[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51560-51595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20147]



[[Page 51559]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 20, 2013

Part VI





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 2 and 27





Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz Bands; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51560]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 27

[GN Docket No. 13-185; FCC 13-102; WT Docket Nos. 07-195, 04-356, 07-
16, and 07-30; FCC 13-102]


Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 
2155-2180 MHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose rules for spectrum in the 1695-
1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that 
would make available significantly more commercial spectrum for 
Advanced Wireless Services. The additional spectrum for mobile use will 
help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's 
wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile 
service. Consistent with the Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) and sound spectrum policy, 
our goal remains to clear and allocate spectrum in these bands for 
exclusive commercial use to the maximum extent feasible. Where clearing 
is not possible, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explores novel 
approaches to spectrum sharing between commercial and Federal 
operators. This is another step in implementing the Congressional 
directive in the Spectrum Act to allocate for commercial use and grant 
new initial licenses for flexible use in certain bands.

DATES: Submit comments on or before September 18, 2013. Submit reply 
comments on or before October 16, 2013. Written comments on the 
proposed information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13, should be submitted on 
or before October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to 
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, 
via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-
5167. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 13-102, or by GN 
Docket No. 13-185, 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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
     Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and 
ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will 
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe 
Acrobat.
    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: John Spencer of the Broadband 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS, or 
Michael Ha, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2099. For 
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 13-102, 
adopted and released on July 23, 2013. The full text of this document 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at 
[email protected]. The complete text is also available on the 
Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-13-102A1doc. Alternative formats (computer diskette, 
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting 
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via email to 
[email protected].
    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 the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should 
reference the docket number in this proceeding, GN Docket No. 13-185 or 
by FCC 13-102.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one active 
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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must 
be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

[[Page 51561]]

     Document FCC 13-102 contains proposed information 
collection requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507 of 
the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are 
invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements 
contained in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Judith 
B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via email at [email protected] and to 
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to 
[email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.
     To view a copy of this information collection request 
(ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called 
``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in 
the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, 
(4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of 
agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the 
``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when 
the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title 
of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the 
FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 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. 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.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1030.
    Title: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) in the 
1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit 
institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: 1050 respondents; 2,000 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1.6 hours (average).
    Frequency of Response: Annual, semi-annual, one time, and on 
occasion reporting requirements; and third party disclosure 
requirements.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    Total Annual Burden: 40,000 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $1,004,000.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission is submitting this information 
collection to the Office of Management and Budget as a revision of a 
currently approved information collection 3060-1030. The Commission is 
changing its third-party disclosure requirement as proposed in 
Sec. Sec.  27.1134(e) and (f) (Protection of Federal operations in the 
1755-1780 MHz band). These proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements will be used by the Commission staff to ensure 
that the Federal Government communications systems operating in the 
1755-1780 MHz band be protected, comply with default out-of-band 
emissions limits, and that out-of-band emissions limits may be modified 
by the private contractual agreement of licensees of AWS-3 operating 
authority and Federal government entities operating in the 1755-1780 
MHz band. A licensee of AWS-operating authority who is a party to such 
an agreement must maintain a copy of the agreement in its station files 
and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS-3 assignees, 
transferees, or spectrum lessees, to Federal operators, and to the 
Commission.

I. Introduction and Summary

    1. We propose rules for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 
MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that would make available 
significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services 
(AWS). We will refer to these four bands collectively as ``AWS-3.'' The 
additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, 
capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace 
with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. Consistent with the 
Spectrum Act and sound spectrum policy, our goal remains to clear and 
allocate spectrum in these bands for exclusive commercial use to the 
maximum extent feasible. Where clearing is not possible, this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking explores novel approaches to spectrum sharing 
between commercial and Federal operators. Today's action is another 
step in implementing the Congressional directive in Title VI of the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-
96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) to allocate for commercial use 
and grant new initial licenses for flexible use in certain bands.
    2. We propose to license the 2155-2180 MHz band for downlink/base 
station operations and to license the 2020-2025 MHz band for uplink/
mobile operations. Both of these bands are currently allocated for non-
Federal, commercial use and are in the Commission's inventory of bands 
available for licensing. We propose to license the 1755-1780 MHz band 
for uplink/mobile operations on a shared basis with Federal incumbents, 
if clearing is not feasible. We note that the record of the instant 
proceeding will be informed by recommendations of the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which has 
tasked the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) with 
studying the potential for Federal/non-Federal spectrum sharing. NTIA 
anticipates receiving final reports from CSMAC working groups shortly. 
If NTIA endorses these reports, we will add them to the record and 
anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's forthcoming 
recommendations in comments, reply comments, or ex parte presentations, 
as appropriate, depending on the timing. We also propose to allocate 
and license the 1695-1710 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on a 
shared basis with Federal incumbents within specified Protection Zones 
recommended by NTIA, if clearing is not feasible. Commercial operation 
outside of these Protection Zones would not require coordination with 
Federal incumbents.
    3. For all of the AWS-3 spectrum within the scope of this NPRM, 
i.e., spectrum for which we seek comment regarding service rules for 
non-Federal use, we propose to assign licenses by competitive bidding, 
offering five megahertz blocks that can be aggregated using Economic 
Areas (EAs) as the area for geographic licensing. We also seek comment 
on whether, and if so how, to pair any of the AWS-3 spectrum.

II. Background

Demand for Mobile Spectrum

    4. Wireless broadband represents a critical component of economic 
growth, job creation, and global competitiveness because consumers are 
increasingly using wireless broadband services to assist them in their 
everyday lives.

[[Page 51562]]

Demand for wireless broadband services and the network capacity 
associated with those services is surging, resulting in a growing 
demand for spectrum to support these services. Similarly, the number 
and type of devices being used by consumers to access content over 
wireless broadband networks has proliferated. For example, the total 
number of mobile wireless connections now exceeds the total U.S. 
population. As of the second quarter of 2012, 55 percent of U.S. mobile 
subscribers owned smartphones, compared to 41 percent in July 2011. 
Ownership of tablets, which were first introduced in the market in 
January 2010, nationwide, is also increasing. Pew Internet research 
surveys, as of June 2013, show that 34 percent of American adults own a 
tablet computer, up from 18 percent in September 2010. Tablets 
generated on average approximately 2.4 times the amount of mobile 
traffic as the average smartphone in 2012. By 2017, just four years 
from now, Internet Protocol (IP) traffic from wireless and mobile 
devices will likely exceed traffic from wired devices, according to 
some analyses. One forecast projects that wired devices will account 
for 45 percent of IP traffic, while Wi-Fi and mobile devices will 
account 55 percent of IP traffic. Global mobile data traffic is 
anticipated to grow thirteen-fold between 2012 and 2017. All of these 
trends are resulting in more demand for network capacity and for 
capital to invest in the infrastructure, technology, and spectrum to 
support this capacity. The demand for increased wireless spectrum, 
moreover, is expected to continue increasing. In response, the 
Commission continues to work to make available additional licensed and 
unlicensed spectrum to meet this growing demand.

National Broadband Plan and Presidential Memoranda

    5. Both Congress and the President have recognized the importance 
of wireless broadband to the national interest. In 2009, Congress 
directed the Commission to develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure 
that every American has access to broadband capability. The National 
Broadband Plan, released in 2010, recommended that the Commission make 
500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for broadband use within the 
next 10 years, of which 300 megahertz of spectrum between 225 MHz and 
3.7 GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within five 
years. The National Broadband Plan recognized that to achieve this goal 
some of this spectrum would come from spectrum allocated for Federal 
use. It recommended that NTIA, in consultation with the Commission, 
conduct an analysis, of the possibility of reallocating a portion of 
the 1755-1850 MHz band, which is adjacent to the AWS-1 uplink/mobile 
band at 1710-1755 MHz and currently allocated for Federal use, to pair 
with the 2155-2175 MHz band, which is currently allocated for services 
that support commercial use.
    6. On June 28, 2010, the President released a memorandum entitled 
``Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution.'' The 2010 Presidential 
Memorandum stated that ``America's future competitiveness and global 
technology leadership depend, in part, upon the availability of 
additional spectrum.'' The memorandum stressed that there are few 
technological developments that hold as much potential to enhance 
America's economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the 
quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet. 
Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of 
innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural 
areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the 
development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and 
other new applications that will transform American's lives. The 
memorandum also stated that spectrum and the new technologies it 
enables are essential to the Federal Government, which relies on 
spectrum for important activities, such as emergency communications, 
national security, law enforcement, aviation, maritime, space 
communications, and numerous other Federal functions. It further stated 
that spectrum is also critical for many state, local, and tribal 
government functions. The 2010 Presidential Memorandum directed NTIA to 
collaborate with the Commission to ``make available a total of 500 
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum over the next ten years, 
suitable for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.''
    7. On June 14, 2013, the President released another memorandum, 
``Expanding America's Leadership in Wireless Innovation'' stating that 
although existing efforts will almost double the amount of spectrum 
available for wireless broadband, we must make available even more 
spectrum and create new avenues for wireless innovation. The 2013 
Memorandum further stated that where technically and economically 
feasible, spectrum sharing can and should be used to enhance efficiency 
among all users and to expedite commercial access to additional 
spectrum bands, subject to adequate interference protection for Federal 
users, especially users with national security, law enforcement, and 
safety-of-life responsibilities.

NTIA Fast Track and 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Reports

    8. In response to the 2010 Presidential Memorandum, NTIA undertook 
a ``fast-track'' review of several bands that could be reallocated to 
mobile use, including the 1675-1710 MHz band and the 1755-1780 MHz 
band, and proposed exploring Federal/non-Federal sharing of the 1755-
1850 MHz band. NTIA recommended that the 1695-1710 portion of the 1675-
1710 MHz band be made available for non-Federal wireless broadband 
systems, subject to geographic sharing requirements based on 
``Exclusion Zones'' around specified Federal meteorological earth 
station sites. NTIA deferred making recommendations concerning the 
1755-1780 MHz band, however, because it could not complete its 
evaluation of the 1755-1780 MHz band by the October 2010 ``fast track'' 
deadline. NTIA then invited Federal agencies with operations in the 
larger 1755-1850 MHz band to assess the feasibility of relocating from 
the 1755-1850 MHz band within ten years and to determine whether their 
respective systems could transition out of the 1755-1780 MHz band 
within five years, the conditions under which relocation could be 
accomplished, and the costs associated with the corresponding 
relocation.
    9. Based on the assessments from these Federal agencies, NTIA 
concluded in March 2012, in the NTIA 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Report, 
that while it would be possible to repurpose all 95 megahertz of the 
1755-1850 MHz band, a number of significant challenges would have to be 
met. These included the high cost and long timeline of repurposing 95 
megahertz of spectrum, estimated at approximately $18 billion over 10 
years, assuming relocation of most existing Federal users, not 
including costs to relocate incumbent non-Federal users in the Federal 
agencies' preferred destination bands. In light of the critical 
challenges related to the estimated timelines, costs, and complexities 
of completely clearing Federal users currently in the 1755-1850 MHz 
band, NTIA proposed a new path forward for consideration ``that relies 
on a combination of relocating Federal users and sharing spectrum 
between Federal agencies and commercial users while ensuring no loss to 
critical capabilities.'' Additionally, NTIA states that a review of the 
agency evaluations indicates it is

[[Page 51563]]

feasible to make the 1755-1780 MHz band available for commercial 
broadband wireless in five years--subject to exclusion zones and new 
allocations for Federal use of other spectrum bands, including 2025-
2110 MHz and 5091-5250 MHz. NTIA did not evaluate the possibility for 
exclusive non-Federal use of the 1755-1780 MHz band in the NTIA 1755-
1850 MHz Assessment Report.

Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act

    10. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Spectrum Act). The 
Spectrum Act includes several provisions designed to make more spectrum 
available for commercial use. The Spectrum Act established, among other 
things, deadlines applicable to both the Secretary of Commerce and the 
Commission to identify, reallocate, auction, and license, under 
flexible use service rules, spectrum for commercial use. Specifically, 
the Spectrum Act requires the allocation of spectrum in the following 
bands for services that support commercial use:
     25 megahertz at 2155-2180 MHz;
     an additional contiguous 15 megahertz to be identified by 
the Commission;
     15 megahertz between 1675-1710 MHz, to be identified by 
NTIA by February 22, 2013;
     up to 10 megahertz at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, if 
the Commission finds no harmful interference into the neighboring 
Personal Communications Service (PCS) band.

The Spectrum Act states that the Commission shall grant new initial 
licenses for all of these bands by February 2015. In June 2013 the FCC 
adopted service rules for certain bands listed above (1915-1920 and 
1995-2000 MHz) in a separate FCC proceeding.
    11. The Spectrum Act also amended the Commercial Spectrum 
Enhancement Act (CSEA). In 2004, the CSEA created the Spectrum 
Relocation Fund (SRF) to streamline the process by which Federal 
incumbents can recover the costs associated with relocating their 
spectrum-dependent systems from spectrum bands authorized to be 
licensed under the Commission's competitive bidding authority. The 
Spectrum Act extended the CSEA cost reimbursement mechanism for Federal 
incumbents to include sharing as well as relocation costs, and to 
facilitate Federal incumbents sharing of spectrum with commercial users 
by expanding the types of expenditures that can be funded or reimbursed 
from the SRF. These changes now permit agencies to receive funds 
associated with planning for Commission auctions and relocations, 
spectrum sharing, the use of alternative technologies, the replacement 
of existing government-owned equipment with state-of-the-art systems, 
and the research, engineering studies, and economic analyses conducted 
in connection with spectrum sharing arrangements, including 
coordination with auction winners. The Spectrum Act also created a new 
category of allowable pre-auction costs that may, in certain 
circumstances, be funded before the start of a Commission auction of 
licenses for applicable eligible frequencies. The Spectrum Act 
expresses Congress' priority for relocation over sharing, stating: ``In 
evaluating a band of frequencies for possible reallocation for 
exclusive non-Federal use or shared use, the NTIA shall give priority 
to options involving reallocation of the band for exclusive non-Federal 
use and shall choose options involving shared use only when it 
determines, in consultation with the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, that relocation of a Federal entity from the 
band is not feasible because of technical or cost constraints.''
    12. The conclusion of any auction of eligible frequencies 
reallocated from Federal use to non-Federal use or from Federal use to 
shared use, however, is contingent on the cash proceeds attributable to 
such spectrum reaching 110 percent of the total estimated relocation or 
sharing costs provided to the Commission by NTIA. Once the relocation 
and sharing costs of the Federal incumbents are covered, the remainder 
of the proceeds attributable to eligible Federal spectrum, as well as 
the proceeds attributable to the 2155-2180 MHz non-Federal band, must 
be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and then used to fund the 
Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network to be established by the 
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).

FCC CSEA Notification Letter and NTIA Response

    13. The CSEA also requires the Commission to notify NTIA at least 
18 months before the start of an auction of eligible frequencies and 
for NTIA to notify the Commission of estimated relocation and sharing 
costs, and timelines for such relocation or sharing, at least 6 months 
before the start of the auction. Accordingly, on March 20, 2013, the 
Commission notified NTIA that it ``plans to commence the auction of 
licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band and the 1755-1780 MHz band as early 
as September 2014'' in order to satisfy the Spectrum Act licensing 
deadline of February 2015. On April 19, 2013, NTIA responded with 
several requests to the Commission. In particular, NTIA notes that the 
Department of Defense (DoD) has identified the 2025-2110 MHz band as 
the preferred option to relocate most of its operations in the 1755-
1850 MHz band and that the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) and DoD identified the 5150-5250 MHz band as a 
comparable destination band for its aeronautical mobile telemetry 
systems.

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and Related Efforts

    14. In May 2012, NTIA established five joint government/industry 
working groups within its Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory 
Committee (CSMAC) to facilitate the implementation of services that 
support commercial wireless broadband in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-
1850 MHz bands. Working Group 1 was charged with addressing sharing 
issues related to the 1675-1710 MHz band, while Working Groups 2-5 were 
charged with addressing sharing issues related to Federal operations in 
the 1755-1850 MHz band. A critical decision for each working group, 
according to NTIA, was to determine whether incoming non-Federal 
licensees would be able to share use of the spectrum with particular 
incumbent Federal systems. If a working group were to find that sharing 
is feasible, NTIA directed the group to explain the proposed manner of 
sharing in a way that could potentially be incorporated into service 
rules.
    15. 1695-1710 MHz. Working Group 1 (WG1) (Meteorological-Satellite) 
completed its final report in February 2013 and the full CSMAC adopted 
it on February 21, 2013. The WG1 Final Report recommends that the 
Commission adopt a framework for reallocating the 1695-1710 MHz band 
for commercial use with ``Protection Zones,'' rather than the 
``Exclusion Zones'' originally contemplated in the NTIA Fast Track 
Report. Under this framework, commercial operations could be freely 
deployed outside of the ``Protection Zones.'' Operations inside the 
``Protection Zones,'' however, would require prior Federal 
coordination. In February 2013, as required by the Spectrum Act, NTIA 
issued the NTIA 1695-1710 MHz Identification Report, in which it 
reaffirmed its recommendation that the Commission reallocate the 1695-
1710 MHz segment of the 1675-1710 MHz band for wireless broadband use 
on a shared basis. On

[[Page 51564]]

April 19, 2013, NTIA recommended that the Commission use the WG1 Final 
Report recommendations in drafting proposed rules to implement shared 
use of the 1695-1710 MHz band.
    16. 1755-1850 MHz. NTIA established CSMAC Working Groups 2-5, 
comprised of representatives and experts from industry and Federal 
agencies, to facilitate information sharing among the interested 
stakeholders. In May 2012, NTIA asked each CSMAC working group to focus 
on the following tasks:
     Working Group 2 (WG2) (Law Enforcement Surveillance, 
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and other short distant links)--the 
correlation of agency city-by-city transition plans with industry 
implementation priorities, and prioritizing vacating the 1755-1780 MHz 
sub-band;
     Working Group 3 (WG3) (Satellite Control and Electronic 
Warfare)--the definition and specification (including any interference 
acceptance rules) of zones around satellite sites, and coordination 
path rules for electronic warfare development and training;
     Working Group 4 (WG4) (Tactical Radio and Fixed 
Microwave)--the definition and specification (including any 
interference acceptance rules) of zones around Department of Defense 
sites that require access, and relocation process of fixed microwave 
links starting from 1755-1780 MHz; and
     Working Group 5 (WG5) (Airborne Operations (Air Combat 
Training System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Precision-Guided Munitions, 
Aeronautical Telemetry))--the determination of protection requirements 
for Federal operations and understanding of the periodic nature of 
airborne operations and the impact to commercial wireless systems from 
government airborne operations.
    17. Of the four working groups concentrating on the 1755-1850 MHz 
band, only WG2 has issued a final report, which the full CSMAC adopted 
on February 21, 2013. The WG2 Final Report found that Federal 
incumbents with video surveillance systems plan to transition 
operations from the 1755-1780 MHz band within five years, once funding 
and comparable spectrum is available. WG2 also developed two lists of 
areas for agencies with transitioning video surveillance systems to 
consider based on priorities established by the wireless industry. The 
first list addresses the 1755-1780 MHz band, while the second list 
addresses the 1780-1850 MHz band. On April 19, 2013, NTIA endorsed the 
recommendations contained in the WG2 Final Report.
    18. In addition to the work of the CSMAC working groups, commercial 
wireless carriers are working with the Department of Defense (DoD) to 
monitor and gather information about several systems identified in 
NTIA's 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Report that appear to be the most 
difficult, costly, or time consuming to relocate. The carriers also 
requested special temporary experimental authority from the Commission 
to conduct tests in the 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands for 
commercial mobile broadband services, and to examine technical co-
existence with a limited number of incumbent Federal operations, in a 
defined number of geographic locations that may remain in the band 
indefinitely, consistent with the CSMAC working groups' efforts. On 
August 14, 2012, the Commission announced that it had granted the first 
authorization of testing in the 1755-1780 MHz band.
    19. We are advancing proposals in today's NPRM in tandem with 
NTIA's work to ensure that the statutory deadline under Section 6401 of 
the Spectrum Act can be met, and in light of the importance of making 
needed spectrum available as soon as practicable. Today's proposals are 
subject to revision in light of the recommendations we receive from 
NTIA after its evaluation of the output of these working groups. We 
intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the 
record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss 
NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or ex parte 
presentations, as appropriate, depending on the timing.

Additional Recent Developments

1. Developments Regarding the 2095-2110 MHz Band
    20. CTIA's Request to Auction 2095-2110 MHz. As discussed above, 
the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to identify 15 megahertz of 
contiguous spectrum for commercial use. On March 13, 2013, CTIA--The 
Wireless Association (CTIA) urged the Commission to designate spectrum 
currently used for Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) at 2095-2110 MHz 
as the fifteen megahertz of contiguous spectrum required to be 
identified by the Commission under the Spectrum Act. CTIA argues that 
the 2095-2110 MHz band is ideal for this purpose because it is a 
contiguous band with propagation characteristics ideally suited to 
mobile broadband and adjacent to current mobile broadband spectrum. 
These characteristics make it suitable for modern mobile broadband 
technologies, such as the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard. CTIA 
states that the 2095-2110 MHz band can be paired with the 1695-1710 MHz 
band that NTIA identified for reallocation under the Spectrum Act and 
is likely to generate significant revenues through a competitive 
bidding process. CTIA acknowledges that BAS currently uses the 2095-
2110 MHz band and that, in addition to hosting BAS, the larger 2025-
2110 MHz band is also home to the Federal space operation service, the 
earth exploration-satellite service, and the space research service. 
CTIA notes that the Commission requires coordination between Federal 
and non-Federal users of the 2095-2110 MHz band and that terrestrial 
transmitters used for BAS not be high-density systems. CTIA avers that 
issues between Federal and non-Federal users can be addressed by band 
clearing, sharing, and rule changes.
    21. Federal and non-Federal Opposition to Commercial Wireless in 
2095-2110 MHz. On July 22, 2013, NTIA transmitted to the Commission a 
Feasibility Assessment for accommodation of mobile broadband Long Term 
Evolution (LTE) systems in the 2025-2110 MHz band prepared by NASA and 
recently submitted by the United States to I International 
Telecommunications Union--Radio Telecommunications Sector Joint Task 
Group 4-5-6-7. NTIA states that, recognizing the interest in the 
potential for use of the band for wireless broadband, NASA performed a 
compatibility study examining the potential for commercial broadband 
systems employing LTE technology on a shared basis with forward link 
transmissions from NASA geostationary Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 
System (TDRSS) satellites to some typical satellite users, which are in 
Low Earth Orbit. NTIA states that the results of the study show that 
high-density terrestrial base stations or user equipment operating co-
frequency in the 2025-2110 MHz band will exceed established protection 
criteria for the TDRSS spaceborne receivers by an average of 16.4dB to 
40.7 dB and that analysis of sharing with satellite systems of other 
administrations will likely show similar results. As requested by NTIA, 
we are adding this assessment to the record of this proceeding and 
seeking comment on it. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) has 
also expressed opposition. SBE states that allowing commercial use of 
2095-2110 MHz, as CTIA suggests, would delete two of seven shared 
channels used heavily for BAS, LTTS, and CARS.

[[Page 51565]]

According to SBE, ``there is simply not enough residual spectrum 
available between 2025 MHz and 2095 MHz to permit [Electronic News 
Gathering] to continue.'' SBE opines that other sources of fifteen 
megahertz of contiguous spectrum should be studied such as portions of 
the 2360-2390 MHz band.
2. Developments Regarding 1755 MHz and Related Bands
    22. Industry Roadmap. Recently, T-Mobile filed a wireless industry 
proposal (Industry Roadmap) for making the 1755-1780 MHz band available 
for commercial use in time to auction the band at the same time as the 
2155-2180 MHz band, which the Spectrum Act requires to be auctioned and 
licensed by February 2015. The Industry Roadmap assesses Federal 
operations in the 1.7 GHz band and proposes a combination of sharing, 
relocation, and channel prioritization for the majority of Federal 
operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band to provide industry early access 
to the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band. The Industry Roadmap also 
acknowledges that additional study is necessary.
    23. DoD Alternative Proposal. On July 22, 2013, NTIA transmitted to 
the Commission correspondence to NTIA from the Chief Information 
Officer of the DoD that outlines a proposal for making 1755-1780 MHz 
available for auction and licensing in the near term, while protecting 
critical DoD capabilities and preserving the necessary flexibility to 
address the long-term status of the 1780-1850 MHz portion of the band. 
Among other things, DoD proposes to share the 2025-2110 MHz band, 
proposes not to seek access to the 5150-5250 MHz band for telemetry, 
and estimates the cost of implementing its proposal at $ 3.5 billion.

III. Discussion

Overview

    24. First, we briefly describe spectrum bands that we could include 
in the group of AWS-3 bands and, where applicable, proposals or 
questions on which we are seeking comment. Next, we seek comment on 
configuration issues such as downlink/uplink designations, pairing, 
block size, and service areas for AWS-3. Because of the parallel CSMAC 
process, there are a number of different options for proceeding in a 
manner consistent with the Spectrum Act. For purposes of this notice, 
we have described the bands and configurations in a modular way. 
Commenters may put forward specific options that involve all or a 
subset of the bands described below, and may contemplate paired or 
unpaired bands. Because non-Federal use of the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-
1780 MHz bands is proposed on a shared basis with Federal users if 
clearing is not feasible, we also consider recommendations and issues 
related to Federal Band Reallocation, Sharing, and Coordination that 
aim to maximize commercial use of these bands.
    25. For the 1695-1710 MHz band, we seek comment on NTIA's 
recommendations in the WG1 Final Report, which reflects the significant 
progress that was made ``to refine interference analysis and develop a 
deeper understanding of the issues and options available for maximizing 
access to the spectrum for commercial services while protecting 
incumbent Federal operations in the 1695-1710 MHz and the adjacent 
1675-1695 MHz bands.'' We propose to adopt the sharing framework 
described in the WG1 Final Report including the recommended Protection 
Zones within which all non-Federal use must be coordinated successfully 
with Federal incumbents prior to operation. We also propose to adopt 
the coordination methodology of the WG1 Final Report, including the 
recommendations to consider certain refinements to the methodology. 
Additionally, we seek comment on coordination procedures.
    26. For the 1755-1780 MHz band, we anticipate the possibility of a 
``hybrid'' recommendation, in which some operations would be relocated, 
some would share the band with commercial licensees, and some would not 
share the band (in certain geographic protection zones or exclusion 
zones). In light of that possibility, and assuming that NTIA may 
endorse the CSMAC recommendations, we seek comment on adopting 
Protection Zones, Exclusion Zones, and other sharing measures or 
alternatives. Finally, we seek comment on technical, licensing, and 
operational rules as well as regulatory issues.
    27. Our proposals regarding the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz 
bands incorporate the significant study and analysis conducted through 
the CSMAC's multi-stakeholder process. We reiterate the priority in the 
Spectrum Act for relocation over sharing, and our goal remains to clear 
and allocate spectrum for exclusive commercial use. In general, we seek 
comment on the potential for clearing (both in the short and long term) 
for each band and the extent to which the sharing approaches described 
in the CSMAC reports maximize commercial use of the spectrum. We 
encourage commenters to suggest alternative approaches for maximizing 
the commercial use of these bands, to the extent technically and 
economically feasible.
    28. In general, our discussion proceeds as follows. We first 
describe these proposed bands, configurations, sharing arrangements, 
and licensing and service rules. We then propose specific changes to 
our Table of Frequency Allocations for them, where necessary to 
implement the requirements of section 6401 of the Spectrum Act. We seek 
comment on various considerations in the course of this discussion.

Proposed Bands for AWS-3 Service Rules

    29. We begin our discussion by considering the various bands that 
might be subject to AWS-3 service rules and other bands that have been 
implicated by related discussions in CSMAC, through letters to the 
Commission, and other public fora.
    30. 2155-2180 MHz. The 2155-2180 MHz band is already allocated for 
exclusive non-Federal fixed and mobile use with a longstanding 
designation for emerging technologies such as AWS. The band is 
immediately above the AWS-1 downlink band (2110-2155 MHz) and 
immediately below the AWS-4 downlink band (2180-2200 MHz). We are 
proposing downlink/base station use of 2155-2180 MHz under rules 
similar to the AWS-1 and AWS-4 rules. We tentatively find that having 
additional spectrum that is adjacent to that used for like services 
will promote efficiency in broadband deployment. As T-Mobile observed 
in an earlier proceeding, ``the creation of an additional AWS 
allocation immediately adjacent to the current AWS-1 allocation will 
allow for more immediate equipment development and deployment.'' We do 
not propose to modify the allocation for this band, but in paragraph 
174 below, we do propose several changes to related footnotes in the 
Table of Frequency Allocations.
    31. 1695-1710 MHz. NTIA identified 1695-1710 MHz for services that 
support commercial use in accordance with the Spectrum Act's mandate to 
identify new commercial spectrum for auction. The 1695-1710 MHz band is 
immediately below the AWS-1 uplink band at 1710-1755 MHz. The lower 
part of the band (1675-1700 MHz) is allocated to the meteorological 
aids service, restricted to radiosonde operation, and to the 
meteorological-satellite service, restricted to space-to-Earth 
operation, on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The 
upper part of the band (1700-1710 MHz) is allocated to the 
meteorological-satellite service, restricted to space-to-Earth

[[Page 51566]]

operation, on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The 
1700-1710 MHz band is also allocated to the fixed service on a primary 
basis for Federal use and on a secondary basis for non-Federal use. We 
discuss possible changes to these allocations in paragraphs 171-172 
below.
    32. 1755-1780 MHz. Internationally, the 1755-1850 MHz band, which 
is part of the larger 1710-1930 MHz band, is allocated on a primary 
basis to the fixed and mobile services for all three International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) regions. Domestically, the 1755-1850 MHz 
band is currently allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a 
primary basis for Federal use and assigned to a wide range of military 
and other government uses. NTIA reports that the Federal government 
uses the entire 1755-1850 MHz band across the nation and that the 
majority of Federal services that operate in the 1755-1780 MHz band 
also operate in the larger 1755-1850 MHz band. In total, NTIA reports 
that over 20 agencies use more than 3100 individual frequency 
assignments in the band, many of which cover multiple systems and 
operating areas and that there are few bands to consider for 
repurposing and few comparable bands to which Federal agencies can 
relocate their operations. Specifically, the Federal government uses 
the 1755-1850 MHz band for the following services: (1) Conventional 
fixed point-to-point microwave communications systems; (2) military 
tactical radio relay systems; (3) air combat training systems; (4) 
precision guided munitions; (5) high-resolution video data links, and 
other law enforcement video surveillance applications; (6) tracking, 
telemetry, and command for Federal Government space systems; (7) data 
links for short-range unmanned aerial vehicles; (8) land mobile robotic 
video functions (e.g., explosive ordnance and hazardous material 
investigations and disposals); (9) control links for various power, 
land, water, and electric power management systems; and (10) 
aeronautical mobile telemetry.
    33. From a non-Federal, commercial perspective, the 1755-1780 MHz 
band holds potential as an extension to existing AWS spectrum. The band 
has several characteristics that make it especially appealing for 
commercial wireless use. First, it is located adjacent to the AWS-1 
uplink/mobile band at 1710-1755 MHz and thus, offers the benefits of 
contiguous bands. Second, it is regionally and internationally 
harmonized for mobile broadband, raising the potential for commercial 
operators to benefit from economies of scale achieved by equipment 
manufacturers developing equipment for a global market. Third, it could 
be paired with the 2155-2180 MHz band to symmetrically extend the AWS-1 
band. The National Broadband Plan favored pairing the 1755-1780 MHz 
band with the 2155-2180 MHz band for similar reasons.''
    34. We propose uplink mobile use of 1755-1780 MHz under technical 
rules similar to AWS-1 uplinks in the adjacent 1710-1755 MHz band, 
subject to Federal requirements including coordination with incumbent 
Federal users, that emerge from the CSMAC process, if transmitted by 
NTIA. As mentioned above, however, CSMAC working groups 3-5 have not 
yet issued final reports for NTIA's consideration. We will consider 
CSMAC's recommendations, if NTIA accepts them, to inform the service 
rules for the 1755-1780 MHz band, including terms of sharing and 
required protections to the extent that relocation and clearing is not 
feasible. We intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations 
into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will 
discuss NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or written 
ex partes, as appropriate, depending on the timing. We discuss these 
issues in greater detail below in paragraphs 73-77. Allocation issues 
are discussed in para. 175.
    35. 2020-2025 MHz. The 2020-2025 MHz band is already allocated for 
the non-Federal fixed and mobile services and is part of the 35 
megahertz (1990-2025 MHz) that the Commission repurposed in 2000 from 
BAS to emerging technologies such as Personal Communications Services 
(PCS), AWS, and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). This repurposing was 
possible because BAS converted nationwide from seven analog channels 
(each 17-18 megahertz wide) to seven digital channels (each 12 
megahertz wide). In 2004, the Commission proposed to license 2020-2025 
MHz for uplink/mobile use paired with 2175-2180 MHz. The Commission did 
not adopt this proposal and, in 2008 it proposed instead to combine 
2175-2180 MHz and 2155-2175 MHz, to make a larger unpaired block at 
2155-2180 MHz. The Commission did not make a further proposal for the 
2020-2025 MHz band immediately above the AWS-4 uplink band (2000-2020 
MHz). Today, we propose uplink/mobile use of 2020-2025 MHz under rules 
similar to the AWS-4 rules. We do not propose to modify the allocation 
for this band but, as described in paragraph 173 below, we propose 
changes to several related footnotes in the Table of Frequency 
Allocations.

Additional Bands, Including the Requirement To Identify 15 MHz of 
Contiguous Spectrum for Commercial Use

    36. As discussed above, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to 
identify an additional 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum for 
commercial use. We seek comment on an appropriate candidate for that 
choice, including, for example, the 1755-1780 MHz band identified 
above. As an alternative, we also seek general comment on the 
allocation of other frequencies in order to meet or surpass this 
requirement of the Spectrum Act, and more specific comment on those 
listed below. Parties that advocate licensing any of the spectrum below 
or any alternative spectrum for wireless broadband should describe in 
detail the technical, operational, and licensing rules that we should 
apply. For example, could the service rules that we are proposing for 
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, or 2155-2180 MHz, be 
applied? If so, would modifications be necessary to address issues 
related to specifically identified bands? Issues related to the need 
for changes to the Table of Allocations are treated separately in 
paragraphs 171-179 below.
    37. 1780-1850 MHz. The 1780-1850 MHz band, which is part of the 
larger 1755-1850 MHz band, is allocated to the fixed and mobile 
services on a primary basis for Federal use and assigned to a wide-
range of military and other government uses. As noted above, NTIA 
reports that the Federal government uses the entire 1755-1850 MHz band 
across the nation and that the majority of Federal services that 
operate in the 1755-1780 MHz band also operate in the larger 1755-1850 
MHz band. Although the commercial wireless industry appears primarily 
interested in the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the 1755-1850 MHz band to 
pair with the 2155-2180 MHz band, NTIA has been studying the entire 
1755-1850 MHz band and industry has not entirely dismissed the 
possibility of seeking access to this spectrum in the long term. NTIA 
reports that it appreciates the Commission's ``recognition of the 
potential need to address rules to accommodate the phased relocation of 
the entire 95 megahertz of the 1755-1850 MHz band.''
    38. Because of the commercial industry's focus on the 1755-1780 MHz 
band, NTIA makes several requests of the Commission. First, NTIA 
requests consideration of the potential for a phased transition to 
facilitate commercial access to the 1755-1780

[[Page 51567]]

MHz band in a shorter timeframe while preserving longer-term 
repurposing and transition opportunities for the entire 1755-1850 MHz 
band. Second, NTIA requests that if a Commission auction of the 1755-
1780 MHz band results in the relocation of or sharing with Federal 
systems that currently have access to the entire 1755-1850 MHz band, 
agency transition plans for the lower 25 megahertz account for those 
systems, even if the Commission holds multiple auctions over time. 
Third, NTIA requests that, if necessary, the Commission assist NTIA in 
identifying and reallocating replacement spectrum to accommodate 
displaced Federal operations unless these agencies can maintain 
comparable capability of systems via sharing or utilizing alternative 
technology. We invite comment on the NTIA plan for ultimately making 
the entire 1755-1850 MHz band available for wireless broadband based on 
a phased transition. How could this spectrum be used in ways that would 
significantly answer the need for additional wireless spectrum? Should 
different portions of the band be made available with different service 
rules, including, for example, technical rules, and sharing/
coordination provisions?
    39. 2095-2110 MHz. As discussed above, CTIA recommends that the 
Commission consider identifying 2095-2110 MHz as the additional 15 
megahertz for reallocation under this statutory provision. We invite 
comment on CTIA's recommendation. We note that footnote 5.391 to the 
Table of Frequency Allocations states administrations shall not 
introduce high-density mobile systems into this band. Parties that 
advocate licensing 2095-2110 for wireless broadband should explain how 
such use can be reconciled with the footnote 5.391, including the 
underlying need to protect U.S. and foreign space systems, and describe 
in detail the technical, operational, and licensing rules that we 
should apply. Commenters should also describe potential effects on 
incumbent BAS users and Federal users, particularly given that this 
proposal would appear to conflict with use of two of the seven BAS 
channels available in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Additionally, as 
described above, NASA appears to strongly oppose sharing this band with 
commercial cellular operations. The Society of Broadcast Engineers 
(SBE) also opposes CTIA's proposal. We also observe that Federal 
agencies have identified the 2025-2110 MHz band as a potential 
relocation band for various Federal operations. We seek comment on 
these considerations.
    40. Other Frequencies. We invite commenters to propose any other 
band that would meet the Spectrum Act's requirement for the Commission 
to identify 15 contiguous megahertz of spectrum. We encourage 
commenters to identify specific bands, to explain what the band is 
currently used for, and how it might be allocated and transitioned for 
commercial use under flexible use service rules for operations such as 
wireless broadband service.

Band-Use Configurations

    41. Base vs. Mobile Transmissions. As discussed further below, we 
propose to allow the use of each AWS-3 band in a manner that is 
compatible with the use of adjacent bands. Doing so reduces the risk of 
harmful interference to co-channel or adjacent band operations or the 
need for highly restrictive technical limits that would leave some AWS-
3 spectrum underutilized. We believe our band-use proposals maximize 
the potential usability of these bands. We seek comment on our 
proposals and invite commenters to propose alternatives.
    42. Base Transmit. In 2008, the Commission proposed to allow base 
and mobile operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band to support Time 
Division Duplex (TDD) operations. To protect base operations in the 
adjacent AWS-1 band from harmful interference due to mobile operations 
in the AWS-3 band, strict power and out-of-band-emission (OOBE) limits 
were placed on AWS-3 mobiles. These measures included a slightly lower 
than normal mobile power limit and a mobile OOBE limit below 2155 MHz 
of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB. Recently, in the AWS-4 proceeding, the 
Commission addressed a similar base/mobile adjacency scenario that was 
unavoidable because AWS-4 spectrum (2000-2020 MHz), which is next to 
the H Block downlink band (1995-2000 MHz), was already the Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS) uplink band (and thus could only be used for 
AWS-4 mobiles). The Commission concluded that certain assumptions 
underlying the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB proposal are outdated: to protect 
contemporary AWS uses, the Commission found that a 70 + 10 log10(P) dB 
OOBE limit is necessary along with significant power reductions in the 
first five megahertz of the uplink/mobile band that significantly limit 
mobile operations to provide adequate isolation between adjacent mobile 
and base station operations.
    43. Unlike AWS-4, here we have the option to avoid designating 
uplink next to downlink, which in turn avoids the need for guard bands 
or significant technical limits that mitigate interference between 
uplink and downlink. As we recently concluded in connection with AWS-4, 
having mobiles (or base and mobile TDD transmissions) requires 
significant power reductions and OOBE limits to prevent harmful 
interference to adjacent bands. Allowing mobile transmit operations 
would appear to leave significant portions of the 2155-2180 MHz band 
underutilized. Moreover, in addition to interference with adjacent AWS-
1 and AWS-4 base station transmissions, allowing mobiles in the 2155-
2180 MHz band appears to create the potential for harmful mobile-to-
mobile interference among AWS-3 licensees with dissimilar operations in 
adjacent blocks or service areas. Accordingly, we propose to allow base 
and fixed (downlink), but not mobile, operations in the 2155-2180 MHz 
band. Such operations are compatible with similar downlink operations 
in the adjacent AWS-1 band (2110-2155 MHz) and AWS-4 band (2180-2200 
MHz). By designating downlink next to downlink, we avoid having to 
impose guard bands or significant technical limits between adjacent 
services, thereby increasing the amount of usable spectrum. We seek 
comment on this proposal. We invite commenters who disagree with this 
proposal to submit test data and specific technical analyses in support 
of the OOBE, power, and other technical limits they recommend. 
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this 
proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.
    44. Mobile Transmit. We propose to allow mobile transmit operations 
(but to prohibit high-power fixed and base station operations) in the 
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2020-2025 MHz bands. Again, we intend 
to reduce the risk of harmful interference to adjacent band operations 
or the need for highly restrictive technical limits that could leave 
some AWS-3 spectrum underutilized. Each of these bands is adjacent, on 
one or both sides, to AWS uplink/mobile bands. The 1695-1710 MHz and 
1755-1780 MHz bands are adjacent to the AWS-1 uplink/mobile band (1710-
1755 MHz) and the 2020-2025 MHz band is adjacent to the AWS-4/MSS 
uplink/mobile band (2000-2020 MHz). Authorizing high-power base 
stations in these AWS-3 bands would appear to raise the potential for 
base-to-base interference to the adjacent band AWS-1 and AWS-4 
services. Possibly, base-to-base interference could be controlled by 
measures such as power limits, OOBE limits, siting restrictions,

[[Page 51568]]

and coordination, but these measures would appear to be burdensome and 
might result in a less robust use of these AWS-3 bands.
    45. Another potential impediment to high-power use of two of these 
bands--1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz--arises because AWS-3 use might 
be shared with Federal services. NTIA's recommendations for sharing 
1695-1710 MHz are predicated on the use of low-power AWS-3 mobiles, as 
is CSMAC's ongoing analysis of potential sharing of the 1755-1850 MHz 
band. AWS-3 base stations in these Federal bands have not been 
analyzed, to date, and proposing such operations herein would appear to 
result in additional delay, costs, and the possibility of NTIA 
concluding that Federal/non-Federal sharing is impossible, or feasible 
only under severe restrictions on high-power AWS-3 use of these two 
bands.
    46. For these reasons, we propose to permit only low-power, mobile-
to-base transmissions in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2020-
2025 MHz bands. We seek comment on this proposal. We invite commenters 
who disagree with this proposal to submit test data and specific 
technical analyses in support of the OOBE or other technical limits 
they recommend. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and 
benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.
    47. Spectrum Block Sizes. In determining the spectrum block sizes 
for the AWS-3 bands, we seek to maximize utility and allow for 
efficient use of these bands. We believe that a minimum bandwidth of 
five megahertz is required to accommodate the fullest range of wireless 
services. Five-megahertz blocks can be used for new technologies and 
can be used for some data services, including broadband Internet 
access. The Commission has also found that five-megahertz blocks would 
provide entry opportunities for small and rural service providers, and 
can be aggregated to provide greater capacity where needed. We 
therefore propose to license the AWS-3 spectrum in five-megahertz 
blocks, and seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss 
and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed 
alternatives.
    48. Spectrum Block Configuration. We have generally licensed other 
bands that support mobile broadband services on a paired basis, 
matching specific downlink and uplink bands. We recognize that the new 
AWS bands proposed in this NPRM could be configured in any number of 
pairings or even auctioned on an unpaired basis. We therefore seek 
comment on a range of options. Should we pair any of the AWS-3 band 
segments discussed in this NPRM, and if so how should they be paired? 
Or should we not specify pairing? Are there likely to be competitive 
effects of our choice that we should consider? If we adopt the unpaired 
approach, are any administrative measures necessary to keep track of 
how spectrum blocks are being used? Additionally, if the unpaired 
spectrum is used to support asymmetrical downlink operations, are there 
particular bands with which carrier aggregation could most easily be 
accommodated? Are there bands with which carrier aggregation of AWS-3 
spectrum is not advisable due to potential intermodulation or other 
interference? In any event, we seek comment on requiring uplink/mobiles 
in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands to transmit only when 
controlled by an associated base station whose location can be 
coordinated with relevant Federal users should they be required to 
implement Protection Zones described in paragraphs 58-59. For example, 
the Protection Zones for the 1695-1710 MHz band are premised on the 
distance between the incumbent Federal operations and non-Federal base 
station(s) that will enable the AWS-3 uplink/mobile operations. Thus, 
even though the base station does not transmit in the 1695-1710 MHz 
band, its location inside a Protection Zone triggers the coordination 
requirement. We invite comment on what approach to take, and the costs 
and benefits of particular approaches.

Service Areas

    49. Geographic Area Licensing. We propose to license all AWS-3 
spectrum blocks using a geographic area licensing approach, and we seek 
comment on this proposal. A geographic licensing approach appears well 
suited for the types of fixed and mobile services that would likely be 
deployed in these bands. Additionally, geographic licensing appears 
consistent with the licensing approach adopted for other bands that 
support mobile broadband services. Moreover, adopting a geographic 
areas licensing approach would seem to allow the Commission to assign 
new initial licenses in these bands through a system of competitive 
bidding in accordance with the Spectrum Act. We seek comment on this 
approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a geographic 
area licensing scheme. In the event that a party does not support using 
geographic licensing for a given band, it should explain its position, 
describe what type of licensing scheme it supports and identify the 
costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing proposal. 
Commenters should also address how an alternative licensing approach 
would be consistent with the statutory requirement to assign licenses 
in these bands through a system of competitive bidding and the 
statutory objectives that the Commission is required to promote in 
establishing methodologies for competitive bidding.
    50. Service Area Size. If we use a geographic area approach for 
licensing these bands, we must determine the appropriate size(s) of 
service areas on which licenses should be based. We seek to adopt a 
service area for all bands that meets several statutory goals. These 
include facilitating access to spectrum by both small and large 
providers, providing for the efficient use of the spectrum, encouraging 
deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers, especially 
those in rural areas and tribal lands, and promoting investment in and 
rapid deployment of new technologies and services consistent with our 
obligations under section 309(j) of the Communications Act.
    51. Of the various geographic areas we might adopt here, Economic 
Areas (EAs) represent a natural market unit for local or regional 
service areas. The Bureau of Economic Analysis defines an EA as ``one 
or more economic nodes--metropolitan areas or similar areas that serve 
as centers of economic activity--and the surrounding counties that are 
economically related to the nodes.'' EAs nest within and may be 
aggregated up to larger license areas, such as Major Economic Areas 
(MEAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) for operators 
seeking larger service areas. EAs also represent a close match to the 
geographic licensing approach used for the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. Given 
their spectral proximity, the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands appear to be the 
most likely candidates for ad hoc operational consolidation with AWS-3 
spectrum, in those cases where such consolidation may occur. Using a 
compatible geographic licensing approach may therefore result in more 
efficient opportunities for available spectrum to be put to use where 
needed.
    52. We therefore propose to license the AWS-3 bands on an EA basis 
(176 EAs) and seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives. We 
ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and 
other public interest considerations of licensing on an EA or other 
basis. We also seek comment on whether there are costs and benefits to 
adopting our proposed EA

[[Page 51569]]

licensing approach for bands shared with Federal users. For example, to 
what extent do the Protection Zones of incumbent Federal operations 
extend across EA boundaries and, if they do, is this a relevant factor 
to consider in adopting EA licensing? We seek comment on alternative 
geographic area sizes that could be used as the basis for licensing 
spectrum in these bands. Although we propose to separately license the 
Gulf of Mexico separately consistent with AWS-1, AWS-4, and H Block, 
all of which license the Gulf as a separate EA license, we also invite 
comment on whether to include the Gulf of Mexico as part of larger 
service areas, as the Commission did for the Upper 700 MHz band. 
Commenters who advocate a separate service area or areas to cover the 
Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be used, and 
whether special interference protection criteria or performance 
requirements are necessary due to the unique radio propagation 
characteristics and antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf 
licensees.

Federal/non-Federal Sharing and Coordination

    53. Several of the bands included in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking are presently allocated for Federal use and are used by 
various Federal agencies to carry out their missions. Therefore, 
enabling commercial access to these bands, if clearing is not 
practicable, may require some combination of reallocation, relocation, 
sharing, and/or coordination. We seek comment on the most appropriate 
solutions for particular bands, including those specifically identified 
below, that maximize commercial access to these bands. These solutions 
may include clearing and reallocating, or where not feasible, 
facilitating shared access to the bands. As noted above, NTIA intends 
for its CSMAC process to generate actionable recommendations regarding 
non-Federal access to these bands. We intend to incorporate NTIA's 
forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and 
anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations, 
including corresponding rules and procedures the Commission should 
adopt to effectuate them, in comments, reply comments, or written ex 
partes, as appropriate, depending on the timing.
    54. 1695-1710 MHz--Federal/non-Federal Sharing Framework. As noted 
above, in accordance with the Spectrum Act's mandate that NTIA identify 
15 megahertz of spectrum for reallocation from Federal to non-Federal 
use, NTIA identified the 1695-1710 MHz band and recommended that the 
Commission reallocate it for commercial use. In making this 
recommendation, NTIA cited conclusions in the NTIA Fast Track Report, 
as well as recommendations then being drafted by CSMAC Working Group 1 
(WG1), that this band segment could be reallocated for commercial use 
subject to the sharing framework described further below. On April 19, 
2013, NTIA recommended that the Commission use the WG1 Final Report 
recommendations in drafting proposed rules to implement shared use of 
the 1695-1710 MHz band. Accordingly, we propose that shared Federal and 
non-Federal use of the 1695-1710 MHz band follow the sharing framework 
recommended by NTIA. This approach allows for exclusive commercial 
operations outside predetermined Protection Zones without any Federal 
coordination, and for commercial operations inside the Protection Zones 
after coordination to protect incumbent Federal operations. We seek 
comment generally on the extent to which the proposed framework 
appropriately follows Congress' prioritization of relocation over 
sharing, except where technically or financially prohibitive. We seek 
comment on more specific aspects of these recommendations below, as 
well as on any other sharing and coordination issues or alternative 
approaches that are outside the scope of CSMAC's analyses and 
recommendations.
    55. The WG1 Final Report sets out a framework for sharing the band 
that protects both the polar-orbiting satellites (POES) that operate in 
the 1695-1710 MHz band as well as the geostationary satellite earth 
stations that operate predominately in the adjacent 1675-1695 MHz band, 
but which overlap slightly with the 1695-1710 MHz band. Additionally, 
WG1 established interference protection criteria defining the allowed 
Interference Power Spectral Density (IPSD) levels, tailored to each 
receiver's RF characteristics. WG1 also refined the interference 
analysis methodology previously used for the NTIA Fast Track Report to 
more realistically model the operation of commercial LTE networks and 
draw the parameters of the Protection Zones. The methodology used to 
derive the Protection Zones is provided in Appendix 7 of the WG1 Final 
Report, but more work is needed to create all of the methods and 
procedures necessary for the coordination process. As explained in the 
WG1 Final Report:

    Details of the coordination framework are outline[d] in [WG1 
Final Report] Appendix 1. To create this coordination process, NTIA 
and FCC, in conjunction with the affected federal agencies, need to 
establish: (1) A nationally-approved interference prediction model, 
associated input parameters, and distribution of aggregate IPSD 
limit among commercial licensees; (2) coordination procedures, 
including an automated process, to the extent possible, to assess if 
the proposed commercial network will meet the IPSD limits, to 
facilitate coordination allowing commercial licensee operations 
within the Protection Areas; and (3) procedures for implementing on-
going real-time monitoring to ensure IPSD limits are not being 
exceeded and that commercial operations can be adjusted immediately 
if they are. The framework stipulates that the criteria and 
procedures for coordination and operation within the Protection 
Zones, as well as enforcement mechanisms, must still be clearly 
defined and subsequently codified in the FCC rules and the NTIA 
manual, as appropriate.

    56. The Commission has implemented a number of different 
coordination approaches in other services with the aim of efficiently 
and expeditiously balancing access to spectrum against the need to 
prevent harmful interference. For example, in the non-voice, non-
geostationary mobile-satellite service, prospective earth station 
licensees must coordinate with Federal government users prior to 
operating. Similarly, our part 101 rules for the Fixed Microwave 
Services set forth detailed frequency coordination procedures and 
interference protection criteria. As discussed in greater detail below, 
our part 27 rules for the Advanced Wireless Services outline a 
coordination process that permits both grandfathered Federal and non-
Federal users to operate in the AWS-1 band. In general, our 
coordination rules take as foundational that all parties subject to 
coordination will work in good faith to accurately assess the potential 
for interference. We aim to provide flexibility to the parties involved 
to conduct the interference analysis in an agreed-upon manner with an 
eye towards continually improving accuracy.
    57. Based on the Commission's experience with coordination, we 
tentatively agree with NTIA's sharing framework recommendation, which 
is premised on coordination (assuming sharing is necessary because 
relocation is not possible). In seeking comment on how to further 
develop and implement NTIA's recommended sharing framework, we 
recognize, as did NTIA's recommendation, that some criteria, procedures 
and mechanisms would be codified in the Commission's rules, while 
others would be codified in the NTIA manual. We also note that some 
matters may be appropriately addressed as part of the FCC-NTIA 
coordination

[[Page 51570]]

process and/or in jointly released documents.
    58. Protection Zones for Incumbent Federal Operations. The 
framework for Federal and non-Federal shared operations in the band is 
predicated on defined Protection Zones where commercial operations must 
meet strict coordination standards so as to protect incumbent co-
channel Federal polar orbiting satellites and adjacent Federal geo-
stationary operations in the 1675-1695 MHz band. NTIA's earlier Fast 
Track report had identified the 1695-1710 MHz band for reallocation 
subject to 18 Exclusion Zones that covered larger geographic areas 
where non-Federal operations would be prohibited, thereby limiting 
commercial operations in the band. WG1 conducted further analyses, and 
refined the technical parameters for conducting interference analyses, 
including LTE system parameters, propagation models, and Federal 
systems parameters to more accurately depict real world operation of 
LTE networks and their interaction with the incumbent systems. WG1's 
analysis also assumed that 1695-1710 MHz would be a mobile uplink band. 
Overall, the analysis resulted in a significant reduction in the 
anticipated distance at which an LTE system would potentially cause 
harmful interference to a Federal earth station receiver. Additionally, 
given the wide range of measures that can be taken to further mitigate 
the potential interference, WG1 recommended the use of Protection Zones 
(coordination areas) rather than Exclusion Zones. The WG1 effort 
focused on the 18 sites identified in the NTIA Fast Track Report and 
some locations the NTIA Fast Track Report considered as single 
locations but included multiple antennas that are widely spaced. With 
the reductions in the separation distances in the NTIA Fast Track 
Report, the WG1 Final Report notes that it may be necessary to list 
each of these antennas separately to ensure adequate protection. 
Additionally, Government participants in WG1 identified additional 
sites that they believe warrant protection and stated that they intend 
to raise the issue with NTIA. The agencies identified an additional 22 
sites operating in and adjacent to the 1695-1710 MHz band. On June 18, 
2013, WG1 reported to the CSMAC that it completed its analysis to 
compute protection distances for the new sites and consolidated sites 
with overlapping zones, reducing the number of new sites to nine for a 
total of 27 sites that require protection. Although the full CSMAC and 
NTIA have not yet approved the revised list, our proposal assumes that 
CSMAC and NTIA will approve/endorse a final list of Protection Zones 
substantially as recommended by Working Group 1 but interested parties 
should be aware that neither assumption can be guaranteed, in which 
case the final list of Protection Zones could differ from our proposal.
    59. As previously stated, reflecting WG1's latest analysis, we are 
proposing to allow uplink/mobile and low power fixed operations in this 
band when enabled by a base station(s) that is (1) not located within a 
Protection Zone, or (2) located within a Protection Zone and 
successfully coordinated with Federal incumbents. These Protection 
Zones that we proposed to adopt provide maximum protection distances. 
We seek comment on this proposal.
    60. Coordination Interference Analysis; Potential Refinements. As 
noted above, to create this coordination process for Federal Earth 
Stations, NTIA and the FCC in conjunction with the affected Federal 
agencies, need to establish a nationally-approved interference 
prediction model, associated input parameters, and distribution of 
aggregate IPSD limits among commercial licensees. WG1 established 
interference protection criteria (defined as IPSD limits), setting 
permitted power spectral density levels at the inputs to the protected 
meteorological satellite receivers. WG1 adopted an interference-based 
approach to coordination, requiring that the commercial operator not be 
allowed to operate within the defined Protection Zones unless an 
engineering analysis demonstrated that the proposed operations would 
not cause interference in excess of the prescribed power spectral 
density limits. The Protection Zones themselves were developed based on 
an interference analysis of a theoretical grid-based network of base 
stations, according to the methodology documented in the report. NTIA 
recognized that some of the initial technical parameters and techniques 
that WG1 developed were conservative, but adequate for providing a 
first order estimation of potential interference sufficient for 
triggering coordination. Potential refinements include interference 
protection criteria, application thereof where multiple operators may 
coexist with a single Federal receiver, refinement of the propagation 
model, and use of clutter and terrain. We therefore seek general 
comment on the interference analysis described in the WG1 Final Report, 
including potential clarifications or solutions to unresolved issues 
identified in the report. We also seek comment on potential refinements 
to this methodology.
    61. WG1 placed particular emphasis on the interference prediction 
model to be used for the analysis as a critical area in need of 
improvement. There was considerable discussion on the appropriate 
propagation model to incorporate in the analysis. The central issues 
raised in determining the appropriate propagation model were how to 
account for clutter losses and time variability of interference, and 
predicting the impact of the length of the transmission paths. With 
respect to the proper propagation modeling to be used, the WG1 Final 
Report noted that ``differences in propagation models and application 
of terrain and clutter losses has a dramatic impact on results and can 
vary results by as much as 40 dB.'' Incorporation of appropriate 
improvements in the methodology and the accuracy of the technical 
parameters used could free up substantial proportions of the Protection 
Zones for commercial operations. Ultimately, the propagation model used 
to determine the distances for the Protection Zones was the point-to-
point Irregular Terrain Model (ITM). WG1 was unable to agree upon the 
incorporation of clutter losses in the ITM model and concluded that 
``the analysis results would be accurate enough for the intended 
purpose of recommending Protection Zones.'' Is the ITM model, 
configured as described in the WG1 Final Report, sufficient for the 
purposes of coordination? How should clutter be addressed? What other 
propagation models, as defined by standards bodies or other 
organizations, are appropriate for use in coordination? Can measurement 
data be used in place of predictions for particular sites or 
situations? Are there other commercial software products that would be 
more suitable to conduct the interference analyses required? A number 
of concerns about the propagation model are noted in the discussion in 
Appendix 7, particularly concerns from the Federal users about long 
term fading effects and atmospheric ducting which may under predict 
interference in some of the models proposed by industry. We seek 
comment on these issues and encourage proponents of any particular 
propagation model(s) to specifically address any concerns previously 
raised by Federal or non-Federal users, as applicable.
    62. WG1 adopted interference protection criteria based on an 
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) of -10 dB. In its report, WG1 
identified that further consideration was needed regarding the 
application of the criteria. The interference protection criterion

[[Page 51571]]

WG1 developed for its analysis is fairly well-defined in the report. 
Specifically, the total power level of acceptable interference to 
government receivers was limited to 10 dB below the protected 
receiver's effective system noise floor as measured at the receiver IF 
stage. The WG1 Final Report specifically raised the question of whether 
a 10 dB I/N target would be sufficient in the presence of multiple 
commercial operators. One case where this may occur is when a protected 
receiver is located near the geographic boundary between two commercial 
operators where the interference could aggregate from multiple service 
providers. Should the interference levels provided in Table 4 of 
Appendix 7 of the WG1 Final Report be adopted as the required 
protection criteria for a single commercial operator? That is, a 
request for coordination would not be rejected as long as the predicted 
aggregate interference from that operator fell below the levels in 
Table 4. Alternatively, should an I/N of -10 dB be applied to the total 
interference from all operators whose base stations lie within the 
protection zone? If so, how should the interference be apportioned 
among multiple operators? We seek comment on the appropriate 
interference criteria. We also seek comment on how to apply these 
interference criteria in the case of multiple operators.
    63. The WG1 Final Report recommended that coordination within the 
Protection Zones address both in-band and adjacent band interference 
issues but did not clearly identify requirements for the protection of 
adjacent operations. We believe that clarifying this recommendation 
would be helpful to both Federal and non-Federal operators. For 
example, should protection distances or interference criteria be 
different for adjacent channel operations versus co-channel operations? 
The only mention of adjacent channel operations refers to the GOES 
satellite earth stations. It is clear, that not only must the POES 
systems operating in the 1695-1710 MHz band be protected, but also the 
GOES systems operating primarily in the 1675-1695 MHz band. While WG1 
categorized the GOES system as an adjacent band operation, some of the 
operations are actually co-channel. The emission of GOES systems 
overlaps into the 1695-1710 MHz band by 250 kilohertz. The methodology 
used in the interference analysis accounts for both the selectivity of 
the satellite receivers and the out-of-band emission levels of the 
mobiles operating outside of the earth station's operating band. Thus, 
there are existing mechanisms in the methodology that can address 
adjacent channel concerns. There is a question as to whether purely 
adjacent channel operations could exist. For example, are there cases 
where GOES and POES receivers are not co-located or all POES carriers 
are not in use at a particular site and thus may not be co-channel to a 
particular commercial operator using one of the three 5 megahertz 
blocks proposed under the band plan? Are further refinements to the 
methodology needed to account for adjacent channel scenarios? We 
propose that all commercial operators within the specified protection 
distance of a protected receiver, whether they are co-channel or 
adjacent channel (operating within the 1695-1710 MHz band) coordinate 
with the Federal users in the band. Should this proceeding be used to 
establish Protection Zones and guidelines for adjacent channel 
operations as well?
    64. One example of an expected change to the methodology is the 
commercial system base station configuration. In developing the 
interference calculation methodology for coordination, WG1 performed a 
basic analysis using a network of base stations placed along a uniform 
grid. However, it is expected that any coordination will use the actual 
site locations for planned base station deployments. This raises the 
question of whether other modifications of the methodology may be 
needed to provide a more realistic assessment of the interference 
calculation. With the goal of facilitating a fair and equitable 
coordination process, should the Commission jointly establish with NTIA 
minimum requirements for the interference analysis and/or a set of best 
practices for conducting the engineering analysis? If so, what 
requirements are needed? Are there additions or improvements to these 
parameters that should be considered? Are there any other technical 
requirements or techniques that should be set in this proceeding? Are 
there established models and methodologies in existing standards or 
regulatory bodies that could be adopted? Commenters are asked to 
discuss the pros and cons of the recommended methodology, and provide 
detailed arguments on any improvements that can be made to the 
recommended analysis.
    65. Coordination Procedures. We seek comment on what coordination 
procedures would best effectuate the recommendations of the WG1 Final 
Report. As noted above, the Commission has employed a variety of 
coordination models in different wireless and satellite services. We 
seek comment on whether any existing coordination models--or elements 
of those coordination models--may be applicable to the 1695-1710 MHz 
band. To the extent that existing models do not or only partially 
apply, we seek comment on other approaches that address the unique 
circumstances surrounding Federal/non-Federal sharing in this band. We 
especially seek comment on any and all issues related to coordination 
that are expressly mentioned in the WG1 Final Report.
    66. Process Initiation. We ask commenters to propose methods by 
which a licensee can initiate the coordination process. Should we 
provide any guidance on coordination timelines? Should we set a 
specific time frame by which licensees are required to initiate the 
coordination process, i.e., how much advance notice should a licensee 
provide prior to commencing operations? Should there be time limits 
established on various phases of the coordination process itself? If a 
licensee intends to alter operating plans after reaching a coordination 
agreement, should it have to fully re-coordinate with the applicable 
Federal agencies? How should the Commission coordinate with NTIA in 
facilitating an effective coordination procedure, consistent with our 
respective roles under the Spectrum Act?
    67. AWS-1 Precedent. In particular, we seek comment on whether the 
coordination procedures established for non-Federal licensees to gain 
early access to adjacent AWS-1 uplink band (1710-1755 MHz) could serve 
as a model for coordination in the 1695-1710 MHz band. In AWS-1, 
recognizing the importance of protecting the Federal operations while 
opening up the spectrum to newly licensed commercial users, the 
Commission worked closely with NTIA to craft a coordination procedure 
before the full band transition was completed. Prior to operating, the 
AWS-1 licensee was required to contact the appropriate Federal agency 
to get information necessary to perform an interference analysis. The 
AWS-1 licensee would first perform the interference analysis and then 
send it to the appropriate designated agency contact for review. At the 
end of 60 days, if the Federal agency raised no objection, the AWS-1 
licensee was permitted to commence operations. NTIA required Federal 
agencies to cooperate with AWS-1 licensees and provide, within 30 days 
of a request from an AWS-1 licensee wishing to operate within a 
coordination zone, site-specific technical information that

[[Page 51572]]

would allow the licensee to complete the interference analysis. NTIA 
also required agencies that disapprove of an interference analysis 
submitted by an AWS-1 licensee to provide the licensee with a detailed 
rationale for its disapproval. Finally, Federal agencies were required 
to work in good faith to identify the source of the harmful 
interference and work with AWS-1 licensees to eliminate or mitigate the 
interference. Would a similar procedure work here? If so, what exact 
procedures and timelines would be appropriate? What is the best way to 
ensure balanced treatment of Federal and non-Federal users' interests? 
Commenters are asked to provide the reasoning for their suggestions, 
and to discuss our authority to implement these suggestions, where 
applicable.
    68. Appeals. We seek comment on whether we should adopt an appeals 
process for licensees whose coordination proposals are rejected by the 
government agency or the final decision maker in the coordination 
process. If so, who should adjudicate the appeals and what should be 
the criteria for reversal?
    69. Interference Power Spectral Density (IPSD) Limits. To 
facilitate coordination, the WG1 Final Report also recommended, to the 
extent possible, an automated process with the ability to assess if 
proposed commercial networks will meet predetermined IPSD limits. We 
seek comment on the extent to which such a process is possible and, if 
so, how best to implement this recommendation. Are there automated 
processes already in place that we could adapt to this situation? How 
much of the coordination process can be automated? What are the 
challenges associated with such an approach and are they surmountable? 
Would the benefits of implementation exceed the associated costs? The 
WG1 Final Report also recommended establishment of a testing program 
that would ``demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of proposed 
protection and mitigation methods before commercial licensees may begin 
operations within a Protection Zone.'' We seek comment on establishing 
such a program. What would it entail? Are there existing testing 
programs that can serve as a model?
    70. Enforcement. The WG1 Final Report states that clear enforcement 
procedures must be established in order to protect Federal operations 
within the Protection Zones. We seek comment on ways to deter and 
terminate commercial operations from causing harmful interference to 
Federal operations through violations of the rules or of a coordination 
agreement. How should commercial operators be notified to cease 
operations in such a situation? What can or should be done in the event 
that there is a dispute between the parties as to the actual source of 
interference? Do our existing enforcement procedures provide adequate 
remedies or do the special circumstances of this band require 
additional enforcement mechanisms? What remedies, above and beyond 
notice to stop operations, are appropriate in such circumstances? Would 
fines and/or loss of license be appropriate in this case? Commenters 
are encouraged to propose adequate enforcement mechanisms that will 
ensure that incumbent Federal operations do not suffer harmful 
interference.
    71. The WG1 Final Report notes that real-time monitoring of IPSD 
limits with automated adjustments would be ideal in order to ensure 
that the established interference limits are not being exceeded. 
Ideally, this real-time monitoring could quickly detect violations and 
facilitate immediate adjustments to commercial operations so as to 
prevent harmful interference to Federal operations. However, a real-
time monitoring system would not necessarily determine the source of 
the problem. We seek comment on whether establishing a real-time 
monitoring mechanism is possible and feasible. If so, commenters are 
invited to describe how this can be accomplished.
    72. Relocating Federal government receive locations in the 1695-
1710 MHz band. Some of the Protection Zones set forth in Table 1 above 
are located in highly populated urban areas where there is a 
continuously rising demand for commercial broadband services. NTIA did 
not have the opportunity to study the possibility of relocating Federal 
receive sites in the band. Accordingly, and in response to an industry 
suggestion, NTIA recommends that before auction, the feasibility and 
cost impact of relocating Federal operations in the 1695-1710 MHz band 
be explored for the top 100 markets, with the goal of creating an 
environment where there would be less restricted commercial use of the 
band within the Protection Zones. If any studies consistent with this 
recommendation are conducted, we intend to incorporate them into the 
record of this proceeding. Further, NTIA has identified some challenges 
that a Federal receiver relocation study should address. These include 
ensuring that:

    (1) A receive site is located in a suitable area to capture 
necessary data, (2) the location is in a rural enough area to 
minimize the size of or need for Protection Zones in high population 
areas, (3) reliable power is available, (4) adequate and redundant 
backhaul facilities can be established to ensure highly reliable 
reception of data, (5) any delay in receiving raw satellite data 
introduced by a remote receiver is minimal and does not negatively 
impact the government mission, and (6) any suitable site is able to 
meet applicable environmental statutory regulatory requirements to 
build-out such a facility.

We seek comment on how to address these challenges, again, within the 
restricted time frame. Commenters should also address, if possible, 
anticipated relocation/installation costs and timelines for relocation. 
We also ask commenters to address whether, if we proceed to formulate 
regulations and conduct an initial auction based on the recommended 
Protection Zones, it still would be appropriate and feasible to conduct 
the relocation study thereafter, or whether there would be no benefits 
to such a study subsequent to an initial auction of 1695-1710 MHz with 
the associated Protection Zones.
    73. 1755-1780 MHz. NTIA established CSMAC Working Groups 2-5 to 
analyze ways to facilitate commercial operations in the 1755-1780 MHz 
band. To date, NTIA has endorsed the recommendations of Working Group 2 
(Federal law enforcement surveillance systems, explosive ordnance 
disposal systems, and other short distant links). We anticipate that 
Working Groups 3-5 will, in the coming months, present their 
recommendations to NTIA, which will, in turn, make recommendations 
addressing the remaining Federal systems in the band to the Commission. 
We seek comment on appropriate relocation or sharing arrangements for 
these systems if relocation is not feasible. As noted above, we intend 
to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of 
this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's 
recommendations in comments, reply comments, or ex parte presentations, 
as appropriate, depending on the timing.
    74. As mentioned above, NTIA endorses the recommendations of WG2 
that Federal law enforcement surveillance systems, explosive ordnance 
disposal systems, and other short distant links can be relocated out of 
the band within five years, once funding and comparable spectrum are 
available. NTIA also endorses Working Group 2's recommendations ranking 
Economic Areas to be transitioned according to industry implementation 
priorities. NTIA notes that while industry would prefer Federal 
relocation based on the ranking of

[[Page 51573]]

economic areas (EAs) on the suggested list, the agencies will need to 
establish their timelines for clearing based on their operational 
requirements and that, in some cases, operational needs may require 
clearing larger geographic areas. Accordingly, NTIA clarifies that the 
prioritized list of EAs will serve as an input for consideration as the 
agencies develop their transition plans. Furthermore, due to the 
agencies' challenges in planning and implementing the transition of 
these systems without impacting operational requirements, NTIA states 
that prospective bidders should understand that agencies may not be 
able to vary significantly from the timelines in their published 
transition plans, unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approves accelerated implementation payments.
    75. In the event that clearing is not feasible, we must prepare for 
the possibility that CSMAC may present a ``hybrid'' recommendation, in 
which some operations would be relocated, some would share the band 
with commercial licensees, and some (in geographic exclusion zones) 
would not share the band. If so, and if the NTIA endorses the CSMAC 
recommendations, we could adopt Protection Zones, Exclusion Zones, and 
other sharing measures to clearly define the potential for Federal and 
commercial operations to share the 1755-1780 MHz band (spectrally, 
geographically, temporally, dynamically, or any combination of these). 
We seek comment on what sharing measures would appropriately maximize 
commercial access to the spectrum. We intend to incorporate NTIA's 
forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and 
anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations in 
comments, reply comments, or ex parte presentations, as appropriate, 
depending on the timing. We also expect that commenters will discuss 
the CSMAC's specific recommendations as well as various implementation 
details, including on the coordination processes required for shared 
use of the band.
    76. Anticipating the possibility that CSMAC and NTIA are unable to 
recommend clearly defined sharing parameters, we also seek comment on 
whether to issue ``overlay'' licenses that would permit new licensees 
to gain access to the 1755-1780 MHz band only if they are able to reach 
coordination agreements with affected Federal users, i.e., ``operator-
to-operator'' coordination. Under this alternative, we would adopt 
rules to license the 1755-1780 MHz band on a non-harmful interference 
basis to, and subject to accepting harmful interference from, Federal 
incumbents that are not relocating or, if they are relocating, until 
they are relocated under an approved plan. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    77. Finally, as another alternative, we seek comment on the 
possibility that the 1755-1780 MHz band remain for exclusive Federal 
use and how that would affect the band configurations described in 
paragraphs 41-46 and our Spectrum Act obligation to identify an 
additional 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum to allocate and auction 
for commercial use.
    78. Industry Roadmap. As noted above, T-Mobile recently filed a 
wireless industry proposal (Industry Roadmap) for making the 1755-1780 
MHz band available for commercial use in time to auction the band at 
the same time as the 2155-2180 MHz band, which the Spectrum Act 
requires to be auctioned and licensed by February 2015. The Industry 
Roadmap assesses Federal operations in the 1.7 GHz band and proposes a 
combination of sharing, relocation, and channel prioritization for the 
majority of Federal operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band to provide 
industry early access to the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band. The 
Industry Roadmap also acknowledges that additional study is necessary. 
We add this filing to the record of this proceeding and seek comment on 
the Industry Roadmap.
    79. DoD Alternative Proposal. Also, as noted above, on July 22, 
2013, NTIA transmitted to the Commission correspondence to NTIA from 
the Chief Information Officer of the DoD that outlines a proposal for 
making 1755-1780 MHz available for auction and licensing in the near 
term, while protecting critical DoD capabilities and preserving the 
necessary flexibility to address the long-term status of the 1780-1850 
MHz portion of the band. NTIA states that it only recently received 
this proposal and is not in a position to endorse it at this time. 
According to DoD, under its proposal:
    1. DoD retains access to the 1780-1850 MHz band.
    2. DoD is provided shared access to 2025-2110 MHz band, removing 
the need to relocate broadcasters.
    3. DoD is not provided access to 5150-5250 MHz for telemetry, 
leaving the band available for Wi-Fi consideration.
    4. DoD will modify selected systems to operate at both 1780- 1850 
MHz & 2025-2110 MHz. These include Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, 
Tactical Targeting Network. Technology, Tactical Radio Relay, and High 
Resolution Video systems.
    5. DoD will modify selected systems to operate in other existing 
Federal bands as. identified: Precision Guided Munitions to 1435-1525 
MHz, Point-to-Point Microwave. Links to 7125-8500 MHz, and DoD Video 
Surveillance/Robotics to 4400-4940 MHz.
    6. DoD systems will share spectrum with commercial users in the 
1755-1780 MHz band as follows: Satellite Operations (SA TOPS), 
Electronic Warfare (EW), Air Combat Training System (ACTS) (where 
required), and Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) at 6 sites.
    7. DoD will compress remaining operations into 1780-1850 MHz.
    8. Estimate of DoD costs is* $3.5B for 25 MHz.

In the interest of obtaining input from all interested stakeholders on 
this proposal, as NTIA has requested, we are adding this correspondence 
to the record of this proceeding and seeking public comment on it as 
part of the AWS-3 rulemaking.

Increased Federal Access to Spectrum Through Sharing

    80. The 2013 Presidential Memorandum strongly encourages the FCC, 
in collaboration with NTIA, where appropriate, to enable innovative and 
flexible commercial uses of spectrum, including broadband, to be 
deployed as rapidly as possible. The 2013 Presidential Memorandum also 
encourages a number of steps including identifying spectrum allocated 
for non-Federal uses that can be made available for Federal agencies, 
on a shared or exclusive basis.
    81. Federal Use of AWS-3 Spectrum including 2155-2180. Shared use 
of spectrum bands by Federal and non-Federal users could facilitate the 
increased use of ``commercial-off-the-shelf'' (COTS) communication 
technologies to support important government missions, including 
military uses. By allowing government users to tap into global scale 
economies of the commercial market, the use of COTS devices, networks, 
and components could potentially help improve the performance and cost 
of certain government communications systems, where appropriate. 
Moreover, the use of such technologies might also increase 
electromagnetic compatibility with commercial uses, thereby 
facilitating greater shared use of spectrum. Accordingly, we seek 
comment on whether Federal users should be able to access the AWS-3 
band(s), including spectrum not presently allocated for Federal use 
(e.g.,

[[Page 51574]]

2155-2180 MHz), on Federal lands or properties that are generally 
unserved by commercial wireless networks. We seek comment on the 
benefits and drawbacks of this proposal. We would expect that such 
locations might include, for example, military training ranges in 
otherwise unpopulated areas and that Federal use of the band would be 
on terms and conditions consistent with the commercial service rules we 
establish in this proceeding and in future proceedings. We seek comment 
on specific locations where such access would be appropriate or 
inappropriate, as well as comment on a regulatory framework that would 
enable such use in a manner consistent with the Communications Act and 
the ongoing commercial use of these bands. We seek specific comment on 
any amendments to Section 2.103 of our rules or any other rules that 
might be appropriate for Federal use of such bands.
    82. Increased Federal access to 2025-2110 MHz and 5150-5250 MHz 
bands. As noted above, NTIA indicates that in certain Federal 
relocation scenarios, DoD and other Federal incumbents in the 1755-1850 
MHz band would need access to other bands specifically, that certain 
aeronautical systems could relocate to the 2025-2110 MHz and 5150-5250 
MHz bands. NTIA subsequently transmitted a more recent proposal from 
DoD that implicates the 2025-2110 MHz band but not the 5150-5250 MHz 
band. We seek comment on these and any alternative relocation concepts, 
including the viability of repacking incumbents into the 1780-1850 MHz 
band, recognizing that most commenters will not have access to 
information about Federal system characteristics or mission 
requirements. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the potential benefits 
and costs of implementing such a relocation, particularly with respect 
to existing and potential future uses of those bands. In paragraph 176 
below we seek comment on any changes to the Table of Frequency 
Allocations that would be necessary.

Technical Rules

    83. Our rules for the AWS-3 bands must take account of the 
potential for permissible operations to cause harmful interference to 
operations in other service areas, blocks or bands. In the proposed 
band plan, AWS-3 spectrum would be licensed in five-megahertz blocks 
using EA licenses. Interference must therefore be considered between 
adjacent AWS-3 blocks, e.g., between 2155-2160 MHz and 2160-2165 MHz, 
as well as between AWS-3 operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and 
services in the adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. Similarly, AWS-3 
mobiles could interfere with proximate Federal or non-Federal 
operations in the same or nearby bands.
    84. Two predominant types of adjacent channel interference can 
occur. The first is caused by out-of-band emissions (OOBE) that fall 
directly within the passband of an adjacent-band receiver. Such 
emissions cannot be ``filtered out,'' and can only be mitigated by: (1) 
Providing sufficient physical separation between the transmitter and 
receiver; and/or (2) suppressing OOBE at the source (i.e., the 
transmitter). The second type of interference is caused by ``receiver 
overload.'' Receiver overload interference occurs when a strong signal 
from an adjacent band transmission falls just outside the passband of a 
receiver, where the front-end filter of the receiver can provide only 
limited attenuation of the unwanted signal. There are three ways to 
minimize receiver overload interference: (1) Improve the receiver 
performance including filtering; (2) limit the power of the 
transmitter; and (3) provide physical separation between the 
transmitter and receiver.
    85. We seek comment on possible technical and operational rules to 
protect these various services from harmful interference. Where 
possible, we propose to adopt for AWS-3 the same technical requirements 
as apply to AWS-1, where our experience indicates that the requirements 
have facilitated good service while minimizing undesirable 
interference, and to AWS-4. We are especially interested in whether 
specific AWS-3 spectrum considerations may warrant different 
requirements. We also ask commenters to address any specific technical 
rules that would be required for specific AWS-3 bands that they 
propose, other than the ones identified in this notice.
1. OOBE Limits
    86. Section 27.53(h) of our rules requires that out-of-band 
emissions from transmissions in the AWS-1 bands be attenuated below the 
transmitter power (P) by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 
log10 (P) dB outside of the licensee's frequency block. The 
same rule also specifies the measurement procedure required to 
determine compliance with this OOBE standard. We seek comment on 
extending the scope of Sec.  27.53(h) to apply to AWS-3 as well, except 
as discussed otherwise below.
    87. Interference between Adjacent Block AWS-3 Licensees. We 
anticipate that the characteristics of the future AWS-3 band systems 
will be essentially identical to those of AWS-1. For this reason, we 
believe that the normal OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB 
outside of the licensee's frequency block is appropriate to protect 
AWS-3 services operating in adjacent spectrum blocks. We seek comment 
on this conclusion. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs 
and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.
    88. Interference with Services in Other Bands--Uplink Stations 
Operating in 1695-1710, 1755-1780 and 2020-2025 MHz. Interference with 
operations below 1695 MHz: The 1695-1710 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is 
adjacent to satellite downlink spectrum at 1675-1695 MHz, which is 
allocated for Federal and non-Federal satellite use. The rules for the 
AWS-1 uplink band at 1710-1755 MHz include an OOBE attenuation limit of 
our standard 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB in order to protect 
satellite downlink spectrum currently below 1710 MHz. We believe that 
the services used in these adjacent AWS bands will be similar, and that 
the repurposing of 1695-1710 MHz essentially just shifts the boundary 
between AWS uplink and satellite downlink services down from 1710 to 
1695 MHz. We therefore propose to apply the same standard OOBE limit of 
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB to future AWS-3 operations at 1695-1710 
MHz with respect to spectrum below 1695 MHz. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits 
of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.
    89. Interference with operations above 1710 MHz. The 1695-1710 MHz 
AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710-1755 
MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in the adjacent AWS-3 
and AWS-1 uplink bands will be similar, we propose that the appropriate 
OOBE limit for the AWS-3 uplink band at 1695-1710 MHz is 43 + 10 
log10 (P) dB. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters 
should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any 
proposed alternative approaches.
    90. Interference with operations below 1755 MHz. The 1755-1780 MHz 
AWS-3 uplink band is also adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710 -
1755 MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in the adjacent 
AWS-3 and AWS-1 uplink bands will be similar, we again propose that the 
appropriate OOBE limit for the AWS-3 uplink band at 1755-1780 MHz is 43 
+ 10 log10 (P) dB. We seek comment on this proposal. 
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this 
proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

[[Page 51575]]

    91. Interference with operations above 1780 MHz. The 1755-1780 MHz 
AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to Federal operations at 1780-1850 MHz. 
We propose the standard OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB 
to address this adjacency, the same limit as the AWS-1 rules now 
provide for protecting Federal spectrum above 1755 MHz. Like the 
situation described in paragraph 88 above, where the boundary between 
AWS use and adjacent spectrum moves, but there is no significant change 
in the uses on either side of the boundary, we believe it is 
appropriate to maintain the existing OOBE limit at the new boundary. We 
seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify 
the costs and benefits of this proposal and any alternative approaches.
    92. Interference with operations below 2020 MHz. The 2020-2025 MHz 
AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-4/MSS uplink spectrum at 2000-2020 
MHz. The rules applicable to AWS-4 mobile stations operating in the 
2000-2020 MHz band include a general OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 
log10 (P) dB between the AWS-4 A and B blocks and above 2020 
MHz. We anticipate the services in the adjacent AWS-3 and AWS-4 bands 
will be similar in use. Accordingly we propose that the OOBE limits on 
operations in the 2020-2025 MHz band mirror those of AWS-4, i.e., 43 + 
10 log10 (P) dB below 2020 MHz. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits 
of this and any proposed alternative approaches.
    93. Interference with operations above 2025 MHz. The 2020-2025 MHz 
AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to the 2025-2110 MHz band, which includes 
BAS and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) operations, as well as 
certain Federal government operations. As noted above, for AWS-4 
uplinks at 2000-2020 MHz, the Commission recently adopted the 43 + 10 
log10 (P) standard above 2020 MHz. Prior to AWS-4, the same 
OOBE limit was applicable to 2000-2020 MHz MSS/ATC uplinks above 2020 
MHz. We also note that in the AWS-4 proceeding, the Engineers for the 
Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (``EIBASS'') stated 
that it did not object to a 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB OOBE 
attenuation factor above 2025 MHz from low power, mobile type devices. 
Accordingly, we propose to apply the standard 43 + 10 log10 
(P) OOBE limit above 2025 MHz and seek comment on this proposal. 
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this 
and any proposed alternative approaches, and whether the closer 
proximity of the 2020-2025 MHz band warrants any additional protection.
    94. Interference with Services in Other Bands--Base Stations 
Operating in 2155-2180 MHz. Interference with operations below 2155 MHz 
and above 2180 MHz: The 2155-2180 MHz AWS-3 downlink band is adjacent 
to the AWS-1 downlink spectrum at 2110-2155 MHz and to the AWS-4/MSS 
downlink spectrum at 2180-2200 MHz. Because we anticipate that 
operations in 2155-2180 MHz and in the adjacent downlink bands will be 
similar, we believe the standard attenuation factor of 43 + 10 
log10 (P) dB will be sufficient to protect AWS-1 and AWS-4/
MSS receivers operating in the bands adjacent to AWS-3. We seek comment 
on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and 
benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.
    95. Measurement of OOBE. To fully define an emissions limit, the 
Commission's rules generally specify how to measure the power of the 
emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth. For AWS-1 and AWS-4, the 
measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for 
fixed, mobile, and base stations is generally one megahertz, with some 
modification within the first megahertz. We believe that it is 
reasonable to apply this same procedure to all transmissions in the 
AWS-3 bands. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should 
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any 
proposed alternative approaches.
    96. Antenna Height Restrictions. We propose, as discussed below, 
that the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1 should 
generally also apply to AWS-3. Additionally, because we do not propose 
to authorize fixed operation in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz 
bands, we do not expect any special antenna height restrictions are 
needed for those bands.
    97. Base stations. Specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-1 
base stations are not set forth in Part 27 of our rules. However, all 
part 27 services are subject to Sec.  27.56, which bans antenna heights 
that would be a hazard to air navigation. Furthermore, the limitations 
of field strength at the geographical boundary of the license discussed 
below also effectively limit antenna heights. We similarly propose that 
no unique antenna height limits are needed for AWS-3 facilities; 
rather, we believe that the general height restrictions are sufficient. 
We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of 
the proposal and any alternatives.
    98. Fixed stations. Section 27.50(d)(4) specifies a height 
restriction of 10 meters for fixed stations operating in AWS-1 
spectrum, and was deemed necessary to protect Federal operations in the 
1710-1755 MHz and adjacent Federal bands. The height restriction was 
not applied to the AWS-4 band. Here, the 1695-1710 and 1755-1780 MHz 
bands are adjacent to the AWS-1 band and the Federal operations that 
necessitated a height limitation for AWS-1 fixed stations, whereas the 
2020-2025 MHz band is not. Moreover, in defining the Protection Zones, 
CSMAC's assumptions did not include commercial fixed uplinks. We 
therefore propose not to authorize fixed stations in the 1695-1710 MHz 
and 1755-1780 MHz bands; thus no height limit is necessary. We believe 
no such limit is necessary for fixed stations in the 2020-2025 MHz 
band, and we propose to apply the same rules that govern low-power 
fixed stations in the adjacent AWS-4 band. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of this 
proposal and of any proposed alternatives.
    99. Power Limits. As discussed below, we generally propose to apply 
existing AWS-1 power limits to the AWS-3 downlink and 2020-2025 MHz 
uplink bands, which CSMAC did not analyze. For AWS-3 uplink bands with 
NTIA recommended Protection Zones, within which commercial use must be 
coordinated successfully with Federal users prior to operation, CSMAC 
made technical assumptions about commercial operations that are set 
forth in Appendix 3 of the WG1 Final Report. Specifically, CSMAC 
assumed baseline LTE uplink characteristics. We are not proposing 
technical rules to require AWS-3 licensees to comply with any 
particular industry standard such as LTE. Nonetheless, we believe some 
technical rules must accommodate CSMAC's assumptions, or the Protection 
Zones might have to be redrawn.
    100. Base Stations. The current AWS-1 and AWS-4 rules limit base 
station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for emission 
bandwidths less than one megahertz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for 
emission bandwidths greater than one megahertz, and double these limits 
(3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. The same limits 
apply to broadband PCS stations, and in our experience have provided 
good service while avoiding harmful interference. Further, the higher 
power limit for rural areas may promote the Commission's goals of 
furthering rural deployment of broadband services.

[[Page 51576]]

Therefore, we propose that Sec.  27.50(d)(1)-(2), which set the power 
limits for AWS-1 and AWS-4 base stations, should also apply to AWS-3 
base stations operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band. We seek comment on 
this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any 
alternatives.
    101. The current AWS-1 rules also require that base stations with 
transmit power greater than the non-rural limits described above (1640 
Watts EIRP or 1640 watts/MHz EIRP) be coordinated with licensees in 
adjacent AWS blocks and Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees in the 
2150-2160 MHz band authorized within 120 kilometers (75 miles), and 
with satellite entities operating in the 2025-2110 MHz band. The AWS-4 
rules require similar coordination between adjacent AWS-4 blocks within 
120 kilometers, but do not require coordination with BRS or with 
satellite operators in the 2025-2110 MHz band because these bands are 
not adjacent to the AWS-4 uplink band. As AWS-3 base station operations 
will be co-channel with BRS and directly adjacent to the AWS-1 and AWS-
4 downlink bands, but situated at least 45 MHz away from the 2025-2110 
MHz satellite band, consistent with the rationale in the Commission's 
decision in the AWS-4 Service Rules R&O, we do not see a need to carry 
all of these requirements over to AWS-3. We propose that AWS-3 base 
stations with transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz 
EIRP be required to coordinate with the following licensees authorized 
to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed 
station operating in this band: all BRS licensees authorized in the 
2155-2160 MHz band and all AWS licensees authorized to operate on 
adjacent frequency blocks in the AWS-3 band, the 2110-2155 MHz band or 
the 2180-2200 MHz band. Because of the spectral separation between the 
2155-2180 MHz band and the 2025-2110 MHz satellite band, however, we do 
not propose to require coordination with these operators. We seek 
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the 
proposal and any alternatives.
    102. Mobile and Portable (handheld) Stations. The part 27 AWS rules 
specify a power limit of 1 watt EIRP for the AWS-1 uplink band, and 2 
watts EIRP for the AWS-4 uplink band. The lower AWS-1 power limit was 
intended to simplify coordination with Government operations that would 
remain in the 1710-1755 MHz band, a situation that the AWS-4 band did 
not present. The three AWS-3 uplink bands present the same distinction: 
the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands both contain Government 
operations, while the 2020-2025 MHz band does not. In other respects, 
we anticipate that the services in the AWS-3 bands will be similar to 
those in the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. The existence or not of Government 
operations, however, dictates different power limits. In particular, as 
described above, the Protection Zones that trigger coordination are 
based in part on CSMAC's assumption that typical commercial user 
equipment will be LTE devices. We further note that the LTE standard 
sets a maximum transmitter power output (TPO) of 23 dBm. CSMAC's 
analysis indicates that such devices will have an actual EIRP varying 
between -40 dBm and 20 dBm EIRP, due to power control and typical 
antenna gains/losses, and that it used these EIRP assumptions for the 
purpose of defining the Protection Zones. As stated above, in 
accordance with the Spectrum Act, the Commission intends to adopt 
flexible-use service rules for the AWS-3 band supporting terrestrial 
wireless service and we are not proposing to mandate the use of any 
industry standard. We note that similar commercial mobile services such 
as PCS, AWS-1 and the 700 MHz band deploy handsets using a variety of 
technologies, including CDMA and UMTS, as well as LTE, whose devices 
most commonly operate at a maximum EIRP of 23 dBm (200 mW) regardless 
of higher FCC power limits.
    103. Nonetheless, because the Protection Zones are based on typical 
LTE devices operating at a maximum EIRP of 20 dBm, we propose an EIRP 
power limit of 20 dBm (100 mW) for mobiles and portables (handhelds) 
operating in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands. The 
Commission's rules will govern all devices nationwide, rather than 
typical devices operating near the 27 Protection Zones. Therefore, we 
seek comment on whether an EIRP limit of 23 dBm would necessitate 
enlarging the Protection Zones, and if so, whether the benefits this 
higher power limit would outweigh the increased burden of having to 
coordinate more commercial operations with Federal incumbents. For 
mobiles and portables (handhelds) operating in the 2020-2025 MHz band, 
we propose a maximum of 2 watts EIRP. Regarding the latter proposal, we 
believe there is virtually no risk of overloading BAS receivers in the 
adjacent 2025-2110 MHz band given the likely separation distances, AWS-
3 mobile nominal transmit powers, steerable BAS antennas, and path 
losses. We further propose that mobile and portable stations operating 
in these bands must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum 
necessary for successful communications. We seek comment on these 
proposals, including the costs and benefits of the proposals and any 
alternatives.
    104. Co-Channel Interference between AWS-3 Systems. If we 
ultimately decide to license the AWS-3 bands on the basis of geographic 
service areas that are less than nationwide, we will have to ensure 
that such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel systems 
operating along common geographic borders. The current rules for AWS-1 
and AWS-4 address the possibility of harmful co-channel interference 
between geographically adjacent licenses by setting a field strength 
limit from base stations of 47 dB[mu]V/m at the edge of the license 
area. Due to the similarities between AWS-1, AWS-4, and AWS-3 spectrum 
use, we propose to amend Sec.  27.55(a)(1) to include the 2155-2180 MHz 
band.
    105. In recent filings in the H Block and Incentive Auctions 
proceedings, commenters have suggested that the boundary limit be 
adjusted to accommodate varying channel bandwidths. In the H Block 
proceeding, Sprint requested that the Commission modify the boundary 
limit to set a reference measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, with the aim 
of limiting boundary power density to the equivalent of that first 
applied to PCS systems in 1993. At that time, operators were deploying 
mostly Digital AMPS, PCS1900 and CDMA technologies, which had channel 
bandwidths of 30 kHz, 200 kHz and 1.25 MHz, respectively. Sprint claims 
that because today's LTE transmissions operate on much wider bandwidths 
up to 20 MHz, a 47 dB[mu]V/m limit measured over the full channel 
bandwidth will effectively result in a comparatively lower power level. 
Sprint proposed to adjust the field strength limit from 47 dB[mu]V/m to 
62 dB[mu]V/m per MHz. Verizon has made a similar claim in the Incentive 
Auctions proceeding, but proposed a field strength limit of 50 dB[mu]V/
m per MHz. Sprint further suggested that the boundary limits with 
Canada and Mexico should similarly be based on power density levels.
    106. We tentatively agree with Sprint that, in concept, a boundary 
limit that adjusts for large differences in channel bandwidths may be 
appropriate. The specific limit of 62 dB[mu]V/m per MHz proposed by 
Sprint may not be the optimal solution. Sprint derives the value for 
the field strength based on a comparison against a 30 kHz Digital AMPS 
signal. Other technologies may

[[Page 51577]]

provide a more appropriate reference upon which to base the value for 
the field strength. Also, there are other metrics that may be used to 
limit the signal at the boundary, such as power flux density. We 
observe that the Commission has already adopted a bandwidth-independent 
approach when setting boundary limits with Canada and Mexico. For 
example, certain international limits are expressed as a power flux 
density (i.e., dBW/m\2\/MHz), a measure of power, whereas field 
strength is a measurement of voltage.
    107. We seek comment on what the appropriate boundary limit should 
be. Should the limit be based on a field strength, a power flux 
density, or some other metric? What would the appropriate level be? We 
encourage all interested parties to explore this issue in this 
proceeding to develop a full record of the technical concerns and 
ramifications of such an approach. Please provide detailed technical 
analysis to support any proposed limit.
    108. Finally, we propose that adjacent affected area licensees may 
voluntarily agree upon higher field strength boundary levels. This 
concept is already codified in the field strength rules for both PCS 
and AWS services, as Sprint acknowledges. Accordingly, to maintain 
consistency with the PCS and other AWS bands, we propose to permit 
adjacent area licensees to agree to a higher field strength limit.
    109. Co-Channel Interference to BRS Channels 1 and 2. The AWS-1 
rules include provisions that protect BRS Channel 1 (2150-2156 MHz) and 
Channel 2 (2156-2160/62 MHz). Because these BRS channels will be co-
channel to licenses in the AWS-3 downlink band at 2155-2180 MHz, we 
propose that the same AWS-1 provisions in Sec. Sec.  27.1132 and 
27.1255 be applied to future AWS-3 licensees operating in the 2155-2180 
MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should address 
the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternatives.
    110. Canadian and Mexican Coordination. Section 27.57(c) of our 
rules indicates that AWS-1 and AWS-4 operations are subject to 
international agreements with Mexico and Canada. We propose to apply 
the same limitation to the AWS-3 band. Until such time as any adjusted 
agreements between the United States, Mexico, and/or Canada can be 
agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across the 
border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force. 
We note that further modification (of the proposed or final rules) 
might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with 
Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. We seek comment on 
this issue, including the costs and benefits of alternative approaches 
to this issue.
    111. Other Technical Issues. General Part 27 rules: There are 
several additional technical rules applicable to all part 27 services, 
including Sec. Sec.  27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 
27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation 
safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. 
As AWS-3 will be a part 27 service, we propose that all of these 
general part 27 rules should apply to all AWS-3 licensees, including 
licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or 
disaggregation (to the extent the rules permit such aggregation). We 
seek comment on this approach, including its costs and benefits.
    112. Receiver Performance. We invite comment on any potential for 
receiver overload interference between AWS-3 operations and non-AWS 
operations below 1695 MHz, above 1780 MHz, above 2025 MHz, and above 
2180 MHz. If such a risk exists, we request that parties provide 
whatever information may be available about the characteristics of the 
receivers operating or likely in the future to operate in these 
frequencies, potential solutions to overload interference, and an 
assessment of the impact this might have on deployment of AWS-3 
service. We also invite comment on any other receiver issues that 
should be considered in this proceeding that could affect the potential 
for harmful interference to adjacent channel receivers and usability of 
the AWS-3 spectrum.

Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues

    113. We are proposing licensing and operating rules that will 
provide AWS-3 licensees with the flexibility to provide any fixed or 
mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for this 
spectrum. Specifically, we are seeking comment on the appropriate 
license term, criteria for renewal, and other licensing and operating 
rules pertaining to the AWS-3 band. In addition, we seek comment on the 
potential impact of all of our proposals on competition. In addressing 
these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and benefits 
associated with these proposals and any alternative that commenters 
propose.
    114. Assignment of Licenses. The Spectrum Act states that the 
Commission shall grant new initial licenses for the 1695-1710 MHz and 
2155-2180 MHz bands, and 15 additional megahertz of contiguous spectrum 
to be identified by the Commission, through a system of competitive 
bidding pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act. 
Additionally, for all AWS-3 bands, including 1755-1780 MHz and 2020-
2025 MHz, we propose to license on a geographic area basis, which will 
permit the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. As such, we 
propose to resolve all AWS-3 applications and assign licenses through 
competitive bidding consistent with our statutory mandate. We seek 
comment in paragraphs 148-158 below on our proposals regarding the 
competitive bidding rules that would apply to license assignments in 
these bands.
    115. Flexible Use. Consistent with the Spectrum Act's mandate to 
license under flexible use service rules, we propose service rules that 
permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-Federal use 
permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations, subject 
to the Commission's part 27 flexible use and other applicable rules 
(including service rules to avoid harmful interference). Part 27 
licensees must also comply with other Commission rules of general 
applicability. Thus, we propose that the spectrum may be used for any 
fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for the 
band. If commenters think any restrictions are warranted, they should 
describe why such restrictions are needed, quantify the costs and 
benefits of any such restrictions, and describe how such restrictions 
would comport with the statutory mandates of section 6401 of the 
Spectrum Act.
    116. Regulatory Framework: Consistent with the proposed flexible 
use of the AWS-3 band, we also propose licensing the spectrum under the 
flexible regulatory framework of part 27 of our rules. Unlike other 
rule parts applicable to specific services, part 27 does not prescribe 
a comprehensive set of licensing and operating rules for the spectrum 
to which it applies. Rather, for each frequency band under its 
umbrella, part 27 defines permissible uses and any limitations thereon, 
and specifies basic licensing requirements. We believe that our part 27 
rules are consistent with the Spectrum Act's requirement for 
``flexible-use service rules.'' We seek comment on our proposal to 
license the AWS-3 band under part 27 service and licensing rules, and 
any associated costs or benefits of doing so.
    117. Regulatory Status: We propose to apply the regulatory status 
provisions of Sec.  27.10 of the Commission's rules to

[[Page 51578]]

licensees in the AWS-3 band. The Commission's current mobile service 
license application requires an applicant for mobile services to 
identify the regulatory status of the service(s) it intends to provide 
because service offerings may bear on eligibility and other statutory 
and regulatory requirements. Under part 27, the Commission permits 
applicants who may wish to provide both common carrier and non-common 
carrier services (or to switch between them) under a single license to 
request status as both a common carrier and a non-common carrier. Thus, 
a part 27 applicant is not required to choose between providing common 
carrier and non-common carrier services. We propose to adopt this same 
approach here. Licensees in the AWS-3 band would be able to provide all 
allowable services anywhere within their licensed area at any time, 
consistent with their regulatory status. We note that to the extent a 
licensee provides a Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such service would 
be subject to the provisions of Part 20 of the Commission's rules. We 
believe that this approach is likely to achieve efficiencies in the 
licensing and administrative process, and provide flexibility to the 
marketplace. We seek comment on the appropriate licensing approach and 
ask that commenters discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed 
licensing approach.
    118. We further propose that applicants and licensees in the AWS-3 
band be required to indicate a regulatory status for any services they 
choose to provide. Apart from this designation of regulatory status, we 
do not propose to require applicants to describe the services they seek 
to provide. We caution potential applicants that an election to provide 
service on a common carrier basis typically requires that the elements 
of common carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-
common carrier status. If potential applicants are unsure of the nature 
of their services and their classification as common carrier services, 
they may submit a petition with their applications, or at any time, 
requesting clarification and including service descriptions for that 
purpose. We propose to apply this framework to AWS-3 licensees and seek 
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of this 
proposal.
    119. We also propose that if a licensee were to change the service 
or services it offers such that it would be inconsistent with its 
regulatory status, the licensee must notify the Commission. A change in 
a licensee's regulatory status would not require prior Commission 
authorization, provided the licensee was in compliance with the foreign 
ownership requirements of section 310(b) of the Communications Act that 
would apply as a result of the change, consistent with the Commission's 
rules for AWS-1 and AWS-4 spectrum. Consistent with our part 27 rules, 
we propose to require licensees to file the notification within 30 days 
of a change made without the need for prior Commission approval, except 
that a different time period may apply where the change results in the 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the existing service. We 
seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits.
    120. Foreign Ownership Reporting. We propose to apply the 
provisions of section 27.12 of the Commission's rules to applicants for 
licenses in the AWS-3 band. Section 27.12 implements section 310 of the 
Communications Act, including foreign ownership and citizenship 
requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to certain 
applicants. An applicant requesting authorization to provide services 
in this band other than broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en 
route, and aeronautical fixed services would be subject to the 
restrictions in section 310(a), but not to the additional restrictions 
in section 310(b). An applicant requesting authorization for broadcast, 
common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical fixed services 
would be subject to both sections 310(a) and 310(b). We do not believe 
that applicants for this band should be subject to different 
obligations in reporting their foreign ownership based on the type of 
service authorization requested in the application. Consequently, we 
propose to require all applicants to provide the same foreign ownership 
information, which covers both sections 310(a) and 310(b), regardless 
of which service they propose to provide in the band. We note, however, 
that we would be unlikely to deny a license to an applicant requesting 
to provide exclusively services that are not subject to section 310(b), 
solely because its foreign ownership would disqualify it from receiving 
a license if the applicant had applied for authority to provide such 
services. However, if any such licensee later desires to provide any 
services that are subject to the restrictions in section 310(b) we 
would require the licensee to apply to the Commission for an amended 
license, and we would consider issues related to foreign ownership at 
that time. We request comment on this proposal, including any costs and 
benefits.
    121. Eligibility. For the AWS-3 band, we propose to adopt an open 
eligibility standard and seek comment on this approach. In particular, 
we seek comment on whether adopting an open eligibility standard for 
the licensing of the AWS-3 band would encourage efforts to develop new 
technologies, products, and services, while helping to ensure efficient 
use of this spectrum. We note that an open eligibility approach would 
not affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable 
qualifications that may apply under our rules. Additionally, section 
6004 of the Spectrum Act restricts participation in auctions required 
under the Spectrum Act, which will include most of the AWS-3 band, by 
``person[s] who [have] been, for reasons of national security, barred 
by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, 
participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.'' In the Incentive 
Auctions NPRM and in the H Block NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether section 6004 permits or requires the Commission to restrict 
eligibility of persons acquiring licenses on the secondary market, 
whether and to what extent such a restriction is consistent with other 
provisions of the Communications Act, and what procedures and rules, if 
any, should apply to persons acquiring licenses on the secondary 
market. Recently, in the H Block R&O, the Commission adopted an 
eligibility rule providing that ``[a] person described in 47 U.S.C. 
1404(c) is ineligible to hold a license that is required by 47 U.S.C. 
Chapter 13 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. 
L. 112-96, 125 Stat. 156 (2012)) to be assigned by a system of 
competitive bidding under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 
U.S.C. 309(j).'' We note that this revised eligibility restriction will 
govern most of the AWS-3 spectrum.
    122. Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies. We seek comment generally on 
whether and how to address any mobile spectrum holdings issues 
involving AWS-3 spectrum in order to meet our statutory requirements 
and our goals for the AWS-3 band. Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the 
Communications Act provides that, in designing systems of competitive 
bidding, the Commission shall ``promot[e] economic opportunity and 
competition and ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies are 
readily accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive 
concentration of licenses.'' More recently, section 6404 of the 
Spectrum Act recognizes the Commission's authority ``to adopt and

[[Page 51579]]

enforce rules of general applicability, including rules concerning 
spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' In September, 2012, we 
initiated a proceeding to revisit the mobile spectrum holdings policies 
that apply to both transactions and auctions, including which spectrum 
bands are relevant to our competitive analysis. The Commission also has 
sought comment on some mobile spectrum holdings issues with respect to 
particular spectrum bands in service rulemakings.
    123. We seek comment on whether the acquisition of each of the 
various bands identified in this proceeding for potential AWS-3 
spectrum should be subject to the same general mobile spectrum holding 
policies applicable to frequency bands that the Commission has found to 
be suitable and available for mobile telephony/broadband services. 
Alternatively, depending on the specific service rules and requirements 
that will apply to AWS-3 spectrum, should we distinguish AWS-3 spectrum 
for purposes of evaluating mobile spectrum holdings? Commenters should 
discuss and quantify any costs and benefits associated with any 
proposals on the applicability of spectrum holdings policies to AWS-3 
spectrum.
2. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Criteria, Permanent 
Discontinuance of Operations
    124. License Term: We propose to establish a 10-year term for 
licenses for the AWS-3 band. The Communications Act does not specify a 
term limit for AWS band licenses. The Commission has adopted 10-year 
license terms for most wireless radio services licenses. To maintain 
this consistency among wireless services, in the H Block R&O and the 
AWS-4 Service Rules R&O, the Commission adopted 10-year license terms. 
We continue to believe that a 10-year license term is appropriate, and 
consequently propose, a 10-year license term for the AWS-3 spectrum. We 
seek comment on this proposal, including any costs and benefits of the 
proposal. In addition, we invite commenters to submit alternate 
proposals for the appropriate license term, which should similarly 
include a discussion on the costs and benefits.
    125. Under our license term proposal, if a license in these bands 
is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would 
be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the 
partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. This approach 
is similar to the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for 
BRS, for broadband PCS, for the 700 MHz band, and for AWS-1 licenses at 
1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz, and AWS-4. We emphasize that nothing 
in our proposal is intended to enable a licensee, by partitioning or 
disaggregating the license, to confer greater rights than it was 
awarded under the terms of its license grant. Similarly, nothing in our 
proposal is intended to enable any partitionee or disaggregatee to 
obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed by the underlying 
licensee. We seek comment on these proposals, including the cost and 
benefits thereof.
    126. Performance Requirements: The Commission establishes 
performance requirements to promote the efficient deployment of 
wireless services, including to rural areas, and to ensure that 
spectrum is used. Over the years, the Commission has applied different 
performance and construction requirements to different spectrum bands 
based on considerations relevant to those bands. For example, within 
four (4) years, an AWS-4 licensee must provide reliable terrestrial 
signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least forty (40) 
percent of its total AWS-4 population. Within seven (7) years, an AWS-4 
licensee must provide reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer 
terrestrial service to at least seventy (70) percent of the population 
in each of its license areas. Similarly, for licensees operating in the 
2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services (WCS) band, the Commission 
adopted performance requirements that included population-based 
construction requirements (40 percent of the license area's population 
within four (4) years and 75 percent within six-and-a-half (6.5) years) 
and reporting requirements. More recently, in the H Block R&O, the 
Commission required licensees within four (4) years to provide reliable 
signal coverage and offer service to at least forty (40) percent of the 
population in each of its license areas and within ten (10) years, 
provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least seventy-
five (75) percent of the population in each of its license areas.
    127. We continue to believe that performance requirements play a 
critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow, 
and now propose to establish the following performance requirements. We 
seek comment on the following buildout requirements for the AWS-3 band:
     AWS-3 Interim Buildout Requirement: Within four (4) years, 
an AWS-3 licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer 
service to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its 
license areas.
     AWS-3 Final Buildout Requirement: By the end of the 
license term, i.e., within ten (10) years, an AWS-3 licensee shall 
provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least seventy-
five (75) percent of the population in each of its license areas.
    128. We propose these performance requirements in an effort to 
foster deployment expeditiously in the AWS-3 band for the provision of 
wireless, terrestrial broadband service, and to enable the Commission 
to take appropriate corrective action should such deployment fail to 
occur. Specifically, the interim benchmark at four years would ensure 
that a licensee begins deploying facilities quickly, thereby evidencing 
meaningful utilization of the spectrum. At the same time, by proposing 
a relatively low population threshold in the interim benchmark, we 
acknowledge that large-scale network deployment may ramp up over time 
as equipment becomes available and a customer base is established. In 
addition, by proposing a final buildout requirement timeline of ten 
years, we believe we allow a reasonable amount of time for any AWS-3 
licensee to attain nationwide scale.
    129. We seek comment on these proposed buildout requirements. We 
encourage comment on whether our proposals represent the appropriate 
balance between requirements that are too low as to not result in 
meaningful buildout and those that would be so high as to be 
unattainable. We also seek comment on whether other benchmarks 
represent more appropriate requirements. In particular, are there 
appropriate performance benchmarks for any AWS-3 uplink spectrum paired 
with downlink spectrum in a band other than AWS-3? In this event, 
should the performance requirements applicable to that downlink band 
apply? How should we account for the areas where Federal use limits or 
prohibits AWS-3 use? We also seek comment on alternative methodologies 
for measuring population coverage requirements in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Commenters should discuss and quantify how any supported buildout 
requirements will affect investment and innovation as well as discuss 
and quantify other costs and benefits associated with the proposal.
    130. Penalties for Failure to Meet Construction Requirements. Along 
with construction benchmarks, we seek to adopt meaningful and 
enforceable consequences, or penalties, for failing to meet the 
benchmarks. Building on what we have learned from other bands and

[[Page 51580]]

considering the unique characteristics of the AWS-3 band, we propose 
and seek comment, including on the costs and benefits, of the following 
penalties in the event an AWS-3 licensee fails to satisfy its buildout 
requirements:
     In the event an AWS-3 licensee fails to meet the AWS-3 
Interim Buildout Requirement in its license area, the term of the 
license shall be reduced by two years.
     In the event an AWS-3 licensee fails to meet the AWS-3 
Final Buildout Requirement in its license area, the AWS-3 licensee for 
each license area in which it fails to meet the buildout requirement 
shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
    131. We further propose that, in the event a licensee's authority 
to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would become 
available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding 
provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's 
rules for other spectrum bands, including AWS-1 and the BRS, we propose 
that any AWS-3 licensee who forfeits its license for failure to meet 
its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the 
license.
    132. Compliance Procedures. Consistent with Sec.  1.946(d) of the 
Commission's rules, we propose to require AWS-3 licensees to 
demonstrate compliance with the performance requirements by filing a 
construction notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone 
certifying that they have met the applicable performance benchmark. 
Further, we propose that each construction notification include 
electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, which must be 
truthful and accurate and must not omit material information that is 
necessary for the Commission to determine compliance with its 
performance requirements.
    133. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries 
of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee 
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, we 
propose that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area 
or areas within each license area not being served. Further, we propose 
that each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying 
the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its 
service territory and the type of technology used to provide such 
service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to 
create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the 
signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the 
licensee's technology.
    134. Renewal Criteria: Pursuant to section 308(b) of the 
Communications Act, the Commission may require renewal applicants to 
``set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as 
to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other 
qualifications of the applicant to operate the station'' as well as 
``such other information as it may require.'' We propose to adopt AWS-3 
license renewal requirements consistent with those adopted in the 700 
MHz First Report and Order, the AWS-4 Report and Order, and the H Block 
R&O. We emphasize that, as the Commission made clear in these 
proceedings, a licensee's performance showing and its renewal showing 
are two distinct showings. A performance showing provides a snapshot in 
time of the level of a licensee's service, while a renewal showing 
provides information regarding the level and types of service provided 
over the entire license term. As the Commission has emphasized, a 
licensee that meets the applicable performance requirements might 
nevertheless fail to meet the renewal requirements.
    135. We propose that applicants for renewal of AWS-3 licenses file 
a ``renewal showing,'' in which they demonstrate that they have been 
and are continuing to provide service to the public (or, if consistent 
with the licensee's regulatory status, it is using the spectrum for 
private, internal communication), and substantially complying with the 
Communications Act and the Commission's rules and policies. We propose 
to apply to AWS-3 the same renewal showing requirement recently adopted 
for the H Block. Specifically, we adopt the following renewal criteria 
requirements. We require the renewal showing to include a detailed 
description of the renewal applicant's provision of service during the 
entire license period and discuss: (1) The level and quality of service 
provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area 
served, the number of subscribers, the services offered); (2) the date 
service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the 
duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service 
is provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided 
to qualifying Tribal land as defined in Sec.  1.2110(e)(3)(i) of the 
Commission's rules; and (5) any other factors associated with the level 
of service to the public.
    136. As explained above, today we are proposing that AWS-3 
licensees meet four and ten-year performance obligations. We seek 
comment on whether the public interest would be served by awarding AWS-
3 licensees renewal expectancies where they have (1) maintained at 
least the level of service required at the four year performance 
benchmark over the next six years while increasing service levels 
towards compliance with the end-of-term benchmark, (2) met the final 
(ten year) benchmark, and (3) otherwise complied with the 
Communications Act and the Commission's rules and policies during their 
license term. We also seek comment on whether AWS-3 licensees should 
obtain a renewal expectancy at the end of subsequent license terms, if 
they continue to provide at least the level of service required at the 
ten year performance benchmark through the end of any subsequent 
license terms. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and 
benefits of this approach.
    137. Finally, consistent with the AWS-4 Report and Order, the 700 
MHz First Report and Order and the H Block R&O, we propose to prohibit 
the filing of mutually exclusive renewal applications, and that if a 
license is not renewed, the associated spectrum would be returned to 
the Commission and subsequently made available for assignment. We seek 
comment on these proposals, including on the associated costs and 
benefits.
    138. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations: We also request 
comment on the Commission's rules governing the permanent 
discontinuance of operations, which are intended to afford licensees 
operational flexibility to use their spectrum efficiently while 
ensuring that spectrum does not lie idle for extended periods. Under 
Sec.  1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, an authorization will 
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service 
is ``permanently discontinued.'' For the AWS-3 band, for providers that 
identify their regulatory status as common carrier or non-common 
carrier, we propose to define ``permanently discontinued'' as a period 
of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not provide 
service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, 
controlled by, or related to, the provider in an EA (or smaller service 
area in the case of a partitioned EA license). This approach is 
consistent with the definition that the Commission has adopted for the 
H Block and the AWS-4 band. We propose a different approach, however, 
for licensees that use their licenses for private, internal 
communications, because such licensees generally do not provide

[[Page 51581]]

service to unaffiliated subscribers. For such private, internal 
communications, we propose to define ``permanent discontinuance'' as a 
period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not 
operate. Licensees would not be subject to this requirement until the 
date of the first performance requirement benchmark, which is proposed 
as four years from the date of license grant, so they will have 
adequate time to construct their network. In addition, consistent with 
Sec.  1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, we propose that, if an 
AWS-3 licensee permanently discontinues service, the licensee must 
notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing 
FCC Form 601 and requesting license cancellation. An authorization will 
automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service 
is permanently discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the 
required form. We seek comment on these proposals, including the 
associated costs and benefits.
3. Secondary Markets
    139. Partitioning and Disaggregation: The Commission's part 27 
rules generally allow for geographic partitioning and spectrum 
disaggregation. Geographic partitioning refers to the assignment of 
geographic portions of a license to another licensee along geopolitical 
or other boundaries. Spectrum disaggregation refers to the assignment 
of discrete amounts of spectrum under the license to another entity. 
Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic 
area operated by different companies on adjacent frequencies in the 
same band. As the Commission noted when first establishing partitioning 
and disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate 
the efficient use of spectrum by enabling licensees to make offerings 
directly responsive to market demands for particular types of services, 
increasing competition by allowing market entry by new entrants, and 
expediting provision of services that might not otherwise be provided 
in the near term.
    140. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by 
licensees in the AWS-3 band. To ensure that the public interest would 
be served if partitioning or disaggregation is allowed, we propose 
requiring each AWS-3 licensee that is a party to a partitioning, 
disaggregation, or combination of both to independently meet the 
applicable performance and renewal requirements. We believe this 
approach would facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling 
service providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum 
blocks to meet their operational needs. We seek comment on these 
proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and 
benefits of these proposals with respect to competition, innovation, 
and investment.
    141. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt 
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or 
disaggregation of AWS-3 spectrum and the extent to which such policies 
ultimately may promote more service, especially in rural areas. 
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of 
promoting more service using mechanisms to encourage partitioning and 
disaggregation of AWS-3 spectrum, including the effects of the 
proposal.
    142. Spectrum Leasing: In 2003, in order to promote more efficient 
use of terrestrial wireless spectrum through secondary market 
transactions, while also eliminating regulatory uncertainty, the 
Commission adopted a comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern 
spectrum leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and 
spectrum lessees. These policies and rules enable terrestrially based 
Wireless Radio Service licensees holding ``exclusive use'' spectrum 
rights to lease some or all of the spectrum usage rights associated 
with their licenses to third party spectrum lessees, which then are 
permitted to provide wireless services consistent with the underlying 
license authorization. Through these actions, the Commission sought to 
promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the terrestrial 
spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services and devices, 
enhance economic opportunities for accessing spectrum, and promote 
competition among terrestrial wireless service providers. In 2004, the 
Commission built upon this spectrum leasing framework by establishing 
immediate approval procedures for certain categories of terrestrial 
spectrum leasing arrangements and extending the spectrum leasing 
policies to additional Wireless Radio Services.
    143. We propose that the spectrum leasing policies and rules 
established in those proceedings be applied to the AWS-3 in the same 
manner that those policies apply to other part 27 services. We seek 
comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss the effects on 
competition, innovation and investment, and on extending our secondary 
spectrum leasing policies and rules to the AWS-3 band.
    144. Other Operating Requirements: Even though licenses in the AWS-
3 band may be issued pursuant to one rule part, licensees in this band 
may be required to comply with rules contained in other parts of the 
Commission's rules by virtue of the particular services they provide. 
For example:
     Applicants and licensees may be subject to the application 
filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set forth in part 
1 of our rules.
     Licensees may be required to comply with the practices and 
procedures listed in part 1 of our rules for license applications, 
petitions for declaratory ruling under section 310(b), adjudicatory 
proceedings, etc.
     Licensees may be required to comply with the Commission's 
environmental provisions, including Sec.  1.1307.
     Licensees may be required to comply with the antenna 
structure provisions of part 17 of our rules.
     To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service (CMRS), we propose that such service would be subject to 
the provisions of part 20 of the Commission's rules, including 911/E911 
and hearing aid-compatibility requirements, along with the provisions 
in the rule part under which the license was issued. Part 20 applies to 
all CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed under 
other parts of our rules.
     To the extent a licensee provides interconnected VoIP 
services, we propose that the licensee would be subject to the E911 
service requirements set forth in Part 9 of our rules.
    145. The application of general provisions of parts 22, 24, 27, or 
101 would include rules related to equal employment opportunity, etc.
    146. We seek comment on whether these provisions should apply to 
AWS-3 licensees and, if so, whether we need to modify any of these 
rules to ensure that AWS-3 licensees are covered under the necessary 
provisions. We seek comment on applying these rules to the AWS-3 
spectrum and specifically on any rules that would be affected by our 
proposal to apply elements of the framework of these parts, whether 
separately or in conjunction with other requirements. What are the 
potential problems that may be associated with the Commission's 
adoption of any of these potential requirements, and how do they 
compare to the potential benefits?
    147. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service 
to Tribal Lands. The Commission currently has under consideration 
various provisions and policies intended to promote greater

[[Page 51582]]

use of spectrum over Tribal lands. We propose to extend any rules and 
policies adopted in that proceeding to any license that may be issued 
through competitive bidding in this proceeding. We seek comment on this 
proposal, including any costs and benefits.
    148. Competitive Bidding Procedures. As discussed above, the 
Spectrum Act requires the Commission to grant new initial licenses for 
the use of spectrum in certain specified frequency bands through a 
system of competitive bidding. We will therefore assign licenses in the 
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands through 
competitive bidding. In addition, because we propose to license the 
2020-2025 MHz band on a geographic area basis, which procedure will 
permit the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, we will also 
resolve such applications through competitive bidding consistent with 
our statutory mandate. Accordingly, we seek comment on a number of 
proposals relating to competitive bidding for licenses for spectrum in 
these bands. We also note below that we have recently amended our rules 
to require an additional certification that will be required of 
applicants in any short-form application to participate in competitive 
bidding for licenses in certain AWS-3 bands at issue herein.
    149. Application of part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules. We propose 
that the Commission would conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum 
in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz 
bands in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set 
forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and 
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that 
have been employed in previous auctions. Specifically, we propose to 
employ the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, 
designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and 
payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on 
certain communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, 
such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission 
may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the 
future. We also seek comment on whether any of our part 1 rules would 
be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in 
these frequency bands.
    150. Revision to part 1 Certification Procedures. Section 6004 of 
the Spectrum Act prohibits ``a person who has been, for reasons of 
national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from 
bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a 
grant'' from participating in a system of competitive bidding under 
section 309(j) required to be conducted under Title VI of the Spectrum 
Act. In the H Block Report and Order, the Commission implemented this 
Spectrum Act mandate by adding a national security certification to the 
various other certifications that a party must make in any short-form 
application to participate in competitive bidding as required under our 
existing rules. Accordingly, an applicant to participate in an auction 
offering licenses for spectrum in the AWS-3 bands required by the 
Spectrum Act to be assigned by auction will be required to certify, 
under penalty of perjury, that it and all of the related individuals 
and entities required to be disclosed on the short-form application are 
not persons who have ``been, for reasons of national security, barred 
by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, 
participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.'' For purposes of 
this certification, ``person'' is defined as an individual, 
partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation, 
and ``reasons of national security'' is defined to mean matters 
relating to the national defense and foreign relations of the United 
States. As with other required certifications, failure to include the 
required certification by the applicable filing deadline would render 
the application unacceptable for filing, and the application would be 
dismissed with prejudice.
    151. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses. In 
authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress 
mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small businesses, rural 
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups 
and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of 
spectrum-based services.'' In addition, section 309(j)(3)(B) of the 
Communications Act provides that, in establishing eligibility criteria 
and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall seek to promote a 
number of objectives, including ``economic opportunity and competition 
. . . by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by 
disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including 
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women.'' One of the principal means by 
which the Commission fulfills this mandate is through the award of 
bidding credits to small businesses.
    152. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility 
requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking 
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each 
particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. Further, 
in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission, while 
standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a 
service-by-service approach to defining small businesses.
    153. In the event that the Commission assigns geographic area 
licenses for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 
MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, we believe that this spectrum would be 
employed for purposes similar to those for which spectrum in the AWS-1 
band is used. We therefore propose to establish the same small business 
size standards and associated bidding credits for these bands as the 
Commission adopted for the AWS-1 band. These small business size 
standards and associated bidding credits were adopted for the AWS-1 
band because of the similarities between the AWS-1 service and the 
broadband PCS service. The Commission also followed this approach when 
proposing small business size standards and associated bidding credits 
in the AWS-2 NPRM and H Block NPRM, and when adopting them in the AWS-4 
Service Rules R&O. Thus, we propose to define a small business as an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years 
not exceeding $40 million, and a very small business as an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. We seek comment on this proposal, including the 
costs and benefits associated with the proposal.
    154. We propose to provide small businesses with a bidding credit 
of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 
percent, as set forth in the standardized schedule in part 1 of our 
rules. We seek comment on the use of these standards and associated 
bidding credits, with particular focus on the appropriate definitions 
of small businesses and very small businesses as they may relate to the 
size of the geographic area to be served and the spectrum allocated to 
each license. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs or 
benefits associated with these standards and associated bidding credits 
as they relate to the proposed geographic areas.

[[Page 51583]]

In discussing these issues, commenters are requested to address and 
quantify the expected capital requirements for services in these bands 
and other characteristics of the service. Commenters are also invited 
to use comparisons with other frequency bands for which the Commission 
has already established service rules as a basis for their comments and 
any quantification of costs and benefits regarding the appropriate 
small business size standards.
    155. In establishing the criteria for small business bidding 
credits, we acknowledge the difficulty in accurately predicting the 
technology and market conditions that will exist at the time these 
frequencies are licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of services that 
will be offered over these bands may require adjustment depending upon 
ongoing technological developments and changes in market conditions.
    156. We seek comment on whether the small business provisions we 
propose today are sufficient to promote participation by businesses 
owned by minorities and women, as well as rural telephone companies. To 
the extent that commenters propose additional provisions to ensure 
participation by minority-owned or women-owned businesses, they should 
address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant 
standards of judicial review.
    157. We also seek comment on whether to use a different approach to 
bidding credits. To the extent commenters support a different approach 
to bidding credits than those discussed here, they should support their 
proposals with relevant information, including costs and benefits of 
their alternative proposals on the types of system architecture that 
are likely to be deployed in these bands, the availability of 
equipment, market conditions, and other factors that may affect the 
capital requirements of the types of services that may be provided.
    158. Finally, we note that under our part 1 rules, a winning bidder 
for a market will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for serving a 
qualifying tribal land within that market, provided that it complies 
with the applicable competitive bidding rules. The Commission currently 
has under consideration various provisions and policies intended to 
promote greater use of spectrum over tribal lands. We propose to extend 
any rules and policies adopted in that proceeding to any licenses in 
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz 
bands that may be assigned through competitive bidding. We seek comment 
on this proposal.
    159. Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act Requirements. As noted 
above, the CSEA established the SRF to reimburse Federal agencies 
operating on certain frequencies that have been reallocated from 
Federal to non-Federal use for the cost of relocating their operations. 
The SRF is funded from cash proceeds attributable to ``eligible 
frequencies'' in an auction involving such frequencies. CSEA requires 
NTIA to notify the Commission of estimated relocation costs and 
timelines for relocation from eligible frequencies by eligible Federal 
entities at least six months in advance of a scheduled auction of 
eligible frequencies. CSEA further requires that the total cash 
proceeds from any auction of ``eligible frequencies'' must equal at 
least 110 percent of estimated relocation costs of eligible Federal 
entities, and prohibits the Commission from concluding any auction of 
eligible frequencies that falls short of this revenue requirement. We 
invite comment on the applicability of the 110 percent requirement in 
the CSEA to the various relocation and sharing scenarios discussed 
herein. We also note that the proceeds of spectrum required to be 
auctioned under section 6401 of the Spectrum Act are to be deposited in 
the Public Safety Trust Fund established under section 6413 of the 
Spectrum Act. Commenters may wish to discuss the potential interplay 
between these Spectrum Act provisions and the CSEA.
    160. Multi-Stage Auction and Licensing Alternatives for 1.7 GHz. We 
recognize that the Federal/non-Federal sharing scenarios being 
considered by CSMAC are very complex and workable rules may prove 
difficult to implement prior to the licensing deadlines imposed by the 
Spectrum Act. Therefore, we seek comment on alternative licensing 
constructs that could facilitate ongoing ``operator-to-operator'' 
negotiations between licensees in commercial bands (e.g., 2155 MHz) and 
Federal agencies occupying complementary Federal bands (e.g., 1.7 GHz), 
should sharing or relocation for exclusive use not be possible.
    161. We expect that such approaches would contain a licensing 
component, which would provide that licensees in the commercial bands 
are granted an exclusive license for the shared Federal/non-Federal 
band with all non-Federal operations subject to successful coordination 
with all Federal operators. They might also contain a mechanism to 
allow for the conveyance of funds to facilitate commercial access in a 
manner consistent with applicable laws, including, but not limited to, 
the CSEA and the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.
    162. For example, under this scenario, could the license for the 
commercial bands be paired with an ``overlay'' license in Federal bands 
providing that commercial use of such bands would be entirely 
contingent upon successful coordination with incumbent Federal users? 
Alternatively, could the commercial licenses grant to the licensee 
exclusive eligibility status with respect to a future assignment of 
rights in such Federal bands? Could an auction proceed in two stages, 
to enable the initial assignment of a ``negotiation right'' and 
subsequent payments into the Spectrum Relocation Fund to facilitate 
relocation or upgrades pursuant to the CSEA? For example, the first 
stage could assign commercial licenses and any concomitant rights to 
negotiate with incumbent Federal users for the use of Federal spectrum. 
The second stage would consist of a supplementary round with 
participation limited to eligible commercial licensees, and a reserve 
price set based on the 110 percent funding requirement established by 
the CSEA. What approaches would generate the most certainty, and 
therefore expected value, in the use of the spectrum?

Non-Federal Relocation and Cost Sharing

    163. 2155-2180 MHz. There are two non-Federal incumbent services 
still authorized in portions of the 2155-2180 MHz band: There are 
approximately 250 Fixed Microwave Service (``FS'') licenses in the 
2160-2180 MHz band and approximately five BRS licensees in the 2150-
2160/62 MHz band. The FS operations in the 2160-2180 MHz band are 
typically configured to provide two-way microwave communications using 
paired links in the 2110-2130 MHz band. While few BRS systems remain, 
in the past BRS systems were deployed via three types of system 
configurations: high-power video stations, high-power fixed two-way 
systems, and low-power, cellularized two-way systems. Under the 
Commission's rules, AWS licensees in these bands must protect incumbent 
operations or relocate the incumbent licensees to comparable 
facilities, until the applicable ``sunset date,'' after which the 
incumbents must cease operating if the AWS licensee intends to operate 
a station in the relevant area. The Commission's rules also address 
cost-sharing reimbursement to cover the scenario where relocation of an 
incumbent system benefits more than one AWS licensee. We propose to 
extend to the AWS-3 band the current relocation and cost sharing rules 
for

[[Page 51584]]

both the FS in the 2160-2180 MHz band and the BRS in the 2150-2160/62 
MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal.
    164. 2020-2025 MHz. The 2020-2025 MHz band is part of the 1990-2025 
MHz band that the Commission reallocated from the BAS to emerging 
technologies (ET) such as PCS, AWS, and MSS. Consistent with the 
relocation principles first established in the Commission's Emerging 
Technologies proceeding, each new entrant had an independent 
responsibility to relocate incumbent BAS licensees. In addition, as a 
general rule, the Commission's traditional cost-sharing principles are 
applicable to the 1990-2025 MHz band. Sprint, which is the PCS licensee 
at 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS transition for the entire 35 
megahertz in 2010. In 2011, Sprint notified the Commission that it 
entered in a private settlement with DISH to resolve the dispute with 
MSS licensees with respect to MSS licensees' obligation to reimburse 
Sprint for their share of the BAS relocation costs. Accordingly, the 
only remaining cost-sharing obligations in the 1990-2025 MHz band are 
attributable to the remaining, unassigned ten megahertz of spectrum in 
the 1990-2025 MHz band: 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz.
    165. In the AWS Allocation Sixth R&O, the Commission determined 
that all new entrants to the 1990-2025 MHz band may be required to bear 
a proportional share of the costs incurred in the BAS clearance on a 
pro rata basis according to the amount of spectrum each licensee is 
assigned. However, the Commission did not decide specifically how to 
allocate that share. In the 2004 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
how the reimbursement rights and obligations of each AWS licensee could 
be most efficiently and equitably be allocated if the 2020-2025 MHz 
were licensed on a geographic area basis other than as a nationwide 
license. To the extent that not all spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band 
would have been licensed, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
require those entrants who are licensed at that time to bear a pro rata 
share of the relocation costs based on the amount of spectrum they have 
been assigned relative to the amount of 1990-2025 MHz spectrum that has 
been licensed. In addition, the Commission also sought comment on 
whether to impose reimbursement obligations on later arriving new 
entrants, on the appropriate length of such an obligation, and on the 
mechanism for applying those obligations. In the 2010 BAS Order the 
Commission determined that an AWS entrants' cost-sharing obligation for 
the 1990-2025 MHz band will be triggered upon the final grant of the 
long form application for each of its licenses.
    166. Consistent with the Commission's intent that all entrants to 
the 1990-2025 MHz band bear a proportional share of the costs incurred 
in the BAS clearance on a pro rata basis according to the amount of 
spectrum each entrant is assigned, we propose that 2020-2025 MHz band 
licensees be responsible for reimbursing Sprint for one-seventh of the 
BAS relocation costs (i.e., the proportional share of the costs 
associated with Sprint relocating 5 megahertz of BAS spectrum that will 
be used by licensees of the 2020-2025 MHz band). We believe it is fair 
to all parties to require AWS licenses to pay their fair share of BAS 
relocation costs. We believe it is important to provide auction bidders 
with reasonable certainty as to the range of the reimbursement 
obligation associated with each license under various auction outcomes. 
We also believe it is important for Sprint to be fully reimbursed as 
soon as possible given that Sprint cleared the spectrum so 2020-2025 
MHz band licensees will receive unencumbered spectrum. Accordingly, we 
propose to require 2020-2025 MHz band licensees to reimburse Sprint 
based on the gross winning bids of the initial auction of the 2020-2025 
MHz band. Specifically, we propose that the reimbursement amount owed 
(RN) be determined by dividing the gross winning bid (GWB) for a 2020-
2025 MHz license (i.e., an individual EA) by the sum of the gross 
winning bids for all 2020-2025 MHz band licenses won in the initial 
auction and then multiplying by $94,875,516. In other words, the cost-
sharing formula would read as follows:

RN = (EA GWB / Sum of GWBs) x $94,875,516

Because certain EAs, such as for the Gulf of Mexico, have a relative 
value that is not directly tied to population, our proposal seeks to 
allow the market to determine the value of each EA license and the 
associated amount of the reimbursement obligation. However, parties can 
comment on alternative cost-sharing formulas, including one based on 
population as described below. We seek comment on our proposals.
    167. This formula would ensure that Sprint receives full 
reimbursement after the first auction by effectively apportioning the 
reimbursement costs associated with any unsold 2020-2025 MHz band 
licenses among the winning bidders of 2020-2025 MHz band licenses in 
the first auction--with an exception in the event a successful bidder's 
long-form application is not filed or granted, and a contingency to 
cover an unlikely scenario. We further propose that winning bidders of 
2020-2025 MHz band licenses in the first auction of this spectrum would 
not have a right to seek reimbursement from other 2020-2025 MHz 
licensees including for licenses awarded in subsequent auctions. We 
believe this approach would avoid recordkeeping burdens and potential 
disputes and that it is appropriate given that--in the event that most 
licenses are awarded--the reimbursement obligation for an individual 
license will represent but a fraction of overall reimbursement to 
Sprint. We seek comment on our proposals including the following 
contingency: In the unlikely event that licenses covering less than 40 
percent of the population of the United States are awarded in the first 
auction, we propose that winning bidders--in the first auction of this 
spectrum as well as in subsequent auctions--will be required to timely 
pay Sprint their pro rata share calculated by dividing the population 
of the individual EA awarded at auction by the total U.S. population 
and then multiplying by $94,875,516. (The population percentage would 
be as measured using 2010 Census data or such other data or 
measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes and 
adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction 
procedures.) This contingent proposal would ensure that Sprint is 
reimbursed as soon as possible while also protecting winning bidders of 
2020-2025 MHz band licenses from bearing an undue burden of the 
reimbursement obligation due to Sprint. We seek comment on our 
proposal.
    168. Alternatively, we specifically seek comment on the relative 
costs and benefits of adopting a population based cost-sharing formula 
as the general rule for the 2020-2025 MHz band. We acknowledge that 
using a population based approach in all events would offer bidders 
certainty as to the obligation attached to each license but this 
approach could also defer Sprint's full reimbursement indefinitely if 
less than all of the licenses are awarded during the initial auction.
    169. We further propose that winning bidders promptly pay Sprint 
the amount owed, as calculated pursuant to the formula that we adopt, 
within 30 days of grant of their long form applications for the 
licenses. For PCS and AWS-1, and AWS-4, cost sharing obligations are 
triggered when a licensee proposes to operate a base station in an area 
cleared of incumbents by another licensee. In

[[Page 51585]]

this case, rather than Sprint itself benefiting from its band clearing 
efforts, other entrants in the band will reap the benefits of Sprint's 
efforts. Accordingly, we find no significant reason to treat Sprint any 
differently than UTAM, for its clearing of the 1910-1915 MHz band and 
as recently proposed for UTAM's clearing of the 1915-1920 MHz band. 
Thus, we propose that Sprint be fully reimbursed by AWS licensees that 
will benefit from Sprint's clearing of the 2020-2025 MHz band. 
Moreover, as noted above, given the relative fraction of overall 
reimbursement to Sprint that will be owed by each winning bidder, we 
believe that it will not disincentivize parties from filing 
applications or impose a burden on winning bidders to reimburse Sprint 
within 30 days of the grant of their long-form applications. We seek 
comment on the above proposals, including the costs and benefits.
    170. Consistent with precedent, we propose a specific date on which 
the reimbursement obligation adopted above will terminate. In recent 
instances, the relocation and cost-sharing obligations concurrently 
sunset ten years after the first ET license is issued in the respective 
band. In 2003 the Commission established a relocation sunset date for 
the 1990-2025 MHz band of December 9, 2013 on which the obligation of 
new entrants to relocate the incumbent BAS operations would end. 
However, in this instance, we do not believe that the public interest 
would be served by maintaining December 9, 2013 as the sunset date for 
terminating the requirement that 2020-2025 MHz licensees collectively 
reimburse Sprint for one-seventh of the BAS relocation costs. Rather, 
we propose a sunset date for the cost-sharing obligations of 2020-2025 
MHz band licensees to Sprint that is ten years after the first 2020-
2025 MHz band license is issued in the band. We find that a number of 
factors support our proposal. As discussed above, Sprint relocated BAS 
incumbents from the 2020-2025 MHz band, even though 2020-2025 MHz band 
licensees and not Sprint itself will reap the benefits of Sprint's 
relocation of BAS. In addition, the integrated nature of BAS operations 
required relocations on a market-by-market basis, and such a 
requirement would have imposed significant costs on individual 2020-
2025 MHz band entrants because isolated, link-by-link relocation was 
infeasible. It therefore served the public interest for Sprint to 
undertake the relocation on an integrated, nationwide basis. Because 
2020-2025 MHz band licenses have yet to be auctioned and because 
interested applicants will be able to calculate their reimbursement 
obligation to Sprint in bidding on licenses, we do not believe that our 
proposal imposes a burden on the winning bidders of 2020-2025 MHz 
licenses. We believe that the proposed sunset date balances the 
interests of all parties by encouraging timely payment to Sprint while 
ensuring that, consistent with precedent, the reimbursement obligation 
terminates on a specific date for any licenses that have not yet 
triggered an obligation to pay Sprint. We seek comment on our proposed 
sunset date, including the costs and benefits.

Allocation Matters

    171. 1695-1710 MHz. To facilitate the Spectrum Act's requirement 
that the Commission reallocate the 1695-1710 MHz segment of the 1675-
1710 MHz band for wireless broadband, we propose to amend the Table of 
Frequency Allocations by allocating the 1695-1710 MHz band to the fixed 
and mobile except aeronautical mobile services on a primary basis for 
non-Federal use. We are excluding aeronautical mobile service from our 
mobile allocation proposal to better protect earth station reception of 
frequencies in the 1695-1710 MHz band. Additionally, we propose to 
adopt a new U.S. footnote (tentatively numbered as US88) to provide for 
the protection of Federal earth stations in the 1695-1710 MHz band. 
Because we anticipate that NTIA will endorse the revised list of 27 
Protection Zones that WG1 reported to CSMAC on June 18, 2013, we 
propose to adopt US88, which would codify our agreement with NTIA.
    172. We also propose to remove four unused allocations that apply 
to the 1695-1710 MHz band from the U.S. Table. First, we propose to 
delete the primary non-Federal meteorological-satellite service (space-
to-Earth) allocation from the 1695-1710 MHz band, as we are not aware 
of any use in this segment of the band. Second, we propose to delete 
the primary Federal fixed service allocation from the 1700-1710 MHz 
band and associated footnote G118. Third, we propose to delete the 
primary meteorological aids (radiosonde) allocation from the 1695-1700 
MHz band. Fourth, we propose to restrict the use currently authorized 
pursuant to international footnote 5.289 by moving its text into a U.S. 
footnote (tentatively numbered as US289) so that Earth exploration-
satellite service applications, other than the meteorological-satellite 
service, can continue to be used in the 460-470 MHz and 1690-1695 MHz 
bands (but not the 1695-1710 MHz band) for space-to-Earth transmissions 
subject to not causing harmful interference. We seek comment on these 
proposals. Commenters may wish to discuss how any proposed allocation 
changes reflect Congress' priority for relocation over sharing for 
enabling commercial access to new spectrum, subject to technical and 
cost constraints.
    173. 2020-2025 MHz. Although we do not propose to modify the 
existing allocations in the 2020-2025 MHz band, we propose to remove 
footnote NG177 from the Allocation Table because Television Broadcast 
Auxiliary Stations have completed their transition from the 1990-2110 
MHz band (120 MHz) to the 2025-2110 MHz band (85 MHz).
    174. 2155-2180 MHz. We propose several modifications that relate to 
the 2155-2180 MHz band. Specifically, we propose to update and combine 
footnotes NG153 and NG178, and to tentatively number the resultant 
footnote as NG41. Specifically, we propose to remove the first two 
sentences from footnote NG153 (because we are not proposing to add any 
additional allocations to the 2160-2165 MHz band); to revise the last 
sentence in footnote NG153 by updating ``Multipoint Distribution 
Service'' and ``emerging technologies'' to read ``Broadband Radio 
Service'' and ``Advanced Wireless Services,'' respectively; to 
highlight that all initial authorizations in the 2160-2180 MHz band 
applied for after January 16, 1992 were issued on a secondary basis; 
and to highlight the sunset provisions that apply to Part 101 fixed 
stations that were authorized on a primary basis. We propose to remove 
footnotes NG153, NG177, and NG178. The new footnote would be 
tentatively numbered NG41.
    We also propose several non-substantive updates to the Table: (1) 
expand the cross reference to part 27 of the Commission's rules, which 
is shown as ``Wireless Communications (27)'' in the 1710-1755 MHz band, 
by displaying this cross reference in the 1695-1780 MHz band; and (2) 
revise the 1850-1980 MHz and 1980-2025 MHz bands in the Federal Table 
(which are not allocated for any Federal use) to read 1850-2000 MHz and 
2000-2025 MHz. We also seek comment on any other allocation changes 
that would be necessary to effectuate any of the proposals contained in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    175. 1.7 GHz Band. In the sections above, we seek comment on 
possible service rules for non-Federal, mobile use of 1755-1780 MHz on 
a shared basis with Federal users. Furthermore, NTIA has suggested that 
commercial use be considered in the full 1755-1850 MHz

[[Page 51586]]

band. Our determination of whether such use should be permitted would 
be based on whether it serves the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity. We expect that the record in this proceeding will include 
recommendations from NTIA informed by the CSMAC process. In the event 
that the record supports a conclusion that non-Federal terrestrial 
service rules are appropriate for any of the 1.7 GHz band spectrum 
currently allocated for Federal use, what changes to the Table of 
Frequency Allocations would be necessary to implement such a conclusion 
in the 1.7 GHz band? Would different changes be required for different 
band segments and/or geographical locations? Could different portions 
of the band be allocated for shared or exclusive use?
    176. Other Bands, including 2025-2110 MHz and 5150-5250 MHz. 
Throughout this notice, we seek comment on potential changes to Federal 
and non-Federal uses in several different bands. For instance, in 
paragraph 39 above, we seek comment on CTIA's proposal for commercial 
use of the 2095-2110 MHz band. NTIA notes that the Department of 
Defense has identified the 2025-2110 MHz band as the preferred option 
to relocate most of its operations and that the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration and DoD have identified the 5150-5250 MHz band 
as a comparable destination band for their aeronautical mobile 
telemetry systems). NTIA adds that, ``[i]f it is determined that 
agencies will need to relocate any of these systems, the FCC and NTIA 
will need to identify replacement spectrum and take necessary steps to 
enable comparable capabilities.'' More recently, NTIA transmitted a 
proposal from DoD that would require increased Federal access to the 
2025-2110 MHz band, but not the 5150-5250 MHz band. We therefore seek 
comment on any changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations that would 
be necessary to effectuate these and any other band reconfiguration 
concepts identified in this notice or proposed alternatives. We note 
that in contrast to non-Federal terrestrial allocations, where the 
issuance of service rules is typically required prior to the issuance 
of licenses, the addition of a Federal allocation to a band typically 
allows the authorization of new Federal assignments without an 
intermediate step. In other words, once the Federal allocation is in 
place, NTIA could immediately begin issuing spectrum assignments. 
Therefore, if the record should demonstrate the public interest in 
accommodating new Federal systems through allocation changes, we seek 
comment on whether, and if so how, any new Federal allocations be made 
contingent on relocation to accommodate new commercial licensees in the 
1.7 GHz band.
    177. Statutory Requirements. In discussing any changes to the Table 
of Frequency Allocations, we seek specific comment on any special 
statutory conditions that may apply. Two particular statutory 
provisions are of special relevance here.
    178. First, Congress recognized the potential benefits of flexible 
spectrum allocations and amended the Communications Act in 1997 to add 
section 303(y), which grants the Commission the authority to adopt 
flexible allocations if certain factors are met. We seek comment on how 
best to read Section 303(y) in light of the subsequent mandate of 
section 6401 to ``allocate the spectrum described [therein] for 
commercial use.'' We also seek comment on whether any allocation 
changes, together with the proposed service rules, proposed or 
identified in this notice or by commenters would satisfy the four 
elements of section 303(y) of the Act.
    179. Second, section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 requires that, if ``in order to make available 
for other use a band of frequencies of which it is a primary user, the 
Department of Defense is required to surrender use of such band of 
frequencies, the Department shall not surrender use of such band of 
frequencies until . . . the [NTIA], in consultation with the [FCC], 
identifies and makes available to the Department for its primary use, 
if necessary, an alternative band or bands of frequencies as a 
replacement for the band to be so surrendered.'' Furthermore, current 
law requires that ``the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify 
. . . that such alternative band or bands provides comparable technical 
characteristics to restore essential military capability that will be 
lost as a result of the band of frequencies to be so surrendered.'' We 
seek comment on the extent to which any proposed allocation changes 
would meet these requirements.

IV. Order on Reconsideration (WT Docket Nos. 07-16 and 07-30)

    180. In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny three petitions for 
reconsideration filed by McElroy Electronics Corporation (MEC), 
NetfreeUS, LLC (NetfreeUS), and Open Range Communications, Inc. (Open 
Range). All three petitions ask us to reverse the Commission's August 
2007 decision that dismissed petitioners' March 2007 applications 
without prejudice. Those applications, which were filed before Congress 
passed the Spectrum Act, all sought authority to operate in the 2155-
2175 MHz Band, which, as discussed above, is a portion of the 2155-2180 
MHz Band that the Spectrum Act directed the Commission to allocate for 
commercial use and license through a system of competitive bidding 
subject to flexible-use service rules. We deny the petitions for the 
reasons set forth below.
    181. Background. On May 5, 2006, M2Z filed an application to 
construct and operate a nationwide broadband wireless network in the 
2155-2175 MHz band. In addition, M2Z filed a petition for forbearance 
on September 1, 2006, in which it requested that the Commission forbear 
from applying any rules, statutes, or policies that would block M2Z's 
application from being granted, including the competitive bidding 
provisions of section 309(j) of the Communications Act. On January 31, 
2007, the Commission released a public notice stating that M2Z's 
application was accepted for filing pursuant to the Commission's 
general statutory authority under section 309 of the Communications 
Act--``rather than pursuant to an established framework of processing 
rules.'' However, the Commission stated that its ``action does not 
imply any judgment or view about the merits of the [M2Z] Application, 
nor does it preclude a subsequent dismissal of the Application as 
defective under existing rules or under future rules that the 
Commission may promulgate by notice and comment rulemaking.'' The 
Commission also noted that ``additional applications for spectrum in 
this band may be filed while the M2Z application is pending.''
    182. On March 2, 2007, the Commission received several additional 
applications seeking authorization to use the 2155-2175 MHz Band, 
including the three petitioners' applications. Some applicants, 
including MEC, stated that the Commission should assign licenses for 
this band by competitive bidding. NetfreeUS asked the Commission to 
assign this spectrum without first conducting a rulemaking proceeding 
to consider service and licensing rules. In addition to its 
application, NetfreeUS filed a forbearance petition similar to the one 
submitted by M2Z.
    183. On August 31, 2007, the Commission released the Applications 
and Forbearance Petitions Order, which is the decision that all three 
petitioners now ask us to reconsider. In that decision, the Commission, 
among other

[[Page 51587]]

things, dismissed without prejudice the applications filed by M2Z and 
the three petitioners here, and denied the M2Z and NetfreeUS petitions 
for forbearance. The Commission found that ``the public interest is 
best served by first seeking public comment on how the band should be 
used and licensed,'' rather than attempting to act on the applications 
in an ad hoc adjudicatory proceeding, outside the context of an auction 
and prior to the issuance of applicable rules. One applicant (M2Z) 
appealed the Commission's decision to the D.C. Circuit, while the three 
petitioners sought reconsideration before the agency. The D.C. Circuit 
denied the appeal, and we note that two of the petitioners here (Open 
Range and NetfreeUS) participated in the appeal as intervenors.
    184. We now deny the three Petitions for Reconsideration. The 
Spectrum Act, which was enacted in February 2012, now expressly states 
that the Commission shall, among other things, allocate the frequencies 
between 2155 MHz and 2180 MHz and, through a system of competitive 
bidding, grant new initial licenses for the use of such spectrum 
pursuant to flexible-use service rules that the Commission has not yet 
adopted. To the extent that petitioners sought licenses that would not 
be subject to these requirements, we deny the petitions as inconsistent 
with the clear requirements of the Spectrum Act. As noted in our prior 
order, our dismissal of petitioners' applications was without 
prejudice, and they are free to file applications in accordance with 
the rules and procedures that we adopt to govern such required 
auctions.
    185. Quite apart from the mandate of the Spectrum Act, for this 
portion of the AWS-3 band, the D.C. Circuit's M2Z opinion upheld the 
Commission's decision not to forbear from the relevant rules; it also 
recognized that licenses are typically processed after the Commission 
adopts service rules through a rulemaking proceeding. The D.C. Circuit 
also found that the Commission properly declined the request to license 
this band outside of the auction context.
    186. Petitioners (two of whom, as we noted, were intervenors in 
that case) have provided no basis why the rationale for that decision 
with respect to M2Z's application should not apply with equal force to 
their follow-on applications. To the extent the petitioners are asking 
us to forbear, as M2Z did, we find that their petitions should be 
denied for the reasons set forth in the Applications and Forbearance 
Petitions Order, which was upheld by the M2Z court. To the extent 
petitioners maintain that the Commission erred by dismissing their 
applications on the grounds that such applications preceded our 
adoption of applicable rules, we reaffirm the Commission's 2007 
decision that assignment of this spectrum without first conducting a 
rulemaking proceeding to consider service and licensing rules would not 
serve the public interest. That determination has been upheld by the 
M2Z court. The court held that, whether the Commission's 
``consider[ation of] the public interest in deciding whether to forgo 
an auction . . . is characterized as an analysis under section 309 or a 
section 160 forbearance analysis matters little.'' The court concluded 
that ``the Commission reasonably performed every statutory duty at 
issue.'' That analysis applies with equal force to the three 
applications filed in response to the M2Z application, ``under the same 
standards,'' and with respect to their similar claims of public 
interest justification for dispensing with our established auction 
procedures.
    187. We also find misplaced MEC's reliance on the M2Z Public Notice 
as one that ``bound [the Commission] to process the application'' in 
accordance therewith. That notice expressly stated that our acceptance 
of M2Z's application, for a service for which we had not yet 
established service rules, was not ``pursuant to an established 
framework of processing rules.'' Thus, MEC's assertions about the 
operation of cutoff rules that it asserts would otherwise be applicable 
here are beside the point. So, therefore, are the prior McElroy 
decisions. Moreover, those decisions would at most entitle MEC to be 
treated ``under the same standards'' as M2Z as a competing applicant, 
the dismissal of whose application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit. 
They do not undermine ``the Commission's authority to change license 
allocation procedures mid-stream,'' even in cases where such action may 
``disrupt[ ] expectations and alter[ ] the competitive balance among 
applicants,'' and they clearly do not prevent the Commission from 
deferring action on applications accepted for filing until it has first 
established a ``framework of processing rules'' and ``future rules'' to 
govern the service. Such applications would then be subject to this 
regulatory framework for the new service.

V. Procedural Matters

Disposition of Prior Proceedings

    188. Before the National Broadband Plan was developed or the 
Spectrum Act was enacted, the Commission had begun rulemakings on how 
to license spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 
2155-2175 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz bands. In 2004, the Commission sought 
comment on licensing and service rules for the 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz bands. In 2007, the Commission proposed service rules for 20 
megahertz of unpaired spectrum at 2155-2175 MHz. After reviewing the 
comments and reply comments to the 2007 NPRM, however, the Commission 
issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008 to seek 
additional comment on a range of issues including combining the upper 
``J'' band at 2175-2180 MHz with the 2155-2175 MHz band to create a 25 
MHz block of unpaired spectrum. As mentioned above, however, since the 
Commission released the 2008 FNPRM, the National Broadband Plan was 
developed, the Spectrum Act was enacted, and wireless broadband 
technologies and the wireless industry have evolved to such an extent 
that, in our assessment, the development of a fresh record is 
warranted. As a result, we will adopt rules for AWS-3 based on the 
record developed in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (GN 
Docket No. 13-185). Accordingly, we are terminating the proceedings 
begun in 2004 and 2007 (WT Docket Nos. 04-356 and 07-195). We note 
that, in December 2012, the Commission similarly commenced a new 
proceeding to consider service rules for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 
MHz.

Ex Parte Presentations

    189. The proceedings shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying

[[Page 51588]]

the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments 
can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents 
shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed 
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 
rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or 
for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic 
filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral 
ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed 
through the electronic comment filing system available for that 
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, 
.ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    190. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The Commission will send 
a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

Need for, and Objectives, of the Proposed Rules

    191. Wireless broadband is a key component of economic growth, job 
creation and global competitiveness because consumers are increasingly 
using wireless broadband services to assist them in their everyday 
lives. The explosive growth of wireless broadband services has created 
increased demand for wireless spectrum, which is expected to continue 
increasing, despite technological developments, such as LTE, that allow 
for more efficient spectrum use. Adoption of smartphones increased at a 
50 percent annual growth rate in 2011, from 27 percent of U.S. mobile 
subscribers in December 2010 to nearly 42 percent in December 2011. 
Further, consumers have rapidly adopted the use of tablets, which were 
first introduced in January of 2010. By the end of 2012, it was 
estimated that one in five Americans--almost 70 million people--would 
use a tablet. Between 2011 and 2017, mobile data traffic generated by 
tablets is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 100 
percent. New mobile applications and services, such as high resolution 
video communications, are also using more bandwidth. For example, a 
single smartphone can generate as much traffic as thirty-five basic-
feature mobile phones, while tablets connected to 3G and 4G networks 
use three times more data than smartphones over the cellular network. 
All of these trends, in combination, are creating an urgent need for 
more network capacity and, in turn, for suitable spectrum.
    192. Today we propose rules for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that would make 
available significantly more spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services 
(AWS). We will refer to these four bands collectively as ``AWS-3.'' The 
additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, 
capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace 
with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking explores novel approaches to spectrum sharing 
between commercial and Federal operators. Where possible, we continue 
to make efforts to identify exclusive-use spectrum bands. In some 
circumstances, however, spectrum sharing may be the best path forward 
to expanding flexible spectrum access for innovative commercial uses. 
Today's action is another step in implementing the Congressional 
directive in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to allocate for commercial use and grant new 
initial licenses for flexible use in certain bands by February 2015.
    193. We propose to license the 2155-2180 MHz band for downlink/base 
station operations and to license the 2020-2025 MHz band for uplink/
mobile operations. Both of these bands are currently allocated for non-
Federal, commercial use and are in the Commission's inventory of bands 
available for licensing. We propose to allocate and license the 1755-
1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on a shared basis with 
Federal incumbents. We note that the record of the instant proceeding 
will be informed by recommendations of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA), which has tasked the Commerce 
Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) with studying the 
potential for Federal/non-Federal spectrum sharing. NTIA anticipates 
receiving final reports from CSMAC working groups shortly. If NTIA 
endorses these reports, we will add them to the record and anticipate 
that commenters will discuss NTIA's forthcoming recommendations in 
comments, reply comments, or written ex partes, as appropriate, 
depending on the timing. If NTIA does not propose a workable framework 
for sharing the 1755-1780 MHz band, this proposal may not be feasible 
in the near term, in which case it may not be possible to adopt rules 
that allow commercial access to the band. We also propose to allocate 
and license the 1695-1710 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on a 
shared basis with Federal incumbents within specified Protection Zones 
recommended by NTIA. Commercial operation outside of these Protection 
Zones would not require coordination with Federal incumbents.
    194. For all of the AWS-3 spectrum within the scope of this NPRM, 
i.e., spectrum for which we seek comment regarding service rules for 
non-Federal use, we propose to assign licenses by competitive bidding, 
offering five megahertz blocks that can be aggregated using Economic 
Areas (EAs) as the area for geographic licensing. We also seek comment 
on whether, and if so how, to pair any of the AWS-3 spectrum.
    195. These service rules would make available additional spectrum 
for flexible use in accordance with the Spectrum Act. In proposing 
service rules for the band, which include technical rules to protect 
against harmful interference, licensing rules to establish geographic 
license areas and spectrum block sizes, and performance requirements to 
promote robust buildout, we advance toward enabling rapid and efficient 
deployment. We do so by proposing service, technical, assignment, and 
licensing rules for this spectrum under the Commission's part 27 rules, 
which generally govern flexible use terrestrial wireless service, 
except where special provisions are necessary to facilitate shared use 
with co-primary Federal operations.
    196. Overall, these proposals are designed to provide for flexible 
use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of 
service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile 
broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory 
environment in which broadband deployment would be able to develop 
through the application of standard terrestrial wireless rules. The 
market-oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure that 
this spectrum

[[Page 51589]]

is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new and 
innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the growth 
and development of broadband services, ultimately leading to greater 
benefits to consumers.

Legal Basis

    197. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 
333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Title VI of the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 1122-
96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302a, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1403, 1404, and 1451.

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

    198. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which 
the proposed rules and policies will apply, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    199. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards 
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the 
proposals under consideration. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA. 
Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' 
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of 
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
    200. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
NPRM proposes to apply various Commission policies and rules to service 
in the AWS-3 bands. We cannot predict who may in the future become a 
licensee or lease spectrum for use in these bands. In general, any 
wireless telecommunications provider would be eligible to become an 
Advanced Wireless Service licensee or lease spectrum from an AWS-3 
licensee. This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating 
and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have 
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as 
cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size 
standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has 
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 
11,163 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 10,791 
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 had employment 
of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are 
small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    202. This NPRM proposes or seeks comment on a number of possible 
rule changes that could affect reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance requirements that would apply to all entities in the same 
manner. These include requirements related to Federal/non-Federal 
sharing and coordination, technical rules, license term, performance 
requirements, renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance of operations, 
other operating requirements and non-Federal relocation and cost 
sharing. The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally 
to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The Commission does 
not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated 
with the rules will unduly burden small entities. The revisions the 
Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more 
information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to 
valuable wireless spectrum.
    203. The Commission proposes to require any applicants for licenses 
of AWS-3 Block spectrum to file license applications using the 
Commission's automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an 
online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful 
information tool that enables potential licensees to research 
applications, licenses, and antennae structures. It also keeps the 
public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing 
utilities, and a telecommunications glossary.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives

    204. 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.''
    205. The proposal in the NPRM to license the AWS-3 spectrum under 
Economic Areas (EA) geographic size licenses will provide regulatory 
parity with other AWS bands that are licensed on an EA basis, such as 
AWS-1 B and C block licenses. Additionally, assigning AWS-3 in EA 
geographic areas would allow AWS-3 licensees to make adjustments to 
suit their individual needs. EA license areas are small enough to 
provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers. EA license 
areas also nest within and may be aggregated up to larger license 
areas. Therefore, the benefits and burdens resulting from assigning 
AWS-3 spectrum in EA license areas are equivalent for small and large 
businesses. Depending on the licensing mechanism we adopt, licensees 
may adjust their geographic coverage through

[[Page 51590]]

auction or, as we discuss in paragraphs 139-143 above, through 
secondary markets. This proposal should enable AWS-3 providers, or any 
entities, whether large or small, providing service in other AWS bands 
to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks pursuant 
to individual business plans. As a result, we believe the ability of 
licensees to adjust spectrum holdings will provide an economic benefit 
by making it easier for small entities to acquire spectrum or access 
AWS spectrum.
    206. The technical rules proposed in paragraphs 83-112 above will 
protect entities operating in nearby spectrum bands from harmful 
interference, which may include small entities. In the proposed band 
plan, AWS-3 spectrum would be licensed in five-megahertz blocks using 
EA licenses. Interference must therefore be considered between adjacent 
AWS-3 blocks, e.g., between 2155-2160 MHz and 2160-2165 MHz, as well as 
between AWS-3 operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and services in the 
adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. Similarly, AWS-3 mobiles could 
interfere with proximate Federal or non-Federal operations in the same 
or nearby bands.
    207. The discussion in paragraphs 148-158 above pertaining to how 
the AWS-3 licenses will be assigned includes proposals to assist small 
entities in competitive bidding. We propose that the Commission would 
conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands in conformity 
with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart 
Q, of the Commission's rules, and substantially consistent with the 
competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in previous 
auctions. Specifically, we propose to employ the part 1 rules governing 
competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust 
enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting requirements, 
and the prohibition on certain communications between auction 
applicants. Specifically, small entities will benefit from the proposal 
to provide small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and 
very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent. Providing 
small businesses and very small businesses with bidding credits will 
provide an economic benefit to small entities by making it easier for 
small entities to acquire spectrum or access to spectrum in these 
bands. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the small business 
provisions we propose today are sufficient to promote participation by 
businesses owned by minorities and women, as well as rural telephone 
companies.
    208. In para. 115 above, the Commission, consistent with the 
Spectrum Act's mandate to license under flexible use service rules, 
proposes service rules that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum 
for any non-Federal use permitted by the United States Table of 
Frequency Allocations, subject to the Commission's part 27 flexible use 
and other applicable rules (including service rules to avoid harmful 
interference). Thus, we propose that the spectrum may be used for any 
fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for the 
band. The technical rules we propose or seek comment on will allow 
licensees of AWS-3 spectrum to operate while also protecting licensees 
of nearby spectrum, some of whom are small entities, from harmful 
interference.
    209. Consistent with the proposed flexible use of the AWS-3 band, 
we also propose licensing the spectrum under the flexible regulatory 
framework of part 27 of our rules. For each frequency band under its 
umbrella, part 27 defines permissible uses and any limitations thereon, 
and specifies basic licensing requirements. We believe that our part 27 
rules are consistent with the Spectrum Act's requirement for 
``flexible-use service rules.''
    210. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by 
licensees in the AWS-3 band. These secondary market rules apply equally 
to all entities, whether small or large. We believe the opportunity to 
enter into secondary market agreements for AWS-3 spectrum will provide 
an economic benefit to all entities, whether large or small Therefore, 
the benefits and burdens resulting from secondary market agreements for 
AWS-3 spectrum are equivalent for small and large businesses. Further, 
in the NPRM, we propose to provide small businesses with a bidding 
credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 
25 percent, as set forth in the standardized schedule in part 1 of our 
rules.

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

    None.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    211. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
10, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Title VI of the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-
96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 160, 201, 301, 302a, 
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 1403, 1404, and 1451, 
that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    212. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the 
proposed regulatory changes described in this notice and that comment 
is sought on these proposals.
    213. It is further ordered that the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is adopted.
    214. It is further ordered that WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 07-16, 07-
30, and 07-195 are terminated.
    215. It is further ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration 
filed by McElroy Electronics Corp., Netfree US, LLC, and Open Range 
Communications Inc., on October 1, 2007, are denied.
    216. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 27

    Communications common carriers, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria Miles,
 Federal Register Liaison.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 27 as 
follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as 
follows:
0
a. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, footnotes US88, and 
US289 are added to read as follows, and
0
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG41 
is added to read as follows and footnotes NG153, NG177, and NG178 are 
removed.


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *

[[Page 51591]]

United States (US) Footnotes
    US88 In the band 1695-1710 MHz, Federal earth stations in the 
meteorological-satellite service (space-to-Earth) shall be afforded 
protection from harmful interference at the 27 sites listed below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Maximum
         Earth Station Location                    Latitude                   Longitude             Protection
                                                                                                   Distance (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wallops Island, Virginia................  375645 N                   752745 W                                 30
Fairbanks, Alaska.......................  645822 N                   1473002 W                                20
Suitland, Maryland......................  385107 N                   765612 W                                 98
Miami, Florida..........................  254405 N                   800945 W                                 51
Hickam AFB, Hawaii......................  211918 N                   1575730 W                                28
Sioux Falls, South Dakota...............  434409 N                   963733 W                                 42
Cincinnati, Ohio........................  390610 N                   843035 W                                 32
Rock Island, Illinois...................  413104 N                   903346 W                                 19
St. Louis, Missouri.....................  383526 N                   901225 W                                 34
Vicksburg, Mississippi..................  322047 N                   905010 W                                 16
Omaha, Nebraska.........................  412056 N                   955734 W                                 30
Sacramento, California..................  383550 N                   1213234 W                                55
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska...................  611408 N                   1495531 W                                98
Andersen AFB, Guam......................  133452 N                   1445528 E                                42
Monterey, California....................  363534 N                   1215120 W                                76
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi.......  302123 N                   893641 W                                 57
Twenty-Nine-Palms, California...........  341746 N                   1160944 W                                80
Yuma, Arizona...........................  323924 N                   1143622 W                                95
Barrow, Alaska..........................  711922 N                   1563641 W                                35
Boise, Idaho............................  433542 N                   1161349 W                                39
Boulder, Colorado.......................  395926 N                   1051551W                                  2
Columbus Lake, Mississippi..............  333204 N                   883006 W                                  3
Fairmont, West Virginia.................  392602 N                   801133 W                                  4
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico...................  182526 N                   660650 W                                 48
Kansas City, Missouri...................  391640 N                   943944 W                                 40
Knoxville, Tennessee....................  355758 N                   835513 W                                 50
Norman, Oklahoma........................  351052 N                   972621 W                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The year 2030 is the projected date when the last legacy space station is expected to cease operations in
  the band 1695-1710 MHz. Stations at the 27 locations must be protected until legacy operations in the band
  actually cease operations.

* * * * *
    US289 Earth exploration-satellite service applications, other than 
the meteorological-satellite service, may also be used in the bands 
460-470 MHz and 1690-1695 MHz for space-to-Earth transmissions subject 
to not causing harmful interference to stations operating in accordance 
with the Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes
    NG41 In the 2160-2180 MHz band, the following provisions shall 
apply to grandfathered stations in the fixed service:
    (a) Stations operating pursuant to licenses applied for after 
January 16, 1992 in the Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave 
Service and in the 2160-2162 MHz sub-band of the Broadband Radio 
Service may operate on a secondary basis to the Advanced Wireless 
Service (AWS).
    (b) Fixed stations in the Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point 
Microwave Service that were authorized on a primary basis will retain 
that status unless and until an AWS licensee requires use of the 
spectrum. AWS licensees are required to pay relocation costs until ten 
years after the first AWS license is issued in the band.
* * * * *

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

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

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

0
4. Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(11) through (14) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  27.1  Basis and purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) 1695-1710 MHz.
    (12) 1755-1780 MHz.
    (13) 2020-2025 MHz.
    (14) 2155-2180 MHz.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 27.5 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory text 
and adding paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.5  Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (h) 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 
2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The following frequencies are 
available for licensing pursuant to this part in the 1710-1755 MHz, 
2110-2155 MHz, 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz bands:
* * * * *
    (3) Channel blocks of 5 megahertz each are available for assignment 
as follows:

Block G: reserved
Block J1: 1695-1700 MHz
Block J2: 1700-1705 MHz
Block J3: 1705-1710 MHz
Block K1: 1755-1760 MHz
Block K2: 1760-1765 MHz
Block K3: 1765-1770 MHz
Block K4: 1770-1775 MHz
Block K5: 1775-1780 MHz
Block L: 2020-2025 MHz
Block M1: 2155-2160 MHz
Block M2: 2160-2165 MHz
Block M3: 2165-2170 MHz
Block M4: 2170-2175 MHz
Block M5: 2175-2180 MHz
* * * * *
0
6. Section 27.6 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

[[Page 51592]]

Sec.  27.6  Service areas.

* * * * *
    (j) 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz 
bands. AWS service areas for the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-
2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas (EAs) as 
defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
0
7. Section 27.13 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.13  License period.

* * * * *
    (j) 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz 
bands. Authorizations for the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 
MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands will have a term not to exceed ten years 
from the date of issuance or renewal.
0
8. Section 27.14 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraphs (a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (r) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.14  Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.

    (a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz 
bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 
722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz 
bands, Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands, Block A in the 
2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 
2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in 
the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS 
authorizations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 
2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands, must, as a 
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in 
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in 
Sec.  27.13. * * *
* * * * *
    (f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 
MHz bands and licensees holding AWS authorizations for the 1695-1710 
MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, and 
2180-2200 MHz bands. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum 
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), or (r) of this 
section, including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to 
the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall 
demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a 
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the 
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in Sec.  1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
    (r) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS 
authorization in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 
2155-2180 MHz bands:
    (1) An AWS licensee in the bands covered by paragraph (r) of this 
section shall provide signal coverage and offer service within four (4) 
years from the date of the initial license to at least forty (40) 
percent of the total population in each service area that it has 
licensed in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz bands (``AWS Interim Buildout Requirement'').
    (2) An AWS licensee in the bands covered by paragraph (r) of this 
section shall provide signal coverage and offer service within ten (10) 
years from the date of the initial license to at least seventy-five 
(75) percent of the population in each of its licensed areas in the 
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands 
(``AWS Final Buildout Requirement'').
    (3) If an AWS licensee in the bands covered by this paragraph fails 
to establish that it meets the AWS Interim Buildout Requirement for a 
particular licensed area, then the AWS Final Buildout Requirement (in 
paragraph (r) of this section) and the AWS license term (as set forth 
in Sec.  27.13(j)) for each license area in which it fails to meet the 
AWS Interim Buildout Requirement shall be accelerated by two years 
(from ten to eight years).
    (4) If an AWS licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS 
Final Buildout Requirement for particular licensed areas in the 1695-
1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, its 
authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the AWS 
Final Buildout Requirement shall terminate automatically without 
Commission action. The AWS licensee that has its license automatically 
terminate under this paragraph (r) will be ineligible to regain it if 
the Commission makes the license available at a later date.
    (5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, 
licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the 
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population 
served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population 
within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will be 
deemed served by the licensee only if it provides signal coverage to 
and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other 
acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other 
acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, 
a licensee with authorizations for such areas may include only the 
population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) 
towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual 
license.
    (6) An applicant for renewal of a geographic-area authorization in 
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz 
service bands must make a renewal showing, independent of its 
performance requirements, as a condition of renewal. The showing must 
include a detailed description of the applicant's provision of service 
during the entire license period and address:
    (i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant 
(e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of 
subscribers, the services offered);
    (ii) The date service commenced, whether service was ever 
interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
    (iii) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
    (iv) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal 
land as defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(3)(i) of this chapter; and
    (v) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the 
public.
0
9. Section 27.15 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph 
(d)(1)(i); adding paragraph (d)(1)(iv); revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (d)(2)(i), and adding paragraph (d)(2)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.15  Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in 
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz 
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in 
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz,

[[Page 51593]]

2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands 
the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding 
authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction 
requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, the following 
rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements 
set forth in Sec.  27.14. Each party to a geographic partitioning must 
individually meet any service-specific performance requirements (i.e., 
construction and operation requirements). If a partitioner or 
partitionee fails to meet any service-specific performance requirements 
on or before the required date, then the consequences for this failure 
shall be those enumerated in Sec.  27.14(r).
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in 
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz 
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in 
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2155-
2180 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and 
AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing the 
construction requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, the following 
rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements 
set forth in Sec.  27.14. Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must 
individually meet any service-specific performance requirements (i.e., 
construction and operation requirements). If a disaggregator or a 
disagregatee fails to meet any service-specific performance 
requirements on or before the required date, then the consequences for 
this failure shall be those enumerated in Sec.  27.14(r).
0
10. Section 27.18 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  27.18  Discontinuance of service in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 
MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands.

    (a) Termination of Authorization. A licensee's AWS authorization in 
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz 
bands will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, 
if it permanently discontinues service after meeting the AWS Interim 
Buildout Requirement specified in Sec.  27.14.
    (b) For licensees with common carrier or non-common carrier 
regulatory status that hold AWS authorizations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 
1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, permanent 
discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during 
which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber 
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee. 
For licensees with private, internal regulatory status that hold AWS 
authorizations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 
2155-2180 MHz bands, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 
180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.
    (c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 
MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that permanently 
discontinues service as defined in this section must notify the 
Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 
or 605 requesting license cancellation. An authorization will 
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service 
is permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a 
licensee fails to file the required form requesting license 
cancellation.
0
11. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraph (d) introductory 
text and paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (4) and (7) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.50  Power limits and duty cycle.

* * * * *
    (d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to 
stations transmitting in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 
MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz bands:
    (1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, or 2180-2200 MHz bands and located in any 
county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, 
based upon the most recently available population statistics from the 
Bureau of the Census, is limited to:
    (i) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 3280 watts 
when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;
    (ii) An EIRP of 3280 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission 
bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.
    (2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, or 2180-2200 MHz bands and situated in 
any geographic location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section is limited to:
    (i) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 1640 watts 
when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;
    (ii) An EIRP of 1640 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission 
bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.
* * * * *
    (4) Mobile and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the 1695-
1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, and 1755-1780 bands are limited to 100 
milliwatts (20 dBm) EIRP. Mobile and portable stations operating in 
this band must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum 
necessary for successful communications. Mobile and portable (hand-
held) stations in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands are 
permitted to transmit only when controlled by an associated base 
station.
* * * * *
    (7) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in 
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands are limited to 2 watts EIRP, 
except that the total power of any portion of an emission that falls 
within the 2000-2005 MHz band may not exceed 5 milliwatts. A licensee 
of AWS-4 authority may enter into private operator-to-operator 
agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 2000-2005 MHz 
at power levels above 5 milliwatts EIRP; except the total power of the 
AWS-4 mobile emissions may not exceed 2 watts EIRP.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.53  Emission limits.

* * * * *
    (h) AWS emission limits--(1) General protection levels. Except as 
otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-
1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 
2155-2180 MHz, and 2180-2200 bands, the power of any emission outside a 
licensee's frequency block shall be attenuated below the transmitter 
power

[[Page 51594]]

(P) in watts by at least 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.55  Power strength limits.

    (a) Field strength limits. For the following bands, the predicted 
or measured median field strength at any location on the geographical 
border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed the value 
specified unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) 
agree(s) to a different field strength. This value applies to both the 
initially offered service areas and to partitioned service areas.
    (1) 2110-2155, 2155-2180, 2180-2200, 2305-2320, and 2345-2360 MHz 
bands: 47 dB[mu]V/m.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.57(c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  27.57  International coordination.

* * * * *
    (c) Operation in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 
2000-2020 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands is 
subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
15. The heading of subpart L in part 27 is revised as follows:

Subpart L--1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 
MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz Bands

0
16. Section 27.1105 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1105  1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-
1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz band licenses are subject to 
competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set 
forth in 47 CFR Part 1, subpart Q will apply unless otherwise provided 
in this subpart.
0
17. Section 27.1106 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1106  Designated entities in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 
2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands.

    Eligibility for small business provisions:
    (a) Small business. (1) A small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates 
of its controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
    (b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses 
may use the bidding credit specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this 
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as 
defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may 
use the bidding credit specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this 
chapter.
0
18. Section 27.1131 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1131  Protection of Part 101 operations.

    All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or 
fixed station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel 
and adjacent-channel incumbent, part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave 
licensees operating in the 2110-2180 MHz band. Coordination shall be 
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  24.237 of this 
chapter.
0
19. Section 27.1134 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1134  Protection of Federal Government operations.

* * * * *
    (c) Protection of Federal operations in the 1675-1710 MHz band. (1) 
Protection Zones. Prior to operating a base station within the radius 
of operation of a facility protected pursuant to Table [X] 
(``Protection Zones'') of this section that permits mobile or portable 
stations to transit in the 1695-1710 MHz band, licensees must 
successfully coordinate said base station operation with Federal 
Government entities operating meteorological satellite Earth-station 
receivers in the 1695-1710 MHz band listed in Table [X]. Coordination 
must be implemented in accordance with methodologies recommended by 
NTIA (CSMAC WG1 Final Report).
    (i) Interference: If Federal users at a protected facility receive 
harmful interference, AWS licensees must, upon notification, modify the 
stations' location and/or technical parameters as necessary to 
eliminate the interference.
    (ii) Point of contact: Licensees in the 1695-1710 MHz band must 
provide and maintain a point of contact at all times so that immediate 
contact can be made should interference against protected Federal sites 
occur.
    (iii) Procedures for coordination of operations within the 
Protection Zones:
    [To be determined. For an example, see The Federal Communications 
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration--Coordination Procedures in the 1755-1780 MHz Band, WTB 
Docket No. 02-353, Public Notice, 71 FR 28696, May 17, 2006).]
    (iv) Operation outside of Protection Zones. Non-Federal operations 
outside of the protection zones are permitted without coordination. 
Such operations may not cause harmful interference to the Federal sites 
listed in Table X.
    (2) Requirements for licensees operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band. 
AWS licensees operating fixed stations in the 1710-1755 MHz band, if 
notified that such stations are causing interference to radiosonde 
receivers operating in the Meteorological Aids Service in the 1675-1700 
MHz band or a meteorological-satellite earth receiver operating in the 
Meteorological-Satellite Service in the 1675-1710 MHz band, shall be 
required to modify the stations' location and/or technical parameters 
as necessary to eliminate the interference.
* * * * *
    (f) Protection of Federal operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band. The 
Federal Government operates communications systems in the 1755-1780 MHz 
band. See 47 CFR 2.106, US note 89. Licensees in the 1755-1780 MHz band 
must accept any interference received from these Federal operations and 
are excluded from certain areas (Exclusion Zones), subject to 
successful coordination in other areas (Protection Zones), and 
permitted without Federal coordination elsewhere subject to paragraph 
(b) of this section. The Exclusion Zones are set forth in Table [Y] and 
the Protection Zones are set forth in Table [Z].
    (1) Exclusion Zones. 1755-1780 MHz band licensees may not operate 
in any of the Exclusion Zones defined by the radii of operation 
specified in Table [Y] of this section.
    (2) Protection Zones. Prior to operating a base station within the 
radius of operation of a facility protected pursuant to Table [Z] 
(``Protection Zones'') of this section that permits mobile or portable 
stations to transmit in the 1755-1780 MHz band, licensees must 
successfully coordinate said base station operation with Federal 
Government entities operating facilities identified in Table [Z]. 
Coordination

[[Page 51595]]

must be implemented in accordance with methodologies recommended by 
NTIA (CSMAC [TBD] Final Report).
    (i) Interference: If Federal operations identified in 47 CFR 2.106, 
U.S. note 89 receive harmful interference, 1755-1780 MHz licensees 
must, upon notification, modify the stations' location and/or technical 
parameters as necessary to eliminate the interference.
    (ii) Point of contact. Licensees in the 1755-1780 MHz band must 
provide and maintain a point of contact at all times so that immediate 
contact can be made should interference against protected Federal sites 
occur.
    (iii) Procedures for coordination of operations within the 
Protection Zones:
    [To be determined. For an example, see The Federal Communications 
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration--Coordination Procedures in the 1755-1780 MHz Band, WTB 
Docket No. 02-353, Public Notice, 71 FR 28696, May 17, 2006.]
    (3) Operation outside of Protection Zones. Non-Federal operations 
outside of the protection zones are permitted without coordination. 
Such operations may not cause harmful interference to the Federal 
operations in 47 CFR 2.106, US note 89.

[FR Doc. 2013-20147 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P