limit of 25 dBm EIRP,
which is equivalent to 300 milliwatts EIRP, for operations in the
entire Lower H Block. For example, Sprint ``recommend[ed] that the
Commission adopt a uniform H Block mobile device power limit of +23 dBm
EIRP, with a +/- 2 dB implementation margin of tolerance . . . to
protect adjacent PCS operations above 1930 MHz.'' Verizon Wireless
similarly stated that a power limit of 25 dBm EIRP is ``the minimum
needed to protect existing PCS operations from substantial
interference.'' AT&T and T-Mobile, in their joint test report, stated
that a full power H Block mobile will not create significant impairment
to UMTS or LTE devices, but that GSM devices ``display noticeable
performance impairment when the H Block device transmits at a power
level
[[Page 50230]]
within 2 dB from its nominal maximum output power or 23 dBm.'' In
proposing a power limit of 25 dBm EIRP based on tests that showed
significant instances of observed interference, the parties implicitly
stated that the overall probability of interference was sufficiently
low that it was deemed acceptable and did not rise to the level of
harmful interference. No party opposed 25 dBm EIRP as a power limit
across the Lower H Block or suggested that this power limit would lead
to harmful interference to operations outside of the Lower H Block.
109. We adopt the proposed limit of 25 dBm EIRP, which is
equivalent to 300 milliwatts EIRP, as the power limit for mobile and
low power fixed operations in the entire Lower H Block and find,
consistent with the Spectrum Act harmful interference condition, that
operations subject to this power limit will not cause harmful
interference to operations in the PCS downlink band. In adopting a
power limit of 300 milliwatts EIRP, we observe that this limit is lower
than the limits for other, comparable bands. For example, the power
limit for mobile operations in the lower PCS Band (1850-1915 MHz) and
in the AWS-4 Band is 2 watts EIRP, and in the AWS-1 Band is 1 watt
EIRP. We nevertheless adopt the 300 milliwatts EIRP limit because it
will protect against harmful interference to the PCS band, as required
by statute, while enabling mobile devices deployed in the Lower H Block
to operate at power levels sufficient to provide generally robust
service quality, consistent with our goal of enabling efficient use of
the band. Notably, in performing the testing and reaching the
recommendations, the tests all were conducted assuming an LTE mobile
device operating at the maximum power level indicated in the 3GPP LTE
specifications--23 dBm. Consequently, adopting a power limit at 300
milliwatts (23 dBm, plus a 2 dBm tolerance) will enable the most likely
H Block devices to operate without suffering any actual power
restriction. That is, this power limit will permit mobile devices using
LTE technology to operate at full power based on their design
specifications. Moreover, 300 milliwatts EIRP is the level uniformly
supported by the interference tests in the record as protecting against
harmful interference into the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band.
110. Although we expect that setting the power limit at 300
milliwatts EIRP will not negatively affect mobile operations in either
the Lower H Block or the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band, we observe that the
test reports may not have fully captured the probabilistic nature of
the interference scenario and that some of the assumptions used in
performing the calculations in the interference tests may be overly
conservative. It is important to identify these concerns with the test
report inputs now so that they can be accounted for in future
interference studies submitted to the Commission and because they also
affect our analysis of OOBE interference, below. For the purpose of
establishing the appropriate power limits, including under the Spectrum
Act, the Commission determines what transmitter power level will
prevent harmful interference, not simply detectable interference. For
mobile-to-mobile interference, this is a probabilistic assessment. As
we discuss further below in the discussion of OOBE limits, we find that
the studies do not sufficiently account for the low probability of
mobile-to-mobile interference actually occurring.
111. We are also concerned with some of the specific assumptions
used in the test reports. In its analysis of the test data and stated
conclusions for both the Sprint Test Report and the Verizon Wireless
Test Report, V-COMM bases its conclusions on a number of assumptions,
some of which may not be the most appropriate assumptions for
calculating interference limits between nearby mobile systems. V-COMM
bases its conclusions on the receiver's performance assuming a 1 meter
separation between devices, a 1 dB desensitization level, and a data
use case, which assumes 3 dB body loss and no head loss. Similarly, the
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report based its conclusions on a 1 meter device
separation and a 1dB desensitization level. Further, unlike Verizon
Wireless and Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile made no provision for head or
body loss.
112. First, one of several factors that will determine the
likelihood of this probabilistic interference actually occurring is the
separation distance between the mobile devices. As discussed below, a 2
meter separation between devices is a more appropriate separation
distance than the 1 meter separation distance used in the studies. The
Commission has adopted a 2 meter separation in the evaluation of other
mobile-to-mobile interference scenarios, most recently in the AWS-4
proceeding. Further, AT&T and T-Mobile's concerns regarding the
usefulness of testing under worst case conditions were demonstrated by
the results for the high traffic test cases. The tested UMTS devices
were unable to perform reliably under high traffic conditions,
irrespective of the interference environment. Thus, the AT&T/T-Mobile
test report lacks sufficient evidence to support any determination of
harmful interference under high traffic conditions.
113. Second, as explained further below in setting OOBE limits, a 3
dB desensitization level is a more appropriate criterion than a 1 dB
level upon which to judge harmful interference to mobile devices in
cellular networks, which are designed to work in the presence of
interference. For example, we observe that industry technical
specifications for many types of devices that are currently used in the
PCS band allow for a 3 dB degradation of the receiver sensitivity. The
3GPP2 standard for CDMA mobile devices sets the receiver performance
requirements for intermodulation spurious response and receiver
blocking based on a desired signal level of 3 dB above the reference
sensitivity level. Based on the 3GPP2 standard for intermodulation, a
CDMA device operating at 1% FER with a desired signal 3 dB above the
reference sensitivity level is defined in the standard to be operating
normally, and thus may be judged as not experiencing harmful
interference. Similarly, the 3GPP standards for UMTS and LTE
technologies allow the receiver sensitivity to degrade by 3 dB in
response to interference. The LTE standard for receiver blocking is,
moreover, is based on a desired signal level 6 dB above the receiver's
reference sensitivity, requiring the receiver to perform in the
presence of a strong interferer.
114. Third, as explained below, we believe it more appropriate to
assume that the devices will be subject to both head and body loss,
rather than just body loss. In both the Sprint Test Report and the
Verizon Wireless Test Report, V-COMM tested for two different user
scenarios. In one scenario, it assumed body loss only (that is, signal
loss from proximity to the body, but not the head)--the data scenario.
In the other scenario, it assumed signal loss from both the user's body
and head--the voice scenario. For the data user scenario, V-COMM used a
figure of 3 dB for body loss; for the voice scenario, it used 3 dB for
body loss and another 5 dB for head loss. AT&T and T-Mobile did not
apply any head or body loss in their analysis of the test results. As
we describe further below, we believe it is more reasonable to use the
voice user scenario, which includes both head and body loss
assumptions, when determining interference rules.
115. We discuss our concerns with the use of these assumptions more
fully below in establishing the OOBE limit.
[[Page 50231]]
116. Nevertheless, because, as explained above, the power limit
that results from these tests will permit the deployment of full power
H Block mobile devices in the 1915-1920 MHz band while also protecting
commercial mobile service licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band from
harmful interference due to receiver overload, we find it unnecessary
to adjust the studies for purposes of establishing power limits for
operations in this band. Accordingly, we find it in the public
interest, and consistent with the Spectrum Act's condition to protect
the PCS downlink band from harmful interference, to set the power limit
for mobile and fixed use in the 1915-1920 MHz band at 300 milliwatts
EIRP.
b. Lower H Block Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
117. To minimize harmful interference between adjacent spectrum
blocks, the Commission's rules generally limit the amount of RF power
that may be emitted outside of the assigned block of an RF
transmission. As explained below, we establish an OOBE limit for
transmissions outside of the 1915-1920 MHz band of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts,
except that for emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz band we set an OOBE
limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts.
118. To minimize harmful electromagnetic interference between
operators, the Commission has previously concluded that, in certain
circumstances, attenuating transmitter OOBE by 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts, is appropriate.
This limit is generally applied in cases where adjacent services have
similar characteristics, such as base-to-base or mobile-to-mobile and
adhere to similar power limits. As such, this limit applies to most of
the services authorized under parts 24 and 27, including transmitters
operating in adjacent blocks in the 1850-1915 MHz PCS band, which is
adjacent to the Lower H Block. The Commission proposed requiring the
attenuation level of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the
transmitter power in watts, to emissions from transmitters in the 1915-
1920 MHz band, generally. As explained above, the Spectrum Act requires
additional analysis with regard to Lower H Block transmissions into the
1930-1995 MHz band. As stated in the H Block NPRM and above, the
proximity of mobile-to-mobile operations may require stricter OOBE
limits than the Commission might impose in other interference
scenarios. Specifically, the Commission proposed an OOBE limit of 70 +
10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz PCS Band. Finally, the
Commission proposed to apply the measurement procedure used in the PCS
band to these OOBE limits.
119. As explained above, the record contains three studies that
examined the appropriate technical parameters for H Block operations
needed to avoid causing harmful interference, including OOBE
interference, to existing PCS downlink operations at 1930-1995 MHz.
120. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test Reports--Test Setup. For the
Sprint Test Report and the Verizon Wireless Test Report, V-COMM tested
both Sprint and Verizon Wireless devices for their performance against
out-of-band emissions. Two interference cases were tested. For both
sets of tests, the CDMA device was tuned to the PCS A Block and
subjected to a desired signal representing first a 1 dB desensitization
level, and, second, a 3 dB desensitization level, from the device's
measured sensitivity level. A co-channel additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) signal representing the interfering H Block device was then
injected into the device's RF antenna port. The power level of the
interfering signal level was increased until the FER was no more than
0.5%, and the results recorded.
121. AT&T and T-Mobile Test Reports--Test Setup. As discussed
above, AT&T and T-Mobile did not provide details of their test setup,
but noted some differences with Sprint and Verizon Wireless's test
plan. In performing that evaluation, a key difference from the V-COMM
tests was that 7Layers set the desired signal level according to
typical design at the device's reference sensitivity. Additional tests
were conducted to determine the levels at which 1 dB and 3 dB
degradation of the device's measured sensitivity occurs. The AT&T/T-
Mobile Test Report did not include GSM devices in the typical design
conditions. We observe that the analysis within the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report did not calculate the necessary OOBE limit directly from the
results, but simply decided whether the limit calculated in the V-COMM
tests would be sufficient.
122. Sprint and Verizon Wireless Test Reports--Test Results. For
the Sprint Test Report and the Verizon Wireless Test Report, V-COMM
reported an average interference level of -107 dBm when the desired
signal was at the 3 dB desensitization level, and an average
interference level of -113 dBm when the desired signal was at the 1 dB
desensitization level. Examining the same two user scenarios as for the
blocking and intermodulation tests, V-COMM interpreted these results as
equivalent to an OOBE limit -53 dBm/MHz for the voice user scenario at
the 3 dB desensitization level and 1 meter of separation between
devices, and -63 dBm/MHz for the data use scenario under the same
conditions. For the 1 dB desensitization level, the results showed an
equivalent OOBE level of -59 dBm/MHz for voice use and -69 dBm/MHz for
data use. V-COMM stated that an OOBE limit of -69 dBm/MHz would prevent
desensitization of more than 1 dB for devices at a 1 meter separation.
It further stated that an additional implementation margin of 3 dB
would be appropriate, resulting in a recommended OOBE limit of -66 dBm/
MHz based on the data use scenario. V-COMM asserted that this limit
would be ``consistent with OOBE limits proposed in the FCC NPRM[s] in
2004 and 2008'' and ``also consistent with 3GPP OOBE limits for UMTS
and HSPA devices.''
123. AT&T and T-Mobile Test Reports--Test Results. The AT&T/T-
Mobile Test Report stated that the OOBE tests ``showed the greatest
difference between airlink technologies.'' The report noted that ``UMTS
and LTE displayed good immunity to wideband noise emissions from a
nearby H Block transmitter.'' The report also stated that ``GSM devices
displayed relatively poor rejection of OOBE interference.'' In the
AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report, the average interference level for typical
design conditions that produced 3 dB of desensitization of the receiver
was -93.8 dBm. Similarly, the average interference levels for worst
case conditions were -109.64 dBm and -104.8 dBm for 1 dB and 3 dB
desensitization levels, respectively. This compares to the average
levels of -113 dBm and -107 dBm for 1 dB and 3 dB desensitization
levels, respectively, reported by both Sprint and Verizon Wireless.
124. OOBE Proposals Based on Interference Testing. Based on the
testing, the parties generally proposed that the Commission adopt an
OOBE limit of -66 dBm/MHz, which is equivalent to 96 + 10
log10 (P) dB (where (P) is the transmitter power in watts)
for Lower H Block emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz band. Sprint,
however, recognized that this level may be overly stringent. Sprint
suggested that, if the low probability of the occurrence of the factors
needed for mobile-to-mobile interference were fully taken into account,
the necessary OOBE attenuation could be lower. Sprint then observed
that ``[t]he 3GPP OOBE
[[Page 50232]]
standards for similar mobile-to-mobile coexistence situations are more
typically -50 dBm/MHz [i.e., 80 + 10 log10 (P) dB] (or -40
dBm/MHz [i.e., 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB] when the two bands have
little separation).'' Verizon Wireless disagreed with Sprint, arguing
that, ``[a]lthough Sprint is correct as to the circumstances in which
interference will occur, [Sprint] is wrong to imply that these
circumstances occur only rarely.'' Instead, Verizon Wireless argues
that ``mobile devices are most likely to be located very near each
other at indoor locations where users are likely to receive a weaker
signal . . . [which is] precisely what [OOBE] limits are designed to
protect against.'' Neither AT&T nor T-Mobile addressed Sprint's
suggestion that the OOBE could be set at a less stringent level than 96
+ 10 log10 (P) dB. T-Mobile, while supporting the 96 + 10
log10 (P) dB OOBE limit, expressed concern that the AT&T/T-
Mobile Test Report showed that GSM devices had ``a relatively poor
rejection of OOBE interference at a separation distance of 1 meter.''
To address this concern, T-Mobile requested that the Commission require
H Block licensees to notify PCS A Block licensees on a market-by-market
basis when the H Block licensees turn on service. T-Mobile explained
that this ``would enable full use of the H Block for LTE service while
also assisting PCS licensees in network planning to reduce the
probability of interference.''
125. For the reasons discussed below, except as otherwise
specified, we adopt the proposed OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10
(P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in watts, for Lower H Block
transmissions outside of 1915-1920 MHz. We adopt this limit below 1915
MHz and above 1920 MHz, with additional protections required for the
1930-1995 MHz band. For emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz band, we
establish an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P)
is the transmitter power in watts.
126. Emissions below 1915 MHz. We adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB where (P) is the transmitter power in watts,
for Lower H Block transmissions below 1915 MHz. Immediately below the
Lower H Block is the 1850-1915 MHz PCS band, which is used for mobile
transmit/base receive. As the Commission observed in the H Block NPRM,
because it is anticipated that the Lower H Block systems will be
similar in design to PCS and AWS-1, use of the 1915-1920 MHz band would
be compatible with this adjacent PCS spectrum. That is, both bands will
serve as mobile uplink bands. Thus, the OOBE level currently in the
Commission's rules to protect adjacent PCS uplink blocks from harmful
interference from each other should also be sufficient to protect PCS
blocks in the 1850-1915 MHz band from Lower H Block emissions.
Additionally, the OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB where
(P) is the transmitter power in watts, has effectively served to
prevent harmful interference to operations in bands adjacent and nearby
to PCS and AWS-1 operations. The Commission thus tentatively concluded
that a more restrictive OOBE limit than those established for PCS and
AWS-1 transmissions was not necessary for Lower H Block transmissions
below 1915 MHz; a conclusion now supported by the record. As Sprint
comments, ``[n]o industry commenter disputes the Commission's
conclusion that [Lower] H Block uplink operations would not cause
harmful interference to PCS operations located immediately below the
uplink at 1850-1915 MHz.'' We therefore adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB where (P) is the transmitter power in watts,
for Lower H Block operations below 1915 MHz.
127. Emissions above 1920 MHz. Except as specified below for
emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz band, we adopt an OOBE limit of 43 +
10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power in
watts, for Lower H Block transmissions above 1920 MHz. The OOBE limit
of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter power
in watts, applies to most of the services authorized under parts 24 and
27, which have effectively relied on this limit in the Commission's
rules to prevent harmful interference to operations in adjacent bands.
We authorize H Block under part 27, and thus anticipate that H Block
systems will be similar in design to PCS and AWS-1. Additionally, with
respect to the immediately adjacent 1920-1930 MHz band, that band is
designated for unlicensed use and operations in that band are required
to accept interference from licensed operations, including those in the
Lower H Block. Furthermore, except as discussed below regarding the
1930-1995 MHz band, no commenter opposed an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB above 1920 MHz. Therefore, we adopt an OOBE
limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, for Lower H Block transmissions above 1920 MHz, subject
to the exceptions below.
128. Emissions into 1930-1995 MHz. In order to prevent harmful
interference into the PCS downlink band at 1930-1995 MHz, as required
by statute, we adopt a requirement that out-of band emissions into the
1930-1995 MHz band be attenuated below the transmitter power level by
at least 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the transmitter
power in watts, (equivalent to -40 dBm/MHz) for fixed and mobile
devices operating in the Lower H Block. We conclude that as a result of
our adoption of this OOBE limit, licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band
will not experience a level of interference that seriously degrades,
obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts their services. We base our finding
on Commission precedent, experience with the probabilistic nature of
mobile-to-mobile interference, and analysis of the test data submitted
into the record.
129. Commission Precedent. We find an OOBE limit at 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB, where (P) is the mobile transmitter power in
watts, is consistent with Commission precedent. The interference
scenario before us involves setting limits for Lower H Block mobile
device out-of-band emissions that prevent harmful interference to PCS
devices in the 1930-1995 MHz band. Last year, in the AWS-4 Report and
Order, the Commission addressed the issue of mobile-to-mobile
interference from AWS-4 mobile devices operating in the AWS-4 2000-2020
MHz uplink band to operations in the PCS downlink band and to future
Upper H Block operations in 1930-2000 MHz. In the AWS-4 proceeding, the
Commission had proposed an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P)
dB, where P is the transmitter power in watts, from AWS-4 operations in
the 2000-2020 MHz band into frequencies below 2000 MHz. The Commission
proposed this attenuation level because it was previously set forth in
the part 25 rules for Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) operations
in the 2000-2020 MHz band into spectrum below 1995 MHz. Parties in the
AWS-4 proceeding generally supported the proposed OOBE level, and no
party to that proceeding proposed an alternative limit. After reviewing
the record before it--a record compiled after enactment of the Spectrum
Act--the Commission adopted a maximum attenuation level of 70 + 10
log10 (P) dB for AWS-4 transmissions into both the Upper H
Block below 2000 MHz and the PCS band below 1995 MHz.
130. The scenario in the AWS-4 proceeding is on point with that
facing us here. In both cases the interference scenario is mobile-to-
mobile interference. In both cases, the Commission was faced with
establishing an OOBE limit for transmissions from nearby operations
into the PCS downlink band at 1930-1995 MHz. In the AWS-4 proceeding,
the Commission also examined the same interference scenario into the
immediately adjacent
[[Page 50233]]
Upper H Block. Further, in one important respect, the interference
scenario before us now represents a scenario less likely to result in
harmful interference than the one we addressed in the AWS-4 proceeding.
Specifically, the Lower H Block is 10 megahertz away from the PCS
downlink band, whereas the AWS-4 uplink band is 5 megahertz away from
the PCS band and directly adjacent to the Upper H Block. Lower H Block
operators will thus have 10 megahertz of frequency separation from the
PCS band for emissions from their devices to roll off, while AWS-4
operators have no frequency separation for roll off between the AWS-4
uplink band and the Upper H Block. Stated otherwise, the interference
scenarios here and in the AWS-4 proceeding effectively bookend the
1930-2000 MHz frequencies, with the emissions entering those from
frequencies from below 1930 MHz and from above 2000 MHz needing to meet
the same attenuation levels, but with Lower H Block operators having 10
megahertz rather than 5 megahertz or zero megahertz of separation in
which to roll off to achieve the limit. Accordingly, we find it
consistent with AWS-4 precedent to set the OOBE limit for Lower H Block
operations into 1930-1995 MHz at 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where
(P) is the mobile transmitter power in watts.
131. In adopting the 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE limit
also set in the AWS-4 proceeding, we observe that this limit is the
most stringent limit in the Commission's rules for operations in a
commercial uplink band protecting another band. For example, for the
800 MHz cellular band and the Lower and Upper 700 MHz bands
(generally), the Commission adopted an OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB (with a measurement bandwidth of 100 kHz, which
is equivalent to 33+ 10 log10 (P) dB with a measurement
bandwidth of 1 MHz); and for the broadband PCS band, the AWS-1 band,
and the AWS-4 band (except below 2000 MHz), the Commission adopted a
mask of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB (with a measurement bandwidth
of 1 MHz). Moreover, within these bands are examples of mobile-to-
mobile interference scenarios at frequency separation distances similar
to those that exist between the Lower H Block and the PCS downlink
band. For example, Lower 700 MHz C Block mobile devices are required to
attenuate transmissions at 43+ 10 log10 (P) dB (with a
measurement bandwidth of at least 100 kHz) above 716 MHz, including
into the Lower 700 MHz A Block downlink band at 728 MHz. Similarly, in
determining the OOBE limit for Upper 700 MHz C Block mobile devices
into the nearby public safety downlink band, the Commission set the
limit at the equivalent of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB (with a
measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz). In addition, when 3GPP decided that
public safety mobile devices required greater protection than the
Commission limit, it set a higher limit of 65 + 10 log10 (P)
dB (with a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater). As part of the
3GPP deliberations, Verizon Wireless, a licensee of significant Upper
700 MHz C Block spectrum, agreed that this level provided sufficient
protection to our Nation's first responders. Yet, here, in the H Block
proceeding, wireless providers are advocating for a limit that is 31 dB
(i.e., more than 1,000 times) more stringent than the protection
afforded public safety. We would expect, to the contrary, that
protection levels sufficient for public safety would normally be
sufficient to protect commercial mobile service providers.
132. Not only is the OOBE limit of 96 + 10 log10 (P) dB
much more stringent than the limits the Commission has adopted in any
other band, it may be very difficult to realize. Sprint submitted a
presentation from Avago Technologies that showed one solution using an
FBAR (Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator) filter to meet the OOBE limit. The
proposed filter was designed to support a single ten megahertz passband
covering only the PCS G Block and the proposed H Block. As Sprint is
the sole licensee for the PCS G Block, the filter design is very
specialized for Sprint's purposes and is unlikely to be useable by
other operators that may need to use larger passbands or other more
commonly used filter technologies. It is important that the limits we
set for H Block operations maximize the utility of the band for all
potential licensees and provide for the public good.
133. Probabilistic Interference. In evaluating the interference
scenario here, it is important to account for its probabilistic nature.
In order for mobile-to-mobile harmful interference actually to occur, a
number of worst case factors must all happen in conjunction with each
other. These factors include that the two mobile devices (1) must be in
operation at the same time, (2) must be located in very close proximity
to each other, (3) must remain in close proximity for a significant
period of time (i.e., proximity must not be transient), (4) must be
operating in a weak signal environment with both (a) the interfering
mobile transmitter operating at maximum power and (b) the PCS mobile
receiver receiving a weak signal and using frequencies most likely to
lead to interference (e.g., the interfering device must be capable of
using the Lower H Block, actually transmitting on the Lower H Block,
and transmitting on a resource block(s) near the upper edge of that
band; the PCS device must similarly be operating on a receiver
frequency near or at the lower edge of the PCS band), and (5) must be
operating in a line of sight environment with respect to each other.
Indeed, the Commission has described this issue for these bands
previously, stating that ``[t]he worst case occurs when the mobile
transmitter is operating at maximum power (near the edge of its service
area) at the upper edge of the band (near 1920 MHz) and the mobile
receiver is trying to receive a weak signal (near the edge of its
service area) at the lower edge of the band (near 1930 MHz) and only
free space loss is considered.''
134. In addition, mobile devices do not transmit continuously;
rather, they transmit data in bursts. For example, for LTE devices,
mobile data is organized in resource blocks, which allocate a set of
subcarrier frequencies for a 1 ms (millisecond) time interval. The
frequency and duration of these bursts, or number of allocated resource
blocks, depends upon traffic loads and signal conditions. For
interference to PCS mobile devices to occur the H Block mobile must be
transmitting in the same time interval that the PCS device is
receiving. Thus, by transmitting in bursts, the likely use of LTE
devices in the H Block would further dilute the probability of
interference occurring. In addition, wireless networks constantly
measure performance and seek to switch devices to alternative resources
to improve call quality (e.g., handoff to another channel or another
base station).
135. The record supports this description of the factors that
generally need to occur to give rise to mobile-to-mobile interference.
For example, Sprint stated that ``many factors come into play for such
mobile-to-mobile interference.'' It observed that interference would
only occur if ``(1) the PCS device is attempting to receive a weak
signal at the bottom end of the PCS band; (2) the two mobile devices
are located very near to each other; and (3) the H block device is
transmitting at the same instant, with high power and in the resource
blocks at the upper end of the H block.'' Verizon Wireless concurred,
expressly stating that ``Sprint is correct as to the circumstances in
which interference will occur.'' Accordingly, we reiterate that mobile-
to-mobile interference will occur only in specific
[[Page 50234]]
situations, such as those described above.
136. The risk of mobile-to-mobile interference occurring is
influenced by the low probability of these worst-case circumstances
occurring--they may occur, but do so infrequently--and by network
management practices, such as hand off and power management, that are
designed to mitigate against harmful interference. For example, Sprint
states that LTE ``spreads across the bandwidth, dynamically controlling
the power and number of subcarriers assigned to a particular device and
reducing the need for constraining OOBE limits.'' Moreover, as Sprint
observes, ``[p]robability certainly plays a large factor as to when
[the above] conditions would occur in the real world.'' We believe that
the probability of each of the described mobile-to-mobile interactions
actually occurring is small individually, and quite small viewed in
combination. Thus, we disagree with Verizon Wireless's assertion that
the combination of circumstances resulting in interference does not
``occur only rarely . . . [because] mobile devices are most likely to
be located very near to each other at indoor locations where users are
likely to receive a weaker signal.'' Although the confluence of worst
case scenarios may occur more often indoors than outdoors, it does not
necessarily follow that these situations occur indoors with any
frequency; nor has Verizon Wireless provided any evidence showing that
these factors occur frequently indoors. Further, in areas where
wireless providers anticipate recurring high density use of mobile
devices, providers typically engineer their networks to provide robust
coverage, including for indoor locations.
137. We apply our discussion of the probabilistic nature of mobile-
to-mobile interference to our evaluations of the test reports,
immediately below.
138. Test Reports. While we believe it appropriate to act
consistently with the Commission's recent determination in the AWS-4
proceeding that an attenuation limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P)
dB, where P is the transmitter power in watts, from the AWS-4 uplink
band into the PCS downlink band at 1930-1995 MHz to set that same limit
here for transmissions from the Lower H Block into the PCS downlink
band, we believe it appropriate to test this conclusion against the
test reports submitted into the record here. As explained above,
parties submitted three test reports into the record. We assess these
reports based on our engineering expertise and with the goal of
auctioning the Lower H Block in a manner that maximizes its usefulness
while protecting the PCS band from harmful interference, as required by
the Spectrum Act.
139. We have a number of concerns with the test reports. In
particular, as we discuss above, although we do not question the
science behind the reports, we find a number of assumptions used by the
parties in their interference tests are overly conservative for use in
setting reasonable OOBE limits. Specifically, we find the testing (1)
failed to fully account for the low probability of mobile-to-mobile
interference, (2) assumed an overly conservative required separation
distance of 1 meter, (3) relied on limiting interference to an overly
conservative 1 dB desensitization level, (4) relied on an overly
restrictive user scenario that accounted for body loss only, as opposed
to head and body loss, and (5) included an unnecessary manufacturer's
tolerance. We address each of our concerns with the test reports,
below, in turn.
140. First, the test reports do not fully account for the highly
probabilistic nature of OOBE interference from the Lower H Block into
the PCS downlink band. As explained above, many low probability factors
must occur in conjunction for interference to occur in a mobile-to-
mobile scenario. Because our charge is to prevent harmful interference,
rather than all interference, accounting for the likelihood that an
instance of interference will occur is important in assessing whether
the interference scenario rises to the level of harmful interference.
For example, as the Commission has said previously, whether the user
would actually notice the interference may be an important element of
determining if interference is harmful. Except for one factor--
separation between devices, which we discuss immediately below--no
information provided in the test reports indicates that they accounted
(or attempted to account) for the probabilistic nature of the
interference. Because the test reports did not fully account for the
probabilistic nature of the interference at issue, we believe they
overstate the protection from OOBE interference needed by licensees
operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band.
141. Second, we examine the one probabilistic factor included in
the test reports--separation distance. The selection of the separation
distance between devices is a key factor in determining the probability
of that interference could occur. As stated above, the Sprint Test
Report, the Verizon Wireless Test Report, and the AT&T/T-Mobile Test
Report all assumed a separation of 1 meter between devices. A 1 meter
separation is often used as a minimum separation distance in industry
analyses of mobile-to-mobile interference. Distances of less than 1
meter risk the possibility that near field antenna coupling effects may
distort the propagation between the two devices and undermine the
assumption of free space path loss. Again, as discussed earlier, the
simple presence of interference is not necessarily the same as harmful
interference. To determine what interference is sufficient to be
considered harmful, one should consider whether there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions necessary to create that interference
will occur. The Commission has previously supported a separation of 2
meters as an appropriate assumption for the purposes of determining an
acceptable level of interference. For example, in the AWS Sixth Report
and Order, the Commission expressed support for a 2 meter separation
distance, stating that ``this short distance coupled with the low
probability of occurrence of the worst-case scenario (both mobiles at
the edge of coverage, both operating at the edge of the band, both
simultaneously active, and both in close proximity to each other), make
interference of this nature highly unlikely.'' More recently, in the
AWS-4 Report and Order, the Commission found it reasonable to rely on
the 2 meter separation distance proposed by Motorola Mobility in
calculating interference limits. Accordingly, we believe that a 1 meter
separation distance represents an overly conservative value and that it
is a more realistic scenario to assume that the devices at issue are
likely to be at least 2 meters apart.
142. Third, we turn to inputs used in the test reports that are not
associated with the probabilistic nature of the interference scenario,
and start with the desensitization level. While the reports use a 1 dB
desensitization level, we believe a 3 dB level is more appropriate. The
Sprint and Verizon Wireless test reports include results of the testing
for both the 1 dB and 3 dB desensitization levels, but focused their
analysis of the results on the 1 dB desensitization level. For purposes
of the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report, AT&T and T-Mobile designed their test
plan to use a 3 dB desensitization of the receiver's sensitivity. The
desensitization was based on the device's reference sensitivity per the
standard for the technology, rather than by the individual device's
measured sensitivity (the approach used by Sprint and Verizon
Wireless). AT&T and T-Mobile described this test strategy as a typical
design test, observing that most link
[[Page 50235]]
budgets, which drive the design of the network, use the standard's
reference sensitivity. Further, they stated that the reference
sensitivity, as opposed to the individual device's measured sensitivity
allows all devices ``to be tested in exactly the same environment'' for
a better comparison of device performance.
143. A 1 dB desensitization level is defined as the level of
interference at which the effective noise floor of the system will rise
by 1 dB, that is, the receiver sensitivity will be reduced by 1 dB.
This occurs when the interfering signal level is 6 dB below the noise
floor of the receiver. Similarly, 3 dB desensitization occurs when the
level of interference is equal to the level of the receiver's system
noise. 1 dB desensitization is most commonly used as an interference
protection criterion for noise-limited receiver systems. However,
mobile cellular systems are inherently interference-limited; that is,
the prevailing interference is greater than noise sources. These
systems are designed to perform in a strong interference environment,
much of which is often self-generated, coming from other network
elements (e.g., other nearby base stations in the same or adjacent
bands).
144. We believe that a noise-limited interference criterion (1 dB
desensitization) is too restrictive for modern cellular systems. This
is reflected in industry standards for receiver performance, such as
the 3GPP2 standard for CDMA devices. As described above, the 3GPP2
standard for cdma2000 mobile devices sets several receiver performance
requirements, including response to receiver overload (blocking) and
intermodulation. For example, 3GPP2 Requirement 3.5.2 for Single Tone
Desensitization, similar to the intermodulation tests performed by V-
COMM, sets the level of the desired signal at either 3 dB or 10 dB
above the reference sensitivity level. Similarly, under the 3GPP2
standard, receiver blocking also permits sensitivity to degrade by 3 dB
above its reference level in the presence of overload interference
while maintaining a 10% FER. CDMA is not the only technology to require
the receiver to operate properly in the presence of interference. The
3GPP standard for UMTS and LTE devices specifies an in-band blocking
requirement that sets the interfering signal level 6 dB or more above
the reference sensitivity level. Further, for GSM, the desired signal
is set at 3 dB above reference sensitivity for in-band and out-of-band
blocking. These examples demonstrate that a desensitization of 3 dB in
the presence of a specific interferer is acceptable in the above
standards for determining receiver performance and may be considered
normal operation. In other words, these standards bodies have
considered a 3 dB desensitization level as an acceptable level of
performance and have not viewed it as indicative of harmful
interference. In addition, in other proceedings, other parties and the
Commission have used a 3 dB desensitization of the receiver in
analyzing similar mobile-to-mobile interference scenarios. For example,
in addressing a similar mobile-to-mobile interference scenario in the
AWS-4 proceeding, the Commission viewed as reasonable a 3 dB
desensitization level recommended by Motorola Mobility. Finally,
although the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report used a 1 dB desensitization
level for its conclusions, the report states that a 1 dB
desensitization level is not typical. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report
characterized the desired signal conditions used in the Sprint and
Verizon Wireless tests as representing worst case conditions. The
report noted that ``the disadvantage to this approach is that we
utilize an operating point that is probably well above the device's
actual sensitivity. Thus, a stronger interfering signal is required to
realize impairment in performance.'' Moreover, in specifically
commenting on the appropriate desensitization level, the report states:
``The 1 dB desense point was used by AT&T/T-Mobile only because this is
one of two operating points utilized in the filings from Sprint and
Verizon Wireless. It is not typically used during conformance or
performance testing, primarily because the measurement uncertainty
associated with it is rather high. The measurement metric (throughput
or BER/FER) displays highly non-linear behavior.'' We observe that
neither Sprint nor Verizon Wireless explain why they used a 1 dB
desensitization level. We therefore find that the 3 dB desensitization
level to be a more appropriate metric for determining the presence of
harmful interference.
145. Fourth, we assess the two user scenarios contained in the
Sprint Test Report and the Verizon Wireless Test Report and the
different assumptions contained in the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report. In
the Sprint and Verizon Wireless reports, V-COMM made certain
assumptions on how the device would be used and set up two user
scenarios, one simulating data use and the other simulating a user
making a voice call. V-COMM assumed that, during data use, the device
would be in held in the user's hand and would experience 3 dB in body
loss. If both the interfering and receiving devices were held in the
hand, a total of 6 dB of body losses would occur. In the case of a user
making a voice call, where the device was held to the user's head,
there would be 8 dB of combined head and body losses. Thus, if both the
transmitting and receiving users were engaged in a voice call, there
would be a total of 16 dB of head and body losses. The analysis
provided in the AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report made no provision for either
head or body loss in setting the criteria for their analysis. The
report stated, however, that ``additional losses, such as those
attributable to the presence of the user's hand, holding the device to
the head, etc., would reduce both the Lower H Block power level and
OOBE further.'' This statement effectively acknowledges that head and
body loss may be appropriate, yet the report does not apply any in the
analysis.
146. The specific values of head and body loss can be affected by a
number of factors, particularly frequency, and do not have uniformly
accepted values. For example, in the recently concluded AWS-4
proceeding, Motorola assumed a 10 dB head and body loss. Both Sprint
and Verizon Wireless have adopted an 8 dB head and body loss in their
respective test reports. We accept these proposed values for body loss
and head loss as within the range of reasonableness for our
calculations here. V-COMM calculated the OOBE limit required under both
user scenarios. The OOBE limit proposed by both Sprint and Verizon
Wireless was based on the assumption that both devices are being used
for data. In previous Commission analyses of mobile-to-mobile
interference, however, the user scenario has been for voice use; that
is, in prior Commission analysis, the total losses attributable to head
and body losses have been in the range of as much as 6 to 10 dB for
each device (both the transmitting and receiving device). Moreover,
interference does not affect voice and data in the same manner. The
user is much more likely to notice interference during a voice call
than during data use. The provision of voice service requires low
latency in the transmission link. Therefore, noise due to interference
can be immediately perceptible to the voice user. Harmful interference
potentially can cause the voice call to terminate. Data traffic, on the
other hand, can be much more sporadic, even under good signal
conditions, and can often tolerate some data losses. If interference
prevents data from being received and properly
[[Page 50236]]
decoded, the information may be retransmitted until it is received
correctly. This retransmission may cause delays in the data
transmission, and effectively slow the data throughput rate, but the
data session likely will continue through to completion. Significantly,
these delays are likely imperceptible to the user in most data
scenarios. As explained above, we consider that interference should be
judged harmful when it is readily perceptible to the user in most
cases. Consequently, because instances of interference are more likely
to be perceptible to the voice user than to the data user, we find it
more appropriate to use the voice user case when setting the
appropriate attenuation level necessary to avoid OOBE interference.
147. Fifth, we are concerned that the Sprint Test Report and the
Verizon Wireless Test Report use a 3 dB ``implementation margin'' to
adjust the proposed OOBE limit. The AT&T/T-Mobile Test Report did not
include an implementation margin. It is not clear what issue an
implementation margin is designed to address or why it is appropriate.
In using a 3 dB implementation margin, the test reports adjust the
proposed OOBE limit from -69 dBm/MHz to -66 dBm/MHz (i.e., from 99 + 10
log10 (P) dB to 96 + 10 log10 (P) dB). Thus,
unlike all of the test report inputs discussed above, inclusion of this
input results in making the OOBE less strict. The Sprint and Verizon
Wireless test reports state that the adjusted OOBE limit ``is
consistent with OOBE limits proposed in the FCC NPRM in 2004 and 2008 .
. . [and] with 3GPP OOBE limits for UMTS and HSPA devices . . . . OOBE
of all devices tested in 2004 comply with -66 dBm/MHz . . . pursuant to
CTIA's H-Block tests.'' No reason was provided to support a need for
the OOBE limit we are now establishing to be consistent with earlier
testing or earlier Commission proposals. Rather, as we explain above,
technology has advanced considerably since earlier tests were performed
and we would expect that the purpose of any new testing would be to
provide temporally relevant data, not to match earlier data. Thus, we
question the propriety of including this implementation margin.
148. In light of all of these concerns with the test reports, we
decline to use them as the basis to establish the OOBE limit for Lower
H Block emissions into the 1930-1995 MHz band. Rather, as explained
above, we find it more appropriate to rely on Commission precedent for
the same mobile-to-mobile interference scenario we face here, but from
the other end of the PCS band, to establish the OOBE limit. We find
that relying on this precedent is preferable to making the numerous
adjustments that would be necessary to rely on the studies,
particularly given that it may not be possible to fully adjust the
studies to account for all of the issues detailed above, including, in
particular, the probabilistic nature of the interference. Finally, we
observe that our rules contain a savings provision that permits the
Commission, in the event that harmful interference occurs, to require
greater attenuation than the level we set here.
149. Measurement Procedure. The Commission proposed to apply the
measurement procedure used in the immediately adjacent PCS uplink band
(1850-1915 MHz) to the OOBE limit set for the Lower H Block. For this
PCS band, the measurement bandwidth for mobile stations is one
megahertz or greater, with some modification in the one-megahertz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block where a
resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth
of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. No
party commented on this proposal. To treat mobile operations in the
Lower H Block in an equivalent manner to mobile operation in the
adjacent PCS band, we therefore adopt the Commission's measurement
procedure proposal.
150. Commenter Notification Proposal. We adopt a proposal set forth
by T-Mobile to require Lower H Block licensees to notify operators in
the A Block of the PCS downlink band (1930-1945 MHz) when the H Block
licensee turns on service. T-Mobile proposed to require H Block
licensees ``to provide notification to PCS A Block licensees when they
turn on service in the H Block on a market-by-market basis.'' T-Mobile
argues that this requirement is needed because ``GSM devices may not be
adequately protected'' by our Lower H Block power limit and OOBE limit
rules. T-Mobile asserts that this notification requirement would
``assist[] PCS licensees in network planning to reduce the probability
of interference.''
151. For the reasons stated above, we cannot determine that PCS
licensees will experience harmful interference from Lower H Block
operations. Nevertheless, we adopt a notification requirement out of an
abundance of caution and in light of the specific statutory condition
requiring that H Block operations not cause harmful interference to PCS
licensees. Although the Commission does not generally require part 27
licensees to provide notification to operators in adjacent or nearby
bands when they commence service, the Commission has done so in at
least one instance. Specifically, the Commission has required providers
of 2.3 GHz WCS, a part 27 service, to provide notification to certain
providers operating in nearby spectrum with notice 30 days before
commencing operations of a new transmitting site. Here, we have a
statute that requires H Block operations not cause harmful interference
to PCS downlink operations and a PCS licensee with considerable
operations in the lower portion of the PCS A Block--the spectrum in
closest proximity to the Lower H Block--stating that a notification
requirement would ``assist PCS licensees in network planning to reduce
the probability of interference.'' Thus, while we believe that the
technical rules we adopt above are sufficient to prevent harmful
interference from Lower H Block operations to PCS licensees operations
in the 1930-1995 MHz band, we find adoption of a notification
requirement appropriate as an additional safeguard against harmful
interference. In the event, contrary to our predictive judgment, that
we determine following such notification that H Block uplink operations
do result in harmful interference to A Block PCS downlink operations in
any particular location, we will take appropriate action to address
such situations.
152. In adopting this notification requirement, we provide basic
parameters for how the notification shall be provided. We do so to
avoid confusion, despite the lack of details contained in the T-Mobile
proposal. T-Mobile requested H Block licensees provide PCS A Block
licensees with notification when the H Block licensee ``turn[s] on
service'' on a ``market-by-market basis.'' T-Mobile did not define
these terms. Because the interference scenario between the Lower H
Block and the PCS downlink band is one of mobile-to-mobile
interference, we find it logical (for the sole purpose of the
notification requirement we adopt here) to equate turning on service to
when a consumer mobile device begins to operate in the band, i.e., when
service is first provided to a consumer. In addition, we find it
logical to relate the term market (for the sole purpose of the
notification requirement we adopt here) to the geographic license area
we adopt for the H Block--Economic Areas (EAs). Accordingly, we require
each Lower H Block licensee to provide all PCS A Block (1930-1945 MHz)
licensees within the geographic scope of the Lower H Block license with
written notification that the H Block licensee
[[Page 50237]]
has begun providing service; such notice must be provided on the date
when the Lower H Block licensee first begins to provide service to a
consumer using the Lower H Block.
3. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
153. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply the
approach used by AWS-1 operations to coordinate with Canada and Mexico
to H Block operations. We adopt this approach and observe that because
of our shared borders with Canada and Mexico, the Commission routinely
works in conjunction with the United States Department of State and
Canadian and Mexican government officials to ensure the efficient use
of the spectrum as well as interference-free operations in the border
areas. Until such time as any adjusted agreements, as needed, between
the United States, Mexico and/or Canada can be agreed to, operations
must not cause harmful interference across the border, consistent with
the terms of the agreements currently in force. We note that further
modifications of the rules might be necessary in order to comply with
any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these
bands.
4. Other Technical Issues
154. In addition to the specific technical issues addressed above,
the Commission also proposed applying additional part 27 rules to the H
Block band. Specifically, the Commission proposed applying the
following rule sections: Sec. 27.51 (Equipment Authorization); Sec.
27.52 (RF Safety); Sec. 27.54 (Frequency Stability); Sec. 27.56
(Antenna structures; air navigation safety); and Sec. 27.63
(Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns). The Commission
reasoned that because H Block will be licensed as an Advanced Wireless
Service under part 27, these rules should apply to all licensees of H
Block spectrum, including licensees who acquire their H Block license
through partitioning or disaggregation. No commenters opposed this
proposal. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission directed commenters
desiring to address a change in the Commission's RF exposure standards
to file in both the H Block proceeding and in ET Docket No. 03-137. See
H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16276 para. 53 n.95. Numerous parties
submitted comments, replies, or ex parte filings into either the H
Block proceeding or ET Docket No. 03-137, or in most instances into
both dockets, advocating that the Commission re-examine its RF exposure
standards. On March 27, 2013, the Commission adopted a First Report and
Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry on
RF exposure issues. See Reassessment of Federal Communications
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ET Docket No.
13-84, Notice of Inquiry, and Proposed Changes in the Commission's
rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields, ET Docket No. 03-137, First Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 3498 (2013). ET Docket No. 03-137 is
mainly procedural, and does not reach the issue of whether the
Commission's limits on human exposure to RF energy are appropriate. ET
Docket No. 13-84 is a new docket in which the Commission seeks
information and comment as to whether it should undertake a rulemaking
to revise its existing RF exposure standards. We hereby incorporate
comments addressing the RF exposure standards filed in the H Block
proceeding, as well as those in ET Docket No. 03-137, until the release
date of this H Block Report and Order, into the open proceeding on RF
exposure issues in ET Docket No. 13-84, as appropriate. Further, the
Commission will periodically monitor the H Block proceeding for 30 days
following publication of the H Block Report and Order in the Federal
Register to ensure that any additional misfiled relevant comments
addressing the RF exposure standards are appropriately considered in ET
Docket No. 13-84. Accordingly, because these rules generally apply to
all part 27 services, and because, as we explain above, we find it
appropriate to license the H Block under our part 27 regulatory
framework, we conclude that the potential benefits of our proposal
would outweigh any potential costs and adopt the proposal to apply
these additional part 27 rules to licensees of H Block.
155. In the H Block NPRM the Commission observed that H Block
spectrum is adjacent to Broadband PCS spectrum, which is administered
under part 24, and that it is therefore possible that a single entity
could obtain licenses for both bands in the same geographic area and
seek to deploy a wider channel bandwidth in that area across both
bands. If we permit operations under such a scenario, we need to
determine which rule part should govern the combined operations across
the band. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow such
operations and, should there be a conflict in the rules applicable to
both bands, to apply the more restrictive rule across the combined
operations. No party commented on these proposals. We continue to
believe it is in the public interest to permit operations across the
PCS downlink band and the Upper H Block in the event that an entity
obtains licenses to operate in the same geographic area in both bands.
In particular, because we adopt an EA-based licensing scheme for H
Block, and the PCS G Block, 1990-1995 MHz has been licensed on an EA
basis, we believe that by allowing an operator to unify operations
across adjacent blocks may benefit the public interest by providing
consumers with better, more affordable services through increased
service coverage and eliminate redundancy. To ensure that this decision
does not negatively affect adjacent band licensees, we also adopt the
Commission's proposal to apply the more restrictive rule across the
combined band in situations where the part 24 and part 27 interference
or other technical rules differ. For example, in the event a single
licensee operates in a unified manner in a geographic area across both
the PCS G Block at 1990-1995 MHz and the Upper H Block, that entity
would be required to comply with the H Block requirement for OOBEs from
the combined 1990-2000 MHz band into frequencies above 2000 MHz.
D. Cost-Sharing
156. Background--1915-1920 MHz Band. The 1915-1920 MHz band has
historically been a subset of a larger band at 1910-1930 MHz that is
currently allocated for Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis.
Before 1993, the 1910-1930 MHz band was allocated for Fixed services
and used for fixed point-to-point microwave links. In 1993, the
Commission designated the 1910-1930 MHz band for use by Unlicensed
Personal Communications Service (UPCS) devices. To facilitate the
introduction of UPCS systems, the Commission designated the Unlicensed
PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2 GHz Microwave Transition and Management (now
known as ``UTAM, Inc.'') as the sole entity to coordinate and manage
the transition. In accordance with the Commission's policies
established in the Emerging Technologies proceeding, UTAM subsequently
relocated virtually all of the incumbent microwave links, thereby
clearing the 1910-1930 MHz band for use by UPCS systems.
157. In 2003, the Commission sought comment on re-designating all
or a portion of the 1910-1920 MHz segment for AWS use. In 2004, the
Commission re-designated the 1910-1915 MHz band from the UPCS to Fixed
and Mobile services and assigned that spectrum to
[[Page 50238]]
Sprint Nextel, Inc. (``Sprint'') as replacement spectrum for Sprint's
operations being relocated from the 800 MHz band. Sprint then
reimbursed UTAM soon after it received its licenses for the 1910-1915
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands from the Commission. Shortly after re-
designating the 1910-1915 MHz band, the Commission also re-designated
the 1915-1920 MHz band from UPCS to use by licensed AWS operations. In
so doing, the Commission acknowledged that ``UTAM must be fully and
fairly reimbursed for relocating incumbent microwave users in this
band'' and determined ``that UTAM should be made whole for the
investments it has made in clearing the UPCS bands.'' Relative to the
Lower H Block, the Commission specifically concluded that ``UTAM is
entitled to reimbursement of twenty-five percent--on a pro-rata basis--
of the total costs it has incurred . . . as of the date that a new
entrant gains access to the 1915-1920 MHz spectrum band.'' The
Commission also determined that AWS licensees would be required to pay
their portion of the twenty-five percent of costs prior to commencement
of their operations. In total, the relocation costs attributable to the
Upper H Block licenses amounts to $12,629,857.
158. 1995-2000 MHz Band. The 1995-2000 MHz band is part of the
1990-2025 MHz band that the Commission reallocated from the Broadcast
Auxiliary Service (BAS) to emerging technologies such as PCS, AWS, and
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). Consistent with the relocation and
cost-sharing principles first established in the Commission's Emerging
Technologies proceeding, each new entrant had an independent
responsibility to relocate incumbent BAS licensees. Under these
procedures, the first new entrant into the band that incurs relocation
expenses for the relocation of incumbents from portions of the band
that the new entrant will not occupy is, as a general matter, eligible
to obtain reimbursement from subsequent entrants in the band. More
specifically, the Commission determined that an AWS entrant's cost-
sharing obligation for the 1995-2000 MHz band will be triggered upon
the final grant of the long form application for each of its licenses.
Sprint, which is the PCS licensee at 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS
transition for the entire 35 megahertz in 2010. In 2011, Sprint
notified the Commission that it entered into a private settlement with
DISH to resolve the dispute with MSS licensees with respect to MSS
licensees' obligation to reimburse Sprint for the MSS licensees' shares
of the BAS relocation costs related to the 2000-2020 MHz band.
Accordingly, the only remaining cost-sharing obligations in the 1990-
2025 MHz band are attributable to the remaining, unassigned ten
megahertz of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band: 1995-2000 MHz and
2020-2025 MHz. Because the 1995-2000 MHz band represents one-seventh of
the relocated BAS spectrum, the relocation costs collectively
attributable to the Upper H Block licenses amounts to a total of
$94,875,516.
159. H Block NPRM. In the 2012 H Block NPRM, the Commission again
sought comment on how to apportion UTAM's reimbursement among Lower H
Block licensees and Sprint's reimbursement among Upper H Block
licensees. The Commission observed that it is important to provide
auction bidders with reasonable certainty as to the range of the
reimbursement obligation associated with each license under various
auction outcomes. Further, with regard to the Lower H Block, the
Commission also expressed concern that the rules enable UTAM to be
fully reimbursed as soon as possible given that UTAM cleared the band
over ten years ago. The Commission therefore proposed to require Lower
H Block licensees to pay a pro rata amount of the twenty-five percent
owed to UTAM based on the gross winning bids of the initial H Block
auction. Specifically, the Commission proposed that the reimbursement
amount owed (``RN'') be determined by dividing the gross winning bid
(``GWB'') for an H Block license (i.e., an individual EA) by the sum of
the gross winning bids for all H Block licenses won in the initial
auction and then multiplying by $12,629,857, the total amount owed to
UTAM for clearing the 1915-1920 MHz band. This amount--$12,629,857--is
the amount UTAM has identified for years as the amount collectively
owed by future Lower H Block licensees to UTAM for UTAM's clearing of
the 1910-1930 MHz band; that is, this amount represents one-fourth of
UTAM's total reimbursable clearing costs for the entire 1910-1930 MHz
band. See UTAM Comments at 3; Letter from Michael Stima, Managing
Director, UTAM, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 04-356, at Attach. 1 (filed
May 21, 2007); H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16278 para. 58. No party has
disputed this amount in the record before us. The Commission also
observed that Sprint has already cleared the Upper H Block, thereby
enabling licensees to benefit from the band clearing as soon as they
obtain licenses. The Commission thus proposed the same cost-sharing
formula for the upper band, as it did for the lower band, applying
Sprint's (rather than UTAM's) clearing costs of $94,875,516 in the
formula for the Upper H Block.
160. The Commission proposed these formulas in an effort to ensure
that UTAM and Sprint receive full reimbursement after the first auction
by effectively apportioning the reimbursement costs associated with any
unsold H Block licenses among the winning bidders of all of the
licenses sold in the first auction--with an exception in the event a
successful bidder's long-form application is not filed or granted, and
subject to one contingency, discussed below. The Commission imposes
payment obligations on bidders that withdraw provisionally winning bids
during the course of an auction, on those that default on payments due
after an auction closes, and on those that are disqualified. See 47 CFR
1.2110(f)(2)(i). To the extent such were to occur and a winning bidder
were not awarded a license, the Commission proposed that the EA license
at issue be deemed to have triggered a reimbursement obligation that
will be paid to UTAM by the licensee acquiring the license at a re-
auction. Further, the Commission proposed that winning bidders of H
Block licenses in the first auction would not have a right to seek
reimbursement from other H Block licensees including for licenses
granted as a result of subsequent auctions. The Commission sought
comment on these proposals, including on their associated costs and
benefits.
161. In addition, the Commission sought comment on the relative
costs and benefits of adopting its alternative population based cost-
sharing formula as the general rule for the H Block. The Commission
acknowledged that using a population based approach in all events would
offer bidders greater certainty as to the obligation attached to each
license, but would decrease the likelihood that UTAM would be fully
compensated for clearing the band after the initial auction.
162. Regardless of which basis the Commission adopts for its cost-
sharing formula, the Commission proposed a contingency that would be
triggered in the unlikely event that licenses cover less than forty
percent of the population of the United States won in the first
auction. In such a scenario the population would be measured using 2010
Census data, which is the most recent decennial census data. The
[[Page 50239]]
Commission proposed that, in such an event, winning bidders--in the
first auction, as well as in subsequent auctions--would be required to
timely pay UTAM and Sprint, respectively, their pro rata share
calculated by dividing the population of the individual EA granted as a
result of auction by the total U.S. population and then multiplying
this quotient by $12,629,857 for UTAM and by $94,875,516 for Sprint.
This contingency would ensure that UTAM and Sprint are reimbursed as
soon as possible while also protecting H Block winning bidders from
bearing an undue burden of the reimbursement obligations due to UTAM
and to Sprint.
163. The Commission also sought comment, including on the costs and
benefits, on the appropriate sunset date for the reimbursement
obligation for the Upper H Block. Specifically, the Commission proposed
a sunset date for cost-sharing obligations of Upper H Block licensees
to Sprint of ``ten years after the first [AWS Upper] H Block license is
issued in the band.'' The Commission reasoned, in part, that because
bidders can internalize their reimbursement costs into their bids for H
Block licenses, and because winning bidders are the ultimate
beneficiaries of the band clearing, this sunset date does not impose
undue burdens on the H Block winning bidders.
164. Finally, the Commission proposed that winning bidders must pay
UTAM and Sprint, respectively, the amount owed, as calculated pursuant
to the formula ultimately adopted by the Commission, within thirty days
of grant of their long-form license applications. The Commission sought
comment on this proposal, including on its associated costs and
benefits.
165. The Record. Commenters generally supported the adoption of
reimbursement formulas that apportion the relocation costs attributable
to the Lower H Block and attributable to the Upper H Block,
respectively, on a pro rata basis among H Block licensees. Commenters
were mixed on whether we should adopt a cost-sharing formula that is
based on gross winning bids or population. For example, C Spire and
MetroPCS argued that a population based formula provide bidders with
greater certainty as to their reimbursement obligations. CCA and Sprint
opposed a population based formula, arguing that it could delay final
reimbursement for UTAM and Sprint in the event that all geographic
areas are not licensed in the initial auction. Commenters supported the
Commission's proposal to require prompt payment of cost-sharing
reimbursement obligations. Sprint, moreover, proposed that the
Commission take the additional step of not issuing the actual licenses
until reimbursement payments are made. Finally, Sprint is the only
party that commented on the proposed sunset date for the Upper H Block
cost-sharing requirements, arguing in support of the Commission's
proposal.
166. We adopt the cost-sharing proposals and formulas made by the
Commission in the H Block NPRM both for the Lower H Block and for the
Upper H Block. We conclude, given the record before us and Commission
precedent, that this approach is in the public interest and that the
benefits of this approach likely outweigh any potential costs. First,
as detailed above, the Commission has long established that cost-
sharing obligations for both the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block
should be apportioned on a pro rata basis against the relocation costs
attributable to the particular band. Consistent with the record before
us, we follow that precedent here.
167. Second, we adopt cost-sharing formulas based on gross winning
bids, rather than on license area populations. Such an approach will
enable both UTAM and Sprint, who cleared the respective bands years
ago, to receive full reimbursement after the first auction, as it
results in apportioning the reimbursement associated with any unsold H
Block licenses among the winning bidders in the first auction. We also
adopt the Commission's proposal in the H Block NPRM, which was
supported by the only commenter that addressed it, Sprint, that winning
bidders in the first auction may not seek reimbursement from other H
Block licensees, including for licenses granted as a result of
subsequent auctions. As we explained in the H Block NPRM and Sprint
echoed in its comments, this approach is fair and will minimize record
keeping burdens and the likelihood of disputes between parties. A gross
winning bids approach is also superior to a population approach because
it better reflects the market value associated with each license at the
time of the auction. For example, some license areas, such as the Gulf
of Mexico, may have a relative value that is not directly tied to
population. In such a case, a population-based formula may not fairly
apportion relocation costs among the winning bidders. In response to
concerns that a gross winning bids approach can lead to greater
uncertainty if fewer licenses are sold, however, we adopt the
contingency proposed in the H Block NPRM--if licenses won in the first
auction cover less than forty percent of the population of the United
States, then the cost-sharing formula will be based on population in
the first auction, as well as in subsequent actions. In such a scenario
the population would be measured using 2010 Census data, which is the
most recent decennial census data.
168. Third, to avoid confusion, we reiterate the Commission's
earlier findings that Sprint may not receive reimbursement for the same
costs both from AWS entrants into the Upper H Block and from the 800
MHz true-up. For example, in the 2010 BAS Order, the Commission:
adopt[ed] a policy affirming . . . that Sprint [ ] may not both
receive credits in the 800 MHz true-up and receive reimbursement
from the . . . AWS entrants for the same costs. This has been the
rule since the cost sharing requirements were adopted in the 800 MHz
R&O, and is necessary; to prevent Sprint [ ] from receiving an
unjustified windfall, and no party has objected to this conclusion.
169. Fourth, we adopt the Commission's proposal to require winning
bidders to pay UTAM and Sprint, respectively, the amounts owed within
thirty days of the grant of the winning bidders' long-form license
applications. For PCS, AWS-1, and AWS-4 licensees, cost-sharing
obligations are triggered when a licensee proposes to operate a base
station in an area cleared of incumbents by another licensee. In this
case, however, for the Lower H Block, UTAM's members received no
benefit for clearing the spectrum nationwide over ten years ago, and
the Commission determined in 2003 that the new PCS/AWS licensees
entering the band would reap the benefits of UTAM's efforts and that
UTAM should be fully reimbursed. Similarly, for the Upper H Block,
rather than Sprint itself benefiting from its clearing efforts (except
if Sprint is the winning bidder), other entrants in the band will reap
the benefits of Sprint's clearing efforts. Consequently, we find it
appropriate to set the deadline for H Block winning bidders to
reimburse UTAM and Sprint, respectively, at thirty days after the grant
of long-form license applications.
170. This prompt payment requirement protects the integrity of the
Commission's Emerging Technologies band clearing and cost-sharing
policies, including demonstrating fairness to UTAM and Sprint, both of
whom will receive reimbursement years after clearing the band to the
benefit of others. We believe that the benefit of process integrity
along with the benefit of prompt payment to UTAM and to Sprint
significantly outweighs any potential costs to winning bidders
[[Page 50240]]
resulting from their pay their reimbursements promptly (i.e., within
thirty days of the grant of their long-form applications). All parties
who commented on this issue supported the proposed prompt payment
requirement. Further, we believe that our requirement that AWS winning
bidders must pay their cost-sharing obligation within thirty days is
consistent with the general approach to payment timing for cost-sharing
that the Commission has applied to AWS spectrum, and is consistent with
the 2010 BAS Order's approach to payment timing in the Upper H Block in
particular. There, at a time when the total costs for clearing the
Upper H Block were not yet known, the Commission required AWS entrants
in that spectrum band to make payment within thirty days of receiving
documentation of Sprint's ultimate clearing costs. Now, these costs are
known for both the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block, and have been
for some time. Thus, we find it appropriate to start the thirty-day
reimbursement clock from the date on which the AWS entrants cost-
sharing obligations inure--i.e., upon final grant of the long-form
application for each of their licenses.
171. Fifth, we decline to adopt Sprint's proposal that, in addition
to the thirty-day prompt payment requirement, the Commission should not
issue Upper H Block licenses until payment has been made. We decline to
adopt this proposal because it is inconsistent with the Commission's
findings on this issue in the 2010 BAS Order. There, the Commission
expressly declined to adopt policies or procedures in the event that a
party fails to pay its cost-sharing reimbursements. Instead, the
Commission determined to ``address complaints regarding failure to make
requirement payments . . . through our existing enforcement
mechanisms.'' Sprint has provided no rationale for why we should
reverse this determination now, and we decline to do so.
172. Because we are requiring winning bidders to pay Sprint within
thirty days of grant of their long form applications, we expect that
Upper H Block licensees will reimburse Sprint well before any sunset
date. However, if licenses covering less than forty percent of the
population of the United States are granted as a result of the first
auction, licensees in subsequent auctions will incur an obligation to
reimburse Sprint at a later date, which could make the sunset date
relevant. Therefore, we will adopt the Commission's proposal to set a
sunset date for the cost-sharing obligations of Upper H Block licensees
to Sprint of ten (10) years after the first Upper H Block licenses is
issued. This approach is consistent with the record. It is also
consistent with the Commission's general Emerging Technologies
precedent, where relocation and cost-sharing obligations generally
sunset ten years after the first emerging technologies licenses is
issued in the relevant band. In addition, setting ten-year sunset date
should not impose a significant burden on H Block winning bidders
because the H Block licenses have not yet been assigned and because
interested applicants will be able to factor their reimbursement
obligations to Sprint into their bids.
E. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules
173. The regulatory framework we adopt below establishes the
license term, criteria for renewal, and other licensing and operating
rules that will govern operations in the H Block. In the H Block NPRM,
the Commission proposed generally to apply to the H Block the
Commission's market-oriented part 27 rules, including, in particular,
the Commission's part 27 rules applicable to other AWS bands, and the
Commission's wireless rules that are generally applicable across
multiple commercial bands. As detailed below, we adopt the proposals
contained in the H Block NPRM on these matters except where otherwise
indicated.
1. Regulatory Status
174. Background. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to
apply the regulatory status provisions of section 27.10 of the
Commission's rules to H Block licensees. The Commission's current
service license application requires applicants for and licensees of
fixed or mobile services to identify the regulatory status of the
services they intend to provide because service offerings may bear on
other statutory and regulatory requirements. Specifically, Section
27.10 permits applicants and licensees to request common carrier
status, non-common carrier status, private internal communications
status, or a combination of these options, for authorization in a
single license (or to switch between them). Part 27 applicants
therefore may, but are not required to, choose between providing common
carrier and non-common carrier services. Thus, licensees would be able
to provide all allowable services anywhere within their licensed areas,
consistent with their regulatory status. Apart from this designation of
regulatory status, the Commission did not propose to require applicants
to describe the services they seek to provide. Finally, the Commission
proposed that, if a licensee changes the service or services it offers
such that its regulatory status would change, the licensee would be
required to notify the Commission. A change in a licensee's regulatory
status would not require prior Commission authorization, provided the
licensee was in compliance with the foreign ownership requirements of
section 310(b) of the Communications Act that would apply as a result
of the change consistent with the Commission's rules for AWS-1
spectrum. The Commission sought comment on this regulatory status
proposal, including the associated costs and benefits. Only one
commenter, CCA, directly addressed the Commission's proposal,
requesting that licensees be permitted to ``to provide all allowable
services throughout their licensed area,'' while not being required to
specify their regulatory status.
175. We adopt the Commission's proposal to apply section 27.10 of
our rules to the H Block. Under this flexible regulatory approach, H
Block licensees may provide common carrier, non-common carrier, private
internal communications or any combination of these services, so long
as the provision of service otherwise complies with applicable service
rules. We find that this broad licensing framework is likely to achieve
efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process and will
provide flexibility to the marketplace, thus encouraging licensees to
develop new and innovative services. Thus, based on the record before
us, we conclude that this approach is in the public interest and that
its benefits likely outweigh any potential costs.
176. We therefore require H Block applicants and licensees to
identify the regulatory status of the services or services they intend
to provide. Applicants and licensees are not required to describe their
particular services in detail, but only to designate the regulatory
status of the services. We remind potential applicants that an election
to provide service on a common carrier basis typically requires that
the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise, applicants must
choose non-common carrier status. If potential applicants are unsure of
the nature of their services and their classification as common carrier
services, they may submit a petition with their applications, or at any
time, requesting clarification and including service descriptions for
that purpose.
177. The only commenter that directly addressed the Commission's
proposal, CCA, stated that ``H Block licensees
[[Page 50241]]
should not be required to choose between providing common carrier and
non-common carrier services'' and that they should not ``be required to
describe the services they intend to provide prior to obtaining a
license.'' According to CCA, the FCC should adopt a rule that permits H
Block licensees ``to provide all allowable services throughout their
licensed area at any time, consistent with their regulatory status.''
To the extent that CCA is asking that H Block licensees be able to
provide all allowable services and be permitted to request common
carrier status as well as non-common carrier status, these propositions
are already embodied in the rule that we adopt. And to the extent that
CCA is asking that H Block licensees not be required to describe the
services they seek to provide beyond designating their regulatory
status, that proposition is also already embodied in the rule that we
adopt. To the extent, however, that CCA is arguing that H Block
licensees should not be required to designate their regulatory status,
we must disagree. This requirement applies to all part 27 services and
licensees. By requiring part 27 licensees to designate their regulatory
status, the Commission is able to determine whether licensees are
subject to Title II and governed by common carrier requirements.
Applying this requirement to H Block licensees results in the same
regulatory treatment for such licensees as exists for other part 27
licensees, as this rule generally applies to all part 27 licensees.
178. Finally, consistent with the application of this rule for
other bands and with the Commission's proposal in the H Block NPRM, we
determine that, if a licensee elects to change the service or services
it offers such that its regulatory status would change, it must notify
the Commission within thirty days of making the change. A change in the
licensee's regulatory status will not require prior Commission
authorization, provided the licensee is in compliance with the foreign
ownership requirements of section 310(b) of the Communications Act that
apply as a result of the change. We note, however, that a different
time period (other than thirty days) may apply, as determined by the
Commission, where the change results in the discontinuance, reduction,
or impairment of the existing service.
2. Ownership Restrictions
a. Foreign Ownership Restrictions
179. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission observed that sections
310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act impose foreign ownership
and citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to
certain applicants. The Commission proposed to apply Section 27.12 of
the Commission's rules, which implements section 310, to applicants for
licenses in the H Block. With respect to filing applications, the
Commission proposed that all applicants provide the same foreign
ownership information, which covers both sections 310(a) and 310(b),
regardless of whether they propose to provide common carrier or non-
common carrier service in the band. The Commission sought comment on
this proposal, including the associated costs and benefits.
180. In order to fulfill our statutory obligations under section
310 of the Communications Act, we determine that all H Block applicants
and licensees shall be subject to the provisions of section 27.12 of
the Commission's rules. All such entities are subject to section
310(a), which prohibits licenses from being ``granted to or held by any
foreign government or the representative thereof.'' In addition, any
applicant or licensee that would provide a common carrier, aeronautical
en route, or aeronautical fixed service would also be subject to the
foreign ownership and citizenship requirements of section 310(b).
181. No commenters opposed (or commented on) the Commission's
proposal to require all H Block applicants and licensees to provide the
same foreign ownership information in their filings, regardless of the
type of service the licensee would provide using its authorization. We
believe that applicants for this band should not be subject to
different obligations in reporting their foreign ownership based on the
type of service authorization requested in the application and that the
benefits of a uniform approach outweigh any potential costs. Therefore,
we will require all H Block applicants and licensees to provide the
same foreign ownership information, which covers both sections 310(a)
and 310(b), regardless of which service they propose to provide in the
band. We expect, however, that we would be unlikely to deny a license
to an applicant requesting to provide services exclusively that are not
subject to section 310(b), solely because its foreign ownership would
disqualify it from receiving a license if the applicant had applied for
authority to provide section 310(b) services. However, if any such
licensee later desires to provide any services that are subject to the
restrictions in section 310(b), we would require that licensee to apply
to the Commission for an amended license, and we would consider issues
related to foreign ownership at that time.
b. Eligibility
182. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt an open
eligibility standard for the H Block. The Commission explained that
opening the H Block to as wide a range of licensees as possible would
encourage efforts to develop new technologies, products, and services,
while helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum.
183. Additionally, the Commission explained that Section 6004 of
the Spectrum Act does not address eligibility to acquire licenses
through transfers, assignments, or other secondary market mechanisms
from the initial or subsequence licensee. Section 6004 prohibits a
person from participating in an auction if they ``ha[ve] been, for
reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal
Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant.'' The Commission sought comment on whether this
provision permits or requires the Commission to restrict eligibility of
persons acquiring licenses on the secondary market, whether and to what
extent such a restriction is consistent with other provisions of the
Communications Act, and what procedures and rules, if any, should apply
to persons acquiring licenses on the secondary market. We also asked
how to attribute ownership under this provision for applicants that are
not individuals.
184. No commenters addressed whether and how Section 6004 applies
to secondary market transactions. However, one commenter, AT&T,
addressed the larger issue of the open eligibility proposal by
commenting that it supports such an approach.
185. We find that nothing in the record demonstrates that we should
adopt restrictions on open eligibility. Therefore, we find that open
eligibility for the H Block is consistent with our statutory mandate to
promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies,
products, and services; economic opportunity and competition; and the
efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum. We
conclude, based on the record before us, that the potential benefits of
open eligibility for the H Block outweigh any potential costs.
186. On the issue of whether Section 6004 of the Spectrum Act
applies to transfers, assignments, or other secondary market
mechanisms, which no commenter addressed, we determine that this
section does indeed apply to
[[Page 50242]]
such transactions. The Commission generally does not allow parties to
avoid statutory or regulatory requirements through use of secondary
markets. We conclude that it is reasonable to assume that Congress did
not intend to permit persons barred on national security grounds from
``participating in an auction'' for certain licenses to acquire those
same licenses in such an indirect fashion. In any event, given the
policies reflected in section 6004, we conclude that it is appropriate
to exercise our independent authority under section 308(b) of the
Communications Act to extend such a national security bar to the
acquisition of Commission licenses through the secondary market.
Further, we determine that applicants requesting approval for a
secondary market transaction must certify that the applicants are not
persons barred from participating in an auction by section 6004 of the
Spectrum Act. Until we have revised appropriate applications forms to
add a certification, we will require applicants for spectrum subject to
section 6004 to include a certification as an attachment to the
application. For applicants that are not individuals, we will apply the
same attribution standard that we are adopting for short-form
applications.
3. Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies
187. Access to spectrum is a critical and necessary input for the
provision of mobile wireless services, and ensuring the availability of
sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives
innovation and investment. Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications
Act provides that, in designing systems of competitive bidding, the
Commission shall ``promot[e] economic opportunity and competition and
ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible to
the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses.''
Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act recognizes the Commission's authority
``to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules
concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' In
September 2012, the Commission initiated a proceeding to review the
mobile spectrum holdings policies that currently apply to both
transactions and competitive bidding. The Commission indicated that,
during the pendency of this proceeding, the Commission will continue to
apply its current case-by-case approach to evaluate mobile spectrum
holdings during its consideration of secondary market transactions and
initial spectrum licensing after auctions.
188. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
and how to address any mobile spectrum holdings issues in the H Block,
consistent with any statutory requirements and our goals for this
spectrum. The Commission also sought comment on whether the acquisition
of H Block spectrum should be subject to the same general mobile
spectrum holding policies that apply to frequency bands that are
available and suitable for wireless services. Conversely, the
Commission sought comment on whether to distinguish H Block spectrum
from other bands for purposes of evaluating mobile spectrum holdings.
The Commission asked that commenters discuss and quantify any costs and
benefits associated with the proposals that they put forth.
189. We received a limited number of comments on these issues. A
few commenters argued that the Commission should take concrete steps to
prevent large carriers from acquiring H Block spectrum, including
adopting a bright line spectrum aggregation limit before any H Block
auction, while one commenter argued that such an approach would not
serve the public interest. With respect to appropriate timing of such
determinations, a few commenters argued that the Commission should
complete the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies proceeding before
applying any revised spectrum holdings policies to H Block licensing.
190. We find that the limited record on mobile spectrum holdings
policies in this proceeding does not support addressing here the issue
of whether the acquisition of H Block spectrum should be subject to the
mobile spectrum holding policies that apply to frequency bands that are
available and suitable for wireless services, particularly given the
pendency of the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies proceeding. We
observe that parties commenting on spectrum holdings issues in the H
Block rulemaking generally raise issues with broader applicability to
the Mobile Spectrum Holdings rulemaking, rather than issues related to
the characteristics of the H Block.
4. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Criteria, Permanent
Discontinuance of Operations
a. License Term
191. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed a license term
for H Block spectrum rights of ten years. The Communications Act does
not require a specific term for spectrum licenses, and the Commission
has adopted ten-year terms for many wireless radio services. In
addition, the Commission proposed that, if an H Block license is
partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be
authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's
or disaggregator's original license term. The Commission sought comment
on these proposals, including the associated costs and benefits, and
several commenters responded that they approved of the proposed license
terms.
192. We adopt a license term for H Block spectrum rights of ten
years and subsequent renewal terms of ten years and we modify section
27.13 of the Commission's rules to reflect these determinations. Given
the record before us, we find that this approach is in the public
interest and find that its benefits outweigh any potential costs. C
Spire, T-Mobile, and U.S. Cellular expressed support for ten-year
license terms, and no commenter opposed license terms of that length. C
Spire stated that a ten-year license term would be ``appropriate
because it would provide consistency with other spectrum blocks and
afford each licensee more than enough time to design, acquire the
necessary equipment and devices, and deploy facilities across nearly
all of the licensed area.'' U.S. Cellular and T-Mobile also pointed out
that by imposing a ten-year license term, the Commission would be
treating H Block the same way it treats many wireless services. We
agree that our decision to license H Block in ten-year terms is
consistent with most other part 27 services and with services using
similar spectrum, such as the PCS spectrum that is adjacent to the H
Block.
193. In addition, we adopt the Commission's proposal that, if an H
Block license is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or
disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for the remainder
of the partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. No
commenter addressed this proposal. We note, however, that this proposal
is similar to the partitioning and disaggregation provisions that the
Commission adopted for BRS, broadband PCS, 700 MHz, AWS-1, and AWS-4.
We emphasize that nothing in this action is intended to enable a
licensee, by partitioning or disaggregation, to be able to confer
greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license
grant; nor would any partitionee or disaggregatee obtain rights in
excess of those previously possessed by the underlying Commission
licensee.
[[Page 50243]]
b. Performance Requirements
194. The Commission establishes performance requirements to
maximize the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to
rapidly provide service to customers, and to promote the provision of
innovative services in all license areas, including rural areas. We
continue to believe that performance requirements play a critical role
in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow. We therefore
adopt performance requirements that will ensure the rapid deployment of
wireless service in the H Block, while giving licensees sufficient
flexibility to deploy services according to their business plans.
Specifically, we adopt the following buildout requirements:
H Block Interim Buildout Requirement: Within four (4)
years, a licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer
service to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its
license areas.
H Block Final Buildout Requirement: Within ten (10) years,
a licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to
at least seventy-five (75) percent of the population in each of its
license areas.
In addition, we adopt the following penalties for failure to meet the
buildout benchmarks:
Failure to Meet H Block Interim Buildout Requirement:
Where a licensee fails to meet the H Block Interim Buildout Requirement
in its license area, the H Block license term and the Final Buildout
Requirement shall be accelerated by two years (for both the license
term and final requirement, from ten to eight years).
Failure to Meet H Block Final Buildout Requirement: Where
a licensee fails to meet the H Block Final Buildout Requirement in any
EA, its authorization for each EA in which it fails to meet the
requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
195. We find, based on the record before us, that these performance
requirements are in the public interest and that the benefits of these
requirements outweigh any potential costs. We explain the rationale for
these performance requirements below.
196. Background. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed that,
as an interim buildout requirement, a licensee must, within four years,
provide signal coverage and service to at least forty percent of its
total license-area population. The Commission proposed that, as a final
buildout requirement, a licensee must, within ten years, provide signal
coverage and offer service to at least seventy percent of the
population in each license area it holds. For both the interim and
final milestones, the Commission proposed EA-based requirements. The
Commission explained that a four-year interim benchmark would ensure
that licensees deploy facilities quickly, while a relatively low
population threshold of forty percent acknowledges that large-scale
network deployment may ramp up as equipment becomes available and a
customer base is established. The Commission also explained that a ten-
year final benchmark allows a reasonable amount of time for any H Block
licensee to attain nationwide scale. The Commission sought comment on
these proposed buildout requirements, including on whether the
proposals struck the appropriate balance between being so low as to not
result in meaningful buildout and being so high as to be unattainable.
The Commission also sought comment on whether other benchmarks
represent more appropriate requirements, asking that commenters discuss
and quantify any costs and benefits associated with different
proposals.
197. The Commission proposed specific consequences, or penalties,
in the event a licensee fails to satisfy its buildout requirements. The
Commission proposed that, if a licensee fails to meet the interim
benchmark in its license area, the term of the license would be reduced
by two years. And the Commission proposed that, if a licensee fails to
meet the final benchmark, the H Block license for each license area in
which it fails to meet the buildout requirement would automatically
terminate without Commission action.
198. Commenters generally supported the Commission's proposals, but
some had specific recommendations for modifying them. Several
commenters supported the proposed forty percent interim buildout
requirement, while others proposed a slightly less stringent benchmark
or opposed any interim benchmark at all. Commenters generally supported
the proposed seventy percent final buildout requirement, with
individual commenters proposing a slightly more or less stringent
benchmark. However, commenters generally opposed the proposed penalties
for failure to satisfy the interim and final buildout requirements.
(i) Benchmarks
199. Consistent with the Commission's approach to performance
benchmarks in other bands--including the AWS-4 band, the 2.3 GHz WCS
band, and the Upper 700 MHz C-Block--we adopt objective interim and
final buildout benchmarks. Requiring H Block licensees to meet our
performance requirements--providing reliable coverage and service to at
least forty percent of the population in each license area in four
years and at least seventy-five percent of the population in each
license area in ten years--will further the public interest by ensuring
that spectrum will be put to use and by promoting the rapid deployment
of new broadband services to the American public. It will also provide
licensees with certainty regarding their construction obligations.
These performance requirements are reasonable, both temporally and
quantitatively, and will enable the Commission to take appropriate
corrective action should the required deployment fail to occur.
Further, we observe that commenters generally agreed with the proposed
performance requirements, albeit with some of those commenters seeking
slight modifications.
200. EA-Based and Population-Based Benchmarks. As discussed above,
we are adopting an EA-based H Block band plan requirement and not a
nationwide band plan. Setting buildout benchmarks on an EA basis is
consistent with our general approach of assigning H Block spectrum
rights under the Commission's part 27 rules, which includes permitting
any licensee to avail itself of the Commission's secondary market
mechanisms. Additionally, we will measure interim and final buildout
benchmarks using percentages of license area population because using a
population-based measure is more consistent with the Commission's
practice in other similar bands.
201. We reject the arguments of some commenters that the benchmarks
should instead be measured geographically. While we agree that it is
important to ensure service is provided in rural areas, we believe that
population-based benchmarks are necessary to ensure that H Block
licensees have flexibility to scale their networks in a cost efficient
manner while they are attempting to meet performance requirements.
Specifically, because of the substantial capital investment and
logistical challenges associated with a licensee building out a
network, we believe that measuring benchmarks within an EA according to
population is more appropriate. We also agree with MetroPCS that
population served is a more accurate measure of useful coverage for
this band. Finally, while we are adopting population-based benchmarks
for the H Block, nothing in this decision forecloses the
[[Page 50244]]
consideration of geographic-based benchmarks in other bands,
particularly if such bands have different technical characteristics or
service rules based on factors specific to those bands.
202. Interim Benchmark. We find, consistent with the record, that a
four-year construction milestone provides a reasonable time frame for a
licensee to deploy its network and offer widespread service. Indeed, no
party suggested that a longer time frame would be necessary. We also
find that requiring forty percent buildout at this interim milestone
would serve the public interest. Commenters were generally supportive
of this requirement, and it is consistent with the interim benchmark
for all licensees in the AWS-4 band and for licensees in the 700 MHz
band that are subject to a population-based benchmark. It is also
similar to the Commission's interim benchmark in the 2.3 GHz band,
where mobile and point-to-multipoint licensees had 3.5 years to provide
reliable coverage to forty percent of the population of each license
area. Thus, based on our review of the record and Commission precedent,
we adopt an interim performance benchmark of forty percent buildout at
the four-year milestone.
203. We are not persuaded by MetroPCS's argument that interim
benchmarks are unrealistic and counterproductive, and that licensees
have sufficient financial incentives to build out quickly without these
benchmarks. We find that the performance requirements we adopt in the H
Block will provide licensees with an ability to scale networks in a
cost efficient manner while also ensuring that the vast majority of the
population will have access to wireless broadband services by the final
benchmark. And while we recognize that licensees in many cases have
economic incentives to build out, we believe that objective performance
requirements are an important means of ensuring that there is
meaningful deployment of broadband services in the H Block in the near
future, consistent with our obligations to adopt rules and license
spectrum in the public interest.
204. We disagree with U.S. Cellular and C Spire that thirty-five
percent of total population is a more appropriate benchmark, and we
disagree with Sprint that in cases where a licensee acquires multiple
EA licenses, the benchmark should be thirty-five percent of the total
population covered by all EA licenses. While we believe that forty
percent and thirty-five percent are both realistic interim buildout
requirements, we find that a forty percent benchmark will better ensure
that underutilized spectrum is quickly utilized for the benefit of
consumers in the public interest. U.S. Cellular claims that a thirty-
five percent benchmark is more consistent with the Commission's
treatment of the 700 MHz band; however, the thirty-five percent interim
benchmark in the 700 MHz band only applied geographic-based, not
population-based, benchmarks for the 700 MHz A and B blocks. In
contrast, 700 MHz C Block, which is subject to population-based
benchmarks, had an interim benchmark of 40 percent. Because all H Block
licensees will be subject to a population-based benchmark, not a
geographic-based benchmark, the example of the 700 MHz band actually
suggests that we should adopt a forty-percent interim buildout
requirement. Finally, we decline to adopt Sprint's proposal, which
would allow a licensee with multiple EA licenses to meet the interim
benchmark while underutilizing some of those EAs for no other reason
than the fact that it acquired more than one EA. Where, as here, we are
assigning initial licenses for spectrum, we expect applicants will file
for spectrum licenses only in areas in which they intend to put the
spectrum to use.
205. Final Benchmark. We find, consistent with the record, that a
final ten-year construction milestone provides a reasonable time frame
for a licensee to deploy its network and offer widespread service. We
note that none of the commenters suggested that a different time frame
would be necessary for the final benchmark. However, in response to the
record, we modify the proposed final buildout requirement in terms of
the percentage of population that must be served. While several
commenters supported the proposed seventy percent final buildout
requirement, AT&T proposed that the buildout requirement be seventy-
five percent of total population of each EA by the end of the license
term. It stated that the Upper 700 MHz C Block buildout requirements
should be the default buildout standard, arguing that a default
standard would ``reduce uncertainty for potential licensees and
streamline its own regulatory process, expediting deployment and
service to the public.'' It also pointed out that a seventy-five
percent benchmark would ``ensure a rapid deployment of mobile broadband
services while affording licensees adequate flexibility to deploy
service.''
206. While we decline to adopt a standard buildout requirement for
all bands in this proceeding, we agree that the final benchmark should
be set at seventy-five percent, rather than seventy percent. In our
view, a final benchmark of seventy-five percent is more closely aligned
with final benchmarks in other similar bands, including 700 MHz and
AWS-4. Specifically, for the 700 MHz C Block, the Commission adopted a
ten year performance benchmark and a seventy-five percent buildout
requirement. Applying a seventy-five percent buildout requirement here,
where we similarly have a ten-year time period, treats H Block
licensees in a similar manner as 700 MHz licensees. Our decision is
also consistent with last year's AWS-4 Report and Order, in which the
Commission adopted a lower benchmark level of seventy percent, along
with a shorter time frame of seven years.
(ii) Agreements Between H Block and AWS-4 Licensees
207. The Commission also sought comment on whether performance
requirements should be relaxed if an AWS-4 licensee reaches private
operator-to-operator agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees so
that AWS-4 operations above 2000 MHz may operate with a more relaxed
OOBE limit than 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB into the 1995-2000 MHz
band. The Commission received no comments on this issue, and
accordingly, we decline to adopt an alternative performance requirement
that would apply if an AWS-4 operator entered into such agreements.
Should that situation arise, parties may petition the Commission for
any necessary relief at that time.
(iii) Penalties for Failure To Meet Construction Requirements
208. We adopt the H Block NPRM proposed penalties for failure to
meet the interim and final benchmarks. These penalties will provide
meaningful and enforceable consequences and are necessary to ensure
that licensees utilize the spectrum in the public interest. Further, we
find these penalties appropriate to ensure that the buildout
requirements fulfill their purpose of bringing about timely deployment
without being unnecessarily strict.
209. Penalties for Failure to Meet the Interim Benchmark. We adopt
the proposal in the H Block NPRM that, if a licensee fails to meet the
H Block Interim Buildout Requirement in any EA, the term of the license
shall be reduced by two years. If this interim penalty is triggered,
the license term will be eight years instead of ten years, and
therefore the licensee will be required to meet the end-of-term
benchmark on an accelerated eight-year schedule, as well. We
acknowledge that in the H Block NPRM that the main text
[[Page 50245]]
of the NPRM did not match the text of the proposed rule. H Block NPRM,
27 FCC Rcd at 16289 para. 81, 16303 App. A, Sec. 27.14(q)(2). The main
text of the NPRM stated that the final buildout requirement would need
to be met ``[b]y the end of the license term,'' which would be ten
years if the interim requirement was satisfied but only eight years if
the interim requirement was not satisfied. H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at
16289 para. 81. The text of the proposed rules, however, stated that
the final buildout requirement needed to be met within ten years of the
grant of the license, thus suggesting that the interim penalty would
result in a two-year reduction in the license term but not in the final
performance benchmark. H Block NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16303 App. A, Sec.
27.14(q)(2). We therefore clarify that, in the event that a licensee
fails to meet the interim benchmark, that both the term of the license
and the term of the final performance benchmark will be reduced from
ten years to eight years. U.S. Cellular, which was the only commenter
to directly address the proposed interim buildout penalty, expressed
support for a two-year license term reduction. Additionally, we believe
that this penalty is sufficiently serious to promote rapid deployment
of service to the H Block, while still giving licensees that fail to
meet it an opportunity to meet the final benchmark and put their
spectrum to use.
210. Penalties for Failure to Meet the Final Benchmark. We adopt
the proposal in the H Block NPRM that, if a licensee fails to meet the
H Block Final Buildout Requirement in any EA, the licensee's authority
for each such area shall terminate automatically without Commission
action. By only terminating specific licenses where a licensee fails to
meet the final benchmark in a particular license area, a licensee's
customers in other license areas would not be adversely affected. In
doing so, we are adopting the final buildout penalty that the
Commission proposed in the H Block NPRM, even though we are slightly
modifying the final buildout requirement that the Commission had
proposed. We see no persuasive reason that increasing the final
buildout requirement from seventy percent to seventy-five percent of
the population of a licensed area provides a basis for changing the
penalty for failure to meet the final buildout benchmark.
211. AT&T and U.S. Cellular both opposed the proposed penalties.
They argued that automatic termination is too punitive, would
negatively affect investment and auction participation and revenues,
and would harm the public. We disagree with these assertions. First, as
a general matter, we expect that the probability is small of licensees
not meeting the performance requirements because of the costs of
meeting them. Further, we expect licensees will generally deploy in
excess of the levels set in the buildout benchmarks and that these
requirements generally represent a floor, not a ceiling, in a
licensee's buildout. As for the assertion that automatic termination is
too punitive, the Commission has explained in the past that we do not
consider automatic termination to be overly punitive or unfair,
particularly given that the Commission has applied this approach to
nearly all geographically licensed wireless services. Further, the
Commission has rejected the argument, and we do so again here, that an
automatic termination penalty would deter capital investment, observing
that the wireless industry has invested billions of dollars and has
flourished under this paradigm in other spectrum bands. For the same
reason, we believe that an automatic termination penalty will have
little effect on auction participation. Finally, we do not agree that
automatic termination would harm the public because, even if a customer
loses service when a licensee loses its spectrum rights, we expect that
a future licensee for that EA would ultimately serve more customers.
212. We are not persuaded by the AT&T and U.S. Cellular argument
that the Commission should adopt a keep-what-you-use approach instead
of an automatic termination penalty. AT&T maintained that keep-what-
you-use rather than automatic termination is consistent with the
requirements applicable to other comparable services; to support this
assertion, it cited the rules that apply to the commercial licenses in
700 MHz. We observe, however, that the keep-what-you-use approach in
700 MHz is the exception rather than the rule and that the Commission
adopted that approach for 700 MHz band spectrum, in part, in light of
other specific service rule determinations for that band, including the
specific geographic license areas used for parts of that band (e.g.,
CMAs for the 700 MHz B Block). The Commission generally applies
automatic termination as the remedy for failure to build out part 27
licenses. Indeed, the Commission has characterized automatic license
termination as ``a common remedy for failure to build part 27 flexible
use licenses.'' We believe that an automatic termination approach for
the H Block will promote prompt buildout and will appropriately
penalize a licensee for not meeting its performance obligations in a
particular EA. We therefore decline to adopt a keep-what-you-use
approach.
213. We further adopt the H Block NPRM's proposal that, if a
license terminates, the spectrum would become available for assignment
under the competitive bidding provisions of section 309(j) of our
rules. We also adopt the Commission's proposal that any H Block
licensee that forfeits its H Block operating authority for failure to
meet the H Block Final Buildout Requirement shall be precluded from
regaining that license. These rules are consistent with the
Commission's rules for other spectrum bands, such as AWS-1, AWS-4, and
the Broadband Radio Service.
(iv) Compliance Procedures
214. We adopt the proposal in the H Block NPRM to apply to the H
Block rule section 1.946(d) of our rules, which requires that licensees
demonstrate compliance with the new performance requirements by filing
a construction notification within fifteen days of the relevant
milestone certifying that they have met the applicable performance
benchmark. Additionally, we adopt the proposal in the H Block NPRM to
require that each construction notification include electronic coverage
maps and supporting documentation, which must be truthful and accurate
and must not omit material information that is necessary for the
Commission to determine compliance with its performance requirements.
215. We emphasize that electronic coverage maps must accurately
depict the boundaries of each license area in the licensee's service
territory. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to
an entire EA, its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area
or areas within each EA not being served. Each licensee also must file
supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing
for each EA within its service territory and the type of technology
used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the
assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service
with the licensee's technology.
216. The licensee must use the most recently available decennial
U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement to meet the population-
based buildout requirements. Specifically, the licensee must base its
claims of population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract
level.
[[Page 50246]]
c. Renewal Criteria
217. As the Commission explained in the H Block NPRM, section
308(b) of the Communications Act recognizes the Commission's authority
to require renewal applicants to ``set forth such facts as the
Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship,
character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the
applicant to operate the station'' as well as ``such other information
as it may require.'' The Commission proposed to adopt H Block license
renewal requirements that are consistent with those adopted in the 700
MHz First Report and Order and the AWS-4 Report and Order.
218. The Commission proposed that applicants for renewal of H Block
licenses file a ``renewal showing,'' in which they demonstrate that
they have been and are continuing to provide service to the public, and
are compliant with the Communications Act and with the Commission's
rules and policies. The Commission proposed that the same factors that
were applied in the AWS-4 Report and Order and the 700 MHz First Report
and Order, be used when the Commission evaluates renewal showings for
the H Block. Specifically, the Commission proposed that a renewal
showing for the H Block include: the level and quality of service,
whether service was ever interrupted or discontinued, whether service
has been provided to rural areas, the extent to which service is
provided to qualifying Tribal lands, and any other factors associated
with a licensee's level of service to the public.
219. The Commission also sought comment on whether the public
interest would be served by awarding H Block licensees renewal
expectancies if they maintained the level of service demonstrated at
the ten-year performance benchmark through the end of their license
term, provided that they have otherwise complied with the
Communications Act and the Commission's rules and policies during their
license term. The Commission sought comment on whether H Block
licensees should obtain renewal expectancies for subsequent license
terms, if they continue to provide at least the level of service
demonstrated at the ten-year performance benchmark through the end of
any subsequent license terms.
220. Finally, the Commission proposed that, consistent with the
AWS-4 Report and Order and the 700 MHz First Report and Order, we would
not allow the filing of any competing applications to requests for
license renewal, and that if a license is not renewed, the associated
spectrum would be returned to the Commission for assignment.
221. The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including
the associated costs and benefits. Comments were mixed regarding the
primary proposal to impose renewal requirements consistent with those
adopted in the 700 MHz First Report and Order and the AWS-4 Report and
Order with one commenter offering qualified support for the proposed
renewal standard, and other commenters opposed to it.
222. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act and
consistent with the Commission's rules as they apply to other similar
bands, we find that all H Block licensees seeking renewal of their
authorizations at the end of their license term must file a renewal
application, demonstrating that they have been and are continuing to
provide service to the public over the license term (or, if consistent
with the licensee's regulatory status, it used the spectrum for
private, internal communication), and are otherwise complying with the
Commission's rules and policies (including any applicable performance
requirements) and with the Communications Act. In so finding, we
emphasize, as the Commission has done repeatedly in recent years, that
the concept of a renewal showing is distinct from a performance
showing. A performance showing provides a snapshot in time of the level
of a licensee's service, while a renewal showing provides information
regarding the level and types of service provided over the entire
license term. As the Commission has explained in setting rules for
other bands, a licensee that meets the applicable performance
requirements might nevertheless fail to meet the renewal requirements.
Specifically, we adopt the following renewal criteria requirements. We
require the renewal showing to include a detailed description of the
renewal applicant's provision of service during the entire license
period and discuss: (1) The level and quality of service provided by
the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area served, the number
of subscribers, the services offered); (2) the date service commenced,
whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any
interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service is provided to
rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying
Tribal land as defined in section 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of the Commission's
rules; and (5) any other factors associated with the level of service
to the public. A licensee must also demonstrate at renewal that it has
substantially complied with all applicable Commission rules and
policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including any
applicable performance requirements. Based on the record before us and
the analysis provided below, we find these requirements to be in the
public interest and that their benefits outweigh any likely costs.
223. In addition, as the Commission did in the 700 MHz First Report
and Order and the AWS-4 Report and Order, we will not permit the filing
of competing applications against a licensee's renewal application. If
a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to
the Commission and then made available for assignment. We agree with
Sprint--which offered support for the proposed renewal standard--that
the proposed standard is consistent with Commission precedent.
224. We are not persuaded by commenters who opposed the proposed
renewal standard. For example, MetroPCS and T-Mobile argued that the
FCC should refrain from imposing the proposed renewal standard on H
Block licensees, claiming that the proposed standard is vague.
Additionally, MetroPCS argued that the proposed standard will undermine
the renewal expectancy that allows licensees to secure long-term
financing. We disagree. Instead, we believe that the renewal standard
provides sufficient certainty. For example, the renewal standard we
adopt today is based on that used for 700 MHz commercial licensees. We
are unaware of any significant effect on the ability of 700 MHz
applicants or licensees to obtain financing resulting from the use of
this renewal standard in the 700 MHz proceeding.
225. T-Mobile also pointed out that the same renewal standard is
under consideration in the pending WRS Renewals proceeding, and
therefore argued that the Commission should more broadly address it
there. We agree with T-Mobile that the WRS Renewals proceeding offers
the Commission an opportunity to comprehensively consider whether it
should adopt a renewal standard that generally applies to all bands,
and if so, what that standard should be. However, contrary to T-
Mobile's suggestion that we are departing from a generic renewal
standard by ``uniquely'' applying the proposed renewal standard to the
H Block, the Commission has thus far declined to adopt generic criteria
for renewal showings. Moreover, at least two spectrum bands, 700 MHz
and AWS-4, have renewal criteria identical
[[Page 50247]]
or almost identical to those we adopt for the H Block. Unless we make a
determination in this proceeding about the renewal standard for H
Block, our service rules for this band would include no clear, codified
criteria for license renewal and new licensees would be faced with this
uncertainty. We also decline to delay adoption of the H Block Report
and Order until the WRS Renewals proceeding is resolved, because we
find that the benefits of adopting the H Block rules now far outweigh
the costs of not doing so. As we explained above, completing the H
Block proceeding in the near term has several benefits, including
unleashing more spectrum to address the surging demand for mobile
broadband services and implementing an important directive that
Congress entrusted to the Commission. While our determination here
should not be construed to prejudge the issues and arguments presented
by the parties to the WRS Renewals proceeding, we observe that our
action here is consistent with our proposal in that docket.
226. Finally, we decline to adopt U.S. Cellular's proposal that the
Commission categorically provide licensees that satisfy the performance
requirements with renewal expectancies. In the ordinary course, we
expect that licensees that meet their interim benchmark and maintain
that level of service while increasing service levels towards
compliance with the end-of-term benchmark will likely be able to
demonstrate that they satisfy the renewal criteria delineated above.
However, we decline to adopt the rule U.S. Cellular proposes that
equates mere compliance with the performance benchmarks with a renewal
justification because, as the Commission has explained and as we
reiterated above, performance requirements and renewal showings are two
distinct requirements that involve different showings, serve different
purposes, and have different remedies. We decline to state
categorically that a licensee that simply meets the interim and final
performance requirements will automatically obtain a renewal
expectancy. For example, a licensee would be unlikely to obtain renewal
at the end of the license term where it met the applicable ``snap
shot'' interim benchmark by providing signal coverage and offering
service for a single day just prior to the interim benchmark, but then
merely offers service once every 180 days to avoid permanent
discontinuance of operation until reaching the end-of-term benchmark.
We agree with U.S. Cellular that a licensee that obtains a license
renewal at the end of the initial license term under the standard set
forth above, and then maintains or exceeds the end-of-term seventy-five
percent population coverage and offering of service level through
subsequent license terms, reasonably could expect, absent extraordinary
circumstances, that it would receive subsequent license renewal.
d. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
227. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the
application of the rules governing the permanent discontinuance of
operations to H Block operators. Under section 1.955(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules, an authorization will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, if service is ``permanently
discontinued.'' The Commission proposed to define ``permanently
discontinued'' for the H Block spectrum as a period of 180 consecutive
days during which a licensee does not operate and does not serve at
least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or
related to, the provider. The Commission also proposed that licensees
would not be subject to this requirement until the date of the first
performance requirement benchmark, which was proposed as four years
from the license grant.
228. In addition, the Commission proposed that, consistent with
section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, if a licensee
permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the
Commission of the discontinuance within ten days by filing FCC Form 601
or 605 and requesting license cancellation. However, the Commission
explained that even if a licensee fails to file the required form, an
authorization will automatically terminate without specific Commission
action if service is permanently discontinued. The Commission sought
comment on these proposals, including the associated costs and
benefits.
229. We determine that section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's
rules will apply to any H Block licensee and find that the benefits of
applying this rule outweigh any potential costs of doing so. Thus, an H
Block operator's authorization will automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if service is ``permanently discontinued.''
For providers that identify their regulatory status as common carrier
or non-common carrier, we define ``permanently discontinued'' as a
period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to, the provider in an EA (or smaller service
area in the case of a partitioned EA license). We adopt a different
approach, however, for licensees that use their licenses for private,
internal communications, because such licensees generally do not
provide service to unaffiliated subscribers. For such private, internal
communications, ``permanent discontinuance'' shall be defined as a
period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not
operate. This approach is consistent with the discontinuance rule that
the Commission has adopted for the adjacent AWS-4 band, and the only
party to comment on this rule, T-Mobile, expressed support for this
approach.
230. We believe that using this approach in H Block strikes the
appropriate balance between affording licensees operational flexibility
and ensuring that licensed spectrum is efficiently utilized. In
addition, our determination will ensure that spectrum does not lie
fallow and will facilitate business and network planning by providing
certainty to licensees and their investors. A licensee will not be
subject to the discontinuance rules until the date it must meet its
first performance requirement benchmark (four years from the license
grant), which provides the licensee with adequate time to construct its
network.
231. Furthermore, in accordance with section 1.955(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules, if a licensee permanently discontinues service, the
licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within ten
days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation.
However, even if the licensee fails to file the required form
requesting license cancellation, an authorization will automatically
terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently
discontinued.
232. Finally, as the Commission has previously explained, the
operation of so-called channel keepers, e.g., devices that transmit
test signals, tones, and/or color bars, do not constitute ``operation''
under section 1.955(a)(3) or the Commission's other permanent
discontinuance rules.
5. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
233. Part 27 of the Commission's rules generally allows licensees
to partition and disaggregate their spectrum. ``Partitioning'' is the
assignment of
[[Page 50248]]
geographic portions of a license to another licensee along geopolitical
or other boundaries. ``Disaggregation'' is the assignment of a discrete
amount of spectrum under the license to a geographic licensee or
qualifying entity. Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in
the same geographic area operated by different companies on adjacent
frequencies in the same band.
234. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed to permit
partitioning and disaggregation and sought comment on this proposal.
The Commission's part 27 rules for terrestrial wireless service provide
that licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service
areas or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the
grant of their licenses. The Commission's rules also set forth the
general requirements that apply with regard to approving applications
for partitioning or disaggregation, as well as other specific
requirements (e.g., performance requirements) that would apply to
licensees that hold licenses created through partitioning or
disaggregation. The Commission also proposed requiring each licensee of
H Block authority who is a party to a partitioning, disaggregation, or
combination of both to independently meet the applicable performance
and renewal requirements. The Commission sought comment on these
proposals and asked that commenters discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of these proposals on competition, innovation, and investment.
Finally, the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or
disaggregation of H Block spectrum and whether such policies would
promote service, especially to rural areas; and asked that commenters
quantify the costs and benefits of any such proposals. We received
several comments on this issue, and all were supportive of the
Commission's proposal to permit partitioning and disaggregation of the
H Block.
235. We adopt the proposal in the H Block NPRM to allow any H Block
licensee to partition its service areas or disaggregate its spectrum.
We conclude, based on the record before us, that permitting
partitioning and disaggregation is in the public interest and that the
benefits of permitting these actions outweigh any potential costs. We
agree with the comments, which were universally supportive of allowing
partitioning and disaggregation under part 27. CCA stated that allowing
H Block licensees to partition and disaggregate would empower licensees
to respond to market demand following the auction, thus spurring
competition for spectrum-based services and fostering wireless
innovation. MetroPCS argued that in order to promote efficient use of
the H Block spectrum, the Commission should permit partitioning and
disaggregation pursuant to the part 27 rules, which promote more
efficient use of the band by providing licensees with additional
flexibility and creating consistency among the secondary market rules
for spectrum in different bands.
236. As the Commission has explained many times in the past,
partitioning and disaggregation promote the efficient use of spectrum
and help to expedite the provision of service to rural and other
underserved areas of America as well as to niche markets. Further, by
allowing H Block licensees to partition and disaggregate to the same
degree as other wireless licensees providing like services, the
Commission promotes competition among wireless service providers.
237. We further conclude that the public interest would be served
by requiring, as we proposed in the H Block NPRM, each H Block licensee
that is a party to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement (or
combination of both) to independently meet the applicable performance
and renewal requirements. As the Commission observed in the AWS-4
Report and Order and the WRS NPRM, this approach should facilitate
efficient spectrum usage and prevent the avoidance of timely
construction through secondary market fiat, while still providing
operators with the flexibility to design their networks according to
their operation and business needs. No commenters opposed (or commented
on) this approach.
b. Spectrum Leasing
238. In 2003, in an effort to promote more efficient use of
terrestrial wireless spectrum through secondary market transactions and
to eliminate regulatory uncertainty, the Commission adopted a
comprehensive set of policies and rules governing spectrum leasing
arrangements between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees. These
policies and rules permitted terrestrially-based Wireless Radio Service
``licensees holding exclusive use [spectrum] rights'' to lease some or
all of the spectrum usage rights associated with their licenses to
third party spectrum lessees, which then would be permitted to provide
wireless services consistent with the underlying license authorization.
The Commission adopted these policies and rules in order to promote
more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the terrestrial
spectrum, to expand the scope of available wireless services and
devices, to enhance economic opportunities for accessing spectrum, and
to promote competition among terrestrial wireless service providers. In
2004, the Commission expanded on this spectrum leasing framework by
establishing immediate approval procedures for certain categories of
terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements and extending the spectrum
leasing policies to additional Wireless Radio Services. Since then, the
Commission has extended these policies to still more Wireless Radio
Services.
239. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission proposed that the spectrum
leasing policies and rules established in the above-mentioned
proceedings be applied to the H Block in the same manner that those
policies apply to other part 27 services. The Commission sought comment
on this proposal, including its effects on competition, innovation, and
investment. The comments that the Commission received were supportive
of this proposal.
240. We adopt the proposal in the H Block NPRM to apply to the H
Block the Commission's current spectrum leasing policies, rules, and
procedures contained in part 1 of the Commission's rules, in the same
manner as those policies, rules, and procedures apply to other part 27
services. We find it in the public interest to apply the same
comprehensive set of rules, policies, and procedures governing spectrum
leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees
that the Commission has adopted for other wireless spectrum bands to
the H Block. We believe that this decision will encourage innovative
arrangements and investment in the H Block. We also observe that
``[f]or a particular spectrum band, spectrum leasing policies generally
follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation
policies for the band.'' Thus, our decision to permit spectrum leasing
of H Block spectrum is consistent with our determination above to
permit partitioning and disaggregation of H Block spectrum.
241. The record unanimously supports our decision. For example, we
agree with CCA that applying our current spectrum leasing rules to H
Block will increase the use and utility of the H Block by allowing a
diverse group of parties to efficiently and dynamically use the
spectrum. We also agree with MetroPCS that applying our current
spectrum leasing rules will
[[Page 50249]]
promote the efficient use of H Block spectrum and treat spectrum in
different bands consistently in applying secondary market rules.
6. Other Operating Requirements
242. In the H Block NPRM, the Commission explained that even though
licenses in the H Block may be issued pursuant to one rule part,
licensees in this band might be required to comply with rules contained
in other parts of the Commission's rules by virtue of the particular
services they provide. The Commission sought comment on whether there
are any provisions in existing, service-specific rules that need to be
modified to ensure that H Block licensees are covered under the
necessary Commission rules. In addition, the Commission sought comment
on any rules that would be affected by the proposal to apply elements
of the framework of these rule parts, whether separately or in
conjunction with other requirements. Finally, the Commission sought
comment on the costs and benefits associated with the adoption of any
potential requirements. The Commission received two comments in
response to this request, both of which addressed the application of
the hearing-aid compatibility rules.
243. While we are generally adopting part 27 rules for the H Block,
in order to maintain general consistency among various wireless
communication services, we also require any licensee of H Block
operating authority to comply with other rule parts that pertain
generally to wireless communication services. For example, section 27.3
of the Commission's rules lists some of the other rule parts applicable
to wireless communications service licensees generally; we thus find it
appropriate to apply this and similar rules to the H Block. Some of
these other rule parts will be applicable by virtue of the fact that
they apply to all licensees, and others will apply depending on the
type of service that a licensee provides. For example:
Applicants and licensees will be subject to the
application filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set
forth in part 1 of our rules.
Licensees will be required to comply with the practices
and procedures listed in part 1 of our rules for license applications,
adjudicatory proceedings, etc.
Licensees will be required to comply with the Commission's
environmental provisions, including section 1.1307.
Licensees will be required to comply with the antenna
structure provisions in part 17 of our rules.
To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service, such service is subject to the provisions in part 20 of
the Commission's rules, including 911/E911 requirements, along with the
provisions in the rule part under which the license was issued.
To the extent a licensee provides interconnected VoIP
services, the licensee will be subject to the E911 service requirements
set forth in part 9 of our rules.
The application of general provisions in parts 22, 24, 27,
or 101 will include rules related to equal employment opportunity, etc.
No commenter opposed this approach. We conclude that maintaining
consistency among various wireless communications services--including
the H Block--is in the public interest and that the benefits of this
approach outweigh any potential costs.
244. On one issue in particular, we specifically received comment
seeking the application of broader rules to H Block licensees. On the
issue of hearing-aid compatibility, we conclude that our Part 20
hearing-aid compatibility (HAC) requirements will apply to H Block
services in the same manner and to the same extent as those
requirements apply to any wireless services under the part 20 HAC
rules. Thus, to the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service, such service is subject to the hearing-aid compatibility
requirements in part 20 of the Commission's rules.
245. The Hearing Industries Association commented that the
Commission should ``ensure the full applicability of the hearing aid
compatibility rule as it unleashes new spectrum--in this instance the H
Block.'' It pointed out that ``Congress has clearly directed the
Commission to ensure that as devices continue to advance into
multifaceted devices capable of more than traditional voice
capabilities that the HAC rules continue to apply.'' HIA also argued
that as technology advances and new spectrum is unleashed, ``the FCC
must consider function to ensure that hearing-aid users are not locked
out of fully participating in the larger economy and society.'' Thus,
it argued that the HAC rules must ``focus on whether a device is used
for two-way talk and how it couples with the human ear more than the
name of the device or its advertised `primary' purpose.'' Another
commenter submitted arguments that addressed the Commission's HAC rules
and Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) emissions rules. Mr. Johnson's
comments contained general arguments that were not specifically related
to H Block.
246. We agree that the Commission's HAC rules should apply to
services provided in the H Block in the same manner that they apply to
services provided in other bands. To the extent that comments could be
read as asking for a broader review of the Commission's hearing-aid
compatibility rules (or the Commission's RF safety rules), however, we
decline to conduct such a review in this band-specific proceeding
because we do not believe this proceeding is the appropriate proceeding
for us to conduct a general review and revision of those rules.
7. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to
Tribal Lands
247. The H Block NPRM explained that the Commission is currently
considering various provisions and policies intended to promote greater
use of spectrum over Tribal lands. The Commission proposed to extend
any rules and policies adopted in that proceeding to any licenses that
may be issued through competitive bidding in this proceeding. The
Commission sought comment on this proposal and any costs and benefits
associated with it.
248. We adopt the proposal in the H Block NPRM, deferring the
application of any rules and policies for facilitating access to
spectrum and the provision of service to Tribal lands to the Tribal
Lands proceeding. Because that proceeding is specifically focused on
promoting greater use of spectrum over Tribal lands, we find that it is
better suited than the instant proceeding to reach conclusions on that
issue.
F. Procedures for Any H Block Licenses Subject to Assignment by
Competitive Bidding
249. We will conduct any auction for H Block licenses pursuant to
our standard competitive bidding rules found in part 1, subpart Q of
the Commission's rules and will provide bidding credits for qualifying
small businesses, as proposed in the H Block NPRM. Below we discuss our
reasons for adopting the relevant proposals.
1. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
250. The Commission proposed to conduct any auction for H Block
licenses in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set
forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that
[[Page 50250]]
have been employed in previous auctions. Additionally, the Commission
proposed to employ the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding
design, designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application
and payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on
certain communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal,
such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission
may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the
future. The H Block NPRM also sought comment on whether any part 1
rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of
licenses in the H Block bands.
251. Commenters generally support our proposed use of standard
competitive bidding rules for an auction of H Block licenses. One of
those commenters, MetroPCS, asserts that the Commission should avoid
the use of procedures that may ``unduly complicate auctions'' or
otherwise ``limit the ability of smaller bidders to acquire spectrum.''
Another argues that the Commission should not depart from its standard
simultaneous multiple-round format for an H Block auction. Based on our
review of the record and our prior experience with conducting auctions,
we determine that the Commission's Part 1 bidding rules should govern
the conduct of any H Block auction.
2. Revision to Part 1 Certification Procedures
252. The H Block NPRM proposed to implement the national security
restriction of section 6004 of the Spectrum Act by adding a
certification to the short-form application filed by auction
applicants. Section 6004 prohibits ``a person who has been, for reasons
of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government
from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a
grant'' from participating in a system of competitive bidding that is
required to be conducted by Title VI of the Spectrum Act. Accordingly,
the Commission proposed to require that an auction applicant certify,
under penalty of perjury, that it and all of the related individuals
and entities required to be disclosed on the short-form application are
not persons who have ``been, for reasons of national security, barred
by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract,
participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.'' For purposes of
this certification, the H Block NPRM proposed to define ``person'' as
an individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or
corporation. It also proposed to define ``reasons of national
security'' to mean matters relating to the national defense and foreign
relations of the United States. We received no comments on our proposal
to revise the part 1 certification procedures to add a national
security certification requirement.
253. We will implement this Spectrum Act mandate by adding a
national security certification to the various other certifications
that a party must make in any application to participate in competitive
bidding as required under our existing rules. As with other required
certifications, an auction applicant's failure to include the required
certification by the applicable filing deadline would render its short-
form application unacceptable for filing, and its application would be
dismissed with prejudice.
3. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
254. As discussed in the H Block NPRM, in authorizing the
Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress mandated that the
Commission ``ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies,
and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given
the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based
services.'' In addition, section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act
provides that, in establishing eligibility criteria and bidding
methodologies, the Commission shall seek to promote a number of
objectives, including ``economic opportunity and competition . . . by
avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating
licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members
of minority groups and women.'' One of the principal means by which the
Commission fulfills this mandate is through the award of bidding
credits to small businesses.
255. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility
requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each
particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. Further,
in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission, while
standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a
service-by-service approach to defining the eligibility requirements
for small businesses.
256. The Commission proposed in the H Block NPRM to define a small
business as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very small business as an
entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million. Under this proposal, small businesses would be
provided with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses
with a bidding credit of 25 percent, consistent with the standardized
schedule in part 1 of our rules.
257. This proposal was modeled on the small business size standards
and associated bidding credits that the Commission adopted for the AWS-
1 band. The Commission believed that the H Block would be employed for
purposes similar to those for which the AWS-1 Band is used. The H Block
NPRM noted that these small business size standards and associated
bidding credits were proposed for the AWS-1 band because of the
similarities between the AWS-1 service and the broadband PCS service
and that the Commission had followed this approach when proposing small
business size standards and associated bidding credits in the AWS-2
NPRM.
258. The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including
the costs or benefits of these standards and associated bidding
credits, especially as they relate to the proposed EA-defined
geographic area licensing approach. The Commission specifically sought
comment on whether the small business provisions we proposed are
sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities
and women. Those addressing small business credits generally support
the Commission's proposals.
259. RTG supports the Commission's proposed bidding credits, and
argues for creation of an additional size standard under which auction
applicants with average gross revenues not exceeding $75 million for
the preceding three years would receive a 10 percent bidding credit.
RTG asserts that this additional bidding credit tier would help
``slightly larger small and rural telephone companies to compete for
spectrum with nationwide carriers on a more level playing field.''
Similarly, Broadband Properties seeks adoption of a 35 percent bidding
discount for ``smaller operators,'' though it does not state what size
firm might be considered to be a ``smaller operator.'' The Commission
has previously considered and rejected RTG's efforts to create an
additional rural telephone company bidding credit. In so doing, the
Commission observed that RTG and
[[Page 50251]]
other proponents had been unable ``to demonstrate a historical lack of
access to capital that was the basis for according bidding credits to
small businesses, minorities and women,'' and that ``[i]n subsequent
decisions, large rural telcos have failed to demonstrate any barriers
to capital formation similar to those faced by other designated
entities.'' Moreover, RTG supplies no additional information from which
we might conclude that entities with average annual gross revenues of
between $40 and $75 million have faced particular difficulties in
attracting capital. While we have not intended to apply the part 1
bidding credit schedule uniformly to all auctions without any
opportunity for the consideration of alternative bidding credits, we
continue to believe that the schedule of size standards and bidding
credits described in part 1 provide small businesses with consistency
and predictability. As discussed above, we took the characteristics of
this service into consideration when proposing the two size standards
and associated bidding credits in the H Block NPRM. Accordingly, we
decline to adopt an additional size standard and bidding credit for the
H block.
260. MetroPCS argues that we should adopt a scale of bidding
credits based on an entity's spectrum holdings in a particular
geographic area in lieu of credits based on small business size.
MetroPCS would also bar an auction applicant from acquiring any license
that would cause it to exceed the spectrum screen in effect prior to
the allocation of the spectrum to be offered at auction. AT&T and
Sprint call on the Commission to reject MetroPCS's alternative bidding
credit plan. AT&T argues that ``[t]his proposal is little more than an
attempt to achieve . . . restrictions on auction participation based on
spectrum holdings'' which it contends would be ``anticompetitive and
unlawful.'' We find that MetroPCS's proposal fundamentally involves
issues of spectrum aggregation policy, and that those issues would be
more properly addressed in the separate Mobile Spectrum Holdings
Policies proceeding. Thus we decline to replace our small business
bidding credit program with MetroPCS's alternative approach.
261. Based on our prior experience with the use of bidding credits
in spectrum auctions, we believe that the use of bidding credits is an
effective tool in achieving the statutory objective of promoting
participation by designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based
services. In the absence of small business size standards and bidding
credits, designated entities might have less opportunity to obtain
spectrum in this band. The Commission believes that continuing to
extend such benefits to the H Block would be consistent with our
statutory mandate. In light of the similarities with the AWS-1 service,
we adopt these size standards and associated bidding credits for small
businesses. We have requested SBA approval of these size standards.
Moreover, we continue to believe that use of the small business size
standards and credits set forth in the part 1 schedule provides
consistency and predictability for small businesses. Specifically, we
will define a small business as an entity with average gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very
small business as an entity with average gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For the H block, small
businesses would be provided with a bidding credit of 15 percent and
very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent, consistent
with the standardized schedule in part 1 of our rules. Given the record
before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the
potential benefits of our proposals would likely outweigh any potential
costs.
IV. Procedural Matters
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
262. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in the Report and Order on small entities. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). No comments were filed addressing
the IRFA. Because we amend the rules in this Report and Order, we have
included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
263. Demand for wireless broadband services and the network
capacity associated with those services is surging, resulting in a
growing demand for spectrum to support these services. Adoption of
smartphones increased at a 50 percent annual growth rate in 2011, from
27 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers in December 2010 to nearly 42
percent in December 2011. Further, consumers have rapidly adopted the
use of tablets, which were first introduced in January of 2010. By the
end of 2012, it was estimated that one in five Americans--almost 70
million people--would use a tablet. Between 2011 and 2017, mobile data
traffic generated by tablets is expected to grow at a compound annual
growth rate of 100 percent. New mobile applications and services, such
as high resolution video communications, are also using more bandwidth.
For example, a single smartphone can generate as much traffic as
thirty-five basic-feature mobile phones, while tablets connected to 3G
and 4G networks use three times more data than smartphones over the
cellular network. All of these trends, in combination, are creating an
urgent need for more network capacity and, in turn, for suitable
spectrum.
264. The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the Commission
undertake to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband use
within ten years, including 300 megahertz within five years. The
Commission has taken numerous steps to achieve these goals, including
recently adopting a notice of proposed rulemaking on conducting the
world's first incentive auction to repurpose broadcast spectrum for
wireless broadband use, updating the Commission's rules for the 2.3 GHz
Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band to permit the use of the
most advanced wireless technologies in that band, and establishing
service rules to allow terrestrial mobile broadband in the 2 GHz MSS
bands.
265. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the ``Spectrum Act'').
The Spectrum Act includes several provisions to make more spectrum
available for commercial use, including through auctions, and to
improve public safety communications. Among other things, the Spectrum
Act requires the Commission, by February 23, 2015, to allocate the
1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band (collectively, the H
Block) for commercial use, and to auction and grant new initial
licenses for the use of each spectrum band, subject to flexible-use
service rules. Congress provided, however, that if the Commission
determined that either of the bands
[[Page 50252]]
could not be used without causing harmful interference to commercial
licensees in 1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink), then the Commission was
prohibited from allocating that specific band for commercial use or
licensing it. Additionally, Sections 6401(f) and 6413 of the Spectrum
Act specify that the proceeds from an auction of licenses in the 1995-
2000 MHz band and in the 1915-1920 MHz band shall be deposited in the
Public Safety Trust Fund and used to fund the Nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network (``FirstNet''). The H Block spectrum could be the
first spectrum specified by the Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction,
and thus could represent the first inflow of auction revenues toward
this statutory goal.
266. In this Report and Order, we increase the Nation's supply of
spectrum for mobile broadband by adopting rules for fixed and mobile
services, including advanced wireless services in the H Block, 1915-
1920 MHz paired with 1995-2000 MHz. These service rules will make
available 10 megahertz of spectrum for flexible use in accordance with
the Spectrum Act, without causing harmful interference to Personal
Communications Service (PCS) licensees. In so doing, we also carry out
a recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that the Commission
make available the provision of Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-
1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum bands, thus increasing the value of
this spectrum to the public. Specifically, we adopt service, technical,
and licensing rules that will encourage innovation and investment in
mobile broadband and provide certainty and a stable regulatory regime
in which broadband deployment can rapidly occur. For example, we find
the spectrum is properly allocated for commercial use as the Spectrum
Act requires, and authorize mobile and lower power fixed operations in
the 1915-1920 MHz band and base and fixed operations in the 1995-2000
MHz band. We also adopt service, technical, assignment, and licensing
rules for this spectrum that generally follow the Commission's part 27
rules that govern flexible use terrestrial wireless service--except
that in order to protect PCS licenses, our rules are more stringent in
certain respects. The market-oriented licensing framework for these
bands will ensure efficient spectrum utilization and will foster the
development of new and innovative technologies and services, as well as
encourage the growth and development of broadband services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
B. Legal Basis
267. The action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201,
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1404, and
1451 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332,
333, 1404, and 1451.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
268. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
269. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of 2010, there were 27.9 million
small businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
270. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372
had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
action. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can
be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
271. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the Report and Order will apply to all
entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying the
same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness.
The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative
burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities.
The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for
gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.
272. Any applicants for licenses of H Block will be required to
file license applications using the Commission's automated Universal
Licensing System
[[Page 50253]]
(ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing system that also serves as a
powerful information tool, one that enables potential licensees to
research applications, licenses, and antennae structures. It also keeps
the public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings,
processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. Licensees of H
Block that must submit long-form license applications must do so
through ULS using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for
the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other
appropriate forms.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
273. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
274. As set forth in this Report and Order, we will license the H
Block bands under Economic Areas (EA) geographic size licenses.
Utilizing EAs in the H Block will provide regulatory parity with other
AWS bands that are licensed on an EA basis, such as AWS-1 B and C block
licenses. Additionally, assigning H Block in EA geographic service
areas will allow H Block licensees to make adjustments to suit their
individual needs. Although some commenters advocated for smaller or
larger sized licensed areas, such as Cellular Market Areas or
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, we believe that EA license areas are
small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller
carriers. EA license areas also nest within and may be aggregated up to
larger license areas that have been used by the Commission for other
services, such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic
Area Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to create larger service
areas. Licensees may also adjust their geographic coverage through
secondary markets. These rules should enable licensees of H Block
spectrum, or any entities, whether large or small, providing service in
other AWS bands to more easily adjust their spectrum holdings to build
their networks pursuant to individual business plans. As a result, we
believe the ability of licensees to adjust spectrum holdings will
provide an economic benefit by making it easier for small entities to
acquire spectrum or access spectrum in these bands.
275. This Report and Order adopts rules to protect licensees
operating in nearby spectrum bands from harmful interference, which may
include small entities. The technical rules adopted in the Report and
Order are based on the rules for AWS-1 spectrum, with specific
additions or modifications designed, among other things, to protect
broadband PCS services operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band from harmful
interference, as well as future services operating in the 2000-2020 MHz
band. We adopt specific Out-of-Band-Emissions (OOBE) limits for the
1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band. We base our decision on
the record, the probabilistic nature of mobile-to-mobile interference,
and the statutory requirements of the Spectrum Act. The record in this
proceeding contains three interference studies that supported a
specific OOBE limit of 96 + 10 log10 (P) dB and a power
limit of 300 milliwatts EIRP for the 1915-1920 MHz band. We adopt the
power limit, but conclude an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P)
dB is appropriate for the 1915-1920 MHz band, which ensures full
flexible use of the band while also protecting the 1930-1995 MHz PCS
band from harmful interference. Although one party commented that OOBE
limits for the 1995-2000 MHz band should be stricter than what the
Commission proposed or adopted in this Report and Order, we concluded
those suggested limits were overly burdensome. The technical rules in
the Report and Order will therefore allow licensees of the H Block
spectrum to operate while also protecting licensees in nearby spectrum
from harmful interference, some of whom may be small entities, and meet
the statutory requirements of the Spectrum Act.
276. The Report and Order provides licensees of H Block with the
flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent
with the allocations for this spectrum, which is consistent with other
spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and mobile
services, e.g., AWS-1. The Report and Order further provides for
licensing of this spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part
27 rules. This includes applying the Commission's secondary market
policies and rules to all transactions involving the use of H Block
bands, which will provide greater predictability and regulatory parity
with bands licensed for mobile broadband service. These rules should
make it easier for H Block providers to enter secondary market
arrangements involving use of their spectrum. The secondary market
rules apply equally to all entities, whether small or large. As a
result, we believe that this will provide an economic benefit to small
entities by making it easier for entities, whether large or small, to
enter into secondary market arrangements for H Block spectrum.
277. The Report and Order adopts rules pertaining to how the H
Block licenses will be assigned, including rules to assist small
entities in competitive bidding. Specifically, small entities will
benefit from the proposal to provide small businesses with a bidding
credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of
25 percent. Providing small businesses and very small businesses with
bidding credits will provide an economic benefit to small entities by
making it easier for small entities to acquire spectrum or access to
spectrum in these bands.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Rules
278. None.
279. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: This document contains new
or modified information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. Prior to submission to OMB, the Commission
will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on
the new or modified information collection requirement for OMB 3060-
1184. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
280. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the
policies adopted in this Report and Order with regard to information
collection burdens on small business concerns, and find that these
policies will benefit many companies with fewer than 25 employees
because the revisions we adopt should provide small entities with more
information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to
valuable wireless spectrum. In addition, we have described impacts that
might affect small businesses, which includes
[[Page 50254]]
most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix B
of the Report and Order, infra.
V. Ordering Clauses
281. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6003, 6004,
and 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96,
126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302(a), 303, 307,
308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1403, 1404, and 1451, that this
Report and Order is hereby ordered.
282. Effective September 16, 2013 except for 47 CFR
1.2105(a)(2)(xii), 27.12, and 27.17, which contain information
collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Control Number 3060-1184. The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of those sections.
283. It is further ordered that the amendments, adopted above and
specified in Sec. Sec. 1.2105, 27.12, 27.14, and 27.17 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2105, 27.12, 27.14, and 27.17, which
contain new or modified information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, will become effective after the Commission
publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and
the relevant effective date.
284. It is further ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis hereto is adopted.
285. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A)
of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission
shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and to the
Government Accountability Office.
286. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 27
Communications common carriers, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 27 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
0
2. Section 1.2105 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(xii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.2105 Bidding application and certification procedures;
prohibition of certain communications.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) For auctions required to be conducted under Title VI of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96),
certification under penalty of perjury that the applicant and all of
the person(s) disclosed under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section are
not person(s) who have been, for reasons of national security, barred
by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract,
participating in an auction, or receiving a grant. For the purposes of
this certification, the term ``person'' means an individual,
partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation,
and the term ``reasons of national security'' means matters relating to
the national defense and foreign relations of the United States.
* * * * *
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
0
4. Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 27.4 is amended by revising the definition of ``Advanced
Wireless Service (AWS)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 27.4 Terms and definitions.
Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A radiocommunication service
licensed pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in
Sec. 27.5(h), 27.5(j), or 27.5(k).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 27.5 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(k) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. The paired 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands are available for assignment on an Economic
Area (EA) basis.
0
7. Section 27.6 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(j) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. AWS service areas for
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
0
8. Section 27.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.12 Eligibility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and in Sec. Sec. 27.604,
27.1201, and 27.1202, any entity other than those precluded by section
310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is
eligible to hold a license under this part.
(b) A person described in 47 U.S.C. 1404(c) is ineligible to hold a
license that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13 (Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, 125 Stat. 156
(2012)) to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding under Sec.
309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j).
0
9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(j) 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. Authorizations for 1915-
1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands will have a term not to exceed ten
years from the date of issuance or renewal.
0
10. Section 27. 14 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraphs (a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (r) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-
[[Page 50255]]
704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740
MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the
746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-
793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands,
Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the
2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the
exception of licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands,
must, as a performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial
service'' in their license area within the prescribed license term set
forth in Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792
MHz bands or licensees holding AWS authorizations for the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. *
* *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), or (r) of this
section, including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to
the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall
demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(r) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS
authorization in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands:
(1) A licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer service
within four (4) years from the date of the initial license to at least
forty (40) percent of the total population in each of its licensed
areas (``Interim Buildout Requirement'').
(2) A licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer service
within ten (10) years from the date of the initial license to at least
seventy-five (75) percent of the population in each of its licensed
areas (``Final Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Interim
Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed area, then the Final
Buildout Requirement (in this paragraph (r)) and the license term (as
set forth in Sec. 27.13(j)) for each license area in which it fails to
meet the Interim Buildout Requirement shall be accelerated by two years
(from ten to eight years).
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Final
Buildout Requirement for a particular licensed areas, its authorization
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Final Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action and
the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission makes
the license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population
served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population
within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will
only be deemed served by the licensee if it provides signal coverage to
and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area,
a licensee with authorizations for such areas may only include the
population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier)
towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual
license.
(6) An applicant for renewal of a license covered by this paragraph
(r) must make a renewal showing, independent of its performance
requirements, as a condition of renewal. The showing must include a
detailed description of the applicant's provision of service during the
entire license period and address:
(i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant
(e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of
subscribers, the services offered);
(ii) The date service commenced, whether service was ever
interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(iii) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(iv) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal
land as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(3)(i) of this chapter; and
(v) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the
public.
0
11. Section 27.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees
holding authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Parties to partitioning
agreements have two options for satisfying the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Under the first option, the
partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will independently
satisfy the substantial service requirement for its respective
partitioned area. If a licensee subsequently fails to meet its
substantial service requirement, its license will be subject to
automatic cancellation without further Commission action. Under the
second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet
the substantial service requirement for the entire, pre-partitioned
geographic service area. If the partitioner subsequently fails to meet
its substantial service requirement, only its license will be subject
to automatic cancellation without further Commission action.
* * * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands, or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands,
the following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Each party to a geographic
partitioning must individually meet any service-specific performance
requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a
partitioner or partitionee fails to meet any service-specific
performance requirements on or before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated in Sec.
27.14(q) for 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz licenses and those
enumerated in Sec. 27.14(r) for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
licensees.
(2) * * *
[[Page 50256]]
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees
holding authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Parties to disaggregation
agreements have two options for satisfying the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Under the first option, the
disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifies that it will share
responsibility for meeting the substantial service requirement for the
geographic service area. If the parties choose this option and either
party subsequently fails to satisfy its substantial service
responsibility, both parties' licenses will be subject to forfeiture
without further Commission action. Under the second option, both
parties certify either that the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will
meet the substantial service requirement for the geographic service
area. If the parties choose this option, and the party responsible
subsequently fails to meet the substantial service requirement, only
that party's license will be subject to forfeiture without further
Commission action.
* * * * *
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands,
the following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Each party to a spectrum
disaggregation must individually meet any service-specific performance
requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a
disaggregator or a disaggregatee fails to meet any service-specific
performance requirements on or before the required date, then the
consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated in Sec.
27.14(q) for 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz licenses and those
enumerated in Sec. 27.14(r) for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
licensees.
0
12. Section 27.17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.17 Discontinuance of service in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
(a) Termination of authorization. A licensee's AWS authorization in
the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz bands will automatically terminate, without specific
Commission action, if it permanently discontinues service after meeting
the respective Interim Buildout Requirement as specified in Sec.
27.14(r) or AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement as specified in Sec.
27.14(q).
(b) For licensees with common carrier or non-common carrier
regulatory status that hold AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and
1995-2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands,
permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days
during which a licensee does not provide service to at least one
subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to
the licensee. For licensees with private, internal regulatory status
that hold AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, permanent
discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during
which a licensee does not operate.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz bands or the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands that
permanently discontinues service as defined in this section must notify
the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form
601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An authorization will
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service
is permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a
licensee fails to file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
0
13. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory
text, paragraphs (d)(1) introductory text and (d)(2) introductory text,
and adding paragraphs (d)(9) and (10), to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, and 1995-2000 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, or 2180-2200 MHz band and located in any
county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile,
based upon the most recently available population statistics from the
Bureau of the Census, is limited to:
* * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, the 2110-2155 MHz, or 2180-2200 MHz band and situated in
any geographic location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section is limited to:
* * * * *
(9) Fixed, mobile and portable (hand-held) stations operating in
the 1915-1920 MHz band are limited to 300 milliwatts EIRP.
(10) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 1995-2000
MHz band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater
than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with all PCS G
Block licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in
the 1990-1995 MHz band within 120 kilometers of the base or fixed
station operating in this band.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(1) and adding
paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) General protection levels. Except as otherwise specified below,
for operations in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz,
2180-2200 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the power of any
emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be attenuated below
the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(2) * * *
(iii) For operations in the 1915-1920 MHz band, the power of any
emission between 1930-1995 MHz shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P)
dB.
(iv) For operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, the power of any
emission between 2005-2020 MHz shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P)
dB.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a)* * *
[[Page 50257]]
(1) 1995-2000, 2110-2155, 2180-2200 MHz, 2305-2320, and 2345-2360
MHz bands: 47 dB[mu]V/m.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 27.57 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
(c) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz,
1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands is subject to
international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
17. Add subpart K to part 27 to read as follows:
Subpart K--1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Sec.
Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions
27.1001 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.
27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
bands
Reimbursement Obligation of Licensees at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz
27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of licensees at 1915-1920 MHz.
27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of licensees at 1995-2000 MHz.
27.1041 Termination of cost-sharing obligations.
Subpart K--1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions
Sec. 27.1001 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands subject to
competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-
2000 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general
competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1002 Designated entities in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business provisions:
(a)(1) A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses
may use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as
defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may
use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this
chapter.
Reimbursement Obligation of Licensees at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz
Sec. 27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of licensees at 1915-1920 MHz.
A licensee in the 1915-1920 MHz band (Lower H Block) shall, within
30 days of grant of its long-form application, reimburse 25 percent of
the total relocation costs incurred by UTAM, Inc. for relocating and
clearing incumbent Fixed Microwave Service (FS) licensees from the
1910-1930 MHz band on a pro rata shared basis with other Lower H Block
licensees as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a)(1) If Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, at least forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, the amount owed to UTAM, Inc. by
each individual Lower H Block licensee (reimbursement amount owed or
RN) will be determined by dividing the gross winning bid (GWB) for each
individual Lower H Block license (i.e., an Economic Area (EA)) by the
sum of the gross winning bids for all Lower H Block licenses for which
there is a winning bid in the first auction, and then multiplying by
$12,629,857.
RN = (EA GWB / Sum of GWBs) x $12,629,857.00
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a
licensee that obtains a license for a market in which no license is
granted as a result of the first Lower H Block auction will not have a
reimbursement obligation to UTAM, Inc.
(b) If Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, less than forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, then the pro rata amount that the
licensee of an individual Lower H Block license must reimburse UTAM,
Inc. shall be calculated by dividing the population of the individual
EA by the total U.S. population, and then multiplying by $12,629,857.
In this event, the same population data, e.g., 2010, used to calculate
the RNs for Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first
auction will apply to subsequent auctions of Lower H Block licenses
that were not granted as a result of an earlier auction of Lower H
Block licenses.
RN = (EA POP / U.S. POP) x $12,629,857.00
(c) A winning bidder of a Lower H Block license that is not granted
a license for any reason will be deemed to have triggered a
reimbursement obligation to UTAM, Inc. This obligation will be owed to
UTAM, Inc. by the licensee acquiring the Lower H Block license through
a subsequent auction. The amount owed by the licensee acquiring the
Lower H Block license at such auction will be the RN calculated for the
EA license based on the first auction (calculated under paragraphs (a)
or (b), as applicable, of this section).
(d) For purposes of compliance with this section, licensees should
determine population based on 2010 U.S. Census Data or such other data
or measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction
procedures.
(e) A payment obligation owed by a Lower H Block licensees under
this section shall be made within thirty (30) days of the grant of the
license (i.e., grant of the long form application).
Sec. 27.1031 Reimbursement obligation of licensees at 1995-2000 MHz.
A licensee in the 1995-2000 MHz band (Upper H Block) shall, within
30 days of grant of its long-form application, reimburse one-seventh of
the eligible expenses incurred by Sprint Nextel, Inc. (Sprint) for
relocating and clearing Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable
Television Relay Service (CARS), and Local Television Transmission
Service (LTTS) incumbents from the 1990-2025 MHz band, on a pro rata
shared basis with other Upper H Block licensees as set forth in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a)(1) If Upper H Block licenses granted as a result of the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, at least forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, the amount owed to Sprint by the
winning bidder of each individual Upper H Block license granted as a
result of the first auction will be determined by dividing the gross
winning bid (GWB) for each individual Upper H Block license (i.e., an
Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of the gross winning bids for all Upper
H
[[Page 50258]]
Block licenses for which there is a winning bid in the first auction,
and then multiplying by $94,875,516.
RN = (EA GWB / Sum of GWBs) x $94,875,516
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a
licensee that obtains a license for a market in which no license was
granted as a result of the first Upper H Block auction will not have a
reimbursement obligation to Sprint.
(b) If Upper H Block licenses granted as a result of the first
auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, less than forty (40)
percent of the nation's population, then the amount that the licensee
of an individual Upper H Block license must reimburse Sprint shall be
calculated by dividing the population of the individual EA by the total
U.S. population, and then multiplying by $94,875,516. In this event,
the same population data, e.g., 2010, used to calculate the RNs for
Upper H Block licenses granted as a result of the first auction will
apply to subsequent auctions of Upper H Block licenses that were not
granted as a result of an earlier auction of Upper H Block licenses.
RN = (EA POP / U.S. POP) x $94,875,516
(c) A winning bidder of an Upper H Block license that is not
granted a license for any reason will be deemed to have triggered a
reimbursement obligation to Sprint. This obligation will be owed to
Sprint by the licensee acquiring the Upper H Block license through a
subsequent auction. The amount owed by the licensee acquiring the EA
license at such auction will be based on the RN calculated for the EA
license based on the first auction (calculated under paragraphs (a) or
(b), as applicable, of this section).
(d) For purposes of compliance with this section, licensees should
determine population based on 2010 U.S. Census Data or such other data
or measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes
and adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction
procedures.
(e) A payment obligation owed by a Upper H Block licensees under
this section shall be made within thirty (30) days of the grant of the
license (i.e., grant of the long form application).
Sec. 27.1041 Termination of cost-sharing obligations.
(a) The cost-sharing obligation adopted in this subpart for the
Lower H Block and for the Upper H Block will sunset ten years after the
first license is issued in the respective band.
(b) A Lower H Block licensee and an Upper H Block licensee must
satisfy in full its payment obligations under this subpart K within
thirty days of the grant of its long-form application. The failure to
timely satisfy a payment obligation in full prior to the applicable
sunset date will not terminate the debt owed or a party's right to
collect the debt.
[FR Doc. 2013-19779 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
