[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24238-24253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8440]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[WT Docket No. 06-150; CC Docket No. 94-102; WT Docket No. 01-309; WT 
Docket No. 03-264; WT Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT 
Docket No. 96-86; FCC No. 07-72]


Service Rules for the 698-806 MHz Band and Revision of the 
Commission's Rules Regarding Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 
Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, and Public Safety Spectrum 
Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks comment on rules 
governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz Band (i.e., the 700 MHz 
Band). This spectrum is currently occupied by television broadcasters 
and is being made available for wireless services, including public 
safety and commercial services, as a result of the digital television 
(``DTV'') transition.

DATES: Comments due on or before May 23, 2007 and reply comments are 
due on or before May 30, 2007. Section 213 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act 2000 provides that rules governing frequencies in 
the 746-806 MHz Band are not subject to certain sections of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.\1\ The Commission is therefore not inviting 
comment on any information collections that concern frequencies in the 
746-806 MHz Band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements 
imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Section 3507 and 3512 of 
Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 
Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B); 
see 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note 
at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 06-150; 
CC Docket No. 94-102; WT Docket No. 01-309; WT Docket No. 03-264; WT 
Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 96-86, by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Include the docket numbers in the subject line of 
the message.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by E-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Moon at (202) 418-1793, 
[email protected], Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau; Paul D'Ari at (202) 418-1550, paul.d'[email protected], Spectrum and 
Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; John 
Evanoff at (202) 418-0848, [email protected], Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), WT Docket No. 06-150; CC 
Docket No. 94-102; WT Docket No. 01-309; WT Docket No. 03-264; WT 
Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC No. 
07-72, adopted April 25, 2007 and released April 27, 2007. The full 
text of the FNPRM is available for public inspection on the 
Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available 
for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The full text of this document also may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; 
telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail [email protected].

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed new or modified 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. Public and agency 
comments are due 30 days after date of publication in the Federal 
Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.'' In this present document, we have assessed the potential 
effects of the various proposals with regard to information collection 
burdens on small business concerns, and find that there are no results 
specific to businesses with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission 
notes, however, that Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
2000 provides that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band 
become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register 
without regard to

[[Page 24239]]

certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act.\2\ The Commission, 
therefore, is not inviting comment on any information collections that 
concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synopsis

    1. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the FCC 
reaches tentative conclusions and makes proposals with respect to a 
limited number of key issues affecting licensing, service and technical 
rules for the 698-806 MHz Band (i.e., the 700 MHz Band). In addition, 
the FCC seeks comment on the ``Public Safety Broadband Deployment 
Plan'' proposal submitted by Frontline Wireless, LLC (Frontline). In 
seeking additional comment in this FNPRM, the FCC intends to rely on 
the extensive record that has already been developed in the three 
pending 700 MHz Band proceedings to inform its ultimate decisions.
    2. In addition to the recently filed Frontline proposal, the three 
pending 700 MHz Band proceedings are: (1) The 700 MHz Commercial 
Services proceeding,\3\ (2) the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding,\4\ and 
(3) the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding.\5\ Because decisions on 
certain issues in the three proceedings are potentially interrelated, 
the FCC chooses to address them jointly in the FNPRM. In so doing, the 
FCC seeks to promote access to 700 MHz Band spectrum and the provision 
of service to consumers across the country, including in rural areas, 
as well as opportunities for broadband service for public safety users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Service Rules for the 698-749, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz 
Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to 
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC 
Docket No. 94-102, and Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules 
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 21 
FCC Rcd 9345 (2006).
    \4\ See Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard 
Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, 
Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for 
Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications 
Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 21 FCC Rcd 10413 (2006).
    \5\ See Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable 
Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, Development of 
Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting 
Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements 
Through the Year 2010, PS Docket 06-229, WT Docket No. 96-86, Ninth 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 21 FCC Rcd 14837 (2006); Development 
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting 
Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements 
Through the Year 2010, Eighth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT 
Docket Nos. 96-86 and 05-157, 21 FCC Rcd 3668 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 700 MHz Band Commercial Services

A. Lower 700 MHz Band
    3. In the existing band plan for the Lower 700 MHz Band, the 48 
megahertz of spectrum is divided into five blocks: three 12-megahertz 
paired blocks, each consisting of two 6-megahertz segments (Blocks A, 
B, and C); and two 6-megahertz unpaired blocks (Blocks D and E). The 
FCC proposes not to alter the spectrum blocks as currently sized and 
aligned. The spectrum comprising Lower 700 MHz Band Blocks C and D, 
consisting of 18 of the 48 megahertz in that band, has already been 
auctioned, and the remainder of the Lower 700 MHz Band is subject to a 
statutorily imposed auction schedule. The FCC also notes that a number 
of parties support retaining the current size of spectrum blocks in the 
Lower 700 MHz Band, including Blocks C and D of that Band. The FCC 
therefore proposes not to change the bandwidth of this licensed 
spectrum, but seeks further comment on this proposal.
    4. The FCC also proposes that the unpaired spectrum in the E Block 
of the Lower 700 MHz Band remain over larger regional areas, licensed 
on an REAG basis. As the FCC has found before with respect to the 700 
MHz band and to the AWS-1 band, and as supported by several commenters 
in this record, licenses based on large geographic areas offer certain 
benefits, such as allowing licensees to more easily take advantage of 
economies of scale to develop new technologies and services. The FCC 
seeks comment on whether this proposal would serve the public interest.
    5. The FCC also proposes to adopt EAs as the geographic area for 
licenses in the A Block in the Lower 700 MHz Band. The FCC makes this 
proposal because there is significant support in the record for a mix 
of licenses, including EA licenses. Given the potential public interest 
benefits of placing one additional spectrum block over small geographic 
service areas (in addition to the B Block of the Lower 700 MHz Band), 
while also retaining significant portions of spectrum licenses in large 
geographic areas, the FCC seeks comment on whether it would serve the 
public interest to license the A Block across EAs.
    6. In addition, the FCC proposes that CMAs be adopted as the 
geographic service area for licenses in the B Block of the Lower 700 
MHz Band, which results in the availability of 734 CMA licenses in this 
block as opposed to 6 EAG licenses. In seeking comment on this 
proposal, the FCC notes that certain commenters specifically favor the 
B Block for reassignment on the basis of CMAs. The FCC also notes that, 
if it assigns CMAs in the Lower 700 MHz Band B Block, licensees will be 
afforded the opportunity to combine the B Block licenses with licenses 
in the adjacent C Block, which already have been licensed over CMAs 
(Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Rural Service Areas (MSAs/RSAs)). 
Accordingly, the FCC seeks comment on whether converting the B Block to 
CMA licensing could create opportunities for existing licensees in the 
C Block of the Lower 700 MHz Band, many of which include small or rural 
service providers, to create a larger block by acquiring another 
similarly sized spectrum block in the auction.
B. Upper 700 MHz Band Commercial Services Band
    7. The following proposals would make several changes to the size 
and location of the spectrum blocks in the band plan currently 
associated with the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band and the 700 
MHz Guard Bands, as well as the geographic area basis on which the 
various blocks should be licensed. The FCC considers these changes in 
large part because it is tentatively concluding to consolidate the 
proposed broadband portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety Band at the 
lower portion of the Public Safety spectrum, as discussed below, while 
consolidating narrowband operations to the upper portion of the Public 
Safety spectrum. If the FCC adopts such a proposal, the adjacency of 
Public Safety broadband spectrum to commercial broadband spectrum in 
the Upper 700 MHz Band may make it possible to make adjustments to the 
Guard Bands spectrum, rendering additional spectrum available for 
commercial use. Under one scenario, the existing Guard Band B block 
would be eliminated entirely, and the spectrum subsumed within the 
commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band, resulting in a total of 
34 megahertz available for auction. Under another scenario, the Guard 
Band B Block would be reduced from four to two megahertz, and the 
location of both the Guard Band A and B blocks would be shifted within 
the Upper 700 MHz Band. The FCC discusses the proposals below on this 
basis.
(i) Proposals Based on Elimination of the Guard Band B Block
    8. Elimination of the Guard Band B Block. As noted, adoption of the 
FCC's

[[Page 24240]]

proposal to consolidate the broadband Public Safety spectrum in the 
lower portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety Band may mean that the four 
megahertz of spectrum in the existing Guard Band B Block is no longer 
needed for use as a guard band for the adjacent 700 MHz public safety 
users, and may be consolidated with the rest of the commercial spectrum 
for more efficient and effective use. The following proposals would 
reconfigure the band plan associated with the 30 megahertz of 
commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band and 
the four megahertz of commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz Guard Band B 
Block, providing 34 megahertz of commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 
MHz Band available for auction throughout most of the nation. These 
proposals also contemplate the creation of a 12 megahertz paired block 
of commercial spectrum (758-764 MHz/788-794 MHz) adjacent to the 700 
MHz Public Safety Band (hereinafter the ``adjacent block'').
    9. In addition to providing additional spectrum for wireless 
broadband services, the new adjacent block could help facilitate the 
transition to wireless broadband for public safety in its 700 MHz 
spectrum. Under these proposals, the adjacent block auction winner(s) 
would have to pay the costs of consolidating the 700 MHz Public Safety 
spectrum with the narrowband allocation at the upper end and the 
broadband allocation at the lower end. The FCC seeks comment on whether 
the adjacent block auction winner(s) should, as a license condition, be 
required to post a letter of credit or place certain funds in escrow to 
ensure the availability of funds to fulfill this obligation. The FCC 
also seeks comment on how to establish the amount and mechanism for 
implementing such an obligation. For example, how should the FCC assess 
the responsibility for relocating public safety operations if there are 
multiple adjacent block auction winners?
    10. As mentioned above, the FCC currently holds 42 of the 52 Guard 
Band B Block licenses. These proposals would grandfather the remaining 
B Block licenses by allowing them to continue to operate in this 
spectrum under current rules. The FCC seeks comment on whether it 
should permit existing Guard Band B Block licensees to operate pursuant 
to the current technical specifications for the Guard Band B Block, 
which contemplate that Guard Band B Block licensees operate high-site, 
high-power communications. The FCC seeks comment on whether there would 
be potential for harmful interference to new, co-channel adjacent block 
licensees, or to public safety broadband operations, if the FCC adopts 
its proposals for the 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum. Similarly, if the 
FCC eliminates the existing Guard Band B block, resulting in a 12-
megahertz 700 MHz commercial block immediately adjacent to the 700 MHz 
Public Safety block, the FCC seeks comment on whether any technical or 
operational restrictions or limitations would need to be adopted to 
protect against interference to the proposed broadband public safety 
operations.
    11. In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether it could 
facilitate clearing of the existing Guard Band B Block licensees by 
allowing the incumbents to include their licenses in the auction 
inventory in a ``two-sided'' auction, which would make available 
licenses currently held by incumbent Guard Band B Block licensees. 
Commenters should address details of how the existing licenses could be 
incorporated into the auction, and how the incumbent licensees could be 
compensated for ``selling'' a license. Are there other ways we should 
consider transitioning the existing Guard Band B Block licensees to the 
proposed band plan?
    12. The FCC notes that a reconfiguration of the band plan for the 
700 MHz Public Safety Band, as discussed below, may result in the 
relocated narrowband channels being blocked by existing Canadian TV 
broadcasters in certain border areas. Although the Canadian government 
has agreed to clear broadcasters from TV channels 63 and 68, there is 
as yet no such agreement for TV channels 64 and 69, where the 
narrowband channels would rest in their entirety after the proposed 
band plan reconfiguration. As a temporary solution to this problem, the 
FCC is also seeking comment below in this FNPRM on whether to allow, in 
border areas, narrowband voice communications within the 1 megahertz 
internal guard band that is designed (under a band reconfiguration) to 
protect the narrowband channels from the proposed broadband channels. 
The result of this option would be a corresponding loss of available 
spectrum for broadband communications, since a 1 megahertz internal 
guard band would still be necessary to protect the shifted narrowband 
channels from public safety broadband operations.
    13. As a result, under these proposals, the FCC would impose a 
license condition upon the adjacent block licensee, creating a 
temporary easement into the adjacent block to facilitate the full 5 
megahertz bandwidth of the proposed public safety broadband allocation 
under a band reconfiguration. This easement would terminate upon 
transition of the border broadcast operations and the subsequent 
transition of any relevant public safety users operating on the 
easement. The FCC also seeks comment on whether this easement should be 
triggered in all adjacent block licenses that share a border with 
Canada or Mexico, within each licensee's entire service area or within 
the portion that is within range of the conflicting broadcaster's 
service contour. In such a circumstance, should the adjacent block 
licensee be allowed to operate on a secondary basis within the easement 
spectrum, or not at all? Finally, the FCC seeks comment on whether we 
have the authority to impose this license condition on new adjacent 
block licensees.
    14. Proposal 1. In the first proposal, the FCC would establish a 
new 22-megahertz C Block (comprised of two 11-megahertz blocks of 
paired spectrum), and a new 12-megahertz D Block (comprised of two 6-
megahertz blocks of paired spectrum). Both the C and D Blocks in the 
Upper 700 MHz Band would be licensed on a REAG basis.
    15. Creating a paired, 22-megahertz block of spectrum in a newly 
configured C Block would be responsive to the desires of some potential 
new entrants, as well as many other commenters who favored a large 20 
megahertz block of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band. For example, the 
Coalition for 4G in America has specifically advocated that we adopt a 
paired, 22-megahertz license in the Upper 700 MHz Band to support new 
entry. Under this proposal, licensees could purchase licenses in these 
contiguous blocks to create 34-megahertz licenses, which could provide 
unique opportunities to offer broadband services. Further, with regard 
to the larger 22-megahertz C Block REAG licenses, the FCC proposes, 
consistent with the desires expressed by the Coalition for 4G America, 
to auction this block on a combinatorial basis, which would further 
facilitate the aggregation of licenses at auction to create a 
nationwide footprint. The FCC seeks comment on this proposal.
    16. Proposal 2. This proposed band plan contemplates licensing 34 
megahertz of commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band using a mix 
of REAG, EA and CMA geographic licensing areas. In conjunction with the 
proposed mix of geographic licensing areas in the Lower 700 MHz Band, 
this proposal seeks to approximate the balanced mix of geographic 
licensing

[[Page 24241]]

sizes adopted by the FCC in the recent AWS-1 auction. It is intended to 
provide opportunities for small providers in rural areas, as well as 
new entrants seeking to establish a nationwide wireless footprint, and 
to afford bidders flexibility to aggregate smaller markets to create 
either a nationwide market, or large regional or other customized 
markets.
    17. Specifically, this proposal would create two 11-megahertz 
licenses (each composed of two 5.5-megahertz paired blocks)--the C and 
D blocks--and a 12-megahertz E block (composed of two 6-megahertz 
paired blocks) similar to the block that is the subject of the 
Frontline proposal discussed below. Under this proposal, the FCC would 
license the C and D Blocks both on an EA basis, or the C Block on a CMA 
basis and the D Block on an EA basis. The FCC would license the E Block 
on a REAG basis. This band plan is not tied to adoption of either the 
Broadband Optimization Plan or the recently filed alternative plan. The 
FCC seeks specific comment on whether this proposal provides interested 
bidders with the flexibility to aggregate smaller markets to create 
either a nationwide market, large regional or other customized markets, 
as advocated by a broad array of parties. Also, the FCC seeks comment 
as to whether this band plan would offer some potential new entrants an 
opportunity to provide broadband services. Finally, the FCC seeks 
comment on whether to consider licensing these spectrum blocks set 
forth in this proposal on a different geographic basis.
(ii) Proposals Based on Modified 700 MHz Guard Bands
    18. Modification of the 700 MHz Guard Bands. The following three 
proposals are premised on: 1) a shift of the Guard Band A Block from 
746-747/776-777 MHz to 762-763/792-793 MHz; 2) a reduction of the Guard 
Band B Block from 4 megahertz to 2 megahertz; and 3) a shift of the 
Guard Band B Block from 762-764/792-794 MHz to 775-776 MHz/805-806 MHz. 
These actions would make 32 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz 
Band (746-762 MHz/776-792 MHz) available for commercial licensing.
    19. Proposal 3. Access Spectrum/Pegasus have submitted an 
alternative proposal to the Commission for modification of the Guard 
Bands in the Upper 700 MHz Band, which could also impact the 
configuration of the Upper 700 MHz Band. According to Access Spectrum/
Pegasus, its alternative plan would permit the auction of 32 megahertz 
of commercial broadband spectrum but leave the size of the public 
safety allocation unchanged. They also argue that it would accommodate 
the consolidation of the public safety narrowband spectrum by 
addressing the Canadian interference issues and public safety 
relocation costs, discussed above. Finally, by proposing an 11 
megahertz block immediately adjacent to the Lower 700 MHz C Block, 
Access Spectrum/Pegasus assert that the alternative proposal addresses 
interference concerns on the record by moving the Guard Band A Block.
    20. Access Spectrum/Pegasus propose to ``shift'' down the 700 MHz 
Public Safety Band by 1 megahertz to remedy potential narrowband 
interference issues with Canada and Mexico, if the FCC determines that 
a consolidation of the narrowband channels to the top of the public 
safety allocation is in the public interest. In implementing the 
``shift,'' the current A Block at 746-747 MHz and 776-777 MHz would be 
displaced and relocated, and the Upper 700 MHz C Block would become a 
22-megahertz block (comprised of two 11-megahertz paired blocks) 
through redistribution of a total of 2 megahertz of current B Block 
spectrum. According to Access Spectrum/Pegasus, a 22-megahertz C Block 
would address potential interference concerns and would be responsive 
to record support for an 11-megahertz paired block. The alternative 
plan proposes that the D Block would be a 10-megahertz block, 
(comprised of two 5-megahertz paired blocks) and that the newly 
configured A Block would be reduced from a total of 4 megahertz to 2 
megahertz. In addition, with the displacement of the A Block, Access 
Spectrum/Pegasus propose that the FCC modify the licenses of the 
incumbent A Block licensees, essentially ``repacking'' the newly 
configured A Block with all current A and B Block licensees.
    21. Access Spectrum/Pegasus propose to work with the FCC to ensure 
that all current A Block and B Block licensees can be accommodated in 
the newly configured A Block. Subject to certain conditions, Access 
Spectrum/Pegasus would also agree to pay for the transition of public 
safety narrowband operations in the band. Their proposed conditions 
include: (a) the newly configured A Block sharing the same service 
rules as the Upper 700 MHz C and D Blocks, including application of our 
Secondary Markets rules; and (b) the Commission removing the cellular 
architecture restrictions on the newly configured A Block.
    22. The FCC seeks comment on Access Spectrum/Pegasus' alternative 
proposal and its likely effects on both the commercial and public 
safety users in the 700 MHz Band. The FCC also seeks comment on 
whether, and to what extent, the Commission should: (a) Adopt certain, 
but not all, elements of the Access Spectrum/Pegasus alternative 
proposal; (b) modify any elements of the proposal, adopt any additional 
requirements, or adopt any alternative requirements to achieve the same 
or similar public interest goals; and (c) consider alternative 
approaches to encourage public-private partnerships for sharing 
spectrum between public safety users and commercial licensees in the 
700 MHz Band.
    23. The Access Spectrum/Pegasus proposal to shift down the public 
safety block by 1 megahertz would result in the overlap of public 
safety spectrum onto 1 megahertz of each pair of the current Guard 
Bands B Block licenses, including licenses that are currently 
encumbered in certain areas of the country. As a proposed solution to 
this problem, Access Spectrum/Pegasus offers to work with the FCC and 
the current Guard Bands B Block licensees to repack all of the current 
Guard Bands licensees into the newly configured A Block. The FCC notes 
that, in addition to Access Spectrum/Pegasus, two other current Guard 
Bands B Block license holders, PTPMS II and Harbor Guard Band, LLC, 
have indicated that they will work with the Commission to develop a 
plan that treats each party fairly. The FCC seeks comment on the extent 
to which it may rely on these private negotiations to resolve the 
spectrum overlap problem. The FCC is concerned that, if all incumbent 
Guard Bands licensees do not come to an agreement consistent with 
Access Spectrum/Pegasus' alternative proposal, public safety and 
commercial operations in areas with incumbent B Block licensees would 
be significantly curtailed. The FCC tentatively concludes that the 
Commission should reject Access Spectrum/Pegasus' alternative proposal 
if the incumbent licensees are unable to come to an agreement.
    24. Proposal 4. If the FCC determines that it is able to modify the 
Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands in the manner proposed by Access Spectrum/
Pegasus in connection with their alternative band plan proposal, it 
seeks comment on other options the Commission may take. For example, 
the FCC seeks specific comment on a band plan composed of a mix of REAG 
and EA geographic licensing areas for the Upper 700 MHz Band. In 
conjunction with the tentative conclusion regarding the mix of 
geographic licensing areas in the Lower 700 MHz Band, this band plan 
closely approximates the balanced mix of geographic licensing sizes 
adopted by

[[Page 24242]]

the Commission in the recent AWS auction. This band plan will provide 
opportunities for small providers in rural areas, as well as new 
entrants seeking to establish a nationwide wireless footprint.
    25. Specifically, this band plan proposes to license the C and D 
Blocks as two separate 11-megahertz licenses (each composed of two 5.5-
megahertz paired blocks) on a REAG basis, with an E Block similar to 
the block that is the subject of the Frontline proposal discussed below 
licensed as a 10-megahertz license (composed of paired 5-megahertz 
blocks) on an EA basis. The FCC seeks specific comment on whether this 
proposal regarding the C and D Blocks will provide interested bidders 
with an opportunity to combine the two blocks into a single 22-
megahertz license, which some potential new entrants have suggested 
would provide unique opportunities to provide broadband services. The 
FCC also seeks specific comment on whether one or both of the C and D 
Blocks should be auctioned on a combinatorial basis in order to further 
facilitate the aggregation of a nationwide footprint, and if so, how 
this should be accomplished.
    26. In addition, the FCC proposes that if the Commission were to 
adopt the Frontline proposal discussed below (effectively treating the 
E block as a single national geographic license), it would license the 
D Block on an EA basis (and maintain the C Block on a REAG basis) in 
order to maintain a balanced mix of geographic license sizes. The FCC 
seeks comment on this proposal.
    27. Proposal 5. Finally, the FCC seeks comment on an additional 
alternative proposal that assumes that we modify the guard bands. As 
set out below, under this band plan the FCC would license the C and D 
blocks as two 11-megahertz licenses (each composed of two 5.5-megahertz 
paired blocks), with a 10-megahertz E Block (composed of paired 5-
megahertz block). The C Block would be licensed on a REAG basis, and 
the D and E Blocks would be licensed on an EA basis.
    28. A number of parties have argued that a more flexible Upper 700 
MHz band plan that includes a mix of licenses could better support a 
variety of business plans and ensures that the spectrum is made 
available to the bidders that value it most. There is a concern that a 
band plan with only REAGs in the Upper 700 MHz Band may artificially 
favor only the largest wireless incumbents or particular business 
models. These principles have been supported by a large number of 
commenters including large wireless providers, tribal governments, 
state regulators, and a large coalition of wireless providers.\6\ These 
principles reflect the Commission's statutory obligation to ensure ``an 
equitable distribution of licenses and services among geographic 
areas'' and to ``avoid [ ] excessive concentration of licenses * * * by 
disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including 
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Balanced Consensus Plan Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 
Attachment.
    \7\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The above band plan takes into account these several positions 
by providing for a mix of REAGs and EAs in the upper band plan based in 
part on the 700 MHz guard band and public safety spectrum restructuring 
advocated by Access Spectrum and Pegasus. By splitting the larger 22-
megahertz block into two 11-megahertz blocks, the FCC increases the 
opportunity for all providers to actively participate in the auction. 
The FCC also would allow for combinatorial bidding on the C Block to 
facilitate the ability of entities to secure a national license. The 
FCC seeks comment on the merits of this proposal and on the specific 
areas selected for the blocks: two EAs and one REAG. Parties are also 
encouraged to comment on possible changes to this band plan in the 
event the FCC adopts a proposal similar to the one advanced by 
Frontline. Finally, the FCC seeks comment on the impact of this band 
plan on potential new entrants, some of which have argued that a larger 
22-megahertz block is critical for their market entry business plans.
C. Performance Requirements
    30. Given the numerous and competing arguments offered by 
commenters, and considering the importance of rules that promote access 
to spectrum and the provision of service, the FCC seeks further comment 
on the performance requirements for the 700 MHz Commercial Services 
licensees. As the basis for its consideration, the FCC proposes to 
combine performance requirements based on geographic benchmarks and a 
``keep what you use'' rule. Specifically, the FCC proposes that each 
licensee provide coverage of 25 percent of the geographic area of the 
license within three years of the grant of the initial license, 50 
percent of this area within five years, and 75 percent of the area 
within eight years. The FCC seeks comment on this proposal, including 
its advantages and disadvantages. To the extent commenters believe 
these proposed benchmarks should be higher or lower, the FCC requests 
that they provide information that would corroborate the benefits of 
their proposed benchmarks and the costs and benefits of alternative 
approaches. Comments should address whether these specific geographic 
benchmarks would promote access to spectrum and the provision of 
service.
    31. The FCC also proposes to consider the relevant service area to 
exclude all government land. Under this approach, a licensee with a 
geographic service area that includes land owned or leased by 
government would be able to meet the build-out benchmarks by employing 
a signal level that is sufficient to provide service to the relevant 
percentages of land in the service area that is not owned or leased by 
government. If a licensee employs a signal level that provides coverage 
to land that is owned or leased by government, the FCC seeks comment on 
whether the licensee could count this land area and coverage as part of 
its service area for purposes of measuring compliance with the 
performance benchmark. Similarly, the FCC seeks comment on whether it 
should adopt a ``keep what you use'' standard that also excludes those 
portions of the licensed areas that encompass land owned or leased by 
government. In particular, the Commission asks how a ``keep what you 
use'' rule that excluded government land would be applied in areas, 
such as Alaska, in which vast portions of the state or region include 
such land.
    32. The FCC also seeks comment on the potential consequences for 
licensees that fail to meet the interim requirements to cover a minimum 
percentage of the geographic area of their license area. For example, 
licensees that fail to meet these benchmarks could have the length of 
their license term reduced. Alternatively, licensees that fail to meet 
the benchmarks could have their license area reduced under a 
proportionate ``keep what you use'' approach. Under this alternative, 
the reduction of the license area would be sufficient to create a 
resulting license area in which the area currently covered meets the 
relevant interim benchmark. For example, if a licensee employs a signal 
level sufficient to provide service to only 20 percent of the 
geographic area by the three-year benchmark, the licensee would be 
required to return a portion of the licensee's unserved area to the 
Commission, so that the covered area equals at least 25 percent of the 
remaining portion of the license area. A

[[Page 24243]]

similar process would be used if a licensee fails to meet the five- and 
eight-year benchmarks.
    33. The FCC also seeks comment on how it might apply a ``keep what 
you use'' rule to this proposal. In particular, the FCC asks whether it 
should apply such a standard to all of the licensees for the 
unauctioned 700 MHz Band Commercial Services or only to those licensees 
that fail to meet their geographic benchmarks. For example, the FCC 
could apply the ``keep what you use'' rule at the end of the license 
term, regardless of the level of construction by the licensee. 
Alternatively, licensees that fail to meet the 75 percent geographic 
area coverage requirement could be subject to a ``keep what you use'' 
rule applied either at the 8-year benchmark or at the end of the 
license term, while licensees that meet the 8-year benchmark could be 
exempt from a ``keep what you use'' rule.
    34. In addition, the FCC asks commenters to address the process by 
which it should reclaim unused spectrum under a ``keep what you use'' 
rule, and specifically, how such spectrum should be made available to 
new users. For example, the FCC seeks comment on whether parties that 
hold licenses for other spectrum in the same geographic area should be 
eligible to acquire the unused spectrum of another licensee after the 
Commission reclaims this spectrum and makes it available via 
competitive bidding. Similarly, the FCC seeks comment on whether the 
initial licensee should be eligible to bid on spectrum that it 
previously held as part of its original license. For both these 
alternatives, the FCC asks that commenters address how a particular 
policy would help promote service to the unserved area and whether 
there would be a risk of negative effects, such as a loss of potential 
competition.
    35. The FCC also proposes to apply its performance requirements on 
an EA and CMA basis only. Under such an approach, licensees with REAGs 
would be required to employ a signal level sufficient to provide 
adequate service to at least 25 percent of the geographic area of each 
EA in its license area within three years, 50 percent of the geographic 
area of each of these EAs within five years, and 75 percent of the 
geographic area of each of these EAs within eight years. REAG licensees 
that fail to meet the interim requirement in any EA within their 
license areas would lose a portion of the geographic area of that EA, 
such that the coverage of the remaining portion of the EA would be 
sufficient to meet the relevant benchmark.
    36. The FCC proposes that licensees demonstrate their compliance 
with benchmarks by filing maps and other supporting documents with the 
Commission. Would such information be sufficient to provide the FCC 
with easily identified areas, which could be reclaimed and reassigned 
via competitive bidding under a ``keep what you use'' approach? The FCC 
also asks for comment on whether it should reclaim the spectrum in 
unused areas in pre-defined units, such as counties. Those commenters 
that recommend a county-based ``keep what you use'' standard also 
should provide recommendations on how the FCC should apply this 
standard in the event a licensee serves only a small portion of a 
county, such as a highway or an area that is adjacent to a county that 
has more coverage by the licensee. The FCC seeks comment on these 
alternatives.
    37. In addition, assuming licensees with REAGs are required to meet 
the performance requirements on an EA basis, the FCC proposes that 
these licensees would have to demonstrate coverage for each EA within 
their license area. Licenses based on EAs or CMAs would have to 
demonstrate coverage for their respective geographic license areas.
    38. Finally, the FCC seeks comment on any other proposal that would 
similarly apply build-out requirements to these licensees more 
stringent than the substantial service standard applied under our 
current rules, and on how such proposals could be implemented. For 
example, should the FCC use population rather than geographic 
benchmarks?
D. Incumbent Eligibility
    39. The FCC also seeks comment on the proposal presented by Media 
Access Project and the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) 
to encourage the entry of new competitors by excluding incumbent local 
exchange carriers (ILECs), incumbent cable operators, and large 
wireless carriers from eligibility for licenses in the 700 MHz Band. In 
the alternative, PISC suggests that these incumbents only be eligible 
for licenses in the 700 MHz band through structurally separate 
affiliates, which it contends would make it possible to detect whether 
the incumbent receives more favorable treatment than unaffiliated 
providers. The FCC also seeks comment on whether it should encourage 
the entry of new broadband competitors through lesser restrictions on 
eligibility for obtaining new licenses, both at auction and in the 
secondary market. More particularly, it seeks comment on whether only 
parties not affiliated with existing wireline broadband service 
providers, including both DSL and cable providers, should be eligible 
to hold one or more blocks of the Upper 700 MHz C Block spectrum. 
Alternatively, should the FCC restrict eligibility for the Upper 700 
MHz C Block licenses to parties not affiliated with in-region wireline 
broadband service providers? Finally, as an alternative to limiting the 
parties eligible for new licenses in the 700 MHz Band, the FCC seeks 
comment on whether parties unaffiliated with incumbent wireline 
broadband service providers should receive a bidding credit on licenses 
in the Upper 700 MHz C Block. The FCC also seeks comment on how such 
new entrant bidding credits should be coordinated with existing bidding 
credits for small businesses, i.e., should new entrant credits be 
cumulative or exclusive of small business bidding credits.

2. 700 MHz Guard Bands

A. Band Plan Proposals
    40. The FCC tentatively concludes that it will not adopt the 
Broadband Optimization Plan (BOP), or other proposals, to the extent 
that they propose a reallocation of commercial spectrum for public 
safety use, or the reassignment of spectrum outside of the competitive 
bidding process. The FCC believes that Congress's express instructions 
regarding the allocation of commercial and public safety spectrum in 
the 700 MHz Band statutorily prohibits it from reallocating this 
spectrum at this time, and it therefore cannot reallocate commercial 
spectrum for public safety use as proposed by the BOP and other plans. 
Similarly, the FCC believes that it is required to use a competitive 
bidding process to assign the spectrum that has been allocated for 
commercial use pursuant to these statutory instructions, and therefore 
must also deny the BOP and the critical infrastructure industries (CII) 
proposals on this basis. Even if the FCC possessed legal authority to 
adopt the BOP and CII proposals, the FCC believes these proposals are 
not in the public interest because they would assign additional 
spectrum to current licensees without competitive bidding. The FCC is 
also concerned that the BOP could result in interference between 700 
MHz Band public safety and commercial operations.
    41. In Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, Congress mandated 
that the FCC allocate ``spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz, 
inclusive'' (i.e., the Upper 700 MHz Band) by designating 24 megahertz

[[Page 24244]]

of the spectrum ``for public safety services'' and 36 megahertz of the 
spectrum ``for commercial use to be assigned by competitive bidding 
pursuant to Section 309(j).'' As directed by Congress, the FCC 
allocated 24 megahertz of this spectrum for public safety use at 764-
776 MHz and 794-806 MHz and 36 megahertz of this spectrum for 
commercial use at 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz. The 36 megahertz of 
Upper 700 MHz Band spectrum allocated for commercial use included the 
Guard Bands. The FCC finds that the reallocation of commercial spectrum 
to public safety contemplated by the various Guard Bands proposals--in 
particular, the BOP, the Ericsson plan, and the revised Alcatel-Lucent 
plan--would appear to be inconsistent with Section 337. Even if Section 
337(a) does not establish a permanent legislative bar on reallocating 
the Upper 700 MHz Band, the FCC believes that it would be contrary to 
Congress' intent in enacting Section 337 to consider modifying the 
commercial and public safety allocations in the band before the 
licensees have had a meaningful opportunity to use unencumbered 
spectrum as initially envisioned (an opportunity that is unlikely to be 
fully available before the end of the DTV transition in 2009).
    42. In accordance with Section 337's mandate that commercial 
spectrum in the 700 MHz Band be assigned by competitive bidding, the 
FCC established a licensing framework providing that mutually exclusive 
applications in this band would be subject to competitive bidding 
pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Act. This licensing scheme resulted 
in two auctions of the Guard Band licenses. The FCC finds that it lacks 
legal authority to assign to proponents of the BOP, or CII, additional 
commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band absent competitive 
bidding, because any such action would be inconsistent with the auction 
requirements in Sections 337(a). Section 337(a)(2) prescribes 
competitive bidding as the method of assigning commercial spectrum in 
the Upper 700 MHz Band. The FCC finds that for the same reasons that it 
cannot reallocate the band at this time, it cannot alter the method of 
assignment at this time.
    43. The FCC also believes that the BOP proposal for assigning 
licenses outside the competitive bidding process would not serve the 
public interest. The FCC seeks comment on its public policy concerns 
and any similar policy concerns, including its assessment that license 
assignment by auction is preferable to license assignment by private 
negotiation or other non-auction methods. The FCC also seeks comment on 
potential interference concerns, including the possibility that 
operations in the proposed internal public safety guard band could be 
undertaken by public safety licensees. In addition, the FCC seeks 
comment on the possibility that a C Block licensee might have to limit 
emissions at the lower portion of its authorized spectrum block in some 
manner, which could limit its ability to fully utilize its block and 
thereby limit service offerings.
    44. Access Spectrum/Pegasus Alternative Proposal. Acknowledging 
potential legal concerns with the BOP, especially with respect to the 
proposed reallocation of spectrum from commercial use to public safety 
services, Access Spectrum/Pegasus have submitted an alternative 
proposal to the Commission for modification of the Guard Bands in the 
Upper 700 MHz Band, which is discussed in detail above. In addition to 
the FCC's discussion of this proposal above, it notes its tentative 
conclusion above that Section 337 and the public interest weigh against 
awarding 700 MHz spectrum outside of the competitive bidding process at 
this time. The FCC also notes, however, that Access Spectrum/Pegasus do 
not seek any additional spectrum in their alternative proposal, but 
instead seek to have the FCC modify their 1 megahertz paired A Block 
license to specify operations in a new 1 megahertz paired A Block 
license at different frequencies. The FCC seeks comment on whether the 
alternative proposal sufficiently addresses Section 337 and public 
interest concerns regarding the assignment of spectrum outside of the 
competitive bidding process. The FCC also seeks comment on whether the 
licensed geographic areas in the new A Block should be the same as in 
the current A Block.
B. Other Guard Band Issues
    45. The FCC seeks further, limited comment on what it should do if 
it decides to leave the existing Guard Bands substantially intact. For 
example, assuming the FCC modifies the public safety allocation, the B 
Block's role as a critical juncture between adjacent commercial and 
public safety broadband spectrum would potentially be enhanced. After a 
reconfiguration of the public safety allocation, the B Block would rest 
between large commercial and public safety spectrum blocks, both of 
which are well-suited for broadband communications. In that context, 
the FCC could provide incumbent B Block licensees, as well as future 
licensees via auction, greater technical and operational flexibility 
than currently exists by revising its rules regarding restrictions on 
cellular architectures, and mandating low-site, low-power system 
architectures. Such initiatives could afford B Block licensees the 
previously unavailable potential to offer compatible broadband services 
within their paired 2 megahertz of spectrum, thereby creating 
additional opportunities for efficient and effective use of the 
spectrum. These opportunities could include entering into public/
private partnerships with the adjacent public safety broadband 
operator(s), partnering with other commercial licensees to deploy 
commercial broadband systems, and attracting a broader pool of 
potential leasing partners interested in deploying broadband.
    46. Because the FCC is committed to resolving the issues raised in 
this FNPRM on an expedited basis, the Commission notes that if it were 
to retain the existing band plan, it could simultaneously require that 
the B Block licensees deploy low-site, low-power system architectures, 
and permit them to deploy cellular systems. At the same time, the FCC 
would likely request detailed comment on these and any additional 
prospects for enhancing the utility of the B Block in order to augment 
the record developed in response to the 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice. The 
FCC seeks comment on these ideas, specifically whether the low-site, 
low-power system architecture requirement, together with removal of the 
restriction on cellular architectures, is a positive step toward 
enhancing the B Block should the Commission ultimately decide not to 
adopt any proposal to eliminate or substantially modify the Guard Band 
B Block.
    47. The FCC also seeks comment on whether it should make changes to 
the A Block Guard Bands spectrum under the current band plan. For 
example, the FCC seeks seek comment on whether the technical 
flexibility it might allow for the B Block would also be possible in 
the A Block. Are low-site, low-power system architectures technically 
feasible for the upper Guard Bands A Block immediately adjacent to the 
Public Safety spectrum allocation? If not, would it nevertheless be 
useful to provide such flexibility for the lower Guard Bands A Block? 
With the lower A Block's proximity to both the Lower 700 MHz C Block 
and the Upper 700 MHz C Block, certain technical modifications might 
improve compatibilities in the band. The FCC also seeks comment on 
whether, similar to its discussion above for the Guard Bands B Block, 
there would be a public

[[Page 24245]]

interest benefit to allowing the current A Block licensees to include 
their spectrum in the auction inventory in a ``two-sided'' auction.

3. Competitive Bidding Procedures

    48. The FCC seeks comment on whether it should use limited 
information (or ``anonymous bidding'') procedures in the upcoming 
auction of new 700 MHz licenses, in order to deter anticompetitive 
behavior that may be facilitated by the release of information on 
bidder interests and identities. Current competitive bidding rules 
permit withholding information on bidder interests and identities prior 
to the close of bidding. Accordingly, the FCC can make a final decision 
regarding the procedures for the auction as part of the regular pre-
auction process. The FCC seeks comment here in light of the potential 
importance of this band with respect to competition in broadband 
services and in order to assess whether the use of anonymous bidding 
should be a factor in determining the final band plan for new 700 MHz 
licenses.
    49. In prior auctions, the FCC has adopted procedures, contingent 
on pre-auction assessments of likely competition in the auction, for 
withholding public release until the close of the auction of: (1) 
Bidders' license selections on their short form applications and the 
amount of their upfront payments; and (2) the identities of bidders 
placing bids. In the context of those prior auctions, the FCC noted 
that there may be potential harms as well as benefits from publicly 
revealing all information during the auction process. In this 
proceeding, the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition asserts that 
anonymous bidding for new 700 MHz licenses is critical to promoting 
competitive entry in wireless broadband. In contrast, United States 
Cellular Corporation contends that smaller auction participants need 
information about larger entities' bids during the auction and that 
smaller auction participants may encounter difficulties with financing, 
if the FCC withholds the information during the auction.
    50. The FCC seeks comment on the balance of potential harms and 
potential benefits from releasing information on bidder identities and 
interests during the auction of new 700 MHz licenses. In recent 
auctions where the FCC has considered withholding information about 
bidder identities and interests during the auction, it has assessed 
likely competition in the auction and determined that, given the 
anticipated level of competition, the benefits of releasing the 
information outweighed the potential harms. However, if the potential 
harms of releasing the information are substantial enough, or the 
potential benefits of releasing the information so slight, it may be 
appropriate to withhold the information regardless of the likely level 
of competition. For this auction, the FCC seeks comment on whether the 
potential to use new 700 MHz licenses to create alternatives to 
existing broadband networks increases the benefits from anonymous 
bidding by making it harder for existing providers to identify and 
impede the efforts of potential new entrants to win. Does the lack of 
readily available technologies for use in the band, relative to 
existing broadband networks in other bands, reduce the potential 
benefit of using bidders' identities to guess what technologies will be 
deployed? Given the potential harms and benefits from releasing 
information on bidder identities and interests during the auction of 
new 700 MHz licenses, should the Commission make its decision regarding 
the release of the information contingent on an assessment of likely 
competition? If so, should the Commission change how it makes its pre-
auction assessment of likely competition?
    51. The FCC also seeks comment on whether the potential use of 
anonymous bidding should be a factor in determining the final band 
plan. Would a band plan with a greater number of small licenses be more 
or less appropriate if bidders are able to bid anonymously for those 
licenses? Commenters should make clear what factors support their 
position on anonymous bidding, how these factors apply to this auction, 
and the extent to which these factors may depend upon the final band 
plan adopted. Commenters should address whether their views are 
dependent on whether the FCC conditions the implementation of such 
limits on a measure of the anticipated competitiveness of the auction, 
such as the eligibility ratio or a modified version of the eligibility 
ratio.

4. 700 MHz Public Safety Spectrum

    52. The FCC tentatively concludes to redesignate the public safety 
wideband spectrum for broadband use consistent with a nationwide 
interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband operations on a 
going forward basis. Further, should the FCC adopt this broadband 
approach, it tentatively concludes that the Commission should 
consolidate the existing narrowband allocations to the upper half of 
the 700 MHz Public Safety Band, and locate broadband communications in 
the lower half of this band. In addition, the FCC tentatively concludes 
that it should establish an internal guard band between the narrowband 
and broadband allocations. The FCC also seeks comment on a limited 
number of issues relating to use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, 
should it reallocate the wideband spectrum to broadband use.
A. Broadband
    53. The current distribution of channels in the 700 MHz Public 
Safety Band includes a mix of narrowband and wideband channels. The FCC 
tentatively concludes that providing broadband spectrum for advanced 
public safety communications would best serve its goal of enabling 
first responders to protect safety of life, health and property. While 
some commenters argue that the FCC should continue to allow public 
safety entities the flexibility to deploy either wideband or broadband 
applications, the FCC tentatively concludes that providing such 
flexibility could hinder efforts to deploy a nationwide, interoperable 
broadband network by perpetuating a balkanization of public safety 
spectrum licenses, networks, and technology deployment. Further, only 
through use of broadband networks could public safety leverage advanced 
commercial technologies and infrastructure to reduce costs and speed 
deployment, and enable the potential for priority access to commercial 
networks during emergencies. Accordingly, the FCC believes that only 
broadband applications consistent with a nationwide interoperability 
standard should be deployed in the current wideband allocation of the 
700 MHz Band. The FCC thus tentatively concludes to reallocate spectrum 
previously designated for wideband use to broadband use only, and 
prohibit wideband operations on a going forward basis. The FCC seeks 
comment on these tentative conclusions.
B. Band Plan Issues
    54. Having tentatively concluded that only broadband applications 
consistent with a nationwide interoperability standard may be deployed 
in the current wideband allocation for public safety in the 700 MHz 
Band, the FCC seeks to take further steps to optimize the band plan for 
this spectrum, essentially building upon the public safety-related 
proposals in the BOP and the record developed pursuant to the 700 MHz 
Guard Bands Notice and 700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice. 
Specifically, the FCC tentatively concludes that, assuming it decides 
to adopt this broadband approach, it will consolidate the existing 
narrowband

[[Page 24246]]

allocations to the upper half of the 700 MHz Public Safety block, and 
will designate the lower half of the block for broadband operations. 
Additionally, it tentatively concludes that it will adopt a 1 megahertz 
internal guard band at the top of the resulting broadband allocation to 
buffer it from the narrowband allocation and thus prevent interference.
    55. In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether it should revise 
the out-of-band emission (OOBE) limit required for Upper 700 MHz 
Commercial Services Band base stations to protect public safety 
operations in the band if it adopts the tentative conclusions discussed 
above. In particular, the FCC seeks comment on whether it should 
replace the existing limit of 76 + 10 log P applicable to emissions 
into the 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum with the 43 + 10 log P OOBE 
standard that protects commercial services in the 700 MHz Band.
    56. It also seeks comment on a limited number of related questions 
regarding: (1) Whether to allow limited use of the internal guard band 
in areas along the Canadian border to the extent that Canadian 
broadcasters cause interference to the relocated narrowband channels; 
(2) whether to adopt a transition plan, and what that plan should be; 
and (3) whether and how such transition should be funded.
C. Power Limits for Public Safety Broadband
    57. The FCC has modified its power limit rules for the Upper and 
Lower 700 MHz Commercial Services Band by implementing a PSD model for 
defining power limits, permitting increased power in rural areas, and 
permitting radiated power levels to be measured on an average, rather 
than peak, basis. This action will permit higher power and increased 
flexibility for 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees implementing 
wider band technologies, with certain measures in place to protect 
against any possible increased interference, especially to 700 MHz 
public safety users.
    58. The FCC also tentatively concludes to permit only broadband 
applications in the 700 MHz Public Safety Band consistent with a 
nationwide interoperability standard in the channels presently 
allocated for wideband. The FCC seeks comment on whether it is 
appropriate to provide the same flexibility to 700 MHz Public Safety 
broadband operations as that afforded 700 MHz Commercial Services Band 
licensees by implementing a PSD model for defining power limits, 
permitting increased power in rural areas, and permitting measurement 
of power levels on an average, versus peak, basis. The FCC also seeks 
comment on whether the technical restrictions adopted today for the 700 
MHz Commercial Services Band with respect to interference protection, 
if applied to public safety broadband spectrum, will protect adjacent 
band operations.

5. Frontline's Proposal

    59. The FCC seeks comment on Frontline's proposed ``Public Safety 
Broadband Deployment Plan'' and associated service rules. Under 
Frontline's proposal, the FCC would alter the upper portion of the 
Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band to designate a 10 megahertz ``E 
Block'' for a commercial licensee and impose specific conditions on 
that licensee requiring it to construct and operate a nationwide, 
interoperable broadband network for sharing with a national public 
safety licensee providing broadband service in the lower portion of the 
700 MHz Public Safety spectrum. The ``E Block'' would consist of the 
paired 757-762 MHz and 787-792 MHz frequencies. The FCC also seeks 
comment on service rules proposed by Frontline.
    60. With respect to the newly created ``E Block,'' Frontline 
proposes imposing the following obligations, among others, on this 
nationwide licensee:
    61. The ``E Block'' licensee would be required to construct a 
common, interoperable network infrastructure that can be used by both 
the public safety broadband network and the ``E Block'' licensee's 
commercial network. The details of the network would be specified in a 
Network Sharing Agreement negotiated by the ``E Block'' licensee and 
the National Public Safety Licensee.
    62. The ``E Block'' licensee would be required to provide coverage 
to 75 percent of the United States population within four years of the 
700 MHz ``auction clearing date''; provide coverage to 95 percent of 
the United States population within seven years; and provide coverage 
to 98 percent of the United States population within 10 years. As 
regards Alaska, the licensee would be required to provide coverage to 
all Alaskan cities of 10,000 or more within four years of the 700 MHz 
auction clearing date.
    63. The ``E Block'' licensee would be responsible for managing and 
operating the public safety broadband network, and would be permitted 
to collect a reasonable network management fee. This fee, and the terms 
and conditions governing the ``E Block'' licensee's management of the 
network, would be specified in the Network Sharing Agreement.
    64. The ``E Block'' licensee would be required to provide priority 
access to public safety broadband operations during times of emergency. 
These requirements would be specified in the Network Sharing Agreement.
    65. Frontline also sets forth several additional elements of its 
proposal. The term of the ``E Block'' license would be for 15 years, 
and would be subject to a renewal expectancy upon the completion of 
``substantial service.'' Participation by public safety would be purely 
voluntary, and that public safety would remain free to build its own 
network in the 700 MHz spectrum. In addition, Frontline proposes that 
the ``E Block'' licensee be required to operate as a wholesale provider 
with respect to commercial use of the ``E Block'' spectrum. Frontline 
also proposes that the ``E Block'' licensee be required to provide open 
access to its network, allowing the attachment of any device to the 
network and permitting users to access services and content provided by 
unaffiliated parties. As proposed, this requirement would apply not 
only to the ``E Block'' license, but to all other licenses owned or 
controlled by the ``E Block'' licensee. Similarly, Frontline recommends 
that the ``E Block'' licensee be required to offer roaming to any 
provider with customers utilizing devices compatible with the ``E 
Block'' network, and that such obligation be extended to all spectrum 
holdings of the ``E Block'' licensee.
    66. The FCC seeks comment on the proposal's likely effects on both 
the commercial and public safety users in the 700 MHz Band, and whether 
it would be in the public interest for the FCC to adopt such a 
proposal, or alternatives to achieve the same or similar public 
interest goals. The FCC also seeks comment on whether, and to what 
extent, it should: (a) Adopt certain, but not all, elements of the 
Frontline proposal; (b) modify any elements of the proposal, adopt any 
additional requirements, or adopt any alternative requirements to 
achieve the same or similar public interest goals; and (c) consider 
alternative approaches to encourage public-private partnerships for 
sharing spectrum between public safety users and commercial licensees 
in the 700 MHz Band.
    67. The FCC seeks comment on the extent to which adoption of the 
Frontline, or similar, proposal should have an impact on its decisions 
regarding the Guard Bands. Under Frontline's proposal, Guard Band B 
Block would be located between the

[[Page 24247]]

new ``E Block'' and the public safety spectrum. The FCC seeks comment 
on whether the Guard Band B Block should be integrated with a new block 
of spectrum to be made available in the Upper 700 MHz Band for purposes 
of implementing the Frontline Plan or similar proposal.
    68. Similarly, the FCC seeks comment on the extent to which 
adoption of the Frontline, or similar, proposal should affect its 
decisions regarding the remainder of the commercial spectrum blocks in 
the Upper 700 MHz Band that it is required to auction. The FCC asks 
that Frontline's proposal be evaluated within the context of the 
Commission's other proposals expressed in the FNPRM regarding the size 
of spectrum blocks and geographic service areas, including a comparison 
of Frontline's proposal that the 757-762 MHz and 787-792 MHz spectrum 
be designated for the new ``E Block.'' If the FCC adopted the Frontline 
proposal, the amount of spectrum to be auctioned for commercial 
services pursuant to flexible service and technical rules in the Upper 
and Lower 700 MHz Band would decrease by ten megahertz, from 60 to 50 
megahertz.
    69. The FCC seeks comment as well on Frontline's view that there is 
no need to impose any CALEA, E911, or similar obligations on the ``E 
Block'' licensee because it believes that retail service providers 
using the ``E Block'' spectrum will already be subject to those 
requirements. Should the FCC adopt any specific requirements applicable 
to retail service providers or equipment manufacturers in regard to the 
``E Block?'' For example, should some or all public safety equipment 
operating on an ``E Block'' built network be capable of accessing 
satellite communications (including handsets and other mobile or fixed 
receivers)? Should the FCC require the ``E Block'' licensee to 
incorporate satellite-based technology into its network infrastructure?
    70. The FCC notes Frontline's view that the proposed ``E Block'' 
licensee and a potential national public safety licensee would have 
strong incentives to reach agreement on suitable terms for a lease and 
that the Commission should not attempt to adopt detailed rules to 
implement its proposal but should rely on a requirement that the ``E 
Block'' licensee negotiate in good faith. Frontline proposes that the 
FCC should leave to the ``Network Sharing Agreement'' negotiations the 
definition of ``emergency'' for purposes of the requirement that the 
``E Block'' licensee provide priority access to affected public safety 
broadband operations during emergencies.
    71. The FCC tentatively concludes that if it adopted Frontline's 
proposal or some similar proposal, it will need to impose conditions on 
the ``E Block'' license as well as the national public safety license 
to deal with the circumstance where the bidder winning the new ``E 
Block'' at auction and the national public safety licensee are unable 
to reach agreement on a Network Sharing Agreement. Successful 
negotiation of that agreement is a critical first step to achieving the 
benefits to public safety under the Frontline proposal. The FCC is 
concerned that under certain circumstances the parties may not be able 
to reach agreement, which could result in a significant delay in 
implementation. To avoid this result, the FCC tentatively concludes 
that it will not grant a license to the bidder winning the ``E Block'' 
at auction until the winning bidder files a Network Sharing Agreement 
with the Commission for approval. The FCC would also condition the 
national public safety license on the licensee submitting to binding 
arbitration in the event it cannot reach agreement with the ``E Block'' 
winner. If the winning bidder and the national public safety licensee 
are unable to reach agreement, they would be required to enter into 
binding arbitration to resolve outstanding issues.
    72. The FCC seeks comment on this tentative conclusion, and whether 
imposing such conditions would be an incentive for the parties to reach 
a suitable and speedy resolution in order to avoid arbitration. If the 
parties are unable to reach an agreement and thus have to submit to 
binding arbitration, would this condition then facilitate the ability 
of the parties to reach such an agreement? The FCC seeks comment on 
whether any particular requirements should be adopted in connection 
with such conditions, including a requirement that the parties report 
to the FCC on the status of the negotiations. The FCC also asks 
commenters to consider whether there are other conditions that should 
be placed on an ``E Block'' licensee to ensure that an agreement is 
reached quickly and in a manner that is satisfactory to public safety, 
or if there is additional oversight that the Commission should 
exercise. Should the FCC require that an agreement to be reached by a 
certain date? Should the FCC require status reports or other periodic 
reporting from the ``E Block'' licensee? If the FCC does not adopt a 
binding arbitration proposal, what should be the consequence for 
failing to reach agreement in a timely manner, or for otherwise failing 
to comply with the Network Sharing Agreement requirement? Should the 
FCC have authority to appoint board members to the governance of the 
``E Block'' licensee?
    73. The FCC also has serious concerns, based on Frontline's 
proposed requirements, about whether it should offer any bidding 
preferences, such as bidding credits, to applicants for the ``E Block'' 
license, based on their status as a small business, or designated 
entity. The FCC finds that the capital requirements for effective use 
of the proposed nationwide ``E Block'' license likely will be very 
high. In the past, the FCC has declined to adopt designated entity 
provisions for certain services, such as the direct broadcast satellite 
service and the digital audio radio service, which have extremely high 
implementation costs.
    74. The FCC's concerns regarding the capital needed to implement a 
nationwide service are especially acute in this instance because the 
``E Block'' licensee would be responsible for constructing a robust 
network to meet the needs of critical public safety service providers--
and the public--in times of emergency. The FCC finds that in these 
circumstances, the public interest would not appear to favor giving 
applicants a preference when bidding for the ``E Block'' license based 
on their limited financial resources.
    75. The FCC finds that the proposed restriction on such a 
licensee's ability to provide spectrum-based services directly to the 
public is also of concern when considering whether to offer such 
benefits. The FCC prohibits licensees from both receiving designated 
entity benefits and having wholesale agreements for more than fifty 
percent (50%) of the spectrum capacity of any license that they hold, 
which are defined as impermissible material relationships. In the event 
that the FCC offered bidding preferences with respect to such an ``E 
Block'' license, the existing rule plainly would preclude any licensee 
that is required to operate only as a wholesale provider from receiving 
designated entity benefits. For all these reasons, the FCC tentatively 
concludes that designated entity benefits for the ``E Block'' license 
proposed by Frontline, would not be available, and seeks comment on 
this tentative conclusion.
    76. The FCC also seeks comment on whether any service specific 
rules are needed to address what actions the Commission may or must 
take in the event that the ``E Block'' licensee encounters financial or 
other problems

[[Page 24248]]

that prevent compliance with any of its obligations, regarding build-
out or other duties. Frontline contends that the Commission's general 
rules regarding reclaiming and re-auctioning the spectrum are 
sufficient to address this possibility. The FCC seeks comment on 
whether the particular obligations proposed for the ``E Block'' would 
make additional provisions in the public interest. For example, should 
there be some special process for public safety entities or others to 
challenge the ``E Block'' licensee's compliance with its public safety 
or wholesale obligations? Should the ``E Block'' license cancel 
automatically based on failure to comply with specified obligations? 
Should the FCC establish an unjust enrichment requirement to be paid in 
the event the Commission is unable to reclaim the license for any 
reason upon failure of the ``E Block'' licensee to comply with its 
obligations? If so, how should the amount of such a payment be 
calculated? If the FCC were to reclaim the license, could it also hold 
any network infrastructure built by the licensee in trust for public 
safety to avoid interruption of service to first responders? 
Alternatively, should the FCC provide for a rebate of a portion of the 
net bid amount paid by the ``E Block'' licensee at auction upon 
satisfaction of the conditions of the license and, if so, what should 
be the amount of such rebate? What other enforcement mechanisms might 
be appropriate?
    77. The FCC also seeks comment on Frontline's proposal that the ``E 
Block'' licensee be required to operate a wholesale network. Frontline 
claims that this requirement would encompass freedom of equipment 
choice concerning the attachment of devices or multiple devices to the 
network. It also states that this proposal would provide non-
discriminatory access, and that the ``E Block'' licensee could not 
discriminate against any retail service provider, and would operate 
``as an open network available on a wholesale basis to a host of 
innovative service providers.'' The FCC seeks comment on these issues. 
The FCC also seeks comment on proposals filed by Media Access Project 
and the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, which support a 
condition on licenses for at least 30 megahertz of 700 MHz Commercial 
Services spectrum that would require a licensee to provide ``open 
access,'' including the right of a consumer to use any equipment, 
content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis.

Ex Parte Presentations

    78. The rulemaking shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.\8\ 
Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented generally is required.\9\ Other requirements 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 47 CFR 1.200 et seq.
    \9\ See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2).
    \10\ 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Period and Procedures

    79. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's 
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     Parties should send a copy of their filings to Paul D'Ari, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554, or by e-mail to paul.d'[email protected].
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    80. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (the ``RFA''),\11\ the Commission has prepared this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') of the possible significant 
economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') on a substantial number of 
small entities.\12\ Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.

[[Page 24249]]

Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 297 of 
the item. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'').\13\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(``SBREFA''), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \12\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at 
this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will 
certify this action pursuant to the RFA, because we anticipate at 
this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have 
no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \13\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \14\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2000 provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive 
bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,\15\ the 
Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to analyze 
the possible significant economic impact of the proposed policy and 
rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly, this IRFA 
contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all spectrum 
that falls within the scope of this FNPRM, including spectrum in the 
746-806 MHz Band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements 
imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Sections 3507 and 3512 of 
Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 
Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-
(B); see 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 
note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    82. The FNPRM encompasses issues pertinent to all three of our 700 
MHz proceedings, as well as to Frontline's proposal. First, based on 
the record developed in connection with the 700 MHz Commercial Services 
Notice, the FNPRM proposes several band plans that include a mix of 
small, medium and large geographic area licenses.
    83. Second, the FNPRM also proposes to replace the current 
substantial service requirement with a geographic-based performance 
requirement, and seeks comment on this suggestion.
    84. Third, the FNPRM tentatively concludes that the Commission can 
adopt neither the Broadband Optimization Plan (BOP), nor the proposals 
to reallocate and reassign commercial spectrum to critical 
infrastructure industries (CII) or public safety entities, because we 
do not have the statutory authority to adopt key components of the 
proposals. Irrespective of the lack of statutory authority, the FNPRM 
also tentatively concludes that the BOP and CII proposals would not be 
in the public interest, because of the manner in which they propose to 
assign commercial licenses outside of a competitive bidding context, 
and because they could introduce an increased possibility of 
interference.
    85. Fourth, the FNPRM asks certain questions specifically related 
to the current Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands, in the event that the 
Commission maintains the current sizes and locations of either block of 
the Guard Bands licenses. The FNPRM also seeks comment on the 
alternative Guard Bands proposal recently submitted by Access Spectrum 
and Pegasus, as well as variations on that proposal.
    86. Fifth, the FNPRM seeks to achieve broadband communications 
capabilities consistent with a nationwide interoperability standard for 
public safety. The Commission expects that modern public safety 
services will increasingly depend on the advanced communications 
capabilities afforded by wireless broadband technologies, which should 
enable first responders to perform their vital safety-of-life and other 
critical roles. The FNPRM tentatively concludes to redesignate the 
wideband spectrum to broadband use that would be consistent with a 
nationwide interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband 
operations on a going forward basis. The FNPRM then seeks comment on a 
tentative conclusion to consolidate the narrowband spectrum to the top 
of the Public Safety Band, locate the broadband spectrum at the bottom 
of the Public Safety Band, and divide these segments with an internal 
guard band. Given this tentative conclusion, the FNPRM also seeks 
comment on a limited set of issues that would need to be resolved in 
order to effectuate the reconfiguration. This proposed reconfiguration 
would reduce the amount of spectrum necessary to separate and protect 
the public safety broadband and narrowband allocations, and could 
facilitate partnerships between public safety broadband operations and 
adjacent commercial broadband technologies, thereby optimizing the 700 
MHz public safety band plan.
    87. Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on the ``Public Safety 
Broadband Deployment Plan'' proposal submitted very recently by 
Frontline Wireless, which if adopted in some form potentially would 
affect decisions in all three proceedings.

B. Legal Basis

    88. The legal authority for the actions proposed in this rulemaking 
are contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 
336, 337, 614, 615, and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 
202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 
324, 332, 333, 336, and 337.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    89. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\16\ The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \17\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\18\ A ``small business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \17\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \18\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, 
at page 40 (July 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 
million small organizations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk 
Reference (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    92. Governmental Entities. The term ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.'' \22\ As of 2002, there were approximately 
87,525 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.\23\ This number 
includes 38,967 county

[[Page 24250]]

governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,373 
(approximately 95.9%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of 
which 1,594 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the 
number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or 
fewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \23\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United 
States: 2006, Section 8, pages 272-273, Tables 415 and 417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic 
census categories of ``Paging'' \24\ and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' \25\ Under both categories, the SBA deems a 
wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For 
the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 
there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year.\26\ Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more.\27\ Thus, under this category and associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census 
category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census 
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.\28\ Of this total, 1,378 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 
1,000 employees or more.\29\ Thus, under this second category and size 
standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517211.
    \25\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
    \26\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
    \27\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000 
employees or more.''
    \28\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of 
Organization,'' Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
    \29\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is for firms with ``1000 
employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. Under this FNPRM, any of the changes to the Commission's rules 
which may occur as a result of the FNPRM would be limited to the 698-
806 MHz spectrum band. Since this rulemaking proceeding applies to 
services in that band, this IRFA analyzes the number of small entities 
affected on a service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities 
that could be affected by the Commission's new rules, this IRFA 
provides information describing auctions results, including the number 
of small entities that were winning bidders. However, the number of 
winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an 
auction does not necessarily reflect the total number of small entities 
currently in a particular service. The Commission does not generally 
require that licensees later provide business size information, except 
in the context of an assignment or transfer of control application 
where unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Consequently, to assist 
the Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially affected 
small entities, the Commission requests commenters to estimate the 
number of small entities that may be affected by any rule changes that 
might result from this FNPRM.
    95. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, 
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and 
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility 
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments.\30\ A small business in this service is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three 
years.\31\ Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years.\32\ SBA approval of these definitions is not required.\33\ 
An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on 
September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.\34\ Of the 104 
licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of 
these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A 
second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 
2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses 
auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small 
business that won a total of two licenses.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions 
to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).
    \31\ Id. at 5343 ] 108.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id. At 5343 ] 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-704 
MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. 632, which 
requires Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration 
approval before adopting small business size standards).
    \34\ See ``700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders 
Announced,'' Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000).
    \35\ See ``700 MHz Guard Bands Auctions Closes: Winning Bidders 
Announced,'' Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission released a Report 
and Order authorizing service in the Upper 700 MHz band.\36\ An auction 
for these licenses, previously scheduled for January 13, 2003, was 
postponed.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and 
Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001).
    \37\ See ``Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands 
(Auction No. 31) Is Rescheduled,'' Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 13079 
(WTB 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission adopted criteria 
for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits.\38\ The Commission has defined a small business as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years.\39\ A very small business is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years.\40\ Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Band has a third 
category of small business status that may be claimed for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses. The third category is 
entrepreneur, which is defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that 
are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years.\41\ The SBA 
has approved these small size standards.\42\ An auction of 740 licenses 
(one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of 
the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002, 
and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for 
auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of 
the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or 
entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses.\43\ A second 
auction

[[Page 24251]]

commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and included 
256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 CMA licenses.\44\ Seventeen 
winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 
sixty licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status 
and won 154 licenses.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz 
Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, 17 FCC 
Rcd 1022 (2002).
    \39\ Id. at 1087-88 ] 172.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id. at 1088 ] 173.
    \42\ See Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from 
Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated 
August 10, 1999.
    \43\ See ``Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,'' Public Notice, 
17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
    \44\ See ``Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,'' Public Notice, 
18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a general matter, public 
safety radio licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry 
conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.\46\ 
The SBA rules contain a small business size standard for cellular and 
other wireless telecommunications companies, which encompasses business 
entities engaged in wireless communications employing no more than 
1,500 persons.\47\ According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in this 
category there were 8,863 firms that operated for the entire year.\48\ 
Of this total, 401 firms had 100 or more employees, and the remainder 
had fewer than 100 employees.\49\ With respect to local governments, in 
particular, since many governmental entities as well as private 
businesses comprise the licensees for these services, we include under 
public safety services the number of government entities affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 
47 CFR 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that 
serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony 
(voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed 
material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of 
private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units 
under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also 
include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal 
entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325 
forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state 
departments of conservation and private forest organizations that 
set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground 
crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance 
licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid 
other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular 
traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for 
emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of 
emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include 
medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with 
disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach 
patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby 
facilities, and emergency repair of public communications 
facilities.
    \47\ See 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517212); U.S. Census Bureau, 
2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, ``Employment Size 
of Establishments for the United States: 2002,'' Table 2, NAICS code 
517212.
    \48\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Employment Size of Establishments for the United 
States: 2002,'' Table 2, NAICS code 517212.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers; Radio and 
Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: 
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' \50\ The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 
750 or fewer employees.\51\ According to Census Bureau data for 2002, 
there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that 
operated for the entire year.\52\ Of this total, 1,010 had employment 
of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.\53\ 
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, ``334220 Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing''; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.
    \51\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \52\ U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic 
Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, 
NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The number of ``establishments'' is a less 
helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than 
would be the number of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the 
latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. 
Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even 
though that location may be owned by a different establishment. 
Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses 
in this category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this 
category, the Census breaks out data for firms or companies only to 
give the total number of such entities for 2002, which was 929.
    \53\ Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 
or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    100. Performance Requirements. The FNPRM proposes to replace the 
current substantial service requirement with a geographic-based 
performance requirement, and seeks comment on this suggestion.
    101. Incumbent Eligibility. The FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal 
to encourage the entry of new competitors by excluding incumbent local 
exchange carriers (ILECs), incumbent cable operators, and large 
wireless carriers from eligibility for licenses in the 700 MHz Band. 
The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether incumbents should only be 
eligible for licenses in the 700 MHz band through structurally separate 
affiliates, which would make it possible to detect whether the 
incumbent receives more favorable treatment than unaffiliated 
providers. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
encourage the entry of new broadband competitors through lesser 
restrictions on eligibility for obtaining new licenses, both at auction 
and in the secondary market. Finally, as an alternative to limiting the 
parties eligible for new licenses in the 700 MHz Band, the FNPRM seeks 
comment on whether parties unaffiliated with incumbent wireline 
broadband service providers should receive a bidding credit on licenses 
in the Upper 700 MHz C Block, and how such new entrant bidding credits 
should be coordinated with existing bidding credits for small 
businesses (i.e., whether new entrant credits should be cumulative or 
exclusive of small business bidding credits).
    102. Anonymous Bidding. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should use limited information (or ``anonymous bidding'') 
procedures in the upcoming auction of new 700 MHz licenses, in order to 
deter anticompetitive behavior that may be facilitated by the release 
of information on bidder interests and identities.
    103. Public Safety Broadband. The FNPRM tentatively concludes to 
redesignate the wideband spectrum to broadband use that would be 
consistent with a nationwide interoperability standard, and to prohibit 
wideband operations on a going forward basis. The Commission has issued 
no licenses for wideband channels. Furthermore, although two special 
temporary authorizations (STAs) have been issued for wideband 
operations, to the extent a public safety entity has constructed, 
deployed and is currently operating, as of the release date of the 
accompanying Report and Order, a wideband system pursuant to a grant of 
STA, and has reason to continue such operations beyond the current term 
of the STA, the FNPRM states that the Commission will work with such 
entity to extend such authority. The FNPRM also seeks comment on a 
tentative conclusion to consolidate the narrowband channels to the top 
of the public safety band, locate the broadband spectrum at the bottom 
of the public safety band, and divide these segments with an internal 
guard band.

[[Page 24252]]

These tentative conclusions may entail additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance efforts by existing public safety 
entities. The FNPRM does not otherwise propose any additional 
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
    104. Frontline Proposal. The FNPRM seeks comment on Frontline's 
proposed ``Public Safety Broadband Deployment Plan.'' This plan would 
alter the upper portion of the band plan and service rules in order to 
auction a single nationwide 10-megahertz license (a new ``E Block''). 
The ``E Block'' licensee would be required to meet certain build-out 
benchmarks, and would be required to provide priority access for public 
safety broadband operations during times of emergency as specified in a 
Network Sharing Agreement. Under the proposal, the ``E Block'' licensee 
would be required to operate as a wholesale provider with respect to 
commercial use of the ``E Block'' spectrum. It also would be required 
to provide open access to its network, allowing the attachment of any 
device to the network and permitting users to access services and 
content provided by unaffiliated parties. In addition, Frontline's 
proposal would require the ``E Block'' licensee to offer roaming to any 
provider with customers utilizing devices compatible with the ``E 
Block'' network, with such obligation extended to all spectrum holdings 
of the ``E Block'' licensee. Frontline's proposal also would require 
the ``E Block'' licensee to operate only as a wholesale provider with 
respect to commercial use of the ``E Block'' license, i.e., it must 
have wholesale agreements for 100 percent of its spectrum capacity.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    105. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. Performance Requirements. Commenters who are small carriers 
could be found among commenters who supported both a substantial 
service requirement and a ``keep what you use'' framework. Some small 
CMRS providers recommended a combination of both population- and 
geography-based construction benchmark in the context of a ``keep-what-
you-use'' approach.\55\ The FNPRM proposes to replace the current 
substantial service requirement with a geographic-based performance 
requirement, and seeks comment on this suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See, e.g., DirecTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 
9; Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2-3; RCA Comments 
in WT Docket 06-150 at 8-10; Vermont Department of Public Service, 
et al. Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 5-8. The Navajo Nation, RCA, 
and the Vermont Department of Public Service, et al. favorably 
discuss both benchmarks and a ``keep-what-you-use'' approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    107. By establishing clear benchmarks, the Commission would provide 
small licensees with regulatory certainty regarding the requirements 
that they must meet or, if they do not, permit other providers to gain 
access to the spectrum to provide services to consumers. The adoption 
of more stringent benchmarks also would complements the Commission's 
determination to auction additional licenses based on smaller 
geographic areas to promote access to spectrum and the provision of 
service, especially in rural areas.
    108. The Commission recognizes that the existing substantial 
service standard could allow providers, including small carriers, 
additional flexibility with regard to their development and deployment 
of certain services.\56\ The Commission determines, however, that given 
the excellent propagation characteristics of this spectrum, the 
benefits of service being offered before the end of the license term, 
and the public interest that would be served by ensuring additional 
service in the more rural and remote areas of this country, more 
rigorous requirements may be appropriate for these 700 MHz Commercial 
Services licenses.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See AT&T Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 12-13; CTIA 
Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 10; Dobson Comments in WT Docket 06-
150 at 5; Leap Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 10.
    \57\ See, e.g., Aloha Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2; 
Blooston Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3; Dobson Comments in WT 
Docket 06-150 at 3; Frontier Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4; NTCA 
Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3-5; RCA Comments in WT Docket 06-
150 at 3-4; RTG Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    109. Incumbent Eligibility. The proposals to prevent incumbents 
from being eligible to participate in the 700 MHz auctions can benefit 
small entities to the extent that they find less competition at auction 
from large entities such as established incumbent licensees, including 
wireline providers. Additionally, the proposal to provide bidding 
credits with regard to the Upper 700 MHz C Block for parties 
unaffiliated with incumbent wireline broadband service providers could 
encourage new entry by small entities.
    110. Anonymous Bidding. Smaller auction participants can benefit 
from having access to information about larger entities' bids during 
the auction, and smaller auction participants may encounter 
difficulties with financing if the Commission withholds the information 
during the auction. However, the potential to use new 700 MHz licenses 
to create alternatives to existing broadband networks increases the 
benefits from anonymous bidding by making it harder for existing 
providers to identify and impede the efforts of potential new entrants 
to win. Accordingly, in seeking comment on whether to require anonymous 
bidding for 700 MHz auctions, the Commission balances the difficulties 
it may cause to smaller auction participants, against the opportunities 
for new entrants--including small entities--that may result from 
anonymous bidding.
    111. 700 MHz Band Plan Proposals. The FNPRM includes several 
proposals to reconfigure the 700 MHz Band plan. Under any revised band 
plan, the Commission seeks comment on whether the spectrum block 
adjacent to the Public Safety Band's lower half would, pursuant to 
another tentative conclusion, be responsible for funding the 
reconfiguration of the public safety spectrum with the narrowband 
channels at the upper end and a broadband allocation at the lower end. 
This proposal would, if adopted, impose additional economic burdens on 
any small business that procured the spectrum block adjacent to the 
Public Safety Band's proposed broadband allocation.
    112. The FNPRM also proposes to license the 700 MHz Band using a 
mix of small, medium and large geographic areas. These proposed service 
area definitions should benefit small businesses, because they would 
enhance the mix of licenses to be made available in the 700 MHz Band, 
and are consistent with the goals of providing greater access to 
spectrum for small providers and parties in rural areas, and improving 
the opportunity for a wider range of potential licensees to access this 
spectrum.
    113. Public Safety Broadband. The FNPRM tentatively concludes to 
reallocate the wideband spectrum to broadband use that would be 
consistent with a nationwide interoperability

[[Page 24253]]

standard, and prohibit wideband operations on a going forward basis. 
The public safety community expressed broad support for a broadband 
allocation to enable advanced communications capabilities. The 
availability of a contiguous block of broadband spectrum, subject to a 
nationwide interoperability standard, would enable partnerships with 
commercial licensees in adjacent broadband spectrum. As a result, the 
proposed band plan would ultimately enable public safety entities to 
utilize the 700 MHz spectrum in a more cost-effective and spectrally 
efficient manner to address their homeland security and emergency 
response roles. Because the Commission does not anticipate that the 
proposal will impose additional economic burdens on public safety, and 
is in fact designed to reduce economic burdens on public safety, the 
Commission has taken steps to minimize any adverse impact of the rule 
changes.
    114. The FNPRM also seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to 
consolidate the narrowband spectrum to the top of the public safety 
band and locate the broadband spectrum at the bottom of the public 
safety band, in light of the potentially significant benefits such 
reconfiguration would afford the public safety community. The 
alternative would be to retain the existing band plan. The FNPRM seeks 
comment on how to implement reconfiguration of the narrowband channels 
with minimum disruption to incumbent operations. The FNPRM invites 
comment on an appropriate transition mechanism, including how to 
accommodate public safety operations in the border areas with Canada 
and Mexico, and the costs of relocation and how such costs will be 
covered. The Commission expects that the number of entities impacted 
and expected cost of reconfiguration should be relatively minor. To 
assist the Commission in its analysis, however, commenters are 
requested to provide information regarding the number of narrowband 
radios that are deployed, as well as the number of radios that are in 
active use, and thus would be affected by the proposed changes to the 
700 MHz public safety band plan as described in the FNPRM. The FNPRM 
recognizes that the public safety community's ability to fund the 
reconfiguration may be limited. Thus, in addition to considering 
whether public safety should pay for its own relocation costs, the 
FNPRM seeks comment on several alternatives, including whether to 
impose funding requirements on 700 MHz commercial licensees, and 
whether Federal or other grant monies could be used. In the event the 
Commission determines to license the broadband allocation to a 
nationwide public safety broadband licensee, the FNPRM also invites 
comment on whether that licensee should be assigned responsibility for 
funding the reconfiguration.
    115. Although the economic burden on public safety to effectuate 
reconfiguration is expected to be relatively small, the FNPRM will 
develop a record on the true costs that would be implicated. The 
Commission remains open to considering alternatives, however, should an 
alternative be stated in comments that would reach our objectives and 
minimize the impact on public safety entities.
    116. Frontline Proposal. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment 
on Frontline's proposed ``Public Safety Broadband Deployment Plan.'' 
Although Frontline proposes that the Commission offer bidding credits 
to applicants based on their status as a small business, the Commission 
tentatively concludes in the FNPRM that it should not offer any bidding 
preferences, such as bidding credits, to applicants for the ``E Block'' 
license. The FNPRM states, however, that the public interest would not 
appear to favor giving applicants a preference when bidding for the ``E 
Block'' license based on their limited financial resources, as the 
Commission does when it offers bidding credits to small businesses in 
these circumstances. The Commission stated that its concerns regarding 
the capital needed to implement a nationwide service are especially 
acute in this instance, because the ``E Block'' licensee would be 
responsible for constructing a network to meet the needs of critical 
public safety providers. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    117. None.

Ordering Clauses

    118. It is further ordered pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 
7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 
316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 614, 615, and 710 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, and 337, that this further 
notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 
94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309, WT Docket No. 03-264, WT Docket No. 06-
169, WT Docket No. 96-86 and PS Docket No. 06-229 IS ADOPTED.
    119. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the further 
notice of proposed rulemaking on or before May 23, 2007 and reply 
comments on or before May 30, 2007.
    120. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    121. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this further notice of proposed rulemaking in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8440 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P