[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57343-57367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22511]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 27

[WT Docket No. 18-120; FCC 19-62]


Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) takes another step towards making more mid-band 
spectrum available for next generation wireless services benefitting 
all Americans. Specifically, the Commission transforms the regulatory 
framework governing the 2.5 GHz band (2496-2690 MHz), which is the 
single largest band of contiguous spectrum below 3 gigahertz.

DATES: Effective April 27, 2020, except for amendments to Sec. Sec.  
27.14(u) and (v) and 27.1204, which are effective November 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-0797 or 
[email protected]. For information regarding the PRA information 
collection requirements contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, 
Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, WT Docket No. 18-120, FCC 19-62, adopted on July 10, 2019 
and released on July 11, 2019. The complete text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. 
ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street 
SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available 
on the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-62A1.pdf, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page 
at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to 
persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by 
calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice

[[Page 57344]]

and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the 
possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Report and Order 
on small entities. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
released in May 2018 in this proceeding (83 FR 26396, June 7, 2018). 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing 
the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.14(u) and 27.1204 constitute new 
or modified collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. They will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the 
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to 
comment on the new or modified information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Commission notes that, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought, 
but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission describes impacts 
that might affect small businesses, which includes more businesses with 
fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will 
send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order, and 
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, the Commission takes another step 
towards implementing its comprehensive strategy to make additional 
high-band, mid-band, and low-band spectrum available for next 
generation wireless services. Specifically, the Commission transforms 
the regulatory framework governing the 2.5 GHz band (2496-2690 MHz), 
which is the single largest band of contiguous spectrum below 3 
gigahertz. Too much of this spectrum, which is prime spectrum for next 
generation mobile operations, including 5G, has lain fallow for more 
than twenty years. In order to move this spectrum into the hands of 
those who will provide service, including 5G, to Americans across the 
country, and particularly in rural and Tribal areas, the Commission is 
replacing an outdated regulatory regime, developed in the days when 
educational TV was the only use envisioned for this spectrum, with one 
that not only gives incumbent users more flexibility in how they use 
the spectrum, but also provides opportunities for additional entities 
to obtain access to unused 2.5 GHz spectrum. Importantly, the reforms 
the Commission adopts in this Report and Order will make valuable mid-
band spectrum available for the mobile services on which consumers 
increasingly rely and which is critical to maintaining American 
leadership in the next generation of wireless connectivity.

II. Background

    2. The 2.5 GHz band, which extends from 2496 to 2690 MHz, is 
comprised of 20 channels designated for Educational Broadband Service 
(EBS), 13 channels designated for commercial Broadband Radio Service 
(BRS), and a number of small guard band channels. EBS licensees are 
authorized to operate on the A, B, C, D, and G channel groups, with 
each group comprised of three 5.5 megahertz-wide channels in the lower 
or upper band segment and one 6 megahertz-wide channel in the middle 
band segment. Currently, there are 1,300 EBS licensees holding 2,193 
licenses.
    3. Only specified entities are eligible to hold an EBS license, 
specifically (1) accredited public and private educational 
institutions, (2) governmental organizations engaged in the formal 
education of enrolled students, and (3) nonprofit organizations whose 
purpose is educational and include providing educational and 
instructional television materials to accredited institutions and 
governmental organizations.
    4. The Commission rules permit EBS licensees to lease their excess 
capacity to non-educational entities to use for non-educational 
purposes. And most EBS licensees do so. There are 2,087 active leases 
of EBS spectrum, compared with 2,193 licenses.
    5. There are special requirements applicable to EBS excess capacity 
leases that do not apply in other services. Because the Commission's 
rules require EBS licensees to use their spectrum to further their 
educational missions, any excess capacity lease entered into by an EBS 
licensee must reserve a minimum of 5% of its spectrum capacity for the 
licensee/lessor and the licensee must use that capacity to provide 20 
hours of educational usage per channel per week. Under existing rules, 
the Commission generally prohibits EBS licensees from leasing their 
facilities for a term longer than 30 years. Also, lessees are required 
to provide EBS lessors with the opportunity to revisit their lease 
terms at years 15, 20, and 25 to review their ``educational use 
requirements in light of changes in educational needs, technology, and 
other relevant factors and to obtain access to such additional 
services, capacity, support, and/or equipment as the parties shall 
agree upon in the spectrum leasing arrangement to advance the EBS 
licensee's educational mission.'' Those rules do not apply to leases 
that were entered into before January 10, 2005; such leases were 
grandfathered under the previous ITFS rules, which allowed a term of no 
more than fifteen years.
    6. EBS presents two special challenges which are largely not 
present in other bands: a long-standing failure to make spectrum 
available, particularly in rural areas, and an unusual licensing 
scheme. Incumbent EBS licenses cover only about one half of the 
geographic area of the United States in any given channel. The 2.5 GHz 
spectrum remains largely unassigned in much of the rest of the country, 
especially in rural areas west of the Mississippi River.
    7. The Commission suspended the processing of applications for new 
EBS licenses (and for major changes to existing EBS licenses) in 1993. 
Since then, the Commission has only opened two filing windows for EBS 
applications--in 1995, for new construction permits and major changes 
to existing EBS facilities, and in 1996, to allow for the filing of EBS 
modification applications and amendments to pending EBS applications 
proposing to co-locate with an authorized wireless cable facility. 
Thus, the last regular opportunity to apply for a new EBS license was 
in 1995.

[[Page 57345]]

    8. In general, each EBS license is based on a circular Geographic 
Service Area (GSA) with a 35-mile radius (with an area of approximately 
3,850 square miles). Due to a historical license modification process 
the Commission adopted in 2005, however, many EBS licenses have much 
smaller, irregular GSAs. Specifically, many EBS licenses had their 35-
mile radius circles reduced when the Commission converted their 
Protected Service Areas (PSAs) to GSAs through the ``splitting-the-
football'' process.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Splitting-the-football'' refers to a process initially 
used informally by licensees in the MDS and ITFS industry to handle 
interference issues in GSAs that overlap. (``The area for incumbent 
site-based licensees that is bounded by a circle having a 35 mile 
radius and centered at the station's reference coordinates, which 
was the previous PSA entitled to incumbent licensees prior to 
January 10, 2005, and is bounded by the chord(s) drawn between 
intersection points of the licensee's previous 35-mile PSA and those 
of respective adjacent market, co-channel licensees.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On May 10, 2018, the Commission released the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM), 83 FR 26396, in this proceeding that explored ways 
to make this unused spectrum available for more flexible use to 
facilitate the deployment of next generation wireless services, 
including 5G, to all Americans. The NPRM proposed to rationalize the 
geographic service areas of EBS licenses and to provide additional 
flexibility to current EBS licensees in the use of the spectrum. It 
also sought comment on opening up priority windows for access to the 
spectrum by certain groups, such as Tribal Nations; and it proposed to 
assign the remaining white space through geographic area licenses for 
commercial use subject to competitive bidding; and sought comment on 
regulatory requirements for new EBS licensees.
    10. The Commission received 304 comments (including express 
comments) and 29 reply comments on the NPRM.

III. Discussion

    11. To further the Commission's goal of ensuring that this fallow 
spectrum is used to provide high-speed broadband service, particularly 
in rural areas, the Commission moves quickly to assign the remaining 
spectrum in this band to those who will use it to provide service.\2\ 
Specifically, the Commission will hold a Tribal priority window to 
enable Tribal nations an opportunity to obtain 2.5 GHz licenses to 
provide service on rural Tribal lands. This window will be followed 
immediately by a system of competitive bidding for the remaining white 
spaces. In conjunction with the Commission's effort to quickly license 
the remaining spectrum in this band to entities that will use it, the 
Commission also will replace the outdated regulatory regime for EBS 
with one of flexible use, thus making this valuable mid-band spectrum 
more available for advanced wireless services, including 5G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On May 13, 2019, SHLB, NACEPF, Mobile Beacon, Voqal, 
National Digital Inclusion Alliance and Public Knowledge filed a 
request that the Commission seek further comment and delay a 
decision in this proceeding. See SHLB, NACEPF, Mobile Beacon, Voqal, 
National Digital Inclusion Alliance and Public Knowledge May 13 Ex 
Parte, see also Dept. of Ed. June 7 Ex Parte at 8. Further delay in 
this proceeding is not warranted. All parties have had ample 
opportunity to provide information through comments, reply comments, 
and ex parte presentations. Indeed, SHLB and its partners were free 
to provide economic analysis and information on educational use at 
the comment or reply comment stage. The actions the Commission takes 
was clearly identified in the NPRM. Given the critical need to make 
additional mid-band spectrum available, it is entirely appropriate 
to act now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rationalizing Incumbent 2.5 GHz Band Holdings

    12. The Commission takes a series of steps to provide existing EBS 
licensees with additional flexibility. First, in order to provide EBS 
licensees with additional flexibility and to facilitate the most 
efficient use of the EBS spectrum through a market-based mechanism, the 
Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to eliminate the EBS eligibility 
requirements, including for licenses granted via waiver of the filing 
freeze. Second, as part of the Commission's efforts to remove 
unnecessary regulatory barriers and align the EBS licenses with the 
flexible use policies used in similar spectrum bands, the Commission 
adopts its proposal in the NPRM to eliminate the educational use 
requirements for EBS licenses. Third, the Commission adopts the NPRM's 
proposal to eliminate restrictions on EBS leases entered into under its 
Secondary Markets policies on a going forward basis. The Commission 
clarifies that nothing in its decisions is intended to affect or change 
the terms of any private contractual arrangement or any provisions in 
existing leases. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt the NPRM's 
proposal to rationalize incumbent licenses to align with pre-existing 
geographic areas.
1. Eliminating Eligibility Restrictions
    13. As noted by commenters that support elimination of the 
eligibility restrictions, eliminating eligibility restrictions will 
promote more efficient use of the spectrum, improve the industry's 
ability to attract capital, and make this spectrum more appealing for 
commercial operators to include in their long-term service plans. 
Therefore, once the rules become effective, both incumbent EBS licenses 
and new EBS licenses once issued will be free of the eligibility 
restrictions, and EBS licensees may assign or transfer their licenses 
freely. In taking this step, the Commission better aligns these 
licenses with the flexible use licensing policies used in similar 
spectrum bands, which generally feature open eligibility. Moreover, 
taking this step is also consistent with the Commission's historical 
progression of granting increasing flexibility to EBS licensees, which 
has been an effective means of promoting more efficient use of the 2.5 
GHz band.
    14. The circumstances that led to the creation of a dedicated 
educational service no longer exist. Substantial technological changes 
over the last 30 years enable any educator with a broadband connection 
to access a myriad of educational resources--a content distribution 
model that does not require dedicated educational spectrum licensed to 
educational institutions. Only a handful of EBS licensees have deployed 
their own networks or use their EBS licenses in a way that requires 
dedicated spectrum. Instead, most licensees rely on lessees to deploy 
and operate broadband networks and use the leases as a source for 
revenues or devices. Moreover, as noted below, there are a multiplicity 
of other sources of educational programming available to institutions 
with broadband connections. All of these factors support eliminating 
the eligibility restrictions at this time.
    15. The Commission does not believe that eliminating EBS 
eligibility restrictions will result in negative consequences for the 
educational community. Despite some claims to the contrary, eliminating 
eligibility requirements will not disrupt existing arrangements. 
Granting incumbent licensees additional flexibility to transfer or 
assign their licenses will not affect existing leases because: (1) The 
decision about whether to lease or transfer or assign a license remains 
with the EBS licensee, and (2) the Commission's actions in this Report 
and Order do not affect the validity of existing leases and other 
contractual arrangements. The services currently provided by EBS 
licensees will continue uninterrupted, including those provided by 
Mobile Beacon and Mobile Citizen pursuant to their leases with Sprint, 
unless the parties themselves decide otherwise. The Commission is not 
persuaded that eliminating the eligibility restrictions will jeopardize 
the public-private partnerships

[[Page 57346]]

promoted by the Commission's leasing rules that have facilitated the 
construction of networks, which have benefitted both the educational 
institutions and their network partners. Providing additional 
flexibility to incumbent EBS licensees by eliminating the eligibility 
restrictions will help ensure that the licensee retains control of 
decisions about how the license is to be used, including decisions 
about whether, under what terms, and to whom to transfer or assign the 
license. Incumbent EBS licensees that wish to retain their licenses \3\ 
and continue participating in public-private partnerships may do so; 
incumbent EBS licensees that wish to transfer or assign their licenses 
will now have greater ability to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission cautions incumbent EBS licensees concerning 
the eligibility and other requirements of its existing EBS rules, 
including the licensee's educational purposes, the provision of 
educational and instructional television material to accredited 
institutions and government organizations, the reception and use by 
receive sites of the licensee's educational usage, the specific 
additional obligations of nonlocal applicants, and the minimum 5% 
reservation of channel capacity. 47 CFR 27.1201(a), 27.1214. Based 
on recent allegations that several national, non-profit licensees 
have not complied with the Commission's eligibility and other rules, 
see, e.g., Letter from Commissioner Brendan Carr to George Bott, 
President, Rockne Educational TV (July 3, 2019), the Commission 
directs the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Enforcement 
Bureau to investigate such allegations and take appropriate action 
based on their findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The Commission therefore rejects as speculative and 
unpersuasive the assertions of some commenters that eliminating 
eligibility restrictions will lead to existing EBS licensees' losing 
negotiating leverage and will give commercial entities the incentive 
and ability to offer licensees unfavorable sale terms rather than new 
or renewed leases. For the same reasons, the Commission rejects 
allegations that permitting transfer or assignment of incumbent EBS 
licensees will hurt education generally, even if it benefits individual 
licensees. Providing licensees with additional flexibility to transfer 
or assign their licenses gives them greater power to put the licenses 
to use in the manner that suits their educational objectives. The 
Commission expects that incumbent licensees will make decisions about 
assigning or transferring their licenses based on the best interests of 
their educational institution.
    17. Contrary to the concerns of some commenters, the Commission 
does not believe that continuing to apply EBS eligibility restrictions 
is necessary to ensure that commercial entities meet the needs of 
underserved communities. Appropriate performance requirements, such as 
those adopted herein, can ensure that licensees actually use their 
spectrum to offer service. Moreover, nothing in this proceeding affects 
the ability of commercial entities to provide broadband to entities 
eligible for E-Rate funding, which is another way to ensure that 
schools and libraries in underserved communities are provided with 
broadband access. In addition, those incumbent EBS licensees that 
retain their licenses can continue to meet the educational and other 
needs of their communities. Finally, the priority window and 
competitive bidding mechanisms adopted herein will provide additional 
opportunities for the deployment of broadband service to rural unserved 
market areas using 2.5 GHz spectrum.
    18. The Commission rejects claims that the Commission's prior 
decisions to establish ITFS in 1963 and to maintain the eligibility 
restrictions in 2004 support continuation of the EBS eligibility 
restriction. When the 2.5 GHz band originally was designated for 
educational use in 1963, there was a demonstrated need for dedicated 
spectrum for educational television services. When, in 2004--three 
years before the introduction of the smartphone--the Commission decided 
against revising the eligibility restrictions, the 2.5 GHz band was 
just beginning a major transition, as it moved from an analog 
television service to a broadband service accompanied by substantial 
technical changes. In that context, the Commission concluded that it 
was premature to eliminate the restrictions at that time. In contrast, 
this band now is used primarily for broadband, and it resembles 
flexible use bands such as the PCS or AWS bands more than it resembles 
the ITFS band of old. Indeed, even the current educational use 
requirements--to retain 5% of capacity for educational use and to use 
each channel at least 20 hours per week for educational purposes--have 
little relevance to the way this band is being used. In the exercise of 
the Commission's spectrum management responsibilities, the Commission 
believes that it is more appropriate in these circumstances to address 
the critical shortage of flexible use mid-band spectrum necessary to 
promote the deployment of wireless broadband devoted to the wide range 
of 5G uses.
    19. Further, the Commission is not persuaded by the economic study 
submitted on behalf of SHLB in support of maintaining the eligibility 
requirements, which it finds to be premised on an unrealistic 
deployment model. The SHLB Economic Study discusses the services 
offered by Mobile Citizen and Mobile Beacon pursuant to their agreement 
with Sprint, as well as those offered by self-deployed EBS networks, 
and it constructs a framework to measure the economic benefit of 
retaining eligibility restrictions assuming that educational licensees 
offer broadband service at $15/month. However, as noted previously, 
most educational licensees have chosen not to deploy their own 
networks. Indeed, none of the self-deployed educational networks 
identified by SHLB offer service on a regular basis to the general 
public at $15/month.\4\ While economic and social benefits would flow 
from increased broadband adoption, SHLB has not shown that educators 
could sustain a broadband system at the $15/month price point they 
studied. Finally, the study in the Commission's view does not 
adequately address the problem of the digital divide. Specifically, 
while Mobile Citizen and Mobile Beacon offer access at $10/month 
pursuant to their agreement with Sprint, their associated companies 
hold EBS spectrum licenses in major and more densely populated markets. 
The Commission cannot infer from this that new EBS licenses in rural 
areas would be able to negotiate similar agreements with Sprint or 
another provider, particularly given the higher cost of deploying mid-
band spectrum in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SHLB identifies seven ``infrastructure-based'' EBS networks. 
SHLB Economic Study at 22 (Table 2-3). Two of the networks 
(Havasupai Tribal Council and Nisqually Indian Tribe) are tribal 
networks that are not relevant here. NMU charges $34.95/month to the 
general public, $24.95/month for alumni and veterans, and $19.95/
month for students. See https://www.nmu.edu/ean/. Kings County 
charges $30/month for fixed access and $40/month for mobile access, 
with 50% discounts for students. See https://www.kingscoe.org/domain/45 (Internet Fees, Prepaid Service). Imperial County, 
California's network is still in the pilot phase and is seeking 
donations to support its operations. See https://www.icoe.org/about-icoe/borderlink. It is unclear that the Louisa County, Virginia 
network is in fact operating. In its most recent filing concerning 
its special temporary authority, Louisa County reported that it was 
working to construct its system. See File No. 0008360114, Extension 
Request (filed Sep. 7, 2018). Finally, based on press reports, 
Albemarle County's system is only available to students. See Alison 
DeNisco, High speed internet and free internet meet (July 25, 2017), 
https://districtadministration.com/high-speed-internet-and-free-internet-meet/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Further, the SHLB Economic Study claims that the economic and 
social benefits from assigning the 2.5 GHz spectrum via an overlay 
auction are less than if the licenses were assigned to educational 
institutions and/or Tribal nations. The Commission disagrees. The 
Commission finds that auctioning overlay licenses for remaining white 
spaces will be a more efficient and effective means of addressing the 
digital

[[Page 57347]]

divide, as new EBS licensees will have both the market incentives and 
flexibility to pursue the most efficient deployment of this spectrum. 
The Commission notes that the Commission for over a quarter-century has 
successfully assigned spectrum via auction. It has recognized that 
spectrum auctions allow market forces to determine the highest and best 
use of scarce spectrum and the highest value user. The SHLB Economic 
Study not only fails to recognize the efficiency of spectrum auctions, 
but it also understates the potential benefits of an overlay auction 
because its commercial deployment model only considers deployment to 
entire counties, and it precludes deployment to parts of counties, 
which would greatly expand the potential scope of commercial deployment 
after an auction. The SHLB Economic Study also fails to consider 
complementarities that EBS spectrum may have with other spectrum bands. 
As noted above, the Commission has a comprehensive strategy to make 
additional high-band, mid-band, and low-band spectrum available, and 
wireless providers can combine these different bands to better achieve 
the best 5G coverage and capacity possible. Finally, the SHLB Economic 
Study is mistaken in concluding that there is no ``economic surplus'' 
from an overlay auction because it ``would not allow commercial 
carriers to launch more affordable offerings.'' Additional spectrum may 
lower network costs for service providers (e.g., by eliminating the 
need for cell-splitting), thus leading to more affordable plans for 
American consumers.
    21. In addition, to the extent that SHLB suggests that the 
Commission impose some sort of rate regulation on new EBS licensees, it 
fails to consider the disincentive that such a requirement would create 
to using these licenses to provide broadband service, especially in 
conjunction with similar bands used for broadband. That disincentive 
would be particularly significant given the fact that today's networks 
use a mixture of spectrum bands, and the 2.5 GHz band represents key 
mid-band spectrum for the deployment of 5G. Indeed, while CTN and NEBSA 
support the existing eligibility requirements, they do not see the 
proposal around which the SHLB Economic Study is based as workable. To 
be clear, nothing the Commission adopts prevents existing EBS licensees 
from pursuing opportunities with commercial service providers to 
provide broadband to the public; in fact, the Commission's action 
allows current EBS licensees flexible use of the full amount of 
spectrum they hold. Finally, the desire of entities such as Mobile 
Citizen and Mobile Beacon to expand their broadband service offerings 
to the general public using 2.5 GHz spectrum underscores the importance 
of making this spectrum available as quickly as possible.
    22. There is no reason why those who hold licenses granted pursuant 
to waiver of the filing freeze should not have the same rights to 
transfer or assign or lease their licenses as other incumbent EBS 
licensees, and thus the Commission will permit those who hold licenses 
granted pursuant to waiver to freely assign or transfer their licenses. 
The existence of the filing freeze justified treating these licenses 
differently at the time they were granted, including subjecting the 
licenses to significant conditions such as prompt build-out and a 
prohibition on leasing. Now that these licensees have been operating 
and providing service in compliance with these conditions, and the 
filing freeze is being lifted with the upcoming Tribal priority window 
and competitive bidding opportunity, the Commission sees no reason to 
continue to apply different rules to them.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some commenters assert that the EBS application filing 
freeze, and not EBS eligibility restrictions, is the main cause of 
the inefficient use of EBS spectrum. CoSN Comments at 2-4; EBPARC 
Comments at 9-10; NEBSA/CTN Comments at 3-8. Without question, the 
EBS filing freeze contributed to underuse of the EBS band in some 
locations. By the Commission's actions in this item, including 
eliminating eligibility restrictions and education use requirements, 
establishing a priority filing window for new licenses for rural 
Tribal lands, and determining to assign the remaining unassigned 
frequencies through competitive bidding, the Commission provides a 
path forward to remedy this longstanding situation. However, the 
fact remains that with limited exception, most EBS licensees lease 
their spectrum to commercial operators, and meet their educational 
requirements providing services that do not require dedicated EBS 
spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. To effectuate the Commission's decision to eliminate the EBS 
eligibility restriction, the Commission will eliminate existing Sec.  
27.1201 of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Commission will 
amend its secondary market leasing rules to eliminate the EBS-specific 
exception to the rule that a lessee must be eligible to hold a license 
in the service in which it is leasing spectrum. Since EBS will now be a 
service with open eligibility, the exception will no longer be 
necessary.
2. Educational Use Requirements
    24. The Commission finds it is in the public interest to give 
licensees flexibility to put 2.5 GHz spectrum to its most efficient 
use, rather than maintaining or updating outmoded educational use 
requirements that have not been changed since 1998. Licensees holding 
licenses in the 2.5 GHz band, whether obtained before or after the 
adoption of this Report and Order, will not be required to use these 
licenses to fulfill an educational mission, although they are still 
permitted to do so.
    25. This decision is consistent with the Commission's other 
decisions in this item to increase flexibility and eliminate outdated 
EBS requirements. The primary purpose of the educational use 
requirements was to ensure that educational licensees were using the 
spectrum for educational purposes, in order to ``safeguard[ ] the 
primary educational purpose of the ITFS spectrum allocation.'' If the 
Commission allows non-educators to hold licenses directly, it makes 
little sense to retain these restrictions on spectrum use. Furthermore, 
the Commission believes that eliminating these requirements is the best 
means of promoting flexibility, which ultimately will promote the 
deployment of broadband and allow markets to direct spectrum to its 
most productive use, for the benefit of educational institutions and 
all Americans.
    26. As the Commission stated in the NPRM, the educational use 
requirements have not been updated since 1998 and were based on the use 
of analog video. Circumstances have changed radically since the 
Commission established ITFS. In 1963, there were very limited means of 
distributing educational programming to students, and a dedicated means 
of distributing such programming made sense. Now, as WCAI notes, 
``broadband gives all educators--not just those lucky enough to be EBS 
licensees--the ability to provide access to educational materials to 
whomever they choose.'' The internet is a far more prevalent and 
efficient mechanism for distributing content. T-Mobile compares the 
efficiency of internet video streaming (for live events) or the 
downloading of compressed video files (for recorded material) over 
generic broadband digital connections versus using dedicated video 
transmissions. Furthermore, educators also use broadband to communicate 
with peers, collaborate across platforms, and research. Moreover, most 
current EBS licensees have abandoned use of EBS as a closed, dedicated 
means of distributing educational content. The educational use of the 
2.5 GHz band has become indistinguishable from the commercial broadband 
service offered by the commercial lessee, with most EBS licensees or 
their commercial lessees providing digital broadband service, offered 
24/7, at the school itself,

[[Page 57348]]

at home, or anywhere within the licensee's GSA. Even if there were a 
rationale for maintaining the educational use requirements in the 
absence of eligibility restrictions, the Commission sees no workable 
set of requirements in this record. Commenters recommend that the 
Commission adopt a large and diverse set of potential requirements, 
ranging from new metrics differentiated by institution size to 
certification requirements to price mandates.
    27. But the alternative educational use requirements proposed by 
commenters would neither facilitate broadband deployment nor be 
workable for licensees or commercial operators. Requiring a commercial 
operator to designate a fixed percentage of capacity for educational 
use is not an appropriate requirement when it is not clear how much 
capacity future networks will have or how much capacity most 
educational institutions will need or be able to use. Similarly, 
imposing rate regulation on new EBS licensees offering broadband 
service to consumers likely would create a disincentive to providing 
broadband service and would establish a regulatory requirement that 
would make it more difficult to use the band in conjunction with 
similar bands used for broadband. There is a large difference between 
the voluntary partnership entities such as Mobile Citizen and Mobile 
Beacon have negotiated to facilitate discounted broadband access and a 
regulatory mandate that would be a form of price control. The 
Commission also agrees with NEBSA/CTN that it is difficult to see how 
such a requirement would be defined and enforced.
    28. The Commission is sensitive to the concerns raised by Sprint 
and NEBSA/CTN that any changes it makes not disrupt any existing 
leases. The Commission clarifies that nothing in its decision to remove 
the educational use requirement is intended to affect or change the 
terms of any private contractual arrangement or any provisions in 
existing leases that may provide a licensee with airtime, equipment, or 
capacity. In other words, if a lease negotiated under the old rules 
provides that a licensee shall receive services or equipment from a 
lessee, the Commission's decision does not change or nullify the 
provisions of that lease.
    29. Finally, the Commission disagrees with NACEPF that the 
educational use requirements are one of the few tools the Commission 
has that can address the homework gap. There are many other spectrum 
bands that educators may use if they do not have access to 2.5 GHz 
spectrum, such as 5 GHz Wi-Fi or General Authorized Access in the 3.5 
GHz CBRS band, and as mentioned above, commercial services developed 
using licensed spectrum are broadly deployed (certainly more so than 
services relying on current EBS spectrum). In addition, the Commission 
has for years focused on providing connectivity to millions of students 
and library patrons through its E-Rate program.
3. Eliminating Leasing Restrictions
    30. Given the Commission's decision to eliminate eligibility 
requirements, and the fact that broadband is the predominant use of the 
EBS band, the Commission sees no value in maintaining special lease 
restrictions that only apply to EBS. Eliminating the leasing 
restrictions that only apply to EBS licenses will make the rules for 
the 2.5 GHz band consistent with other Wireless Radio Services, 
incentivize build-out in rural areas and provide additional flexibility 
to both EBS licensees and lessees to enter into mutually beneficial 
arrangements.
    31. The Commission agrees with commenters that argue that these 
lease restrictions are unique to EBS and that they constrain commercial 
operations and deter investment, particularly in rural areas. The 
Commission concurs with VIYA that, if eligibility restrictions are 
eliminated, the restrictions on lease terms serve no purpose.
    32. The Commission acknowledges that many educational institutions 
oppose eliminating restrictions on lease terms, with a split between 
educational institutions that support the current leasing rules and 
those that want to impose additional restrictions on leasing. 
Supporters of the current leasing rules argue that the lease term 
limitations allow educational institutions to review their leases 
periodically in light of changing needs and technology. In contrast, 
Educational Broadband Corp. (EBC) urges the Commission to eliminate 
lease terms that transfer too much control to the lessee, while 
Havasupai and Utah would prohibit leasing to commercial providers so 
that use of the spectrum can be focused on education. The Commission 
agrees with those commenters arguing that its actions should not harm 
or invalidate existing leases, and the Commission emphasizes that 
nothing in this Report and Order is intended to invalidate existing 
lease provisions. Leases are a form of contract, and the parties retain 
the ability to exercise their rights under state contract law. Indeed, 
there is broad agreement among both educational institutions and 
commercial providers that the Commission should not take any action to 
invalidate or harm existing leases. As HITN writes, ``[b]oth commercial 
lessees and educational lessors, have invested in services and 
equipment, in substantial reliance on the negotiated terms of their 
existing leases, and the Commission should make no rule changes that 
would interfere with or substantially alter such contractual rights and 
obligations.'' WCAI and Sprint take a similar view. To the extent some 
argue for additional restrictions on leasing, the Commission finds that 
such additional restrictions would be inconsistent with its goals of 
promoting broadband deployment using EBS spectrum and maximizing 
flexibility for EBS licensees.
    33. The Commission therefore eliminates Sec.  27.1214 of the 
Commission's rules, except for paragraph (d). In addition, the 
Commission will eliminate Sec.  1.9047, which is a cross-reference in 
the secondary market rules to Sec.  27.1214.
4. Modifying Existing License Areas
    34. To ensure that the fallow spectrum in this band is made 
available for use quickly, the Commission has decided to leave existing 
license boundaries for incumbent 2.5 GHz licenses intact, rather than 
imposing a complex and protracted rationalization process on 
incumbents. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to rationalize the 
current point-and-radius license areas held by incumbents to a defined 
geographic area and sought comment on a number of issues related to 
this proposal. Upon review of the record, however, and in light of the 
unique circumstances posed by licensing of this 2.5 GHz band as 
discussed below, the Commission finds that engaging in the complex, and 
potentially confusing process of rationalizing current licenses to a 
geographic area (such as counties or census tracts) would delay making 
the white spaces available in this band and would not likely result in 
the potential benefits explored in the NPRM.
    35. With regard to the NPRM's proposal to modify each existing 
license to include all of the census tracts covered by each current 
geographic service area the Commission is persuaded by opponents' 
argument that census tract-based rationalization would not necessarily 
result in more easily-determined license boundaries and therefore would 
not facilitate service by either existing licensees or new entrants. As 
the EBC and other commenters point out, any method of assigning census 
tracts to incumbents is likely to leave license areas with edges like 
``saw teeth''--irregular zig-zagging

[[Page 57349]]

lines with frequent, small protrusions. Given the propagation 
characteristics of the 2.5 GHz band, it would be difficult to provide 
services to these areas as a technical matter, and this difficulty may 
result in significant degradation of service near market boundaries, as 
each licensee decreased power in order to remain within power limits, 
resulting in lower signal strength and lower service quality in the 
area. This issue does not arise to the same degree with the current 
license areas, as their smooth, circular contours are more consistent 
with signal propagation patterns. In addition, any problems caused by 
these irregular boundaries necessarily also would affect the white 
space available for licensing subject to competitive bidding, at the 
borders between incumbents and new entrants. Because the potential for 
operational problems far outweighs the small potential for improvement 
in the regularity of the resulting white space, the Commission 
therefore declines to adopt a census tract-based rationalization 
scheme.
    36. The Commission also rejects the proposal by commenters to 
expand existing GSAs to include the counties covered by or that 
intersect the geographic service area, based on a coverage threshold 
determined by the percentage of the geographic area of the county 
covered by the licensee. While the Commission has recognized the 
benefits of adopting county-based licensing in other bands, the 
Commission declines to adopt a county boundary-based rationalization 
scheme for incumbents in the 2.5 GHz band for several reasons. First, 
the Commission is concerned about the potential for some licensees to 
receive a much larger GSA, with no corresponding requirement to provide 
service in the expanded area. For example, San Bernardino County, the 
largest county in the United States, covers over 20,000 square miles, 
compared to the maximum incumbent license area of approximately 3,850 
square miles. Since the Commission is not applying updated performance 
requirements to existing EBS licenses, there is no guarantee that 
existing licensees would use the expanded area. Alternatively, was the 
Commission to adopt NACEPF's suggestion to expand incumbents' licenses 
to county boundaries subject to additional build-out requirements, 
incumbents with no interest in serving additional geographic areas, 
especially in very large counties, could ultimately lose their entire 
license based on a failure to expand service.
    37. Second, implementing county-based expansion in situations with 
multiple incumbent licenses in the same county raises complex issues 
that likely reduce significantly the benefits of county expansion. To 
handle such situations, several commenters suggest ``splitting the 
football,'' the methodology that the Commission previously employed in 
this band to address the issue of overlapping circular GSAs or 
alternative methods to deal with multiple incumbents expanding into the 
same county. While ``splitting the football,'' or using a similar 
method to establish a border between multiple incumbents expanding into 
the same county, might be equitable for current licensees, it would not 
result in regular, mappable license areas based on geographic 
boundaries. The resulting borders would not correspond to any official 
boundaries or natural features; instead, they could only be calculated 
by referencing the previous license areas--either the ``point'' of the 
point-and-radius GSA, or the edge of the previously-calculated circle--
neither of which would be immediately visible after rationalization. 
All of the problems cited by commenters, including the difficulty of 
administering these arbitrary license areas in ULS, would persist. CA 
K-12 HSN's suggestion of splitting counties by spectrum is also 
problematic. Wider channel width is important for many advanced 
wireless applications, including 5G, and dividing spectrum among 
multiple incumbents may reduce its usefulness significantly.
    38. Third, using a percentage threshold based on existing 
geographic area coverage of a county relative to the total area of the 
county limits the amount of rationalization that actually takes place. 
Commenters originally proposed a wide array of threshold levels of 
geographic coverage within a county that an incumbent licensee would be 
required to meet to qualify for expansion to the county's boundaries, 
including 10%, 20%, 30%, 35%, or 80% of the geographic area of the 
license. Sprint, WISPA, MidCo, WCAI, CTN, NEBSA, Voqal, and NACEPF 
subsequently agreed on using a 25% threshold. To the extent the 
Commission adopted any threshold for county-based expansion, however, 
many incumbent licenses would remain at least partially ``un-
rationalized,'' because if the GSA is in more than one county (as many 
are), some sections of the license would expand to county borders and 
some sections of the license would not expand to county borders, but 
rather would remain bounded by the circle arc. Counties with un-
rationalized license sections still would be subject to all the 
problems and continuing coverage gaps cited in the record. In addition, 
as WCAI notes, expanding licenses to county boundaries in some cases, 
while leaving vestigial circle arcs in other counties, with respect to 
the same GSA license, would result in ``significant confusion as to 
what areas are white space,'' as well as ``exacerbat[ing] the [current] 
problem by adding a second, geographic area-based approach.''
    39. Although some commenters point to certain alleged advantages of 
county-based rationalization, including eliminating coverage gaps 
between current license areas better aligning licenses with typical 
school districts, and other claimed advantages, the Commission 
concludes that the problems associated with county-based 
rationalization outlined above outweigh any of these potential 
benefits. NACEPF also mentions faster 5G deployment in the 2.5 GHz band 
as a benefit of county expansion, primarily due to the resulting 
increase in the license areas available to Sprint. While Sprint 
supports county-based rationalization, it does not make any commitments 
to deploy in expanded license areas.
    40. The Commission also rejects other alternative rationalization 
schemes suggested by commenters, such as self-defined GSAs, GSAs based 
on granular population data, or GSAs that vary from state to state 
based on local school district size. Those methods of rationalizing 
licenses would be both unpredictable and difficult to implement. The 
Commission also rejects rationalization of existing EBS licenses to 
``correspond with the geographic areas where existing licensees 
currently provide service,'' because such an approach: (1) Would take 
years to implement, as it would require an extensive analysis of where 
service was being provided, (2) would be prone to litigation, and (3) 
would be inconsistent with the goal of quickly getting unused spectrum 
into the hands of those who will provide service, including 5G, to 
Americans across the country.
    41. Similarly, any of the rationalization schemes described in the 
NPRM or suggested by commenters would require considerable time to 
implement and would have to be completed before any auction of 
remaining spectrum could take place. In addition to the necessary 
changes to the licensing system, the process of resolving whether the 
required threshold had been met and dealing with situations where 
multiple incumbents met the threshold would be complex. Adding a 
complicated and lengthy rationalization process before the auction 
could delay the deployment of 2.5 GHz services in currently unlicensed 
areas. In the interest of

[[Page 57350]]

expeditiously moving this important mid-band spectrum into the hands of 
those best able to develop it, the Commission concludes that the 
likelihood of considerable delay for such a limited result is not in 
the public interest.
    42. Given the complications and drawbacks inherent in all the 
rationalization schemes proposed in the record with respect to 
licensing of this band, the Commission declines to adopt any of the 
proposals. Instead, the Commission concludes that the best mechanism of 
putting unassigned spectrum to use as quickly and efficiently as 
possible is to offer overlay licenses subject to competitive bidding. 
Such an overlay license approach also addresses any concerns regarding 
irregular gaps between license areas, allowing overlay licensees to 
take existing EBS license contours into account when bidding for such 
license.

B. Local Priority Filing Windows

    43. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to use geographic area 
licensing to assign the remaining unassigned portions of the 2.5 GHz 
band. Envisioning that these geographic licenses would be assigned by 
auction, the Commission also sought comment on whether it first should 
open up to three priority filing windows to give Tribal Nations, other 
non-licensee educational institutions, and existing licensees an 
opportunity to file applications for 2.5 GHz licenses to serve their 
local communities, in advance of any auction for these frequencies. The 
Commission explained that, in each filing window, qualifying applicants 
would have the opportunity to apply for one or more vacant channels of 
EBS spectrum in areas where the applicant can demonstrate that it has a 
local presence.
    44. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts a priority 
window for Tribal Nations to obtain access to the 2.5 GHz band on rural 
Tribal lands. The priority window will operate as an overlay license, 
with Tribal priority window applicants obtaining geographic area 
licenses subject to protecting incumbent operations within the relevant 
geographic area. The Commission declines to adopt priority windows for 
non-incumbent educational institutions or incumbent licensees.
1. Tribal Priority Window
    45. The Commission finds that adoption of a Tribal priority window 
for Tribal entities to obtain EBS licenses on Tribal lands that are 
located in rural areas is in the public interest. Consistent with the 
Commission's suggestion in the NPRM, the Commission concludes that 
opening a priority filing window for rural Tribal Nations will provide 
Tribal Nations with an opportunity to obtain unassigned EBS spectrum to 
address the communications needs of their communities and of residents 
on rural Tribal lands, including the deployment of advanced wireless 
services to unserved or underserved areas. The Commission has 
recognized that ``members of federally-recognized American Indian 
Tribes and Alaska Native Villages and other residents of Tribal lands 
have lacked meaningful access to wired and wireless communications 
services.'' The EBS spectrum offers sufficient bandwidth to give rural 
Tribal entities an opportunity to provide broadband wireless service. 
As proposed in the NPRM, applicants in the Tribal priority window will 
be able to acquire all available EBS spectrum on their rural Tribal 
lands.
    46. The Commission's decision to adopt a Tribal priority window 
finds broad support in the record, including from many Tribal and 
Tribal-related commenters, who argue that opening a priority filing 
window for Tribal Nations would provide rural Tribal Nations with a way 
to obtain spectrum that could be used to provide needed advanced 
wireless and broadband services. In addition, those commenters who 
support local priority filing windows in general also support a Tribal 
priority window. Even among commenters who oppose local priority 
windows in general WCAI acknowledges a need for a Tribal priority 
window. The Commission disagrees with MidCo's assertion that priority 
windows would ``not further any national policy objectives'' because, 
as explained above, a Tribal priority window would facilitate access to 
high-speed broadband, including 5G, on rural Tribal lands.
    47. Eligibility. As proposed in the NPRM, eligibility for the 
Tribal priority window will be limited to federally-recognized American 
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages on rural Tribal lands. As of 
September 24, 2018, there were 573 federally-recognized Indian tribes. 
Federally-recognized Tribes have a government-to-government 
relationship with the United States and are eligible to receive certain 
protections, services, and benefits by virtue of their federally-
recognized status. While the Commission's rules with respect to Tribal 
eligibility in various contexts vary somewhat, they universally limit 
eligibility to those Tribes that are ``federally-recognized,'' so the 
Commission will do so with respect to the Tribal priority window.
    48. The Commission will extend eligibility in the Tribal priority 
window to communications providers and other entities that provide 
communications and other services, provided that that they are owned 
and controlled by federally-recognized Tribes or a consortium of such 
Tribes. To permit these entities to be eligible to hold EBS licenses 
and use those licenses to provide broadband service on rural Tribal 
lands, the Commission will permit those entities and others that are 
owned and controlled by a federally-recognized Tribe or a consortium of 
federally-recognized Tribes to participate in the Tribal filing window 
and to hold EBS licensees.\6\ AIHEC requests that the 38 Tribal 
Colleges and Universities (TCUs) be classified as eligible to apply for 
available EBS spectrum. To the extent TCUs or other educational 
entities are owned and controlled by a federally-recognized Tribe or a 
consortium of federally-recognized Tribes as well as the other 
requirements the Commission establishes for participation, they would 
also qualify as applicants in the Tribal priority window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, the provider must be more than 50% owned by 
one or more federally recognized Tribal Nations or Tribal consortia 
and actually controlled by one or more federally recognized Tribal 
Nations or Tribal consortia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Tribal Lands. For purposes of the Tribal filing window, the 
Commission adopts the broad definition of Tribal lands contained in the 
Commission's part 54 rules. The Commission does so because, in both the 
Universal Service and EBS contexts, the Commission is assisting Tribes 
in obtaining necessary communications services. The Commission declines 
to adopt the part 73 definitions proposed by some commenters because 
broadcast definitions were adopted to permit comparison between non-
commercial educators applying for broadcast stations, while the part 54 
definition has a similar purpose to the Tribal priority window, to 
encourage provision of broadband service on rural lands.
    50. The Commission will include in the Tribal priority window 
Tribal lands on-reservation in all situations and off-reservation lands 
in certain situations. Consistent with the Commission's ongoing effort 
to close the digital divide on rural Tribal lands, the purpose of this 
filing window is to provide broadband access to Tribal lands that 
historically have been unserved or underserved. It is important to 
ensure that entities acquiring spectrum in this window will

[[Page 57351]]

use it to meet the needs of Tribal members.
    51. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the 
appropriate geographic area for such licenses and whether county-based 
or census tract-based license areas might be appropriate. While some 
commenters support county-based or census tract-based licensing for 
Tribal entities, most Tribal entities favor a geographic license area 
that tracks reservation boundaries. In addition, some Tribal entities 
have members who don't reside on a reservation but live beyond the 
boundaries of Tribal lands on off-reservation lands. In addition, some 
federally-recognized tribes do not have reservations at all. These 
commenters ask that the Commission includes in this priority window 
licenses that cover ``counties bordering the licensees' reservations'' 
or counties in which Tribal lands cover some minimum percentage of a 
county (such as 10%).
    52. The Commission agrees with commenters that including off-
reservation lands in the Tribal priority window can help promote its 
goal of facilitating access to wireless service to underserved Tribal 
populations, and that the Commission must define eligible off-
reservation lands in a way that promotes this goal. With respect to 
including off-reservation land in the Tribal priority window, the 
Havasupai propose that Tribal entities be licensed on an ``ad hoc'' 
basis using a variety of criteria such as: The services to be provided, 
the location of the target recipients, the amount of EBS spectrum that 
will be used to provide the service, the broadcast or distribution 
capabilities of the applicant, and the percentage of the target 
population that will be served by the proposed size of the service 
area. The Chickasaw Nation suggest that the service area should be 
based on whether a ``portion of the Tribe's population will be served 
by licensing that proposed'' service area. Instead of relying on the 
``ad-hoc'' processes proposed by Tribes, the Commission will rely on an 
existing Commission process and designate off-reservation Tribal lands 
as eligible for the Tribal priority window if they have already been 
designated (as of the adoption date of this Report and Order) as Tribal 
lands pursuant to the designation process contained in Sec.  54.412 of 
the universal service rules. The Commission finds that using the 
existing process would be efficient and facilitate prompt processing of 
Tribal priority applications. The Commission finds that limiting 
eligible off-reservation lands as of the adoption date of this Report 
and Order will provide certainty to Tribal applicants and facilitate 
administration of the Tribal priority window.
    53. While Midco may be correct that, in some cases, ``irregularly 
shaped'' reservation-based Tribal lands will complicate the geographic 
landscape for EBS licenses awarded through competitive bidding, the 
Commission does not see this potential complication as a reason not to 
make all reservation lands available for the Tribal priority window. 
EBS licensees that acquire their licenses through competitive bidding 
will have to protect existing EBS licensees, many of which already have 
irregularly shaped geographic service areas. More importantly, the 
Commission finds that the need to provide Tribal lands with broadband 
service outweighs this additional complexity.
    54. Rural. To be included in the Tribal priority window, the 
Commission adopts the proposal from the NPRM that, in addition to being 
designated as Tribal Lands, an area must also be rural. The Commission 
understands that not all Tribes are located in areas that are 
considered rural and that by limiting eligibility to rural Tribal 
lands, some tribes may be excluded from the window. However, as the 
Commission has previously made clear, bringing broadband access to 
rural Americans is critical to providing them with the same economic, 
employment, education and civic opportunities that people in urban 
areas enjoy. Because the problem of access to wireless communications 
services is most acute in rural areas, and because the purpose of the 
Tribal priority window should be to promote service to areas that are 
currently unserved or underserved, the Commission believes that 
limiting this priority window to rural Tribal lands will provide the 
most effective and targeted way to achieve the Commission's goal of 
closing the digital divide in Tribal lands.
    55. First, the Commission is not persuaded by the objections raised 
to limiting the Tribal priority window to rural areas. For example, the 
Commission disagrees with the assertion that such a limitation is 
inconsistent with the ``federal government's trust relationship with 
Indian tribes,'' as that relationship is not limited to rural areas. 
The Commission is committed to honoring its trust relationship with 
Tribal Nations through, among other things, policies facilitating 
broadband deployment on Tribal lands. Individual policies tailored to 
specific deployment issues, such as increasing access to spectrum over 
unserved rural areas, positively contribute to this overall effort. Nor 
is the Commission persuaded that limiting access to rural areas will 
reduce flexibility for Tribal Nations to use this spectrum, create 
definitional uncertainty for Tribal Nations, or create separate classes 
of Tribal governments, which is inconsistent with the intent of 
Congress. Priority window applicants seeking access to 2.5 GHz spectrum 
on rural Tribal lands will not be limited in how they use the spectrum; 
rather they will have the same flexibility as other licensees. Since 
the Commission is adopting an objective definition of what land will be 
considered rural, Tribes will be able to determine whether the lands 
for which they seek licenses are eligible for this window and make the 
appropriate demonstration.
    56. The Commission is, however, persuaded that, in establishing 
what constitutes rural Tribal lands for purposes of a Tribal priority 
window, the Commission should set a population limit that is higher 
than the one the Commission proposed in the NPRM. Although in the NPRM, 
the Commission proposed using the definition of rural Tribal lands from 
the E-rate and Lifeline programs: i.e., Tribal Lands that are not part 
of ``an urbanized area or urban cluster area with a population equal to 
or greater than 25,000,'' the Commission notes that, as the Chickasaw 
Nation asserts, some clusters within historically rural Tribal lands 
have populations very close to or perhaps just over 25,000. The 
Commission therefore adopts the proposed definition but modify the 
population threshold for an urbanized area or urban cluster from 25,000 
to 50,000. Therefore, Tribal lands will be considered rural if they are 
not part of an urbanized area or urban cluster area with a population 
equal to or greater than 50,000. In this specific instance, the 
Commission finds that using the population threshold of 50,000 will 
provide certainty to Tribes in bona fide rural areas that they can take 
advantage of the Tribal priority window while ensuring that the Tribal 
priority window is appropriately targeted and limited. Some commenters 
suggest other definitions of rural for the Tribal priority window. The 
Commission finds that by focusing on areas that are not part of 
urbanized clusters, as the Commission does in the E-rate and Lifeline 
programs, the Commission will best target those areas that are most 
difficult to serve and are therefore likely in greatest need of high-
speed broadband service. The Commission finds that using this 
population limit is consistent with its goal of targeting underserved 
and unserved Tribal areas.
    57. Local Presence. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to 
require

[[Page 57352]]

that all applicants for the Tribal priority window have a local 
presence in any area for which they apply. The Commission believes 
Tribal entities with a local presence better understand the needs of 
their communities and are better able to serve those needs. Further, 
there is no opposition to this proposal with respect to Tribal 
entities, and thus, the Commission will require applicants for the 
Tribal priority window to demonstrate that they have a local presence 
in the Tribal land area for which they seek licenses.
    58. Timing. To ensure that federally-recognized Tribes have access 
to the maximum amount of unassigned EBS spectrum available on rural 
Tribal lands, the Commission will open the Tribal priority window 
before the Commission makes unassigned EBS spectrum generally available 
to all entities through competitive bidding.
    59. Procedures. While few commenters address the application 
process for the Tribal window, several Tribal entities propose a 90-day 
notice period prior to the opening of the priority filing window with a 
60-day window for the filing of applications. In accordance with the 
process the Commission uses for competitive bidding and with its notice 
and comment requirements, the Commission directs the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to announce procedures for the Tribal 
priority window through one or more Public Notices and other 
appropriate outreach to potentially eligible Tribal applicants.
    60. The Commission rejects Colville's suggestion that the 
Commission rank applicants eligible for the Tribal window based on a 
``tribe's reservation size and location, with the largest, most 
sparsely populated, and currently least `wired' reservations receiving 
top priority.'' The Commission does not believe it necessary to rank 
Tribal eligibility. The Commission finds it unlikely that applications 
filed in the Tribal priority window will be mutually exclusive in light 
of its criteria requiring that: (1) Tribal applicants be federally-
recognized; (2) the area to be licensed be based on a Tribe's 
reservation or qualified off-reservation lands; (3) the area be rural; 
and (4) the Tribe have a local presence. To the extent that the 
Commission does receive mutually exclusive applications, the Commission 
required by statute to subject such applications to competitive 
bidding.
    61. Other Issues. Because the Commission is eliminating the 
educational use requirements for EBS spectrum generally, the Commission 
finds that it would make little sense to apply those requirements to 
new Tribal licensees. To that end, the Commission will not impose 
educational use requirements on the EBS spectrum available in the 
Tribal filing window.
    62. Consistent with the Commission's general decision to eliminate 
leasing restrictions generally for EBS licenses, the Commission will 
not impose such restrictions on Tribal licensees' ability to lease 
spectrum to third parties. According to certain Tribal commenters, 
doing otherwise might ``impede the Commission's goal of timely and 
efficient build out in rural areas.'' Tribal entities may not have the 
``know-how or resources to build out a broadband network'' and leasing 
will increase the likelihood that the spectrum is ``used for its 
highest and best use.'' In addition, the Tribes should be able to lease 
unused spectrum to ``bring in much needed revenue.'' Although the 
Commission is generally eliminating restrictions on assignment and 
transfer of existing EBS licenses, the Commission believes it necessary 
to impose some restrictions on assignment and transfers of licenses 
acquired in the Tribal priority window. Because proponents of the 
Tribal priority window have indicated an urgent need for the spectrum 
to provide service to underserved tribal communities, the Commission 
believes it is appropriate to limit, and will accordingly restrict, 
Tribal licensees' ability to assign or transfer their licenses until 
after they have met the build-out requirements applicable to these 
licenses.
    63. The Tribal window will include only unassigned EBS spectrum. 
The Commission rejects suggestions from several Tribal commenters that 
the Commission permits Tribal entities to apply for already-licensed 
spectrum.\7\ Not only would such an action be beyond the scope of the 
NPRM, but it also would have a substantial effect on existing licenses 
that are in compliance with the Commission's rules. However, since 
licenses granted to Tribal entities will be overlay licenses, if an 
incumbent license that covers rural Tribal lands is cancelled or 
terminated, any spectrum that becomes available over time will revert 
to the Tribal licensee. Similarly, Tribal licensees are authorized to 
lease, partition, or disaggregate their spectrum, including in areas in 
or near rural Tribal lands. The Commission does not require that 
incumbent licensees do so, but the Commission encourages those who have 
holdings covering, or adjacent to, rural Tribal lands to work 
cooperatively with new Tribal licensees to facilitate deployment of 
needed service to these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Several Tribal commenters suggest that the Commission should 
revoke licenses or mandate disaggregation of spectrum from incumbent 
EBS licensees with spectrum covering Tribal lands, or that the 
Commission otherwise should force them to provide service to the 
Tribal lands or give their spectrum to the Tribal entity. Bad River 
asks the Commission for a clarification that EBS licenses can be 
disaggregated. Bad River Comments at 7, n.12. As Sec.  27.15 permits 
disaggregation for EBS licenses, such clarification is not 
necessary. However, nothing in that rule mandates such 
disaggregation. Bad River Comments at 6-7; Chickasaw Nation Reply at 
3; Mural Net Comments at 4; Nez Perce Comments at 3, 5; Pueblo de 
Cochiti Reply at 2; Santa Fe Indian School Reply at 2. Colville asks 
that the Commission reassign incumbent EBS licenses that are not 
being used by the incumbent licensee and make them available for 
application during the filing window. Colville Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Educational Institution Priority Windows
    64. The Commission declines to establish a priority filing window 
for educational institutions, either for educational institutions that 
do not currently hold EBS licenses or for existing licensees. Adopting 
a priority window restricted to educational institutions would be at 
odds with the Commission's other decisions to provide greater 
flexibility for more providers to make use of the 2.5 GHz band to offer 
high-speed broadband service to the public. Given the Commission's 
experience with service deployment to date in EBS, with the vast 
majority of licensees leasing their spectrum to commercial providers, 
the Commission believes that making the unassigned EBS spectrum 
available for flexible use is the best way of getting broadband service 
deployed to the public more quickly and extensively. While the 
Commission understands the desire of certain educational institutions 
to gain additional access to spectrum, the Commission's decision is 
guided by the goal of facilitating broadband deployment and spectrum 
use and perpetuating an outdated regulatory regime in this band will 
not further this goal.
    65. If the Commission adopted a priority window open to all 
educational institutions, it is highly likely that the Commission will 
receive mutually exclusive applications. Commenters have identified 
circumstances that raise substantial doubts about the legal authority 
of certain EBS licensees, particularly public-school districts and 
local governments, to participate in a spectrum auction. Specifically, 
commenters claim that a number of states (approximately 36) have 
adopted Dillon's Rule, which provides that a municipality may exercise 
only those powers expressly conferred by statute, necessarily or fairly 
implied by the expressed power in the statute, or essential and not 
merely convenient.

[[Page 57353]]

Applied to the auction situation, Dillon's Rule may limit the ability 
of many municipal educational entities, including counties and school 
districts that hold EBS licenses, from participating in an auction. The 
Commission notes that no commenter has attempted to show that Dillon's 
Rule is not an impediment to auction participation.
    66. Those problems become important because, under section 309(j) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, if mutually exclusive 
EBS applications are accepted for filing, the Commission must use 
competitive bidding to resolve the mutual exclusivity. Educational 
institutions propose various workarounds to address that issue, 
including using a first-come, first-served filing system, placing 
strict limits on the number of channels an applicant can apply for, 
forcing applicants to form consortia, or basing license grants on the 
number of enrolled students in a service area. These proposals are 
inconsistent either with the Communications Act's requirement that the 
Commission use competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive 
applications or with the public interest test applicable to 
alternatives that avoid mutual exclusivity. Placing strict limits on 
the number of channels for which an educational institution could apply 
could constrain severely the capacity any individual educational 
institution could provide. Finally, choosing between mutually exclusive 
applicants on a basis other than competitive bidding or requiring 
applicants that have applied individually to form a joint venture or 
consortium is plainly inconsistent with the requirement to use 
competitive bidding.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission notes that API has requested that the 
Commission provide a filing window for critical infrastructure and 
allow preemptory use of the 2.5 GHz spectrum in certain emergency 
situations related to oil and gas disasters. API Comments at 3-4. As 
the Commission determines herein, open eligibility is the best 
option for assigning unassigned EBS spectrum. API has not 
demonstrated a critical need for this spectrum and API's members are 
free to participate in the auction of overlay licenses that the 
Commission will conduct. See section III.C, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. Although EBPARC argues that the use of priority filing windows 
would quickly put EBS spectrum in the hands of schools and local 
operator partners that are eager and ready to build out, the Commission 
does not see a way to avoid the receipt of mutually exclusive 
applications. And even though SETDA touts the ability of certain 
educational institutions to provide broadband to unserved and 
underserved areas, these limited identified examples, among the 
thousands of EBS licensees, do not persuade us to establish a priority 
window for all educational institutions. Given the time and effort and 
delay that would be involved in establishing and running the priority 
window, and the likelihood that such a window for all educational 
institutions would result in having to auction the spectrum anyway, the 
Commission finds that moving directly to flexible use and open 
eligibility would be the most expeditious method of making spectrum 
available to provide broadband service in rural and underserved areas, 
consistent with the Commission's statutory objective to ensure ``the 
development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and 
services for the benefit of the public, including those residing in 
rural areas, without administrative or judicial delays. . . .'' The 
Commission finds that the advantages to the public of making critical 
mid-band spectrum available for flexible commercial use on a prompt 
basis far outweigh the detriment to those educational institutions.
    68. The Commission recognizes that some institutions have a desire 
to provide broadband service to rural, underserved areas. In 
establishing a priority window for Tribal entities--sovereign nations 
seeking to bring broadband service to the members of their Tribal 
Nations, but which historically have not had access to such spectrum--
but declining to establish a new priority window for educational 
institutions, the Commission exercising its considered judgment about 
which proposals will most effectively and expeditiously achieve its 
statutory obligations and objectives. The Commission believes the 
Tribal priority window will be a more focused solution than an 
educational window, since Tribal entities will have a clear incentive 
to target areas lacking broadband, and Tribes must already work with 
providers that want to deploy broadband on rural Tribal lands.
    69. The Commission has noted that Tribal lands, in comparison to 
comparable non-Tribal lands (including in rural areas), frequently have 
characteristics that increase the cost of entry and reduce the 
profitability of providing service, including cultural and language 
barriers, a lack of existing infrastructure, and a predominance of low-
income residential customers rather than business subscribers. A recent 
report to Congress on broadband coverage on Tribal lands recognized 
that there is a considerable gap between Tribal lands and non-Tribal 
areas in terms of population covered by mobile LTE service. Further, 
the report noted that people residing on Tribal lands currently have 
access to fewer providers that offer 4G LTE coverage. In contrast, the 
fact that a small fraction of educational institutions might be 
positioned to provide broadband service in rural areas is not a 
sufficient basis for establishing a general priority window for all 
eligible educational institutions.
    70. Thus, in the context of the federally-recognized Tribes' unique 
status, their relationship of trust with the Commission, and their 
right to set their own communications policies, as well as the unique 
and significant obstacles to offering service in Tribal areas and the 
fact that they have not previously had access to this spectrum, the 
Commission concludes that they have an interest in obtaining additional 
2.5 GHz spectrum that is greater than and distinguishable from the 
interests of educational entities. Beyond Tribal areas, the Commission 
believes that auctioning overlay licenses for remaining white spaces 
will be a more effective means of addressing the digital divide. 
Specifically, new EBS licensees will have market incentives to provide 
service and will also be required to meet new performance requirements.
    71. The Commission also notes most rural Tribal lands areas will 
likely be associated with a single Tribal entity, whereas many 
localities have a wide variety of educational institutions that could 
have a local presence. Accordingly, a Tribal priority window is less 
likely to trigger mutual exclusivity in a significant number of license 
areas than a priority window for educational institutions (or a 
priority window that includes Tribal entities and educational 
institutions).
    72. The Commission also does not adopt a priority window for 
existing licensees. The Commission declines to open a priority window 
for existing licensees to expand to county boundaries for many of the 
same reasons that the Commission declines to expand those licensees' 
footprints to census tract or county boundaries; the Commission expects 
that such a window would be needlessly complicated and delay the 
deployment of critical mid-band spectrum. Existing licensees have 
already had the opportunity to avail themselves of the benefits of EBS 
spectrum. For this reason, the Commission rejects the recommendations 
of Bridge the Divide and EBC to open a window for incumbent EBS 
licensees.

[[Page 57354]]

C. Licensing Areas Containing EBS White Spaces

1. Auction of EBS White Space Licenses
    73. As proposed in the NPRM, any remaining unassigned EBS spectrum 
will be made available for commercial use via competitive bidding 
immediately following the completion of the Tribal priority filing 
window. Section 309(j) generally requires the Commission to employ 
competitive bidding to award licenses when mutually exclusive 
applications have been accepted for filing. With the elimination of the 
eligibility and educational use requirements, the potential for 
mutually exclusive applications for unassigned EBS spectrum should 
increase dramatically. While commenters have suggested various ways to 
avoid mutual exclusivity, in this case, the Commission finds that 
accepting mutually exclusive applications and using competitive bidding 
to resolve the mutual exclusivity is the best way to assign spectrum 
quickly and efficiently for its highest-valued use. Commercial 
operators strongly support competitive bidding for unassigned EBS 
spectrum.
    74. The Commission is not persuaded by the educational community's 
concerns about the use of competitive bidding for unassigned EBS 
spectrum. First, the Commission rejects claims that assigning licenses 
by auction will lead to the abandonment of educational services and a 
worsening of the digital divide. To the contrary, the Commission 
believes this approach is far more likely to deliver value to 
educational institutions and to help close the digital divide than the 
status quo, in which EBS spectrum either has lain fallow or has 
generally not been used for the purpose of providing educational 
services. The Commission finds that assigning licenses by auction will 
not displace or impair existing incumbent licenses or leases, nor will 
the assignment of overlay licenses impair existing services, since new 
2.5 GHz licensees will be required to protect existing incumbent 
operators from harmful interference. Nothing in this Report and Order 
requires incumbent licensees to abandon their current educational use 
or to change how they use their spectrum. Finally, the Commission finds 
that entities that acquire their licenses by auction will have an 
incentive to provide services to address the digital divide because all 
new EBS licensees will have to meet the performance requirements that 
the Commission establishes in this Report and Order in markets that 
they acquire. Licensees, whether incumbent or new, can provide any 
services the market requires, without limitation.
    75. Auction of Overlay Licenses. To make the unlicensed EBS 
spectrum as attractive as possible to potential entrants, while 
protecting the rights of incumbent EBS licensees and their lessees, the 
Commission concludes that offering geographic overlay licenses that are 
subject to competitive bidding in those markets where white spaces 
(i.e., spectrum that is not associated with an active license) exist is 
the best mechanism for assigning this spectrum. With overlay licenses, 
the licensees obtain the rights to geographic area licenses 
``overlaid'' on top of the existing incumbent licenses. As with an 
ordinary flexible use license, the overlay licensee may operate 
anywhere within its geographic area, subject to protecting the licensed 
areas (i.e., GSAs) of incumbent licensees. If an incumbent licensee in 
a county cancels or terminates its license, the overlay licensee 
obtains the rights to operate in the geographic area and on the channel 
of the cancelled license. An overlay licensee may clear its geographic 
area by purchasing the incumbent licenses, but it does not have the 
exclusive right to negotiate with the incumbent licensee for its 
spectrum rights or to purchase an incumbent license in the geographic 
area in which it has the overlay rights. An auction of overlay licenses 
would make the unassigned EBS spectrum available expeditiously to 
potential bidders and would provide a mechanism for those bidders to 
acquire additional spectrum usage rights within their geographic area 
when and if an incumbent licensee desires to make its spectrum 
available. For these reasons, the Commission believes that assigning 
overlay licenses for vacant and available EBS spectrum by competitive 
bidding is the best method for assigning such spectrum, because it will 
maximize the potential for expansion, without disrupting existing 
licensees and lessees.
    76. It does not make sense to limit the auction to licenses 
covering only unlicensed EBS spectrum. Given the large number of 
existing incumbent EBS geographic service areas, that is 35-mile radius 
circles, there may not be enough vacant and available EBS spectrum in 
many markets to encourage competition for those markets in an auction 
limited to these white space areas. As noted in the NPRM, in many 
markets all that is available are ``small, irregularly shaped areas 
between GSAs.'' Another factor that may affect interest in licenses 
that are not overlay licenses, but rather cover vacant and available 
spectrum only is that, although the total available geographic area of 
the EBS vacant and available spectrum might be substantial (50%), the 
percentage of population covered by the vacant and available (slightly 
over 15%) may not be.
    77. Another distinguishing characteristic of the EBS band is the 
preponderance of leasing by existing EBS incumbent licensees. While 
there are 2,193 active, regular EBS licenses, there are 2,046 long-term 
de facto control leases involving EBS licenses. The majority of those 
leases are with Sprint, but there are other lessees in the 2.5 GHz 
band. These leases are authorized to have terms of up to 30 years and 
often contain rights of first refusal or purchase options. While one 
commenter appears to suggest that the Commission considers terminating 
EBS leases to facilitate transition of the band, the Commission 
continues to believe that such an action would serve as an undue 
deterrent to the negotiation of spectrum leasing, in this as well as 
other bands, ``thus creating uncertainty among all parties that have 
entered into or are contemplating agreements under the Commission's 
Secondary Markets rules and policies.'' Thus, the Commission must 
consider the impact of those leases on a potential auction.
    78. The Commission is not persuaded by the objections raised in the 
record to offering overlay licenses at auction. For example, there is 
no evidence in the record supporting the allegation that the winning 
bidders would be motivated ``to undermine existing EBS licenses serving 
the area, in order to obtain access to that EBS spectrum under the 
overlay license without having to lease it.'' Moreover, incumbent EBS 
licensees will retain control over their licenses and the right to 
protection from interference from the operations of overlay licensees, 
their lessees, and other successors in interest.
    79. Nor is the Commission persuaded by alleged disadvantages of 
overlay licensees. For example, Voqal asserts that in many, 
particularly urban and suburban, markets, only slivers of areas are 
available for new licensing, and that, as a result, there will be 
``significant technical complexity engineering a network to operate 
without impacting adjacent licensees.'' The technical complexities that 
may result from an auction of overlay licenses are a by-product of its 
most important advantage, namely the protection of the rights and 
interests of incumbent licensees. As such, potential bidders will need 
to consider carefully these technical issues as they decide whether to 
participate in the auction. Voqal further argues that ``allowing a new 
buyer to purchase this spectrum would foreclose opportunities

[[Page 57355]]

for existing providers to cover these areas just outside the current 
GSAs, and that this could lead to very different levels of service in 
the two adjacent GSAs, which could include residents of the same 
county.'' The Commission notes that overlay licensees will have an 
incentive to put to use licenses they acquired at auction and also will 
be required to provide service in order to meet their performance 
requirements. Proceeding to auction of the vacant and available EBS 
spectrum will permit market forces to determine the highest and best 
use of this spectrum.
    80. Incentive Auction. The Commission finds that conducting an 
incentive auction could be particularly challenging for purposes of 
assigning flexible use licenses for EBS white spaces because: (1) The 
majority of the licensed EBS spectrum is already leased, (2) incumbent 
EBS licensees and potential bidders have demonstrated little interest 
in participating in an incentive auction, and (3) many EBS licensees do 
not have authorization under state law to participate in any kind of 
auction. Commenters note that such ``[t]wo-sided auctions are 
complicated, costly to the government as well as to participants, and 
take a long time to complete;'' moreover, any repacking process would 
be disruptive for incumbent EBS licensees that wish to continue to 
provide educational services. The Commission therefore concludes that 
its policy objectives are better served by assigning overlay licenses 
subject to auction as described above.
    81. Most commenters oppose an incentive auction because the vast 
majority of EBS spectrum is subject to long-term leases that would 
preclude most EBS licensees from participating in the reverse auction. 
They note that an incentive auction would not work from a legal or 
practical perspective because it would require participation from both 
existing licensees and their lessees. Further, commenters note that 
even if the terms of leases permitted licensees to participate in an 
incentive auction to relinquish their spectrum usage rights, and 
forward auction participants bid on licenses subject to the existing 
leases, the prevalence of long-term leases could severely limit 
bidders' interest in the new licenses offered. Commenters contend that 
the existence of the leases lessens the likelihood that entities other 
than the current lessee would bid, and that it would ``badly distort a 
potential forward auction.''
    82. AT&T claims that EBS licensees would be able to participate in 
an incentive auction, despite existing leases, because they could 
negotiate a price at which lessees would give up their rights. The 
Commission expects that it likely would be difficult or impossible for 
many EBS licensees to pay commercial lessees to break their leases, as 
most EBS licensees are educational, non-profit entities. Although 
TechKnowledge suggests that the Commission could invalidate lease 
provisions that would prevent EBS licensees from participating in an 
incentive auction, unilaterally modifying contractual provisions agreed 
to as part of an agreement between a licensee and lessee raises serious 
questions of fairness and legality. Moreover, even if such lease 
provisions were invalidated, many EBS licensees may still be unable to 
participate in an incentive auction because they lack the legal 
authority under state law to do so.
    83. AT&T contends that the majority of entities opposing incentive 
auctions ``have a powerful self-interest'' in doing so because keeping 
EBS licensees confined to the secondary market prevents interested 
parties from knowing the value of the licenses, especially after 
eligibility and use restrictions are eliminated. While AT&T likely is 
correct that lessors and lessees have an interest in protecting 
existing leases, the Commission finds that such an interest is 
legitimate where they have relied on those leases to build their 
networks and where such leases have long been permitted under its 
rules.
    84. While there is limited support in the record for an incentive 
auction as a way to ``encourage incumbents to relinquish voluntarily 
some or all of their spectrum usage rights,'' the Commission concludes 
that it can achieve much the same result with less disruption to 
existing licensees and lessees through an auction of overlay licenses. 
For example, commenters allege that, if the Commission acts on its 
proposals to eliminate eligibility restrictions and make EBS licenses 
readily transferable, an incentive auction will not be necessary to 
promote the transition of the band to commercial use, since the use of 
the spectrum is not changing. As WCAI notes, EBS licensees that wish to 
sell their licenses and have the ability to do so will be able to sell 
quickly and efficiently, and without administrative costs, via 
secondary markets, due to the lifting of the eligibility restrictions. 
In addition, as WCAI explains, not all EBS spectrum is fungible. In 
these circumstances, given the Commission's decision to eliminate 
eligibility restrictions, an auction of overlay licenses will quickly 
assign licenses for EBS white spaces and promote the transition of the 
band with little disruption to existing users of the spectrum.
    85. Applicability of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules. 
Substantially consistent with the NPRM, the Commission adopts its 
proposal to conduct any auction of EBS licenses in conformity with the 
general competitive bidding rules in part 1, subpart Q, including any 
modifications that the Commission may adopt for its part 1 general 
competitive bidding rules in the future. The Commission believes that 
its general competitive bidding rules are suitable to conduct an 
auction of EBS licenses. The limited comment the Commission received on 
these issues generally supports use of the general part 1 competitive 
bidding rules. The Commission believes its part 1 rules will allow 
market forces to determine its highest and best use, and thus will 
enable the Commission to meet its goal of spurring more efficient and 
effective use of the 2.5 GHz band. These rules have proven successful 
in numerous spectrum auctions and establish an auction process that 
promotes ``efficient and intensive use'' of this spectrum and the 
``development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and 
services for the benefit of the public, including those residing in 
rural areas,'' and that ``recover[s] for the public . . . a portion of 
the value of the public spectrum resource made available for commercial 
use.
    86. The Commission will adopt bidding credits for EBS, although the 
NPRM proposed not to apply any designated entity preferences. Based on 
the Commission's experience with the use of bidding credits in recent 
spectrum auctions, the Commission now concludes that using bidding 
credits in competitive bidding for the 2.5 GHz band is an effective 
tool to achieve its statutory objective of promoting the participation 
of designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based service. In 
designing auction rules and procedures, the Commission takes into 
account both the nature of the service and the nature of the parties 
most likely to be interested in using the spectrum. Bidding credits 
have been successful in other auctions, including prior auctions of the 
2.5 GHz band. The removal of the eligibility restriction and 
educational use requirements will attract more commercial operators to 
the 2.5 GHz band and bidding credits should help to facilitate greater 
participation in any auction of EBS licenses. The Commission now 
concludes that offering bidding credits to designated entities, along 
with the updates to the 2.5 GHz band that the Commission

[[Page 57356]]

adopts, strike the appropriate balance and should improve the ability 
of small businesses to attract the capital necessary to meaningfully 
participate in an auction of 2.5 GHz spectrum, best satisfying its 
congressional objectives. The Commission therefore agrees with the 
comments it received supporting the use of bidding credits in an EBS 
auction.
    87. Consistent with the Commission's other recent auctions, it will 
adopt the high two of three thresholds in the Commission's standardized 
schedule of bidding credits for auction of spectrum well suited for 5G 
deployment. Accordingly, an entity with average annual gross revenues 
for the preceding five years not exceeding $55 million will qualify as 
a ``small business,'' while an entity with average annual gross 
revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20 million will 
qualify as a ``very small business.'' \9\ In the Competitive Bidding 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (59 FR 44272 (Aug. 26, 1994)), 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. While the capital 
requirements of the services to be deployed in these bands is not yet 
known, the Commission believes that using these gross revenue 
thresholds will enhance the ability of small businesses to acquire and 
retain capital and thereby complete meaningfully at auction. The 
Commission also believes that these thresholds are not overly 
inclusive, and prevent designated entity benefits from flowing to 
entities for which such credits are not necessary. The Commission will 
provide qualifying ``small businesses'' with a bidding credit of 15% 
and qualifying ``very small businesses'' with a bidding credit of 25%, 
consistent with the standardized schedule in part 1 of its rules. The 
Commission rejects the proposal for the use of three tiers of small 
business bidding credits because the Commission believes that this two-
tiered approach has been successful in the past, and will once again 
use it.\10\ The Commission believes the use of the small business 
definitions and associated bidding credits set forth in the part 1 
bidding credit schedule will provide consistency and predictability for 
small businesses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The standardized schedule of bidding credits provided in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i) defines small businesses based on average 
gross revenues for the preceding three years. In December 2018, 
Congress revised the standard set out in the Small Business Act for 
categorizing a business concern as a ``small business concern,'' by 
changing the annual average gross receipts benchmark from a three-
year period to a five-year period. Thus, as a general matter, a 
Federal agency cannot propose to categorize a business concern as a 
``small business concern'' for Small Business Act purposes unless 
the size of the concern is based on its annual average gross 
receipts ``over a period of not less than 5 years.'' 15 U.S.C. 
632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), as amended by Small Business Runway Extension 
Act of 2018, Public Law 115-324 (Dec. 17, 2018). The Commission 
therefore adopts the Small Business Act's revised five-year average 
gross receipts benchmark for purposes of determining which entities 
qualify for small business bidding credits. But because the SBA has 
not yet revised its regulations to update the definition of ``small 
business concern,'' for purposes of compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the Commission will continue to use the SBA's 
current definition of ``small business,'' which is based on a three-
year benchmark. See infra.
    \10\ The proposal for the use of three tiers of bidding credits 
lacks the necessary justification of why a third tier of bidding 
credits is necessary to enhance the ability of small businesses to 
acquire and retain the capital necessary to compete meaningfully at 
auction for EBS licenses. See Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR 48442 
(Aug. 15, 2014), 29 FCC Rcd at 6763-64, para. 477. While the 
Commission previously adopted three tiers of bidding credits for 
auction of BRS licenses, the Commission has adopted two tiers of 
bidding credits in the vast majority of service rule proceedings in 
which it has adopted small business bidding credits. Given the 
smaller license size of county than the BRS BTA license, and the 
lack of information on how a third bidding credit is necessary, the 
Commission believes the two tiers adopted are appropriate.
    \11\ The Commission directs the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau in conjunction with the Office of Economics and Analytics to 
seek further comment on the two specific small business standards 
the Commission adopts for determining an entity's eligibility for 
small business bidding credits in an auction of unlicensed EBS 
spectrum. Specifically, the Commission directs WTB in conjunction 
with OEA to seek comment on defining a ``small business'' as a 
business with average gross revenues for the preceding five years 
not exceeding $55 million, and a ``very small business'' as a 
business with average gross revenues for the preceding five years 
not exceeding $20 million. The Commission further directs that WTB 
and OEA should consult with the Small Business Administration and 
obtain its approval of the adopted small business size standards in 
advance of any auction of 2.5 GHz EBS white spaces licenses. 15 
U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C); 47 CFR 121.903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. The rural service provider bidding credit awards a 15% bidding 
credit to those servicing predominantly rural areas and that have fewer 
than 250,000 combined wireless, wireline, broadband and cable 
subscribers. The Commission will apply the rural service provider 
bidding credit to auction of EBS licenses in the 2.5 GHz band. The 
Commission believes that a targeted bidding credit will better enable 
rural service providers to compete for spectrum licenses at auction and 
in doing so, will increase the availability of 5G service in rural 
areas. The comments the Commission received supports the use of the 
rural service provider bidding credit.
    89. The Commission previously adopted a process for establishing a 
reasonable monetary limit or cap on the amount of bidding credits that 
an eligible small business or rural service provider may be awarded in 
any particular auction. It established the parameters to implement a 
bidding credit cap for future auctions on an auction-by-auction basis. 
Consistent with the Commission's longstanding approach, the Commission 
will initiate a public notice process to solicit public input on 
certain details of auction design and the auction procedures for the 
auction of EBS licenses. As part of that process, the Commission will 
solicit public input on the appropriate amount of the bidding credit 
cap and subsequently establish the cap that will apply for that 
auction, based on an evaluation of the expected capital requirements 
presented by the particular spectrum being auctioned and the inventory 
of licenses to be auctioned.
    90. The tribal lands bidding credit program awards a discount to a 
winning bidder for serving qualifying tribal land that have a wireline 
telephone subscription rate equal to or less than 85% of the 
population. The Commission believes that tribal entities involved in 
the telecommunications industry face unique challenges in participating 
in spectrum auctions and that the tribal lands bidding credit will 
promote further deployment and use of spectrum over tribal lands. While 
the Commission is also adopting a Tribal priority window, the 
Commission believes the priority window and bidding credit can 
complement each other and help facilitate service on Tribal lands. No 
commenters oppose the tribal land bidding credit nor suggest that the 
tribal lands bidding credit is unnecessary. Accordingly, a winning 
bidder for a market will be eligible to receive a credit for serving 
qualifying Tribal lands within that market, provided it complies with 
the applicable competitive bidding rules.
2. Description of Licenses Being Offered
    91. Geographic Area. The Commission adopts counties as the 
appropriate geographic size for new licenses. The Commission finds that 
a county-based license will afford overlay licensees the flexibility to 
develop localized services, allow for targeted deployments based on 
market forces and customer demand, and facilitate access by both 
smaller and larger providers. As noted by several commenters, counties 
also ``nest'' into Basic Trading Areas (BTA)s, and thus they are 
congruent with the current

[[Page 57357]]

footprint of BRS licensees, creating consistency with the existing BRS 
licensing framework. As noted by supporters, licensing by county 
accommodates a wide variety of business models: it enables rural 
providers to obtain spectrum just in the area that they intend to 
serve, while allowing larger providers to aggregate spectrum in 
multiple counties as part of a larger business plan.
    92. The Commission rejects the alternative of census tracts as the 
geographic area licensing unit. The Commission agrees with commenters 
opposing the use of census tracts that census tracts are extremely 
numerous and are dynamic in size and location, which makes them 
difficult to manage and organize. These commenters contend that ``the 
numerous boundaries make RF containment problematic, a problem that 
would be exacerbated by the relatively higher field strength limits 
involved with 2.5 GHz equipment that can operate at hundreds of watts 
of power.'' Because many census tracts would be smaller than the 
average coverage area of a single 2.5 GHz base station, the Commission 
concludes that census tracts would be unworkable.
    93. The Commission also finds Sprint's proposal to offer large-area 
licenses, based on either Partial Economic Areas or BTAs, inferior to 
basing licenses on counties. While Sprint notes that ``BTA licensing in 
particular has the benefit of consistency with the existing BRS 
licensing framework,'' the Commission is not persuaded that consistency 
with the BRS framework alone warrants adopting a larger license size 
for EBS spectrum.
    94. Band Plan. The Commission adopts a band plan that will include 
three overlay licenses: the first license will include channels A1-A-3, 
B1-B3, C1-C3 (49.5 megahertz); the second license will include channels 
D1-D3, the J channels, and channels A4-G4 (50.5 megahertz); and the 
third license will include channels G1-G3 and the relevant EBS K 
channels (16.5 megahertz of contiguous spectrum and 1 megahertz of the 
K channels associated with the G channel group). A group of small rural 
carriers supports this band plan. By providing applicants the 
flexibility to bid on three different licenses, the Commission also 
will provide opportunity for entities of various sizes and spectrum 
needs to participate in an auction. As commenters note, it is important 
that wide channel blocks of contiguous spectrum be available because 
wider blocks are necessary to provide high-speed broadband access. By 
creating two new wider channel blocks of 49.5 megahertz and 50.5 
megahertz of contiguous spectrum, respectively, the Commission has done 
just that. Moreover, by creating two new licenses of almost equal size 
while keeping channel groups together, the Commission has made it 
easier for the new overlay licensees to coordinate with the incumbent 
EBS licensees.
    95. In the NPRM, the Commission asked commenters to address the 
appropriate channel block size for future licensing and to discuss why 
such a channel block size would serve the public interest, and the 
Commission received a variety of proposals in response. While some 
commenters argue that the Commission should license the current middle 
band segment as a separate license, the Commission concludes that such 
an approach would be spectrally inefficient. The middle band segment 
was originally designed for legacy video services, which have virtually 
disappeared from the band. Licensing the middle band channels 
separately creates discontinuity, which is ill-suited for wireless 
broadband use in general and Time Division Duplexing (TDD)--the 
predominant use of the band currently--in particular. For this reason, 
while the Commission agrees with WCAI and Sprint that having three 
different licenses is appropriate, the Commission does not adopt their 
specific proposed band plans. WCAI suggests licenses for the lower band 
(A1-3, B1-3, C1-3, D1-3 and the J channels), the middle band (A-G4) and 
the upper band. (G1-G3 and the K channels), while Sprint proposes three 
licenses at (1) A1-4 and B1-4, (2) C1-4 and (3) D1-4 and G1-4. The 
Commission also rejects WISPA's proposal, supported by US Cellular, for 
four channel blocks, (1) A1-3 and B1-3, (2) C1-3 and (3) D1-3, A4, B4, 
C,4, D4 and G4 and (4) G1-G3. By creating separate licenses for the 
lower and middle parts of the band, these proposals would not maximize 
the 2.5 GHz band's potential to be used for high-speed wireless 
broadband services. The band plan the Commission adopts will also 
create two wide channel blocks of almost equal size. The Commission 
notes that WISPA would find the band plan the Commission adopts 
acceptable as an alternative, and the Commission also believes the band 
plan the Commission adopts is responsive to U.S. Cellular's argument 
that fixed wireless providers generally need 45 megahertz of spectrum 
to deploy in the 2.5 GHz band.
    96. The Commission further finds that the EBS white space discounts 
from the spectrum screen also should be eliminated. In the NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on whether any rule changes adopted here 
would warrant modification of its treatment of EBS spectrum in the 
spectrum screen. Although one commenter, opposing revision of the 
screen, argues that changes are unnecessary, several others support 
revising the spectrum screen. WCAI, for example, argues that retaining 
a spectrum screen discount ``based on outdated educational use 
requirements and eligibility would not reflect the new reality that all 
EBS spectrum can be used for commercial purposes.'' AT&T similarly 
argues that changing the EBS spectrum rules and repurposing EBS 
spectrum would require the Commission to revise the spectrum screen to 
include all EBS spectrum because the changes would make all EBS 
spectrum ```used and useful' for the provision of mobile broadband 
services.''
    97. Although the Commission previously excluded 16.5% of EBS 
spectrum from the spectrum screen to account for the fact that 
commercial providers did not have an opportunity to gain access to EBS 
white space spectrum, this discount is no longer necessary. 
Accordingly, the Commission finds that EBS white space spectrum should 
be considered ``available,'' for purposes of the spectrum screen.
    98. Finally, the Commission concludes that it is no longer 
necessary to exclude 5% of EBS spectrum from the spectrum screen in 
light of its decision to eliminate the educational use requirement. 
While the Commission recognizes that some existing EBS spectrum leases 
may include terms with educational use restrictions, the Commission 
believes that if there are such aspects of EBS spectrum leases that 
warrant further consideration, its case-by-case review of secondary 
market transactions is the best way to assess the impact of such 
spectrum lease contractual provisions in particular local markets.
3. Requirements for New 2.5 GHz Licensees
    99. Performance Requirements. The Commission adopts the performance 
requirements that the Commission proposed in the NPRM, replacing the 
existing substantial service regime \12\

[[Page 57358]]

with a menu of specific performance requirements for EBS licensees that 
depend on the specific service they are offering. Going forward, EBS 
licensees that are required to make a build-out showing under these new 
standards may fulfill their final performance requirements by showing 
any of the following: (1) 80% population coverage for mobile or point-
to-multipoint service (50% interim); (2) 40 links per million persons 
(one link per 25,000) for fixed point-to-point service (20 links per 
million interim (one link per 50,000)); or (3) 80% population coverage 
for broadcast service (50% interim). No other types of showing or 
levels of coverage will be accepted. These benchmarks will apply to 
both licenses won at auction and licenses granted through the Tribal 
priority window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Currently, licensees in the 2.5 GHz band, including EBS 
licensees, are subject to a substantial service regime of 
performance requirements, which were set forth in 2006 as part of 
the ongoing efforts to transition the band to the new band plan 
established in 2004. Licensees were required to demonstrate 
compliance by May 1, 2011. This requirement includes specific safe 
harbors, including 30% population coverage for mobile or point-to-
multipoint use, six permanent links per million for fixed point-to-
point services, and an educational safe harbor for EBS licensees 
specifically, consisting of 20 hours of educational use per channel, 
per week. See BRS/EBS Second R&O, 71 FR 35178 (June 19, 2006), 21 
FCC Rcd at 5719-33, paras. 276-304; see also BRS/EBS FNPRM, 69 FR 
72048 (Dec. 10, 2004), 19 FCC Rcd at 14282-84, paras. 321-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. These benchmarks are similar to those for the AWS-3 and WCS 
bands (which have similar propagation characteristics) but are slightly 
higher (an additional 5%) to account for the maturity of technologies 
already developed and deployed in the 2.5 GHz band. Specifically, while 
the AWS-3 and WCS performance requirements were established before 
there were extensive operations in those bands, there are currently 
extensive operations and ample equipment in the 2.5 GHz band. These 
increased requirements will help to address the concerns of some 
commenters that current licensees of this spectrum are not deploying to 
all communities within their license areas. This approach to 
performance requirements is supported by several commenters who 
advocate for robust performance requirements, including the NPRM 
proposal specifically, as well as other commenters who generally 
support build-out requirements without providing specifics.
    101. Some commenters suggest a more relaxed approach to performance 
requirements, including retaining the current substantial service 
regime. Other commenters support adoption of the same performance 
requirements as those currently applicable to BRS licensees, which are 
similar to the current EBS substantial service standard. The Commission 
rejects retaining the existing substantial service requirement for new 
EBS licenses, as the existing requirements are inconsistent with the 
build-out requirements the Commission has adopted for similar bands 
such as AWS. The Commission agrees with WISPA that those substantial 
service standards are too vague, particularly in the context of a band 
that has a developed equipment ecosystem. The existing substantial 
service requirements were adopted prior to the transition to the new 
band plan and at a time when there was substantial uncertainty about 
how the band would be used in the future. Now, the ability to use EBS 
for broadband is well established. Given the maturity of the ecosystem 
in this band, and the low thresholds and vague requirements of the 
previous standards, the Commission declines to continue with the 
substantial service regime or to adopt any minor modification thereof. 
In other bands, the Commission has determined that a substantial 
service regime, which lacks firm minimum requirements, does not 
adequately safeguard effective use of the relevant spectrum, and the 
Commission extends that conclusion to EBS. The increased requirements 
the Commission adopts in this Report and Order will address that 
concern more effectively than the current requirements.
    102. A few commenters suggest alternatives to the NPRM proposal 
beyond retention of substantial service. The Nez Perce Tribe suggests 
that the ``coverage target'' should be 100% area coverage, but that the 
actual benchmark should be determined by each licensee according to the 
specific terrain and circumstances of each license. Other commenters 
propose imposing various standards of service, such as speed or 
affordability, as part of the performance requirement. The Commission 
declines to incorporate these concepts into the new performance 
requirements the Commission adopts. The Nez Perce Tribe's case-by-case 
suggestion would result in requirements that would vary across 
licenses, and that, if based on a licensee's own analysis, could not be 
determined prior to auction. The resulting uncertainty would be unfair 
to auction participants, who could not reasonably anticipate the 
construction obligation that would accompany their new licenses. This 
system also would place a significant burden on licensees to justify 
their particular level of construction as adequate in their 
circumstances, rather than giving licensees a set benchmark on which to 
rely. The Commission also declines to incorporate any quality of 
service measure into the performance requirements. The Commission does 
not include such a requirement in any other wireless service as a 
condition of license renewal, and the commenters suggesting it have not 
provided evidence that EBS as a service is uniquely situated so as to 
require it.
    103. The Commission declines to adopt any educational use metric 
for performance requirements. The potential for wireless services to 
support education is clear; nevertheless, this goal will be supported 
best by adopting stringent build-out requirements that encourage wider 
deployment of all broadband services, rather than by attempting to 
define what constitutes acceptable levels or types of educational use 
specifically. The few comments received on this issue illustrate the 
difficulty of finding a specific educational metric that encourages 
deployment without placing an undue regulatory burden on licensees. The 
robust mobile, fixed, and broadcast metrics the Commission adopts in 
this Report and Order will promote deployment of wireless services that 
can be used for all purposes, including education. The Commission 
recognizes that incumbent licensees may have relied on the educational 
use standard to fulfill their performance requirements in the past. 
Those licensees may continue to use the substantial service standard in 
order to make their renewal showing, but the substantial service 
standard, including the educational safe harbor, will not be available 
to new licensees in the band.
    104. The Commission also sought comment in the NPRM on the 
appropriate timeline for the interim benchmark, and the appropriate 
penalty for failure to meet a benchmark. In this regard, the Commission 
will apply the interim benchmark after four years, and the final 
benchmark after eight years. The penalty for failure to meet the 
interim benchmark will be the acceleration of the final benchmark 
deadline by two years, to six years rather than eight. This timeline is 
slightly more aggressive than WISPA's suggestion of a five-year interim 
and a ten-year final deadline, but the critical role of mid-band 
spectrum in today's spectrum environment warrants such an approach. The 
existing ecosystem of equipment already available in the band, and the 
success of recipients of waivers and STAs with expeditious deployment, 
also suggest that a more compressed timeline is appropriate here. This 
timeline and the two-year acceleration penalty are also largely 
consistent with the Commission's rules in other bands and will help 
harmonize the regulatory regime of the 2.5 GHz band with other 
commercial wireless

[[Page 57359]]

services. Apart from WISPA, no other commenters offer suggestions for 
the timing of benchmarks or the acceleration penalty.
    105. As with other wireless services, a license will automatically 
terminate if the licensee fails to meet the final construction 
benchmark. The Commission rejects as unnecessary Midco's suggestion to 
allow one or two 90-day cure periods in order to accommodate 
``difficult conditions'' or ``other unknown impediments.'' The 
Commission expects applicants to conduct their due diligence and plan 
to meet these buildout deadlines. In extraordinary circumstances, the 
Commission may consider waiver requests to accommodate unanticipated 
difficulties requiring short-term accommodations.
    106. For licenses acquired via the Tribal priority window described 
above, the Commission adopts a different timeline. These licenses must 
demonstrate compliance with interim build-out levels after two years, 
and final build-out levels after five years. The penalty for missing 
the interim deadline will be an acceleration of the final deadline by 
one year. This timeline will encourage deployment in underserved areas, 
while discouraging speculation or application mills. The equipment 
ecosystem in this band has matured considerably since potential 
licensees last had a routine opportunity to apply for this spectrum, 
and the cost and difficulty of deployment have eased significantly. 
Recent recipients of waivers and STAs in this band have been able to 
deploy and begin service well within a five-year timeframe. This 
timeline is also consistent with the recommendation from MuralNet, 
which developed and deployed the network for the Havasupai Tribe.
    107. There are also considerations specific to the Tribal window 
that support this timeline for those licensees. Because Tribal 
applicants will be able to specify their own service area, this 
timeline will encourage those applicants to estimate accurately the 
level of deployment they will be able to achieve, rather than over-
claiming and thereby precluding any other potential licensee. The 
Commission therefore rejects Colville's suggestion that requirements 
should not be ``more robust'' than for other licensees, and Havasupai's 
suggestion that Tribes should not be subject to any build-out 
requirement whatsoever. In addition, a five-year Tribal deployment 
timeline will enable an auction-based overlay licensee to reclaim 
unbuilt spectrum before the end of its ten-year overlay license term if 
a Tribe is unable to build, helping to ensure that the spectrum is put 
to use.
    108. Renewal Standards. In 2017, the Commission adopted a unified 
regulatory framework for the Wireless Radio Services (WRS) that 
replaced the existing patchwork of service-specific rules regarding 
renewal, comparative renewal, continuity of service, and partitioning 
and disaggregation, with clear and consistent rules of the road for WRS 
licensees. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to apply the WRS 
framework of renewal standards to new EBS licenses, including licenses 
granted via the Tribal priority window. With the actions the Commission 
takes to make EBS more flexible and similar to other bands where the 
WRS rules apply, the Commission finds it is now appropriate to apply 
the WRS rules to EBS. This change will harmonize the regulatory regime 
of the 2.5 GHz band with other bands that support commercial wireless 
services, and it will give licensees more clarity on their regulatory 
requirements and options, including the flexibility to partition or 
disaggregate their licenses. The record supports applying the WRS 
framework to new EBS licensees. The Commission believes that updating 
the renewal standards in this manner will encourage more rapid 
deployment of next generation wireless services, including 5G.
    109. The Commission also applies the WRS framework to existing EBS 
licensees.\13\ The Commission sought comment on this issue in the NPRM, 
and several commenters support this idea. Applying the renewal standard 
to existing licenses will ensure that the licensees who hold them will 
continue to provide some level of service and that the frequencies 
covered by those licenses do not lie fallow. Consistent with the 
Commission's treatment of other incumbent licenses that did not have a 
prior renewal standard, the Commission will require compliance with the 
renewal standard for renewal applications filed after January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This includes the WRS discontinuance of service rule, Sec.  
1.953 of the Commission's rules. WCAI objects to applying the new 
WRS discontinuance of service rule to existing licensees, arguing 
that such a proposal was not made in the NPRM. WCAI July 2 Ex Parte 
at 1-2. In seeking comment on applying WRS to EBS, the Commission 
noted that WRS ``replaced the existing patchwork of service-specific 
rules regarding renewal, comparative renewal, continuity of service, 
and partitioning and disaggregation, with clear, consistent rules of 
the road for WRS licensees.'' NPRM, 33 FCC Rcd at 4703, para. 53. 
Furthermore, in its comments, ``WCA agrees with Commission that it 
should apply the standard WRS rules for permanent discontinuance and 
renewal to all 2.5 GHz licensed spectrum, incumbent EBS licenses and 
any new EBS licenses issued pursuant to this rulemaking.'' WCAI 
Comments at 32. As for WCAI's alternative request that it defer 
applying the discontinuance of service rule until January 1, 2021, 
the Commission finds that its general deferral of the effective date 
of rules in this proceeding should be sufficient, particularly since 
the rule will also apply to commercial BRS spectrum in the 2.5 GHz 
band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. In evaluating existing licensees under these new renewal 
standards, however, the Commission will apply new WRS build-out 
standards if the Commission promulgates them.\14\ Without prejudging 
the outcome of that open proceeding, the Commission seeks to harmonize 
the 2.5 GHz band with other bands that support commercial wireless 
services, recognizing that this Order transitions the band to more 
flexible use. For clarity, the Commission emphasizes that the old, 
substantial service build-out standard contained in Sec.  27.14(o) of 
the Commission's rules will apply to existing EBS license renewals, 
unless the Commission alters the WRS build-out standards upon renewal. 
The Commission further clarifies that, for purposes of meeting the old 
renewal standard, the educational use safe harbor contained in Sec.  
27.14(o)(2) is available only to licensees that meet the old EBS 
eligibility standard, since that safe harbor was based on service to 
accredited educational institutions. If such a licensee transfers its 
license to an entity that does not meet that standard, the new licensee 
will be required to make future showings using one of the other safe 
harbor provisions contained in Sec.  27.14(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In 2017, the Commission sought comment ``on whether renewal 
term construction obligations beyond those applicable during a 
licensee's initial license term would help achieve its goal of 
increasing the number of Americans with access to wireless 
communications services.'' See WRS FNPRM, 82 FR 41580 (Sept. 1, 
2017), 32 FCC Rcd at 8911, para. 100. The WRS FNPRM remains pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Dismissal of Pending Waiver Requests
    111. Upon adoption of this Report and Order, the Commission will 
dismiss, without prejudice, any pending applications for new EBS 
licenses. A freeze on the filing of new EBS applications was instituted 
in 2003 in conjunction with the Commission's proposing new technical 
rules and band plan for the 2.5 GHz band. The Commission has granted 
some waiver requests to permit the filing of applications for new EBS 
licenses while the freeze remained in place. There are a handful of 
additional requests for waiver of the EBS freeze currently pending that 
seek new EBS licenses. Since this Report and Order is instituting a new 
process for the assignment of EBS spectrum, the Commission sees no need 
to grant requests for waiver of the freeze, and

[[Page 57360]]

therefore the Commission dismisses these pending applications without 
prejudice. The applicants are free to participate in the license 
assignment processes adopted herein through the Tribal priority window 
or competitive bidding, as applicable.

D. Cleaning Up the 2.5 GHz Rules

    112. Because the transition from the interleaved channel plan under 
the former ITFS to the new channel plan under BRS and EBS was completed 
in 2011, the Commission proposed to remove those rule sections that 
addressed the transition. In light of the fact that the transition has 
been completed, the Commission finds that the rules are obsolete and no 
longer necessary, and that elimination of the rules is therefore in the 
public interest. The Commission also received no comments objecting to 
the removal of these rules. The Commission therefore adopts its 
proposal to remove Sec. Sec.  27.1230 through 27.1239 of its rules.
    113. The Commission also received no comments objecting to the 
Commission's proposal to make non-substantive clarifying amendments to 
Sec.  27.1206 of its rules. In light of the Commission's decisions to 
adopt a Tribal priority window with GSAs based on rural Tribal lands, 
as well as its decision not to rationalize existing licenses, the 
Commission will amend Sec.  27.1206 to reflect the decisions it has 
made. The Commission also reorganizes Sec. Sec.  27.1207, 27.1208, and 
27.1209 to place similar subjects together, reduce duplication, and 
incorporate the rule changes it has adopted for EBS. These changes do 
not result in any substantive changes for existing BRS or EBS licenses.
    114. Several commenters have made proposals that are outside of the 
scope of the subject proceeding or that have been made moot by the 
Commission's changes to the EBS band, and thus, the Commission has not 
addressing those proposals herein.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, EIBASS and NAB request that the Commission 
makes clear that EBS licensees are obligated to protect BAS stations 
in the 2483.5-2500 MHz band. NAB Comments at 1-2; EIBASS Reply at 2. 
EBS spectrum starts at 2502 MHz and is not adjacent to BAS spectrum. 
Nothing in the NPRM proposes changes to the technical or operational 
rules. Thus, there is nothing in this NPRM that would impact BAS 
stations and what EIBASS and NAB request is outside the scope of 
this proceeding. In addition, some commenters request that the 
Commissions make changes to the E-Rate program in ways that would 
assist educators and students. See, e.g., Midco Comments at 13-14; 
SETDA Comments at 9-10; Utah Comments at 4; WCAI Comments at 18-19. 
Nothing in the NPRM proposed any changes to the E-Rate program. 
Other commenters ask that the Commission adopts new rules-such as 
imposing a local presence requirement on existing EBS licensees, 
SETDA Comments at 7, or instituting new procedures for renewal or 
lease approval processes for EBS licensees. Utah Comments at 2-6. 
With the elimination of the eligibility and educational use 
requirements, the Commission sees no reason to address these 
requests, as they are now moot. VIYA asks that the Commission 
automatically provides entities providing service via special 
temporary authority (STA) with full licenses based on their outlay 
of resources. VIYA Comments at 9-12. The Commission notes that 
VIYA's subsidiary Choice Communications has filed an application for 
permanent authority for the frequencies in questions. See File No. 
0008700428 (filed June 18, 2019). The NPRM did not propose this, and 
the Commission believes this issue is better addressed in the 
context of Choice's pending application. Accordingly, the Commission 
will not address this issue in the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Effective Date of Rule Changes

    115. In order to provide applicants in the Tribal priority window 
with a stable licensing environment unaffected by changes to the band, 
the Commission will defer the effective date of the rule changes it 
adopts in this proceeding \16\ (other than the rules adopting the 
Tribal priority window and the construction requirements rule, which 
will apply to the Tribal priority window) until six months from the 
date of Federal Register publication of this Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission also defers the modification of the spectrum 
screen until six months from the date of Federal Register 
publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    116. In the Report and Order, the Commission takes steps to permit 
more flexible use of the 2496-2690 MHz (2.5 GHz) band by current 
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licensees and to provide new 
opportunities for EBS eligible entities, Tribal Nations, and commercial 
entities to obtain unused 2.5 GHz spectrum to facilitate improved 
access to next generation wireless broadband, including 5G, for both 
educational and commercial uses. EBS spectrum currently is assigned in 
geographic areas of various sizes and shapes and is subject to unique 
use and transfer restrictions. Consistent with the Commission's goal of 
making additional spectrum available for flexible use, and to promote 
use of EBS frequencies that have been unassigned for far too long, the 
Commission takes steps to encourage and facilitate more efficient use 
of the 2.5 GHz band. These steps are not intended to curtail the 
spectrum usage rights of existing EBS licensees, nor to annul or 
disturb existing agreements between such licensees and commercial 
operators. Additionally, since the process for transitioning Broadband 
Radio Service (BRS) and EBS licensees to the new band plan was 
completed in 2011, the Commission eliminates the BRS/EBS transition 
rules. The Commission believes it is in the public interest to 
eliminate these regulations that are out of date and no longer 
necessary.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    117. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    118. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    119. The Chief Counsel did not file comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    120. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. 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.
    121. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is

[[Page 57361]]

an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of 
small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States 
which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    122. Next, the type of small entity described as 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 August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    123. Finally, the small entity described as a ``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.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37, 132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category show that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local government 
jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    124. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 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 services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    125. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) systems, previously referred to as 
Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit 
video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high-speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the BRS and Educational 
Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
    126. BRS. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission 
established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual 
average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous 
three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful 
bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas 
(BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small 
business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to 
the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 
small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. 
In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, 
there are approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered 
small entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet the small 
business size standard). After adding the number of small business 
auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already 
counted, there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees that are 
defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's 
rules.
    127. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of 
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the 
preceding three years (small business) received a 15% discount on its 
winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the 
preceding three years (very small business) received a 25% discount on 
its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual 
gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three 
years (entrepreneur) received a 35% discount on its winning bid. 
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten 
winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 
licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three 
licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six 
licenses.
    128. EBS. Educational Broadband Service has been included within 
the broad economic census category and SBA size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies.'' The SBA's small business size standard for this 
category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in 
this industry can be considered small.
    129. In addition to U.S. Census Bureau data, the Commission's 
Universal Licensing System indicates that as of March 2019 there are 
1,300 licensees holding over 2,190 active EBS licenses. The Commission 
estimates that of these 2,190 licenses, the majority are held by non-
profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by 
statute defined as small businesses.

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

    130. The Commission expects the rules adopted in the Report and 
Order will impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or 
other compliance obligations on small entities as well as other 
applicants and licensees. The Commission is not in a position to 
determine whether the adopted rule changes will require small entities 
to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals, and 
cannot quantify the cost of compliance with these rule changes. The 
Commission does not believe however, that the costs of compliance or 
the administrative requirements associated with any of the rule changes 
will unduly burden small entities. The Commission notes that several of 
the rule changes are consistent with and mirror existing policies and 
requirements used in similar spectrum

[[Page 57362]]

bands. Therefore, small entities with existing licenses in may already 
be familiar with such policies and requirements and have the processes 
and procedures in place to facilitate compliance resulting in minimal 
incremental costs to comply with the Report and Order.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    131. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its 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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.
    132. The Commission does not believe that the rule changes adopted 
in the Report and Order will have a significant economic impact on 
small entities. The proposed changes expanding the use of the 2.5 GHz 
band will benefit small entities as well as entities of other sizes by 
reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on licensees, promoting greater 
spectrum efficiency, and facilitating the full use of EBS spectrum to 
provide advanced mobile broadband services, particularly in rural areas 
where this spectrum currently sits idle. Moreover, the adopted reforms 
will permit more flexible use of this spectrum by small and other sized 
entities that currently hold EBS licenses and will provide new 
opportunities for EBS eligible entities, Tribal Nations, and commercial 
entities to obtain unused 2.5 GHz spectrum to facilitate improved 
access to next generation wireless broadband, including 5G, for both 
educational and commercial uses. The Commission discusses the 
alternatives considered to the rules adopted below.
    133. Rationalizing the GSAs of incumbent EBS Licensees. In the 
NPRM, the Commission proposed to rationalize the current point-and-
radius license areas held by incumbents to a defined geographic area. 
There was both support for this approach and alternatives proposed by 
commenters. The alternatives considered by the Commission included 
expansion to county borders, using self-defined GSAs, GSAs based on 
granular population data, and rationalization but not any expansion of 
geographic area coverage. Finding the benefits, the Commission believed 
would result from its NPRM proposals are unlikely to materialize to any 
significant degree, and the process of rationalizing licenses is likely 
to be complex, time-consuming, and potentially confusing to incumbent 
and future licensees, the Commission declined to adopt any 
rationalization scheme for incumbent EBS licenses and left the existing 
license boundaries intact.
    134. Additional Flexibility for EBS Licensees. The Commission 
adopted the NPRM's proposal to eliminate the EBS eligibility 
requirements contained in Sec.  27.1201 of the rules for incumbent EBS 
licenses, including licenses granted via waiver instead of maintaining 
the current requirements. This alternative allows the Commission to 
bring these licenses into better alignment with the flexible use 
licensing policies used in similar spectrum bands, which feature open 
eligibility absent a compelling showing that regulatory intervention to 
exclude potential participants is necessary and has been an effective 
means of promoting more efficient and better use of the 2.5 GHz band. 
Small entities should benefit from this increased flexibility to assign 
or transfer control of their licenses to entities that are not EBS-
eligible. The Commission believes that, at this point in time, 
licensees are in the best position to determine how to use their 
licenses, or, alternatively, whether to transfer their licenses to a 
third party in the secondary market.
    135. The Commission also eliminated the educational use requirement 
contained in Sec.  27.1203 of the rules as proposed in the NPRM after 
considering alternative proposals to revise and/or update the 
requirements to reflect the current broadband use of the spectrum. In 
doing so the Commission did not find that any these alternatives would 
facilitate broadband deployment or be workable for licensees or 
commercial operators. Additionally, after considering alternative 
proposals to maintain and increase restriction on lease terms, the 
Commission adopted the NPRM's proposal to eliminate restrictions on EBS 
leases entered into under its secondary markets policies on a going 
forward basis which will make the rules for the 2.5 GHz band consistent 
with other part 27 services, incentivize build-out in rural areas, and 
provide additional flexibility to both EBS licensees and lessees.
    136. Local Priority Filing Window. The Commission adopted a Tribal 
priority window for Tribal entities to obtain 2.5 GHz licenses on 
Tribal lands that are located in rural areas as proposed in the NPRM, 
enabling these entities to acquire all available EBS spectrum on their 
Tribal lands. This window will allow Tribal entities to address the 
educational and communication needs of their communities and provide 
much needed services such advanced wireless services, in areas that are 
devoid of such services. Conversely, after considering the priority 
filing window option for existing EBS licensees and for educational 
institutions that do not currently hold any EBS licenses, the 
Commission declined to adopt these windows based on a belief that 
windows for these entities are not the best way to achieve rapid 
expansion and deployment of broadband in the band.
    137. Licensing of White Spaces. As proposed in the NPRM, the 
Commission will use competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive 
applications for the unassigned EBS spectrum after the completion of 
the rural Tribal priority window, finding the competitive bidding 
alternative is consistent with the other changes made in the Report and 
Order to align EBS licenses more closely with flexible use service 
rules. An overlay auction was determined to be the best mechanism for 
assigning EBS spectrum due to, among other things, the costly nature of 
an incentive auction to government and other participants. Thus, the 
overlay auction should help minimize participation costs for small 
entities.
    138. The procedures the Commission has adopted contain provisions 
to assist small entities in competitive bidding. The Commission will 
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. Furthermore, 
qualifying ``small businesses''--those with gross revenues for the 
preceding five years not exceeding $55 million--will be provided with a 
bidding credit of 15%, and ``very small businesses''--those with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding five years not 
exceeding $20 million--with a bidding credit of 25%. 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.

[[Page 57363]]

    139. Geographic Area and the Band Plan for New Licenses. The band 
plan adopted in the Report and Order will include three overlay 
licenses--the first license will include channels A1-A-3, B1-B3, C1-C3 
(49.5 MHz); the second license will include channels D1-D3, the J 
channels, and channels A4-G4 (50.5 MHz); and the third license channels 
G1-G3 and the relevant EBS K channels (16.5 megahertz of contiguous 
spectrum and 1 megahertz of the K channel associated with the G channel 
group). This arrangement will give applicants two wide blocks and one 
small block from which to choose, providing opportunity for small 
entities participate as well as medium and large entities with 
different needs.
    140. Requirements for New 2.5 GHz Licenses. Regarding performance 
requirements, the alternatives considered by the Commission were 
broadly speaking, robust requirements (including the Commission's 
proposal), relaxed requirements (including the current substantial 
service standard), or the general concept of a build-out requirement 
without specifics. The Commission adopted the robust mobile, fixed and 
broadcast performance requirement metrics from the NPRM for new 
licensees in the band, which will promote the deployment of wireless 
services for multiple purposes including education. With respect to the 
timeline for evaluating build-out, the Commission required that the 
interim benchmark be applied after four years, and that the penalty for 
failure to make this showing be the acceleration of the final benchmark 
deadline to six years, rather than eight years. This approach is 
largely consistent with the Commission's rules for other bands and will 
help harmonize the regulatory regime of the 2.5 GHz band with other 
commercial wireless services. Additionally, the Commission will apply 
the Wireless Radio Services (WRS) framework of renewal standards to 
both new and existing EBS licensees. The Commission anticipates that 
updating the performance requirements in this manner will encourage 
rapid deployment of next generation wireless services, including 5G, 
which will benefit small entities and the industry as a whole.
    141. Pending Waiver Requests and Cleaning Up the 2.5 GHz Rules. 
Small entities should benefit from the Commission's removal of the 
filing freeze for new EBS licenses, which will provide them greater 
opportunity to obtain EBS spectrum to meet the needs of their 
communities. In conjunction with removing the filing freeze, the 
Commission will dismiss three pending requests to waive the freeze for 
new EBS licenses. Small entities should also benefit from the 
Commission's clean-up of the 2.5 GHz rules by eliminating the BRS/EBS 
transition rules which were completed in 2011 and making non-
substantive, clarifying amendments to Sec.  27.1206, making it is 
easier to understand.

V. Ordering Clauses

    142. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 7, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 
307, 309, and 310, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, that this Report and Order is hereby 
adopted.
    143. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    144. It is further ordered that the rules and requirements adopted 
herein will become effective six months from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register with the exception of Sec. Sec.  27.14(u) and (v) 
and 27.1204 of the rules, which contain new or modified information 
collection requirements that require review by the OMB under the PRA. 
The Commission directs the Bureau to announce the compliance date for 
those information collections in a document published in the Federal 
Register after OMB approval and directs the Bureau to cause Sec. Sec.  
27.14 and 27.1204 to be revised accordingly.
    145. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 309, and Sec.  
1.934(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.934(d)(2), that the 
requests for waiver of the freeze on the filing of new EBS applications 
filed by Monterey Peninsula Unified School District and the Duckwater 
Shoshone Tribe are denied, and the applications filed by Monterey 
Peninsula Unified School District (File No. 0007664266) and Duckwater 
Shoshone Tribe (File Nos. 0007768145 and 0007768146) are dismissed 
without prejudice.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 27

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers.


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 27 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.907 by revising the definition of ``Covered Geographic 
Licenses'' to read as follows:


Sec.  1.907  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered geographic licenses. Covered geographic licenses consist of 
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I, of this 
chapter); 1.6 GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and 
Digital Electronic Message Services (part 101, subpart G, of this 
chapter); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95, subpart F, of this chapter); 
220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart 
T, of this chapter); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz 
Commercial Services (part 27, subparts F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band 
Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service 
(part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 
90, subpart S); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); 
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, 
subpart G, of this chapter); Broadband Personal Communications Service 
(part 24, subpart E, of this chapter); Broadband Radio Service (part 
27, subpart M); Cellular Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart H); 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (part 96, subpart C, of this chapter); 
Dedicated Short Range Communications Service, excluding public safety 
licenses (part 90, subpart M); Educational Broadband Service (part 27, 
subpart M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service (part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video 
Distribution and Data Service (part 101, subpart P); Multilateration 
Location and Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart M); Multiple Address 
Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); Narrowband Personal Communications 
Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and Radiotelephone Service (part 
22, subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF Public Coast Stations,

[[Page 57364]]

including Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (part 80, 
subpart J, of this chapter); Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 
30 of this chapter); and Wireless Communications Service (part 27, 
subpart D).
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.9020 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9020  Spectrum manager leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The spectrum lessee must meet the same eligibility and 
qualification requirements that are applicable to the licensee under 
its license authorization, with the following exceptions. A spectrum 
lessee entering into a spectrum leasing arrangement involving a 
licensee in the Public Safety Radio Services (see part 90, subpart B 
and Sec.  90.311(a)(1)(i) of this chapter) is not required to comply 
with the eligibility requirements pertaining to such a licensee so long 
as the spectrum lessee is an entity providing communications in support 
of public safety operations (see Sec.  90.523(b) of this chapter). A 
spectrum lessee entering into a spectrum leasing arrangement involving 
a licensee in the Mobile Satellite Service with ATC authority (see part 
25 of this chapter) is not required to comply with the eligibility 
requirements pertaining to such a licensee so long as the spectrum 
lessee meets the other eligibility and qualification requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iv) of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1.9030 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9030  Long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The spectrum lessee must meet the same eligibility and 
qualification requirements that are applicable to the licensee under 
its license authorization. A spectrum lessee entering into a spectrum 
leasing arrangement involving a licensee in the Public Safety Radio 
Services (see part 90, subpart B and Sec.  90.311(a)(1)(i) of this 
chapter) is not required to comply with the eligibility requirements 
pertaining to such a licensee so long as the spectrum lessee is an 
entity providing communications in support of public safety operations 
(see Sec.  90.523(b) of this chapter).
* * * * *


Sec.  1.9047   [Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Remove and reserve Sec.  1.9047.

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

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

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


0
7. Amend Sec.  27.4 by removing the definition for ``Commercial EBS 
licensee'' and revising the definition of ``Educational Broadband 
Service (EBS)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  27.4  Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
    Educational Broadband Service (EBS). A radiocommunication service 
licensed under this part for the frequency bands specified in Sec.  
27.5(i).
* * * * *


Sec.  27.5   [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  27.5 by removing and reserving paragraph (i)(3).

0
9. Amend Sec.  27.14 by:
0
a. Effective April 27, 2020, revising paragraphs (o) introductory text, 
(o)(2) introductory text, (o)(2)(iii), and (o)(3); and
0
b. Effective November 25, 2019, adding paragraphs (u) and (v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  27.14  Construction requirements.

* * * * *
    (o) With respect to initial BRS licenses issued on or after 
November 6, 2009, the licensee must make a showing of substantial 
service within four years from the date of issue of the license. With 
respect to EBS licenses issued after October 25, 2019, the licensee 
must comply with paragraph (u) of this section. ``Substantial service'' 
is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially 
above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant 
renewal. Substantial service for BRS and EBS licensees is satisfied if 
a licensee meets the requirements of paragraph (o)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section. If a licensee has not met the requirements of paragraph 
(o)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, then demonstration of substantial 
service shall proceed on a case-by-case basis. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (o)(4) and (5) of this section, all substantial service 
determinations will be made on a license-by-license basis. Failure by 
any licensee to demonstrate substantial service will result in 
forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain 
it.
* * * * *
    (2) An EBS license initially issued prior to October 25, 2019 has 
provided ``substantial service'' when:
* * * * *
    (iii) The level of service provided by the EBS licensee meets or 
exceeds the minimum usage requirements specified in Sec.  27.1214 
contained in the edition of 47 CFR parts 20 through 39, revised as of 
October 1, 2017.
    (3) An EBS or BRS licensee may be deemed to provide substantial 
service through a leasing arrangement if the lessee is providing 
substantial service under paragraph (o)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (u) This section enumerates performance requirements for EBS 
licenses initially issued after October 25, 2019. Licensees 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.
    (1) All EBS licenses initially issued after October 25, 2019, must 
demonstrate compliance with the performance requirements described in 
this paragraph (u). All equipment used to demonstrate compliance must 
be in use and actually providing service, either for internal use or to 
unaffiliated customers, as of the interim deadline or final deadline, 
whichever is applicable.
    (2) Except for licensees with licenses applied for in the Tribal 
Priority Window, licensees providing mobile or point-to-multipoint 
service must demonstrate reliable signal coverage of 50% of the 
population of the geographic service area within four years of initial 
license grant, and 80% of the population of the geographic service area 
within eight years of initial license grant.
    (3) Except for licensees with licenses applied for in the Tribal 
Priority Window, licensees providing fixed point-to-point service must 
demonstrate operation of one link for each 50,000 persons in the 
geographic service area within four years of initial license grant, and 
one link for each 25,000 persons in the geographic service area within 
eight years of initial license grant.
    (4) Licensees with licenses applied for in the Tribal Priority 
Window must make an interim showing under paragraph (o)(2) or (3) of 
this section within two years of initial license grant. Licensees with 
licenses applied for in the Tribal Priority Window must make

[[Page 57365]]

a final showing under paragraph (o)(2) or (3) of this section within 
five years of initial license grant.
    (5) If an EBS licensee (other than the licensee of a license issued 
pursuant to the Tribal Priority Window) fails to meet interim 
performance requirements described in paragraph (o)(2) or (3) of this 
section, the deadline for that authorization to meet its final 
performance requirement will be advanced by two years. If an EBS 
licensee of a license issued pursuant to the Tribal Priority Window 
fails to meet interim performance requirements described in paragraph 
(o)(2) or (3) of this section, the deadline for that authorization to 
meet its final performance requirement will be advanced by one year. If 
an EBS licensee fails to meet its final performance requirement, its 
license shall automatically terminate without specific Commission 
action.
    (v) Paragraph (u) of this section contains new or modified 
information-collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with 
these information-collection and recordkeeping requirements will not be 
required until after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. 
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing that compliance date and revising this paragraph (v) 
accordingly.


Sec.  27.1201   [Removed and Reserved]

0
10. Remove and reserve Sec.  27.1201.


Sec.  27.1203   [Removed and Reserved]

0
11. Remove and reserve Sec.  27.1203.

0
12. Effective November 25, 2019, add Sec.  27.1204 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1204  EBS Tribal priority filing window.

    (a) The Commission will specify by public notice a window filing 
period for applications for new EBS stations on rural Tribal Lands. EBS 
applications for new facilities will be accepted only during this 
window. Applications submitted prior to the window opening date 
identified in the public notice will be returned as premature. 
Applications submitted after the deadline will be dismissed with 
prejudice as untimely.
    (b) Applicants in the Tribal priority filing window must 
demonstrate that they are eligible to file in that window. To be 
considered eligible for the Tribal priority window, an applicant must 
be:
    (1) A federally recognized American Indian Tribe or Alaska Native 
Village; or an entity that is owned and controlled by a federally-
recognized Tribe or a consortium of federally-recognized Tribes;
    (2) Requesting a license on Tribal Land, which is defined to be any 
federally recognized Indian Tribe's reservation, pueblo or colony, 
including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions 
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 
Stat. 688) and Indian Allotments, see Sec.  54.400(e) of this chapter, 
as well as Hawaiian Home Lands--areas held in trust for native 
Hawaiians by the State of Hawaii, pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act, 1920, July 9, 1921, 42 Stat 108, et seq., as amended; 
and any lands designated prior to July 10, 2019, as Tribal Lands 
pursuant to the designation process contained in Sec.  54.412 of this 
chapter;
    (3) Requesting a GSA in a rural area, which is defined to be lands 
that are not part of an urbanized area or urban cluster area with a 
population equal to or greater than 50,000; and
    (4) Have a local presence on the Tribal Land for which they are 
applying.
    (c) Following the close of the Tribal priority window, the 
Commission will issue a public notice of acceptance for filing of 
applications submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section that 
meet technical and legal requirements and that are not in conflict with 
any other application filed during the window. Petitions to deny such 
applications may be filed within 30 days of such public notice. A copy 
of any petition to deny must be served on the applicant.
    (d) If applications are filed in the Tribal priority window that 
are mutually exclusive, the Commission will use competitive bidding to 
resolve the mutual exclusivity. Two or more pending applications are 
mutually exclusive if the grant of one application would effectively 
preclude the grant of one or more of the others under Commission rules 
in this chapter.
    (e) For non-mutually exclusive applications, the applications will 
be processed in accordance with procedures to be specified by the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    (f) This section contains new or modified information-collection 
and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with these information-
collection and recordkeeping requirements will not be required until 
after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that 
compliance date and revising this paragraph (f) accordingly.

0
13. Add Sec.  27.1205 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1205  EBS renewal standard.

    In applying the renewal standard contained in Sec.  1.949 of this 
chapter to EBS, for licenses initially issued after October 25, 2019, 
the applicable safe harbors are the buildout standards contained in 
Sec.  27.14(u). For licenses initially issued before October 25, 2019, 
the applicable safe harbors are the buildout standards contained in 
Sec.  27.14(o); provided, however, that the educational use safe harbor 
contained in Sec.  27.14(o)(2) may only be used by a licensee that 
meets the eligibility requirements to hold an EBS license pursuant to 
the provisions of Sec.  27.1201(a) contained in the edition of 47 CFR 
parts 20 through 39, revised as of October 1, 2017.

0
14. Revise Sec.  27.1206 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1206  Geographic service area.

    (a) BRS:
    (1) For BRS incumbent licenses granted before September 15, 1995, 
the geographic service area (GSA) is the area that is bounded by a 
circle having a 35 mile radius and centered at the station's reference 
coordinates, which was the previous PSA entitled to incumbent licensees 
prior to January 10, 2005, and is bounded by the chord(s) drawn between 
intersection points of the licensee's previous 35 mile PSA and those of 
respective adjacent market, co-channel licensees;
    (2) For BRS BTA authorization holders, the GSA for a channel is the 
BTA, subject to the exclusion of overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs 
created on January 10, 2005.
    (3) If an incumbent BRS license is cancelled or is forfeited, the 
GSA area of the incumbent station shall dissolve and the right to 
operate in that area automatically reverts to the GSA licensee that 
held the corresponding BTA.
    (b) EBS:
    (1) Existing EBS licensees. (i) The GSA of EBS licenses on the E 
and F channel groups is defined in Sec.  27.1216. EBS licensees on the 
E and F channel groups are prohibited from expanding their GSAs.
    (ii) For incumbent EBS licenses not in the E and F channel groups 
in effect as of October 25, 2019, the geographic service area (GSA) is 
the area that is bounded by a circle having a 35 mile radius and 
centered at the station's reference coordinates, which was the previous 
PSA entitled to incumbent licensees prior to January 10, 2005, and is 
bounded by the chord(s) drawn between intersection points of the 
licensee's previous 35 mile PSA and

[[Page 57366]]

those of respective adjacent market, co-channel licensees.
    (2) New initial EBS licenses. (i) For EBS licenses issued in the 
Tribal Priority Window, the GSA consists of the rural Tribal Land (as 
defined in Sec.  27.1204(b)(3)) specified in the application.
    (ii) For all other new initial licenses issued after April 27, 
2020, the GSA is the county for which the license is issued, subject to 
the exclusion of overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs.

0
15. Revise Sec.  27.1207 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1207  Service areas and authorizations.

    (a) Initial authorizations for BRS granted after January 1, 2008, 
shall be blanket licenses for all BRS frequencies identified in Sec.  
27.5(i)(2). Except for incumbent BRS licenses, BRS service areas are 
the 1992 version of Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) defined by Rand McNally, 
or additional service areas similar to BTAs adopted by the Commission. 
The market area for each license will be listed on the license 
authorization. The following are additional BRS service areas in places 
where Rand McNally has not defined BTAs: American Samoa; Guam; Gulf of 
Mexico Zone A; Gulf of Mexico Zone B; Gulf of Mexico Zone C; Northern 
Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto Rico; San Juan, 
Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The boundaries of 
Gulf of Mexico Zone A are from an area twelve nautical miles from the 
shoreline at mean high tide on the north and east, to the limit of the 
Outer Continental Shelf to the south, and to longitude 91[deg]00' to 
the west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone B are from an area 
twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the 
north, to the limit of the Outer Continental Shelf to the south, to 
longitude 91[deg]00' to the east, and to longitude 94[deg]00' to the 
west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone C are from an area twelve 
nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north and 
west, to longitude 94[deg]00' to the east, and to a line 281 kilometers 
from the reference point at Linares, N.L., Mexico on the southwest. The 
Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, PR, service area consists of the following 
municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, 
Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, 
Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez, Moca, 
Patillas, Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rinc[oacute]n, Sabana Grande, 
Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba and Yauco. The San Juan 
service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico.
    (b) For EBS initial licenses issued after October 25, 2019, except 
for licenses issued in the Tribal Priority Window, the GSA is the 
county for which the license is issued, subject to the exclusion of 
overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs. For purposes of this subpart, 
counties are defined using the United States Census Bureau's data 
reflecting county legal boundaries and names valid through January 1, 
2017. Except for licenses issued in the Tribal Priority Window, there 
shall be three initial authorizations issued in each county: One 
authorization for channels A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, and C3; the 
second authorization for channels D1, D2, D3, JA1, JA2, JA3, JB1, JB2, 
JB3, JC1, JC2, JC3, JD1, JD2, JD3, A4, B4, C4, D4, and G4; the third 
authorization for channels G1, G2, G3, KG1, KG2, and KG3.

0
16. Revise Sec.  27.1208 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1208  Geographic area licensing.

    (a) All BRS and EBS licenses are geographic area licenses. Blanket 
licenses cover all mobile and response stations. Pursuant to that 
geographic area license, incumbent licensees may modify their systems 
provided the modified system complies with the applicable rules in this 
chapter. The blanket license covers all fixed stations anywhere within 
the authorized service area, except a station must be individually 
licensed if:
    (1) International agreements require coordination;
    (2) Submission of an Environmental Assessment is required under 
Sec.  1.1307 of this chapter; and
    (3) The station would affect the radio quiet zones under Sec.  
1.924 of this chapter.
    (b) Any antenna structure that requires notification to the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with the Commission 
prior to construction under Sec.  17.4 of this chapter.

0
17. Revise Sec.  27.1209 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1209  Reversion and overlay rights.

    (a) The frequencies associated with BRS incumbent authorizations 
that have cancelled automatically or otherwise recovered by the 
Commission automatically revert to the applicable BRS BTA licensee.
    (b) The frequencies associated with EBS incumbent authorizations 
with a geographic service area that have cancelled automatically or 
otherwise recovered by the Commission automatically revert to a co-
channel EBS county-based licensee, except that if the area in question 
is Tribal Land as defined in Sec.  27.1204(b)(3) and is contiguous to 
the GSA of a co-channel authorization issued in the Tribal Priority 
Window, the area consisting of Tribal Land reverts to the co-channel 
license issued in the Tribal Priority Window.
    (c) The frequencies associated with EBS authorizations issued in 
the Tribal Priority Window with a geographic service area that have 
cancelled automatically or otherwise recovered by the Commission 
automatically revert to a co-channel EBS county-based authorization.

0
18. Revise Sec.  27.1214 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1214  EBS grandfathered leases.

    All leases of current EBS spectrum entered into prior to January 
10, 2005 and in compliance with leasing rules contained in 47 CFR part 
74, revised as of October 1, 2004, may continue in force and effect, 
notwithstanding any inconsistency between such leases and the rules 
applicable to spectrum leasing arrangements set forth in this chapter. 
Such leases entered into pursuant to the rules formerly contained in 47 
CFR part 74 may be renewed and assigned in accordance with the terms of 
such lease. All spectrum leasing arrangements leases entered into after 
January 10, 2005, under the rules set forth in part 1 of this chapter 
and this part, must comply with the rules in those parts.

0
19. Revise Sec.  27.1217 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1217  Competitive bidding procedures for the Broadband Radio 
Service and the Educational Broadband Service.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for BRS and EBS licenses 
are subject to competitive bidding. For BRS auctions, the designated 
entity provisions of Sec.  27.1218 apply. For EBS auctions, the 
designated entity provisions of Sec.  27.1219 apply. The general 
competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of this 
chapter apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

0
20. Amend Sec.  27.1218 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1218  Broadband Radio Service designated entity provisions.

* * * * *

0
21. Add Sec.  27.1219 before the undesignated center heading 
``Technical Standards'' to read as follows:

[[Page 57367]]

Sec.  27.1219  Educational Broadband Service designated entity 
provisions.

    (a) Eligibility for small business provisions. (1) A small business 
is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling 
interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, have average 
gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding 
five (5) years.
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more 
than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years.
    (b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small 
businesses may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) 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 a bidding credit of 25 
percent, as specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
    (c) Rural service provider credit. A rural service provider, as 
defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter, who has not claimed a 
small business bidding credit may use a bidding credit of 15 percent 
bidding credit, as specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter.


Sec. Sec.  27.1230 through 27.1239   [Removed]

0
22. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Policies Governing the 
Transition of the 2500-2690 MHz Band for BRS and EBS'' and Sec. Sec.  
27.1230 through 27.1239.

[FR Doc. 2019-22511 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P