In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands, 42263-42266 [2017-18987]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 1, 2017. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2017–19018 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 27 [WT Docket No. 06–150, DA 17–810] In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762, and 777–792 MHz Bands Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission explains the overall rules and policies for the relicensing of 700 MHz spectrum that is returned to the Commission’s inventory as a result of licensees’ failure to meet applicable construction requirements, as set forth by the Commission in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order (WT Docket No. 06–150, FCC 07–132). The document seeks comment on the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s proposed approach for implementing the various rules and policies of the relicensing process. DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 10, 2017, and reply comments on or before November 6, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 06–150, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https:// fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Commenters are only required to file copies in GN Docket No. 13–111. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 Sep 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Æ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 418–0432 (TTY). FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT: Anna Gentry, Anna.Gentry@fcc.gov, of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418– 2887. For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918 or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s document in WT Docket No. 06–150, DA 17–810, released on August 28, 2017. The complete text of the Public Notice is available for viewing via the Commission’s ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 06–150. The complete text of the documents also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 488–5300, fax 202–488–5563. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules (47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.). Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 42263 within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. I. Synopsis In the 2007 700 MHz Second Report and Order,1 the Commission adopted rules for relicensing of 700 MHz Lower A, B, and E Block, and Upper C Block spectrum that is returned to the Commission’s inventory as a result of licensees’ failure to meet applicable construction requirements. The Commission set forth the overall rules and policies for the relicensing process and delegated authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) to implement those rules and policies. To the extent the 700 MHz Second Report and Order and other Commission rules set forth elements of the relicensing process, the document cites to those rules, and otherwise seeks comment on 1 Service Rules for 698–746, 747–762, and 777– 792 MHz Bands et al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report and Order). E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1 42264 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS the Bureau’s proposed approach to the remaining elements of the process, including the respective costs and benefits of the various proposals. A. Required Filing for Keep What You Serve Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, licensees that fail to meet the construction requirement and are subject to the Keep What You Serve (KWYS) KWYS rules will be required to file an electronic coverage map in order to demonstrate the geographic portion of the licensed area the licensee will retain, and the geographic area that will be returned to the Commission for reassignment. Licensees admitting failure must include the additional required filing for KWYS with their construction notification at the end-ofterm construction deadline. If a licensee claims to have met the construction benchmark, but the Bureau deems the licensee to have failed after review of the construction notification, the licensee will be asked to amend its initial construction notification filing to include the additional required filing for KWYS. In order to implement the KWYS rules, the document proposes and seeks comment on a process whereby licensees would demonstrate the ‘‘served’’ area of the license by filing a shapefile showing a smooth enclosed 40 dBmV/m field strength contour (Smooth Contour) of existing facilities as of the end-of-term deadline. The portion of the license market covered by the Smooth Contour would be deemed ‘‘served’’ for the purposes of the KWYS rule and become the reduced licensed area that the licensee ‘‘keeps.’’ Recognizing that some licensees might provide service at significantly lower field strength such that the 40 dBmV/m Smooth Contour would result in a reduced licensed area that is substantially smaller than the licensee’s actual service area, the document also proposes that, if the 40 dBmV/m Smooth Contour would result in a reduced licensed area that is at least 25 percent smaller than the licensee’s actual service area, the licensee could demonstrate the service area using a lower dBmV/m field strength smooth contour (Alternative Smooth Contour). Under this proposed approach, in order to be acceptable for filing, a submission using an Alternative Smooth Contour would be required to demonstrate that: (1) The licensee is operating a viable service at the lower field strength; and (2) the service area using the lower dBmV/m field strength Alternative Smooth Contour is at least 25 percent larger than it would be using the 40 dBmV/m field strength Smooth Contour. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 Sep 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 The Bureau would update the license in the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) using either the Smooth Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour shapefile to reflect the reduced license boundary. The remaining portion of the original license market would be deemed unserved area and would return to the Commission’s inventory for relicensing. The document seeks comment on this proposed methodology for determining licensees’ service area and what, if any, alternatives to this approach might achieve the Commission’s goals of accurately reflecting licensees’ service areas and making spectrum available for relicensing in an efficient manner. B. Identifying Unserved Area Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, information about the available unserved areas will be publicly available. Under the approach proposed in this document, the Bureau would use the Smooth Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour shapefiles submitted by failing licensees to determine the unserved areas of each market. The Bureau would compile these unserved portions together as areas that would be available for relicensing and would provide instructions on how to access that information by public notice. The public notice announcing the unserved areas available for relicensing would also provide further instructions and specific dates for the commencement of the relicensing process. In setting these dates, the Bureau intends to provide potential applicants with at least 60 days prior to the commencement of relicensing to enable them to make necessary inquiries about available area, e.g. site leases, existing infrastructure, neighboring operations, and network and backhaul needs. C. Phased Relicensing Process The document also describes the twophased application process for the relicensing of unserved areas, as set forth in Section 27.14 of the Commission’s rules. The document explains that applications for available unserved areas will be filed via ULS and the applicant will select the available unserved area that they wish to serve by filing a shapefile covering that area. In order to implement the relicensing process, this document proposes to provide applicants with access to a publicly available map displaying the areas available for relicensing, from which they could determine the areas they are interested in licensing. In the interest of administrative clarity and functionality, this document proposes PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 limiting a single application to include one shapefile of a contiguous shape, or, if non-contiguous, requiring that the shapes be within a single market boundary. If an applicant files for noncontiguous shapes in a single application, grant of the application would result in a single license and a single buildout requirement would be applied to all shapes as a whole. Consequently, failure to meet the buildout requirement with respect to one non-contiguous shape would result in application of the penalty for failure to all shapes as a whole. This document seeks comment on this proposed treatment of applications for available unserved areas and what, if any, further restrictions or methods might be necessary to ensure efficient processing and review of applications filed during the relicensing process. D. Phase 1 of Relicensing As set forth in the Commission’s rules, relicensing will begin with a 30day Phase 1 filing window. Pursuant to section 27.14, the original licensee of available unserved areas, whose authorization to serve that area terminated due to failure to meet the end-of-term construction benchmark, is barred during Phase 1 from applying to relicense that area. This Phase 1 bar is specific to each unserved area, and therefore an applicant that is barred from one unserved area during Phase 1 is not barred from applying for other available areas for which it was not the original licensee. In order to implement the Phase 1 bar, this document proposes to apply the bar to any applicant that has any interest or ownership in, or any control of, the original licensee and to any applicant in which the original licensee has any interest, ownership, or control. This document seeks comment on requiring applicants to certify in the application that: (1) The applicant is not the original licensee of the unserved area; (2) the applicant does not have any interest in or own or control any part of the original licensee of the unserved area; and (3) the original licensee of the unserved area does not have any interest in or own or control any part of the applicant. This document seeks comment on this approach and potential alternatives for applying the bar, including application of the Commission’s pro forma standard for determining ownership, which looks to both de jure and de facto control of the licensee. Pursuant to the Commission’s Part 1 rules, at the end of the 30-day Phase 1 filing window, the Bureau will issue a public notice listing applications found E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS acceptable for filing during Phase 1. The public notice will identify which acceptable applications, if any, are mutually exclusive with each other. All applications received during the Phase 1 filing window for a particular available unserved area are treated as contemporaneous for the purposes of mutual exclusivity. Pursuant to section 27.14(j)(1), applications will be deemed mutually exclusive if they propose areas overlapping with other applications. Consistent with the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, no further mutually exclusive applications may be filed after the 30-day filing window has ended, but licensees and third parties may file petitions to deny any pending applications within 30 days of the release of the public notice listing Phase 1 applications found acceptable for filing. This document explains that, subject to the Greenmail Rule, applicants may resolve mutual exclusivity by withdrawing or filing a minor amendment to one or both of the mutually exclusive applications, and describes the types of amendments that qualify as a minor amendment, rather than a major amendment, which requires a new public notice period. In order to implement these policies concerning mutually exclusive applications, this document proposes that applicants would be permitted to resolve their mutually exclusive applications or attempt to reach a settlement during the public notice period that follows the Phase 1 filing window. Similar to the Commission’s approach in other licensing and competitive bidding contexts, this document proposes that the definition of mutually exclusive applications would include ‘‘daisy chains’’ of mutual exclusivity, which occur when two or more applications contain proposed areas that do not directly overlap, but are linked together into a chain by the overlapping proposal(s) of other(s). E. Phase 2 of Relicensing As set forth in the rules establishing the relicensing process, during Phase 2 interested applicants, including those that were barred during Phase 1, may file applications for available unserved areas that were not licensed during Phase 1 or for which there are no pending applications. In order to implement the Phase 2 process, this document proposes and seeks comment on a process whereby the Bureau would update the publicly available relicensing map following Phase 1 to reflect pending applications, licenses that were issued, and area that remains available for relicensing. As with Phase 1, this document proposes VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 Sep 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 that the definition of mutual exclusivity for Phase 2 applications would include applications that, though not mutually exclusive of the first-filed application, are mutually exclusive of another application that overlaps the first-filed application—i.e., a ‘‘daisy chain’’ as described above. This document proposes that the public notice for the first-filed application would determine the applicable filing period for all subsequent mutually exclusive or ‘‘daisy chain’’ applications. Following a Phase 2 application’s 30-day public notice, this document proposes and seeks comment on a process whereby, if the Bureau determines there are existing applications that are mutually exclusive of the initial application, it would notify the parties of the conflicting applications and provide 60 days to resolve the mutual exclusivity. Any mutually exclusive applications that are not resolved by the end of the 60-day period would be subject to auction. This document seeks comment on this proposed approach to mutual exclusivity during Phase 2. F. Relicensed Area Construction Requirement and Showing As set forth in section 27.14(j)(3), licensees of 700 MHz licenses acquired through the relicensing process will have one year from the date the new license is issued to complete construction, provide signal coverage, and offer service over 100 percent of the geographic area of the new license area. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, if the licensee fails to meet this construction requirement, its license will automatically terminate without Commission action and it will not be eligible to apply to provide service to this area at any future date. In order to implement the Commission’s goals of facilitating rapid deployment of service on relicensed spectrum and to prevent potential gaming of the relicensing process, this document proposes to treat any modification, cancellation, or assignment of a license as failure to provide signal coverage and offer service to the entire relicensed area, such that the penalty for failure would apply. Specifically, under the proposal, licensees would not be permitted to modify the licensed area prior to meeting the one-year construction benchmark in order to reduce the area they must cover. Cancellation of the license prior to meeting the one-year construction benchmark would also constitute failure, and the former licensee would not be eligible to apply to serve any portion of this area at any future date. Finally, licensees would be PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 42265 permitted to file applications to assign licenses acquired through relicensing (including requests to partition and disaggregate) only after they have demonstrated that they have met the construction benchmark. This document seeks comment on this approach to the construction requirement and what, if any, further restrictions might be necessary to promote the Commission’s goals in establishing the requirements. In order to implement the construction requirement for relicensed area, this document proposes that, at the one-year construction deadline, licensees would be required to demonstrate that they provide signal coverage and offer service over 100 percent of the geographic area by filing either a Smooth Contour or an Alternative Smooth Contour, consistent with the proposed required filings for KWYS. This document seek comment on what, if any, alternative filings might be appropriate methods for licensees to demonstrate that they satisfy the construction requirement. Given the proposed requirements and penalties for failing to meet the construction requirement, this document notes that it is particularly important that potential participants in the relicensing process only apply for portions of available unserved areas if they, through due diligence, have determined they can provide signal coverage and offer service over 100 percent of the area within one year from the date of license issuance. Under approach proposed in this document, it would be particularly important that potential licensees conduct due diligence prior to applying for available unserved areas during the relicensing process and ensure the shapefile used in their application is an accurate reflection of the Smooth Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour they would be required to file at the one-year construction deadline. Additionally, the Bureau recommends that potential licensees review the technical narratives and specifications of construction notifications that the Bureau has previously accepted for the 700 MHz band. II. Procedural Matters Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in connection with the 700 MHz Further E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1 42266 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules Notice 2 and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in connection with the 700 MHz Second Report and Order.3 While no commenter directly responded to the IRFA, the FRFA addressed concerns about the impact on small business of the KWYS rules. The IRFA and FRFA set forth the need for and objectives of the Commission’s rules for the KWYS rules; the legal basis for those rules, a description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rules apply; a description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities; steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities and significant alternatives considered; and a statement that there are no federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rules. The proposals in this document do not change any of those descriptions. This document does, however, detail proposed procedures for implementing those rules. Therefore, this document seeks comment on how the proposals in this document could affect either the IRFA or the FRFA. Such comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for responses to this document and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and FRFA. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS The document contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ‘‘further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.’’ Federal Communications Commission. Nese Guendelsberger, Senior Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. [FR Doc. 2017–18987 Filed 9–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 2 Service Rules for 698–746, 747–762, and 777– 792 MHz Bands et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8212 (2007) (700 MHz Further Notice). 3 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15542. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 Sep 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov National Oceanic and Atmospheric without change. All personal identifying Administration information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or 50 CFR Part 648 otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will [Docket No. 170717675–7675–01] be publicly accessible. NMFS will RIN 0648–XF571 accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ A’’ in the required fields if you wish to Fisheries of the Northeastern United remain anonymous). States; Golden Tilefish Fishery; 2018 A draft environmental assessment and Projected 2019–2020 (EA) has been prepared for this action Specifications that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, as AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries well as provides an analysis of the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and impacts of the proposed measures and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alternatives. Copies of the specifications Commerce. document, including the EA and the ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis comments. (IRFA), are available on request from Dr. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery for the 2018 commercial golden tilefish Management Council, Suite 201, 800 fishery and projected specifications for North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 2019 and 2020. The proposed action is These documents are also accessible via intended to establish allowable harvest the Internet at https://www.mafmc.org. levels and other management measures FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to prevent overfishing while allowing Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management optimum yield, consistent with the Specialist, (978) 281–9180. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. Background It is also intended to inform the public of these proposed specifications for the The golden tilefish fishery is managed 2018 fishing year and projected by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery specifications for 2019–2020. Management Council under the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which DATES: Comments must be received by outlines the Council’s process for 5 p.m. local time, on September 22, establishing annual specifications. The 2017. FMP requires the Council to recommend ADDRESSES: You may submit comments acceptable biological catch (ABC), on this document, identified by NOAA– annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch NMFS–2017–0091, by either of the target (ACT), total allowable landings following methods: (TAL), and other management measures, ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Submit for up to three years at a time. The all electronic public comments via the directed fishery is managed under an Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ with small amounts of non-IFQ catch #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017allowed under an incidental permit. The 0091, Council’s Scientific and Statistical 2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, Committee (SSC) provides an ABC complete the required fields. recommendation to the Council to 3. Enter or attach your comments. derive these catch limits. The Council - OR makes recommendations to NMFS that cannot exceed the recommendation of MAIL: Submit written comments to its SSC. The Council’s John Bullard, Regional Administrator, recommendations must include National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 supporting documentation concerning Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA the environmental, economic, and social 01930. Mark the outside of the impacts of the recommendations. We envelope: ‘‘Comments on the Proposed are responsible for reviewing these Rule for Golden Tilefish recommendations to ensure that they Specifications.’’ achieve the FMP objectives and are INSTRUCTIONS: Comments sent by consistent with all applicable laws, and any other method, to any other address may modify them if they do not. or individual, or received after the end Following review, NMFS publishes the of the comment period, may not be final specifications in the Federal considered by NMFS. All comments Register. received are part of the public record DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42263-42266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18987]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[WT Docket No. 06-150, DA 17-810]


In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762, and 777-
792 MHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
explains the overall rules and policies for the relicensing of 700 MHz 
spectrum that is returned to the Commission's inventory as a result of 
licensees' failure to meet applicable construction requirements, as set 
forth by the Commission in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order (WT 
Docket No. 06-150, FCC 07-132). The document seeks comment on the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's proposed approach for implementing 
the various rules and policies of the relicensing process.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 10, 
2017, and reply comments on or before November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 06-150, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS): https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally if more than 
one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each 
additional docket or rulemaking number. Commenters are only required to 
file copies in GN Docket No. 13-111.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT: Anna Gentry, Anna.Gentry@fcc.gov, of 
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-
2887. For additional information concerning the PRA information 
collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy 
Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document in WT Docket No. 06-150, DA 17-810, released on August 28, 
2017. The complete text of the Public Notice is available for viewing 
via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, WT 
Docket No. 06-150. The complete text of the documents also available 
for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 
Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on 
Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-
488-5563.
    This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules (47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.). Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the 
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine 
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which 
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

I. Synopsis

    In the 2007 700 MHz Second Report and Order,\1\ the Commission 
adopted rules for relicensing of 700 MHz Lower A, B, and E Block, and 
Upper C Block spectrum that is returned to the Commission's inventory 
as a result of licensees' failure to meet applicable construction 
requirements. The Commission set forth the overall rules and policies 
for the relicensing process and delegated authority to the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) to implement those rules and 
policies. To the extent the 700 MHz Second Report and Order and other 
Commission rules set forth elements of the relicensing process, the 
document cites to those rules, and otherwise seeks comment on

[[Page 42264]]

the Bureau's proposed approach to the remaining elements of the 
process, including the respective costs and benefits of the various 
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Service Rules for 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands et 
al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz 
Second Report and Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Required Filing for Keep What You Serve

    Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, licensees that 
fail to meet the construction requirement and are subject to the Keep 
What You Serve (KWYS) KWYS rules will be required to file an electronic 
coverage map in order to demonstrate the geographic portion of the 
licensed area the licensee will retain, and the geographic area that 
will be returned to the Commission for reassignment. Licensees 
admitting failure must include the additional required filing for KWYS 
with their construction notification at the end-of-term construction 
deadline. If a licensee claims to have met the construction benchmark, 
but the Bureau deems the licensee to have failed after review of the 
construction notification, the licensee will be asked to amend its 
initial construction notification filing to include the additional 
required filing for KWYS.
    In order to implement the KWYS rules, the document proposes and 
seeks comment on a process whereby licensees would demonstrate the 
``served'' area of the license by filing a shapefile showing a smooth 
enclosed 40 dB[micro]V/m field strength contour (Smooth Contour) of 
existing facilities as of the end-of-term deadline. The portion of the 
license market covered by the Smooth Contour would be deemed ``served'' 
for the purposes of the KWYS rule and become the reduced licensed area 
that the licensee ``keeps.'' Recognizing that some licensees might 
provide service at significantly lower field strength such that the 40 
dB[micro]V/m Smooth Contour would result in a reduced licensed area 
that is substantially smaller than the licensee's actual service area, 
the document also proposes that, if the 40 dB[micro]V/m Smooth Contour 
would result in a reduced licensed area that is at least 25 percent 
smaller than the licensee's actual service area, the licensee could 
demonstrate the service area using a lower dB[micro]V/m field strength 
smooth contour (Alternative Smooth Contour). Under this proposed 
approach, in order to be acceptable for filing, a submission using an 
Alternative Smooth Contour would be required to demonstrate that: (1) 
The licensee is operating a viable service at the lower field strength; 
and (2) the service area using the lower dB[micro]V/m field strength 
Alternative Smooth Contour is at least 25 percent larger than it would 
be using the 40 dB[micro]V/m field strength Smooth Contour. The Bureau 
would update the license in the Commission's Universal Licensing System 
(ULS) using either the Smooth Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour 
shapefile to reflect the reduced license boundary. The remaining 
portion of the original license market would be deemed unserved area 
and would return to the Commission's inventory for relicensing.
    The document seeks comment on this proposed methodology for 
determining licensees' service area and what, if any, alternatives to 
this approach might achieve the Commission's goals of accurately 
reflecting licensees' service areas and making spectrum available for 
relicensing in an efficient manner.

B. Identifying Unserved Area

    Pursuant to the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, information about 
the available unserved areas will be publicly available. Under the 
approach proposed in this document, the Bureau would use the Smooth 
Contour or Alternative Smooth Contour shapefiles submitted by failing 
licensees to determine the unserved areas of each market. The Bureau 
would compile these unserved portions together as areas that would be 
available for relicensing and would provide instructions on how to 
access that information by public notice. The public notice announcing 
the unserved areas available for relicensing would also provide further 
instructions and specific dates for the commencement of the relicensing 
process. In setting these dates, the Bureau intends to provide 
potential applicants with at least 60 days prior to the commencement of 
relicensing to enable them to make necessary inquiries about available 
area, e.g. site leases, existing infrastructure, neighboring 
operations, and network and backhaul needs.

C. Phased Relicensing Process

    The document also describes the two-phased application process for 
the relicensing of unserved areas, as set forth in Section 27.14 of the 
Commission's rules. The document explains that applications for 
available unserved areas will be filed via ULS and the applicant will 
select the available unserved area that they wish to serve by filing a 
shapefile covering that area.
    In order to implement the relicensing process, this document 
proposes to provide applicants with access to a publicly available map 
displaying the areas available for relicensing, from which they could 
determine the areas they are interested in licensing. In the interest 
of administrative clarity and functionality, this document proposes 
limiting a single application to include one shapefile of a contiguous 
shape, or, if non-contiguous, requiring that the shapes be within a 
single market boundary. If an applicant files for non-contiguous shapes 
in a single application, grant of the application would result in a 
single license and a single buildout requirement would be applied to 
all shapes as a whole. Consequently, failure to meet the buildout 
requirement with respect to one non-contiguous shape would result in 
application of the penalty for failure to all shapes as a whole. This 
document seeks comment on this proposed treatment of applications for 
available unserved areas and what, if any, further restrictions or 
methods might be necessary to ensure efficient processing and review of 
applications filed during the relicensing process.

D. Phase 1 of Relicensing

    As set forth in the Commission's rules, relicensing will begin with 
a 30-day Phase 1 filing window. Pursuant to section 27.14, the original 
licensee of available unserved areas, whose authorization to serve that 
area terminated due to failure to meet the end-of-term construction 
benchmark, is barred during Phase 1 from applying to relicense that 
area. This Phase 1 bar is specific to each unserved area, and therefore 
an applicant that is barred from one unserved area during Phase 1 is 
not barred from applying for other available areas for which it was not 
the original licensee.
    In order to implement the Phase 1 bar, this document proposes to 
apply the bar to any applicant that has any interest or ownership in, 
or any control of, the original licensee and to any applicant in which 
the original licensee has any interest, ownership, or control. This 
document seeks comment on requiring applicants to certify in the 
application that: (1) The applicant is not the original licensee of the 
unserved area; (2) the applicant does not have any interest in or own 
or control any part of the original licensee of the unserved area; and 
(3) the original licensee of the unserved area does not have any 
interest in or own or control any part of the applicant. This document 
seeks comment on this approach and potential alternatives for applying 
the bar, including application of the Commission's pro forma standard 
for determining ownership, which looks to both de jure and de facto 
control of the licensee.
    Pursuant to the Commission's Part 1 rules, at the end of the 30-day 
Phase 1 filing window, the Bureau will issue a public notice listing 
applications found

[[Page 42265]]

acceptable for filing during Phase 1. The public notice will identify 
which acceptable applications, if any, are mutually exclusive with each 
other. All applications received during the Phase 1 filing window for a 
particular available unserved area are treated as contemporaneous for 
the purposes of mutual exclusivity. Pursuant to section 27.14(j)(1), 
applications will be deemed mutually exclusive if they propose areas 
overlapping with other applications. Consistent with the 700 MHz Second 
Report and Order, no further mutually exclusive applications may be 
filed after the 30-day filing window has ended, but licensees and third 
parties may file petitions to deny any pending applications within 30 
days of the release of the public notice listing Phase 1 applications 
found acceptable for filing. This document explains that, subject to 
the Greenmail Rule, applicants may resolve mutual exclusivity by 
withdrawing or filing a minor amendment to one or both of the mutually 
exclusive applications, and describes the types of amendments that 
qualify as a minor amendment, rather than a major amendment, which 
requires a new public notice period.
    In order to implement these policies concerning mutually exclusive 
applications, this document proposes that applicants would be permitted 
to resolve their mutually exclusive applications or attempt to reach a 
settlement during the public notice period that follows the Phase 1 
filing window. Similar to the Commission's approach in other licensing 
and competitive bidding contexts, this document proposes that the 
definition of mutually exclusive applications would include ``daisy 
chains'' of mutual exclusivity, which occur when two or more 
applications contain proposed areas that do not directly overlap, but 
are linked together into a chain by the overlapping proposal(s) of 
other(s).

E. Phase 2 of Relicensing

    As set forth in the rules establishing the relicensing process, 
during Phase 2 interested applicants, including those that were barred 
during Phase 1, may file applications for available unserved areas that 
were not licensed during Phase 1 or for which there are no pending 
applications.
    In order to implement the Phase 2 process, this document proposes 
and seeks comment on a process whereby the Bureau would update the 
publicly available relicensing map following Phase 1 to reflect pending 
applications, licenses that were issued, and area that remains 
available for relicensing. As with Phase 1, this document proposes that 
the definition of mutual exclusivity for Phase 2 applications would 
include applications that, though not mutually exclusive of the first-
filed application, are mutually exclusive of another application that 
overlaps the first-filed application--i.e., a ``daisy chain'' as 
described above. This document proposes that the public notice for the 
first-filed application would determine the applicable filing period 
for all subsequent mutually exclusive or ``daisy chain'' applications. 
Following a Phase 2 application's 30-day public notice, this document 
proposes and seeks comment on a process whereby, if the Bureau 
determines there are existing applications that are mutually exclusive 
of the initial application, it would notify the parties of the 
conflicting applications and provide 60 days to resolve the mutual 
exclusivity. Any mutually exclusive applications that are not resolved 
by the end of the 60-day period would be subject to auction. This 
document seeks comment on this proposed approach to mutual exclusivity 
during Phase 2.

F. Relicensed Area Construction Requirement and Showing

    As set forth in section 27.14(j)(3), licensees of 700 MHz licenses 
acquired through the relicensing process will have one year from the 
date the new license is issued to complete construction, provide signal 
coverage, and offer service over 100 percent of the geographic area of 
the new license area. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, if the 
licensee fails to meet this construction requirement, its license will 
automatically terminate without Commission action and it will not be 
eligible to apply to provide service to this area at any future date.
    In order to implement the Commission's goals of facilitating rapid 
deployment of service on relicensed spectrum and to prevent potential 
gaming of the relicensing process, this document proposes to treat any 
modification, cancellation, or assignment of a license as failure to 
provide signal coverage and offer service to the entire relicensed 
area, such that the penalty for failure would apply. Specifically, 
under the proposal, licensees would not be permitted to modify the 
licensed area prior to meeting the one-year construction benchmark in 
order to reduce the area they must cover. Cancellation of the license 
prior to meeting the one-year construction benchmark would also 
constitute failure, and the former licensee would not be eligible to 
apply to serve any portion of this area at any future date. Finally, 
licensees would be permitted to file applications to assign licenses 
acquired through relicensing (including requests to partition and 
disaggregate) only after they have demonstrated that they have met the 
construction benchmark. This document seeks comment on this approach to 
the construction requirement and what, if any, further restrictions 
might be necessary to promote the Commission's goals in establishing 
the requirements.
    In order to implement the construction requirement for relicensed 
area, this document proposes that, at the one-year construction 
deadline, licensees would be required to demonstrate that they provide 
signal coverage and offer service over 100 percent of the geographic 
area by filing either a Smooth Contour or an Alternative Smooth 
Contour, consistent with the proposed required filings for KWYS. This 
document seek comment on what, if any, alternative filings might be 
appropriate methods for licensees to demonstrate that they satisfy the 
construction requirement.
    Given the proposed requirements and penalties for failing to meet 
the construction requirement, this document notes that it is 
particularly important that potential participants in the relicensing 
process only apply for portions of available unserved areas if they, 
through due diligence, have determined they can provide signal coverage 
and offer service over 100 percent of the area within one year from the 
date of license issuance. Under approach proposed in this document, it 
would be particularly important that potential licensees conduct due 
diligence prior to applying for available unserved areas during the 
relicensing process and ensure the shapefile used in their application 
is an accurate reflection of the Smooth Contour or Alternative Smooth 
Contour they would be required to file at the one-year construction 
deadline. Additionally, the Bureau recommends that potential licensees 
review the technical narratives and specifications of construction 
notifications that the Bureau has previously accepted for the 700 MHz 
band.

II. Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 
Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
in connection with the 700 MHz Further

[[Page 42266]]

Notice \2\ and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in 
connection with the 700 MHz Second Report and Order.\3\ While no 
commenter directly responded to the IRFA, the FRFA addressed concerns 
about the impact on small business of the KWYS rules. The IRFA and FRFA 
set forth the need for and objectives of the Commission's rules for the 
KWYS rules; the legal basis for those rules, a description and estimate 
of the number of small entities to which the rules apply; a description 
of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for small entities; steps taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities and significant 
alternatives considered; and a statement that there are no federal 
rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rules. The 
proposals in this document do not change any of those descriptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Service Rules for 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz Bands et 
al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 
FCC Rcd 8064, 8212 (2007) (700 MHz Further Notice).
    \3\ 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document does, however, detail proposed procedures for 
implementing those rules. Therefore, this document seeks comment on how 
the proposals in this document could affect either the IRFA or the 
FRFA. Such comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing 
deadlines for responses to this document and have a separate and 
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and FRFA.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    The document contains proposed new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Federal Communications Commission.
Nese Guendelsberger,
Senior Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017-18987 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.