[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