Reallocation of 470-512 MHz (T-Band) Spectrum, 46047-46063 [2020-15707]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46047-46063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15707]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27

[PS Docket No. 13-42; FCC 20-89; FRS 16931]


Reallocation of 470-512 MHz (T-Band) Spectrum

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on reallocating 
spectrum associated with broadcast television channels 14-20 (470-512 
MHz or T-Band), assigning new licenses by auction for the 6 megahertz 
to 18 megahertz of spectrum that is potentially available in each of 
the eleven urbanized areas, and relocating ``public safety eligibles'' 
from the T-Band. Specifically, the Commission proposes rules that would 
allow for flexible use in the auctioned T-Band, including wireless 
(fixed or mobile) use. The Commission also proposes to permit broadcast 
operations and seeks comment on how best to facilitate this and other 
potential uses. The Commission seeks comment on transition mechanisms 
and costs for relocating public safety eligibles from the T-Band, 
including whether to transition these licensees only where auction 
revenues exceed anticipated transition costs. The Commission also 
proposes an auction framework and licensing, operating, and technical 
rules for the reallocated spectrum that would preserve the current 
environment for incumbents remaining in the T-Band. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to best address the non-public safety 
operations in the T-Band to maximize opportunities for new entrants, 
including whether and how to transition non-public safety operations.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before August 31, 
2020; and reply comments on or before September 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 13-42, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in 
docket number PS Docket No. 13-42. 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.
    Filings can be sent 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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Melissa Conway, 
[email protected], 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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 13-42, FCC 20-89, 
released on July 6, 2020. The complete text of the NPRM is available 
for viewing via the Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket 
number, PS Docket No. 13-42.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format),

[[Page 46048]]

send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document.

Ex Parte Rules

    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). 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.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. It requests written public 
comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix B to the NPRM. Comments must 
be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in 
response to the NPRM as set forth on the first page of this document, 
and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses 
to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Synopsis

    Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 
2012 (T-Band Mandate) \1\ directs the Commission to reallocate T-Band 
spectrum used by ``public safety eligibles'' and begin a system of 
competitive bidding to grant new initial licenses for the use of the 
spectrum by February 22, 2021, to relocate these public safety entities 
from the T-Band no later than two years after completion of the system 
of competitive bidding, and to make auction proceeds available to the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 
make grants as necessary to cover relocation costs for the public 
safety entities for which the statute requires relocation. This NPRM is 
the commencement of the process to meet each of the statutory deadlines 
and directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public 
Law 112-96, section 6103, 126 Stat. 156, 205-206 (2012), (codified 
at 47 U.S.C. 1413) (Spectrum Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Allocation and Use of T-Band Frequencies

    In 1970, the Commission allocated spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band 
in certain ``major urbanized areas'' for sharing between broadcast 
television and ``public safety, industrial, and land transportation'' 
private land mobile radio services (PLMR). The Commission did so to 
address spectrum shortages and congestion in certain urbanized areas 
for those services and to anticipate future PLMR growth and spectrum 
needs. Today, T-Band spectrum is assigned to Public Safety Pool and 
Industrial/Business PLMR operations in the following eleven urbanized 
areas: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Houston, TX; Los 
Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York, NY/NE NJ; Philadelphia, PA; 
Pittsburgh, PA; San Francisco/Oakland, CA; and Washington, DC/MD/VA. 
Additionally, in some urbanized areas, T-Band spectrum within the 
lowest 300 kilohertz of each broadcast television channel is designated 
for part 22 public mobile service. Commission rules allow T-Band 
licensees an operational radius of 128 kilometers (80 miles) from the 
geographic center of each urbanized area.
    Each television broadcast channel consists of a 6 megahertz block, 
with the number and frequency range of broadcast channel(s) open for 
assignment to T-Band users varying in each urbanized area. With limited 
exceptions, T-Band frequency assignments within each broadcast channel 
are available in the eleven urbanized areas for use by either type of 
licensee. Paired frequencies are assigned in 12.5 kilohertz or 25 
kilohertz bandwidths, with each frequency pair separated by 3 megahertz 
to avoid interference. As a result, Public Safety frequency assignments 
are interleaved with Industrial/Business frequency assignments in most 
T-Band channels. T-Band spectrum consists of interleaved narrowband 
channels and is heavily used by these entities across the eleven 
urbanized areas. According to Commission licensing records, there are 
approximately 925 Public Safety licensees with 3,000 stations, and 
approximately 700 non-public safety entities with 1700 stations 
throughout the T-Band spectrum. In addition, some entities in the T-
Band, both public safety and Industrial/Business, operate through 
waivers of Sec.  90.305 of the Commission's rules governing location of 
T-Band stations. The ratio of public safety to Industrial/Business 
usage

[[Page 46049]]

varies from urbanized area to urbanized area.

B. Statutory Directive

    In analyzing the T-Band Mandate's potential impact, the Government 
Accountability Office concluded in 2019 that T-Band relocation poses 
significant challenges, including uncertainty of available spectrum, 
high cost, and interoperability concerns, and that implementation of 
the T-Band Mandate could deprive first responders of their current 
ability to communicate by radio. The National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council, in both a 2013 report and a 2016 updated 
report, calculated the cost to relocate public safety operations from 
the T-Band would be approximately $5.9 billion. The Commission's own 
estimates from early 2019 indicated that relocating public safety users 
from the T-Band would have an estimated cost between $5 and $6 billion 
and that these estimated relocation costs would greatly exceed the 
total expected revenues from an auction for both wireless use and the 
provision of broadcast services.
    Bipartisan Congressional opposition to the T-Band Mandate has 
increased as the deadline approaches. Multiple bills have been 
introduced that would repeal the T-Band Mandate. Congressional 
statements calling for repeal note the critical nature of these public 
safety communications as well as the substantial concern that the 
potential value of the spectrum at auction would not cover relocation 
costs.
    In this proceeding, the Commission proposes an approach to 
implement the T-Band Mandate for the 470-512 MHz band and address a 
variety of issues, such as an expanded allocation, band plan, spectrum 
block size, overlay license rights, and license area size, that would 
allow new flexible-use licensees to make use of the spectrum vacated by 
the mandatory transition of public safety eligibles. The Commission 
also addresses issues related to the transition of public safety 
incumbents out of the band, including which entities require 
transition, and seek comment on potential paths forward for incumbent 
Industrial/Business licensees and licensees operating in the T-Band 
pursuant to part 22 of the Commission's rules, as the T-Band Mandate is 
silent with regard to treatment of those licensees. Finally, the 
Commission proposes rules that would allow for flexible use under part 
27 of the Commission's rules in the auctioned T-Band spectrum.

C. Reallocation and Licensing of T-Band Spectrum for Flexible Use

    The T-Band Mandate provides that the ``Commission shall . . . 
reallocate the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band . . . currently used by 
public safety eligibles as identified in Sec.  90.303'' of the 
Commission's rules. In considering how to reallocate this spectrum, and 
consistent with the Commission's approach to allocation of certain 
other bands, the Commission seeks to provide flexibility for new T-Band 
licensees, after relocation of public safety operations, to tailor the 
use of the band to their specific operational needs and to maximize 
network efficiency. The Commission therefore proposes a modification of 
the current 470-512 MHz band co-primary allocations to provide for 
Mobile Service, Fixed Service, and Broadcasting. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. In particular, the Commission asks whether 
the expansion of the Land Mobile Service allocation for the 470-512 MHz 
band to permit Mobile Service, which would include not only Land Mobile 
Service, but Aeronautical Service and Maritime Service, would allow for 
more efficient use of the spectrum? How might an expanded allocation 
affect the resulting interference environment in the band, and would 
additional protections be necessary? How should the addition of either 
or both of these expanded allocations be reflected in the proposed 
rules? Commenters should discuss in detail the costs and benefits of 
any expanded allocations.
    The Commission believes that its proposal meets the requirements 
for the allocation of flexible use spectrum under section 303(y) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). That section allows the 
Commission to allocate spectrum for flexible uses if the allocation is 
consistent with international agreements and if it finds that: (1) The 
allocation is in the public interest; (2) the allocation does not deter 
investment in communications services, systems, or development of 
technologies; and (3) such use would not result in harmful interference 
among users. The proposed allocation is consistent with international 
allocations for use of the 470-512 MHz band. Further, the proposed 
licensing framework for the new T-Band operations could spur innovation 
and investment in communications services, systems, and wireless 
technologies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    Band Plan. The Commission proposes the band plan below in Figure 1 
that would accommodate an auction of geographic area licenses of six 
megahertz blocks on a block-by-block basis in the 470-512 MHz band. The 
Commission proposes that the following blocks will be available in the 
listed urbanized areas, consistent with the current T-Band frequency 
assignments set forth in Sec. Sec.  90.303 and 90.311 of our rules: A 
Block (Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Pittsburgh); B 
Block (Chicago, New York); C Block (Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New 
York, San Francisco); D Block (Houston, San Francisco, Washington DC); 
E Block (Pittsburgh, Washington, DC); F Block (Philadelphia): G Block 
(Los Angeles, Philadelphia), shown in Figure 2. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposed band plan and any appropriate alternatives, as 
well as the costs and benefits of any alternatives.

[[Page 46050]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY20.011

    The Commission emphasizes that it is not proposing any changes to 
the other, non-public safety allocations in the band at this time.
    Spectrum Block Size and Overlay Licensing. In proposing the 
spectrum block sizes for new licenses in the 470-512 MHz band, the 
Commission is mindful of the existing spectral environment. The T-Band 
Mandate requires that the Commission use competitive bidding to grant 
new initial licenses for the use of spectrum currently used by public 
safety eligibles as identified in Sec.  90.303 of the Commission's 
rules and to relocate those public safety licensees from the T-Band. 
This approach would necessarily limit available channels to discrete 
frequency pairings within the six megahertz block in a given urbanized 
area, and would exclude from competitive bidding all frequencies 
currently authorized to Industrial/Business licensees pursuant to part 
90 of the Commission's rules and all frequencies currently authorized 
to licensees for point to multi-point operation pursuant to part 22 of 
the Commission's rules. In the event that the Commission accepts 
mutually exclusive applications for licenses in the band, it will grant 
the licenses through a system of competitive bidding, consistent with 
section 309(j) of the Act. Further, to facilitate increased 
flexibility, the Commission proposes to use its authority pursuant to 
the T-Band Mandate and section 309(j) of the Act to make available for 
licensing through competitive bidding in a given urbanized area the 
full six megahertz blocks in the 470-512 MHz band as an overlay 
authorization. An overlay license authorizes operations for a 
geographic area ``overlaid'' on existing incumbent licensees, 
consisting in the T-Band of part 90 Industrial/Business and Public 
Safety Pool licensees, and part 22 point to multi-point licensees. This 
approach requires the overlay licensee to protect existing incumbents 
from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the incumbent rights are 
relinquished. The Commission concludes that offering overlay licenses 
will best protect the rights of incumbent licensees that might remain 
in the band.
    Consistent with an overlay approach, any new licensee operation on 
a frequency pair within the six megahertz is fully dependent upon 
whether an incumbent licensee is relocated from the T-Band spectrum. 
The Commission proposes that, as required by the T-Band Mandate, only 
``public safety eligibles'' using T-Band spectrum are to be mandatorily 
relocated from the T-Band at this time. Would issuing overlay 
authorizations for the current six megahertz spectrum block, with only 
public safety eligibles proposed to be relocated from the T-Band, allow 
for both the provision of potential new services and the maintenance of 
a status quo incumbent interference environment for existing 
operations? The Commission seeks comment in general on the overlay 
auction approach with public safety eligibles relocating from the T-
Band. The Commission seeks specific comment on whether this approach 
would lay the foundation for promoting the most efficient and intensive 
use of the spectrum and the recovery for the public of a portion of the 
value of the public spectrum resource. The Commission also seeks 
comment any alternatives approaches and the associated costs and 
benefits.
    The Commission proposes that an overlay licensee in the T-Band 
would have a right to operate within the channel block to the extent: 
(1) A frequency is not assigned to an incumbent (either for shared or 
exclusive use); (2) the incumbent vacates the frequency, whether as 
required by the T-Band Mandate,

[[Page 46051]]

voluntary transition, acquisition, failure to renew, or permanent 
discontinuance; or (3) the incumbent and overlay licensee reach an 
agreement permitting such operation. The Commission also proposes that 
for a frequency to be considered vacated, the overlay licensee must 
clear all incumbents, such that there would be no overlap in authorized 
bandwidth of incumbent and overlay licensee transmissions.
    Additionally, given the need to protect adjacent broadcast 
licensees, the Commission does not find feasible, and therefore do not 
propose, that an overlay licensee can operate co-channel on a frequency 
licensed to an incumbent by meeting, for example, a specified minimum 
mileage separation, or through an interference protection showing 
relying on contour calculations. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach and whether we should adopt an alternative methodology whereby 
a technical showing could be made supporting co-channel operation of an 
overlay licensee while protecting existing incumbents in the same 
geographic area.
    Geographic License Area Size. The Commission proposes to license 
the 470-512 MHz band on a geographic area basis with a 128-kilometer 
(80-mile) operational radius for each urbanized area based on the 
geographic centers set forth in Sec. Sec.  90.303 and 90.305 of our 
rules. The Commission considers promoting a range of objectives when 
designing a system of competitive bidding and determining the 
appropriate geographic license size, including: (1) Facilitating access 
to spectrum by a wide variety of providers, including small entities 
and rural providers; (2) providing for the efficient use of spectrum; 
(3) encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers; 
and (4) promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new 
technologies and services. Other relevant factors here are the presence 
of incumbent broadcast operations and of non-public safety, Industrial/
Business PLMR operations. In light of these factors, the Commission 
proposes to license the 470-512 MHz band with a geographic area 
consistent with the current T-Band operational radius.
    The Commission seeks comment on this geographic-area licensing 
approach, and on any alternative licensing approach, including the 
costs and benefits of adopting such a licensing approach. Commenters 
also should address how any alternative licensing approach would be 
consistent with the requirements of section 309(j) and the statutory 
objectives that the Commission seeks to promote in establishing 
methodologies for competitive bidding.
    Licensing Trigger. The T-Band Mandate provides that auction 
proceeds shall be available to cover relocation costs of public safety 
entities from the T-Band. As noted above, prior assessments predict 
that the cost of relocating public safety licensees may approach $6 
billon. The Commission thus proposes to issue licenses only where net 
winning bids would exceed the total estimated relocation costs for all 
public safety T-Band licensees subject to mandatory relocation, as 
informed by earlier analyses in the record and the detailed comment we 
expect to receive in response to this NPRM regarding the costs of 
providing comparable facilities to relocated public safety licensees. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as on the 
statutory meaning of certain terms that will inform the likelihood that 
net winning bids will in fact exceed total estimated relocation costs. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether the term ``proceeds,'' as used 
in the T-Band Mandate, should be limited to monies paid for licenses 
covering spectrum ``currently used by public safety eligibles as 
identified in Sec.  90.303.'' The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether the term ``relocation costs,'' should be defined consistent 
with the its approach in other proceedings.
    Commenters should address how this approach, or any alternative, 
would or would not be consistent with the statutory requirements of 
section 309(j) and with the T-Band Mandate's statutory directives. For 
example, the Commission seeks comment on how to address any deficit in 
net winning bids--should it require public safety licensees to relocate 
on a city-by-city basis if the bids for a particular urbanized area 
meet or exceed the cost estimates to relocate public safety licensees 
in that particular area? Similarly, should licensees be required to 
relocate on a channel-by-channel basis within urbanized areas where 
bids for that channel meet or exceed the cost of clearing the channel? 
Are there alternative spectrum block sizes, licensing areas, or band 
plans that would meet the statutory directives, result in a status quo 
inference environment, and nonetheless ensure efficient use of 
spectrum? Commenters offering alternate methods should address the 
costs and benefits of a proposed alternate method.

D. Transition of Incumbents From T-Band Spectrum

1. Public Safety Transition
    As directed by the T-Band Mandate, the Commission proposes to 
relocate from T-Band spectrum all ``public safety eligibles as 
identified in Sec.  90.303'' of our rules, and to do so ``not later 
than 2 years after the date on which the system of competitive bidding 
described in [the statute] is completed.'' The Commission also proposes 
to require that comparable facilities be provided to relocated 
licensees, and notes that transition of Public Safety licensees out of 
the T-Band to such facilities is subject to reimbursement from auction 
proceeds to ``cover relocation costs.'' The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach and on the availability of a suitable spectrum 
destination(s) for Public Safety entities relocated from the T-Band. 
The Commission emphasizes that it is committed under any scenario to 
ensuring the continuity of such licensees' public safety mission-
critical communications.
    Public Safety Entities. Section 6103(a)(2) requires the auction of 
``the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band . . . currently used by public 
safety eligibles as identified in Sec.  90.303 of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations.'' Section 90.303 states that frequency assignments 
in the 482-488 MHz band (broadcast television channel 16) are available 
``for use by eligibles in the Public Safety Radio Pool'' in Los 
Angeles; New York City; Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties in 
New York State; and Bergen County, New Jersey. Section 90.303 also 
provides that other frequencies are available for assignment in eleven 
specific urbanized areas, and that these frequencies are listed in 
Sec.  90.311. Section 90.311, in turn, provides that 470-512 MHz Band 
frequencies are available to listed ``categories of users,'' including 
``[p]ublic safety (as defined in Sec.  90.20(a)) [the Public Safety 
Pool].'' The Commission thus interprets ``public safety eligibles'' to 
include the entities named in Sec.  90.303(b) and (c) and the entities 
referenced by Sec.  90.303 that operate on frequencies assigned to the 
public safety category of users by Sec.  90.311. The Commission seeks 
comment on this statutory interpretation and any alternatives that are 
consistent with the T-Band Mandate.
    Following passage of the T-Band Mandate, the Bureaus imposed a 
freeze on future licensing or expanded operations in the 470-512 MHz 
band, thus preventing significant changes to the composition of the T-
Band. The Commission interprets the statute's reference to spectrum 
``currently used

[[Page 46052]]

by public safety eligibles'' as limiting the reallocation and auction 
required by the T-Band Mandate to those frequencies in use by the 
public safety eligibles in the T-Band at the time the freeze was 
imposed, as opposed to frequencies in use by non-public safety 
licensees or that are unassigned. The Commission seeks comment on this 
interpretation and, with respect to the applicable licensing timeframe, 
whether it should interpret ``currently used'' as the time of the 
statute's enactment (i.e., February 22, 2012), which would not take 
into account subsequent licensing changes in the T-Band.
    The Commission reiterates that some public safety licensees operate 
in the T-Band pursuant to waiver on channels not listed or referenced 
in Sec.  90.303 of our rules, and thus are arguably outside the scope 
of the T-Band Mandate. For example, the 476-482 MHz block (broadcast 
television channel 15) in Los Angeles currently is used by public 
safety incumbents pursuant to a waiver, and 476-482 MHz is specifically 
excluded from the list of available frequencies identified in Sec.  
90.303. In addition, other T-Band public safety entities have received 
waivers of Sec.  90.305 of the Commission's rules or are operating via 
frequency pair assignments classified as Industrial/Business, pursuant 
to waivers of Sec.  90.311(a)(2) of the rules. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should interpret the statute to require it to 
auction T-Band spectrum licensed to public safety entities under the 
aforementioned waivers, and to require these licensees to relocate out 
of the T-Band.
    The Commission seeks comment on any issues that may arise if public 
safety waiver licensees or those operating through Industrial/Business 
assignments are allowed to remain in the T-Band. For example, what 
would be the effect on interoperability between public safety systems 
operating with and without waivers if only public safety licensees not 
subject to waiver were subject to relocation? Similarly, if a public 
safety waiver licensee has base station operations both inside and 
outside the 50-mile radius for base stations, would any operations 
outside the area authorized by the rules function as a splintered or 
partial system? Or should such a public safety waiver licensee be 
required to relocate all operations from the T-Band? Finally, if public 
safety waiver licensees are not relocated from the T-Band, what 
criteria would be appropriate to ensure interference is minimized 
between such licensees and auction licensees?
    Comparable Facilities. Consistent with its approach to mandatory 
relocation in other services, the Commission proposes that public 
safety licensees relocated from the T-Band will be compensated for 
reasonable relocation costs and provided with comparable facilities. 
Provision of comparable facilities should ensure that public safety 
eligibles are not unduly burdened and that their operations are not 
inordinately disrupted by mandatory relocation from the T-Band. 
Importantly, the Commission seeks to ensure that, in providing 
comparable facilities, the relocation process does not result in 
degradation of existing service or cause an adverse effect on important 
public safety communications operations. The Commission proposes to 
define ``comparable facility'' as a replacement system that is at least 
equivalent to the public safety eligible's existing T-Band system with 
respect to the following four factors: (1) System, (2) capacity, (3) 
quality of service, and (4) operating costs. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    The Commission also proposes guidelines on how these factors would 
apply in providing a comparable facility and seek comment on each 
factor. The Commission proposes that a comparable system would be 
functionally determined from the end user's point of view (i.e., base 
station facilities operating on an integrated basis to provide service 
to a common end user, and all associated mobile units). The Commission 
proposes that a system may include multiple-licensed facilities 
operated as a unified system if the end user can access all such 
facilities.
    The Commission proposes that comparable channel capacity must have 
the same overall capacity as the original configuration, including 
equivalent signaling capacity, baud rate, and access time, and must 
achieve coextensive geographic coverage with that of the original 
system.
    The Commission proposes that comparable quality of service would 
require the end user to enjoy the same level of interference 
protection. Quality of service necessarily requires reliability, or the 
degree to which information is transferred accurately within the 
system. For analog or digital voice transmissions, this would be 
measured by the percent of time that audio signal quality meets an 
established threshold.
    With respect to operating costs, the Commission proposes that 
compensable costs would include all reasonable engineering, equipment, 
site and Commission fees, as well as any reasonable, additional costs 
that the covered incumbent may incur as a result of mandatory 
relocation. Should the Commission assume that the compensation regime 
would provide for recovery of all costs associated with relocation, 
including planning and administrative costs, or should it limit 
compensable costs to only the cost of retuning and/or replacing 
equipment? Should the Commission establish a rebuttable presumption or 
guideline regarding soft costs, including potentially establishing a 
cap on soft costs as a percentage of hard costs, to determine what is 
reasonably and unavoidably incurred, and thus properly compensable, 
consistent with other recent proceedings?
    Relocation Cost Grants. The T-Band Mandate provides that 
``[p]roceeds (including deposits and upfront payments from successful 
bidders) from the competitive bidding system described in subsection 
(a)(2) shall be available to the Assistant Secretary [of NTIA] to make 
grants in such sums as necessary to cover relocation costs for the 
relocation of public safety entities from the T-Band spectrum.'' The 
statute refers solely to NTIA's responsibility for the issuance of 
grants, appearing to leave responsibility with the Commission to 
determine reimbursable amounts with respect to costs of relocation, 
including the provision of comparable facilities. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether Congress intended for the Commission to rely on its 
expertise to determine the appropriate grant amounts based on both the 
provision of comparable facilities as well as on other individual 
licensee relocation costs. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether Congress intended NTIA to issue rules regarding eligible 
entities and eligible costs in accordance with the statute. Under this 
alternative reading, the Commission seeks comment on how the its 
expertise could be leveraged to inform the NTIA grant program.
    The Commission seeks comment on additional relocation costs public 
safety licensees are likely to incur to relocate out of the T-Band, 
with the caveat that the destination spectrum bands are not yet 
determined. Should relocation costs for each licensee be determined 
based on a cost model, such as the model developed by the National 
Public Safety Telecommunications Council in its T-Band Report? The 
Commission seeks recommendations on formulas and calculation methods, 
and what parameters should be considered.
    Relocation Spectrum. The T-Band Mandate does not identify spectrum 
bands to which public safety entities

[[Page 46053]]

could be relocated. Prior submissions in the extensive record in this 
proceeding have discussed the availability of the FirstNet public 
safety broadband network; the 450-470 MHz band; the 700 MHz band; the 
800 MHz band; and the 900 MHz band, though many of these submissions 
and GAO have questioned whether sufficient alternative spectrum is 
available to accommodate relocation of any T-Band public safety 
licensees. The Commission therefore seeks detailed comment on the 
suitability of these or any other spectrum bands to serve as relocation 
spectrum, what characteristics must be present to consider a band a 
viable relocation option--for example, capacity, readily available 
equipment, and similar propagation characteristics--and the costs and 
benefits of relocating public safety licensees to a particular band(s). 
Are there relocation alternatives other than replacement spectrum that 
we should consider, such as third-party service or other media?
    Relocation Deadline. The T-Band Mandate imposes a specific 
completion deadline, directing that ``[r]elocation shall be completed 
not later than 2 years after the date on which the system of 
competitive bidding . . . is completed.'' The Commission seeks comment 
on what constitutes the completion of relocation for purposes of 
section 6103(c). Commenters should discuss the steps a public safety 
entity must take to relocate its system, and the estimated timelines 
for these steps. For example, the Commission expects a transition would 
require a T-Band public safety licensee to develop, test, and commence 
operations in destination spectrum band(s) before discontinuing 
operations in the T-Band. Commenters should provide details of 
transition planning and specific anticipated timeframes for each phase. 
In the alternative, the Commission asks whether relocation would be 
completed once the Public Safety incumbent commences operations on its 
replacement frequencies, even if the incumbent has not completed all 
the tasks associated with the relocation.
2. Non-Public Safety Transition
    The T-Band Mandate does not require relocation nor provide for 
reimbursement of non-public safety licensees operating in the T-Band. 
Therefore, under the Commission's proposal, the T-Band would remain 
encumbered with part 90 Industrial/Business licensees on interleaved 
frequencies and with part 22 licensees in the lowest 300 kHz of most 
six megahertz blocks. Allowing non-public safety incumbents to remain 
in the T-Band would result in continued co-channel use of spectrum in a 
limited geographic area, which likely will prevent broadcast or 
wireless use by an overlay licensee. In light of these considerations 
and the statutory mandate to use auction proceeds to fund the 
relocation of Public Safety incumbents, the Commission seeks comment on 
requiring a mandatory transition of all non-public safety incumbents 
(i.e., part 90 Industrial/Business licensees and part 22 licensees) out 
of the T-Band, subject to payment of relocation costs, including 
provision of comparable facilities, by the overlay licensee.
    Section 316(a)(1) of the Act provides that ``[a]ny station license 
. . . may be modified by the Commission . . . if in the judgment of the 
Commission such action will promote the public interest, convenience 
and necessity.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether making 
contiguous spectrum available for auction, enhancing the usefulness of 
the spectrum and promoting auction competition, and thus increasing the 
chances of a successful auction so that the directives of section 6103 
may be executed, would support a determination that ordering license 
modifications of non-public safety incumbents (e.g., entities that 
section 6103 does not take into consideration) would promote the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity, given all the relevant 
circumstances, including such factors as the effects on all the 
incumbent licensees and the costs and benefits to the public that are 
likely to result from the reconfiguration of this spectrum.
    The Commission also seeks comment on potential other transition or 
realignment approaches that could meet the statutory mandate to fund 
public safety relocation costs from auction proceeds and to allow for 
efficient use of spectrum without requiring a full transition from the 
T-Band. For example, should the Commission instead realign interleaved 
Industrial/Business and part 22 licensees in order to create more 
contiguous spectrum for auction, either within single channel blocks or 
by relocating Industrial/Business and part 22 operations to a single 
channel in a city with multiple T-Band channels, resulting in at least 
one unencumbered six-megahertz channel? The Commission notes that, as 3 
MHz separation between base and mobile transmit frequencies is required 
to prevent intra-system interference, any realignment within a channel 
would still leave two portions of a six-megahertz channel block 
encumbered. Should the Commission sunset the 2012 waiver of the 
narrowbanding requirement for T-Band licensees and set new 
narrowbanding deadlines for Industrial/Business licensees in the T-
Band? Commenters advocating for realignment or other approaches should 
also address transition mechanisms, technical issues, such as ease of 
retuning existing radios, timing and cost considerations, and whether 
additional protections or rules might be necessary to protect 
incumbents, whether part 90 Industrial/Business, part 22, or broadcast, 
from harmful interference.
    The T-Band Mandate does not confer authority to use T-Band auction 
revenues to fund non-Public Safety relocation or realignment, whether 
out of the T-Band, within a T-Band channel, or to different channels 
within the band. However, the Commission has authority to condition 
licenses in the public interest, such as by requiring overlay licensees 
to pay for the costs associated with license modifications and has used 
this authority in prior proceedings. To the extent that the Commission 
may require T-Band part 90 Industrial/Business and part 22 licensees to 
relocate from their current frequency assignments, it seeks comment on 
whether to require an overlay licensee to pay for relocation costs of 
such licensees to comparable facilities. As with mandatory relocation 
of public safety licensees above, ``comparable facilities'' would 
require that a replacement system be provided to an incumbent during 
mandatory relocation that is at least equivalent to the incumbent's 
existing T-Band system with respect to: (1) System, (2) capacity, (3) 
quality of service, and (4) operating costs.
    The Commission also seeks comment on spectrum bands to which part 
90 Industrial/Business and part 22 entities could be relocated. As with 
public safety entity relocation, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are spectrum bands that can accommodate relocation of 
these incumbents. Are there additional bands that would be more 
suitable for part 90 Industrial/Business or part 22 licensees, but 
potentially less appropriate for public safety licensee relocation? The 
Commission seeks comment on the characteristics required to consider a 
band a viable relocation option--for example, capacity, readily 
available equipment, and similar propagation characteristics--and the 
costs and benefits of relocating part 90 Industrial/Business and part 
22 licensees to a particular band(s). Are there relocation alternatives 
other than replacement spectrum that the Commission should

[[Page 46054]]

consider, such as third-party service or other media?

E. Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues

    Given the Commission's proposal to auction T-Band licenses on a 
block-by-block basis for fixed and mobile use, the Commission proposes 
to designate the new T-Band spectrum as a Miscellaneous Wireless 
Communications Service governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules. 
The Commission therefore proposes that all future licensees in the T-
Band would be required to comply with licensing and operating rules 
applicable to all part 27 services, including assignment of licenses by 
competitive bidding, flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership 
reporting, compliance with construction notification requirements, 
renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance of operations, partitioning 
and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. The Commission seeks comment 
on its approach and asks commenters to identify any aspects of its 
general part 27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate 
the particular characteristics of the T-Band.
    The Commission has also sought comment in this NPRM regarding 
potential broadcast use of the T-Band, or if there are other uses of T-
Band outside of flexible wireless use. How should the Commission modify 
its licensing and operating rules if there are broadcast or other uses 
in the band?
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on service-specific rules 
for the T-Band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum holdings 
policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term 
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In 
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and 
benefits associated with these proposals and any proposed alternatives. 
In the alternative, the Commission asks commenters to address whether 
new T-Band licensees should be regulated under part 90 of our rules so 
that new T-Band licensees and incumbent PLMR licensees would be subject 
to a single set of rules. Commenters favoring this approach should 
identify the part 90 rules that would need to be amended and suggest 
specific rule language.
1. Eligibility
    Consistent with established Commission practice, the Commission 
proposes to adopt an open eligibility standard for licenses in the T-
Band. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether adopting an open eligibility 
standard for the licensing of the T-Band would encourage the 
development of new technologies, products, and services, while helping 
to ensure efficient use of this spectrum. The Commission notes that an 
open eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, character, or 
other generally applicable qualifications that may apply under our 
rules. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the open 
eligibility proposal on competition, innovation, and investment.
    Finally, a person that, for reasons of national security, has been 
barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a 
contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant ``is 
ineligible to hold a license that is required by [the Spectrum Act] to 
be assigned by a system of competitive bidding under section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act.'' This eligibility restriction would apply to 
the auction of spectrum ``currently used by public safety eligibles as 
identified in Sec.  90.303'' of our rules. The Commission seeks comment 
on how this eligibility restriction would apply to the auction of 
spectrum blocks used by a mixture of Public Safety, Industrial/
Business, and part 22 incumbents.
2. Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies
    Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile wireless 
services, and the Commission has developed policies to ensure that 
spectrum is assigned in a manner that promotes competition, innovation, 
and efficient use. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether 
and how to address any mobile spectrum holdings issues involving T-Band 
spectrum to meet our statutory requirements and ensure competitive 
access to the band. Similar to the Commission's approach in the 2017 
Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM and the 1675-1680 MHz NPRM, the 
Commission proposes not to adopt a pre-auction, bright line limit on 
the ability of any entity to acquire spectrum in the T-Band through 
competitive bidding at auction. Since such pre-auction limits may 
restrict unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and 
acquire spectrum in an auction, the Commission is not inclined to adopt 
such limits absent a clear indication that they are necessary to 
address a specific competitive concern, and seeks comment on any 
specific concerns of this type.
    The Commission does not propose that this band be included in the 
Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to identify those markets 
that may warrant further competitive analysis, when evaluating proposed 
secondary market transactions. Instead, the Commission proposes to 
review spectrum holdings on a case-by-case basis when applications for 
initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure that the public 
interest benefits of having a threshold on spectrum applicable to 
secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. Commenters 
should discuss and quantify any costs and benefits associated with any 
proposals on the applicability of mobile spectrum holdings policies to 
T-Band spectrum.
    The Commission notes that its rules contain restrictions on the 
common ownership of commercial full power television stations both in a 
particular local market and nationwide, as well as restrictions on the 
cross-ownership of such stations with other media outlets. To the 
extent that a successful bidder seeks to operate a full power 
television station on the reallocated spectrum awarded as a result of 
this auction, the Commission seeks comment on whether the permittee of 
such new station would need to comply with its existing media ownership 
rules.
3. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Term Construction 
Obligations
    License Term. For licensees other than those providing broadcast 
services, the Commission proposes a 15-year initial term for new 
flexible-use T-Band licenses, and a ten-year term for subsequent 
renewals, given that relocation, and clearance, and initial performance 
requirements will have been satisfied upon renewal of a given T-Band 
license. The Commission believes that 15 years affords licensees 
sufficient time to make long-term investments in deployment and seek 
comment on the costs and benefits of this proposal. The Commission 
invites commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate 
license term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs 
and benefits. Importantly, the Commission notes that, in the event this 
spectrum is used for broadcast services, the license term is 
statutorily limited to eight years and that shorter term will apply.
    Performance Requirements. The Commission seeks comment on adopting 
specific quantifiable benchmarks as an important component of our 
performance requirements for licensees not providing broadcast 
services. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a new T-Band 
licensee, planning to provide mobile or point-to-multipoint service in 
accordance with our part 27 rules, to

[[Page 46055]]

provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 45% of 
the population in each of its license areas within six years of the 
license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least 80% 
of the population in each of its license areas within 12 years from the 
license issue date (second performance benchmark). For a licensee 
deploying point-to-point service, the Commission seeks comment on 
requiring it to demonstrate within six years of the license issue date 
(first performance benchmark) that it has four links operating and 
providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the 
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If 
the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, the 
Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee deploying point-to-
point service to demonstrate that it has at least one link in operation 
and that it is providing service per every 67,000 persons within a 
license area. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee 
deploying point-to-point service to demonstrate within 12 years of the 
license issue date (final performance benchmark) that it has eight 
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for 
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or 
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater 
than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee 
deploying point-to-point service to demonstrate that it is providing 
service and that it has at least two links in operation per every 
67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether in order to be eligible to be counted under the point-to-point 
buildout standard, a point-to-point link must operate with a transmit 
power greater than +43 dBm. The Commission notes that the proposed 
period for complying with these performance requirements would begin on 
the date that the license is issued, irrespective of the extent to 
which the incumbent licensees have been relocated out of the T-Band.
    The Commission believes that 12 years will provide sufficient time 
for any T-Band licensee to meet the proposed coverage requirements. The 
Commission proposes that a T-Band licensee, after satisfying the 12-
year second performance benchmark, be required to continue providing 
reliable signal coverage, or point-to-point links, as applicable, and 
offering service at or above that level for the remaining three years 
in the proposed 15-year license term in order to obtain license 
renewal. Establishing such benchmarks before the end of the license 
term will allow us time to verify, to the extent needed, that the 
performance benchmarks have been met before licensees need to renew 
their licenses. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal.
    The Commission recognizes that new T-Band licensees will have the 
flexibility to provide a range of services, including broadcast 
services. In the event that T-Band spectrum is used for broadcast 
services, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a broadcast station 
to be constructed and operational through the transmission of broadcast 
signals within the initial eight-year license term. Are there other 
parameters that should be included to ensure the efficient and 
effective use of T-Band spectrum for broadcast services (e.g., a 
specific level of market penetration)? The Commission seeks comment on 
this and any other requirements to achieve our goal of ensuring 
spectrum use. The Commission also seeks comment on whether services 
potentially less suited to a population coverage metric (e.g., Internet 
of Things-type fixed and mobile services) would benefit from an 
alternative performance benchmark, for example, geographic coverage 
benchmarks. Commenters should discuss the appropriate metric to 
accommodate such service offerings or other innovative services in the 
T-Band, as well as the costs and benefits of an alternative approach.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposals 
discussed above achieve the appropriate balance between license-term 
length and a significant final buildout requirement. The Commission 
seeks comment on the proposed buildout requirements and any potential 
alternatives. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms for 
expanding flexible use in all or part of the T-Band. The Commission 
asks proponents of the various approaches described above whether there 
are issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. For 
example, given the potential use of the T-Band by private wireless 
users such as electric utilities or other Industrial/Business Pool 
eligibles, should it adopt specific performance requirements tailored 
to account for potential use of the spectrum for private internal 
business purposes? The Commission also seeks comment on whether small 
entities face any special or unique issues with respect to buildout 
requirements such that they would require certain accommodations or 
additional time to comply. Finally, commenters should discuss and 
quantify how any supported buildout requirements will affect investment 
and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other costs and 
benefits associated with the proposals.
    Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements. Along with 
performance benchmarks, the Commission seeks to adopt meaningful and 
enforceable penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The 
Commission seeks comment on which penalties will most effectively 
ensure timely build-out. Specifically, the Commission proposes that, in 
the event a T-Band licensee fails to meet the first performance 
benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be 
reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second 
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license 
term) and reducing its initial license term to 13 years. The Commission 
further proposes that, in the event a T-Band licensee fails to meet the 
second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its license 
for each license area in which it fails to meet the performance 
benchmark shall terminate automatically without Commission action. How 
should the Commission modify this proposal in the event the spectrum is 
used for broadcast services and is subject to an 8-year license term?
    The Commission proposes that, in the event a T-Band licensee's 
authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would 
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding 
provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's 
rules for other part 27 licenses, the Commission proposes that any T-
Band licensee that forfeits its license for failure to meet its 
performance requirements would be precluded from regaining that 
license. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other performance 
requirements and enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure 
timely buildout.
    Compliance Procedures. In addition to compliance procedures 
applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic 
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the Commission proposes a 
rule requiring that such electronic coverage maps accurately depict 
both the boundaries of each licensed area and the coverage boundaries 
of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service or in the 
case of a fixed deployment, the locations of the fixed transmitters 
associated with each link. If a licensee does not provide reliable 
signal coverage to an entire license area, we propose that it must 
provide a map that

[[Page 46056]]

accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas within each 
license area that are not being served. The Commission further proposes 
that each licensee must file supporting documentation certifying the 
type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its 
service territory and the type of technology used to provide such 
service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to 
create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the 
signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the 
licensee's technology. The Commission believes that such procedures 
will confirm that the spectrum is being used consistently with the 
performance requirements. The Commission seeks comment on its 
proposals. In the event this T-Band spectrum is used for broadcast 
services, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it should 
modify the proposed compliance procedures.
    Renewal Term Construction Obligation. In addition to, and 
independent of, the general renewal requirements contained in Sec.  
1.949 of our rules, which apply to all Wireless Radio Services (WRS) 
licensees, the Commission also seeks comment on application of specific 
renewal term construction obligations to new T-Band licensees. The WRS 
Renewal Reform FNPRM sought comment on various renewal term 
construction obligations, such as incremental increases in the 
construction metric in each subsequent renewal term--e.g., by 5 or 
10%--up to a certain threshold. In the event that licensees fail to 
satisfy any additional renewal term construction obligations, the 
Commission sought comment on a range of penalties and on methods for 
reassigning the unused spectrum, including automatic termination, 
``keep-what-you-serve,'' and ``use or share'' approaches.
    The WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted in 
that proceeding to all flexible geographic licenses. Given the 
Commission's proposal to license this band on a geographic basis for 
flexible use, any additional renewal term construction obligations 
proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also would apply to licenses 
in the T-Band. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are unique 
characteristics of the T-Band that might require a different approach 
from the proposals contained in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM. For 
example, the Commission proposes geographic areas consisting solely of 
urbanized areas and the discussion of renewal term construction 
obligations was tailored to ensuring rural build-out. Further, while 
many existing wireless radio services have 10-year license terms, here 
the Commission proposes and seeks comment on a 15-year initial license 
term with 10-year renewal terms for T-Band licensees providing non-
broadcast services (eight years for licensees providing broadcast 
services). Do any of the proposals for this band necessitate a more 
tailored approach than the rules of general applicability proposed in 
the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM? For instance, should the Commission 
require buildout to 85% of the population by the end of second license 
term, given the increased length of the initial license term? 
Similarly, in the event the Commission permits licensees to demonstrate 
compliance with initial term performance requirements by providing IoT 
services, should an applicant deploying IoT applications in the T-Band 
be required to exceed its original construction metric by an additional 
5%? If a T-Band license is issued for broadcast use, how would this 
effect renewal term obligations? Commenters advocating rules specific 
to the T-Band should address the costs and benefits of their proposed 
rules. Further, they should discuss how a given proposal would 
encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise 
benefit from significant wireless coverage.
4. Competitive Bidding Procedures
    Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the Commission 
has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes to conduct any 
auction for licenses for spectrum in the T-Band in conformity with the 
general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of 
the Commission's rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
any of our Part 1 rules or other competitive bidding policies would be 
inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of T-Band licenses. 
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of these 
proposals.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether to make bidding 
credits for designated entities available for this band. If the 
Commission decides to offer small business bidding credits, it seeks 
comment on how to define a small business. In recent years, for other 
flexible use licenses, the Commission has adopted bidding credits for 
the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the 
Commission's Part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on defining a small business 
as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five years 
not exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with 
average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20 
million. A qualifying ``small business'' would be eligible for a 
bidding credit of 15% and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be 
eligible for a bidding credit of 25%. The Commission also seeks comment 
on whether the unique characteristics of these frequencies and its 
proposed licensing model suggest that it should adopt different small 
business size standards and associated bidding credits than the 
Commission has in the past.
    Because new licenses in this band will only be available in eleven 
urbanized areas within an operational radius of the geographic center 
of each area, the Commission proposes not to offer rural service 
bidding credits and seeks comment on this proposal.

F. Technical Rules

    The Commission's goal is to establish technical rules that maximize 
flexible use of the new T-Band spectrum licenses while appropriately 
protecting incumbent operations. Many of the technical rules proposed 
below are based on the rules adopted for the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz 
bands, which are similar to T-Band in terms of flexible use, 
propagation characteristics, and ability to accommodate wideband 
technologies. The Commission believes that the proposed technical rules 
regarding transmitter power, antenna height, and out-of-band emissions 
(OOBE) limits, together with existing interference protection rules, 
will maintain a status quo interference environment, where an overlay 
licensee is not permitted to cause harmful interference to any 
operations that remain in or are adjacent to the 470-512 MHz band 
(e.g., on broadcast television channel 21 or operations below 470 MHz). 
The Commission seeks comment on its proposed technical rules and 
whether they best achieve its objectives of permitting more flexible 
use of this spectrum, while at the same time protecting co-channel and 
adjacent spectrum users from harmful interference.
1. Out-of-Band Emissions Limit
    Under the proposal, the Commission would license T-Band spectrum in 
certain geographic areas in six megahertz blocks on a block-by-block 
basis. Therefore, the Commission must consider how to address potential 
harmful interference between adjacent blocks within the T-Band, and 
between T-Band spectrum and adjacent bands.
    The Commission previously has concluded that attenuating 
transmitter

[[Page 46057]]

out-of-band emissions (OOBE) by 43 + 10 log (P) dB, where P is the 
transmit power in watts, is appropriate to minimize harmful 
electromagnetic interference between operators. The Commission adopted 
this approach in other bands suited for flexible services, including 
the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz bands used for wireless broadband 
services. To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules 
generally specify details on how to measure the power of the emissions, 
such as the measurement bandwidth. For the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz 
bands, the measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this 
limit for both mobile stations and base stations is 100 kHz, with some 
modification within the first 100 kHz. Similarly, the Commission 
believes that it is reasonable to apply this procedure to both mobile 
and base transmissions in the T-Band.
    Accordingly, to address potential harmful electromagnetic 
interference immediately outside each T-Band block, the Commission 
proposes to apply Sec.  27.53(g) of the Commission's rules, which 
includes OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log (P) dB and the associated 
measurement procedure, to the T-Band. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal, and on whether it would need to modify this proposal if 
licenses are issued in the band for broadcast operations. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the effect of the proposed OOBE 
attenuation on the existing interference environment. For instance, how 
will the OOBE attenuation affect the current interference environment 
on any remaining part 90 public safety, Industrial/Business, or part 22 
point to multi-point operations? How will the OOBE attenuation affect 
the separation distance to protect adjacent TV channels? And how will 
the OOBE attenuation affect the current interference environment on 
PLMR operations at the upper edge of the 450-470 MHz band?
2. Transmitter Power Limits
    The Commission proposes to apply transmitter power limits for T-
Band operations that generally are consistent with the 600 MHz and 
lower 700 MHz bands, while taking into consideration that the proposed 
band plan for the T-Band does not have a predetermined uplink and 
downlink. Accordingly, the Commission proposes an effective radiated 
power (ERP) not to exceed 1,000 watts for fixed and base stations 
transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less, with 
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above 
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. For base stations 
transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz, 
the Commission proposes an ERP not to exceed 1,000 watts/MHz with the 
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above 
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. Alternatively, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether we should limit the ERP for fixed 
and base stations to 1,000 watts/MHz for any emission bandwidth, with 
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above 
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether this alternate approach would provide sufficient 
power for narrowband operations in the T-Band. The Commission also 
proposes to afford additional flexibility for licensees seeking to 
operate at transmit powers higher than it has proposed, provided they 
comply with a power flux density limit and the notice requirement 
specified in our rules to mitigate the risk of harmful interference. 
This produced power flux density must not exceed 3,000 microwatts per 
square meter on the ground over the area extending to 1 km from the 
base of the antenna mounting structure. The Commission further notes 
that the maximum ERP in the current T-Band rules is limited by the 
distance to the closest co-channel TV station. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach, including costs and benefits, noting that our 
proposal varies from current T-Band rules, but is consistent with other 
flexible services, specifically 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether modifications to this proposal 
are necessary if licenses are issued in the band for broadcast 
operations.
    The Commission notes that it did not propose to include a rural 
component to the power limits for the T-Band, as it has included for 
other services, because under our proposal T-Band base stations would 
not be permitted to be located more than 80 kilometers (50 miles) from 
the geographic center of the urbanized areas listed in Sec.  27.6 of 
the Commission's rule.
3. Co-Channel Interference Between T-Band Licensees and TV Systems
    Since the Commission proposes to license the T-Band on a geographic 
area basis with an 80-mile operational radius, the Commission seeks to 
ensure that T-Band licensees do not cause interference to TV co-channel 
systems operating along common geographic borders. The Commission's 600 
MHz and lower 700 MHz rules address the possibility of harmful co-
channel interference between geographically adjacent licenses. The rule 
provides that the predicted or measured median field strength shall not 
exceed 40 dB[mu]V/m at any location on the edge of the geographical 
border of the licensee's service area, unless the adjacent affected 
service area licensee agrees to a different field strength. Given the 
similarities between the T-Band, lower 700 MHz, and 600 MHz bands, the 
Commission proposes to apply the signal strength limit currently set 
forth in Sec.  27.55(a)(2) of our rules to the T-Band. The Commission 
also proposes to allow licensees in adjacent areas to agree to 
alternate field strength limits. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach, including any costs and benefits, and also seeks comment on 
whether any modifications to this proposal are necessary if licenses 
are issued in the T-Band for broadcast operations.
4. Antenna Height Limits
    The Commission proposes to apply the flexible 600 MHz and lower 700 
MHz antenna height rules, as set forth in Sec.  27.50(c) of our rules, 
to the T-Band. Although the existing antenna rules for those bands do 
not set specific antenna height restrictions, ERP reductions are 
required for base or fixed stations with a height above average terrain 
(HAAT) exceeding 305 meters and will be applied to T-Band licensees. In 
addition, other rules effectively limit antenna heights. For example, 
all part 27 services are subject to rule Sec.  27.56, which prevents 
antenna heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. Also, the 
Commission's proposed co-channel interference rules effectively limit 
antenna heights because of the limitation on field strength at the 
boundary of a licensee's service area. The Commission believes that the 
general antenna height restrictions are sufficient to afford necessary 
protections, and therefore does not propose any band-specific 
limitations on new T-Band licensees. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach, including the costs and benefits, and also seeks comment 
on whether this approach requires modification if licenses are issued 
in the band for broadcast operations.
5. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
    Under the Commission's current proposal to license the T-Band on a 
geographic area basis with an 80-mile operational radius, the 
Commission does not believe that new T-Band licenses will require 
coordination with either Canada or Mexico as the areas

[[Page 46058]]

under consideration are sufficiently separated from the border areas so 
as to pose no international interference issues. However, if larger 
geographic license areas are adopted in a future proceeding, 
international coordination may be required. The Commission notes that 
Sec.  27.57(c) of its rules provides that all part 27 Wireless 
Communications Services operations are subject to international 
agreements between the U.S. and Mexico and between the U.S. and Canada.
6. Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the T-Band From 
Wireless Operations
    The Commission proposes to apply to the T-Band the protections of 
current broadcast TV rules that are consistent with those applied to 
600 MHz band licensees. Specifically, the Commission proposes that 
licensees authorized to operate wireless services in this band be 
prohibited from causing harmful interference to public reception of the 
signals of broadcast television stations transmitting co-channel or on 
an adjacent channel. The Commission proposes that such wireless 
operations comply with the desired to undesired (D/U) ratios in Table 5 
in OET Bulletin No. 74, Methodology for Predicting Inter-Service 
Interference to Broadcast Television from Mobile Wireless. If a 
licensee in this band causes harmful interference within the noise-
limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television station 
that is operating co-channel or on an adjacent channel, the Commission 
proposes to require the licensee to eliminate the harmful interference. 
The Commission seeks comment on this approach, whether additional 
protections might be necessary, and the cost and benefits of any such 
modifications.
    In the event that a new initial T-Band licensee intends to use the 
license for provision of broadcast services, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether such licensees should be subject to part 73 rules 
regarding television-to-television protection criteria. If so, the 
Commission seeks comment on what criteria should apply in situations 
where adjacent licensees hold licenses governed by part 73 and part 27 
rules, respectively.
7. Other Technical Issues
    Part 27 contains several additional technical rules applicable to 
all part 27 services, including Sec. Sec.  27.51 (Equipment 
authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (Frequency stability), and 
27.56 (Antenna structures; air navigation safety). The Commission 
proposes to apply all of these part 27 technical rules to new T-Band 
licensees, including those acquiring licenses through assignment, 
partitioning or disaggregation. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach, including the costs and benefits, and it also seeks comment 
on whether modifications to this proposal are necessary if licenses are 
issued in the band for broadcast operations.

Ordering Clauses

    It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 303, 309 and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i), 303, 309, and 316, by section 6103 of the Middle 
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 
Stat. 156 (2012), section 6103, and Sec.  1.411 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27

    Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, 
Communications common carriers, Radio, Table of frequency allocations, 
Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 27 
as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9005   Included services.

* * * * *
    (j) The Wireless Communications Service in the 470-512 MHz band and 
the 698-746 MHz band (part 27 of this chapter);
* * * * *

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.

0
4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by 
revising page 29 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 46059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY20.012

BILLING CODE C

[[Page 46060]]

* * * * *

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

0
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.

0
6. Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1  Basis and purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) 470-512 MHz.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 27.5 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.5   Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (n) 470-512 MHz band. Seven unpaired channel blocks of 6 megahertz 
each are available for assignment. The following frequencies are 
available for licensing pursuant to this part in the 470-512 MHz band:

Block A: 470-476 MHz;
Block B: 476-482 MHz;
Block C: 482-488 MHz;
Block D: 488-494 MHz;
Block E: 494-500 MHz;
Block F: 500-506 MHz; and
Block G: 506-512 MHz.
0
8. Section 27.6 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.6  Service areas.

* * * * *
    (n) 470-512 MHz band. The following table lists specific urbanized 
areas with T-Band frequency bands and blocks that are available for 
assignment. The available frequencies are listed in Sec.  27.5. The 
service area for the 470-512 MHz band extends 128 kilometers (80 miles) 
from the geographic centers of the urban areas listed below:

                                                                Table 3 to Paragraph (n)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Geographic center
          Urbanized area           ----------------------------------------------------      Bands (MHz)           TV channels             Blocks
                                         North latitude            West longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston, MA........................  42[deg]21'24.4''          71[deg]03'23.2''          470-476, 482-488....  14, 16..............  A, C.
Chicago, IL.......................  41[deg]52'28.1''          87[deg]38'22.2''          470-476, 476-482....  14, 15..............  A, B.
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.............  32[deg]47'09.5''          96[deg]47'38.0''          482-488.............  16..................  C.
Houston, TX.......................  29[deg]45'26.8''          95[deg]21'37.8''          488-494.............  17..................  D.
Los Angeles, CA...................  34[deg]03'15.0''          118[deg]14'31.3''         470-476, 482-488,     14, 16, 20..........  A, C, G.
                                                                                         506-512.
Miami, FL.........................  25[deg]46'38.4''          80[deg]11'31.2''          470-476.............  14..................  A.
New York, NY/NE NJ................  40[deg]45'06.4''          73[deg]59'37.5''          470-476, 476-482,     14, 15, 16..........  A, B, C.
                                                                                         482-488.
Philadelphia, PA..................  39[deg]56'58.4''          75[deg]09'19.6''          500-506, 506-512....  19, 20..............  F, G.
Pittsburgh, PA....................  40[deg]26'19.2''          79[deg]59'59.2''          470-476, 494-500....  14, 18..............  A, E.
San Francisco/Oakland, CA.........  37[deg]46'38.7''          122[deg]24'43.9''         482-488, 488-494....  16, 17..............  C, D.
Washington, DC/MD/VA..............  38[deg]53'51.4''          77[deg]00'31.9''          488-494, 494-500....  17, 18..............  D, E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 3 to paragraph (n): Coordinates are referenced to the North 
American Datum 1983 (NAD83).

0
9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.13   License period.

* * * * *
    (n) 470-512 MHz band. Authorization for the 470-512 MHz band will 
have a term not to exceed fifteen years from the date of issuance and 
ten years from the date of any subsequent license renewal, except that 
initial authorizations for a part 27 licensee that provides broadcast 
services, whether exclusively or in combination with other services, 
will not exceed eight years.
0
10. Section 27.14 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraphs (a) and (k), and adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.14   Construction requirements.

    (a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for the 470-512 MHz band, 600 MHz band, Block A 
in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz 
and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or 
C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block 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, Block D in the 2345-2350 
MHz band, and in the 3700-3980 MHz band, and with the exception of 
licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 
MHz bands, the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 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. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum 
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), (v) 
and (w) 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. * * *
* * * * *
    (w) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an 
authorization in the 470-512 MHz band:
    (1) Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service 
shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within eight 
(8) years from the date of the initial license to at least 45 percent 
of the population in each of its license areas (``First Buildout 
Requirement''). Licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and 
offer service within 12 years from the date of the initial license to 
at least 80 percent of the population in each of its license areas 
(``Second Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on point-to-point 
service shall demonstrate within eight years of the license issue date 
that they have four links operating and providing service to customers 
or for internal use if the population within the license area is equal 
to or less than 268,000 and, if the population is greater than 268,000, 
that they have at least one link in operation and providing service to 
customers, or for internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a 
license area (``First Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on 
point-to-point

[[Page 46061]]

service shall demonstrate within 12 years of the license issue date 
that they have eight links operating and providing service to customers 
or for internal use if the population within the license area is equal 
to or less than 268,000 and, if the population within the license area 
is greater than 268,000, shall demonstrate they are providing service 
and have at least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons 
within a license area (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
    (2) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First 
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's 
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced 
by two years. If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second 
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization 
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second 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.
    (3) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, 
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census 
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of 
population or geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census 
Tract level. The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or 
other acceptable identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only 
if it provides reliable 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 include only the population or geographic area within 
the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the 
performance requirement of a single, individual license. If a licensee 
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, 
the license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries 
of the area or areas within each license area not being served. Each 
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of 
service it is providing for each licensed area within its service 
territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. 
Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create 
the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal 
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's 
technology.
    (4) License Renewal. After satisfying the 12-year, final 
performance benchmark, a licensee must continue to provide coverage and 
offer service at or above that level for the remaining three years of 
the 15-year license term in order to warrant license renewal.
0
11. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory 
text, (c)(2), (4), (5), and (10), and headings for tables 1 and 3 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  27.50   Power limits and duty cycle.

* * * * *
    (c) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to 
stations transmitting in the 470-512 MHz band, the 600 MHz band and the 
698-746 MHz band:
* * * * *
    (2) Fixed and base stations, except for fixed and base stations 
operating in the 470-512 MHz band, located in a 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, 
and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less 
must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m 
HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted 
if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts ERP in accordance with 
Table 2 of this section;
* * * * *
    (4) Fixed and base stations, except for fixed and base stations 
operating in the 470-512 MHz band, located in a 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, 
and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz 
must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m 
HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted 
if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with 
Table 4 of this section;
    (5) Licensees, except for licensees operating in the 470-512 MHz 
band and the 600 MHz downlink band, seeking to operate a fixed or base 
station located in a 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, and transmitting a 
signal at an ERP greater than 1000 watts must:
* * * * *
    (10) Portable stations (hand-held devices) in the 470-512 MHz band, 
the 600 MHz uplink band and the 698-746 MHz band, and fixed and mobile 
stations in the 470-512 MHz and 600 MHz uplink band are limited to 3 
watts ERP.
* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec.  27.50--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base 
and Fixed Stations in the 757-758 and 775-776 MHz Bands and for Base 
and Fixed Stations in the 470-512 MHz Band, 600 MHz, 698-757 MHz, 758-
763 MHz, 776-787 MHz and 788-793 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal With 
an Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less

* * * * *

Table 3 to Sec.  27.50--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base 
and Fixed Stations in the 470-512 MHz Band, 600 MHz, 698-757 MHz, 758-
763 MHz, 776-787 MHz and 788-793 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal With 
an Emission Bandwidth Greater Than 1 MHz

* * * * *
0
12. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.53  Emission limits.

* * * * *
    (g) For operations in the 470-512 MHz band, the 600 MHz band and 
the 698-746 MHz band, the power of any emission outside a licensee's 
frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the 
transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s) of operation, 
measured in watts, by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. Compliance with this 
provision is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing 
a resolution bandwidth of 100 kilohertz or greater. However, in the 100 
kilohertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to a licensee's 
frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be 
employed.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  27.55  Power strength limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The 470-512 MHz band, 600 MHz, 698-758, and 775-787 MHz bands: 
40 dB[micro]V/m.
* * * * *
    (b) Power flux density limit for stations operating in the 470-512 
MHz band and 698-746 MHz bands. For base and fixed stations operating 
in the 470-512 MHz band and 698-746 MHz band in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  27.50(c)(6), the power flux density that would be 
produced by such stations through a combination of antenna height and 
vertical gain pattern must

[[Page 46062]]

not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over the area 
extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting structure.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.57 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.57  International coordination.

* * * * *
    (b) Wireless operations in the 470-608 MHz, 614-763 MHz, 775-793 
MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands are subject to current and future 
international agreements between the United States and Canada and the 
United States and Mexico. Unless otherwise modified by international 
treaty, licenses must not cause interference to, and must accept 
harmful interference from, television broadcast operations in Mexico 
and Canada, where these services are co-primary in the band.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 27.75 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.75  Basic interoperability requirement.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Mobile and portable stations that operate on any portion of 
frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band must be capable of 
operating on all frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band 
using the same air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any 
frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 27.1310 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), (b) introductory text, 
(b)(1), (c), and (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1310   Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the 470-
512 MHz band and 600 MHz band from wireless operations.

    (a) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 470-
512 MHz band and 600 MHz band must cause no harmful interference to 
public reception of the signals of broadcast television stations 
transmitting co-channel or on an adjacent channel.
* * * * *
    (2) If a 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band licensee causes harmful 
interference within the noise-limited contour or protected contour of a 
broadcast television station that is operating co-channel or on an 
adjacent channel, the 470-512 MHz band or the 600 MHz band licensee 
must eliminate the harmful interference.
    (b) A licensee authorized to operate wireless base stations in the 
470-512 MHz band, or authorized to operate wireless services in the 600 
MHz downlink band:
    (1) Is not permitted to deploy wireless base stations within the 
noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television 
station licensed on a co-channel or adjacent channel in the 470-512 MHz 
band or 600 MHz downlink band;
* * * * *
    (c) A licensee authorized to operate wireless mobile or portable 
devices in the 470-512 MHz band, or authorized to operate wireless 
services in the 600 MHz uplink band must limit its service area so that 
mobile and portable devices do not transmit:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Co-channel operations in the 470-512 MHz band and 600 MHz band 
are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless 
services where their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally 
overlap;
* * * * *
0
17. Section 27.1320 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1320   Notification to white space database administrators.

    To receive interference protection, the 470-512 MHz band and 600 
MHz licensees shall notify one of the white space database 
administrators of the areas where they have commenced operation 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  15.713(j)(10) and 15.715(n) of this chapter.
0
18. Add subpart P, consisting of Sec. Sec.  27.1500 through 27.1504, to 
read as follows:

Subpart P--470-512 MHz Band

Sec.
27.1500 470-512 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1501 Designated entities in the 470-512 MHz band.
27.1502 Comparable facilities.
27.1503 Overlay licensee rights.
27.1504 Permanent discontinuance of service in the 470-512 MHz band.

Subpart P--470-512 MHz Band


Sec.  27.1500  470-512 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for 470-512 MHz band 
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive 
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this 
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.


Sec.  27.1501   Designated entities in the 470-512 MHz band.

    Eligibility for small business provisions.
    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Small business. A small business is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of 
its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $55 
million for the preceding five (5) years.
    (2) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $20 million for the preceding five (5) 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 of 15 percent, as specified in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter, subject to the cap specified 
in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) 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 of 25 
percent, as specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter, 
subject to the cap specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.


Sec.  27.1502   Comparable facilities.

    To be considered comparable facilities under this subpart, a 
replacement system provided to a public safety licensee during a 
mandatory relocation from the 470-512 MHz band must be at least 
equivalent to the licensee's existing system with respect to the 
following four factors:
    (a) System;
    (b) Capacity;
    (c) Quality of service; and
    (d) Operating costs.


Sec.  27.1503  Overlay licensee rights.

    (a) A licensee authorized under part 27 to operate in the 470-512 
MHz band shall be permitted to construct and operate on its authorized 
frequencies within its geographic license area provided:
    (1) A frequency is not assigned to a part 90 or part 22 licensee 
(either for shared or exclusive use);
    (2) The part 90 or part 22 licensee vacates the frequency, whether 
by mandatory transition pursuant to Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 
(2012) (Act), section 6103, voluntary transition, acquisition, failure 
to renew its license, or permanent discontinuance. A frequency is 
considered vacated where

[[Page 46063]]

all part 90 and part 22 licensees are no longer operational, such that 
there would be no overlap in authorized bandwidth of part 90 or part 22 
licensees with part 27 overlay licensee transmissions; or
    (3) The part 90 and/or part 22 licensee and the part 27 licensee 
reach an agreement permitting such operation.


Sec.  27.1504  Permanent discontinuance of 470-512 MHz licenses.

    A 470-512 MHz band licensee that permanently discontinues service 
as defined in Sec.  1.953 of this chapter must notify the Commission of 
the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 requesting 
license cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, 
without specific Commission action, if service is permanently 
discontinued as defined in Sec.  1.953 of this chapter, even if a 
licensee fails to file the required form requesting license 
cancellation.

[FR Doc. 2020-15707 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P