[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22720-22748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8405]
[[Page 22720]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101
[WT Docket No. 12-70; ET Docket No. 10-142; WT Docket No. 04-356; FCC
12-32]
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, etc.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes and/or seeks
comments on service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for
flexible terrestrial use of spectrum currently assigned to the Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band. These proposed rules are
designed to increase the Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile
broadband, provide for flexible use of this spectrum, encourage
innovation and investment in mobile broadband, and provide a stable
regulatory environment in which broadband deployment could develop.
This proposal would carry out a recommendation in the National
Broadband Plan that the Commission enable the provision of stand-alone
terrestrial services in this spectrum. With this proceeding we intend
to fulfill the Commission's previously stated plan to create a solid
and lasting foundation for the provision of terrestrial services in the
2 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on an alternative band
plan involving additional spectrum at 1695-1710 MHz that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has proposed
to reallocate from Federal to commercial use.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 17, 2012. Submit reply comments
on or before June 1, 2012. Written comments on the proposed information
collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1995, Public Law 104-13, should be submitted on or before June 18,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,
via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-
5167. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 12-32, or by WT Docket
No. 12-70, ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket No. 04-356, by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
Availability of Documents: Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Holmes of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS. For
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 12-32, adopted and
released on March 21, 2012. The full text of this document is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at
[email protected]. The complete text is also available on the
Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-12-32A1doc. Alternative formats (computer diskette,
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via email to
[email protected].
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should
reference the docket numbers in this proceeding, WT Docket No. 12-70,
ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket No. 04-356.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
[[Page 22721]]
[ssquf] Document FCC 12-32 contains proposed information collection
requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507 of the PRA.
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained
in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Judith B. Herman
at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected] and to Nicholas
A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.
[ssquf] To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4)
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to
OMB will be displayed.
[ssquf] Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis:
[ssquf] This document contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
[ssquf] OMB Control Number: 3060-1030.
[ssquf] Title: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)
in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands.
[ssquf] Form Number: N/A.
[ssquf] Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
[ssquf] Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and
state, local, or tribal government.
[ssquf] Number of Respondents: 979 respondents; 1,630 responses.
[ssquf] Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.
[ssquf] Frequency of Response: Annual, semi-annual, one time, and
on occasion reporting requirements; record keeping requirements; and
3rd party disclosure requirements.
[ssquf] Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain
benefits.
[ssquf] Total Annual Burden: 32,384 hours.
[ssquf] Total Annual Cost: $581,800.
[ssquf] Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A.
[ssquf] Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for
confidentiality.
[ssquf] Needs and Uses: The Commission will be submitting this
proposed new or modified information collection to the Office of
Management and Budget as a revision of a currently approved information
collection under OMB Control Number 3060-1030. The Commission has not
changed its recordkeeping and/or third party disclosure requirements;
however, the Commission expects to revise its reporting requirements in
this collection by increasing the total annual burden hours from 32,379
to 32,384 hours to accommodate 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum
band (AWS-4) operators. There is no change in the total annual cost
burden.
[ssquf] The proposed new or modified information collection will be
used by the Commission staff to review and determine whether an AWS-4
licensee satisfies the renewal criteria showing at the time of license
renewal for AWS-4 operators, meets its performance requirements
obligations, meets its discontinuance of service oblications, and
satisfies its obligation to protect Mobile Satellite Services from
harmful interference, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.949, 27.14, 27.17, and
27.1136, respectfully, of the Commission's rules. Section 1.949 sets
forth the renewal criteria showing at the time of license renewal;
Sec. 27.14 sets forth the construction requirements a licensee must
meet in order to satisfy its performance requirements in their licensed
area; Sec. 27.17 sets forth the terms in which a licensee's
authorization will terminate if it permanently discontinues its
services; and Sec. 27.1136 requires AWS-4 licensees to protect Mobile
Satellite Service operations from harmful interference. Without this
information, the Commission would not be able to carry out its
statutory responsibilities.
Summary
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to increase
the Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by removing
unnecessary barriers to flexible use of spectrum currently assigned to
the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band. This proposal
would carry out a recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that
the Commission enable the provision of stand-alone terrestrial services
in this spectrum. (Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan
(2010) (National Broadband Plan), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296935A1.pdf (last
visited Mar. 19, 2012)). We do so by proposing service, technical,
assignment, and licensing rules for this spectrum. These proposed rules
are designed to provide for flexible use of this spectrum, to encourage
innovation and investment in mobile broadband, and to provide a stable
regulatory environment in which broadband deployment could develop.
Additionally, in our Notice of Inquiry, we seek comment on potential
ways to free up additional valuable spectrum to address the Nation's
growing demand for mobile broadband spectrum.
2. With this proceeding we intend to fulfill the Commission's
previously stated plan to create a solid and lasting foundation for the
provision of terrestrial services in 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2
GHz band. As indicated in the National Broadband Plan, each MSS band is
differently situated and therefore merits a band-specific approach to
the expansion of terrestrial use. For example, the 2 GHz MSS band,
unlike other MSS bands, has terrestrial Fixed and Mobile allocations
and is comprised of large, contiguous blocks of spectrum. This Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking directly follows on the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation
Order, in which the Commission laid the predicate for full terrestrial
use of the 2 GHz MSS band. See Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile
Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-
1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, 76
FR 31252 (2011).
[[Page 22722]]
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: AWS-4
3. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (AWS-4 Notice), we build
on the Commission's recent actions to enable the provision of
terrestrial mobile broadband service in up to 40 megahertz of spectrum
in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands. We propose
terrestrial service rules for these spectrum bands that would generally
follow the Commission's part 27 rules, modified as necessary to account
for issues unique to the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum
bands. Given the proximity of these spectrum bands to spectrum bands
previously identified as Advanced Wireless Services or AWS, in our
proposal we refer to these spectrum bands as ``AWS-4'' or ``AWS-4
spectrum.'' We are mindful that this spectrum is now allocated on a co-
primary basis for Mobile Satellite and for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile
services and that MSS licensees already have authorizations to provide
service in the band. Accordingly, as explained below, we seek comment
on a proposal that AWS-4 terrestrial service rules will need to provide
for the protection of 2 GHz MSS systems from harmful interference
caused by AWS-4 systems. Finally, for each of the issues identified
below, we seek comment on the most efficient manner to address the
issue. If a party believes any of these issues would be more properly
resolved in another Commission proceeding, we request that the party
identify those issues and the relevant Commission proceeding.
4. In the sections that follow, we seek comment on a number of
parameters governing the licensing, use, and assignment of the
spectrum, including their costs and benefits. We ask that commenters
take into account only those costs and benefits that directly result
from the implementation of the particular rules that could be adopted,
including any proposed requirement or potential alternative
requirement. Commenters should identify the various costs and benefits
associated with a particular proposal. Further, to the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual
or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit
addressed, including a description of how the data or information was
calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other
evidentiary support.
A. AWS-4 Band Plan
5. In this section, we make two overarching proposals to establish
the AWS-4 band plan. First, we propose to pair the two AWS-4 spectrum
bands. Second, we propose block sizes and a geographic area licensing
scheme to define license boundaries.
1. Paired Spectrum (Uplink/Downlink)
6. The spectrum in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands is
presently licensed as paired spectrum for mobile satellite use. The
2000-2020 MHz band serves as an uplink band and 2180-2200 MHz band
serves as a downlink band. We propose to pair the AWS-4 blocks,
consistent with the existing 2 GHz MSS licenses and the Commission's
treatment of other bands used for mobile wireless and broadband
service, AWS and PCS. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek
comment on whether we should take any action to ensure that equipment
for the AWS-4 band is interoperable across both paired blocks.
7. Specifically, we propose to adopt the same uplink and downlink
pairing designations for provision of terrestrial service as presently
exists for satellite service in this spectrum: 2000-2020 MHz would
serve as an uplink band; 2180-2200 MHz would serve as a downlink band.
Adopting the same uplink/downlink pairing approach for AWS-4 as for 2
GHz MSS may facilitate the continued use of the existing satellites for
MSS. We seek comment on the above proposals and proposed AWS-4 band
plan. We also seek comment on two alternative possibilities, in which
the uplink band would be shifted up 5 megahertz to 2005-2025 MHz or up
10 megahertz and compressed to 2010-2025 MHz, as discussed below.
2. Spectrum Block Size
8. We also propose to license the spectrum in paired 10-megahertz
blocks for each license area. Currently, the 2 GHz MSS spectrum is
assigned as two paired blocks: Block A pairs 2000-2010 MHz with 2190-
2200 MHz and Block B pairs 2010-2020 MHz with 2180-2190 MHz. We
observe, however, that the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
standards organization is in the process of examining whether to change
the duplex spacing for Band 23, which includes this spectrum, from a
spacing that corresponds to the existing duplex spacing to one that
would remove the variable duplex spacing. We seek comment on which
pairing approach to apply. We ask commenters to discuss the affect the
ongoing 3GPP process should have on our decision. In addition,
commenters seeking alternative spectrum block sizes should support
their recommendations with evidence that these alternative schemes will
promote greater efficiency and more flexible use of the bands than the
proposed approach. Commenters also should discuss and quantify any
associated costs or benefits of implementing the proposals discussed
above or any alternative schemes.
9. Our proposal to license AWS-4 spectrum in paired 10-megahertz
blocks reflects several considerations. First, the MSS band is
currently licensed as paired 10-megahertz blocks. Issuing AWS-4
licenses with equivalent bandwidth would facilitate coordination
between the two services. Second, establishing paired 10-megahertz
blocks strikes a balance between potentially enabling multiple
licensees in any given geographical area (i.e., different licensees in
each 10 + 10 block pair) and allowing the use of newer high-bandwidth
technologies. We seek comment on these approaches.
10. We also seek comment on adopting a flexible paired single block
option that, in the event a single licensee holds both the A and B
Blocks, would allow that entity to combine them into one paired 20-
megahertz block and use these contiguous spectrum blocks seamlessly
with flexibility to design its network and respond effectively to any
business and technical needs. Alternatively, if we were to adopt a
licensing mechanism that allows AWS-4 spectrum licensees to be held by
entities other than the existing 2 GHz MSS licensees, we seek comment
on whether this spectrum should be licensed in smaller block sizes.
3. Geographic Area Licensing
11. We propose to license the AWS-4 band using a geographic area
licensing approach, and we seek comment on this proposal. A geographic
licensing area approach is well suited for the types of fixed and
mobile services that would likely be deployed in this band.
Additionally, geographic licensing is consistent with the Commission's
licensing approach adopted for the AWS-1 bands, and proposed for both
the AWS-2 and the AWS-3 bands. In the event that interested parties do
not support geographic licensing for the AWS-4 spectrum, those
commenters should explain their position and identify the costs and
benefits associated with an alternative licensing proposal and what
type of licensing scheme it supports.
[[Page 22723]]
12. Assuming that we utilize a geographic area approach for
licensing these bands, we must determine the appropriate size(s) of
service areas on which licenses should be based. In previous AWS
service rule proceedings the Commission has sought to balance policy
goals of fostering service to rural areas and tribal lands, and
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
services consistent with its obligations under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act. To do that, the Commission, among other things,
established spectrum blocks in three geographic area sizes. In regard
to the AWS-4 spectrum, however, we propose to apply a single size
geographic area. We propose that any new AWS-4 licenses should be
assigned on an Economic Area (EA) basis. See 47 CFR 27.6. Assigning
AWS-4 in EA geographic areas would allow AWS-4 licensees to make
adjustments to suit their individual needs. EA license areas are small
enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers.
EA license areas also nest within and may be aggregated up to larger
license areas that have been used by the Commission for other services,
such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area
Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to create larger service areas.
Depending on the licensing mechanism we adopt, licensees may aggregate
or otherwise adjust their geographic coverage through auction or
through secondary markets. We seek comment on this approach. We ask
commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other
public interest considerations of any particular geographic scheme for
this particular band, as well as the impact that any such scheme would
have on rural service and competition.
13. We also seek comment on including the Gulf of Mexico in our
licensing scheme for these bands. We question whether to include it as
part of larger service areas, as we did for the Upper 700 MHz band, or
whether we should separately license a service area or service areas to
cover the Gulf of Mexico. Commenters who advocate a separate service
area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what
boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique
radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that
exist for Gulf licensees.
B. Technical Issues
14. When the Commission adopted the MSS/ATC regime in 2003, it
addressed intra-service and adjacent-band interference concerns, and
enacted unique MSS/ATC technical rules in part 25 of the Commission's
rules, which did not fully align with the technical rules for similar
terrestrial operations in other bands. The ATC interference rules for
the 2 GHz MSS band are contained in rule 25.252. See 47 CFR 25.252.
Subsequently, in addressing requests for ATC authority by the two 2 GHz
MSS authorization holders, ICO and TerreStar, the Commission granted
them waivers of several of the part 25 ATC interference rules. See New
ICO Satellite Services G.P. Application for Blanket Authority to
operate Ancillary Terrestrial Component base stations and dual-mode
MSS-ATC mobile terminals in the 2 GHz MSS Bands, DA 09-38, Order and
Authorization, 24 FCC Rcd 171 (2009) (ICO Waiver Order). In general,
these waivers resulted in aligning the terrestrial requirements for the
2 GHz MSS band operators more closely with the part 27 technical rules
that apply to AWS-1 license holders. Based on review of current
interference possibilities, we propose an approach that would permit
deployment under the current rules and waivers by proposing that the
technical rules and license conditions applicable today to the
provision of terrestrial services in the 2 GHz MSS bands should
generally apply to the AWS-4 bands.
15. In general, our aim in establishing technical rules is to
maximize the flexible use of spectrum while appropriately protecting
incumbent operations in neighboring bands. The technical rules we
propose below are based on the rules for AWS-1 spectrum, with specific
additions or modifications designed to protect broadband PCS services
operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band, as well as future services
operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band, from harmful interference from
AWS-4 mobile devices operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band. Any rules
would also address protection of Federal operations in the 2200-2290
MHz band from harmful interference from AWS-4 base stations operating
in the 2180-2200 MHz band. We also seek comment on whether
modifications to these rules might be warranted in order to provide for
more flexible use of AWS-4 spectrum, while at the same time protecting
other spectrum uses from interference.
1. OOBE Limits
16. In the proposed band plan, AWS-4 spectrum would be issued in
paired 10-megahertz blocks, using Economic Area licenses. Therefore,
interference must be considered between AWS-4 blocks and adjacent
bands, between different blocks within the AWS-4 band, and between
different geographic area licenses within the AWS-4 band.
a. Interference Between Adjacent Block AWS-4 Licensees
17. Emissions limit. To minimize harmful interference, the
Commission's rules often limit the amount of RF power that may be
emitted outside of the assigned block of an RF transmitter. The
Commission has previously concluded that attenuating base station out-
of-band emissions (OOBE) by 43+10*log10(P) dB at the edge of
an assigned block, where P is the transmit power in watts, is
appropriate to minimize harmful electromagnetic interference between
terrestrial operations in the 2180-2190 MHz and 2190-2200 MHz blocks.
Similarly, the Commission has previously found that attenuating
terrestrial mobile emissions by 43+10*log10(P) dB outside
the assigned block will minimize interference within the 2000-2020 MHz
band. Furthermore, when the Commission created the service rules for
AWS-1, it concluded that this level of attenuation is appropriate for
protecting wireless systems that will operate in the AWS bands. See
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz
Bands, 69 FR 5711 (2003) (AWS-1 Report and Order). At the time, the
Commission noted that this limit is commonly employed in other wireless
services, and it has generally been found to be adequate in preventing
adjacent channel interference. This level of attenuation is now
established in the Commission's rules for the AWS band, both for both
mobile station and base station emissions. This OOBE limit also applies
in the broadband PCS band.
18. Measurement procedure. To fully define an emissions limit, the
Commission's rules generally specify details of how to measure the
power of the emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth. The part 25
ATC rules determine mobile station compliance with the OOBE limit based
on a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater. For AWS-1, the
measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for
both mobile stations and base stations is generally 1 MHz, with some
modification within the first 1 MHz. Previously, the Commission
concluded the AWS-1 measurement procedure was also appropriate for
mobile stations operating in 2000-2020 MHz. At that time the Commission
did not address the measurement procedure for base stations operating
in 2180-2200 MHz.
[[Page 22724]]
However, as mentioned above, in the AWS-1 band this procedure applies
to mobile and base transmissions. We believe that it is similarly
reasonable to apply this procedure to both mobile and base
transmissions in the AWS-4 band.
19. Proposal. To address potential harmful electromagnetic
interference within the AWS-4 band, we propose that Sec. 27.53(h) of
the Commission's rules, which includes OOBE attenuation of
43+10*log10(P) dB and the associated measurement procedure,
should be expanded to apply to AWS-4 operations in the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters
should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and
any proposed alternative approaches.
b. Interference With Services in Adjacent and Other Bands
20. After considering interference between adjacent blocks within
the AWS-4 band in the previous section, we next examine the adjacent
and nearly adjacent bands outside the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we seek
to establish rules that permit flexible use of the AWS-4 band, while
effectively protecting operations in adjacent bands from harmful
interference. We begin our examination of adjacent band interference by
considering whether attenuation greater than 43+10*log10(P)
dB--a level the Commission frequently applies to adjacent band
operations--is needed to prevent harmful electromagnetic interference
from the AWS-4 band to other bands. Although the previous section only
discussed 43+10*log10(P) for interference within the band,
that attenuation applies to all transmissions outside the assigned
block, including emissions in other bands.
21. Interference with operations below 1995 MHz. The AWS-4 uplink
band at 2000-2020 MHz is 5 megahertz from the broadband PCS downlink
band at 1930-1995 MHz. To protect PCS mobile receivers from harmful
electromagnetic interference from mobile stations transmitting in the
2000-2020 MHz band, the ATC rules specify an attenuation of
70+10*log10(P) dB below 1995 MHz. We propose that this
emission limit should continue to apply to terrestrial operations in
the 2000-2020 MHz band, and that a rule should be added to part 27 that
fixed and mobile transmitters operating in 2000-2020 MHz must attenuate
emissions below 1995 MHz by 70+10*log10(P) dB. We further
propose that this attenuation should be measured using the existing
measurement procedure of Sec. 27.53(h) discussed above. We seek
comment on these proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the
costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative
approaches.
22. Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz. The part 25 ATC
technical rules also include a linear interpolation of OOBE attenuation
between 70+10*log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz and
43+10*log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz. However, recently enacted
legislation directs the Commission to allocate the 1995-2000 MHz band
(AWS-2 Upper H block) for commercial use, and to auction and grant new
initial licenses for the use of this spectrum under flexible-use
service rules. Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
Pub. L. 112-96, section 6401(b). Given this statutory directive and
considering that the 1995-2000 MHz block is adjacent to existing
broadband PCS downlink operations, it is likely that this block will be
used for terrestrial downlink operations. This will exacerbate the
existing potential for harmful interference between downlink operations
below 2000 MHz and uplink operations above 2000 MHz. For example,
commenters to the 2 GHz Public Notice have suggested that a guard band
of 5 MHz or more would be necessary to prevent interference between
downlink operations in 1930-1995 MHz and uplink operations in 2000-2020
MHz. To address this apparent tension, we seek comment on three
alternative proposals for OOBE limits in 1995-2000 MHz.
23. First, we could maintain the existing linear interpolation.
However, this would offer the 1995-2000 MHz block less protection than
the existing PCS blocks, which as discussed above is
70+10*log10(P) dB below the transmit power. In addition,
meeting this limit may have a negative impact on mobile transmitters in
2000-2020 MHz, as the mobile station components, such as power
amplifiers and filters, may not have sharp enough roll off
characteristics to meet this limit when operating in the lower parts of
the band, particularly when operating at the maximum power level
supported. In this regard, we observe that, in standardizing the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands as Band 23, 3GPP has allowed for up to
12 dB of additional power reduction below the maximum transmit power
for mobile stations in 2000-2010 MHz to meet the Commission's current
rules. As the mobile transmit power affects the ability of the mobile
station to reach the base station, this reduction of power would appear
to have a significant impact on cell coverage, uplink throughput, and
ultimately the usability of this spectrum.
24. Second, we could require that fixed and mobile transmitters
operating in 2000-2020 MHz attenuate emissions below 2000 MHz by
70+10*log10(P) dB, consistent with the emissions limit below
1995 MHz. We note, however, that this level may be difficult to meet
for mobile transmitters in 2000-2020 MHz, as it requires even sharper
roll off from mobile stations than the previous alternative.
25. Third, we could require that fixed and mobile transmitters
operating in 2000-2020 MHz attenuate emissions below 2000 MHz by
43+10*log10(P) dB, symmetric with existing limits for PCS
emissions in 2000-2020 MHz and broadly consistent with Commission rules
as discussed above. In this case, if future service rules for 1995-2000
MHz have the same requirement, then the licensees above and below 2000
MHz would be placed on a more equal footing, and could determine among
themselves if there is a need for any stricter limits.
26. We seek comment on each of these alternatives. For each
alternative, we ask commenters to address whether the proposal is
adequate to protect expected uses of the 1995-2000 MHz band. Commenters
should address and quantify the magnitude and effect of any possible
harmful interference, such as the impact on link budgets or coverage
areas. Commenters should also address the amount of spectrum that may
be unusable or partially usable in either band. For each alternative,
we also seek comment on the impact on operations in the 2000-2020 MHz
band, including whether mobile stations will be able to utilize the
entire 2000-2020 MHz band while meeting the proposed limit, and if not,
the amount of spectrum that may be unusable or usable only at a reduced
power, as well as the extent of any such power reductions.
27. For all three alternatives, we propose that the attenuation
should be measured using the existing measurement procedure of Sec.
27.53(h) discussed above. We seek comment on this proposal.
28. Finally, in the event that the record shows none of these three
proposals sufficiently addresses issues of interference with 1995-2000
MHz, we seek comment on two additional proposals. First, we seek
comment on an alternative proposal to shift the uplink band up 5
megahertz from 2000-2020 MHz to 2005-2025 MHz, including the lower
portion of the AWS-2 ``J'' Block at 2020-2025 MHz. This concept was
part of Ericcson's proposal in its comments in response to the 2 GHz
[[Page 22725]]
Public Notice. Would this shift proposal better mitigate interference
with the AWS-2 H Upper block and PCS downlink bands, increasing the
value of the spectrum for mobile broadband and other uses? Further,
would this alternative approach allow for more productive use of the
``stranded'' lower portion of the AWS-2 J Block (2020-2025 MHz) should
the Commission eventually decide to auction the upper portion of the J
Block as part of an extended AWS-3 band? Second, we seek comment on an
alternative proposal to shift the uplink band up 10 megahertz, while
compressing the band from 20 to 15 megahertz, resulting in an uplink
band of 2010-2025 MHz. For this alternative, in light of the
interference issues that may impact the terrestrial use of 2000-2005
MHz, we seek comment on whether shifting the spectrum to a 15 megahertz
band at 2010-2025 MHz would result in the actual loss of spectrum
usable for terrestrial broadband service.
29. For both spectrum shift alternatives, we propose that the shift
apply to the lower end of the band for both terrestrial and satellite
service. Shifting the satellite service out of the 2000-2005 MHz or the
2000-2010 MHz blocks (in a manner consistent with the terrestrial
service) would mitigate against the possibility of mobile satellite
devices causing harmful interference into the 1995-2000 MHz block. The
2020-2025 MHz block is not presently allocated for satellite service.
47 CFR 2.106. We do not intend to shift the satellite service into this
block. We seek comment on this proposal including its costs and
benefits. Lastly, in considering the spectrum shift alternatives, we
seek comment on how each might affect all of the applicable proposals
contained in this AWS-4 Notice, including without limitation the
technical protections discussed in this section, the assignment
proposals, and relocation and cost sharing proposals discussed below.
30. Interference with operations in 2020-2025 MHz. The AWS-4 uplink
band will be adjacent to the AWS-2 Lower J block, 2020-2025 MHz.
Although the part 25 ATC rules adopted in 2003 originally attenuated
the mobile station emissions in this range by a linear interpolation
from 43+10*log10(P) dB at 2020 MHz to
70+10*log10(P) dB at 2025 MHz, the Commission separately
proposed in 2004 to apply a standard of 43+10*log10(P) to
the AWS-2 J block. Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2175-2180 MHz and 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz
Bands, 63 FR 63489 (2004). In 2009, in the ICO Waiver Order, the
Commission waived the part 25 ATC rules and instead applied the
43+10*log10(P) to OOBE in 2020-2025 MHz from transmitters
operating in 2000-2020 MHz. See ICO Waiver Order. We propose that no
additional attenuation beyond 43+10*log10(P) dB is needed to
protect services in the 2020-2025 MHz band. We seek comment on this
approach. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits
of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.
31. Inference with operations above 2025 MHz. The AWS-4 uplink band
is 5 megahertz from the 2025-2110 MHz band, which includes broadcast
auxiliary service (BAS) and cable television service (CARS) operations,
as well as certain Federal government operations. Although the ATC
rules originally limited the mobile emissions to
70+10*log10(P) above 2025 MHz, in 2009, the Commission
waived the part 25 ATC rule and instead applied the
43+10*log10(P) standard. See ICO Waiver Order. As the
interference potential between these bands has not changed
significantly since then, we propose that no additional attenuation
beyond 43+10*log10(P) dB is needed to protect operations
above 2025 MHz. We seek comment on this approach. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any
proposed alternative approaches.
32. Interference with operations below 2180 MHz. The AWS-4 downlink
band, 2180-2200 MHz, is adjacent to the AWS-2 Upper J block, 2175-2180
MHz, which is itself adjacent to the AWS-3 band, 2155-2175 MHz. The
Commission has previously proposed that an attenuation of
43+10*log10(P) dB is an appropriate base station emission
limit to prevent harmful electromagnetic interference in the AWS-2 and
AWS-3 bands. See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2155-2175 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz
Bands, 73 FR 35995 (2008). As the circumstances have not changed
significantly since that attenuation level was proposed, we propose
that no additional attenuation beyond 43+10*log10(P) dB is
needed below 2180 MHz. We seek comment on this approach. Commenters
should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and
any proposed alternative approaches.
33. Interference with opertions above 2200 MHz. The proposed AWS-4
downlink band, 2180-2200 MHz, is adjacent to Federal operations in
2200-2290 MHz. Federal operations in the band 2200-2290 MHz consist
mainly of space, airborne telemetry, and fixed point-to-point microwave
radio relay communications. The space communications in the band
consist of the tracking, telemetry, scientific data communications, and
control of U.S. spacecraft. The band is used by these agencies to
operate space research, space operations, and Earth exploration-
satellites for space-to-Earth communications, and in the case of NASA
for space-to-space communications through their Tracking and Data Relay
Satellite System (TDRSS). Federal agencies use this band for research;
law enforcement video surveillance; control of robotic systems for
explosive neutralization and disposal; and the testing of robotic
ground vehicles.
34. The Commission's part 25 ATC rules require strict emissions
limitations (-100.6 dBW/4 kHz) in the 2180-2200 MHz band, and prohibit
the location of base stations within 820 meters of a Federal earth
station operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band. See 47 CFR 25.252(a)(1),
(a)(6). In 2009, the Commission waived the part 25 emissions limit rule
for MSS/ATC operator ICO, replacing it with the standard emission limit
of 43+10*log10(P) dB. See ICO Waiver Order. Specific to
emissions limits and restrictions on base station locations with
respect to the 2200-2290 MHz band, the waiver order required that ICO
follow an operator-to-operator agreement that ICO had reached with
several Federal agencies. Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate
Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Julius Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications
Commission, File No. SES-LIC-20071203-01646, SES-AMD-20080118-00075,
SES-AMD-20080219-00172, Call Sign: E070272, Attachment at 2 (Jan. 6,
2009) (ICO-Federal Agreement). Finally, TerreStar also requested a
waiver of the part 25 emission limit rules to the extent granted ICO,
and is discussing an operator-to-operator agreement with Federal
agencies. In summary, as it stands, ATC base stations in the 2190-2200
MHz block must meet -100.6 dBW/4 kHz in 2200-2290 MHz throughout the
licensed areas, while ATC base stations in 2180-2190 MHz must meet the
limits set forth in the ICO-Federal Agreement. If the Commission adopts
the proposals contained in this AWS-4 Notice, we expect that licensees
will construct extensive cellular systems in this band.
[[Page 22726]]
We seek comment on whether such deployments would represent a material
change in the expected density of deployment in the band. If so, we
seek comment on the advantages and disadvantages of such a change.
35. We seek comment on the appropriate emissions limits to protect
Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band in light of the current
state of affairs. We observe that the emissions limit of -100.6 dBW/4
kHz EIRP is considerably more stringent than the standard OOBE limit of
43+10*log10(P) dB and may limit flexible use of the AWS-4
band. We seek comment on whether licensees would be able to use their
entire spectrum block for commercial terrestrial broadband base
stations while meeting this limit, or, if not, how much spectrum would
be unusable or usable only at a reduced power level (that is, would
effectively become a guard band), as well as the extent of any such
power reductions. We also seek comment on whether current, state-of-
the-art base station filter design would feasibly be able to meet the
OOBE limit of -100.6 dBW/4 kHz in any portion of the 2200-2290 MHz
band, and the practicality, including the costs, of commercially
deploying such filters. We seek comment on whether any internal guard
band would affect the band plan proposal made in the previous section
that guard bands would have on the band plan proposal. Finally, we seek
comment on whether to carry forward the existing waivers of the part 25
emissions limits into the part 27 regime (e.g., pursuant to the
Commission's license modification authority under section 316 of the
Communications Act). Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits
of their proposals.
36. We seek comment on whether to prohibit the location of AWS-4
base stations within 820 meters of existing Federal earth stations,
consistent with both the current part 25 rule and the ICO-Federal
Agreement. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of their proposals.
37. We also seek comment on whether there are any other part 25
MSS/ATC technical rules that we should incorporate into the AWS-4
technical rules.
38. Other alternative approaches. We also seek comment on any other
alternative approaches to protecting Federal stations above 2200 MHz
while maximizing the usability of AWS-4 spectrum. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of any proposed alternative
approaches.
39. PFD limits for protection of operations above 2200 MHz. We seek
comment on an alternative approach of specifying an aggregate power
flux density (PFD) that must be met at the protected site, which would
enable the AWS-4 licensee to operate as long as this limit is met. We
seek comment on what PFD limit will prevent harmful interference, what
methods can be used to determine that such a limit is met (e.g.,
engineering studies), and the degree to which this approach would
increase flexibility in the AWS-4 band while protecting Federal
operations in the 2200 MHz band.
40. Sliding scale for protection of operations above 2200 MHz. The
emissions limit in the ICO-Federal Agreement changes from an emissions
limit of 43+10*log10(P) dB of attenuation of the transmit
power beyond a specified distance from the protected site to an EIRP
limit of -100.6 dBW/4 kHz within the specified distance. However, the
attenuation needed and therefore the necessary emissions limit is a
function of the isolation provided by the geographic separation of the
protected site and the terrestrial base station, and therefore follows
a curve as a function of the distance from the protected site.
Therefore, we seek comment on an alternative approach where the OOBE
limit is an interpolation between 43+10*log10(P) dB and -
100.6 dBW/4 kHz as a function of distance. In this case it may be
necessary for the interpolation to be linear in the logarithm of the
distance.
41. Global Positioning System (GPS). We note that the MSS/ATC rules
contain provisions regarding interference with GPS systems operating at
1559-1610 MHz. See 47 CFR 252(a)(7), (b)(3). We further note that
different MSS/ATC bands are differently situated in terms of frequency
separation from the GPS band. We request comment on whether any special
interference rules protecting GPS are warranted for the 2 GHz band if
we implement the AWS-4 proposals. We ask that commenters provide
technical analysis supporting their views. We also seek comment on the
costs and benefits associated with their proposals.
2. Receiver Performance
42. We invite comment on any potential for receiver overload
interference between AWS-4 operations and operations above 2200 MHz,
below 2180 MHz, above 2020 MHz, and below 2000 MHz. If such a risk
exists, we request that parties provide whatever information may be
available about the characteristics of the receivers operating in these
frequencies, potential solutions to overload interference, and an
assessment of the impact this might have on deployment of AWS-4
service. We also invite comment on any other receiver issues that
should be considered in this proceeding that could affect the potential
for harmful interference and usability of the AWS-4 spectrum.
3. Power Limits
43. We seek comment on appropriate power limits for terrestrial
operations in the AWS-4 band. Specifically, as described below, we
propose to apply existing AWS power limits to the AWS-4 band. We seek
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the
proposal.
44. Base stations. The MSS/ATC rules limit ATC base station
transmit power to 27 dBW EIRP in 1.23 MHz. The current AWS-1 rules
limit base station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for
emission bandwidths less than 1 MHz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for
emission bandwidths greater than 1 MHz, and double these limits (3280
watts EIRP) in rural areas. The Commission has previously concluded
that a power limitation of 32 dBW/MHz EIRP is appropriate for base
stations in the 2180-2190 MHz band, and that a power limitation of 32
dBW EIRP is appropriate for base stations in the 2190-2200 MHz band.
Although neither of these limits aligns exactly with the AWS-1 rules,
the 32 dBW EIRP level was specifically chosen because it approximates
the 1640 watt EIRP limit of AWS-1 specified in Sec. 27.50(d). The
Commission did not consider whether the higher power level of 3280
watts EIRP allowed for rural AWS-1 base stations is appropriate for
2180-2200 MHz. Although not fully aligned with AWS-1, the current power
limits are very similar. The 32 dBW EIRP limit is the same as the AWS-1
limit of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions under 1 MHz, but is more
burdensome for larger bandwidths. Similarly, the 32 dBW/MHz EIRP limit
is the same as the AWS-1 limit of 1640 watts/MHz EIRP for emission over
1 MHz, but is more burdensome for emissions under 1 MHz. Changing both
limits to the existing AWS-1 rule of 1640 watts EIRP for emissions less
than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 MHz would best
allow flexibility for the use of various bandwidths in the AWS-4
spectrum.
45. Furthermore, allowing the increase of these power levels to the
current AWS-1 rules of 3280 watts EIRP for emissions less than 1 MHz
and 3280 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 MHz in rural areas may
promote the
[[Page 22727]]
Commission's goals of furthering rural deployment of broadband
services. Therefore, we propose that Sec. 27.50(d)(1-2), which sets
the AWS-1 power limits for base stations, should also apply to AWS-4.
We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of
the proposal.
46. The current AWS-1 rules also require that base stations with
transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must
coordinate with licensees in adjacent AWS blocks located within 120
kilometers, BRS licensees in the 2155-2160 MHz band located within 120
kilometers, and satellite entities in the 2025-2110 MHz band. As AWS-4
is not adjacent to the 2155-2160 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands, we do not
see a need to carry these requirements over to AWS-4. Therefore, we
propose only that AWS-4 base stations with transmit power above 1640
watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with users
in adjacent AWS blocks located within 120 kilometers. We seek comment
on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal.
47. Mobile stations. The part 25 ATC rules set a power limit of 1
dBW (1.25 watts) EIRP in a bandwidth of 1.23 MHz for mobiles operating
in 2000-2020 MHz. The existing AWS-1 rules set a power limit of 1 watt
EIRP for mobiles operating in AWS-1, which is somewhat more
restrictive. In the interest of harmonizing the AWS rules, and given
the similarity of these two limits, we propose that the more
restrictive limit of Sec. 27.50(d)(4), which is 1 watt EIRP, should
apply to AWS-4. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs
and benefits of the proposal.
4. Antenna Height Restrictions
48. We propose that the flexible antenna height rules that apply to
AWS-1 should also apply to AWS-4. We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of the proposal.
49. Base stations. Specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-1
base stations are not set forth in part 27 of our rules. However, all
part 27 services are subject to Sec. 27.56, which prevents antenna
heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. See 47 CFR 27.56.
Furthermore, the limitations of field strength at the geographical
boundary of the license discussed below also effectively limit antenna
heights. We propose that no unique antenna height limits are needed for
AWS-4 facilities; rather, we believe that the general height
restrictions are sufficient. We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of the proposal.
50. Fixed stations. Section 27.50(d)(4) specifies a height
restriction of 10 meters for fixed stations operating in AWS-1
spectrum. 47 CFR 27.50(d). Given the similarity of the proposed AWS-4
use to AWS-1 use, we propose that this rule should be expanded to apply
to AWS-4, as well. We seek comment on this proposal, including the
costs and benefits of the proposal.
5. Co-Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems
51. If we ultimately decide to license the AWS-4 bands on the basis
of geographic service areas that are less than nationwide, we will have
to ensure that such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel
systems operating along common geographic borders. The current rules
for AWS-1 address the possibility of harmful co-channel interference
between geographically adjacent licenses by setting a field strength
limit of 47 dB[mu]V/m at the edge of the license area. See 47 CFR
27.55(a)(1). Due to the similarities between AWS-1 and AWS-4 spectrum
use, we propose that this same signal strength limit is appropriate for
AWS-4, and therefore that Sec. 27.55(a)(1) should be expanded to
include the 2180-2200 MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of the proposal.
6. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
52. Section 27.57(c) of our rules indicates that AWS-1 operations
are subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada. See 47
CFR 27.57(c). Until such time as any adjusted agreements between the
United States, Mexico and/or Canada can be agreed to, operations must
not cause harmful interference across the border, consistent with the
terms of the agreements currently in force. We note that further
modification (of the proposed rules) might be necessary in order to
comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the
use of these bands. We seek comment on this issue, including the costs
and benefits of alternative approaches to this issue.
7. Other Technical Issues
53. There are several additional technical rules applicable to all
part 27 services. Specifically, these are: Sec. 27.51 Equipment
authorization, Sec. 27.52 RF safety, Sec. 27.54 Frequency stability,
Sec. 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and Sec. 27.63
Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. 47 CFR 27.51,
27.52, 27.54, 27.56, 27.63. As AWS-4 will be a part 27 service, we
propose that all of these rules should apply to all AWS-4 licensees,
including licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation. We seek comment on this approach, including the costs
and benefits of this approach.
C. Protection of MSS Operations
54. We propose to adopt a rule requiring an AWS-4 licensee to
protect the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensee from harmful interference. The
2000-2020 MHz band was allocated to MSS in 1997; fourteen years later
the Commission added the current co-primary terrestrial Fixed and
Mobile allocations. In adding the co-primary Fixed and Mobile
allocations in 2011, the Commission explained that ``MSS remains co-
primary in the 2 GHz MSS band.'' Fixed and Mobile Services in the
Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz,
1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200
MHz, 76 FR 31252 (2011) (2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order). The
Commission further explained that the addition of the new allocation
``will not result in harmful interference, and would not inevitably
lead to uses that would result in harmful interference,'' impliedly
because (other than the pre-existing MSS/ATC rules) no terrestrial
service rules yet existed for the band. 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order.
As we are now proposing service rules for the AWS-4 band, we propose to
codify the determination that ``adding co-primary Fixed and Mobile
allocations in this band will not result in harmful interference'' by
requiring that AWS-4 licensees protect the 2 GHz MSS licensee from
harmful interference. Id. We seek comment on this proposal, including
the costs and benefits of the proposal.
D. Assignment of AWS-4 License(s)
55. The Commission concluded in 2003 that it would grant additional
ATC authority to the MSS incumbents. See Flexibility for Delivery of
Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band,
the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 68 FR 33640 (2003) (ATC Report
and Order). The Commission reasoned that separately controlled MSS and
terrestrial mobile operations (i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in
the same band would be ``impractical and ill-advised'' because the
parties would not be able to overcome the technical hurdles to reach a
workable sharing arrangement. In particular, the Commission stated:
[[Page 22728]]
While * * * it may be theoretically possible for two different
firms to own and operate the satellite and terrestrial portions of a
single system, we believe that, in reality, no two operators are
likely to succeed in organizing themselves to manage the highly
complex coordination process required between both the MSS and the
terrestrial component at the same time in the same band in the same
region. To optimally balance the frequency usage of the terrestrial
and satellite portions of the system, the ATC portion must be
operated in a manner that controls the ATC terminal-to-MSS uplink
interface while still providing ATC service. ATC Report and Order.
Based on its technical analyses, the Commission also concluded that
``we cannot grant to a third party the right to use licensed MSS
spectrum for terrestrial use without impacting the rights of the
existing satellite licensees.'' ATC Report and Order.
56. In the ATC proceeding, the Commission adopted a blanket
authorization process to implement geographic area licensing of ATC
base station facilities operating in the U.S. coverage of the MSS space
segment, i.e., all 50 states and the U.S. territories and possessions.
DBSD and TerreStar received ATC authority in 2009 and 2010,
respectively, allowing for the deployment of terrestrial base stations
and collectively up to three million dual-mode MSS/ATC user terminals
in the United States. Thus, in considering the impact that AWS-4
operations would have on the existing 2 GHz MSS licensee, we also
consider the impact on the MSS licensee's significant, albeit
ancillary, authority to operate terrestrial stations in the 2 GHz band
throughout the nation.
57. Taken together, the above concerns appear to present strong
reasons that lead us to propose that AWS-4 licenses in this band should
be assigned to the incumbent MSS licensee. First, the complexities of
coordination between MSS and terrestrial uses that the Commission
identified in 2003 in the ATC Report and Order suggest that assignment
of terrestrial licenses to an entity other than the incumbent MSS
licensee remains impractical. Second, we expect that the interference
problems associated with two or more distinct terrestrial licensees in
the same band (i.e., distinct co-channel ATC and part 27 licensees)
point to assigning the AWS-4 licenses to the incumbent MSS licensee.
Third, we observe that this result would not diminish the MSS
licensee's existing ability to provide terrestrial service in the band.
58. We seek comment on these issues. In particular, commenters
should address whether there have been technological advances or other
developments since 2003 that would either reinforce or alter these
points and provide detailed technical analysis supporting any
information provided. Should the record show, contrary to our
expectations, that same-band, separate-operator sharing is possible--
between AWS-4 licensees and an MSS licensee's satellite and ATC
operations--then we seek comment on alternative approaches to licensing
the new service under the Communications Act that would achieve our
goal of making additional spectrum available for terrestrial mobile
broadband use. In addition, we seek comment on what effect the spectrum
shift alternatives proposed above would have on assigning AWS-4
licenses. We further seek comment on the impact, including the
quantification of the costs and benefits that any method for assigning
licenses would have on innovation, investment, and competition.
1. Section 316 License Modification
59. Based on our expectation that the Commission's earlier
technical findings are still sound, and mindful of the 2 GHz MSS
license holder's existing rights to operate MSS in the AWS-4 band and
our proposal, above, to require protection of MSS uses, we propose to
grant terrestrial authority to operate in the AWS-4 band to the current
2 GHz MSS licensee. We believe this would serve the public interest,
convenience and necessity by making more spectrum available for
broadband use and avoiding harmful electromagnetic interference.
60. Legal Authority. Under section 316 of the Communications Act,
the Commission has the authority to modify a station license if ``in
the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' See 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1). As the
D.C. Circuit explained in California Metro Mobile Communications v.
FCC, ``section 316 grants the Commission broad power to modify
licenses; the Commission need only find that the proposed modification
serves the public interest, convenience and necessity.'' California
Metro Mobile Communications v. FCC, 365 F.3d 38, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
For example, in that case, the court found that the Commission's
modification served the public interest, even though it was based on an
analysis of potential rather than actual interference, and the
modification could cause a minor disruption in the licensee's
operations. Here, we propose that, once the AWS-4 service rules are
effective, we would issue an Order of Proposed Modification, under
section 316 of the Communications Act, to modify the existing 2 GHz MSS
licensee's authority to operate in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz
bands by adding part 27 terrestrial authority and obligations, which
would apply to all the AWS-4 service areas in these bands. We seek
comment on this proposed approach, including the costs and benefits of
the proposal.
61. Public Interest Considerations. The incumbent MSS licensee
holds exclusive authority to operate terrestrial base stations in the
AWS-4 band nationwide. And existing Commission rules permit the MSS
licensee to enter into spectrum manager leasing arrangements with
spectrum lessees. We believe that modifying the 2 GHz MSS licensee's
authority as described herein, to have 2 GHz terrestrial operations
governed under part 27, would remove outdated regulatory barriers that
have frustrated the Commission's goal of having the 2 GHz band used for
terrestrial mobile broadband. Additionally, if the record developed in
this proceeding confirms that current technology will not permit
separate MSS and terrestrial mobile licensees, the envisioned section
316 license modification would serve the public interest, convenience
and necessity, by: (1) Making more spectrum available for broadband
use, and (2) avoiding harmful electromagnetic interference. We seek
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the
proposal.
62. The availability and quality of wireless broadband services
will likely become constrained if additional spectrum does not become
available to enable network expansion and technology upgrades. This
could result in higher prices, poor service quality, an inability for
the U.S. to compete effectively on an international basis, depressed
demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation. To address the need for
broadband spectrum, the Commission has endeavored to promote the use of
the 2 GHz MSS band, but there is virtually no current commercial use of
this spectrum.
63. We believe that modifying the 2 GHz MSS licensee's authority as
described herein would enhance the licensee's ability to offer high-
quality, affordable terrestrial wireless broadband services, while
retaining the right to offer MSS using the same spectrum; spectrum that
is already licensed nationwide on an exclusive, primary basis for MSS.
Thus, we propose that authorizing terrestrial operations will provide
the 2 GHz MSS licensee with the possibility of achieving greater usage
[[Page 22729]]
of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands than are possible under
the current regulations. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek
comment on the extent that this proposal would increase innovation and
investment in mobile broadband use of this spectrum. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of the proposal.
64. The Commission may also modify licenses to achieve the public
interest purpose of avoiding harmful interference. In 2003, the
Commission concluded that separately controlled MSS and terrestrial
operations (i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in the same band
would be ``impractical and ill-advised'' because the parties would not
be able to overcome the technical hurdles to reach a workable sharing
arrangement. If the record developed in this proceeding confirms that
allowing terrestrial operations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz
bands independent from the MSS licensee would likely substantially
compromise the effectiveness of both the mobile satellite and
terrestrial services, we propose that the public interest would be best
served by modifying the license to operate in the 2 GHz MSS band, as
contemplated herein, rather than making the band available for initial
terrestrial licenses under a sharing regime with MSS. We seek comment
on this proposal and its effect on interference. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal on
eliminating harmful interference.
65. Other Assignment Approaches. If, contrary to our expectations,
the record developed in this proceeding reflects that it is now
possible for separately authorized, independent AWS-4 licensees to
protect MSS including ATC operations, then we seek comment on other
approaches to authorizing terrestrial use, upon creation of the new
AWS-4 service. These other approaches may include the assignment of new
initial licenses via competitive bidding, if mutually exclusive
applications are received, under section 309(j) of the Communications
Act. See 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Commenters should be mindful that existing
MSS licensees would still retain MSS licenses and, therefore, any new
terrestrial licensees would have to protect the incumbent 2 GHz MSS
licensee from harmful interference. Commenters should discuss and
quantify and costs and benefits associated with any alternative
approaches.
66. Applications for Any AWS-4 Licenses Returned to the Commission.
There is a potential, under proposals discussed herein or otherwise,
for AWS-4 licenses to be terminated automatically or otherwise to
become a part of the Commission's spectrum inventory. Under such a
scenario, we would resolve any mutually exclusive applications for such
AWS-4 licenses using competitive bidding. We seek comment on the
appropriate competitive bidding procedures below.
67. Procedures for Any AWS-4 Licenses Subject to Assignment by
Competitive Bidding. Some of the scenarios on which we seek comment in
this notice could result in the acceptance of mutually exclusive
applications for licenses that would be resolved by competitive
bidding. Accordingly, we seek comment on a number of proposals relating
to competitive bidding for licenses for spectrum in the AWS-4 band.
68. We propose that the Commission would conduct any auction for
AWS-4 licenses in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules
set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that
have been employed in previous auctions. See 47 CFR 1.2101-1.2114.
Specifically, we propose to employ the part 1 rules governing
competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust
enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting requirements,
and the prohibition on certain communications between auction
applicants. Under this proposal, such rules would be subject to any
modifications that the Commission may adopt for its part 1 general
competitive bidding rules in the future. In addition, consistent with
our long-standing approach, auction-specific matters such as the
competitive bidding design and mechanisms, as well as minimum opening
bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau pursuant to its delegated authority. We seek
comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of this
approach. We also seek comment on whether any of our part 1 rules would
be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in
the AWS-4 bands.
69. In authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding,
Congress mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small businesses,
rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority
groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the
provision of spectrum-based services.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(D). In
addition, section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act provides that,
in establishing eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the
Commission shall promote ``economic opportunity and competition * * *
by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating
licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members
of minority groups and women.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(B). One of the
principal means by which the Commission fulfills this mandate is
through the award of bidding credits to small businesses.
70. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order,
the Commission stated that it would define eligibility requirements for
small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account the
capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular
service in establishing the appropriate threshold. See Implementation
of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--Competitive Bidding, 59 FR
44272 (1994) (Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order).
Further, in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission, while
standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a
service-by-service approach to defining small businesses. See Amendment
of Part 1 of Commission's Rules--Competitive Bidding Procedures, 63 FR
770 (1997) (Part 1 Third Report and Order).
71. In the event that the Commission assigns exclusive geographic
area licenses for terrestrial use of the AWS-4 band, we believe that
this spectrum would be employed for purposes similar to those for which
the AWS-1 band is used. We therefore propose to establish the same
small business size standards and associated bidding credits for the
AWS-4 bands as the Commission adopted for the AWS-1 band. Thus, we
propose to define a small business as an entity with average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million,
and a very small business as an entity with average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. We
seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the
proposal.
72. We propose to provide small businesses with a bidding credit of
15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25
percent, as set forth in the standardized schedule in part 1 of our
rules. We seek comment on the use of these standards and associated
bidding credits, with particular focus on the appropriate definitions
of small businesses and very
[[Page 22730]]
small businesses as they may relate to the size of the geographic area
to be served and the spectrum allocated to each license. Commenters
should discuss and quantify any costs or benefits associated with these
standards and associated bidding credits as they relate to the proposed
geographic areas. In discussing these issues, commenters are requested
to address and quantify the expected capital requirements for services
in these bands and other characteristics of the service. Commenters are
also invited to use comparisons with other services for which the
Commission has already established auction procedures as a basis for
their comments and any quantification of costs and benefits regarding
the appropriate small business size standards.
73. In establishing the criteria for small business bidding
credits, we acknowledge the difficulty in accurately predicting the
market forces that will exist at the time these frequencies are
licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of services that will be offered
over these bands may require adjustment depending upon ongoing
technological developments and changes in market conditions.
74. Finally, we seek comment on whether to use a different approach
to bidding credits. To the extent commenters support a different
approach to bidding credits than those discussed here, they should
support their proposals with relevant information, including costs and
benefits of their alternative proposals on the types of system
architecture that are likely to be deployed in these bands, the
availability of equipment, market conditions, and other factors that
may affect the capital requirements of the types of services that may
be provided.
E. Performance Requirements
75. The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote
access to spectrum and the provision of service, including to rural
areas. Over the years the Commission has applied different performance
and construction requirements to different spectrum bands. For example,
for licensees operating in the 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services
(WCS) band, the Commission adopted performance requirements, which
include population-based construction requirements (40 percent of the
license area's population within three-and-a-half (3.5) years and 75
percent within six (6) years) and reporting requirements. See 47 CFR
27.14(p).
76. We propose to establish performance requirements for AWS-4
licensees. Our proposal is informed by proposals made in the proceeding
on DISH's request for waiver of certain ATC rules for the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Specifically, DISH proposed a buildout
schedule based on ``the buildout principles established in the Sprint/
Nextel and Sprint/Clearwire transaction decisions'' and ``keyed to
commercial availability of the LTE Advanced standard.'' DISH, DBSD,
TerreStar Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny and Response to
Comments, IB Docket Nos. 11-149, 11-150, at 31 (Oct. 27, 2011)
(internal citations omitted). The Sprint/Nextel build-out requirements
were to offer service to a population of 15 million within four years
and 30 million within 6 years; Applications of Nextel Communications,
Inc., and Sprint Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control of
Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 05-63, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13967, 14028 paragraphs 164-65 (2005) the Sprint/
Clearwire build-out requirement is to ``cover 140 million people by the
end of 2010,'' slightly more than two years after the adoption of the
order. Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation Applications
for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases, and
Authorizations, WT Docket No. 08-94, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23
FCC Rcd 17570, 17617 paragraph 119 (2008). Alternatively, AT&T proposes
that the Commission impose the build out conditions consistent with the
March 2010 Harbinger/SkyTerra transfer of control. Letter from Joan
Marsh, Vice President--Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services, Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Sec'y, Federal Communications Commission, Docket No.
11-149, at 2 (Jan. 26, 2012). In approving that transfer, the
Commission required Harbinger (now operating as LightSquared) to build
out its 4G terrestrial network according to Harbinger's proposed build-
out schedule of providing coverage to at least 100 million people in
the United States by the end of 2012 (21 months after the transfer
order), to at least 145 million people by the end of 2013 (33 months),
and to at least 260 million people in the United States by the end of
2015 (57 months). SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor, and
Harbinger Capital Partners Funds, Transferee, Applications for Consent
to Transfer of Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, IB Docket No. 08-
184, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd
3059, 3085, 3088-89, 3098 at paragraphs 56, 72, App. B at Att. 2, p.1
(2010). On February 15, 2012, the Commission proposed to modify
LightSquared's satellite license ``to suspend indefinitely
LightSquared's underlying ATC authorization, first granted in 2004, to
an extent consistent with the NTIA Letter.'' International Bureau
Invites Comment on NTIA Letter Regarding LightSquared Conditional
Waiver, IB Docket No. 11-109, Public Notice, DA 12-214 at 4 (Feb. 15,
2012).
77. Build-out requirements. Building off of these approaches and in
light of the unique circumstances of the AWS-4 band, including its
interplay with the 2 GHz MSS band located in the same frequencies, we
propose to adopt a middle ground between these two proposals. We seek
comment on the following build-out requirements for AWS-4 spectrum:
AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement: Within three (3)
years, an AWS-4 licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service to at least thirty (30) percent of their total AWS-4
population. A licensee's total AWS-4 population shall be calculated by
summing the population of each of its license authorizations in the
AWS-4 band.
AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement: Within seven (7) years,
an AWS-4 licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer service to at
least seventy (70) percent of the population in each of its license
authorization areas.
78. We propose these performance requirements in an effort to
foster timely deployment in the AWS-4 band for the provision of
wireless, terrestrial broadband service, and to enable the Commission
to take appropriate corrective action should such deployment fail to
occur. Specifically, the interim benchmark at three years would ensure
that a licensee will begin deploying facilities quickly and thereby
evidencing meaningful utilization of the spectrum. At the same time, by
proposing a relatively low population threshold in the interim
benchmark, we acknowledge that large-scale network deployment may ramp
up over time as equipment becomes available and a customer base is
established. In addition, by proposing a final build-out requirement
timeline of seven years, we believe we allow a reasonable amount of
time for any AWS-4 licensee to attain nationwide scale. Further, we
propose geographic area based (i.e. EA based) requirements for the
final milestone in order to encourage deployment in all areas of the
country. We seek comment on the proposed build-out requirements. We
encourage comment on whether our proposals represent the appropriate
[[Page 22731]]
balance between requirements that are too low as to not result in
meaningful build-out and those that would be too high as to be
unattainable. Would the DISH or AT&T proposals represent more
appropriate requirements? Commenters should discuss and quantify how
any supported buildout requirements will affect investment and
innovation as well as discuss and quantify other costs and benefits
associated with the proposal.
79. Penalties for failure to meet construction requirements. Again,
building on what we have learned from other bands and on the unique
characteristics of the AWS-4 bands, we propose and seek comment,
including the costs and benefits, on the following penalties in the
event an AWS-4 licensee fails to satisfy its build-out requirements:
In the event an AWS-4 licensee fails to meet the AWS-4
Interim Build-out Requirement, all of the licensee's AWS-4 license
authorizations shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
In the event an AWS-4 licensee fails to meet the AWS-4
Final Build-out Requirement in any of its license authorizations, its
AWS-4 license for each license authorization areas in which it fails to
meet the build-out requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action.
80. If the Commission assigns AWS-4 rights to the 2 GHz MSS
licensee pursuant to a section 316 license modification, the license
would include both part 27 terrestrial and part 25 mobile satellite
authorizations. In such a situation, we propose that the failure to
satisfy a build-out requirement would trigger the automatic termination
of the mobile satellite authorization in any area in which the
terrestrial authorizations are terminated. Specifically, failure to
meet the AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement would result in the AWS-4
and 2 GHz MSS licenses automatically terminating in all license areas
(i.e., nationwide). Failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out
Requirement would result in the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS licenses
automatically terminating in those areas where the licensee fails to
meet the requirement. This proposal appears consistent with the 2 GHz
MSS licensee's assertion that the ability to offer stand-alone
terrestrial service is critical to support the provision of MSS in this
spectrum. We similarly expect that failure to satisfy terrestrial
build-out requirements would be accompanied by failure to provide
meaningful MSS. We seek comment on whether the protection that is
afforded to MSS operations under our proposed rules should be modified
if the MSS licensee fails to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement
and the costs and benefits to any modification. If so, to what extent
should the interference protection be modified?
81. We further propose that, in the event that a licensee's
authority to operate terminates, terrestrial spectrum rights would
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's
rules for other spectrum bands, including AWS-1, 700 MHz, and Broadband
Radio Service, we propose that any AWS-4 licensee who forfeits its
license for failure to meet it performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining it. See, e.g., 27 CFR 27.14(a), (j), (o). We
observe that for AWS-4 spectrum assigned under section 316, termination
of individual AWS-4 area licenses for failure to satisfy the AWS-4
Final Build-out Requirement could result in an inability for the
Commission to meaningfully reassign the spectrum rights should the
Commission continue to require coordination of reassigned spectrum with
the MSS operator. We request comment on the appropriate remedy in such
circumstances, and commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits or any proposed remedy. For example, should any subsequent
Commission reassignment of the AWS-4 spectrum occur without a
requirement to coordinate with, or protect MSS operations or should the
MSS operations continue to receive interference protection?
82. Compliance procedures. Consistent with Sec. 1.946(d) of the
Commission's rules, we propose to require AWS-4 licensees to
demonstrate compliance with the new performance requirements by filing
a construction notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone
certifying that they have met the applicable performance benchmark. See
47 CFR 1.946(d) (``notification[s] must be filed with Commission within
15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction or coverage
period''). Further, we propose that each construction notification
include electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, which
must be truthful and accurate and must not omit material information
that is necessary for the Commission to determine compliance with its
performance requirements.
83. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries
of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, we
propose that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area
or areas within each license area not being served. Further, we propose
that each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying
the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its
service territory and the type of technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the
signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the
licensee's technology.
F. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules
84. We propose to provide AWS-4 licensees with the flexibility to
provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the
allocations for this spectrum, as we have generally done with other
spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and mobile
services, e.g., AWS-1 spectrum. We also propose to license this
spectrum under our market-oriented part 27 rules. We seek comment on
these proposals. In addition, we seek comment on the appropriate
regulatory framework for AWS-4 licenses, the license term, criteria for
renewal, and other licensing and operating rules pertaining to these
bands. We also seek comment on the potential impact of all of our
proposals on competition. Commenters should also comment on how any
proposal that they support enhances competition and results in rapid
provisioning of competitive mobile broadband services to consumers.
Commenters also should discuss the costs and benefits of these
proposals and any alternative proposals.
1. Flexible Use, Regulatory Framework, and Regulatory Status
85. Flexible Use. We propose service rules for the AWS-4 band that
would permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any terrestrial use
permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations contained
in part 2 of our rules (i.e., fixed or mobile services). 47 CFR 2.106.
Part 27 licensees must also comply with other Commission rules of
general applicability. See 47 CFR 27.3. These service rule proposals
cover only the terrestrial use of the spectrum in this band. MSS use in
this spectrum will continue to be governed by part 25. Congress
recognized the potential benefits of flexibility in allocations of the
electromagnetic spectrum and amended the Communications Act in 1999 to
add section 303(y). This section
[[Page 22732]]
provides the Commission with authority to provide for flexibility of
use if:
(1) such use is consistent with international agreements to
which the United States is a party; and (2) the Commission finds,
after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that (A) such an
allocation would be in the public interest; (B) such use would not
deter investment in communications services and systems, or
technology development; and (C) such use would not result in harmful
interference among users.
47 U.S.C. 303(y).
86. We believe that our proposal for flexibility meets these
section 303(y) criteria. The public interest benefits of flexibility
are manifold. The Commission has identified the establishment of
maximum feasible flexibility in both allocations and service rules as a
critical means of ensuring that spectrum is put to its most beneficial
use. For example, in a 1999 Policy Statement on spectrum management,
the Commission observed that ``[i]n the majority of cases, efficient
spectrum markets will lead to use of spectrum for the highest value end
use,'' and that ``[f]lexible allocations may result in more efficient
spectrum markets.'' See Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to
Encourage the Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the
New Millenium, FCC 99-354, Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd 19868, 19870
paragraph 9 (1999). We would expect these economic efficiencies to
foster--not deter--technology development and investment in
communications services and systems. And the technical rules we are
proposing here should prevent harmful interference among users. In
addition, as discussed above, flexible use would be subject to
bilateral discussions commonly undertaken whenever spectrum is put to
use in border areas, but is consistent with applicable international
agreements. Finally, in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, the
Commission added co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations, along with
the pre-existing MSS allocation, in the 2 GHz band, expressly
``lay[ing] the foundation for more flexible use of the band [and] * * *
promoting investment in the development of new services and additional
innovative technologies.'' 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order.
87. We seek comment on our proposal to provide for flexible use of
the AWS-4 band, especially in light of the section 303(y) criteria
noted above. If any restrictions are warranted, what should they be and
why are they needed? Commenters should quantify the costs and benefits
or any such restrictions. Are there trade-offs between flexibility and
investment in technology and new services that we should consider? To
the extent commenters believe flexibility will deter investment in
these bands, they should also suggest specific restrictions on how
spectrum should be used by a licensee, and provide detailed analysis
and quantification of the economic tradeoffs between flexibility and
investment that justify any particular recommended restriction on use.
We also specifically seek comment on the types of uses that pose the
greatest risk of interference to terrestrial or satellite use of this
spectrum, and the quantification of these risks.
88. Regulatory Framework. Because we propose to permit flexible use
of these bands, we also propose licensing the spectrum under the
flexible regulatory framework of part 27 of our rules. Unlike other
rule parts applicable to specific services, part 27 does not prescribe
a comprehensive set of licensing and operating rules for the spectrum
to which it applies. Rather, for each frequency band under its
umbrella, part 27 defines permissible uses and any limitations thereon,
and specifies basic licensing requirements. The licensing requirements
for a number of spectrum bands, including the AWS spectrum at 1710-1755
MHz and 2110-2155 MHz and the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands, are
contained in part 27. In order to promote flexibility and permit market
forces to determine what services are ultimately offered in these
bands, we therefore seek comment on our proposal to license the AWS-4
band under part 27 service and licensing rules, and any associated
costs or benefits or doing so.
89. Regulatory Status. We propose to apply the regulatory status
provisions of Sec. 27.10 of the Commission's rules to licensees in the
AWS-4 band. The Commission's current mobile service license application
requires an applicant for mobile services to identify the regulatory
status of the service(s) it intends to provide because service
offerings may bear on eligibility and other statutory and regulatory
requirements. Under part 27, the Commission permits applicants who may
wish to provide both common carrier and non-common carrier services (or
to switch between them) under a single license to request status as
both a common carrier and a non-common carrier. Thus, a part 27
applicant is not required to choose between providing common carrier
and non-common carrier services. We propose to adopt this same approach
here. Licensees in the AWS-4 band would be able to provide all
allowable services anywhere within their licensed area at any time,
consistent with their regulatory status. We believe that this approach
is likely to achieve efficiencies in the licensing and administrative
process, and provide flexibility to the marketplace. We seek comment on
this approach and the costs and benefits of this approach.
90. We further propose that applicants and licensees in the AWS-4
band be required to indicate a regulatory status for any services they
choose to provide. Apart from this designation of regulatory status, we
would not require applicants to describe the services they seek to
provide. We caution potential applicants that an election to provide
service on a common carrier basis typically requires that the elements
of common carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-
common carrier status. If potential applicants are unsure of the nature
of their services and their classification as common carrier services,
they may submit a petition with their applications, or at any time,
requesting clarification and including service descriptions for that
purpose. We propose to apply this framework to AWS-4 licensees and seek
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of this
proposal.
91. We also propose that if a licensee were to change the service
or services it offers such that its regulatory status would change, the
licensee must notify the Commission. A change in a licensee's
regulatory status would not require prior Commission authorization,
provided the licensee was in compliance with the foreign ownership
requirements of section 310(b) of the Communications Act that would
apply as a result of the change, consistent with the Commission's rules
for AWS-1 spectrum. Consistent with our part 27 rules, we propose to
require the notification within 30 days of a change made without the
need for prior Commission approval, except that a different time period
may apply where the change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of the existing service. We seek comment on this proposal,
including the costs and benefits of this proposal.
2. Ownership Restrictions
92. Foreign Ownership. We propose that the provisions of Sec.
27.12 of the Commission's rules should apply to applicants applying for
licenses in the AWS-4 band. 47 CFR 27.12. Section 27.12 implements
section 310 of the Communications Act, as modified by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, imposing foreign ownership and
citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to
certain
[[Page 22733]]
applicants. An applicant requesting authorization for services other
than broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical
fixed services would be subject to section 310(a), but not to the
additional prohibitions of section 310(b). An applicant requesting
authorization for these particular services would be subject to both
sections 310(a) and 310(b). As applicable to these bands, we do not
believe that common carriers and non-common carriers filing an
application should be subject to varied reporting obligations. By
establishing parity in reporting obligations, however, we do not
propose a single, substantive standard for compliance. For example, we
would be unlikely to deny a license to an applicant requesting
authorization exclusively to provide services not enumerated in section
310(b), solely because its foreign ownership would disqualify it from
receiving a license if the applicant had applied for a license to
provide the services enumerated in section 310(b). We request comment
on this proposal, including any costs or benefits of this proposal.
93. Eligibility. In recent years the Commission determined in a
number of services that eligibility restrictions on licenses may be
imposed only when open eligibility would pose a significant likelihood
of substantial harm to competition in specific markets and when an
eligibility restriction would be effective in eliminating that harm.
This approach relies on market forces absent a compelling showing that
regulatory intervention to exclude potential participants is necessary.
94. We propose not to apply any eligibility restrictions to AWS-4
licenses. We believe that open eligibility in the AWS-4 band would not
pose a significant likelihood of substantial harm to competition in any
specific markets, and thus an eligibility restriction in these bands is
not warranted. We also believe that open eligibility in these bands is
consistent with our statutory mandate to promote the development and
rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic
opportunity and competition; and the efficient and intensive use of the
electromagnetic spectrum. We seek comment on this approach. Commenters
should discuss the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal
on competition, innovation, and investment.
95. Spectrum Aggregation. Spectrum is an essential input for the
provision of mobile telephony/broadband services, and a service
provider, in order to compete effectively, must have access to adequate
spectrum. The Commission therefore closely examines the impact of
spectrum aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use
of spectrum, generally on a case-by-case basis, upon establishing the
relevant product and geographic markets. For example, in analyzing
transactions, the Commission identifies markets where the spectrum
amounts held provide reason for further competitive analysis. Thus, in
this context, when evaluating the competitive effect of spectrum
aggregation in bands that it has found available and suitable for the
provision of mobile telephony/broadband services, the Commission
conducts a market-by-market analysis of those markets identified by the
initial screen to determine whether competitive harms would be likely
to result. In addition, in 2008 the Commission determined that it would
apply this standard competitive analysis to mobile spectrum acquired
via competition bidding.
96. We seek comment on whether the acquisition of AWS-4 spectrum
should be subject to the same general spectrum aggregation policies
currently applicable to frequency bands that the Commission has
determined to be available and suitable for mobile telephony/broadband
services. Specifically, should the current spectrum screen for mobile
telephony/broadband services be revised to include AWS-4 spectrum?
Alternatively, depending on the specific rules and requirements that
apply to AWS-4 spectrum, would there continue to be reasons to
distinguish AWS-4 spectrum from other bands evaluated pursuant to the
spectrum aggregation policies applicable to mobile telephony/broadband
services? We seek comment generally on whether and how to address any
spectrum aggregation concerns involving AWS-4 spectrum. Commenters
should discuss and quantify any costs and benefits associated with
alternative proposals on spectrum aggregation policies for AWS-4
spectrum on competition, innovation and investment.
3. Secondary Markets
97. Partitioning and Disaggregation. The Commission's part 27 rules
generally allow for geographic partitioning and spectrum
disaggregation. See 47 CFR 27.15. Geographic partitioning refers to the
assignment of geographic portions of a license to another licensee
along geopolitical or other boundaries. Spectrum disaggregation refers
to the assignment of discrete amount of spectrum under the license to
another entity. Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the
same geographic area operated by different companies on adjacent
frequencies in the same band. As the Commission noted when first
establishing partitioning and disaggregation rules, allowing such
flexibility could facilitate the efficient use of spectrum by providing
licensees with the flexibility to make offerings directly responsive to
market demands for particular types of services, increase competition
by allowing market entry by new entrants, and expedite provision of
services that might not otherwise receive service in the near term.
98. We seek comment on allowing licensees in the AWS-4 band to
partition their service areas or to disaggregate their spectrum into
new licenses. Part 27 rules for terrestrial wireless service provide
that licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service
areas or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the
grant of their licenses. The Commission's rules also set forth the
general requirements that apply with regard to approving applications
for partitioning or disaggregation, as well as other specific
requirements (e.g., performance requirements) that would apply to
licensees that hold licenses created through partitioning or
disaggregation. We seek comment on applying these general procedures
and requirements to any permissible partitioning or disaggregation of
AWS-4 licenses. In particular, we seek comment on the performance
requirements that would apply to any license created through
partitioning or disaggregation. To ensure that the public interest
would be served if partitioning or disaggregation is allowed, we
propose requiring each AWS-4 licensee who is a party to a partitioning,
disaggregation or combination of both to independently meet the
applicable performance and renewal requirements. We believe this
approach would facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling
service providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum
blocks to meet their operational needs. We seek comment on these
proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of these proposals on competition, innovation, and investment.
99. We acknowledge, however, that there may be technical
impediments to partitioning or disaggregating satellite spectrum and
service. As noted above, we seek comment on the Commission's earlier
conclusion that the complexities of coordination between MSS and
terrestrial operations render impractical assignment of terrestrial
licenses to an
[[Page 22734]]
entrant other than the incumbent MSS licensee(s). Further, we seek
comment on whether the actual capabilities of existing or future
satellites make partitioning or disaggregation of spectrum difficult or
problematic. We also acknowledge that part 25 of the Commission's rules
do not contain provisions governing the partition or disaggregation of
MSS. We seek comment on the affect the answers to these questions
should have on whether we should permit disaggregation or partition of
AWS-4 spectrum or licenses. Would an affirmation of the Commission's
prior finding require us to not permit disaggregation or partition
here? Conversely, if we find same-band, separate operator sharing
possible and in the public interest, should that lead us apply the part
27 rules governing disaggregation and partition to AWS-4 spectrum and
licensees. In the event that we apply rule Sec. 27.15 to AWS-4
licensees (or otherwise permit partitioning or disaggregation for AWS-4
licensees), we seek comment on whether the part 25 rules should be
amended to address partition and disaggregation of 2 GHz MSS spectrum
by its licensees. Similarly, if we permit partitioning or
disaggregation, should we require that any such arrangement apply to
both the terrestrial and mobile satellite authorizations, but not to
only one set of such authorizations? Should such a requirement only
apply in the case where the AWS-4 authorizations are assigned to the
same entity that holds the 2 GHz MSS rights? Commenters should discuss
and quantify the costs and benefits of allowing partitioning and
disaggregating AWS-4 spectrum.
100. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or
disaggregation of AWS-4 band spectrum and the extent to which such
policies ultimately may promote more service, especially in rural
areas. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of
promoting more service using mechanisms to encourage partitioning and
disaggregation AWS-4 spectrum, including the effects of the proposal on
competition, innovation, and investment.
101. Spectrum Leasing. In 2003, in order to promote more efficient
use of terrestrial wireless spectrum through secondary market
transactions, while also eliminating regulatory uncertainty, the
Commission adopted a comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern
spectrum leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and
spectrum lessees. These policies and rules enabled terrestrially-based
Wireless Radio Service licensees holding ``exclusive use'' spectrum
rights to lease some or all of the spectrum usage rights associated
with their licenses to third party spectrum lessees, which then would
be permitted to provide wireless services consistent with the
underlying license authorization. Through these actions, the Commission
sought to promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the
terrestrial spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services
and devices, enhance economic opportunities for accessing spectrum, and
promote competition among terrestrial wireless service providers. In
2004, the Commission built upon this spectrum leasing framework by
establishing immediate approval procedures for certain categories of
terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements and extending the spectrum
leasing policies to additional Wireless Radio Services. Since then, the
Commission has added more terrestrial services to this spectrum leasing
framework, including the Advanced Wireless Services in 2003 (when the
service rules were adopted for this new service) and the Broadband
Radio Services and Educational Broadband Services in 2004 (when the
rebanding plan for these services in the 2.5 GHz band was adopted).
Most recently, in 2011 in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, the
Commission extended the Commission's secondary market spectrum leasing
policies, procedures, and rules to MSS/ATC spectrum and licenses for
spectrum manager lease arrangements; the Commission did not extend the
secondary market regime to MSS/ATC de facto transfer lease arrangements
because that would have been inconsistent with the need to have the
same entity control both the terrestrial and satellite operations.
102. We now seek comment on the extent to which we should extend
the Commission's secondary markets spectrum leasing policies and rules
to AWS-4 spectrum. For the reasons articulated in the 2 GHz Band Co-
Allocation Order, we propose to extend spectrum manager lease
arrangements to AWS-4 spectrum. With regard to de facto transfer lease
arrangements, we propose to permit them only to the extent that we
permit the disaggregation and partitioning of AWS-4 spectrum and
licenses. To the extent that we find that the Commission's earlier
conclusion that the complexities of coordination between MSS and
terrestrial operations renders impractical assignment of terrestrial
licenses to an entrant other than the incumbent MSS licensee(s), we
propose to not allow de facto transfer lease arrangements for AWS-4
spectrum or licenses. Alternatively, if the record we develop reflects
that same-band, separate terrestrial and mobile operator sharing is
possible and would benefit the public interest, we propose to permit de
facto transfer lease arrangements for AWS-4 spectrum and licenses. We
seek comment on these proposals. Commenters should discuss the costs
and benefits of extending the Commission's secondary spectrum leasing
policies and rules to AWS-4 spectrum on competition, innovation, and
investment.
4. License Term, Renewal Criteria, and Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations
103. License Term. We propose to establish a 10-year term for
licenses in the AWS-4 band. The Communications Act does not specify a
term limit for AWS band licenses. The Commission has adopted 10-year
license term for most wireless radio services licenses. We propose that
in the AWS-4 band the license term similarly be 10 years. We seek
comment on this proposal, including any costs and benefits of the
proposal.
104. We also seek comment on whether a license term longer than 10
years would better serve the public interest. We note that in the AWS-1
Report and Order, we established an initial license term in the 1710-
1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands of 15 years and subsequent renewal
terms of 10 years because of the relocation and band clearance issues
that were associated with those bands. Commenters who favor a different
license term for the AWS-4 band should specify a reasonable license
term and the bases for the period proposed. AWS-1 Report and Order.
Commenters should also address whether it would be possible to have
different license terms, depending on the type of service offered by
the licensee, including the costs and benefits of an alternative
proposal. We seek comment on how we would administer such an approach,
particularly if licensees provide more than one service in their
service area, or decide to change the type of service they plan to
offer. We also seek comment on whether we should match the license term
to the 15-year term of the satellite licenses. How would this be
accomplished given that the term of the two 2 GHz MSS licenses have
different expiration dates, and what are the costs and benefits of this
proposal?
[[Page 22735]]
105. Under our license term proposal, if a license in these bands
is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would
be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the
partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. This approach
is similar to the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for
BRS, for broadband PCS licensees, for the 700 MHz band licensees, and
for AWS-1 licenses at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz. We emphasize
that nothing in our proposal is intended to enable a licensee, by
partitioning or disaggregation, to be able to confer greater rights
than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant; nor would any
partitionee or disaggregatee obtain rights in excess of those
previously possessed by the underlying Commission licensee. We seek
comment on these proposals, including the cost and benefits of these
proposals.
106. Renewal Criteria. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the
Communications Act, the Commission may require renewal applicants to
``set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as
to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other
qualifications of the applicant to operate the station'' as well as
``such other information as it may require.'' 47 U.S.C. 308(b). We
propose to adopt AWS-4 license renewal requirements consistent with
those adopted in the 700 MHz First Report and Order and which form the
basis of the renewal paradigm proposed in our recent Wireless Radio
Services Renewal NPRM. See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and
777-792 MHz Bands, 72 FR 24238 (2007) (700 MHz First Report and Order);
Amendment of parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish
Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic
Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain
Wireless Radio Services, 75 FR 38959 (2010) (Wireless Radio Services
Renewal NPRM). We emphasize that, as the Commission made clear in both
of these items, a licensee's performance showing and its renewal
showing are two distinct showings. Broadly speaking, a performance
showing provides a snapshot in time of the level of a licensee's
service. By contrast, a renewal showing provides information regarding
the level and types of the licensee's service offered over its entire
license term.
107. We propose that applicants for renewal of AWS-4 licenses file
a ``renewal showing,'' in which they demonstrate that they have and are
continuing to provide service to the public, and are compliant with the
Commission's rules and policies and [with] the Communications Act. In
the 700 MHz First Report and Order, the Commission explained that in
the renewal context, the Commission considers ``a variety of factors
including the level and quality of service, whether service was ever
interrupted or discontinued, whether service has been provided to rural
areas, and any other factors associated with a licensee's level of
service to the public.'' 700 MHz First Report and Order. The WRS
Renewals NPRM and Order also proposed to consider the extent to which
service is provided to qualifying tribal lands. WRS Renewals NPRM and
Order. We propose that these same factors should be considered when
evaluating renewal showings for the AWS-4 band and seek comment on this
approach. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits
of this approach on competition, innovation, and investment.
108. As explained above, today we are proposing that AWS-4
licensees meet three and seven-year performance obligations. We
therefore seek comment on whether the public interest would be served
by awarding AWS-4 licensees renewal expectancies where they maintain
the level of service demonstrated at the seven year performance
benchmark through the end of their license term, provided that they
have otherwise complied with the Commission's rules and policies and
the Communications Act during their license term. We also seek comment
on whether AWS-4 licensees should obtain a renewal expectancy for
subsequent license terms, if they continue to provide at least the
level of service demonstrated at the seven year performance benchmark
through the end of any subsequent license terms. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this approach on
competition, innovation, and investment.
109. Finally, consistent with the 700 MHz First Report and Order
and the WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, we propose to prohibit the filing
of mutually exclusive renewal applications, and that if a license is
not renewed, the associated spectrum would be returned to the
Commission for reassignment. We seek comment on these proposals,
including the costs and benefits of these proposals.
110. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations. We also request
comment on the Commission's rules governing the permanent
discontinuance of operations, which are intended to afford licensees
operational flexibility to use their spectrum efficiently while
ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle for extended periods. Under
Sec. 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, if service is ``permanently
discontinued.'' 47 CFR 1.955(a)(3). For the AWS-4 band, we propose to
define ``permanently discontinued'' as a period of 180 consecutive days
during which a licensee does not operate and does not serve at least
one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related
to the provider. We believe this definition strikes an appropriate
balance between our twin goals of providing licensees operational
flexibility while ensuring that spectrum does not lie fallow. Licensees
would not be subject to this requirement until the date of the first
performance requirement benchmark, which is proposed as 3 years from
the license grant, so they will have adequate time to construct their
terrestrial network. In addition, consistent with Sec. 1.955(a)(3) of
the Commission's rules, we propose that, if an AWS-4 licensee
permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the
Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601
or 605 and requesting license cancellation. An authorization will
automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service
is permanently discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the
required form.
5. Other Operating Requirements
111. Even though licenses in the AWS-4 band may be issued pursuant
to one rule part, licensees in this band may be required to comply with
rules contained in other parts of the Commission's rules by virtue of
the particular services they provide. For example:
Applicants and licensees would be subject to the
application filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set
forth in part 1 of our rules.
Licensees would be required to comply with the practices
and procedures listed in part 1 of our rules for license applications,
adjudicatory proceedings, etc.
Licensees would be required to comply with the
Commission's environmental provisions, including Sec. 1.1307.
Licensees would be required to comply with the antenna
structure provisions of part 17 of our rules.
To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service, such service would be subject to the provisions of part
20 of the Commission's rules, including 911/E911
[[Page 22736]]
and hearing aid-compatibility (HAC) requirements, along with the
provisions in the rule part under which the license was issued. Part 20
applies to all CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed
under other parts of our rules.
The application of general provisions of parts 22, 24, 27,
or 101 of our rules would include rules related to equal employment
opportunity, etc.
112. We seek comment generally on any provisions in existing
service-specific rules that may require specific recognition or
adjustment to comport with the supervening application of another rule
part, as well as any provisions that may be necessary in this other
rule part to fully describe the scope of covered services and
technologies. We seek comment on applying these rules to the spectrum
that is the subject of this AWS-4 Notice, and specifically on any rules
that would be affected by our proposal to apply elements of the
framework of these parts, whether separately or in conjunction with
other requirements.
113. We also seek comment generally on whether any conditions
should govern the operation of a provider's network if it is granted a
license to operate in these bands. What are the potential problems that
may be associated with the Commission's adoption of any of these
potential requirements, and how do they compare to the potential
benefits?
6. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to
Tribal Lands
114. The Commission currently has under consideration various
provisions and policies intended to promote greater use of spectrum
over Tribal lands. Improving Communications Services for Native Nations
by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands, 76 FR
18476 (2011). We propose to extend any rules and policies adopted in
that proceeding to any licenses that may be issued through competitive
bidding in this proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal, including
any costs and benefits of this proposal.
G. Relocation and Cost Sharing
1. Emerging Technologies Policies
115. Our Emerging Technologies (ET) procedures represent a broad
set of tools that the Commission has used to aid the process of making
spectrum available for new uses. Generally speaking, ET procedures are
used when the Commission has made the decision that it is necessary to
relocate incumbent licensees to introduce new services into a frequency
band. The Commission sets a ``sunset date''--a date by which incumbent
licensees may not cause interference to new band entrants. Prior to the
sunset date, the new entrants may negotiate with incumbents to gain
early entry into the band and, if necessary, may relocate the
incumbents to comparable facilities. Because new entrants may have to
relocate incumbents from a larger frequency range or greater geographic
area than where the new entrants will operate, the Commission also
typically establishes a companion set of cost sharing procedures. These
procedures allow new entrants to be reimbursed a portion of their
relocation expenses from other new entrants that benefit from the
spectrum clearance. The specific relocation process we establish under
the ET framework has varied for each frequency band, and has been based
on the types of incumbent licensees and particular band
characteristics. We discuss, below, the particular relocation and cost
sharing procedures for the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
2. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2000-2020 MHz
116. The lower portion of AWS-4 (2000-2020 MHz) is part of the
1990-2025 MHz band that the Commission reallocated from the Broadcast
Auxiliary Service (BAS) to emerging technologies such as PCS, AWS, and
MSS. Consistent with the relocation principles first established in the
Commission's Emerging Technologies proceeding, each new entrant had an
independent responsibility to relocate incumbent BAS licensees. Sprint
Nextel (Sprint), which is licensed for 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS
transition in 2010. Cost-sharing disputes between Sprint and the MSS
licensees (for Sprint's clearing of 2000-2020 MHz) have been settled
privately. In light of this, if the Commission assigns terrestrial
licenses under part 27, do any relocation and cost-sharing issues for
the 2000-2020 MHz band remain? In addition, should the Commission adopt
either of the spectrum shift approaches that would include the 2020-
2025 MHz block, we seek comment on any additional relocation or cost-
sharing issues including this spectrum block would raise.
3. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2180-2200 MHz
117. Relocation. The upper portion of AWS-4 (2180-2200 MHz) is part
of the 2160-2200 MHz band that the Commission reallocated from the
Fixed Microwave Services (FS) to emerging technologies. Our licensing
records show approximately 700 active FS licenses in this band. Most of
these incumbents appear to be state or local governmental entities,
utilities, railroads, and other businesses with FS links licensed in
the Microwave Public Safety Pool (MW) or the Microwave Industrial/
Business Pool (MG) for private, internal communication. FS links in the
2180-2200 MHz band typically are paired, for two-way operation, with FS
links in the 2130-2150 MHz band. The Commission previously adopted
relocation and cost-sharing rules for AWS-1 licensees in the 2110-2155
MHz band and we now propose to extend these rules to AWS-4 as discussed
below.
118. Prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station,
AWS-1 licensees are required to coordinate their frequency usage with
all co-channel and adjacent channel incumbents. If interference would
occur, the AWS-1 licensee can initiate a mandatory negotiation period
(two years for non-public safety, three years for public safety) during
which each party must negotiate in good faith for the purpose of
agreeing to terms under which the FS licensees would: (1) Relocate
their operations to other fixed microwave bands or other media; or
alternatively (2) accept a sharing arrangement with the AWS-1 licensee
that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to
the FS operations. If no agreement is reached during the mandatory
negotiation period, the AWS-1 licensee can initiate involuntary
relocation procedures. We propose to revise these rules to apply them
to AWS-4.
119. Under the emerging technologies policies, the Commission
sunsets the relocation obligation owed by new licensees in the band to
the incumbents. For example, MSS/ATC relocation obligations to FS in
the 2180-2200 MHz band will sunset in December 2013 (ten years after
the mandatory negotiation period began for MSS/ATC operators).
Similarly, for the 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2175 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz
bands, the sunsets occur ``ten years after the first ET license is
issued in the respective band.'' Thus, for AWS-1 licenses in the 2110-
2155 MHz band, which were first-issued in 2006, the sunset for
relocation obligations for FS incumbents in the 2130-2150 MHz band will
occur in 2016. For AWS-4, we propose to sunset AWS-4 relocation
obligations ten years after the first AWS-4 license is issued in the
band. We recognize that the 2013 sunset date applies to 2180-2200 MHz
for MSS/ATC but under our proposal to issue full-terrestrial licenses
under part 27,
[[Page 22737]]
we believe it is appropriate to treat the AWS-4 band the same as other
AWS bands by setting the sunset ten-years after we issue the first
license in the band. Thus, we propose to revise Sec. 101.79(a)(2) to
include part 27 sunset rules in the 2180-2200 MHz band. Under this
proposal, should the 2 GHz MSS licensee receive full terrestrial
authority under part 27 of the Commission's rules, it would become the
AWS-4 licensee responsible for relocating incumbent FS in the 2180-2200
MHz band. We seek comment on these proposals, including the costs and
benefits of these proposals. We also propose to delete the reference to
all Fixed and Mobile facilities operating on a secondary basis not
later than December 9, 2013, in footnote NG168 in the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations. Specifically, this would clarify that after the
applicable sunset date grandfathered fixed microwave systems will be
governed by the procedures in Sec. 101.79. We seek comment on this
proposal.
120. Cost-sharing. As noted above, FS links in the 2180-2200 MHz
band typically are paired, for two-way operation, with FS links in the
2130-2150 MHz band. The Commission previously established a cost-
sharing plan for MSS, MSS/ATC, and AWS-1 licensees in these paired
bands. Briefly, for terrestrial stations (AWS and MSS/ATC), cost-
sharing obligations are governed by Sec. Sec. 27.1160 through 27.1174
except that MSS/ATC operators are not obligated to reimburse
voluntarily relocating fixed microwave service incumbents in the 2180-
2200 MHz band while AWS reimbursement and cost-sharing obligations
relative to voluntarily relocating FMS incumbents are governed by Sec.
27.1166. The cost-sharing plan is administered by AWS clearinghouses
selected by the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau under
delegated authority. We propose to extend to the AWS-4 band the cost-
sharing rules adopted for AWS-1 licensees. Under this proposal, the
cost-sharing plan will sunset for AWS-4 licensees on the same date on
which the relocation obligation sunsets. We also propose conforming
amendments to parts 27 and 101 to include AWS-4 under the relocation
and cost-sharing rules generally and to delete references to MSS/ATC.
We seek comment on these proposals, including the costs and benefits of
these proposals.
H. Ancillary Terrestrial Components in the 2 GHz MSS Band
121. In order to provide more efficient and intensive use of the 2
GHz MSS band, we are proposing herein to authorize terrestrial
operations under part 27 of the Commission's rules for the AWS-4 band.
If we ultimately adopt this proposal, we must consider the disposition
of the current ATC regulations and authorizations in this band. We
believe that, if we assign part 27 rights pursuant to a license
modification under section 316 of the Communications Act, authorizing
both terrestrial operations and ATC operations in the 2 GHz MSS band
would be redundant and confusing to operators. With changing
circumstances in the 2 GHz MSS band, we believe that the ATC
regulations would no longer be the best framework for development of
terrestrial mobile broadband in this band. Accordingly, we believe that
eliminating the ATC rules for this band will best encourage terrestrial
broadband deployment in the 2 GHz MSS band. We therefore propose to
eliminate the ATC regulations in the 2 GHz MSS band and request comment
on this proposal, including associated costs and benefits. In addition,
because we are proposing to eliminate the ATC regulations in the 2 GHz
band, we propose to delete footnote NG168 from the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations. We seek comment on this proposal.
III. Notice of Inquiry: 2 GHZ Extension Band
122. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), we seek comment on a
variation of the band plan proposed above. This alternative approach
poses greater complexities with respect to coordination among existing
users and any new licensees. However, provided these barriers could be
overcome, it could release a greater quantity of usable spectrum into
the marketplace, reduce the need for guard bands to protect against
harmful interference, and extend the existing PCS and AWS bands. We
therefore invite comment on this alternative band plan and its
associated coordination and license assignment challenges. Because we
do not intend that this Notice of Inquiry should impede the timely
implementation of the proposed AWS-4 service, we also invite comment as
to whether this alternative band plan could be realized as a subsequent
step to that proposal.
123. For purposes of facilitating discussion, and to avoid
confusion with the foregoing AWS-4 proposal, we refer to this
alternative as the ``2 GHz Extension Band Concept.'' The concept
incorporates the NTIA proposal to reallocate the 1695-1710 MHz band
from Federal to commercial use. It also builds upon the record
generated in the Spectrum Task Force's comprehensive examination of
opportunities to make additional spectrum available for mobile
broadband use in the 2 GHz band.
124. Several assumptions inform the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept:
The proposed ``fast track'' reallocation band (1695-1710
MHz) could become an extension to the existing AWS uplink band,
although without a readily-available downlink pairing candidate.
Together, AWS-3 and the upper portion of the AWS-2 J block
(2155-2170 MHz) could become an extension to the existing AWS downlink
band.
The existing MSS downlink band (2180-2200 MHz) could
further extend the existing AWS downlink band.
The existing MSS uplink band requires separation from the
PCS downlink band to prevent uplink/downlink interference issues
between the MSS band and broadband PCS spectrum. This ``zoning issue''
currently hinders use of the upper portion of the AWS-2 H block (1995-
2000 MHz), as well as a portion of the MSS uplink band itself (e.g.,
2000-2010 MHz).
Extension of existing bands (i.e., PCS and AWS) may enable
greater economies of scale--and therefore lower costs, increased
interoperability, and greater technology availability--as compared to
the creation of an all-new terrestrial band (i.e., AWS-4).
We seek comment on the validity of these assumptions, and any
associated costs and benefits. We emphasize that these are assumptions
only for purposes of exploring the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept. The
Commission has not made any determination of fact, one way or the
other, with regard to these assumptions.
125. The 2 GHz Extension Band Concept would involve the creation of
two new blocks of spectrum, PCS-Extension and AWS-Extension, totaling
65 megahertz of usable bandwidth. A 35 megahertz AWS-Extension block
would consist of the existing MSS downlink band at 2180-2200 MHz paired
on the uplink with the NTIA fast track band at 1695-1710 MHz. A 30
megahertz PCS-Extension block (which could be subdivided into smaller
blocks) would consist of the existing MSS uplink band at 2000-2020 MHz,
combined with the lower portion of the AWS-2 J block at 2020-2025 MHz
and the upper portion of the AWS-2 H block at 1995-2000 MHz, all of
which would be converted to downlink use. We note that the AWS-
Extension would abut the 2155-2180 MHz frequencies (AWS-3 and the upper
portion of AWS-2 J block) and would not affect their disposition from a
licensing and auction perspective. We
[[Page 22738]]
seek comment on the technical viability and the economic costs and
benefits of this 2 GHz Extension Band Concept as presented or with
modifications as commenters deem appropriate.
126. The 2 GHz Extension Band Concept would necessitate severing
the existing 2000-2020 MHz pairing from 2180-2200 MHz, spectrum for
which there is an existing licensee. It may be appropriate, therefore,
to consider moving that existing licensee from its currently assigned
uplink spectrum in the 2000-2020 MHz band to 1695-1710 MHz. The
resulting license would contain paired terrestrial spectrum of 1695-
1710 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz. This would, however, likely result in the 2
GHz MSS licensee forgoing the mobile uplink portion of its existing
satellite spectrum and thus converting its satellite spectrum to a one-
way, satellite transmit, system (or needing to launch another satellite
to provide MSS using 1695-1710 MHz (depending in part, on how the 1695-
1710 MHz band is allocated)). We seek comment on this aspect of the
Concept and the costs and benefits of this Concept on competition,
innovation, and investment.
127. On June 28, 2010, a Presidential Memorandum was issued
directing the Department of Commerce, working with the Commission, to
identify and make available 500 megahertz of spectrum over the next ten
years for expanded wireless broadband use. Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband
Revolution, 75 FR 38387 (Jul. 1, 2010). NTIA performed a technical
study and determined that the 1695-1710 megahertz band, with a limited
number of exclusion zones to protect Federal meteorological satellite
receive Earth stations, could be made available for wireless broadband.
See An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accomodating Wireless
Broadband Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650MHz,
and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400 MHz Bands, U.S. Department of Commerce, 3-
1 to 3-25, 5-1 to 5-2, and H-1 to H-5 (October 2010); see also Spectrum
Task Force Requests Information on Frequency Bands Indentified By NTIA
As Potential Broadband Spectrum, ET Docket No. 10-123, Public Notice,
24 FCC Rcd 3486 (2011). The 1695-1710 megahertz band has incumbent
Federal and non-Federal users. We observe that the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires (1) that the
Administration, within three years, ``begin the process of withdrawing
or modifying the assignment'' to Federal stations operating within 15
megahertz between 1675 and 1710 MHz, Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, section 6401(a)(1)(A) and (2)
that the Secretary of Commerce, within one year, ``submit to the
President a report identifying 15 megahertz of spectrum between 1675
megahertz and 1710 megahertz for reallocation from Federal use to non-
Federal use.'' See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, Pub. L. 112-96, section 6401(a)(3). We seek comment on how
incumbent users might affect implementation of the 2 GHz Extension Band
Concept and what steps, if any, might be taken to expedite availability
of the band.
128. The 30 megahertz PCS-Extension block would be unpaired
downlink spectrum. We seek comment on whether this spectrum could be
paired with a matching uplink block. We also seek comment on the
utility of licensing the spectrum as an unpaired downlink block.
Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits for any
approaches.
129. We seek comment on assignment procedures that could effectuate
the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept. One possibility, as was suggested in
the 2 GHz Public Notice, might be to conduct an incentive auction for
the MSS uplink band. However, the recently enacted Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 appears to require that a reverse
auction for spectrum (the first step in an incentive auction) involve
at least two ``competing licensees'', whereas, following the DISH
Transfer Order there is only one licensee in the 2 GHz MSS band. New
DBSD Satellite Service G.P., Debtor-in-Possession, and TerreStar
Licensee Inc., Debtor-In-Possession, Request for Rule Waivers and
Modified Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, IB Docket Nos. 11-
149, 11-150, Order, DA 12-332 (Mar. 2, 2012) (DISH Transfer Order). We
seek comment on whether an incentive auction could be used to
effectuate the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept.
130. Another possibility might be to relocate the existing MSS
uplink into the 1695-1710 MHz band and to auction the resulting PCS-
Extension band. Would an auction of 30 megahertz of downlink spectrum
in an extended PCS band create more value than an auction of 15
megahertz of uplink spectrum adjacent in an extended AWS band?
Commenters should quantify the value of this proposal. We note that the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandates an
auction of 15 megahertz of spectrum in the 1675-1710 MHz band (to be
identified by NTIA within one year). Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, section 6401. Does this provision
preclude implementation of a ``swap'' with the 2 GHz MSS licensee?
131. Alternatively, we seek comment on any other assignment or
license modification approaches to enabling the 2 GHz Extension Band
Concept. Could the Commission implement the Concept as a section 316
license modification or pursuant to section 309 or other existing
assignment authority?
132. Finally, were the Commission to implement the 2 GHz Extension
Band Concept, it would result in leaving a single five megahertz block
of former AWS-2 spectrum unpaired and unassigned--the AWS-2 lower H
block at 1915-1920 MHz. We seek comment on the disposition of this
spectrum block under this scenario. We observe that the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires the Commission to
allocate this spectrum for commercial use and grant flexible use
licenses through a system of competitive bidding unless the Commission
determines that this spectrum band ``cannot be used without causing
harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees in the
frequencies between 1930 megahertz and 1995 megahertz.'' Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, sections
6401(b)(2)(A), (b)(4). We seek comment on whether we would need to
auction the AWS-2 lower H block or whether its use as a licensed band
would lead to harmful interference in the upper PCS band. We observe
that the record in response to the AWS-2 NPRM indicated raised concerns
about harmful interference between the AWS-2 lower H block and the PCS
band. Should the Commission conclude that the band ``cannot be used
without causing harmful interference,'' the statute prohibits us from
``allocate[ing] such band for commercial use * * * or * * * grant[ing]
licenses * * * for the use of such band.'' Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, sections 6401(b)(2)(A),
(b)(4). In such an instance, we seek comment on whether the Commission
should convert the 1915-1920 MHz band to unlicensed use, perhaps by
adding it to the existing UPCS band. Unlicensed use, among other
things, might provide additional capacity for devices using the ETSI
DECT standard, including cordless phones and wireless microphones. What
would be the most effective and efficient use of the ``orphaned'' five
megahertz block? Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of alternative proposals for the AWS-2 lower H block.
[[Page 22739]]
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
133. The proceedings this AWS-4 Notice and NOI initiate shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
134. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Notice of Inquiry (NPRM and NOI). Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM and NOI for
comments. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM and NOI,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and NOI and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
135. The rapid adoption of smartphones and tablet computers,
combined with deployment of high-speed 3G and 4G technologies, is
driving more intensive use of America's mobile networks. This explosive
growth is creating an urgent need for more network capacity and, in
turn, for suitable spectrum. Responding to this demand for additional
spectrum, the National Broadband Plan recommended the Commission
undertake to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband use
within ten years. The National Broadband Plan also recommended that 300
megahertz of this spectrum should be made available for mobile use
within five years. The Commission has launched several proceedings to
facilitate bringing spectrum suitable for wireless broadband to the
commercial marketplace. More recently, Congress passed the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which grants the Commission
new authority to conduct ``voluntary incentive auctions,'' a key pillar
of the National Broadband Plan's roadmap to bring more spectrum online
for broadband.
136. In this NPRM and NOI, we seek to increase the nation's supply
of spectrum for mobile broadband by removing unnecessary barriers to
flexible use of spectrum currently assigned to the Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band. This NPRM and NOI directly follows on
the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, in which the Commission laid the
predicate for full terrestrial use of the 2 GHz MSS band. In proposing
terrestrial service rules for the band, which include technical rules
to protect against harmful interference, licensing rules to establish
geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes, and performance
requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance toward enabling
widespread deployment in the band. We do so by proposing service,
technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this spectrum that
generally follow the Commission's part 27 rules that generally govern
flexible use terrestrial wireless service. These proposals are designed
to provide for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to
choose their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and
investment in mobile broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a
stable regulatory environment in which broadband deployment would be
able to develop through the application of standard terrestrial
wireless rules. Additionally, the Notice of Inquiry seeks input on
potential ways to free up additional valuable spectrum to address the
Nation's growing demand for mobile broadband spectrum.
2. Legal Basis
137. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332 and
333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and
333.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
138. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
139. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
[[Page 22740]]
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011
indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506
entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we
estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
140. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The
first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size
standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.
141. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512
Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year. Of
this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18
firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
142. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications,''
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our action.
143. Satellite Telecommunications/Mobile Satellite Service
Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the U.S. Small Business
Administration has developed a small business size standard
specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate
size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they
have $15 million or less in annual revenues. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications. Currently, the Commission's records show that there
are 31 entities authorized to provide voice and data MSS in the United
States. The Commission does not have sufficient information to
determine which, if any, of these parties are small entities. The
Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the
financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high
implementation costs, including construction of satellite space
stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and
services.
144. However, the U.S. Census publishes data about Satellite
Telecommunications generally, and this data may well be relevant to the
estimate of the number of voice and data MSS. Census data for 2007
indicate that 512 satellite telecommunications firms operated during
that year. Of that 512, 290 received annual receipts of $10.0 million
or less. Eighteen firms received annual receipts of between $10.0
million and $24,999,999 and 30 received annual receipts of $25.0
million or more. Since the Census data does not distinguish between MSS
and other types of satellite communications companies, it cannot be
known precisely, based on Census data, how many of the 31 authorized
MSS firms are small. However, since the majority of all satellite
telecommunications companies were small under the applicable standard,
a limited inference is possible that some of the 31 MSS firms are
small. Since it is possible that some MSS companies are small entities
affected by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry,
we therefore include them in this section of the IFRFA.
145. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
NPRM and NOI proposes to apply various Commission policies and rules to
terrestrial service in the MSS bands. We cannot predict who may in the
future become a licensee or lease spectrum for terrestrial use in these
bands. In general, any wireless telecommunications provider would be
eligible to become an Advanced Wireless Service licensee or lease
spectrum from the MSS or AWS licensees. This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and
transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is
that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Under the
present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, census
data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Similarly,
according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more
of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available data, we
estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
146. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the NPRM will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The Commission believes that applying the same rules
equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The
Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative
burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities.
The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
[[Page 22741]]
flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable wireless
spectrum.
147. Applicants for AWS-4 licenses will be required to file license
applications using the Commission's automated Universal Licensing
System (ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing system that also
serves as a powerful information tool that enables potential licensees
to research applications, licenses, and antennae structures. It also
keeps the public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings,
processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. AWS-4
licensees must submit long-form license applications through ULS using
Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless
Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate
forms.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
148. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
149. The proposal to license the AWS-4 bands under Economic Areas
(EA) geographic size licenses will provide regulatory parity with other
AWS bands that are licensed on an EA basis, such as AWS-1 licenses.
Additionally, assigning AWS-4 in EA geographic areas would allow AWS-4
licensees to make adjustments to suit their individual needs. EA
license areas are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities
for smaller carriers. EA license areas also nest within and may be
aggregated up to larger license areas that have been used by the
Commission for other services, such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and
Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to create
larger service areas. Depending on the licensing mechanism we adopt,
licensees may adjust their geographic coverage through auction or
through secondary markets. This proposal should enable AWS-4 providers,
or any entities, whether large or small, providing service in other AWS
bands to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks
pursuant to individual business plans.
150. This NPRM and NOI makes several proposals to protect entities
operating in nearby spectrum bands from harmful interference, which may
include small entities. The technical rules proposed in section III.B
of the NPRM and NOI are based on the rules for AWS-1 spectrum, with
specific additions or modifications designed to protect broadband PCS
services operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band, as well as future
services operating in the 2020-2025 MHz band, and to protect Federal
operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band from harmful interference from
AWS-4 base stations. The technical analyses contained in the section
III.B of the NPRM and NOI also proposes that no additional rule
modifications to protect other spectrum bands are necessary, which may
help minimize the impact on any small entities--both existing and
potential small entities that may seek to provide services using AWS-4
spectrum--by streamlining regulations for operations in these spectrum
bands.
151. The NPRM and NOI proposals pertaining to how AWS-4 licenses
will be assigned includes a focus on the cost and benefits such
proposals would have on innovation, investment, and competition. While
recognizing the 2 GHz MSS license holder's existing rights, the NPRM
and NOI proposes to grant terrestrial authority to operate in the AWS-4
band to the current 2 GHz MSS licensee pursuant to a license
modification. The NPRM and NOI further proposes that in certain
alternative scenarios the Commission would allow the filing of
applications for the terrestrial rights to the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz band. In the event mutually exclusive applications were
accepted, the Commission would use competitive bidding to assign
terrestrial rights, as required by section 309(j) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended. To assist small entities in competitive
bidding, the NPRM and NOI proposes to employ part 1 rules such as
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
and unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the NPRM and NOI proposes to assign
exclusive geographic area licenses for terrestrial use of the AWS-4
band, and that this spectrum would be used for purposes similar to
those for which the AWS-1 band is used. As such, the NPRM and NOI
proposes to establish small business size standards and bidding credits
that were adopted in the AWS-1 band. Specifically, the NPRM and NOI
proposes to define a small business as an entity with average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million,
and a very small business as an entity with average gross revenues for
the proceeding three years not exceeding $15 million. Additionally, the
NPRM and NOI proposes bidding credits for both small and very small
businesses, as set forth in the standardized schedule in part 1 of the
Commission's rules. Providing small businesses and very small
businesses with bidding credits may help such entities acquire
spectrum. In addition, included in the NPRM and NOI is a proposal that,
in the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates, terrestrial
spectrum rights would become available for reassignment of any AWS-4
spectrum through the competitive bidding process. We believe these
proposals 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.
152. The NPRM and NOI also proposes to provide AWS-4 licensees with
the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is
consistent with the allocations for this spectrum, which is consistent
with other spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and
mobile services, e.g., AWS-1. The NPRM and NOI further proposes to
license this spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part 27
rules. These proposals include applying the Commission's secondary
market policies and rules to all transactions involving the use of AWS-
4 bands for terrestrial services, which will provide greater
predictability and regulatory parity with bands licensed for
terrestrial mobile broadband service. This proposal should make it
easier for AWS-4 providers to enter secondary market arrangements
involving terrestrial use of their spectrum. The secondary market rules
apply equally to all entities, whether small or large. As a result, we
believe that this proposal will provide an economic benefit to small
entities by making it easier for entities, whether large or small, to
enter into secondary market arrangements for AWS-4 spectrum.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
153. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
154. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 301,
[[Page 22742]]
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332 and 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333
that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry are
hereby adopted.
155. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed regulatory changes described in the AWS-4 Notice, and that
comment is sought on these proposals.
156. It is further ordered that the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is adopted.
157. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 101
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR 25 and 27
Communications common carriers, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 25, 27,
and 101 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and 309.
2. Amend Sec. 1.949 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.949 Application for renewal of license.
* * * * *
(c) Renewal Showing. An applicant for renewal of a geographic-area
authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz service bands must
make a renewal showing, independent of its performance requirements, as
a condition of renewal. The showing must include a detailed description
of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license
period and address:
(1) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant
(e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of
subscribers, the services offered);
(2) The date service commenced, whether service was ever
interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(3) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(4) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal
land as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and
(5) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the
public.
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
4. Amend Sec. 2.106 in the Table of Frequency Allocations, as
follows:
a. Page 36 is revised.
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote
NG168 is removed.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 22743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP12.049
[[Page 22744]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
5. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies sections 4,
301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332,
unless otherwise noted.
6. Amend Sec. 25.143 by revising paragraphs (i) and (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite
service and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service.
* * * * *
(i) Incorporation of ancillary terrestrial component base stations
into a 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service network. Any licensee
authorized to construct and launch a 1.6/2.4 GHz system may construct
ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) base stations as defined in Sec.
25.201 at its own risk and subject to the conditions specified in this
subpart any time after commencing construction of the mobile-satellite
service system.
* * * * *
(k) Aircraft. ATC mobile terminals must be operated in accordance
with 25.136(a). All portable or hand-held transceiver units (including
transceiver units installed in other devices that are themselves
portable or hand-held) having operating capabilities in the 1610-1626.5
MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands shall bear the following statement in a
conspicuous location on the device: ``This device may not be operated
while on board aircraft. It must be turned off at all times while on
board aircraft.''
7. Amend Sec. 25.149 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a)(1) introductory text, removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(i),
(b)(1)(i), and (b)(5)(i), and revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 25.149 Application requirements for ancillary terrestrial
components in the mobile-satellites service networks operating in the
1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service.
(a) * * *
(1) ATC shall be deployed in the forward-band mode of operation
whereby the ATC mobile terminals transmit in the MSS uplink bands and
the ATC base stations transmit in the MSS downlink bands in portions of
the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band) and the 1610-1626.5
MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands (Big LEO band).
* * * * *
(d) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component authority
shall demonstrate that the applicant does or will comply with the
provisions of Sec. 1.924 of this chapter and Sec. 25.203(e) through
(g) and with Sec. 25.253 or Sec. 25.254, as appropriate, through
certification or explanatory technical exhibit.
(e) Except as provided for in paragraph (f) of this section, no
application for an ancillary terrestrial component shall be granted
until the applicant has demonstrated actual compliance with the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Upon receipt of ATC
authority, all ATC licensees must ensure continued compliance with this
section and Sec. 25.253 or Sec. 25.254, as appropriate.
* * * * *
Sec. 25.252 [Removed and Reserved].
8. Remove and reserve Sec. 25.252.
9. Amend Sec. 25.255 by revising the section heading as follows:
Sec. 25.255 Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to
operation of ancillary terrestrial components operating in the 1.5/1.6
GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.
* * * * *
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
10. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
and 337 unless otherwise noted.
11. Amend Sec. 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz.
* * * * *
12. Amend Sec. 27.2 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.2 Permissible communications.
(a) Miscellaneous wireless communications services. Except as
provided in paragraph (b) or (d) of this section and subject to
technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee in the
frequency bands specified in Sec. 27.5 may provide any services for
which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in the non-
Federal Government column of the Table of Allocations in Sec. 2.106 of
this chapter (column 5).
* * * * *
(d) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Operators in the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands may not provide the mobile-satellite
service under the provisions of this part; rather, mobile-satellite
service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 of this
chapter.
13. Amend Sec. 27.4 by revising the definition in ``Advanced
wireless service (AWS)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 27.4 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A radiocommunication service
licensed pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in
Sec. 27.5(h) or Sec. 27.5(j).
* * * * *
14. Amend Sec. 27.5 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(j) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. The following
frequencies are available for licensing pursuant to this part in the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4) bands:
(1) Two paired channel blocks of 10 megahertz each are available
for assignment as follows:
Block A: 2000-2010 MHz and 2190-2200 MHz; and
Block B: 2010-2020 MHz and 2180-2190 MHz.
(2) [Reserved].
15. Amend Sec. 27.6 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. AWS service areas for
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
16. Amend Sec. 27.13 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Authorizations for the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands will have a term not to exceed
ten years from the date of issuance or renewal.
17. Amend Sec. 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs
(a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz
bands,
[[Page 22745]]
Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-
728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz
bands, Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands, Block A in the
2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and
2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in
the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the exception of AWS licensees holding
authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in
Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792
MHz bands and AWS licensees holding authorizations for the 2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. * * *
* * * * *
(k) WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or (q) of this section,
including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to the
procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall
demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(q) The following provisions apply to any AWS licensee holding an
authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (an ``AWS-4
licensee''):
(1) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service within three (3) years from the date of the initial license to
at least thirty (30) percent of the total population in the aggregate
service areas that it has licensed in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200
MHz bands (``AWS-4 3-Year Buildout Requirement''). For purposes of this
subpart, a licensee's total population shall be calculated by summing
the population of each license authorization that a licensee holds in
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; and
(2) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide signal coverage and offer
service within seven (7) years from the date of the initial license to
at least to at least seventy (70) percent of the total population in
each of its licensed areas (``AWS-4 7-Year Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-
4 3-Year Buildout Requirement, all of the licensee's 2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz band license authorizations, including, if the AWS-4
license was assigned pursuant to a license modification, any licensed
under part 25 or any other part of these regulations, shall terminate
automatically without Commission action.
(4) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-
4 7-Year Buildout Requirement for a particular license within seven (7)
years of the date on which the original license was issued, that
licensee's authorization for the entire EA shall terminate
automatically without Commission action, and the license will become
available for reassignment by the Commission.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population
served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population
within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will
only be deemed served by the licensee if it provides signal coverage to
and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area,
a licensee with authorizations for such areas may only include the
population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier)
towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual
license.
(6) Failure by any AWS-4 licensee to meet the performance
requirements in this paragraph (q) will result in forfeiture of the
license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
18. Amend Sec. 27.15 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); adding
paragraph (d)(1)(iii); revising paragraph (d)(2)(i); and adding
paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding authorizations in the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS
and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing
the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Parties to
partitioning agreements have two options for satisfying the
construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Under the first
option, the partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will
independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its
respective partitioned area. If a licensee subsequently fails to meet
its substantial service requirement, its license will be subject to
automatic cancellation without further Commission action. Under the
section option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet
the substantial service requirement for the entire, pre-partitioned
geographic service area. If the partitioner subsequently fails to meet
its substantial service requirement, only its license will be subject
to automatic cancellation without further Commission action.
* * * * *
(iii) For AWS-4 licensees holding authorizations in the 2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14.
Each party to a geographic partitioning must individually meet any
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and
operation requirements). If a licensee, including a partionee, fails to
meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the
required date, its authorization will terminate automatically on that
date without further Commission action pursuant to Sec. 27.14(q).
(2) * * *
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding authorizations in the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS
and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of implementing
the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14. Parties to
disaggregation agreements have two options for
[[Page 22746]]
satisfying the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14.
Under the first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each
certifies that it will share responsibility for meeting the substantial
service requirement for the geographic service area. If the parties
choose this option and either party subsequently fails to satisfy its
substantial service responsibility, both parties' licenses will be
subject to forfeiture without further Commission action. Under the
second option, both parties certify either that the disaggregator or
the disaggregatee will meet the substantial service requirement for the
geographic service area. If the parties choose this option, and the
party responsible subsequently fails to meet the substantial service
requirement, only that party's license will be subject to forfeiture
without further Commission action.
* * * * *
(iii) For AWS licensees holding authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 27.14.
Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must individually meet any
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and
operation requirements). If a licensee, including a disagregatee, fails
to meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the
required date, its authorization will terminate automatically on that
date without further Commission action pursuant to Sec. 27.14(q).
19. Add Sec. 27.17 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.17 Discontinuance of Service in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands.
(a) Termination of Authorization. A licensee's authorization in the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, if it permanently discontinues
service after meeting the AWS-4 3-Year Buildout Requirement as
specified in Sec. 27.14 of the Commission's rules.
(b) Permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180
consecutive days during which an AWS-4 licensee does not operate or, in
the case of a commercial mobile radio service provider, does not
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands that permanently discontinues service as defined in this
section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days
by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An
authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this
section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting
license cancellation.
20. Amend Sec. 27.50 by:
a. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
b. Revising (d)(1) introductory text and redesignating paragraphs
(d)(1)(A) and (B) as paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2) introductory text and redesignating
paragraphs (d)(2)(A) and (B) as paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii);
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4); and
e. Adding paragraph (d)(7).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020
MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
2110-2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands and located in any county with
population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon
the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of
the Census, is limited to:
* * * * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
2110-2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands and situated in any geographic
location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) is limited to:
* * * * *
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in
the 1710-1755 MHz and 2000-2020 MHz bands are limited to 1 watt EIRP.
Fixed stations operating in these bands are limited to a maximum
antenna height of 10 meters above ground. Mobile and portable stations
operating in these bands must employ a means for limiting power to the
minimum necessary for successful communications.
* * * * *
(7) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2180-2200
MHz band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater
than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with all AWS
licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the
2180-2200 MHz band.
* * * * *.
21. Amend Sec. 27.53 by revising paragraph (h) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(h) Except as provided in section 27.1134(e) for the 2180-2200 MHz
band, for operations in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020
MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the power of any emission outside a
licensee's frequency block shall be attenuated below the transmitter
power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB. For operations in
the 2000-2020 MHz band, the power of any emissions between 1995 MHz and
2000 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by at
least a value as determined by linear interpolation from 70 + 10
log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz to 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at
2000 MHz.
* * * * *
22. Amend Sec. 27.55 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a) * * *
(1) 2110-2155, 2180-2200, 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47
dB[micro]V/m.
* * * * *
23. Amend Sec. 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(c) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz,
and 2180-2200 MHz bands is subject to international agreements with
Mexico and Canada.
Subpart L--1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-
2200 MHz bands
24. Revise the heading of subpart L to read as set forth above.
25. Add Sec. 27.1103 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1103 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands subject to
competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general
competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
26. Add Sec. 27.1104 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1104 Designated Entities in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200
MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business provisions:
[[Page 22747]]
(a)(1) A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average annual gross revenues
not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an
attributable material relationship, has average annual gross revenues
not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits: A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses
may use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as
defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may
use the bidding credit specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this
chapter.
27. Revise Sec. 27.1131 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1131 Protection of part 101 operations.
All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or
fixed station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel
and adjacent channel incumbent, Part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave
licensees operating in the 2110-2155 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
Coordination shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 24.237 of this chapter.
28. Amend Sec. 27.1134 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1134 Protection of Federal Government operations.
* * * * *
(e) Protection of Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
(1) [Reserved.]
(2) [Reserved.]
29. Add Sec. 27.1136 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1136 Protection of mobile satellite services in the 2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
An AWS licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands must
accept any interference received from duly authorized mobile satellite
service operations in these bands. Any such AWS licensees must protect
mobile satellite service operations in these bands from harmful
interference.
30. Amend Sec. 27.1160 by revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1160 Cost-sharing requirements for AWS.
Frequencies in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands listed in
Sec. 101.147 of this chapter have been reallocated from Fixed
Microwave Services (FMS) to use by AWS (as reflected in Sec. 2.106) of
this chapter. ***
31. Amend Sec. 27.1166 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)
introductory text, (b)(2), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1166 Reimbursement under the Cost-Sharing Plan.
(a) * * *
(1) To obtain reimbursement, an AWS relocator must submit
documentation of the relocation agreement to the clearinghouse within
30 calendar days of the date a relocation agreement is signed with an
incumbent. In the case of involuntary relocation, an AWS relocator must
submit documentation of the relocated system within 30 calendar days
after the end of the relocation.
* * * * *
(b) Documentation of expenses. Once relocation occurs, the AWS
relocator, or the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent, must
submit documentation itemizing the amount spent for items specifically
listed in Sec. 27.1164(b), as well as any reimbursable items not
specifically listed in Sec. 27.1164(b) that are directly attributable
to actual relocation costs. Specifically, the AWS relocator, or the
voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent must submit, in the first
instance, only the uniform cost data requested by the clearinghouse
along with a copy, without redaction, of either the relocation
agreement, if any, or the third party appraisal described in (b)(1), if
relocation was undertaken by the microwave incumbent. AWS relocators
and voluntarily relocating microwave incumbents must maintain
documentation of cost-related issues until the applicable sunset date
and provide such documentation upon request, to the clearinghouse, the
Commission, or entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation. If an
AWS relocator pays a microwave incumbent a monetary sum to relocate its
own facilities, the AWS relocator must estimate the costs associated
with relocating the incumbent by itemizing the anticipated cost for
items listed in Sec. 27.1164(b). If the sum paid to the incumbent
cannot be accounted for, the remaining amount is not eligible for
reimbursement.
* * * * *
(2) Identification of links. The AWS relocator, or the voluntarily
relocating microwave incumbent, must identify the particular link
associated with appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may not be averaged
over numerous links). Where the AWS relocator, or voluntarily
relocating microwave incumbent relocates both paths of a paired channel
microwave link (e.g., 2110-2130 MHz with 2160-2180 MHz and 2130-2150
MHz with 2180-2200 MHz), the AWS relocator, or voluntarily relocating
microwave incumbent must identify the expenses associated with each
paired microwave link.
* * * * *
(f) Reimbursement for Self-relocating FMS links in the 2130-2150
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Where a voluntarily relocating microwave
incumbent relocates a paired microwave link with paths in the 2130-2150
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, it may not seek reimbursement from MSS
operators, but is entitled to partial reimbursement from the first AWS
beneficiary, equal to fifty percent of its actual costs for relocating
the paired link, or half of the reimbursement cap in Sec. 27.1164(b),
whichever is less. This amount is subject to depreciation as specified
Sec. 27.1164(b). An AWS licensee who is obligated to reimburse
relocation costs under this rule is entitled to obtain reimbursement
from other AWS beneficiaries in accordance with Sec. Sec. 27.1164 and
27.1168. For purposes of applying the cost-sharing formula relative to
other AWS licensees that benefit from the self-relocation, the fifty
percent attributable to the AWS entrant shall be treated as the entire
cost of the link relocation, and depreciation shall run from the date
on which the clearinghouse issues the notice of an obligation to
reimburse the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent. The cost-
sharing obligations for MSS operators in the 2180-2200 MHz band are
governed by Sec. 101.82 of this chapter.
32. Amend Sec. 27.1168 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(2), (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(3)(ii), and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1168 Triggering a reimbursement obligation.
(a) The clearinghouse will apply the following test to determine
when an AWS entity has triggered a cost-sharing obligation and
therefore must pay an AWS relocator, MSS relocator, or a voluntarily
relocating microwave incumbent in accordance with the formula detailed
in Sec. 27.1164:
* * * * *
(2) An AWS relocator, MSS relocator or a voluntarily relocating
microwave incumbent has paid the relocation costs of the microwave
incumbent; and
(3) The AWS or MSS entity is operating or preparing to turn on a
fixed base station at commercial power and
[[Page 22748]]
the fixed base station is located within a rectangle (Proximity
Threshold) described as follows:
* * * * *
(ii) If the application of the Proximity Threshold Test indicates
that a reimbursement obligation exists, the clearinghouse will
calculate the reimbursement amount in accordance with the cost-sharing
formula and notify the AWS entity of the total amount of its
reimbursement obligation.
(b) Once a reimbursement obligation is triggered, the AWS entity
may not avoid paying its cost-sharing obligation by deconstructing or
modifying its facilities.
33. Revise Sec. 27.1170 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1170 Payment issues.
Prior to initiating operations for a newly constructed site or
modified existing site, an AWS entity is required to file a notice
containing site-specific data with the clearinghouse. The notice
regarding the new or modified site must provide a detailed description
of the proposed site's spectral frequency use and geographic location,
including but not limited to the applicant's name and address, the name
of the transmitting base station, the geographic coordinates
corresponding to that base station, the frequencies and polarizations
to be added, changed or deleted, and the emission designator. If a
prior coordination notice (PCN) under Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter
is prepared, AWS entities can satisfy the site-data filing requirement
by submitting a copy of their PCN to the clearinghouse. AWS entities
that file either a notice or a PCN have a continuing duty to maintain
the accuracy of the site-specific data on file with the clearinghouse.
Utilizing the site-specific data, the clearinghouse will determine if
any reimbursement obligation exists and notify the AWS entity in
writing of its repayment obligation, if any. When the AWS entity
receives a written copy of such obligation, it must pay directly to the
relocator the amount owed within 30 calendar days.
34. Revise Sec. 27.1174 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1174 Termination of cost-sharing obligations.
The cost-sharing plan will sunset for all AWS and MSS entities on
the same date on which the relocation obligation for the subject AWS
band (i.e., 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2175 MHz, 2175-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz)
in which the relocated FMS link was located terminates. AWS or MSS
entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset
date must satisfy their payment obligation in full.
PART 101-- FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
35. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, and 303 unless otherwise noted.
36. Amend Sec. 101.69 by revising paragraph (e) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 101.69 Transition of the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-
2200 MHz bands from the fixed microwave services to personal
communications services and emerging technologies.
* * * * *
(e) Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS)
licensees will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
* * * * *
37. Amend Sec. 101.73 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 101.73 Mandatory negotiations.
(a) A mandatory negotiation period may be initiated at the option
of the ET licensee. Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) operators and AWS licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and
2160-2200 MHz bands will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
* * * * *
(d) Provisions for Relocation of Fixed Microwave Licensees in the
2110-2150 and 2160-2200 MHz bands. A separate mandatory negotiation
period will commence for each FMS licensee when an ET licensee informs
that FMS licensee in writing of its desire to negotiate. Mandatory
negotiations will be conducted with the goal of providing the FMS
licensee with comparable facilities defined as facilities possessing
the following characteristics:
* * * * *
38. Amend Sec. 101.79 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees in the 1850-1990 MHz,
2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands.
(a) FMS licensees will maintain primary status in the 1850-1990
MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands unless and until an ET
licensee requires use of the spectrum. ET licensees are not required to
pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset. Once the
relocation rules sunset, an ET licensee may require the incumbent to
cease operations, provided that the ET licensee intends to turn on a
system within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA
TSB 10-F (for terrestrial-to-terrestrial situations) or TIA TSB 86 (for
MSS satellite-to-terrestrial situations) or any standard successor. ET
licensee notification to the affected FMS licensee must be in writing
and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate
the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the FMS
licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the
parties have entered into an agreement which allows the FMS licensee to
continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis. The date that the
relocation rules sunset is determined as follows:
* * * * *
(2) For the 2180-2200 MHz band, for MSS/ATC December 8, 2013 (i.e.,
ten years after the mandatory negotiation period begins for MSS/ATC
operators in the service), and for ET licensees authorized under part
27 ten years after the first part 27 license is issued in the band.
* * * * *
39. Amend Sec. 101.82 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 101.82 Reimbursement and relocation expenses in the 2110-2150
MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands.
(a) Reimbursement and relocation expenses for the 2110-2130 MHz and
2160-2200 MHz bands are addressed in Sec. Sec. 27.1160-27.1174.
* * * * *
(d) Cost-sharing obligations among terrestrial stations. For
terrestrial stations (AWS), cost-sharing obligations are governed by
Sec. Sec. 27.1160 through 27.1174 of this chapter; provided, however,
that MSS operators are not obligated to reimburse voluntarily
relocating FMS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band. (AWS reimbursement
and cost-sharing obligations relative to voluntarily relocating FMS
incumbents are governed by Sec. 27.1166 of this chapter).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-8405 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P