Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 99-168         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Service Rules for the 746-764    | ) |                              |
| and                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| 776-794 MHz Bands, and           |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Revisions to Part 27 of the      | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Commission's Rules               | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

**Adopted:** January 6, 2000 **Released:** January 7, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a separate statement;
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth approving in part and dissenting in part
and issuing a separate statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

#  {#section .unnumbered}

Paragraph

> I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
>
> II\. BACKGROUND 5
>
> III\. SERVICE RULES 8
>
> A. In General 8
>
> 1\. Spectrum Management Considerations 9
>
> 2\. Band Plan 26
>
> a\. General Considerations 26
>
> B. Licensing Rules 43
>
> 1\. Regulatory Status 44
>
> 2\. Eligibility and Use Restrictions; Spectrum Aggregation 47
>
> 3\. Size of Service Areas for Geographic Area Licensing 54
>
> 4\. Foreign Ownership Restrictions 62
>
> 5\. License Terms; Renewal Expectancy 66
>
> 6\. Performance Requirements 69
>
> 7\. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses 73
>
> 8\. Public Notice of Initial Applications; Petitions to Deny 79
>
> C. Operating Rules 81
>
> 1\. Applicability of General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance
> 82
>
> 2\. Equal Employment Opportunity 89
>
> D. Technical Rules 93
>
> 1\. In-Band Interference Control 94
>
> 2\. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits 98
>
> 3\. RF Safety/Power Limits 108
>
> 4\. Special Considerations for Use of Channels 65, 66, and 67 112
>
> E. Competitive Bidding 121
>
> 1\. Statutory Requirements 121
>
> 2\. Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules
> 128
>
> 3\. Small Business Definitions 131
>
> IV\. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES 137
>
> A. Negotiations with Incumbent Broadcast Licensees 142
>
> V. CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS 146
>
> VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES 147
>
> Appendix A: LIST OF PARTIES
>
> Appendix B: FINAL RULES
>
> Appendix C: GEOGRAPHIC LICENSING MAP

# INTRODUCTION and executive summary

1.  By this Report and Order we adopt service rules for licensing the
    commercial use of the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands---bands that
    have been reallocated, by Congressional direction, from their
    previous use solely for the broadcasting service.[^1] The service
    rules adopted today govern the predominant portion of these
    bands---thirty of the thirty-six megahertz reallocated for
    commercial use. A subsequent Report and Order will adopt service
    rules, including licensing, technical, and operational rules, for
    the remaining six megahertz.[^2] We believe that, under these rules,
    these bands can be used to provide a wide range of advanced wireless
    services. The revised spectrum allocation, which enabled the
    provision of Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services on these
    bands, subject to the particular requirements of the service rules,
    was adopted in our *Reallocation Report and Order*.[^3] The rules we
    adopt today are aimed at enabling the broadest possible use of this
    spectrum, consistent with sound spectrum management and the
    Congressional mandate that the receipts from auctioning this
    spectrum be deposited into the Treasury by September 30, 2000.[^4]

2.  This Report and Order is our first decision guided by the principles
    enunciated in our recent *Spectrum Reallocation Policy
    Statement*.[^5] Based on those principles, the record developed in
    this proceeding, and our own review of technical issues, we find
    that a flexible, market-based approach is the most appropriate
    method for determining service rules in this band. We also conclude
    that, in the circumstances of these spectrum bands, the
    establishment of sub-bands will best ensure that a variety of
    spectrum management priorities are realized, including protection of
    public safety operations from interference. In this Report and Order
    we adopt service, licensing and auction rules for the thirty
    megahertz of spectrum that are separated from public safety spectrum
    by Guard Bands totaling six megahertz. Rapidly expanding demand for
    wireless voice and data services, as well as projections of
    international demand and the increased spectrum necessary to support
    wideband applications to be implemented with next generation
    technologies,[^6] confirm that these bands should be structured to
    enable their efficient and intensive use for wireless services and
    technologies. New broadcast-type services that can be provided
    within the technical parameters adopted here are also permissible in
    these bands. To comport with the range of potential service
    applications on these bands, and our intended use of Part 27 as a
    basic regulatory framework for service rules governing other bands,
    we have also recast the structure of the Part 27 rules to reflect
    their revised scope.

3.  More specifically, we are today making the following determinations
    for licensing and operations in this spectrum:

-   We are providing for two license bands - one of 20 megahertz and one
    of 10 megahertz - that address the increasing demand for broadband
    wireless access capacity, including both fixed and mobile next
    generation applications. The 20 megahertz segment, consisting of
    paired 10 megahertz blocks, offers bidders a significantly large
    block of spectrum that should be desirable for providers of advanced
    wireless services. The 10 megahertz segment, consisting of paired 5
    megahertz blocks, should prove of interest to parties in the record
    who desire spectrum to deploy innovative wireless technologies,
    including high-speed Internet access, that do not require as much
    spectrum. New broadcasting operations that are consistent with our
    technical rules could also utilize some or all of these blocks.
    Finally, we are permitting parties interested in acquiring both
    licenses in an area to win both in the auction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We also are providing for two paired Guard Bands -- one of 4
    megahertz and one of 2 megahertz -- located immediately adjacent to
    public safety spectrum. These bands are necessary to protect public
    safety users from interference. Consistent with the Congress's
    intent, we have provided protection to public safety users by
    establishing "Guard Bands" immediately adjacent to public safety
    bands, and in our subsequent Report and Order will adopt technical
    standards and service rules for the Guard Bands. To ensure that
    public safety licensees in adjacent bands can operate free of
    interference, we intend to adopt more stringent interference
    protection standards for these Guard Bands than we adopt in this
    Report and Order for the larger segments that do not directly abut
    public safety spectrum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We will auction licenses for the larger spectrum blocks on the basis
    of six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs) throughout the country. These
    relatively large regions should allow for significant economies of
    scale to help reduce costs and increase efficiencies. We also will
    allow bidders to aggregate these regional licenses into nationwide
    licenses. To further our overall policy goals of implementing
    innovative auction techniques to increase bidder flexibility, we
    also are directing the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
    implement, if operationally feasible, a new optional bidding
    procedure. This procedure would cap bid withdrawal payments on a
    nationwide aggregation of licenses for a bidder who commits at the
    outset to bid solely on that nationwide aggregation. Finally, to
    increase options for the provision of service to otherwise unserved
    geographic areas, we also will allow licensees to partition and
    disaggregate their licenses in the post-auction market.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The service rules also provide for application licensing, technical
    and operational requirements, and competitive bidding. We also have
    determined how best to maximize the scope of practicable flexibility
    afforded licensees in this spectrum, consistent with our review of
    flexible use allocations required by Section 303(y) of the Act,[^7]
    and with the technical and other service rules that govern the range
    of services enabled.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Finally, we adopt standards to assure protection of the
    approximately 100 existing conventional television stations that
    will continue to operate on these bands during the transition to
    digital television (DTV), and to safeguard public safety operations
    on adjacent bands.

4.  We expect these service rules will enable a significant number of
    existing and potential wireless service providers to pursue these
    bands, potentially to deploy new methods of providing high speed
    Internet access in competition with digital subscriber loop (DSL)
    and cable modem operators. These bands are also suitable for new
    fixed wireless service in underserved areas, as well as next
    generation, high-speed mobile services. Because the record indicates
    a wide range of possible technical approaches to serving the
    expanding demand for wireless services, we have sought to establish
    an open regulatory framework with the potential to accommodate both
    existing and future technologies. This framework permits new
    broadcast-type services that are consistent with the technical rules
    essential to fostering efficient development of wireless services in
    this band, and sound spectrum management. By setting the scope of
    our flexible service rules to enable the most efficient and
    intensive use of this spectrum, we believe we have fully satisfied
    our statutory spectrum management responsibilities.

# BACKGROUND

5.  The 746-806 MHz band at issue here has historically been used
    exclusively by television stations (Channels 60-69). Incumbent
    conventional television broadcasters are permitted by statute to
    continue operations in this band until their markets are converted
    to digital television.[^8] The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 directed
    the Commission to reallocate this spectrum for public safety and
    commercial use by December 31, 1997, [^9] and to commence
    competitive bidding for the commercial licenses on the reallocated
    spectrum after January 1, 2001.[^10] In November 1999, Congress
    enacted a consolidated appropriations statute that revises the
    latter instruction.[^11] This legislation accelerates the schedule
    for auction of the commercial spectrum bands, and requires that the
    proceeds from the auction of these bands be deposited in the U.S.
    Treasury by September 30, 2000.

6.  In the *Reallocation Report and Order*, adopted December 31, 1997,
    we implemented the specific spectrum management decisions enacted by
    Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997[^12] by adding Fixed
    and Mobile services to the Broadcasting allocation in the 746-806
    MHz band. We designated Channels 60-62 and 65-67 for commercial use,
    and designated Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 for the exclusive use of
    public safety. We also declined to adopt additional protections for
    low-power TV and TV translator stations beyond those adopted in the
    DTV Proceeding.[^13] We stated that no new applications would be
    considered for the provision of analog TV service in Channels 60-69,
    but that current applicants, at a later date, would be afforded an
    opportunity to amend their applications to seek channels below
    Channel 60. We subsequently denied petitions that sought
    reconsideration of these decisions to grant no new licenses for TV
    service on these channels, and the decision to provide no additional
    protection to low-power TV and TV translator stations.[^14]

7.  In the *NPRM* in this proceeding, we sought comment on various
    service rule issues necessary to conduct an auction, including
    licensing, operational, technical, and competitive bidding
    rules.[^15] The Report and Order we adopt here addresses these
    issues and will enable the auctions process to commence
    expeditiously, consistent with the statutory deadline set by
    Congress.

# Service Rules

## In General

8.  The *NPRM* sought comment both on broad spectrum management
    issues[^16] and on the unique technical issues raised by the
    reallocation of this band. In this Report and Order, we initially
    address the broad question of whether our service rules for these
    bands should implement flexible use at the inter-service level by
    providing for sharing of these bands between incumbent conventional,
    full-power television broadcasting licensees and the range of
    possible broadcasting and wireless services.[^17] After this
    discussion, we turn to the specific service rule decisions required
    by this proceeding.

### Spectrum Management Considerations 

9.  **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we emphasized our
    continued interest in the broader aspects of spectrum management,
    noting the potential for new technologies to blur technical and
    regulatory distinctions and affect the balance between licensee
    discretion and regulatory requirements.[^18] We also sought comment
    on the extent to which flexible use allocations that juxtapose such
    technically dissimilar services as wireless and conventional
    broadcasting might raise new issues. Such additional issues might
    include whether and how to apply service-specific statutory
    requirements in this context, how to consistently apply service
    rules for this spectrum band and other Parts of our Rules, and, more
    broadly, how these service rules should provide for implementation
    of next generation wireless technology.[^19] We recognized that
    proposals involving a broad range of services make our review of
    flexible use allocations under Section 303(y) especially
    important,[^20] and sought comment on the extent to which the
    spectrum could and should be made available for private mobile and
    fixed radio service.[^21] We noted the statutory provisions that
    potentially bear on our spectrum management decisions for these
    bands, including Sections 303(y), 309, 337, broadcast-specific
    statutory provisions such as Sections 312(a)(7) and 315,[^22] and
    Section 713 (captioning regulations), and Section 255 (accessibility
    of telecommunications equipment and services).[^23]

10. Section 303(y) reflects Congressional concern that proposals for the
    flexible use of spectrum have the potential, if not thoroughly
    considered, to create interference between services and discourage
    investment and technical innovation.[^24] That section requires the
    Commission to make a positive determination that such issues have
    been considered, and that these potential problems will not be
    realized, before it approves such flexible use of spectrum
    allocations---*i.e.*, allocation or service rules that enable the
    licensing of multiple services, as the term "service" is used in the
    Table of Allocations, on the same frequency band. We make the
    determinations required by Section 303(y) below, at paras. 20-25.

11. Many commenters assert that renewed conventional television
    operations on these bands would create such a wide range of
    interference difficulties as to effectively preclude other,
    non-broadcast wireless applications. Motorola states that it is not
    possible to "craft service rules that will permit efficient
    operation of advanced mobile systems and traditional wide area
    broadcast systems in the same geographic area," and warns of
    "unrealizable" business plans.[^25] Motorola and AirTouch contend
    that this view is supported by experience with sharing in the
    Channel 14-20 television band, [^26] and Motorola also refers to the
    rule changes we adopted for the 2.5 GHz MMDS spectrum to allow
    licensees the flexibility to provide broadcasting and wireless
    applications.[^27] US WEST cautions against renewed broadcast use of
    the band, stating that the interference caused by full-power
    broadcast services would deter necessary investment in new services
    and systems.[^28]

12. Interference from conventional television broadcast services
    concerns parties who seek additional spectrum to provide next
    generation wireless services, whether fixed or mobile. AirTouch
    states that sharing between mobile and new broadcast uses "would
    necessitate further segmentation of the band, thus limiting the
    Commission's ability to designate spectrum blocks of sufficient size
    to facilitate reliable mobile services."[^29] Bell Atlantic Mobile
    asserts the 700 MHz band is uniquely suited for 3G mobile services,
    and asks us to reserve these bands for 3G terrestrial mobile
    service, citing demand projections prepared by the WRC-2000 advisory
    committee.[^30] Metricom, which provides wireless Internet access,
    opposes conventional broadcast television service, as does RTG,
    which contemplates both fixed and mobile services.[^31]

13. A few commenters advocate inter-service, wideband "flexible use,"
    and seek service rules sufficiently flexible to enable conventional
    full-service television broadcast operations, or "hybrid" services
    with comparable technical characteristics. Advocates of enabling
    such full-service conventional television service include MSTV and
    TWDC, which assert that there are few locations in the crowded radio
    spectrum with sufficient bandwidth for terrestrial broadband
    services, especially a "hybrid broadband and mobile service."[^32]
    NTA contends that the objective of these service rules should be to
    have 10 to 12 analog channels in translator-dependent areas, to
    reflect new program sources as well as to extend DTV signals.[^33]

14. Commenters also specifically address the "flexible use" findings
    that the Commission is required to make under Section 303(y).
    Several commenters ascribe the WCS auction results, and the
    subsequent slow pace of WCS service activation, to excessively
    flexible service rules.[^34] To avoid a recurrence, they argue that
    we should limit flexibility in both the inter-service and
    intra-service aspects. With regard to inter-service flexibility,
    they contend we should exclude conventional television broadcast
    from these bands, *i.e.*, prohibit "flexible use" between distinct
    services in the sense that "service" is used in the Table of
    Allocations. With regard to intra-service flexibility, they assert
    that we should not permit unbounded flexibility even within the
    context of wireless service, but should instead create a stable
    regulatory framework---a band plan and related rules---that
    encourages investment and service innovation.[^35] Metricom, while
    not opposing those views, raises a more specifically focussed
    concern, urging us not to retreat from the existing scope of
    operational flexibility contained in the Part 27 service rules.
    Metricom asserts that flexibility with regard to bandwidth,
    channelization, and other technical variables affecting the
    structure of its Ricochet™ service was essential to its expeditious
    activation.[^36]

15. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** After careful consideration, we will
    not adopt service rules that would permit the sharing of this band
    by conventional television and wireless services. The inherent
    interference difficulties presented by sharing between these
    dissimilar services require that we orient our service rules to one
    service or the other, if efficient and intensive use of this
    spectrum is to be realized. Based on the predominant interest in
    fixed and mobile wireless services expressed in the record, we will
    adopt service rules primarily oriented toward fulfilling the need
    for a variety of wireless services on these bands. The rules are not
    structured to establish particular service configurations. Rather,
    the service rules allow licensees to make determinations respecting
    the services provided and technologies to be used, including
    provision of new broadcast-type services so long as those services
    comply with our technical rules.[^37]

16. Our recent *Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement* identifies as a
    Commission objective the development of a variety of mechanisms to
    make spectrum markets more efficient, including flexible service
    rules and innovative assignment mechanisms. In this proceeding, we
    find that such flexibility cannot extend to opening these bands to
    both conventional television and wireless services. Establishing
    regulatory flexibility sufficient to accommodate conventional
    television broadcasting would impose disproportionate, offsetting
    burdens on wireless services, constraining their technical
    effectiveness and, consequently, their economic practicability.[^38]
    This conclusion is supported by the record. AirTouch, for example,
    asserts that the inherent conflicts between such disparate services
    "will require burdensome interference protection requirements that
    will prevent efficient spectrum use and compromise service to the
    public."[^39] Sharing with conventional broadcasting services is
    also opposed by AMTA, APCO, Motorola, PCIA, RTG, and US WEST.[^40]
    AMTA asserts that protective co-channel and adjacent channel
    standards designed to prevent land mobile interference to television
    operations in the 470-512 MHz band severely limited both the number
    of markets in which spectrum was available for land mobile use, and
    the area in which operations could be conducted within those
    markets. According to AMTA, transplanting similar sharing criteria
    to this band would severely limit provision of wireless
    services.[^41]

17. We find that the contrasting technical characteristics of
    conventional television broadcasting, using power levels authorized
    by Part 73, and wireless services effectively preclude the
    development of interference rules that would enable the practicable
    provision of both sets of services on this spectrum.[^42] The
    interference problem arises from the disparity between the two
    services' characteristic power levels, and between their transmitter
    tower heights.[^43] Any substantial disproportion between the power
    levels of services sharing a spectrum band creates much greater
    interference difficulties for the lower-power service than when
    sharing or adjacent-band services operate at comparable power
    levels. The disparity between television transmitter tower heights
    and those used by typical wireless providers adds to the difficulty
    by accentuating the power of the more powerful service. Even at
    considerable distance from the higher-power service's transmitter,
    its signal is still strong enough, due in part to the effect of
    tower height, to make a receiver designed for a nearer, lower-power
    service vulnerable to interference.[^44] These effects are
    recognized by the Commission's Rules establishing minimum distance
    separation requirements between conventional television facilities
    using the same channel and between facilities using adjacent
    channels.[^45]

18. Establishing standards to manage the inherent interference between
    such dissimilar transmissions as conventional television and
    wireless services would create substantial spectrum inefficiencies
    in a band where efficiency is especially important because of the
    band's suitability for uses ranging from wideband mobile
    communications to innovative, fixed wireless Internet access
    services and new broadcast-type services.[^46] If, for example, we
    applied standards for the protection of incumbent television
    licensees on this band to protect new television licensees operating
    at power levels authorized by Part 73, we would curtail to
    negligible levels the potential of this band for wireless service.
    The efficient and intensive use of spectrum resources[^47] is
    critical to facilitating new wireless technologies that have the
    potential to provide innovative new services and, as well, to serve
    underserved areas with both narrowband and broadband services.[^48]
    The record in this proceeding demonstrates diverse and substantial
    demand for expanded wireless broadband spectrum---for uses ranging
    from the implementation of next generation applications as
    extensions of existing mobile and fixed uses, to the implementation
    of various innovative stand-alone technologies.[^49] The innovations
    expected from the transition to DTV have been and will continue to
    be accommodated on the bands dedicated for television broadcasting.

19. Although we have determined to orient our technical and service
    rules primarily to enable the efficient and intensive use of these
    bands for wireless service, we will nonetheless allow any
    broadcast-type services consistent with the Table of Allocations
    that meet those rules. This approach will allow the broadest degree
    of flexibility possible, consistent with technical interference
    limits and their economic consequences here.

20. *Section 303(y) Review.* Section 303(y) requires the Commission to
    make affirmative findings before permitting flexible use as part of
    the allocations process. Specifically, we are required to determine
    that such flexibility: (1) is consistent with international
    agreements; (2) would be in the public interest; (3) would not deter
    investment in communications services or systems, or technology
    development; and (4) would not result in harmful interference among
    users.[^50] We find that the flexible allocation we adopted in the
    allocation Report and Order satisfies the standards of Section
    303(y).

21. In the *Reallocation Report and Order*, we preserved the allocation
    of these bands to broadcasting, but recognized that sharing the
    spectrum between broadcasting and wireless services presented
    technical issues.[^51] Metricom and other commenters assert that the
    fundamental purpose of flexible regulation would be defeated, and
    Section 303(y) would be violated, by an attempt to reconcile the
    very different interference rules associated with conventional
    broadcasting and broadband wireless communications.[^52] Because we
    agree that service rules permitting television service based on
    conventional (Part 73 and Part 74) technical standards are not in
    the public interest, and have determined against that approach, we
    need not consider whether that approach to flexible use violates
    Section 303(y).

22. We do, however, undertake Section 303(y) review with respect to our
    decision to allow broadcasting that complies with Part 27 technical
    rules. We have determined that this inter-service aspect of our
    decision fully satisfies the requirements of Section 303(y). The
    revised entry in our Table of Allocations continues this band's
    previous use for broadcast service, and is consistent with
    international agreements.[^53] As for the findings required by
    Section 303(y)(2), we find that no additional interference will be
    created by this approach to inter-service flexibility, because new
    broadcast-type services on these bands will be required to comply
    fully with the same technical requirements applied to wireless
    services. In that regard, our technical rules are transparent, and
    include no provisions to accommodate conventional broadcasting. For
    this reason, we anticipate no adverse investment or innovation
    effects on wireless services. In these circumstances, we find that
    permitting new broadcast-type use on these bands by the flexible use
    plan adopted here is in the public interest, and otherwise satisfies
    the review required by Section 303(y).

23. Some commenters have construed the scope of the Section 303(y)
    review requirement to reach beyond an inter-service interpretation
    of that mandate. These parties assert that the findings required by
    Section 303(y) are required to be made when the Commission adopts
    intra-service rules sufficiently flexible to enable a range of
    technical and regulatory characteristics within a specific service
    allocation. Specifically, they assert that Section 303(y) requires
    us to limit licensees using these 700 MHz commercial spectrum bands,
    or some portion of them, to specific technical or regulatory
    categories of wireless service, *e.g.*, specialized mobile radio
    (SMR) or terrestrial mobile applications. Southern, for example,
    while supporting a more flexible use for half the spectrum at issue,
    contends the public interest finding mandated by Section
    303(y)(2)(A) requires the Commission to designate 18 Megahertz
    exclusively for SMR use.[^54] AirTouch similarly invokes the public
    interest finding to assert that the demand for second- and
    third-generation mobile services, the spectrum needed to meet such
    demand, and the technical characteristics of the 700 MHz band,
    together demonstrate that the public interest is served by
    designation of these bands exclusively for terrestrial mobile
    use.[^55] In addition, Metricom urges us not to diminish the
    existing flexibility of Part 27 with regard to channelization and
    other service rules that enable the flexible configuration of a
    particular service.[^56]

24. We interpret the Section 303(y) review requirement as applicable to
    flexible use determinations by the Commission that would enable the
    sharing of specific spectrum bands by services treated as distinct
    by the international and domestic allocations process. Our review of
    flexible use under Section 303(y) is limited to regulatory decisions
    that would enable such inter-service flexibility.[^57] We disagree
    with commenters that assert that the Commission is required to make
    the affirmative findings required by Section 303(y) as a
    precondition to adoption of flexible intra-service regulations. That
    statutory provision confers authority to "allocate electromagnetic
    spectrum so as to provide flexibility of use," but does not address
    domestic assignments or operational regulations. Nevertheless, while
    we find that its requirements apply directly and explicitly to our
    service allocation decisions, we here also consider these criteria
    under our broader public interest mandates in the statute, when
    making decisions that may affect the broader allocation through
    service rules.

25. The Part 27 provisions referred to generally by Metricom enable the
    type of operational flexibility that, while important to individual
    licensees, does not involve the type of inter-service regulations
    that, in our view, might potentially be inconsistent with the terms
    of Section 303(y). These regulations confer discretion on licensees
    at the level of individual system implementation, and pose minimal
    if any potential for interference or discouragement of investment.
    Thus, while our broad statutory mandate requires that our service
    and other rules (*e.g.*, competitive bidding regulations) fulfill
    the general public interest standard as well as enumerated
    legislative purposes,[^58] we find further that, under Section
    303(y), our various non-allocative, intra-service regulations meet
    the statutory criteria to provide such flexibility of use.

### Band Plan 

26. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we sought comment on
    several aspects of spectrum management, including the extent to
    which the pace of technical change may affect the desirable balance
    between licensee discretion and the extent of technical and
    operational regulations,[^59] and how investment generally, and
    specifically for new and innovative technologies and services, would
    be affected by service rules. The *NPRM* also sought comment on the
    effect of different approaches to these bands upon interference to
    other services,[^60] and how the Commission's auction processes
    should reflect and implement the spectrum management decisions.[^61]

27. Several commenters urge us to auction a single, 36 megahertz
    license. A single, 36 megahertz license would, Metricom contends,
    leave the details of flexible use, including management of
    interference between distinct services, to be determined by the
    licensee.[^62] MSTV similarly asserts that a unitary license would
    leave issues arising from the coordination of services, including
    the development of methods for sharing spectrum that do not unfairly
    burden specific services, to the licensee.[^63] AirTouch also
    advocates a single, 36 megahertz license, though it would designate
    the entire band for terrestrial mobile services, predicated on
    substantially expanded spectrum needs for the implementation of next
    generation broadband wireless services.[^64] Cisco contends that a
    single, 36 megahertz license would better enable use of these bands
    for efficient fixed wireless applications without precluding mobile
    services, and asserts that discrete sub-bands are not necessary to
    protect adjacent public safety uses.[^65]

28. Several other commenters, including AMTA, FreeSpace, Motorola, PCIA,
    Intek, and US WEST, support a more structured approach to band
    management.[^66] Some of these commenters argue for division of the
    band into comparatively modest spectrum segments, configured to
    flexibly enable a range of new and existing narrowband technologies,
    and propose division of the 36 megahertz into several bands with
    varying degrees of flexibility. In this latter category, for
    example, Motorola has proposed an overall band plan that configures
    two 1.5 megahertz band pairs, adjacent to the public safety spectrum
    bands, designated for the licensing of systems to band managers, and
    divides the remainder of the band into sub-bands intended to support
    a range of expanded wireless fixed and mobile services.[^67] Others
    seek larger spectrum blocks; Southern, for example, argues that 18
    megahertz should be designated for SMR service, and the remainder
    for flexible use.[^68]

29. Several commenters assert that the failure to establish at least a
    minimal regulatory framework for services offered on these bands
    will seriously compromise the overall public benefits from these
    bands.[^69] AMTA, for example, while asserting that relaxed
    regulation has encouraged innovative technologies and service
    offerings, also notes that the FCC is properly concerned that
    "unbridled regulatory flexibility not have the contrary effect of
    permitting harmful interference among users, deterring investment in
    communications systems or services or technological development, or
    otherwise not serve the public interest."[^70] PCIA believes that a
    service allocation that is too flexible will deter investment in
    communications services and systems and technology.[^71]

30. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We will adopt a band plan that
    establishes a 20 megahertz segment (two paired, 10 megahertz
    blocks), a 10 megahertz segment (two paired, 5 megahertz blocks),
    and two small, also paired, Guard Bands of 1 and 2 megahertz
    adjacent to the established public safety bands. The two larger band
    segments are not subject to eligibility requirements. The regulatory
    and technical standards applicable to the smaller Guard Band
    segments will be resolved in the subsequent Report and Order.

31. We decline to grant a unitary, 36 megahertz license. As an initial
    matter, we do not consider it desirable, in light of the record
    regarding the potential for interference to public safety users, to
    leave determination of the internal framework of these bands,
    including the structure of Guard Bands, to a single commercial
    entity. More broadly, in light of the range of technologies,
    services, and spectrum needs asserted by commenters, we find that
    the best course is to adopt a band plan that will allow bidders to
    pursue licenses that are less than the full 36 megahertz, but will
    allow bidders to aggregate a substantial portion of the band. In
    that way, the marketplace forces operating through the auction
    process, rather than regulatory fiat, will determine which of the
    multitude of service proposals will actually be implemented.[^72] In
    addition, given the relatively small amount of bandwidth presently
    available, we must achieve a balance between the configuration of
    bands for broad groups of services, and preserving overall licensee
    flexibility in technical and service application choices.

32. Our band plan is presented graphically in the diagram below. Our
    subsequent description includes the specific public interest basis
    for each of the plan's several components.

    ![](media/image1.wmf)

33. *Protecting Public Safety Operations Through Guard Bands*.
    Consistent with the legislative history of Section 337,[^73] a
    primary goal of our band plan structure is to ensure that activation
    of services in these 36 Megahertz of spectrum will not impair public
    safety operations in the former channels 63-64 and 68-69 through
    harmful interference. The Conference Report states that the
    Commission should ensure that public safety service licensees in the
    746-806 MHz band "continue to operate free of interference from any
    new commercial licensees."[^74] The importance attached to
    interference protection by the Congress is emphasized by APCO, the
    NCC, and the International Association of Firefighters.[^75] In
    addition, Motorola has recognized this concern in its band plan
    proposal, which establishes Guard Bands at the extremities of the
    commercial use bands to insulate the adjacent public safety bands
    from stronger commercial service emissions in the central segments
    of these bands.[^76] Other commenters, though proposing different
    approaches, have also recognized the public safety priority.[^77]
    Accordingly, we wish to ensure that the public safety bands are
    protected from interference, given that such spectrum will be used
    by local, state and Federal agencies for the protection of life,
    health, or property. This is a core function of this Commission
    under Section 1 and Section 337(f)(1) of the Communications
    Act.[^78]

34. We agree with commenters who contend that Guard Bands are the best
    way to ensure protection for public safety uses. In this Report and
    Order, we establish four sub-bands, two each of 1 and 2 megahertz,
    designated as Guard Bands in the diagram, in order to protect the
    immediately adjoining public safety licensees on Channels 63, 64,
    68, and 69 from harmful interference. We will require licensees on
    these Guard Bands to minimize interference to public safety
    licensees through technical and operational measures to be
    determined in the subsequent Report and Order. While protecting
    adjacent public safety bands from harmful interference, the
    sub-bands we establish here will allow for effective and valued use
    of the spectrum, consistent with sound spectrum management, rather
    than the creation of Guard Band spectrum of little use. To that end,
    we find it is appropriate to establish two 1 megahertz sub-bands at
    746 MHz and 776 MHz, to allow for a paired block, and similarly to
    establish two paired 2 megahertz sub-bands, at 762 and 792 MHz, to
    provide further protection for public safety bands and to encourage
    the effective and valued use of the Guard Band spectrum.

35. *Paired sub-bands of 10 megahertz (5 megahertz pairs) and 20
    megahertz (10 megahertz pairs**).*** We have determined to divide
    each of the two remaining 15 megahertz bands into a 5 megahertz and
    10 megahertz segment, to be auctioned as paired bands of 5+5 and
    10+10 megahertz. The division into these spectrum blocks furthers
    several spectrum management goals.

36. The two paired 5 megahertz segments appear well-suited to the
    expressed preferences of new technology advocates, and, depending on
    the technology adopted will enable some data services, including
    Internet access. Five megahertz segments, paired as a 10 megahertz
    segment, enable a single wideband CDMA channel, which is sufficient
    to provide some forms of Internet access.[^79] FreeSpace initially
    sought 8 megahertz of spectrum, and subsequently proposed 6
    megahertz in four 1.5 megahertz paired channels.[^80] AT&T Wireless
    is reportedly using some elements of its Project Angel to develop a
    new wireless data service, to compete against wireless data access
    service provided by, *e.g.*, MCI (reselling Metricom service).[^81]
    Similarly, the Japanese Communications Research Laboratory, applying
    a new transmission system to existing Personal Handyphone System
    technology, which employs TDD transmission to serve approximately
    six million customers, reportedly has demonstrated a high-speed (384
    kbps) transmission system for multimedia communications to wireless
    mobile terminals.[^82]

37. The size and placement of the two 5 megahertz segments achieves
    other spectrum management goals as well. As the diagram illustrates,
    this structure reduces the number of existing television channels,
    and thus of incumbent television licensees, to which a new
    licensee's operations would potentially cause co-channel
    interference, compared with equal 7.5 megahertz segments. In
    addition, we believe that our approach furthers the development and
    deployment of many services using these segments, but particularly
    accommodates firms seeking to negotiate accelerated transition
    agreements with incumbent television licensees. Such firms may
    likely confront a simpler negotiation process, because the alignment
    of these segments with existing television channels requires them to
    negotiate with fewer co-channel incumbents in many areas. Also,
    because the new license will directly overlap with the spectrum
    assignment of only a single incumbent television station, this
    alignment reduces the "free rider" problem created when third
    parties benefit from others' negotiations. Nor is any offsetting
    burden created for entities interested in the 10 megahertz segments,
    as compared to an equal division into 7.5 megahertz segments.
    Entities interested in providing services consistent with these
    spectrum blocks thus benefit from a reduced burden of expense and
    delay in achieving full use of their licensed spectrum.[^83]

38. The wider, 10 megahertz segments should enable a broader range of
    broadband services, including Internet access at higher speeds. A 10
    megahertz segment, for example, is sufficient to provide two
    bidirectional 384 kb/s mobile data streams per sector, as well as
    smaller-capacity services, using high-tier cellular and PCS
    technologies consistent with 3G service classifications.[^84]
    Commenters such as Bell Atlantic and AirTouch assert that a large
    block of spectrum is needed to support 3G mobile telephony.[^85]
    Lucent, in describing the suitability of the 700 MHz band for 3G
    services, notes that the 5 megahertz minimum bandwidth increment is
    necessary to support the broadest range of 3G technologies,[^86] and
    the greater flexibility of larger bandwidth segments could be used
    to satisfy the asymmetric characteristics of data services. These
    wider segments will enable substantial augmentation of existing CMRS
    systems, whether for expansion into provision of next generation
    services under the 3G service classification or some other approach
    less directly linked to existing systems. They also have the
    potential to support new systems in appropriate circumstances, as US
    WEST states.[^87]

39. We recognize assertions by Cisco and others that establishing any
    sub-bands reduces spectrum efficiencies achieved by aggregation and
    creates more frequency boundaries between licensees that require
    interference management.[^88] We believe our decision here is
    appropriate, however. First, encouraging a variety of technologies
    and entrants is an important spectrum management goal. Subdividing
    the 36 megahertz of available spectrum will make it more likely that
    start-ups and companies that are not highly capitalized will have
    the opportunity to pursue spectrum. Second, our auction rules allow
    bidders to aggregate these band segments. This allows entities that
    believe they need to acquire a larger amount of spectrum than that
    available in the individual licenses to do so. Third, our choice of
    two licenses, rather than a single license, adds only one
    interference boundary as a constraint on spectrum efficiencies.
    While Cisco suggests that its approach to broadband Internet access
    would encourage the provision of such access to less densely
    developed areas, other parties that favor large spectrum block
    approaches generally do not suggest that a single large block is
    necessary to accommodate such important spectrum management goals.
    In the circumstances presented here, we conclude that our band plan,
    rather than a 30 or 36 megahertz license, best fulfills our
    statutory spectrum management responsibility.

40. *Paired-Band Architecture***.** To achieve effective flexibility,
    without constraining new technologies and services, the band plan
    designates the lower and upper 18 megahertz segments for distinct
    power limits, consistent with traditional practice for paired mobile
    services and the requests of providers such as AirTouch, AMTA, and
    US WEST.[^89] We establish different power limits for the lower
    frequency segment and the higher frequency segment. These limits
    reflect and optimize the efficient use of spectrum for the expected
    predominant use of each segment. Thus, power limits for the lower
    frequency band segment reflect its expected primary use for
    higher-power base station transmissions received by control, mobile
    and portable stations; in contrast, we have set power limits for the
    higher frequency band segment at levels that optimize its efficient
    use for the lower-power transmissions from control, mobile and
    portable stations that will be received by base stations. This
    approach enables more efficient spectrum use, by minimizing the
    "near-far" interference problem that arises in more extreme form by
    the juxtaposition of television transmission with land mobile
    services. Our Part 27 rules enable fixed services on either
    segment.[^90]

41. We recognize that advocates of lower power, TDD transmission seek
    smaller, unpaired sub-bands, and emission standards configured to
    encourage that mode of transmission.[^91] FreeSpace and other
    parties support the configuration of sub-bands and emission limits
    for TDD applications, and assert their preference for unpaired
    spectrum bands.[^92] Lower power technologies provide a range of
    voice and data services by flexibly using a single, contiguous band
    for asymmetric up- and down-link access.[^93] ArrayComm notes a
    trade press prediction that NTT will rely on TDD-based systems
    rather than W-CDMA to deploy the first commercial 3G systems, and
    submits a spectral efficiency comparison between various wireless
    technologies.[^94]

42. The majority of commenters note, however, that Frequency Division
    Duplex (FDD), which is the most commonly-used transmission procedure
    for PCS, cellular, and other mobile telephony applications, requires
    paired spectrum. Pairing of these bands under these circumstances
    will facilitate the auction procedure, by not requiring bidders
    seeking paired bands to prepare multiple bids. In sum, because
    paired bands are essential to these technologies, while technologies
    using unpaired spectrum can operate on paired segments if the
    segments are large enough, we conclude that the post-auction
    unpairing of this spectrum creates less of an overall problem for
    the expeditious activation of these bands than would the need to
    pursue post-auction pairing, if our rules did not initially
    establish a paired configuration.

## Licensing Rules

43. In the *NPRM* we sought comment on licensing rules for a full range
    of possible licensees, consistent with our stated intention to
    permit as much flexibility in the use of this spectrum as is
    consistent with the requirements of Section 303(y) of the Act. In
    the interests of flexibility and optimum spectrum use, we have
    enabled the provision of any service in this Order, so long as the
    licensee complies with the technical rules governing spectrum use.
    The following discussion addresses licensing rules for uses of this
    spectrum other than new broadcast-type services.[^95]

### Regulatory Status

44. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we sought comment on
    whether to apply the existing licensing framework established in
    Part 27 for Wireless Communications Service (WCS)[^96] to the
    746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands.[^97] Part 27 accords licensees
    the flexibility to provide any fixed, mobile or radiolocation
    service contained in the non-government column of Table of
    Allocations in Part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules[^98] for this
    spectrum, and provides, *inter alia*: (i) the limitation of
    eligibility requirements to foreign ownership restrictions set forth
    in Section 310 of the Communications Act; (ii) the exclusion of WCS
    spectrum holdings from application of the CMRS spectrum cap; (iii)
    flexibility to partition geographic service areas and disaggregate
    spectrum blocks; (iv) determination of regulatory status by a
    licensee\'s designation in its long-form application; and (v) with
    some exceptions, incorporation of the competitive bidding rules set
    forth in Part 1 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^99]

45. Noting in the *NPRM* that the licensing framework for Part 27
    permits applicants to request common carrier status as well as
    non-common carrier status under a single license,[^100] we proposed
    to authorize licensees in the 746--764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to
    provide a variety or combination of fixed and mobile, common carrier
    and non-common carrier, and broadcast services, anywhere within
    their licensed areas at any time, consistent with the regulatory
    status specified by the licensee in its long form application
    (Form 601) and with applicable interference protection requirements.
    We tentatively concluded that this approach was likely to achieve
    efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process. In this
    regard, we sought comment in the *NPRM* on the need to modify Form
    601 or any other appropriate form(s) to account for the flexibility
    of use permitted for these bands. Several parties advocating
    regulatory neutrality in administering this spectrum endorsed our
    proposal.[^101] TWDC, for example, contends that traditional
    regulatory requirements can disadvantage one class of participants
    and can discourage experimentation and the development of new
    services.[^102]

46. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** To fulfill our enforcement obligations
    and ensure compliance with the statutory requirements of Titles II
    and III of the Communications Act, we will require applicants to
    identify whether they seek to provide common carrier services or
    other services permitted under the final rules adopted in this
    proceeding. However, licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz
    bands will not be required to describe the specific services they
    seek to provide but only to designate the regulatory status of the
    services.[^103] To facilitate this result, we have amended item 35
    of the Form 601 to add the broadcast option. Licensees also will be
    required to notify the Commission within 30 days of service changes
    that alter the regulatory status of their services. When the change
    results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the
    existing service, a different approach may apply, depending on the
    nature of the service affected.[^104]

### Eligibility and Use Restrictions; Spectrum Aggregation

47. **[Background]{.underline}.** Sections 27.12 and 27.302 of the
    Commission\'s Rules[^105] impose no restrictions on eligibility,
    other than the foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section
    310 of the Communications Act.[^106] Our proposal to impose no
    additional eligibility requirements is endorsed by several
    parties.[^107] We also proposed to impose no restrictions on the
    amount of spectrum that any one licensee may obtain in the 746-764
    MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in the same licensed geographic service
    area. We received conflicting responses to this portion of our
    proposal.[^108]

48. With respect to out-of-band spectrum aggregation, we noted in the
    *NPRM* that the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands may be used for
    mobile services comparable to the cellular, broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
    spectrum for which the CMRS spectrum cap was devised.[^109] The CMRS
    spectrum cap in Section 20.6 of the Commission's Rules governs the
    amount of CMRS spectrum that can be licensed to a single entity
    within a particular geographic area. Under Section 20.6, a single
    entity may acquire attributable interests in the licenses of
    broadband PCS, cellular, and SMR services that cumulatively do not
    exceed 45 megahertz of spectrum within the same geographic area.
    [^110] In rural geographic areas, an entity may acquire as much as
    55 megahertz of spectrum. The CMRS spectrum cap is intended to
    preclude licensees from aggregating sufficient amounts of CMRS
    spectrum in a single geographic area to enable them, singly or in
    combination with other licensees, to exclude competitors, reduce the
    quantity or quality of services provided, or increase prices to the
    detriment of customers.[^111] In the *NPRM* we inquired whether CMRS
    provided on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands should be exempt
    from the CMRS spectrum cap.[^112] This proposal was supported by a
    number of commenters,[^113] although others argued for subjecting
    these bands to the CMRS spectrum cap.[^114]

49. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We will impose no restrictions on
    eligibility for a license in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands.
    Thus, no prospective licensee will be barred from participation in
    the auction or from post-auction acquisition of a license for this
    spectrum based on its status as a provider of cable services, for
    example, or of telephone or other telecommunications services. We
    believe that opening this spectrum to as wide a range of applicants
    as possible will encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop new
    technologies and services, while helping to ensure the most
    efficient use of the spectrum.[^115]

50. We have pursued a policy of flexible use for the 747-762 MHz and
    777-792 MHz bands. We are particularly concerned that eligibility
    restrictions could impede efficient development of this spectrum.
    Were we to exclude all incumbent providers of services that could
    compete with services that could be provided using this spectrum, we
    would exclude virtually every major telecommunications service
    provider active today. We anticipate that use of this spectrum will
    offer incumbent providers of both wireline and wireless services an
    opportunity to augment their existing services and systems, rather
    than to act in an anticompetitive manner, for example, by
    warehousing the spectrum acquired.

51. With respect to the CMRS spectrum cap, we noted in the *NPRM* that
    the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands may be used for mobile
    services comparable to the cellular, broadband PCS, and SMR spectrum
    for which the CMRS spectrum cap was devised. Recognizing that the
    spectrum cap limits were set on the basis of the particular amount
    of spectrum (180 megahertz) available at that time for CMRS, we
    indicated in the *Spectrum Cap Report and Order* that we would
    evaluate whether the cap should apply, or be adjusted, at the time
    that we made more spectrum available for CMRS.[^116] It has been our
    expectation that, as we made more spectrum available for CMRS
    services, we would either adjust the cap upward or refrain from
    including the new spectrum within the scope of the cap.

52. Consistent with our proposal in the *NPRM*, we have determined that
    the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, if used to provide CMRS,
    should not count against the 45/55 megahertz spectrum cap. In our
    recent biennial review of the CMRS spectrum cap, we declined to
    increase the cap, except in those rural areas in which we determined
    that an increase was necessary to facilitate the deployment of
    CMRS.[^117] We believe that the presence of the CMRS spectrum cap
    for the existing 180 megahertz of CMRS spectrum provides a
    sufficient safeguard against consolidation of spectrum to refrain
    from extending the cap to the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. We
    also are interested in facilitating the use of these bands for next
    generation applications that would benefit from those economies of
    scale provided by licensing on a national or large regional basis.
    In addition, it is not clear that this spectrum will be used
    primarily or even substantially for CMRS services or that the
    services that are provided will be competitive with CMRS. The
    spectrum is presently encumbered and is likely to remain so, to at
    least some extent, until 2006. In no part of the country is this
    band totally unencumbered; in certain parts of the country,
    particularly metropolitan areas, very little of this band is
    presently available. In light of the present level of encumbrance
    and the extended transition period provided for incumbent television
    broadcasters to move out of the band, it would not make sense to
    count this spectrum against the current cap.

53. Finally, our decision furthers the public interest better than
    including this spectrum in the cap and then adjusting the cap
    upward. That course would permit reconsolidation within the present
    CMRS bands. We note that our approach here is consistent with that
    in other bands for which we have adopted very flexible allocations
    and service rules.[^118] As we indicated in the *Spectrum Cap Report
    and Order*, reconsolidation would prompt concern about reductions in
    competition and attendant increases in prices and diminution in the
    quality of services provided.[^119] We deem it appropriate to
    provide additional spectrum for incumbent providers to implement
    broadband CMRS services, provided this can be accomplished without
    sacrificing the substantial benefits that the public has realized
    from competition in CMRS services. We believe that excluding this
    spectrum from the cap will not result in any additional
    concentration, or reduce competition in the CMRS marketplace.
    Correspondingly, keeping the cap in place on present CMRS bands, at
    least for the time being, will help to ensure that the competitive
    market structure is maintained.

### Size of Service Areas for Geographic Area Licensing

54. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the past, Part 27 spectrum has been
    licensed based on one of two kinds of service areas:[^120] twelve
    Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAs)[^121] or 52 Major Economic
    Areas (MEAs). REAs and MEAs are based on the 172 Economic Areas
    (EAs) defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, as modified by the
    Commission. Licensing Part 27 spectrum using REAs and MEAs allowed
    us to balance various specific competing needs.[^122] In the 220 MHz
    auction, we auctioned spectrum in six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)
    which were also based on EAs as defined by the Department of
    Commerce.[^123] In the *NPRM*, we requested comment on the type of
    service area or areas that should be used to license the 746-764 MHz
    and 776-794 MHz bands.

55. The majority of commenters tended to recommend larger geographic
    sizes for this spectrum band.[^124] Those parties advocating CMRS
    use for the spectrum generally tended to recommend larger geographic
    areas. They contend that the trend in the marketplace toward the
    development of nationwide footprints by CMRS carriers demonstrates
    that CMRS is increasingly a nationwide service and should be
    licensed on that basis.[^125] Some companies proposing innovative
    technologies argued for a nationwide license divided into narrow
    bands at different frequencies, which would enable them to bypass
    incumbent TV stations.[^126] A larger geographic licensing area, it
    is argued, would also allow these new service providers to build-out
    over large regions reaching rural areas in a cost-effective manner
    by taking advantage of the long-distance propagation characteristics
    of this UHF band.[^127] Other reasons given by commenters for larger
    geographic area licensing include the economies of scale needed to
    lower equipment costs[^128] and to deploy innovative services
    rapidly;[^129] advantages in facilitating interoperability and
    standards;[^130] the simplification of interference
    coordination;[^131] and lowered-cost pricing plans by minimizing
    roaming costs[^132] or allowing for single-rate pricing plans.[^133]
    A few commenters argued for much smaller geographic licensing areas
    (172 EAs or smaller) in order to be affordable for rural
    areas,[^134] to enable reuse of existing tower sites,[^135] or to
    better serve smaller market areas.[^136]

56. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We have determined to license both the
    20 megahertz and the 10 megahertz licenses according to the six
    Economic Areas Groupings (EAGs).[^137] We believe that auctioning
    both licenses on the same geographic basis will enable aggregation
    into a 30 megahertz band needed for certain applications, for
    example, for high-speed data.

57. In reaching our conclusion on the appropriate service area size for
    this spectrum, we have considered several factors. First, we have
    assessed the use or uses to which this spectrum is likely to be put
    and determined the geographic scope that, based on the record, would
    best facilitate rapid deployment.[^138] Second, Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act includes as objectives for competitive
    bidding the avoidance of excessive concentration of licenses and the
    dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants.[^139]
    Third, we are mindful of our statutory obligation to conduct the
    auction for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to ensure that all
    proceeds are deposited by September 30, 2000[^140] and of our
    experience in previous auctions, which has shown that simultaneous
    multiple-round auctions for a larger number of licenses are more
    complex and take longer to complete than similar auctions involving
    fewer licenses. Fourth, while individual parties will be able as
    part of the auction process to aggregate service areas[^141] or to
    join bidding consortia to obtain spectrum rights to areas smaller
    than the Commission's licensing areas, there are risks and costs
    associated with attempting to do either. This is particularly true
    when there are a large number of small geographic areas. Thus, we
    think the best approach is for the Commission to attempt to
    determine as a starting point the most efficiently sized geographic
    areas. Finally, as discussed below, to the extent that our decision
    does not result in optimally sized initial areas for all licensees,
    we are also allowing for post-auction partitioning and aggregation
    of licenses for those bidders whose business plans require smaller
    or larger geographic areas. These rules should allow post-auction
    transactions to facilitate the most efficient distribution of
    licenses.

58. We concur with the comments advocating that we use the same
    geographic licensing areas for various segments of the band to
    permit flexibility in the use of this spectrum. For instance, as
    Cisco argues, regardless of the geographic area, having both
    licenses (10 and 20 megahertz) auctioned for the same sized regions
    would enable aggregation into a 30 megahertz band in a particular
    region. This bandwidth is needed for certain applications,
    especially as a third pipe for broadband connection to the
    Internet.[^142] Recognizing the significance this capability would
    add to the flexible uses for this spectrum, we have determined to
    license both the 20 megahertz and the 10 megahertz licenses
    according to the same license areas and have opted for the six
    Economic Areas Groupings (EAGs).

59. In reaching the decision for two sets of six EAG licenses (twelve
    total), we have ruled out MEAs or EAs recognizing the overall
    advantages of larger-sized areas for this band:

-   To provide optimum opportunity for alternative aggregation
    approaches to suit a wide variety of possible services and business
    plans such as building a nationwide footprint or acquiring both
    licenses in a particular region.[^143]

-   To allow the growth of existing technologies while encouraging the
    development of new applications. When areas are inefficiently small,
    the costs of aggregation during or after the auction in terms of
    delay and transaction costs may harm both service providers and
    customers alike.[^144]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To take advantage of opportunities afforded by economies of scale:
    for developing standard protocols for particular applications and
    for manufacturing equipment to operate at specific frequencies of
    the spectrum.[^145]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To help address the problems associated with incumbent TV stations
    in this band, which operate in fairly large areas protected from
    interference. To license new spectrum in smaller areas would create
    many situations in which the protection zone would overlap the
    incumbent license areas or create the need for complicated
    protection agreements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To facilitate conducting the auction in a timely manner.

60. These large geographic areas would readily allow aggregation into a
    nationwide service area and would enable multiple parties to bid on
    this spectrum for the provision of high-speed wireless data
    services. Given the existing build-out of CMRS carriers on a
    national level, new providers entering this competitive market or
    existing carriers adding new services to their growing customer base
    may wish to aggregate either the 10 or 20 megahertz regional
    licenses into a nationwide footprint.[^146] Others, following the
    Cisco proposal, for exclusively fixed high-speed wireless data, may
    wish to aggregate the two bands within a single region to increase
    bandwidth to the 30 megahertz to provide high-speed Internet access,
    resulting in different service providers for different
    regions.[^147] However, in light of the variety of potential
    services proposed in the record, including for emerging technologies
    or next-generation applications, the most desirable or efficient
    scale of service area varies according to the business plans of the
    particular commenting party. Some may need less spectrum as well as
    smaller geographic area.[^148]

61. In addition, we conclude that the six EAGs, as opposed to a
    nationwide license, will more easily allow partitioning where
    appropriate to serve the needs of smaller users and rural
    communities. Partitioning -- which could be conditionally agreed
    upon prior to the auction or arranged post-auction -- will also
    allow start-ups and rural-based companies additional opportunities
    to acquire spectrum for the provision of service.[^149] Thus, we
    decide to use EAGs for all licenses but allow licensees to partition
    them into smaller areas, as well as to aggregate them into larger
    geographic areas. This approach should provide maximum flexibility
    to the parties to adjust their operating area most efficiently given
    marketplace and technological needs.

### Foreign Ownership Restrictions

62. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we proposed means for
    implementing the foreign ownership provisions set forth in Sections
    310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act.[^150] Section 310(a)
    prohibits any foreign government or representative from holding a
    station license. Section 310(b) prohibits certain defined foreign
    ownership interests in broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en
    route or aeronautical fixed radio station licenses. One comment,
    supporting our proposal, was received on this portion of the
    *NPRM*.[^151]

63. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We have determined that Section 27.12
    of the Commission\'s Rules, which implements Section 310 of the
    Act,[^152] should apply to applicants for licenses in the 747-762
    MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. A nonbroadcast applicant requesting
    authorization only for non-common carrier services will be subject
    to Section 310(a) but not to the additional prohibitions of Section
    310(b). An applicant requesting authorization for common carrier
    services will be subject to both Section 310(a) and Section 310(b).

64. In the case of Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), satellite
    service, or Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the
    Commission requires an applicant electing non-common carrier status
    to submit the same information that common carrier applicants submit
    to address the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310(b) of
    the Act.[^153] In light of Part 27 licensees\' ability to provide
    common carrier and non-common carrier services, Commission rules
    require all licensees, even non-common carriers, to report alien
    ownership on a consistent basis, to enable the Commission to monitor
    compliance more effectively. As we proposed in the *NPRM*, we will
    follow the same approach in the case of applicants for the 747-762
    MHz and 777-792 MHz spectrum. Common carriers and non-common
    carriers will not be subject to varied reporting obligations, but
    will be required to file changes in foreign ownership information to
    the extent required by Part 27 of our Rules. By establishing parity
    in reporting obligations, however, we do not establish a single
    substantive standard for compliance. Thus, we do not and would not
    disqualify an applicant requesting authorization exclusively to
    provide non-common carrier services from a license simply because
    its citizenship information would disqualify it from a common
    carrier license.

65. The statutory foreign ownership restrictions are applicable to
    licensees to the extent they apply to a particular service being
    offered in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands.However, we note
    that, in response to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic
    Telecommunications Agreement, we have liberalized our policy
    concerning foreign ownership of common carrier radio licensees under
    Section 310(b)(4). We now presume that ownership by entities from
    countries that are WTO members serves the public interest. Ownership
    by entities from countries that are not WTO members continues to be
    subject to the "effective competitive opportunities" test
    established by the Commission. [^154]

### License Term; Renewal Expectancy

66. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM* we proposed to adopt the
    license term and renewal provisions in Part 27 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, for other than new broadcast-type services. Section 27.13
    limits the license term to 10 years from the date of original
    issuance or renewal.[^155] Section 27.14(c) establishes a licensee's
    right to a renewal expectancy.[^156] Most commenters addressing the
    issue endorsed this approach.[^157] However, one commenter, in
    addressing the issue of performance requirements, expressed concern
    that new licensees might not be able to comply with performance
    requirements in some markets, given the continued existence of
    incumbent broadcasters until 2006.[^158]

67. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** The Communications Act imposes no time
    limit on licenses issued by the Commission, other than those for
    broadcast services, which are limited to an eight-year license
    term.[^159] Although we proposed a ten-year license term in the
    *NPRM*, we are concerned that the continued existence of incumbent
    broadcasters in the licensed spectrum may retard a licensee's
    development and use of the spectrum. Thus, we are modifying the
    license term as it relates to the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands,
    to accommodate licensees' need for additional time to develop and
    use this spectrum, in light of its continued use by broadcasters
    until 2006. Based on our estimate that an average of eight years
    additional time is a reasonable time period in which to comply with
    the performance requirements set forth below,[^160] we have
    determined that a license issued to a winning bidder for this
    spectrum will extend eight years beyond the year 2006, the date as
    of which incumbent broadcasters are required to have relocated to
    other portions of the spectrum, that is, until January 1, 2014, for
    a total of approximately 14 years. [^161] However, if a licensee
    commences new broadcast-type operations on or before January 1,
    2006, the licensee will be required to seek renewal of its license
    at the end of the eight-year term following commencement of such
    broadcast operations.

68. We adopt these license provisions for all licensees in the 747-762
    MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, as well as the right to a renewal
    expectancy established in Section 27.14(b), for nonbroadcast
    services. In the event that a license is partitioned or
    disaggregated, as discussed below, any partitionee or disaggregatee
    is authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the original
    licensee\'s term, and the partitionee or disaggregatee may obtain a
    renewal expectancy on the same basis as other licensees in the band.
    All licensees meeting the substantial service requirement discussed
    below will be deemed to have met this element of the renewal
    expectancy requirement regardless of which of the construction
    options, described below, the licensee has chosen. This approach is
    appropriate because a licensee, through partitioning, should not be
    able to confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of
    its license grant.[^162] In addition, we conclude that, to claim a
    renewal expectancy, a renewal applicant involved in a comparative
    renewal proceeding must include, at a minimum, the showing required
    in Section 27.14(b) of the Commission\'s Rules. [^163]

### Performance Requirements

69. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we proposed to adopt
    the performance requirement in Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's
    rules for licensees in the 746-764 and 776-794 bands.[^164] Section
    27.14(a) requires licensees to provide "substantial service" to
    their service area within 10 years of being licensed.[^165] A
    failure to meet this requirement results in forfeiture of the
    license and in the licensee\'s ineligibility to regain the license.
    Although our proposal received general support, one commenter
    expressed concern that the continued existence of incumbent
    broadcasters may make it difficult for new licensees to comply with
    these performance requirements in some markets.[^166]

70. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** In light of the incumbents issue
    identified by one commenter, we are amending the performance
    requirement in Section 27.14(a) of the Commission\'s Rules as it
    relates to the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. Under the amended
    performance requirement, a licensee must provide "substantial
    service" to its service area no later than January 1, 2014, *i.e.*,
    eight years after 2006, the date as of which incumbent broadcasters
    are required to have relocated to other portions of the
    spectrum.[^167]

The *Part 27 Report and Order* provided several examples of "safe
harbors" that would demonstrate substantial service, which we will apply
to licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands.[^168] The
"substantial service" construction requirement provides licensees with
the flexibility to offer the full range of services under the
allocations table and accommodate new and innovative services.[^169]
Licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands may avail themselves
of any of the following "safe harbors" for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792
MHz bands. First, for a licensee that chooses to offer fixed,
point-to-point services, the construction of four permanent links per
one million people in its licensed service area at the license-renewal
mark would constitute substantial service. Second, for a licensee that
chooses to offer mobile services or fixed, point-to-multipoint services,
a demonstration of coverage for 20 percent of the population of its
licensed service area at the license-renewal mark would constitute
substantial service. We encourage licensees, however, to build out not
only in urban areas and areas of high density population but in rural
areas as well, or to partition their license to allow others to do so.

71. However, a licensee that limits buildout to urban areas and areas
    with high density population, will not necessarily be ensured of
    license renewal, even if otherwise compliant with the construction
    benchmarks. We believe that the "substantial service" standard
    requires the licensee to buildout in rural areas as well .

72. We conclude that the buildout requirement we are imposing for this
    spectrum fulfills our obligations under Section 309(j)(4)(B) of the
    Act,[^170] and that the auction rules for this spectrum, together
    with the service rules adopted in this proceeding, and our overall
    competition and universal service policies, constitute effective
    safeguards and performance requirements for licensing this spectrum.
    However, we reserve the right to review our construction
    requirements in the future if we receive complaints related to
    Section 309(j)(4)(B), or if a reassessment is warranted because
    spectrum is being warehoused or is otherwise not being used despite
    demand. We will also reserve the right to impose additional, more
    stringent construction requirements on licenses in the future in the
    event that actual anticompetitive or universal service problems
    develop.

### Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses

73. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we proposed to permit
    licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to partition
    their service areas and to disaggregate their spectrum, and
    tentatively concluded that geographic partitioning and spectrum
    disaggregation can result in efficient spectrum use and economic
    opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small
    business, rural telephone, minority-owned, and women-owned
    applicants, as required by Section 309(j)(4)(C) of the
    Communications Act.[^171] Although there is general support for our
    proposal to permit disaggregation and partitioning on these bands,
    several commenters argue that disaggregation and partitioning are
    rare and that they thus provide little opportunity for small
    entities to enter the market for telecommunications services.[^172]

74. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We continue to believe it advisable to
    permit licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands to
    partition their service areas and to disaggregate their spectrum.
    Despite assertions to the contrary, we believe that adopting this
    approach will improve smaller entities' ability to overcome entry
    barriers through the creation of smaller licenses that require less
    capital, and will thereby facilitate greater participation by rural
    telephone companies and other smaller entities, including those
    owned by minorities and women.[^173] With respect to the 10 and 20
    megahertz licenses, to be auctioned on an EAG basis, there is an
    opportunity to partition into smaller regions. This allows bidders
    for the 10 and 20 megahertz licenses maximum flexibility to
    partition the service areas so as to provide a particular type of
    service for a particular service area. As a corollary to this
    approach, we have also provided bidding credits to encourage
    participation in the development of this spectrum by rural telephone
    companies and small businesses.

75. Section 27.15 of the Commission\'s Rules,[^174] to which licensees
    in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands will be subject, permits
    licensees to partition their licensed geographic service areas or
    disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant
    of their licenses.[^175] We will permit geographic partitioning of
    any service area defined by the partitioner and partitionee,
    spectrum disaggregation without restriction on the amount of
    spectrum to be disaggregated and combined partitioning and
    disaggregation.[^176] Pursuant to Section 27.15, the partitioning
    licensee must include with its request a description of the
    partitioned service area and calculations of the population of the
    partitioned service area and the licensed geographic service
    area,[^177] and will be subject to the provisions against unjust
    enrichment set forth in Section 27.15(c).[^178]

76. As we proposed in the *NPRM*, parties to partitioning agreements may
    choose between two options for satisfying the construction
    requirement.[^179] Under the first option, the partitioner and
    partitionee would each certify that it will independently satisfy
    the substantial service requirement for its respective partitioned
    area. If a licensee fails to meet its substantial service
    requirement during the relevant license term, the non-performing
    licensee\'s authorization will be subject to cancellation at the end
    of the license term. Under the second option, the partitioner can
    certify that it has met or will meet the substantial service
    requirement for the entire market. If the partitioner fails to meet
    the substantial service standard during the relevant license term,
    only its license will be subject to cancellation at the end of the
    license term; the partitionee\'s license will not be affected by the
    failure.

77. We offer these two options to partitioning parties because we
    believe that Part 27 licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz
    bands may be motivated to enter into partitioning arrangements for
    different reasons and under various circumstances. For example, a
    licensee might be motivated to partition its license in order to
    reduce its construction costs. In that case, the original licensee
    would have less population to cover in order to meet its substantial
    service requirement and might find the first option more attractive.
    Under another scenario, a licensee that has met or is close to
    meeting its substantial service requirement may be approached by
    another entity interested in serving a niche market in a portion of
    the service area. Under these circumstances, the second option may
    seem more attractive to the parties. In either instance, the public
    interest is advanced by permitting that flexibility, in terms of
    service areas and niche markets, conducive to optimizing the
    viability and value of the licenses partitioned, while precluding
    circumvention of our construction requirements.[^180]

78. In addition, we will allow parties to disaggregation agreements to
    choose between two options for satisfying the construction
    requirement.[^181] Under the first option, the disaggregator and
    disaggregatee would certify that each will share responsibility for
    meeting the substantial service requirement for the geographic
    service area. If the parties choose this option, both parties\'
    performance will be evaluated at the end of the relevant license
    term, and both licenses could be subject to cancellation, should the
    requirement not be met. The second option allows the parties to
    agree that either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will be
    responsible for meeting the substantial service requirement for the
    geographic service area. If the parties choose this option, and the
    party responsible for meeting the construction requirement fails to
    do so, only the license of the non-performing party will be subject
    to cancellation. As with partitioned licenses, providing these
    options preserves the public interest in developing the spectrum to
    the same degree as that required had the disaggregation (or
    partitioning) not occurred.[^182]

### Public Notice of Initial Applications; Petitions to Deny

79. **[Background]{.underline}.** Section 309(b) and Section 309(c) of
    the Communications Act require public notice for initial
    applications, and substantial amendments thereof.[^183] These
    requirements provide that no such application shall be granted
    earlier than 30 days following the issuance of public notice by the
    Commission, and that the Commission may not require petitions to
    deny such applications to be filed earlier than 30 days following
    the public notice. The same provision also grants the Commission the
    authority to impose public notice requirements for other licenses,
    even though the statute does not require public notice. However, the
    administrative procedures for spectrum auctions adopted in Section
    3008 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997[^184] and Consolidated
    Appropriations Act[^185] permit the Commission to shorten notice
    periods in the auction context to five days for petitions to deny
    and seven days for public notice, notwithstanding the provisions of
    Section 309(b) of the Communications Act. In the *Part 1 Third
    Report and Order,*[^186] the Commission exercised this statutory
    authority by amending Section 1.2108(b) and Section 1.2108(c) of the
    Commission\'s Rules[^187] to provide for a five-day period for
    filing petitions to deny and a seven-day public notice period for
    all auctionable services. We received no comments on our proposal to
    adopt these deadlines for services in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794
    MHz spectrum bands.

80. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We have determined to adopt for this
    spectrum the seven-day notice requirement for initial applications
    and the five-day deadline for petitions to deny. An applicant filing
    for both common carrier and non-common carrier authorizations in a
    single license and wishing to make subsequent status changes will
    also be subject to the seven-day public notice requirement.

### Operating Rules

81. In the *NPRM*, we proposed to subject licensees in the 746-764 MHz
    and 776-794 MHz bands to the Part 27 rules that govern operations,
    subject to any modifications adopted in this proceeding. We proposed
    operating rules for a full range of possible licensees, consistent
    with our stated intention to permit as much flexibility in the use
    of this spectrum as is consistent with the requirements of Section
    303(y) of the Act. The following discussion focuses on operating
    rules for licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands to the
    extent that they offer common carrier services on these bands. We do
    not purport to survey at this time the range of statutory and
    regulatory provisions that may be relevant to any new service
    offerings on this band that qualify as new broadcast-type
    services.[^188]

### Applicability of General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance

82. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we reviewed our
    decisions respecting forbearance from the requirements of the
    Communications Act and interpreted the potential effect of these
    decisions on fixed common carrier services provided on the 746-764
    MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We noted that we have exercised our
    authority under Section 332(c)(1)(A) of the Communications Act to
    forbear for CMRS from certain of the obligations imposed on common
    carriers by Title II of the Communications Act, such as the filing
    of tariffs and intercarrier contracts and maintenance of certain
    records. [^189] We have also extended the deadline for CMRS
    providers to support service provider local number portability (LNP)
    until November 24, 2002,[^190] and have forborne from requiring CMRS
    providers to file tariffs for most international services, and from
    applying most of Section 226 of the Act, relating to telephone
    operator services.[^191] We noted that we have also exercised our
    expanded forbearance authority[^192] in the case of wireline
    carriers, for the "complete detariffing" of interstate,
    interexchange services offered by non-dominant interexchange
    carriers. [^193] In addition, we have eliminated Part 41
    requirements applicable to franks,[^194] as well as the prior
    approval requirements for most *pro forma* transfer applications
    involving telecommunications carriers.[^195]

83. We also noted that, in the *47 GHz Notice*, which proposed service
    rules for spectrum bands allocated to both fixed and mobile
    services, we sought comment on whether the exercise of our Section
    332(c)(1)(A) forbearance authority with respect to CMRS, in the
    *CMRS Second Report and Order,* should be extended to fixed wireless
    service carriers.[^196] We sought comment in the *NPRM* for this
    proceeding on whether we should exercise our authority under Section
    10 of the Act to forbear, in a similar fashion, from applying to
    non-CMRS licensees of this spectrum the specific Title II
    requirements that the Commission has previously determined not to
    apply to CMRS licensees. However, cognizant of the fact that it will
    take longer for us to conduct a forbearance analysis than to adopt
    service rules for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, we proposed
    an interim solution for non-CMRS licensees of these bands. Section
    214(a) of the Communications Act[^197] requires that no common
    carrier may discontinue, reduce, or impair service without
    Commission approval. We proposed a discontinuance provision that is
    consistent with common carrier obligations set forth in Subpart E of
    Part 1 and in Parts 61 through Part 64 of the Commission\'s
    Rules.[^198] We also proposed to apply other parts of the
    Commission\'s Rules to ensure compliance of fixed service common
    carriers operating in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands with
    Title II of the Communications Act.

84. AirTouch supports the Commission's Part 27 approach to Title II
    forbearance.[^199] AMTA urges the Commission to forbear from
    imposing its Title II common carrier obligations on non-CMRS
    licensees and on CMRS licensees that have been exempted from E911
    and number portability requirements. AMTA argues that these carriers
    serve a more specialized business-oriented market oriented
    principally toward dispatch services and lack those technical
    capabilities that would permit them to compete in the broader CMRS
    marketplace.[^200]

85. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** Pursuant to our prior exercise of
    authority under Section 332(c)(1)(A) to forbear for CMRS from
    certain of the obligations imposed on common carriers by Title II of
    the Communications Act, common carriers classified as CMRS,
    including those providing mobile services in the 747-762 MHz and
    777-792 MHz bands, will not be required to file contracts of
    service, seek authority for interlocking directors,[^201] or submit
    applications for new facilities or discontinuance of existing
    facilities, and are prohibited from filing tariffs for interstate
    service to their customers or for interstate access service. CMRS
    providers on this spectrum will be required to support service
    provider LNP by November 24, 2002. Such providers also will not be
    required to file tariffs for most international services or be
    subject to most of Section 226 of the Act, relating to telephone
    operator services. In addition, CMRS providers in the 747-762 MHz
    and 777-792 MHz bands will be subject to the Commission's complete
    detariffing of interstate, interexchange services offered by
    non-dominant interexchange carriers, to our elimination of Part 41
    requirements applicable to franks, and to our elimination of the
    prior approval requirements for most *pro forma* transfer
    applications involving telecommunications carriers.

86. Although we solicited comment on the proper application of our
    forbearance authority with respect to this spectrum, we received no
    comments on the appropriate interpretation of the forbearance
    criteria in this context and no proposals concerning additional
    forbearance from specific regulatory provisions otherwise applicable
    to fixed service providers operating on this spectrum. We continue
    to invite suggestions on ways in which we can alleviate or
    streamline regulations that would otherwise be applicable to fixed
    services provided on this spectrum. In the *NPRM* we specifically
    addressed the requirements of Section 214(a) as they apply to
    licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands that voluntarily
    discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community or part of a
    community and are subject to the prior authorization requirement in
    Section 63.71 of the Commission\'s Rules.[^202] Subsequent to
    issuance of the *NPRM*, we amended Section 63.71 to provide for the
    automatic grant of a nondominant common carrier's application for
    discontinuance after 31 days.[^203] We are adopting this approach
    for fixed service common carriers here, to ensure comparable
    regulatory treatment between wireline providers and fixed wireless
    providers operating on the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. [^204]

87. As we indicated in the *NPRM*, a non-common carrier licensee in the
    747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands that voluntarily discontinues,
    reduces, or impairs service to a community or part of a community
    will be required to give written notice to the Commission within
    seven days. However, neither a fixed service common carrier, nor a
    non-common carrier licensee need surrender its license for
    cancellation, if "discontinuance" is merely a change in common
    carrier or non-common carrier status.

88. We do not find that the Commission's network reliability
    requirements will apply to fixed service common carrier licensees on
    this spectrum. Thus, if the service provided by a fixed service
    common carrier licensee is involuntarily discontinued, reduced, or
    impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the licensee must promptly
    notify the Commission, in writing, of the reasons for the
    discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service, including a
    statement indicating when normal service is to be resumed. When
    normal service is resumed, the licensee must promptly notify the
    Commission.

### Equal Employment Opportunity 

89. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we noted that Part 27
    does not include an explicit Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
    provision.[^205] We also noted that Parts 24 (PCS) and Part 26
    (General Wireless Communications Service) similarly lack an EEO
    provision although specific EEO provisions exist in other parts of
    our Rules.[^206] We noted that we had initiated a rulemaking on our
    Part 73 EEO rules and sought comment on whether there are any
    reasons not to apply Part 73 rules to conventional broadcasters
    operating in these spectrum bands and licensed under Part 27. As to
    non-broadcast services on these bands, we invited comment on whether
    we should include a separate EEO provision in Part 27 and, if so,
    which of our EEO rules we should adopt.[^207] No commenter addressed
    this issue.

90. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** An applicant's EEO requirements will
    depend on the type of service the applicant chooses to provide. As
    previously stated, in the interests of flexibility and optimum
    spectrum use, we have enabled the provision of any service
    identified in Section 27.2 of the Commission's Rules[^208] and this
    Order, so long as the licensee complies with the technical rules
    governing spectrum use. The Commission's EEO Rules are
    service-specific; different EEO Rules govern different services. Our
    modified FCC Form 601 requires an applicant to choose one, or
    several, of four regulatory statuses: (a) common carrier, (b)
    non-common carrier, (c) private, internal communications, or (d)
    broadcast.[^209] An applicant's election on its FCC Form 601 will
    determine the EEO Rules that apply to the applicant.

91. Allowing a licensee to self-characterize its regulatory status in
    this proceeding is consistent with the flexible approach that the
    Commission took in the *DBS NPRM.*[^210] The Commission in the *DBS
    NPRM* proposed that DBS (direct broadcast satellite) service
    licensees have the choice of providing service on a broadcast,
    common carrier, or non-broadcast, non-common carrier basis with an
    applicant's self-characterization determinant of the applicable EEO
    rules. Licensees in the 700 MHz spectrum have the choice of
    providing any service authorized under Section 27.2 of the
    Commission's Rules[^211] so long as the licensee complies with the
    technical rules governing spectrum use.[^212]

92. We therefore conclude that that an applicant's EEO requirements are
    determined by the type of service an applicant chooses to provide.
    All commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers are subject to
    the Commission's EEO requirements,[^213] for example, see Parts 22
    and 90 of our rules.[^214] Similarly, a licensee that provides
    broadcast service will be subject to the Commission's EEO Rules
    contained in Section 73.2080.[^215] We also note that commercial
    mobile service providers are generally subject to the Commission's
    common carrier EEO obligations.[^216]

## Technical Rules

93. All licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, including
    licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or
    disaggregation, will be subject to the general provisions of Part 27
    relating to equipment authorization, frequency stability, antenna
    structures and air navigation, international coordination,
    environmental requirements, quiet zones, and disturbance of AM
    broadcast antenna patterns.[^217] In addition, the following
    technical rules will apply to these licensees.

### In-Band Interference Control

94. **[Background]{.underline}.** As we noted in the NPRM, a broad range
    of services and technologies will operate on this spectrum, and
    their nature will affect the potential for interference between
    licensees operating on the same spectrum in adjacent service areas.
    We noted that in other frequency bands various means have been
    employed to avoid interference when we have permitted flexibility in
    services and technologies. We tentatively concluded that either a
    coordination[^218] or a field strength[^219] method could provide a
    satisfactory means of controlling harmful interference between
    systems in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We observed that a
    general coordination requirement may minimize the potential for
    interference to coordinated facilities, but may also impose
    unnecessary coordination costs for facilities with a low potential
    for interference and increase the potential for undesirable
    strategic or anti-competitive behavior.[^220] We also noted,
    however, that a field strength limit, while reducing the need for
    coordination by giving licensees the ability to unilaterally deploy
    facilities in boundary areas as long as the limit is met, may not
    provide sufficient assurance against interference to such
    facilities. We sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages of
    both approaches, and on any other approaches that would minimize
    interference among co-channel licensees.

95. No commenter favors the coordination approach for controlling
    in-band interference, but AirTouch and SBC endorse the use of the
    field strength method. AirTouch indicates that the field strength
    method is "particularly appropriate" for terrestrial mobile services
    in larger geographic areas."[^221] SBC concludes that the field
    strength method is "the more efficient method of reducing the risk
    of interference across service areas," and suggests that licensees
    in adjacent service areas should be permitted to agree to
    alternative field strengths along their mutual border.[^222]

96. **[Discussion.]{.underline}** We agree with commenters that the
    field strength limit approach should be used to control co-channel
    interference in this band. That approach provides established,
    objective criteria for controlling in-band interference, and gives
    licensees the ability to construct and operate facilities in
    boundary areas so long as the limit is met. As discussed in the
    *NPRM*, a coordination approach, on the other hand, could impose
    unnecessary coordination costs for facilities that are not likely to
    cause interference, and could lead to possible anti-competitive
    activities. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that use of
    a field strength method would not provide adequate protection
    against co-channel interference. Therefore, we will require
    licensees to limit signals from all base and fixed stations
    operating in the 747-762 MHz band to a particular predicted or
    measured field strength at the licensee's geographic border.

97. Although commenters agree on the appropriateness of a field strength
    approach, they did not provide any guidance as to the proper field
    strength. In both 800 MHz EA-based and 900 MHz MTA-based SMR
    licensing,[^223] we employed a 40 dBu/m field strength at the
    geographic border. Because the types of services that will be
    provided in the 700 MHz band are likely to be similar to the types
    of services permitted in the 800 and 900 MHz bands,[^224] and
    because of its proximity to these bands, we conclude that the
    appropriate field strength for the control of in-band interference
    in the 700 MHz band is 40 dBu/m.[^225] We believe that use of the
    field strength procedure will satisfy the requirement in Section
    337(d)(1) that the Commission establish "interference limits at the
    boundaries of the spectrum block and service area."[^226] The use of
    this procedure should enable licensees to deploy their facilities
    effectively, while minimizing interference to co-channel licensees
    in adjacent geographic areas. Finally, we agree with SBC's
    suggestion to permit licensees in adjoining areas to agree to
    alternate field strengths at their common border and therefore adopt
    this approach. It will provide licensees increased flexibility in
    implementing their systems without increasing the risk of harmful
    interference.

### Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits

98. **[Background.]{.underline}** We noted in the *NPRM* that different
    kinds of technical criteria may be used to limit out-of-band and
    spurious emissions designed to protect services outside the
    licensee\'s assigned spectrum. We also noted Congress's
    concern,[^227] with ensuring that "public safety service licensees
    continue to operate free of interference from any new commercial
    licensees." We therefore proposed that licensees operating in the
    746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be required to atten­uate the power
    below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log~10~ (P) dB,
    or 80 decibels, whichever is less ("43 + 10 log P"), for any
    emission on all frequencies outside the licensee\'s authorized
    spectrum \-- except for emissions that fall within the GPS band,
    which is addressed in Section III.D.4, below.[^228]

99. Several commenters support our proposal that licensees in the
    746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be required to comply with the
    43 + 10 log P attenuation requirement.[^229] APCO, however, points
    out that interference exists in the 800 MHz band from "low-site,
    low-power commercial systems \[that\] are intermixed in a common
    area and operate on adjacent frequencies to public safety
    systems."[^230] Motorola notes that such adjacent channel
    interference exists even though 800 MHz technologies are providing
    out-of-band emission characteristics "superior" to the 43 + 10 log P
    requirement.[^231] Motorola identifies several possible interference
    scenarios that could occur when both commercial and public safety
    base transmissions originate in the 746-776 MHz band (the "lower
    band") and commercial and public safety mobile transmissions
    originate in the 776-806 MHz band (the "upper band") \-- *e.g.*,
    potential interference from commercial base transmitters to public
    safety mobile receivers at the 764 MHz interface and potential
    interference from public safety base transmitters to commercial base
    receivers at the 776 MHz interface.[^232]

100. In recent *ex parte* filings, a number of parties addressed the
     subject of out-of-bound emissions ("OOBE"). For example, Motorola
     asserts that because of the interference scenario that exists at
     the 764 MHz interface,[^233] emissions from non-coordinated
     commercial base stations should be attenuated to --57 dBm in the
     first 6.25 kHz channel of the 764-776 MHz public safety band.[^234]
     FreeSpace supports a requirement that a Guard Band licensee
     attenuate its out-of-band emissions by a factor of not less than
     87 + 10 log P in a 6.25 kHz bandwidth.[^235] Bell Atlantic takes
     issue with Motorola's proposal, and believes that the Commission
     should establish an OOBE limit that is comparable to the 43 + 10
     log P limit applied elsewhere in our rules for other commercial
     services.[^236] Lucent, in comments attached by Bell Atlantic,
     indicates that the limits proposed by Motorola to protect public
     safety are "excessive," and concludes that the level of attenuation
     demanded by Motorola would "place an unwarranted burden on the CMRS
     provider, significantly reduce the useable spectrum, and reduce the
     value of the spectrum to potential bidders." Lucent suggests that
     we consider interference parameters that are consistent with those
     currently applied to other commercial services.[^237]

101. Motorola subsequently suggests that switching both the commercial
     and public safety transmit bands, so that mobile transmissions
     originate in the lower band and base transmissions originate in the
     upper band, "would provide better protection to public safety
     services."[^238] Motorola supports the following interference
     limits under its "reverse band" proposal: (1) limiting emissions
     from commercial base transmitters operating in the upper band to
     --57 dBm per 6.25 kHz into the 794-806 MHz public safety
     band;[^239] (2) limiting emissions from commercial base
     transmitters operating in the upper band to --62 dBm per 6.25 kHz
     into the 764-776 MHz band;[^240] and (3) limiting emissions from
     commercial mobile transmitters operating in the lower band to --35
     dBm per 6.25 kHz into the 764-776 MHz band.[^241] APCO opposes the
     reversal of the commercial and public safety bands because it would
     impact the ability to "integrate 700 MHz public safety radio
     systems with the substantial number of public safety radio systems
     operating above 806 MHz."[^242] US WEST argues that the standards
     proposed by Motorola could "adversely affect commercial licensees'
     ability to utilize the spectrum won at auction."[^243]

102. The Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), which
     consists of law enforcement and public safety officials from
     numerous federal agencies, recommends the following attenuation
     values to protect public safety receivers in the 764-776 MHz and
     794-806 MHz bands: (1) for transmitters with power levels above 1
     watt: 65 + 10 log P dB; and (2) for transmitters with power levels
     below 1 watt: 65 dBc (db relative to the carrier).[^244] Motorola,
     commenting on the FLEWUG proposal, and citing its earlier analysis,
     states that the 65 + 10 log P limit is only appropriate at the
     interface where commercial mobiles could cause interference to
     public safety base station receivers.[^245] Motorola believes that
     the 87 + 10 log P protection limit it proposed for the interface
     where base-to-mobile interference could occur "results in the
     appropriate protection for public safety."[^246] Motorola also
     points out differences between its analysis and FLEWUG analysis of
     the mobile-to-mobile interference scenario that exists at the 776
     MHz interface when the 746-764 MHz band is used for base
     transmissions and the 776-794 MHz band is used for mobile
     transmissions, but notes that under its reversed band plan this
     "extremely severe interference problem" would not exist.[^247] The
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
     provides a technical analysis of the interference scenarios that
     could exist between commercial and public safety operations in the
     700 MHz band, and concludes that, in order to protect public safety
     receivers, we should: (1) require that out-of-band emissions from
     commercial transmitters operating in the upper band be attenuated
     by 65 + 10 log P into the 764-776 MHz public safety band, and by
     70 + 10 log P into the 794-806 MHz public safety band; and (2)
     require that out-of-band emissions from commercial transmitters
     operating in the lower band be attenuated by 80 + 10 log P into the
     764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands[^248]

103. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. We conclude that licensees operating
     in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands should, at a minimum, be
     required to attenuate the power below the transmitter power (P) by
     at least 43 + 10 log~10~ (P) dB for any emission on all frequencies
     outside the licensee\'s authorized spectrum \-- except for
     emissions that fall within the GPS band, which is addressed in
     Section III.D.4, below. We also provide additional measures of
     interference protection to operations in the public safety bands,
     as described below.

104. In establishing OOBE limits in the 700 MHz service, we are guided
     by Congress's concern that public safety service licensees be able
     to operate free of harmful interference from new commercial
     licensees. Parties to this proceeding also have made convincing
     engineering showings of the potential for interference to public
     safety licensees from commercial users in adjacent bands, and those
     showings are supported by independent evidence of increasing
     instances of actual interference between commercial and public
     safety operations in other parts of the spectrum, principally the
     800 MHz band.[^249] Against this backdrop, we recognize the need to
     adopt technical rules that provide adequate protection to public
     safety entities operating in this band. We are mindful, however,
     that Congress also intended that we establish rules that will
     enable viable commercial operations here. Thus, while we might set
     extremely stringent OOBE limits in an effort to afford maximum
     protection to public safety licensees, we conclude that, as a
     practical matter, at some point, the incremental benefits to
     protection of public safety from ever higher OOBE limits would be
     outweighed by the adverse effects on the commercial usefulness of
     the spectrum. Moreover, even the most stringent OOBE limits do not
     guarantee there will never be any interference under any
     circumstance between commercial and public safety licensees. We
     conclude, therefore, that we should set OOBE limits that, while
     achieving the primary goal of protecting public safety, also strike
     a reasonable balance between protecting public safety and
     maintaining the commercial viability of this band. As explained
     below, we adopt OOBE limits for 30 megahertz licensees in the 700
     MHz band that we believe will satisfy these dual objectives.

105. Some commenters believe that we should provide OOBE limits in line
     with the 43 + 10 log P limits currently used to provide
     interference protection in other wireless services.[^250] Motorola
     believes that the appropriate OOBE limit needed to protect public
     safety receivers from commercial base stations, which will operate
     in the 747-762 MHz band,[^251] is a requirement to attenuate the
     power below transmitter power (P) operating in that spectrum by at
     least 87 + 10 log P dB per 6.25 kHz in the 764-776 MHz public
     safety band.[^252] NTIA, however, favors an 80 + 10 log P
     attenuation of commercial base station transmissions in the 747-762
     MHz band to protect public safety receivers in both the 764-776 MHz
     and 794-806 MHz public safety bands, and FLEWUG supports a 65 + 10
     log P dB attenuation requirement to protect public safety receivers
     in these bands. Similarly, Bell Atlantic, Lucent, and US WEST urge
     the adoption of a lower OOBE limit, arguing that Motorola's
     recommended limit could inhibit the utility of the spectrum for
     commercial use. As noted above, based on the record, we are
     persuaded that we should adopt an OOBE limit higher than 43 + 10
     log P in order to provide adequate protection to public safety. On
     the other hand, we are not persuaded that the 87 + 10 log P
     recommended by Motorola is necessary, and are concerned about the
     negative impact that standard could have on the viability of 30
     megahertz systems operating in the 747-762 MHz band. While we
     believe that an OOBE limit in line with the 65 + 10 log P standard
     proposed by FLEWUG and others might well protect public safety
     licensees, we adopt a more conservative OOBE limit of 76 + 10 log P
     for emissions from 30 megahertz base station transmitters into the
     764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands.[^253] We conclude
     that this limit strikes the proper balance among the competing
     recommendations of the various parties, is closely in line with
     80 + 10 log P standard recommended by NTIA, and will adequately
     protect public safety while maintaining the viability of the band
     for 30 megahertz users.

106. With regard to the appropriate OOBE limit for mobile and portable
     transmitters, which will operate in the 777-792 MHz band, FLEWUG
     supports the adoption of a 65 +10 log P standard for mobiles
     transmitters. Motorola concurs with this OOBE limit for emissions
     from mobile transmissions into the 794-806 MHz public safety band.
     NTIA favors a 65 + 10 log P requirement for emissions into the
     764-776 MHz public safety band, but supports a 70 + 10 log P
     standard for emissions into the 794-806 MHz band. Again, our goal
     is to adopt OOBE limits that will adequately protect public safety
     while enabling viable commercial operations. We therefore adopt a
     requirement to attenuate the power of mobile and portable
     transmitters operating in that spectrum by at least 65 + 10 log P
     dB per 6.25 kHz in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety
     bands. We find that compliance with a more stringent OOBE limit
     could make it difficult to produce mobile and portable equipment to
     meet our base station standard while maintaining commercial
     viability in the 700 MHz spectrum band.[^254] In particular, the
     amount of frequency separation that would be required between a 30
     megahertz mobile or portable transmission and the public safety
     bands if a more stringent standard were required could be so great
     that a significant portion of the 30 megahertz spectrum might
     become unusable. Because we permit fixed operations in the 777-792
     MHz band, we also address the adoption of an OOBE limit for fixed
     equipment operating in this band. If fixed transmissions are
     employed in the 777-792 MHz band, then interference to public
     safety operations in the 764-776 MHz band from such transmissions
     would resemble the type of interference to that band that could
     occur from base stations transmitting in the 746-764 MHz band (and
     for which we have adopted a 76 + 10 log P standard). In addition,
     Motorola indicates that if fixed operation is permitted in the band
     designated for mobile and portable transmissions, then a
     "base-to-base" interference scenario would occur, and that a 92 +
     10 log P standard should be applied in this instance.[^255] We
     conclude that, to protect public safety operations from fixed
     equipment operating in the 777-792 MHz band, we should adopt the
     standard we have adopted for emissions from base stations operating
     in the 747-762 MHz band, *i.e.*, a requirement to attenuate the
     power of fixed transmitters operating in the 747-762 MHz band by at
     least 76 + 10 log P dB per 6.25 kHz in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806
     MHz public safety bands,.

107. Finally, we decide that where an emission from a 30 megahertz
     transmitter is found to cause harmful interference to public safety
     operations, at our discretion, we may require greater out-of-band
     attenuation from such transmitters.[^256] In conclusion, while no
     OOBE limits can *guarantee* non-interference to public safety
     operations, we believe that the OOBE limits we adopt herein will
     limit such occurrences, and that in adopting these limits we have
     satisfied the Congressional concern to ensure that public safety
     licensees are protected from interference.

### RF Safety/Power Limits

108. **[Background]{.underline}**. Section 27.52 of the Commission\'s
     Rules[^257] subjects licensees and manufacturers to the RF
     radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b),
     2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission\'s Rules, which list the
     services and devices for which an environmental evaluation must be
     performed.[^258] In adopting the rule, we concluded that routine
     environmental evaluations for RF exposure are required for
     applicants desiring to use the following types of transmitters: (1)
     fixed operations, including base stations and radiolocation
     transmitters, when the effective radiated power (ERP) is greater
     than 1,000 watts; (2) all portable devices; and (3) mobile devices,
     if the ERP of the device, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5
     watts or greater.[^259] In the *NPRM*, we proposed to treat
     services and devices in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in a
     manner comparable to other services and devices that have similar
     operating characteristics, and tentatively concluded that the
     requirements in Section 27.52 for licensees in the 2.3 GHz band
     should apply to licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands.
     SBC supports this approach.[^260] In the *NPRM* we did not propose
     specific power limits for operations in the 746-776 MHz and 776-794
     MHz bands.

109. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. With respect to RF Safety, we adopt a
     threshold of 1000 w ERP for categorical exclusion from routine
     evaluation for RF exposure for base and fixed stations. As in the
     2.3 GHz band, where we adopted an identical standard, this
     threshold recognizes the flexibility with respect to use, power,
     location, and other factors accorded licensees operating in this
     band. We determine that this power limit should be appropriate to
     ensure compliance with our RF exposure standards for most
     situations.[^261]

110. Although we are adopting a maximum power limit of 30 w ERP for
     mobile transmitters in the 777-792 MHz band, the threshold for
     routine evaluation of these devices for RF safety purposes shall be
     1.5 w or greater in conformance with Section 2.1091 of our
     Rules.[^262] For portable devices in these bands, we adopt a
     maximum power limit of 3 w ERP with the provision that these
     devices be evaluated for RF exposure in compliance with Section
     2.1093 of our Rules.[^263] Thus we will modify Sections 1.1307(b),
     2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission\'s Rules[^264] to include
     potential services and devices developed for use in the 747-762 MHz
     and 777-792 MHz bands. As we have previously stated, we are
     providing guidance on acceptable methods of evaluating compliance
     with the Commission\'s RF exposure limits in OET Bulletin No. 65,
     which has replaced OST Bulletin No. 65.[^265]

111. Turning to power limits, we adopt power limits that will provide
     for base-to-mobile and fixed-to-fixed communication in the 747-762
     MHz band, and for mobile-to-base and fixed-to-fixed communication
     in the 777-792 MHz band. Specifically, we adopt the following power
     limits: (1) for base stations and fixed stations operating in the
     747-762 MHz band, an ERP no greater than 1,000 watts and an antenna
     height above average terrain (HAAT) no greater than 305
     m;[^266] (2) for mobile, fixed, and control stations operating in
     777-792 MHz band, an ERP no greater than 30 watts; and (3) for
     portable stations operating in 777-792 MHz band, an ERP no greater
     than 3 watts. We believe that the adoption of these power limits
     will facilitate both mobile and fixed service operations in the 700
     MHz band. The 1000 w ERP power limit for base and fixed stations
     operating in the 747-762 MHz band should enable satisfactory
     coverage for commercial systems operating in this band. The 30 w
     ERP power limit for mobile, fixed, and control stations in the
     777-792 MHz band is the power limit adopted for mobile and control
     station operation in the 700 MHz public safety band. And the 3 w
     ERP power limit for portable stations in the 777-792 MHz band is
     consistent with the power limit adopted for portables in the 700
     MHz public safety band.

### Special Considerations for Use of Channels 65, 66, and 67 

112. **[Background]{.underline}.** The second harmonic
     transmissions[^267] of services that will be operating on TV
     channels 65-67 fall within a band used for radionavigation in the
     Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), which includes the
     Global Positioning System (GPS) at 1563.42-1587.42 MHz. [^268] To
     protect this system and to ensure that equipment that operates in
     these bands does not cause radio interference to the GNSS,[^269]
     particularly when that system is used for precision approach and
     landing, NTIA recommended[^270] that the following out-of-band
     emission limits from fixed and mobile transmitters operating in the
     746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be applied to all spurious
     emissions, including second harmonic emissions in the 1559-1610
     frequency range: (1) for wideband emissions, -70 dBW/MHz equivalent
     isotropically radiated power (EIRP); and (2) for narrowband
     emissions,[^271] -80 dBW/700 Hz. NTIA also proposed the adoption of
     the DTV out-of-band limit of --110 dBc for emissions in the
     1559-1610 MHz band from broadcast transmitters operating in the
     746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. Thus, in the NPRM we sought
     comment on the risk of harmonic interference to GNSS operations
     from systems licensed in the 776-794 MHz bands, and whether the
     emissions limits recommended by NTIA would provide the necessary
     protection for GNSS systems from anticipated fixed and mobile
     operations in these bands.

113. In addition, we sought comment on the impact of imposing the
     out-of-band emission limits proposed by NTIA on the design of
     equipment for use in the 776-794 MHz band. Noting that stringent
     OOBE"[^272] limits are generally more difficult to meet for mobile
     and hand-held transmitters than for base and control stations or
     for fixed service stations, we sought information on how our
     proposal might affect the cost, size, weight, and battery life for
     handheld or portable equipment, and whether the proposal could
     severely curtail the availability of the 36 megahertz of spectrum
     designated by Congress for commercial use.[^273]

114. In response to the *NPRM* AirTouch states generally that the
     proposed OOBE limits could affect the production of portable units
     and thereby affect the availability of the commercial 700 MHz
     spectrum.[^274] In detailed comments, the U.S. GPS Industry Council
     ("USGPS"), on the other hand, asserts that the proposed OOBE
     standards do not sufficiently protect GPS receivers from the second
     harmonic emissions of systems operating in the 776-794 MHz
     band.[^275] USGPS contends that NTIA levels were developed solely
     to protect aircraft GPS receivers from interference from MSS Mobile
     Earth Terminals (METs) operating in the 1-3 GHz band.[^276]
     According to USGPS, if these levels are adopted for different types
     of services, "each one of those services would endanger the
     availability of GPS by itself, raising the noise floor above the
     level that GPS receivers can operate . . . and the cumulative
     effect from all services operating at emissions of --70/80 dBW/MHz
     would be devastating for critical safety-of-life GPS
     applications."[^277] USGPS argues that the only default level that
     can safely be established at this time, "absent case-by-case
     independent studies," is a wideband out-of-band emission threshold
     limit of --100 dBW/MHz"[^278]

115. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** Like the concerns we addressed above
     in balancing public safety and commercial interests, we are
     similarly committed to ensuring that the GNSS is protected
     adequately against interference without adopting OOBE limits on
     equipment operating in the 777-792 MHz band that could effectively
     prohibit the use of this band by new 30 megahertz licensees.
     Rather, we seek to enable such licensees to implement new services
     in a timely manner. As discussed below, we believe that the
     proposed OOBE limits provide the appropriate balance to meet the
     needs of both of these competing requirements. Thus, we adopt the
     following OOBE limits for all spurious emissions, including
     harmonics, that fall within the 1559-1610 frequency range, from
     equipment operating in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands: (1)
     for wideband emissions, -70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically
     radiated power (EIRP); and (2) for discrete emissions of less than
     700 Hz bandwidth, an absolute EIRP limit of --80 dBW. Outside of
     emissions into the 1559-1610 MHz RNSS band, the OOBE standards
     adopted in Section III.D.2 will apply.

116. We are concerned about critical safety-of-life applications of GPS,
     particularly those systems that will use GPS for aeronautical
     radionavigation, and seek to ensure that the rules we adopt in this
     proceeding do not adversely affect these operations. NTIA, which
     represents the Federal Government's positions on spectrum
     management matters, has suggested specific OOBE limits for
     equipment operating in this band that it believes will sufficiently
     protect aeronautical radionavigation operations. We agree with NTIA
     that the proposed OOBE limits will "ensure that fixed and mobile
     equipment will not cause radio frequency interference to the GNSS
     when those systems are used for precision approach and landing" and
     we adopt NTIA's recommendations.[^279]

117. We reject USGPS's argument that our proposed emission limits are
     insufficient to protect GPS operations.[^280] Similar arguments
     were raised by USGPS in a proceeding regarding an application by
     AirTouch Satellite Services U.S., Inc. for a license to construct
     and operate mobile earth terminals transmitting in the 1.6 GHz
     band. Consistent with the International Bureau's October 4, 1999
     Order,[^281] we find that the degree of precision needed to provide
     position updates for planes moving at high speeds is more rigorous
     than the precision that is needed for other GPS uses. Although GPS
     has and will be used for a variety of non-aeronautical
     safety-of-life applications, USGPS has not established that such
     other uses of GPS will require the high level of protection from
     unwanted signals that we are adopting herein, much less a *greater*
     level of protection. We thus conclude that USGPS has not justified
     a need for a more stringent standard.

118. With regard to the tests USGPS conducted to determine the effects
     of unwanted emissions into the GPS band from emitters complying
     with the proposed limits, we believe that USGPS has not
     sufficiently demonstrated that signals from emitters meeting the
     proposed emission limits will cause interference to GPS receivers
     that will affect the ability of such GPS receivers to perform their
     functions.[^282] We recognize that in certain scenarios a 700 MHz
     emitter and a GPS receiver could be placed in very close proximity
     and that this could result in interference to the GPS receiver. We
     do not believe, however, that it is in the public interest to
     protect GPS receivers in every such possible scenario. Our analysis
     must be based on reasonable assumptions of emitter-receiver
     proximity. Specifically, we must balance the needs of competing
     requirements of the spectrum. In this case we must balance the
     needs of users of GNSS and future users of the 700 MHz band. We
     conclude that our proposed OOBE limit will be sufficient to protect
     critical GPS operations.

119. Contrary to USGPS' argument, we also find that our proposed --70
     dBW/MHz wideband OOBE limit is not inconsistent with the United
     States' position in the ITU-R study group activities. Our decision
     in this proceeding is consistent with the decisions adopted on this
     matter internationally. Should future actions internationally
     result in conflicts between the decision we adopt here and
     international positions, we would consider those differences as
     part of a separate, future proceeding, if appropriate.

120. USGPS also asks us to adopt a harmonized spectrum policy that
     considers the cumulative impact on the GPS noise floor from all
     relevant services. The protection of GPS, as with all services, is
     an ongoing obligation of this agency. Nonetheless, even if we
     undertook a study to analyze the effects of various services on
     GPS, we believe it would be difficult to identify and consider all
     relevant services, as well as all possible future services.
     Therefore, we conclude that the protection of GPS is better handled
     on a case-by-case basis, in the context of each relevant
     proceeding. In this proceeding we have considered all relevant
     technical findings of interested parties and believe we have come
     to a reasonable balance \-- protecting GPS operations while
     proceeding expeditiously to make this spectrum available to the
     public.

## Competitive Bidding 

### Statutory Requirements 

121. **[Background]{.underline}.** Most of the auctions the Commission
     has conducted to date have been simultaneous multiple-round
     auctions. In Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act, Congress
     directed the Commission to "provide for the design and conduct (for
     purposes of testing) of competitive bidding using a contingent
     combinatorial bidding system that permits prospective bidders to
     bid on combinations or groups of licenses in a single bid and to
     enter multiple alternative bids within a single bidding
     round."[^283] In the *NPRM*, we sought comment on whether the
     auction of the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands may present a
     suitable context for such combinatorial procedures, especially if
     our service rules provide for broadcast services. We also asked
     commenters to consider whether, absent the application of
     combinatorial rules, the existing standardized auction rules in
     Part 1 are adequate.[^284] In addition, we sought comment on
     whether our statutory obligations prohibited public safety entities
     from participating in the auction of licenses for this
     spectrum.[^285]

122. Those commenters who addressed the issue believe the auction of
     licenses for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands presents a
     suitable context for using a combinatorial bidding system. AirTouch
     contends that while combinatorial bidding is not essential, it is
     suitable for the auction of the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz
     bands.[^286] KM and MSTV also support the use of combinatorial
     bidding, but MSTV suggests as well allowing consortia of potential
     service providers to participate in the auction, with the
     expectation that, if a consortium won, the spectrum could be
     divided pursuant to a predetermined plan to accommodate the needs
     of each individual member. This would address the difficulties
     caused to some providers by the pairing of frequency blocks. [^287]

123. On the issue of public safety participation, we received little
     comment. APCO asserts that there is no rational reason to prevent a
     public safety entity from participating in the auction, and
     Southern similarly contends that public safety uses should be
     permitted, with public safety applicants subject to the same rules
     as commercial applicants.[^288]

124. **Discussion.** We will not use combinatorial bidding procedures
     for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, although we believe that
     such procedures may well have certain benefits in the auction of
     licenses for these bands. The primary benefit is that combinatorial
     bidding allows bidders to bid on licenses in packages rather than
     single units. This allows bidders to better express the value of
     any synergies that may exist among licenses. In this context, for
     example, it would be possible for a bidder to bid on several
     geographic area licenses as a package or on channels as either
     paired or unpaired. To date we have not yet tested or employed
     combinatorial bidding, which involves numerous complications for
     both the Commission and bidders. Consistent with Congress'
     directive, we are actively developing theoretical and applied
     combinatorial bidding approaches, but we have not yet completed the
     development of a practical means of implementing such an auction
     design. We therefore find that we should not use this complex and
     untested auction design for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands,
     especially in light of the statutory deadline imposed here.[^289]

125. We believe our existing competitive bidding rules generally will be
     adequate for the auction of licenses for all permitted uses in the
     747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. As explained above, we have
     adopted a geographic area licensing scheme for licenses in these
     bands that we believe is appropriate in light of the services that
     may be provided consistent with our rules. There is nothing in the
     Commission's rules that would prevent any parties from
     participating as part of a consortium of service providers, so long
     as the consortium observes the Commission's rules. Section
     1.2105(a) of the Commission's rules requires that applicants that
     have entered into consortia identify all consortium members and any
     agreements relating to the post-auction market structure, and
     consortia must comply with the anti-collusion provisions of Section
     1.2105(c).[^290] Consortia may also qualify for bidding credits
     under our small business provisions.[^291] We also find that our
     partitioning and disaggregation rules offer licensees sufficient
     flexibility to assign unused spectrum to others.

126. We recognize that there may be entities whose business plans are
     such that they may not wish to acquire any licenses if they are
     unable to aggregate the 10 megahertz and 20 megahertz blocks to
     create a nationwide 30 megahertz license. Our current rules are
     designed to facilitate the aggregation of licenses, and bidders in
     a number of past auctions have been successful in putting together
     nationwide licenses through aggregation. We believe that our
     current rules are adequate to facilitate the aggregation of all 10
     megahertz or all 20 megahertz licenses. The bid withdrawal
     provisions of our Part 1 rules could, however, potentially
     discourage bidders from attempting a 30 megahertz nationwide
     aggregation in an auction where there are divergent business plans.
     This is because, were such an aggregation attempt ultimately to
     fail, a bidder might be left with a subset of licenses for which
     its bids exceeded the value it places on that subset absent the
     complete aggregation. The bidder would then be forced to withdraw
     any high bids it holds and pay a bid withdrawal payment, or perhaps
     retain licenses for which it cannot recoup the price paid. We
     therefore direct the Bureau to adopt, if operationally feasible, a
     nationwide bid withdrawal procedure for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792
     MHz bands to limit the exposure of bidders seeking a 30 megahertz
     nationwide aggregation. Pursuant to standard practice, in its
     public notice seeking comment on auction procedures, the Bureau
     will seek comment on whether to implement this procedure, and it
     will announce, prior to the filing of short-form applications for
     the auction, whether a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation subject
     to this procedure will be available to bidders.[^292]

127. Bidders may still aggregate licenses pursuant to our standard bid
     withdrawal provisions.[^293] The following procedure would be
     available, however, to limit the exposure associated with bid
     withdrawal for those seeking a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation,
     while still discouraging insincere bidding. Under this approach, an
     applicant would be required to declare on its short-form
     application whether it is seeking a 30 megahertz nationwide
     aggregation and wishes to be subject to the nationwide bid
     withdrawal provisions. An applicant that chooses to be such a
     nationwide bidder would not be allowed to bid on anything other
     than all licenses comprising the 30 megahertz nationwide
     aggregation, and must win either this nationwide aggregation or no
     licenses at all. Thus, once such a nationwide bidder withdraws from
     a market, it must withdraw from all markets and will be ineligible
     to continue bidding for any licenses. The bid withdrawal payment
     for a 30 megahertz nationwide bidder that withdraws from the
     auction would be calculated as the difference between the sum of
     the withdrawn bids and the sum of the subsequent high bids on the
     withdrawn licenses. Calculating the payment this way may result in
     a payment that is lower than a payment calculated on a
     license-by-license basis. In addition, nationwide bid withdrawal
     payments would be limited to a certain percentage, such as 5
     percent, of the aggregate withdrawn bids. The withdrawn licenses
     would be offered in the next round at the second highest bid price,
     which may be less than, or equal to, the amount of the withdrawn
     bid, without any bid increment. The FCC would serve as the "place
     holder" on the license until a new acceptable bid is submitted.
     When a 30 megahertz nationwide bidder withdraws, eligibility and
     waivers for all other bidders would be restored to beginning
     auction levels, except for those nationwide bidders that have
     withdrawn from the auction by withdrawing their high bids. Without
     this restoration, few bidders may be eligible to bid on licenses
     withdrawn late in the auction.[^294] Finally, if the Bureau
     implements the bid withdrawal procedure outlined here, it will
     suspend the Part 1 bid withdrawal rule for those applicants that
     choose to become 30 megahertz nationwide bidders.

### Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules

128. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we proposed to conduct
     the auction for initial licenses in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz
     bands in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set
     forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission\'s Rules, and
     substantially consistent with the bidding procedures that have been
     employed in previous auctions.[^295] Specifically, we proposed to
     employ the Part 1 rules governing designated entities, application
     issues, payment issues, competitive bidding design, procedure and
     timing issues, and collusion issues.[^296] We further stated that
     these rules would be subject to any modifications that the
     Commission may adopt in the Part 1 proceeding. We sought comment on
     whether any of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate in an
     auction of licenses for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz
     bands.[^297] No commenters oppose the use of the Part 1
     standardized auction rules.

129. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We will use the competitive bidding
     procedures contained in Subpart Q of Part 1 of the Commission\'s
     Rules for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, including any
     amendments adopted in the ongoing Part 1 proceeding.[^298] As
     discussed above, however, we direct the Bureau to adopt a
     nationwide bid withdrawal procedure for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792
     MHz bands, if operationally feasible, to facilitate a 30 megahertz
     nationwide license aggregation. The Bureau will announce after
     public comment whether this procedure will be implemented.

130. We decline to follow TWDC's suggestion that, given the uniquely
     broad allocation of this spectrum, which will involve service
     providers traditionally subject to different regulatory
     requirements bidding against each other for the same spectrum for
     the first time, the Commission should explicitly state that
     implementing rules adopted in this proceeding will not be
     considered to be precedent in future rulemaking proceedings with
     respect to other spectrum auctions.[^299] Because we will use our
     standardized Part 1 rules for the auctioning of the spectrum, we
     find that it is inappropriate to adopt TWDC's suggestion. Moreover,
     to the extent we depart from the Part 1 rules, we cannot exclude
     the possibility that any such departure will be useful in future
     auctions.

### Small Business Definitions

131. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM*, we proposed to adopt
     for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands definitions of small and
     very small businesses that the Commission also adopted for
     broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, and 39 GHz applicants. [^300] Specifically,
     we proposed to define a small business as any entity with average
     annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess
     of \$40 million, and a very small business as an entity with
     average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in
     excess of \$15 million.[^301]

132. We sought comment on these definitions as they relate to the size
     of the geographic area to be covered and the spectrum allocated to
     each license. We also sought comment on whether the proposed
     designated entity provisions would be sufficient to promote
     participation by businesses owned by minorities and by women, and
     participation by rural telephone companies. We asked commenters, to
     the extent that they propose additional provisions to ensure
     participation by minority-owned and women-owned businesses, to
     address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant
     standards of judicial review.[^302]

133. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We will define a small business as an
     entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three
     years not exceeding \$40 million. A very small business is an
     entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three
     years not exceeding \$15 million.[^303] Although we received no
     comments on the capital costs of operations in the bands at issue
     here, we believe that these two definitions will provide businesses
     seeking to provide a variety of services with opportunities to
     participate in the auction of licenses for this spectrum. In
     calculating gross revenues for purposes of small business
     eligibility, we will adopt our proposal to attribute the gross
     revenues of the applicant, its controlling interests and its
     affiliates. This approach is consistent with our proposal in the
     *Part 1 Second Further Notice,*[^304] and is similar to the
     attribution rules we have employed for the recent LMDS, 800 MHz
     SMR, and LMS auction proceedings.[^305]

134. We agree with Alaskan Choice that existing bidding credits should
     apply to this spectrum.[^306] We will therefore adopt tiered
     bidding credits for small and very small businesses, consistent
     with the levels adopted in the Part 1 proceeding.[^307]
     Accordingly, small businesses will receive a 15 percent bidding
     credit.[^308] Very small businesses will receive a 25 percent
     bidding credit.[^309] Bidding credits for small businesses are not
     cumulative.[^310] As noted in the Part 1 proceeding, we believe
     that this approach will provide adequate opportunities for small
     businesses of varying sizes to participate in spectrum
     auctions.[^311]

135. We decline to adopt KM's suggestion that the Commission provide
     bidding credits to any LPTV licensee that has been or will be
     displaced by a DTV station.[^312] We do not believe that we have an
     adequate record regarding the legal and policy implications of such
     bidding credits. In addition, LPTV licensees have not established a
     record that they need bidding credits in order to be able to
     compete in the auction.[^313] As explained above, we are not
     permitting public safety entities as defined in Section 337(f) of
     the Act to participate in the auction of licenses for this
     spectrum. It is therefore unnecessary to address APCO's suggestion
     that state and local governments seeking spectrum for public safety
     communications should be given "auction credits" similar to the
     bidding credits offered to small businesses.[^314]

136. We will not adopt special preferences for entities owned by
     minorities or women.[^315] No commenters submitted quantifiable
     evidence or data to support race- or gender-based auction
     provisions. Therefore, we conclude that we do not have an adequate
     record to support such special provisions at this time under the
     current standards of judicial review. We remain committed to
     meeting the statutory objectives of promoting economic opportunity
     and competition, avoiding excessive concentration of licenses, and
     ensuring access to new and innovative technologies 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. We believe the bidding
     credits we adopt here for small businesses will further these
     objectives because many minority- and women-owned entities, as well
     as rural telephone companies, are small businesses and will
     therefore qualify for these special provisions. We also believe
     that our standardization of the rules, through the *Part 1 Third
     Report and Order*, regarding eligible entities, unjust enrichment,
     and bidding credits will assist small and minority- and women-owned
     businesses because the resulting predictability will facilitate the
     business planning and capital fundraising process.[^316]

# PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES

137. **[Background]{.underline}.** In the *NPRM* we discussed technical
     requirements for protecting incumbent broadcast licensees and
     planned DTV allotments against interference. In the *DTV Sixth
     Report and Order*,[^317] we stated that all analog TV and DTV
     operations in the 746-806 MHz band would be fully protected during
     the DTV transition period. In the *Reallocation Notice*[^318] we
     noted that new licensees in the band will have to protect both
     analog TV and DTV operations from interference. We subsequently
     addressed the protection of TV and DTV operations in the 764-776
     MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands in the *Public Safety
     Spectrum Report and Order*, which adopted service rules for public
     safety uses of this spectrum.[^319]

138. In reaching our decisions in that proceeding, we noted that land
     mobile and TV stations have successfully shared the 470-512 MHz
     band (TV Channels 14-20) in 11 major metropolitan areas of the
     United States.[^320] In the 470-512 MHz band, we relied on minimum
     separation distances based on the various heights and powers of the
     land mobile stations to prevent harmful interference.[^321] Because
     this method has been successful, we decided in the public safety
     proceeding to continue to administer protection criteria for these
     services in the 700 MHz band in this same manner.[^322] In making
     that determination, we examined the previous methodology with
     consideration of the more recent technological changes, the
     physical characteristics of the 700 MHz band, and the goals
     Congress established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

139. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We conclude that the factors and
     considerations examined in the *Public Safety Spectrum Report and
     Order* with regard to the protection of TV and DTV operations
     should apply to the use of the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz
     bands.[^323] We note that Motorola, although seeking
     reconsideration of the television protection rules adopted in the
     public safety proceeding, believes that the sharing criteria for
     the public safety and the remaining portions of the 746-806 MHz
     band can be the same. [^324] We will require licensees operating on
     the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands to comply with the provisions
     of Section 90.545 of our Rules and will incorporate those
     provisions into Part 27.[^325]

140. One commenter, the Association of America's Public Television
     Stations (APTS), expresses some concern over establishing
     interference criteria for an untested service such as DTV and
     suggests a trial period in which to test actual (or objectionable)
     interference on a case-by-case basis. However, APTS does not
     propose an objective standard by which TV licensees and commercial
     licensees could determine if, in fact, interference is being caused
     to an incumbent station. We believe that the engineering standards
     we adopt herein will effectively minimize interference and that
     testing of the type proposed by APTS will not be necessary.

141. Thus, licensees operating on the spectrum associated with Channels
     60, 61, 62, 65, 66, and 67 must comply with the co-channel and
     adjacent channel provisions of Section 27.60 of our Rules. For
     example, a licensee operating on any portion of the 10 megahertz
     block (i.e., between 752 MHz and 762 MHz) that coincides with
     Channels 61 will have to provide co-channel protection to
     television stations operating on Channels 61 and adjacent channel
     protection to television stations operating on Channels 60 and 62;
     and any licensee operating on any portion of the 10 megahertz block
     that coincides with Channels 62 will have to provide co-channel
     protection to television stations operating on Channels 62 and
     adjacent channel protection to television stations operating on
     Channels 61 and 63. Licensees operating on spectrum between 747 MHz
     and 752 MHz (Channel 60), in addition to providing co-channel
     protection to Channel 60 television stations, will have to provide
     adjacent channel protection to television stations operating on
     both Channel 61 and 59.[^326]

## Negotiations with Incumbent Broadcast Licensees

142. **[Background]{.underline}.** We proposed in the NPRM to permit new
     licensees in this spectrum to reach agreements with licensees of
     protected, incumbent television stations that would compensate
     incumbents for: (1) converting to DTV-only transmission before the
     end of the statutory transition period;[^327] (2) accepting higher
     levels of interference than allowed by the protection standards;
     or (3) otherwise accommodating new licensees.[^328] Various
     commenters have addressed the significant effect of continued
     television operations by protected incumbents on the usefulness of
     these spectrum blocks.[^329]

143. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** One of the spectrum management
     challenges in expeditiously achieving efficient and intensive
     commercial use of the 700 MHz bands is minimizing the operational
     difficulties presented by incumbent TV licensees to new wireless
     licensees, consistent with maintaining broadcast services through
     their transition. Promoting broadcasters' ability to build digital
     businesses, and continue their free programming service, requires
     both regulatory flexibility in their use of channels and the
     practical recognition that they may rely on revenue from existing,
     analog operations for some years. The extended license term
     specified for services on these bands in part reflects the
     recognition that incumbent television licensees on these
     frequencies may, under the statutory provision for DTV transition,
     continue to broadcast for some years, delaying the time when new
     licensees have uncompromised use of the spectrum resource. The
     Commission policy to promote broadcasters' ability to establish
     full DTV transmission by allowing maximum flexibility in developing
     viable business plans during the transition period is consistent
     with many of the objectives for the long-term use of the 700 MHz
     bands.[^330]

144. The joint license structure adopted for incumbent television
     operators, however, potentially complicates this process. The
     Commission licenses both the NTSC and DTV facilities, once digital
     transmission begins, under a "single, paired license."[^331] While
     administrative efficiency is furthered by having one license for
     the purposes of revocation or non-renewal,[^332] the unitary
     license may pose administrative complications if an incumbent
     wishes to consider accommodations to new licensees that affect only
     its analog, UHF operations.

145. The Congressional plan set forth in Sections 336 and 337 of the Act
     and in the 1997 Budget Act is to transition this spectrum from its
     current use for broadcast services to commercial use and public
     safety services.[^333] Congress also has directed us to auction the
     36 MHz spectrum for commercial use six years before the relocation
     deadline for incumbent broadcasters in this spectrum, while
     adopting interference limits and other technical restrictions
     necessary to protect full-service analog television service during
     the transition to DTV.[^334] In these circumstances, we will
     consider specific regulatory requests needed to implement voluntary
     agreements reached between incumbent licensees and new licensees in
     these bands. In considering whether the public interest would be
     served by approving specific requests, we would, for example,
     consider the benefits to consumers of the provision of new wireless
     services, such as next generation mobile services or Internet fixed
     access services. We would also consider whether such agreements
     would help clear spectrum for public safety use in these bands and
     could result in the provision of new wireless service in rural and
     other relatively underserved communities. On the other hand, we
     would also consider loss of service to the broadcast community of
     the licensee. For example, we would consider the availability of
     the licensee's former analog programming within the service area,
     through simulcast of that programming on the licensee's DTV channel
     or distribution of the programming on cable or DBS, or the
     availability of similar broadcast services within the service area,
     (e.g., whether the lost service is the only network service, the
     only source for local service, or the only source for otherwise
     unique broadcast service).

# CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS

146. There are currently separate agreements with Canada and Mexico
     covering TV broadcast use of the UHF 470-806 MHz band. Such
     agreements do not reflect the additional use or services being
     adopted in this item for 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands. While the
     Commission staff has been involved in discussions with both
     countries regarding coordination or interference criteria for the
     use of these bands in the border areas for the additional services,
     agreements have yet to be reached.[^335] Therefore, until such
     agreements have been finalized, we believe it necessary to adopt
     certain interim requirements for licenses in these bands along the
     Canada and Mexico borders.[^336] Accordingly, licenses issued for
     these bands within 120 km of the borders will be subject to
     whatever future agreements the United States develops with these
     two countries. In that the existing agreements for the protection
     of TV stations in these countries are still in effect and must be
     recognized until they are replaced or modified to reflect the new
     uses, licenses in the border areas will be granted on the condition
     that harmful interference may not be caused to, but must accept
     interference from, UHF TV transmitters in Canada and Mexico.
     Furthermore, modifications may be necessary to comply with whatever
     provisions are ultimately specified in future agreements with
     Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. Pending further
     negotiations, we also adopt the protection criteria for domestic TV
     and DTV stations as interim criteria for Canadian and Mexican TV
     and DTV stations as described herein.[^337]

# Procedural Matters AND ORDERING CLAUSES

147. [Authority]{.underline}. This action is taken pursuant to Sections
     1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j),
     309(k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332 and 336 and 337 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
     157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 309(k),
     310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332, and 336, and 337 and the
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat.
     1501, Section 213.

148. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 27 of the Commission's Rules
     IS AMENDED to establish service rules for the 746-764 and 776-794
     MHz bands, as set forth in Appendix B, and that, in accordance with
     Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. Law
     106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999), these Rules shall be effective
     immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

149. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 155(c), the
     Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS GRANTED
     DELEGATED AUTHORITY to implement and modify auction procedures in
     the Wireless Communications Service, including the general design
     and timing of the auction; the manner of submitting and withdrawing
     bids; the amount of any minimum opening bids and bid increments;
     activity and stopping rules; and application and payment
     requirements, including the amount of upfront payments; and to
     announce such procedures by public notice.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Magalie Roman Salas

     Secretary

## [APPENDIX A]{.underline} {#appendix-a .unnumbered}

## A. Comments {#a.-comments .unnumbered}

AirTouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch)

Alaskan Choice Television (Alaskan Choice)

American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)

ArrayComm, Inc.

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)

Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. (APCO)

BayCom Inc.

Bruggeman, Jeffrey A.

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)

Harris Corporation (Harris)

Houston 2-Way Radio (H2)

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)

Intek Global Corp.

International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. and International
Municipal Signal Association\
(IAFC/IMSA)

Jones, Charles

Kemp, Edwin, F.

KM Communications, Inc.

Microradio Empowerment Coalition

MRFAC, Inc.

Motorola, Inc.

National Translator Association (NTA)

Northside Plumbing Supply

Palletized Trucking, Inc.

Personal Communications Industry Association, Inc. (PCIA)

Rand McNally & Company

Region 20

Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG)

SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)

Shure Brothers Inc.

Southern Communications, Inc. (Southern)

Telecommunications Industry Assn. (TIA)

U S WEST, Inc.

U.S. GPS Industry Council (GPS Council)

United Telecom Council (UTC)

Utility Communications, Inc.

Walt Disney Company (TWDC)

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## B. Reply Comments {#b.-reply-comments .unnumbered}

AirTouch Communications, Inc.

American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc.

ArrayComm, Inc.

Association of American Railroads

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO)

AT&T Corp.

Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM)

Clearwire Technologies, Inc. (Clearwire)

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)

DDI Pocket, Inc.

Fox Ridge Communications, Inc.

Harris Corporation (Harris)

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)

International. Inc.

KM Communications, Inc. (KM)

Metricom, Inc.

Motorola, Inc.

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)

Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWNP)

SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)

Southern Communications Services, Inc. (Southern)

USA Digital Radio, Inc. (USADR)

US GPS Industry Council (GPS Council)

U S WEST, Inc.

Walt Disney Company (TWDC)

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## C. Ex Parte Communications and/or Late Filed Comments {#c.-ex-parte-communications-andor-late-filed-comments .unnumbered}

Advanced Electronics

Alaska Digital, LLC

All-Com Technologies, Inc.

Allcom Wireless, Inc.

American Mobile Telecommunications Association

APCO International

Arizona Department of Public Safety

ArrayComm, Inc.

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.

Associations of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International

AT & T Wireless

Atlanta Communications Company

Bair's Electronics Services, Inc.

BayCom, Inc.

BCI Communications

BearCom

Bell Atlantic

Bell Atlantic Mobile

Blair Communications, Inc.

Boeing Company

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

Burst Networks, Inc.

Bytel, Inc.

Canadian Pacific Railway

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. (CTIA)

Centre Communications

Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)

City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Communications-Mr. Donatelli

City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Communications-Mr. Nowakowski

City of El Cajon

City of Fort Lauderdale

City of Mishawaka

City of San Diego

Coastal Electronics, Inc.

Cole, Gordon

Coloma Wireless, LLC

Commercial Communications, LLC

Communications & Electronics, Inc.

Communications Electronics, Inc.

Communications Engineering Services

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association

Coosa Valley Communications

County of Charleston

CTI Products, Inc.

DATARADIO

Dataradio Group of Companies

Day Wireless Systems

Delta Radio Systems, Inc.

DFW Communications

Dorler Communications Co.

Douglas County Sheriff

EMCO, Inc.

Express Radio, Inc.

Ford Communications

FreeSpace Communications (FreeSpace)

Greer Communications, Inc

Hankey's Radio, Inc.

Hasty's Communication East, Inc.

Houston 2-Way Radio

Industrial Communications & Electronics LLP

Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc

Intel Government Affairs

Jackson Communications, Inc

Kay Communications, Inc.

KM Communications, Inc.

Leap Wireless International Inc.

Lucent Technologies (Lucent)

Macon Communications, Inc.

Maryland State Police

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

Maximum Service Television, Inc.

McCord Communications

McDermott Communications Co., Inc.

Metropolitan Communications

Microradio Empowerment Coalition

Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)

Mobex Communications, Inc.

Mobilcomm

Mobile Communications of Gwinnett, Inc.

Motorola, Inc.

MRFAC, Inc.

National Coordination Committee on Public Safety Spectrum (NCC)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Nex-Tech

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

North Carolina Smartnet Users Network

North County Dispatch J.P.A.

Office of Emergency Management

Ohio Valley 2-Way Radio, Inc.

P&R Communications, Inc.

PCT Communications

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Platte Valley Communications

PSINet

Puget Sound Instrument

QualComm Inc.

Regional Communications, Inc.

Rep. Bliley

Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG)

S&P Communications

Savannah Communications

SBC Wireless, Inc.

Senator Dorgan et al.

Sierra Electronics

Southern Communications Services, Inc. (Southern)

Spectrum

Spectrum Exchange

Supreme Radio Communications, Inc.

Talladega County Emergency Management Agency

TBA Communications, Inc.

Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (Telcordia)

Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. et al. (TDS)

Teletouch Communications, Inc.

Texas Communications

Two Way Radio Services, Inc.

U.S. West Wireless, LLC

Union Pacific Railroad Company

University of Maryland

Walt Disney Company

Western Communications

Whitten's 2-Way Services

Yahoo! Inc.

Appendix B

**FINAL RULES**

For those reasons discussed in the accompanying Order part 27 of Title
47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

1\. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:

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

PART 27 --- WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

2\. The title for part 27 is amended to read as follows:

PART 27 -- MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

3\. The table of contents for part 27 is amended by adding a Sec. 27.10
at the beginning of subpart B, by adding Secs. 27.60 and 27.66 to
subpart C, by amending the titles for subpart D and for Sec. 27.201, and
by adding subpart F as follows:

PART 27 -- MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart B ‑‑ Applications and Licenses

Sec.

27.10 Regulatory Status.

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart C -- Technical Standards

\* \* \* \* \*

Sec.

27.60 TV/DTV interference protection criteria.

\* \* \* \* \*

27.66 Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service.

Subpart D ‑‑ Competitive Bidding Procedures for the

2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz Bands

Sec.

27.201 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart F ‑‑ Competitive Bidding Procedures for the

747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands

Sec.

27.501 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.

27.502 Designated entities.

4\. Section 27.1 is amended in paragraph (a) by deleting the phrase "for
the Wireless Communications Service (WCS)" and substituting the phrase
"for miscellaneous wireless communications services (WCS)" in lieu
thereof, and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.1 [Basis and purpose]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Purpose]{.underline}. This part states the conditions under which
spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless
communications services in the following bands.

\(1\) 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz.

\(2\) 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz.

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. Section 27.2 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 27.2 [Permissible communications]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Miscellaneous wireless communications services]{.underline}.
Subject to technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee
in the frequency bands specified in § 27.5 of this part 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 § 2.106
of part 2 of this chapter (column 5).

\(b\) [Satellite DARS]{.underline}. Satellite digital audio radio
service (DARS) may be provided using the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz
bands. Satellite DARS service shall be provided in a manner consistent
with part 25 of this chapter.

6\. Section 27.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph
(f) and paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (k), (l), and (m),
respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i), (j) and
(n) to read as follows:

**§ 27.3 [Other applicable rule parts]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) [Part 15]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to certain radio frequency devices.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) [Part 20]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to commercial mobile radio service providers.

\(h\) [Part 21]{.underline}. This part sets forth rules the requirements
and conditions applicable to point-to-point microwave services relating
to communications common carriers.

\(i\) [Part 22]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to public mobile services.

\(j\) [Part 24]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to personal communications services.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(n\) [Part 101]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to fixed microwave services.

7\. Section 27.4 is amended by revising the definition of \`\`wireless
communications service\'\' and by adding a definition of "broadcast
services" in alphabetical order to read as follows:

**§ 27.4 [Terms and definitions]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

Broadcast services. *This term shall have the same meaning as that for
"broadcasting" in section 3(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, i.e.,
"the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by
the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations." 47
U.S.C. § 153(6).*

\* \* \* \* \*

*Wireless communications service*. A radiocommunication service licensed
pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in § 27.5.

8\. Section 27.5 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}" at the beginning and then adding the
phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands" at the end of
newly-designated paragraph (a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to
read as follows:

**§ 27.5 [Frequencies]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. The following
frequencies are available for licensing pursuant to this part in the
746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands:

\(1\) Two paired channels of 1 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block A: 746-747 MHz and 776-777 MHz.

\(2\) Two paired channels of 2 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block B: 762-764 MHz and 792-794 MHz.

\(3\) Two paired channels of 5 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block C: 747-752 MHz and 777-782 MHz.

\(4\) Two paired channels of 10 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block D: 752-762 MHz and 782-792 MHz.

9\. Section 27.6 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}" at the beginning and then adding the
phrase "for the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands" between the words
"areas" and "are" in the first sentence of newly-designated paragraph
(a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.6 [Service areas]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}.

(1)\[Reserved.\]

\(2\) Service areas for Blocks C and D in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792
MHz bands are based on Economic Area Groupings (EAGs) as defined by the
Federal Communications Commission. *See* 62 FR 15978 (April 3, 1997)
extended with the Gulf of Mexico. *See also* 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997),
in which the Commission created an additional four economic area-like
areas for a total of 176. Maps of the EAGs and the [Federal
Register]{.smallcaps} Notice that established the 172 Economic Areas
(EAs) are available for public inspection and copying at the Reference
Center, Room CY A-257, 445 12^th^ St., S.W., Washington, DC 20554. These
maps and data are also available on the FCC website at
[www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/).

(i)There are 6 EAGs, which are composed of multiple EAs as defined in
the table below:

  ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------
  **Economic Area  **Name**           **Economic Areas^2^**
  Groupings^1^**                      

  EAG001           Northeast          1-11, 54

  EAG002           Mid-Atlantic       12-26, 41, 42, 44-53, 70

  EAG003           Southeast          27-40, 43, 69, 71-86, 88-90, 95, 96,
                                      174, 176(part)

  EAG004           Great Lakes        55-68, 97, 100-109

  EAG005           Central/Mountain   87, 91-94, 98, 99, 110-146, 148, 149,
                                      152, 154-159, 176(part)

  EAG006           Pacific            147, 150, 151, 153, 160-173, 175
  ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------

Note 1: Economic Area Groupings are defined by the Federal
Communications Commission; *see* 62 FR 15978 (April 3, 1997) extended
with the Gulf of Mexico.

Note 2: Economic Areas are defined by the Regional Economic Analysis
Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce
February 1995 and extended by the Federal Communications Commission,
*see* 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997).

\(ii\) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, EA 176 (the
Gulf of Mexico) will be divided between EAG003 (the Southeast EAG) and
EAG005 (the Central/Mountain EAG) in accordance with the configuration
of the Eastern/ Central and Western Planning Area established by the
Mineral Management Services Bureau of the Department of Interior (MMS).
That portion of EA 176 contained in the Eastern and Central Planning
Areas as defined by MMS will be included in EAG003; that portion of EA
176 contained in the Western Planning Area as defined by MMS will be
included in EAG005. Maps of these areas may be found on the MMS website.
[www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html](http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html).

10\. A new section 27.10 is added at the beginning of subpart B to read
as follows:

**§ 27.10 [Regulatory status]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Single authorization]{.underline}. Authorization will be granted
to provide any or a combination of the following services in a single
license: common carrier, non-common carrier, and broadcast. A licensee
may render any kind of communications service consistent with the
regulatory status in its license and with the Commission\'s rules
applicable to that service. An applicant or licensee may submit a
petition at any time requesting clarification of the regulatory status
for which authorization is required to provide a specific communications
service.

\(b\) [Designation of regulatory status in initial
application]{.underline}. An applicant shall specify in its initial
application if it is requesting authorization to provide common carrier,
non-common carrier, or broadcast services, or a combination thereof.

\(c\) [Amendment of pending applications]{.underline}. The following
rules apply to amendments of a pending application.

(1) Any pending application may be amended to:

\(i\) Change the carrier regulatory status requested, or

\(ii\) Add to the pending request in order to obtain common carrier,
non-common carrier, or broadcast status, or a combination thereof, in a
single license.

\(2\) Amendments to change, or add to, the carrier regulatory status in
a pending application are minor amendments filed under § 1.927 of part 1
of this chapter.

\(d\) [Modification of license]{.underline}. The following rules apply
to amendments of a license.

(1) A licensee may modify a license to:

\(i\) Change the regulatory status authorized, or

\(ii\) Add to the status authorized in order to obtain a combination of
services of different regulatory status in a single license.

\(2\) Applications to change, or add to, the carrier status in a license
are modifications not requiring prior Commission authorization. The
licensee must notify the Commission within 30 days of the change. If the
change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of an
existing service, the licensee is subject to the provisions of § 27.66
of this part.

11\. Section 27.11 is amended by adding the following sentences to the
end of paragraph (a), by revising paragraph (b), and by adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 27.11 [Initial authorization]{.underline}.**

\(a\) \* \* \* Initial authorizations shall be granted in accordance
with § 27.5 of this part. Applications for individual sites are not
required and will not be accepted, except where required for
environmental assessments, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319
of part 1 of this chapter.

\(b\) [2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands shall be
for 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(a) of this part.

\(1\) Authorizations for Blocks A and B will be based on Major Economic
Areas (MEAs), as specified in § 27.6(a)(1) of this part.

\(2\) Authorizations for Blocks C and D will be based on Regional
Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), as specified in § 27.6(a)(2) of this
part.

\(c\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz blocks shall be for
1, 2, 5, or 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(b) of
this part.

\(1\) Authorizations for Block A, consisting of two paired channels of 1
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(b)(1) of this part.

\(2\) Authorizations for Block B, consisting of two paired channels of 2
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(b)(1) of this part.

\(3\) Authorizations for Block C, consisting of two paired channels of 5
megahertz each, will be based on Economic Area Groupings (EAGs), as
specified in § 27.6(b)(2) of this part.

\(4\) Authorizations for Block D, consisting of two paired channels of
10 megahertz each, will be based on EAGs, as specified in § 27.6(b)(2)
of this part.

13\. Section 27.13 is amended by designating the present text as
paragraph (a), by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
bands]{.underline}" and then the phrase "Except as provided in paragraph
(b)" at the beginning thereof, and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

§ 27.13 [License Period]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-790 MHz bands, will extend
until January 1, 2014, except that a Part 27 licensee commencing
broadcast services, will be required to seek renewal of its license for
such services at the termination of the eight-year term following
commencement of such operations.

14\. Section 27.14 is amended by deleting the phrase "ten years of being
licensed" in paragraph (a) and substituting the phrase "the prescribed
license term set forth in § 27.13 of this part" in lieu thereof.

15\. Section 27.15 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding a
new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

**§ 27.15 [Geographic partitioning and spectrum
disaggregation]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Technical Standards]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) [Signal levels]{.underline}. For purposes of partitioning and
disaggregation, Part 27 systems must be designed so as not to exceed the
signal level specified for the particular spectrum block in § 27.55 of
this part at the licensee's service area boundary, unless the affected
adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a different signal level.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) [Compliance with construction requirements]{.underline}. The
following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14 of this part.

\(1\) [Partitioning]{.underline}. Parties to partitioning agreements
have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth
in § 27.14 of this part. 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 second 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.

\(2\) [Disaggregation]{.underline}. Parties to disaggregation agreements
have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth
in § 27.14 of this part. 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.

16\. Section 27.50 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), respectively, deleting in both of these
redesignated paragraphs the phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
MHz bands," by adding new paragraphs (a) and (b), and by adding Table 1
following paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 27.50 [Power and antenna height limits]{.underline}.**

\(a\) The following power and antenna height limits apply to
transmitters operating in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands:

\(1\) Fixed and base stations transmitting in the 747-762 MHz band must
not exceed an effective radiated power (ERP) of 1000 watts and an
antenna height of 305 m height above average terrain (HAAT), except that
antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels
are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in accordance with Table 1 of this
section;

\(2\) Fixed, control, and mobile stations transmitting in the 777-792
MHz band are limited to 30 watts ERP;

\(3\) Portable stations (hand-held devices) transmitting in the 777-792
MHz band are limited to 3 watts ERP;

\(4\) Maximum composite transmit power shall be measured over any
interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in
terms of RMS-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be
properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector
response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to
the emission bandwidth, etc., so as to obtain a true maximum composite
measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the
channel.

\(b\) The following power limits apply to the 2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

> Table 1 -- Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for
>
> Base and Fixed Stations in the 747-762 MHz Band

+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Antenna Height (AAT)**      | Effective Radiated Power (ERP)        |
|                               |                                       |
| **in meters (feet)**          | **(watts)**                           |
+===============================+=======================================+
| Above 1372 (4500)             | 65                                    |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 1220 (4000)             | 70                                    |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1372 (4500)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 1067 (3500)             | 75                                    |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1220 (4000)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 915 (3000)              | 100                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1067 (4000)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 763 (2500)              | 140                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 915 (3000)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 610 (2000)              | 200                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 763 (2500)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 458 (1500)              | 350                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 610 (2000)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 305 (1000)              | 600                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 458 (1500)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Up to 305 (1000)              | 1000                                  |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

17\. Section 27.51 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 27.51 [Equipment authorization.]{.underline}**

\(a\) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of
a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its
certification procedure.

\(b\) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.

18\. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating
paragraph (c) as paragraph (f), and adding new paragraphs (c), (d) and
(e) to read as follows:

**§ 27.53 [Emission limits]{.underline}.**

\(a\) For operations in the bands 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz, the
power of any emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s) of
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the
licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by the following
amounts:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) For operations in the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any
emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s) of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s)
of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:

\(1\) On any frequency outside the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any
emission shall be attenuated outside the band below the transmitter
power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB;

\(2\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment;

\(3\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a
resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be employed;

\(4\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation such that the reading
taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should be adjusted to
indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.

\(d\) For operations in the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any
emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s)of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s)
of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:

\(1\) On any frequency outside the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any
emission shall be attenuated outside the band below the transmitter
power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB;

\(2\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 65 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for
mobile and portable stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 MHz band;

\(3\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for
fixed stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 MHz band;

\(4\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a
resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be employed;

\(5\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of
this section is based on the use of measurement instrumentation such
that the reading taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should be
adjusted to indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.

\(e\) For operations in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, emissions
in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be limited to --70 dBW/MHz equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband signals, and --80 dBW
EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the
purpose of equipment authorization, a transmitter shall be tested with
an antenna that is representative of the type that will be used with the
equipment in normal operation.

\(f\) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.

19\. Section 27.55 is amended to read as follows.

**§ 27.55 [Field strength limits]{.underline}.**

The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the
geographical border of a Part 27 service area shall not exceed the value
specified for the following bands, unless the adjacent affected service
area licensees agree to a different field strength. This value applies
to both the initially offered service areas and to partitioned service
areas.

\(a\) 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47 dBuV/m

\(b\) 747-762 and 777-792 MHz bands: 40 dBuV/m

20\. Section 27.60 is added to read as follows.

**§ 27.60 [TV/DTV interference protection criteria]{.underline}.**

Base, fixed, control, and mobile transmitters in the 747‑762 MHz and
777‑792 MHz frequency bands must be operated only in accordance with the
rules in this section to reduce the potential for interference to public
reception of the signals of existing TV and DTV broadcast stations
transmitting on TV Channels 59 through 68.

(a)  [D/U ratios]{.underline}. Licensees must choose site locations that
are a sufficient distance from co‑channel and adjacent channel TV and
DTV stations, and/or must use reduced transmitting power or transmitting
antenna height such that the following minimum desired
signal-to-undesired signal ratios (D/U ratios) are met.

(1)  The minimum D/U ratio for co-channel stations is 40 dB at the
hypothetical Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of
the TV station or 17 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour (41 dBμV/m)
(88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.

(2)  The minimum D/U ratio for adjacent channel stations is 0 dB at the
hypothetical Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of
the TV station or -23 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour (41 dBμV/m)
(88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.

(b)  [TV stations and calculation of contours]{.underline}. The methods
used to calculate TV contours and antenna heights above average terrain
are given in §§ 73.683 and 73.684 of this chapter. Tables to determine
the necessary minimum distance from the 747-762 MHz or 777-792 MHz
station to the TV/DTV station, assuming that the TV/DTV station has a
hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contour of 88.5 kilometers
(55 miles), are located in § 90.309 and labeled as Tables B, D, and E.
Values between those given in the tables may be determined by linear
interpolation. The locations of existing and proposed TV/DTV stations
during the period of transition from analog to digital TV service are
given in Part 73 of this chapter and in the final proceedings of
MM Docket No. 87-268. The DTV allotments on Channels 60 through 68 are:

  -------------- -------------- ------------- --------- ---------- -----------
  STATE          CITY           NTSC TV Ch.   DTV Ch.   ERP (kW)   HAAT (m.)

  California     Concord        42            63        61         856

  California     Long Beach     18            61        413.6      725

  California     Los Angeles    2             60        865.9      1107

  California     Los Angeles    11            65        688.7      896

  California     Los Angeles    13            66        679.7      899

  California     Riverside      62            68        180.1      723

  California     Sacramento     10            61        1000       595

  California     Stockton       64            62        63.5       874

  New Jersey     Newark         13            61        198.7      500

  New Jersey     Vineland       65            66        107.8      280

  Pennsylvania   Allentown      39            62        50         302

  Pennsylvania   Philadelphia   6             64        1000       332

  Pennsylvania   Philadelphia   10            67        791.8      354

  Puerto Rico    Aguada         50            62        50.1       343

  Puerto Rico    Arecibo        60            61        55         242

  Puerto Rico    Mayaguez       16            63        50.1       347

  Puerto Rico    Naranjito      64            65        50.1       142

  Puerto Rico    Ponce          7             66        407.4      826

  Wisconsin      Milwaukee      18            61        519.8      307
  -------------- -------------- ------------- --------- ---------- -----------

DTV stations on Channel 59 must be considered even though they are not
indicated in the above table. The transition period is scheduled to end
on December 31, 2006. After that time, unless otherwise directed by the
Commission, 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz stations will no longer be
required to protect reception of co-channel or adjacent channel TV/DTV
stations.

(1)  Licensees of stations operating within the ERP and HAAT limits of §
27.50 of this part must select one of three methods to meet the TV/DTV
protection requirements, subject to Commission approval:

(i)  utilize the geographic separation specified in the tables
referenced below;

(ii)  submit an engineering study justifying the proposed separations
based on the actual parameters of the land mobile station and the actual
parameters of the TV/DTV station(s) it is trying to protect; or,

(iii)  obtain written concurrence from the applicable TV/DTV station(s).
If this method is chosen, a copy of the agreement must be submitted with
the application.

(2)  The following is the method for geographic separations.

(i)  Base and fixed stations that operate in the 747-762 MHz band having
an antenna height (HAAT) less than 152 m. (500 ft.) shall afford
protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in
accordance with the values specified in Table B (co-channel frequencies
based on 40 dB protection) and Table E (adjacent channel frequencies
based on 0 dB protection) in § 90.309 of this chapter. For base and
fixed stations having an antenna height (HAAT) between 152-914 meters
(500-3,000 ft.) the effective radiated power must be reduced below 1
kilowatt in accordance with the values shown in the power reduction
graph in Figure B in § 90.309 of this chapter. For heights of more than
152 m. (500 ft.) above average terrain, the distance to the radio path
horizon will be calculated assuming smooth earth. If the distance so
determined equals or exceeds the distance to the hypothetical or
equivalent Grade B contour of a co-channel TV/DTV station (*i.e.*, it
exceeds the distance from the appropriate Table in § 90.309 to the
relevant TV/DTV station), an authorization will not be granted unless it
can be shown in an engineering study (*see* paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section) that actual terrain considerations are such as to provide the
desired protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m for TV and
41 dBμV/m for DTV stations) or unless the effective radiated power will
be further reduced so that, assuming free space attenuation, the desired
protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m for TV and 41 dBμV/m
coverage contour for DTV stations) will be achieved. Directions for
calculating powers, heights, and reduction curves are listed in § 90.309
for land mobile stations. Directions for calculating coverage contours
are listed in §§ 73.683-685 for TV stations and in § 73.625 for DTV
stations.

(ii)  Control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables) that
operate in the 777-792 MHz band are limited in height and power and
therefore shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel
TV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in Table D
(co-channel frequencies based on 40 dB protection for TV stations and 17
dB for DTV stations) in § 90.309 of this chapter and a minimum distance
of 8 kilometers (5 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV station
hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contours (adjacent channel
frequencies based on 0 dB protection for TV stations and - 23 dB for DTV
stations). Since control, fixed, and mobile stations may affect
different TV/DTV stations than the associated base or fixed station,
particular care must be taken by applicants/licensees to ensure that all
appropriate TV/DTV stations are considered (*e.g.* a base station may be
operating within TV Channel 62 and the mobiles within TV Channel 67, in
which case TV Channels 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 must be protected).
Control, fixed, and mobile stations shall keep a minimum distance of
96.5 kilometers (60 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV stations.
Since mobiles and portables are able to move and communicate with each
other, licensees must determine the areas where the mobiles can and
cannot roam in order to protect the TV/DTV stations.

(iii)  In order to protect certain TV/DTV stations and to ensure
protection from these stations which may have extremely large contours
due to unusual height situations, an additional distance factor must be
used by all base, fixed, control, and mobile stations. For all
co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an HAAT
between 350 and 600 meters, licensees must add the following DISTANCE
FACTOR to the value obtained from the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and
to the distance for control, fixed, and mobile stations on adjacent
TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).

DISTANCE FACTOR  =  (TV/DTV HAAT - 350) ÷ 14 in kilometers, where HAAT
is the TV or DTV station antenna height above average terrain obtained
from its authorized or proposed facilities, whichever is greater.

For all co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an
antenna height above average terrain greater than 600 meters, licensees
must add 18 kilometers as the DISTANCE FACTOR to the value obtained from
the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and to the distance for control,
fixed, and mobile stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).

Note: The 88.5 km (55 mi) Grade B service contour (64 dBμV/m) is based
on a hypothetical TV station operating at an effective radiated power of
one megawatt, a transmitting antenna height above average terrain of
610 meters (2000 feet) and the Commission\'s R-6602 F(50,50) curves.
*See* § 73.699 of this chapter. Maximum facilities for TV stations
operating in the UHF band are 5 megawatts effective radiated power at an
antenna HAAT of 610 meters (2,000 feet). *See* § 73.614 of this chapter.
The equivalent contour for DTV stations is based on a 41 dBμV/m signal
strength and the distance to the F(50,90) curve. *See* § 73.625 of this
chapter.

21\. A new section 27.66 is added to read as follows:

§ 27.66 [Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
service]{.underline}.

\(a\) [Involuntary act]{.underline}. If the service provided by a fixed
common carrier licensee is involuntarily discontinued, reduced, or
impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the licensee must promptly
notify the Commission, in writing, as to the reasons for discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service, including a statement when normal
service is to be resumed. When normal service is resumed, the licensee
must promptly notify the Commission.

\(b\) [Voluntary act by common carrier]{.underline}. If a fixed common
carrier licensee voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or impairs service
to a community or part of a community, it must obtain prior
authorization as provided under § 63.71 of this chapter. An application
will be granted within 30 days after filing if no objections have been
received.

\(c\) [Voluntary act by non-common carrier]{.underline}. If a fixed
non-common carrier licensee voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or
impairs service to a community or part of a community, it must given
written notice to the Commission within seven days.

\(d\) [Notifications and requests]{.underline}. Notifications and
requests identified in paragraphs(a) through (c) of this section should
be sent to: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Radio
Services, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 17325.

22\. Section 27.308 is amended by deleting the phrase "WCS (see subparts
C and D of this part as appropriate)" and inserting the phrase
"applicable frequency band (*see* subparts C, D, and F of this part, as
appropriate)" in lieu thereof.

23\. A new subpart F is added to read as follows.

Subpart F -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 747-762 MHz and
777-792 MHz Bands.

**§ 27.501 [747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding]{.underline}.**

Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the 747-762 MHz
and 777-792 MHz bands are subject to competitive bidding procedures. The
procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of this chapter will apply
unless otherwise provided in this part.

**§ 27.502 [Designated entities]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Eligibility for small business provisions]{.underline}.

\(1\) A small business is an entity that, together with its controlling
interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40
million for the preceding three years.

\(2\) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.

\(3\) For purposes of determining whether an entity meets either of the
definitions set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section,
the gross revenues of the entity, its controlling interests and
affiliates shall be considered on a cumulative basis and aggregated. An
applicant seeking status as a small business or very small business
under this section must disclose on its short- and long-form
applications, separately and in the aggregate, the gross revenues of the
applicant (or licensee), its controlling interests and affiliates for
each of the previous three years.

\(4\) Persons or entities that hold interests in an applicant (or
licensee) that are affiliates of each other or have an identity of
interests identified in **§** 1.2110(b)(4)(iii) of this chapter will be
treated as though they were one person or entity and their ownership
interests aggregated for purposes of determining an applicant's (or
licensee's) compliance with the requirements of this section.

\(5\) Where an applicant (or licensee) cannot identify controlling
interests under the standards set forth in this section, the gross
revenues of all interest holders in the applicant, and their affiliates,
will be attributable.

\(6\) A consortium of small businesses (or a consortium of very small
businesses) is a conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture
between or among mutually independent business firms, each of which
individually satisfies the definition in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section (or each of which individually satisfies the definition in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section). Where an applicant or licensee is a
consortium of small businesses (or very small businesses), the gross
revenues of each small business (or very small business) shall not be
aggregated.

\(7\) Designated entities must describe on their long-form applications
how they satisfy the requirements for eligibility for designated entity
status, and must list and summarize on their long-form applications all
agreements that affect designated entity status such as partnership
agreements, shareholder agreements, management agreements and other
agreements, including oral agreements, establishing, as applicable, *de
facto* or *de jure* control of the entity. Such information must be
maintained at the licensee's facilities or by its designated agent for
the term of the license in order to enable the Commission to audit
designated entity eligibility on an ongoing basis.

\(b\) [Controlling interest]{.underline}*.*

\(1\) For purposes of this section, a controlling interest includes
individuals or entities with either *de jure* or *de facto* control of
the applicant. *De jure* control is evidenced by holdings of greater
than 50 percent of the voting stock of a corporation, or in the case of
a partnership, general partnership interests. *De facto* control is
determined on a case-by-case basis. An entity must disclose its equity
interest and demonstrate at least the following indicia of control to
establish that it retains *de facto* control of the applicant:

\(i\) The entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the
board of directors or management committee;

\(ii\) The entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire
senior executives that control the day-to-day activities of the
licensee; and

\(iii\) The entity plays an integral role in management decisions.

\(2\) The following rules apply for the calculation of certain
interests*.*

\(i\) Ownership interests shall be calculated on a fully diluted basis;
all agreements such as warrants, stock options, and convertible
debentures will generally be treated as if the rights thereunder already
have been fully exercised.

\(ii\) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest
equity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock shall be
attributed as specified below.

\(iii\) Stock interests held in trust shall be attributed to any person
who holds or shares the power to vote such stock, to any person who has
the sole power to sell such stock, and to any person who has the right
to revoke the trust at will or to replace the trustee at will. If the
trustee has a familial, personal, or extra‑trust business relationship
to the grantor or the beneficiary, the stock interests held in trust
will be attributed to the grantor or beneficiary, as appropriate.

\(iv\) Non‑voting stock shall be attributed as an interest in the
issuing entity.

\(v\) Limited partnership interests shall be attributed to limited
partners and shall be calculated according to both the percentage of
equity paid in and the percentage of distribution of profits and losses.

\(vi\) Officers and directors of an entity shall be considered to have
an attributable interest in the entity. The officers and directors of an
entity that controls a licensee or applicant shall be considered to have
an attributable interest in the licensee or applicant.

\(vii\) Ownership interests that are held indirectly by any party
through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by
successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in
the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution
benchmark to the resulting product, except that if the ownership
percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent
or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100
percent interest.

\(viii\) Any person who manages the operations of an applicant or
licensee pursuant to a management agreement shall be considered to have
a controlling interest in such applicant or licensee if such person, or
its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in
practices or activities that determine, or significantly influence:

\(A\) The nature or types of services offered by such an applicant or
licensee;

\(B\) The terms upon which such services are offered; or

\(C\) The prices charged for such services.

\(ix\) Any licensee or its affiliate who enters into a joint marketing
arrangement with an applicant or licensee, or its affiliate, shall be
considered to have a controlling interest, if such applicant or
licensee, or its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise
engage in practices or activities that determine, or significantly
influence:

\(A\) The nature or types of services offered by such an applicant or
licensee;

\(B\) The terms upon which such services are offered; or

(C) The prices charged for such services.

\(c\) [Bidding credits]{.underline}. A winning bidder that qualifies as
a small business or a consortium of small businesses as defined in this
section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(iii) of
this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business
or a consortium of very small businesses as defined in this section may
use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii) of this chapter.

Appendix B

**FINAL RULES**

For those reasons discussed in the accompanying Order part 27 of Title
47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

1\. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:

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

PART 27 --- WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

2\. The title for part 27 is amended to read as follows:

PART 27 -- MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

3\. The table of contents for part 27 is amended by adding a Sec. 27.10
at the beginning of subpart B, by adding Secs. 27.60 and 27.66 to
subpart C, by amending the titles for subpart D and for Sec. 27.201, and
by adding subpart F as follows:

PART 27 -- MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart B ‑‑ Applications and Licenses

Sec.

27.10 Regulatory Status.

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart C -- Technical Standards

\* \* \* \* \*

Sec.

27.60 TV/DTV interference protection criteria.

\* \* \* \* \*

27.66 Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service.

Subpart D ‑‑ Competitive Bidding Procedures for the

2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz Bands

Sec.

27.201 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.

\* \* \* \* \*

Subpart F ‑‑ Competitive Bidding Procedures for the

747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands

Sec.

27.501 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.

27.502 Designated entities.

4\. Section 27.1 is amended in paragraph (a) by deleting the phrase "for
the Wireless Communications Service (WCS)" and substituting the phrase
"for miscellaneous wireless communications services (WCS)" in lieu
thereof, and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.1 [Basis and purpose]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Purpose]{.underline}. This part states the conditions under which
spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless
communications services in the following bands.

\(1\) 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz.

\(2\) 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz.

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. Section 27.2 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 27.2 [Permissible communications]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Miscellaneous wireless communications services]{.underline}.
Subject to technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee
in the frequency bands specified in § 27.5 of this part 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 § 2.106
of part 2 of this chapter (column 5).

\(b\) [Satellite DARS]{.underline}. Satellite digital audio radio
service (DARS) may be provided using the 2310-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz
bands. Satellite DARS service shall be provided in a manner consistent
with part 25 of this chapter.

6\. Section 27.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph
(f) and paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (k), (l), and (m),
respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i), (j) and
(n) to read as follows:

**§ 27.3 [Other applicable rule parts]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) [Part 15]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to certain radio frequency devices.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) [Part 20]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to commercial mobile radio service providers.

\(h\) [Part 21]{.underline}. This part sets forth rules the requirements
and conditions applicable to point-to-point microwave services relating
to communications common carriers.

\(i\) [Part 22]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to public mobile services.

\(j\) [Part 24]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to personal communications services.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(n\) [Part 101]{.underline}. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to fixed microwave services.

7\. Section 27.4 is amended by revising the definition of \`\`wireless
communications service\'\' and by adding a definition of "broadcast
services" in alphabetical order to read as follows:

**§ 27.4 [Terms and definitions]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

Broadcast services. *This term shall have the same meaning as that for
"broadcasting" in section 3(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, i.e.,
"the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by
the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations." 47
U.S.C. § 153(6).*

\* \* \* \* \*

*Wireless communications service*. A radiocommunication service licensed
pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in § 27.5.

8\. Section 27.5 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}" at the beginning and then adding the
phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands" at the end of
newly-designated paragraph (a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to
read as follows:

**§ 27.5 [Frequencies]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. The following
frequencies are available for licensing pursuant to this part in the
746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands:

\(1\) Two paired channels of 1 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block A: 746-747 MHz and 776-777 MHz.

\(2\) Two paired channels of 2 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block B: 762-764 MHz and 792-794 MHz.

\(3\) Two paired channels of 5 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block C: 747-752 MHz and 777-782 MHz.

\(4\) Two paired channels of 10 megahertz each are available for
assignment. Block D: 752-762 MHz and 782-792 MHz.

9\. Section 27.6 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}" at the beginning and then adding the
phrase "for the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands" between the words
"areas" and "are" in the first sentence of newly-designated paragraph
(a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.6 [Service areas]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}.

(1)\[Reserved.\]

\(2\) Service areas for Blocks C and D in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792
MHz bands are based on Economic Area Groupings (EAGs) as defined by the
Federal Communications Commission. *See* 62 FR 15978 (April 3, 1997)
extended with the Gulf of Mexico. *See also* 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997),
in which the Commission created an additional four economic area-like
areas for a total of 176. Maps of the EAGs and the [Federal
Register]{.smallcaps} Notice that established the 172 Economic Areas
(EAs) are available for public inspection and copying at the Reference
Center, Room CY A-257, 445 12^th^ St., S.W., Washington, DC 20554. These
maps and data are also available on the FCC website at
[www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/](http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/).

(i)There are 6 EAGs, which are composed of multiple EAs as defined in
the table below:

  ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------
  **Economic Area  **Name**           **Economic Areas^2^**
  Groupings^1^**                      

  EAG001           Northeast          1-11, 54

  EAG002           Mid-Atlantic       12-26, 41, 42, 44-53, 70

  EAG003           Southeast          27-40, 43, 69, 71-86, 88-90, 95, 96,
                                      174, 176(part)

  EAG004           Great Lakes        55-68, 97, 100-109

  EAG005           Central/Mountain   87, 91-94, 98, 99, 110-146, 148, 149,
                                      152, 154-159, 176(part)

  EAG006           Pacific            147, 150, 151, 153, 160-173, 175
  ---------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------

Note 1: Economic Area Groupings are defined by the Federal
Communications Commission; *see* 62 FR 15978 (April 3, 1997) extended
with the Gulf of Mexico.

Note 2: Economic Areas are defined by the Regional Economic Analysis
Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce
February 1995 and extended by the Federal Communications Commission,
*see* 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997).

\(ii\) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, EA 176 (the
Gulf of Mexico) will be divided between EAG003 (the Southeast EAG) and
EAG005 (the Central/Mountain EAG) in accordance with the configuration
of the Eastern/ Central and Western Planning Area established by the
Mineral Management Services Bureau of the Department of Interior (MMS).
That portion of EA 176 contained in the Eastern and Central Planning
Areas as defined by MMS will be included in EAG003; that portion of EA
176 contained in the Western Planning Area as defined by MMS will be
included in EAG005. Maps of these areas may be found on the MMS website.
[www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html](http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html).

10\. A new section 27.10 is added at the beginning of subpart B to read
as follows:

**§ 27.10 [Regulatory status]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Single authorization]{.underline}. Authorization will be granted
to provide any or a combination of the following services in a single
license: common carrier, non-common carrier, and broadcast. A licensee
may render any kind of communications service consistent with the
regulatory status in its license and with the Commission\'s rules
applicable to that service. An applicant or licensee may submit a
petition at any time requesting clarification of the regulatory status
for which authorization is required to provide a specific communications
service.

\(b\) [Designation of regulatory status in initial
application]{.underline}. An applicant shall specify in its initial
application if it is requesting authorization to provide common carrier,
non-common carrier, or broadcast services, or a combination thereof.

\(c\) [Amendment of pending applications]{.underline}. The following
rules apply to amendments of a pending application.

(2) Any pending application may be amended to:

\(i\) Change the carrier regulatory status requested, or

\(ii\) Add to the pending request in order to obtain common carrier,
non-common carrier, or broadcast status, or a combination thereof, in a
single license.

\(2\) Amendments to change, or add to, the carrier regulatory status in
a pending application are minor amendments filed under § 1.927 of part 1
of this chapter.

\(d\) [Modification of license]{.underline}. The following rules apply
to amendments of a license.

(2) A licensee may modify a license to:

\(i\) Change the regulatory status authorized, or

\(ii\) Add to the status authorized in order to obtain a combination of
services of different regulatory status in a single license.

\(2\) Applications to change, or add to, the carrier status in a license
are modifications not requiring prior Commission authorization. The
licensee must notify the Commission within 30 days of the change. If the
change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of an
existing service, the licensee is subject to the provisions of § 27.66
of this part.

11\. Section 27.11 is amended by adding the following sentences to the
end of paragraph (a), by revising paragraph (b), and by adding a new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 27.11 [Initial authorization]{.underline}.**

\(a\) \* \* \* Initial authorizations shall be granted in accordance
with § 27.5 of this part. Applications for individual sites are not
required and will not be accepted, except where required for
environmental assessments, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319
of part 1 of this chapter.

\(b\) [2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands shall be
for 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(a) of this part.

\(1\) Authorizations for Blocks A and B will be based on Major Economic
Areas (MEAs), as specified in § 27.6(a)(1) of this part.

\(2\) Authorizations for Blocks C and D will be based on Regional
Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), as specified in § 27.6(a)(2) of this
part.

\(c\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz blocks shall be for
1, 2, 5, or 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(b) of
this part.

\(1\) Authorizations for Block A, consisting of two paired channels of 1
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(b)(1) of this part.

\(2\) Authorizations for Block B, consisting of two paired channels of 2
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(b)(1) of this part.

\(3\) Authorizations for Block C, consisting of two paired channels of 5
megahertz each, will be based on Economic Area Groupings (EAGs), as
specified in § 27.6(b)(2) of this part.

\(4\) Authorizations for Block D, consisting of two paired channels of
10 megahertz each, will be based on EAGs, as specified in § 27.6(b)(2)
of this part.

13\. Section 27.13 is amended by designating the present text as
paragraph (a), by inserting the title "[2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
bands]{.underline}" and then the phrase "Except as provided in paragraph
(b)" at the beginning thereof, and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

§ 27.13 [License Period]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands]{.underline}. Initial
authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-790 MHz bands, will extend
until January 1, 2014, except that a Part 27 licensee commencing
broadcast services, will be required to seek renewal of its license for
such services at the termination of the eight-year term following
commencement of such operations.

14\. Section 27.14 is amended by deleting the phrase "ten years of being
licensed" in paragraph (a) and substituting the phrase "the prescribed
license term set forth in § 27.13 of this part" in lieu thereof.

15\. Section 27.15 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding a
new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

**§ 27.15 [Geographic partitioning and spectrum
disaggregation]{.underline}.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Technical Standards]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(4\) [Signal levels]{.underline}. For purposes of partitioning and
disaggregation, Part 27 systems must be designed so as not to exceed the
signal level specified for the particular spectrum block in § 27.55 of
this part at the licensee's service area boundary, unless the affected
adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a different signal level.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) [Compliance with construction requirements]{.underline}. The
following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction
requirements set forth in § 27.14 of this part.

\(1\) [Partitioning]{.underline}. Parties to partitioning agreements
have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth
in § 27.14 of this part. 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 second 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.

\(2\) [Disaggregation]{.underline}. Parties to disaggregation agreements
have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth
in § 27.14 of this part. 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.

16\. Section 27.50 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), respectively, deleting in both of these
redesignated paragraphs the phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
MHz bands," by adding new paragraphs (a) and (b), and by adding Table 1
following paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 27.50 [Power and antenna height limits]{.underline}.**

\(a\) The following power and antenna height limits apply to
transmitters operating in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands:

\(1\) Fixed and base stations transmitting in the 747-762 MHz band must
not exceed an effective radiated power (ERP) of 1000 watts and an
antenna height of 305 m height above average terrain (HAAT), except that
antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels
are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in accordance with Table 1 of this
section;

\(2\) Fixed, control, and mobile stations transmitting in the 777-792
MHz band are limited to 30 watts ERP;

\(3\) Portable stations (hand-held devices) transmitting in the 777-792
MHz band are limited to 3 watts ERP;

\(4\) Maximum composite transmit power shall be measured over any
interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in
terms of RMS-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be
properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector
response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to
the emission bandwidth, etc., so as to obtain a true maximum composite
measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the
channel.

\(b\) The following power limits apply to the 2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

> Table 1 -- Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for
>
> Base and Fixed Stations in the 747-762 MHz Band

+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Antenna Height (AAT)**      | Effective Radiated Power (ERP)        |
|                               |                                       |
| **in meters (feet)**          | **(watts)**                           |
+===============================+=======================================+
| Above 1372 (4500)             | 65                                    |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 1220 (4000)             | 70                                    |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1372 (4500)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 1067 (3500)             | 75                                    |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1220 (4000)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 915 (3000)              | 100                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 1067 (4000)                |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 763 (2500)              | 140                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 915 (3000)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 610 (2000)              | 200                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 763 (2500)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 458 (1500)              | 350                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 610 (2000)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Above 305 (1000)              | 600                                   |
|                               |                                       |
| to 458 (1500)                 |                                       |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Up to 305 (1000)              | 1000                                  |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

17\. Section 27.51 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 27.51 [Equipment authorization.]{.underline}**

\(a\) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of
a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its
certification procedure.

\(b\) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.

18\. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating
paragraph (c) as paragraph (f), and adding new paragraphs (c), (d) and
(e) to read as follows:

**§ 27.53 [Emission limits]{.underline}.**

\(a\) For operations in the bands 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz, the
power of any emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s) of
operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the
licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by the following
amounts:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) For operations in the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any
emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s) of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s)
of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:

\(1\) On any frequency outside the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any
emission shall be attenuated outside the band below the transmitter
power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB;

\(2\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment;

\(3\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a
resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be employed;

\(4\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation such that the reading
taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should be adjusted to
indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.

\(d\) For operations in the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any
emission outside the licensee\'s frequency band(s)of operation shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s)
of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:

\(1\) On any frequency outside the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any
emission shall be attenuated outside the band below the transmitter
power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB;

\(2\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 65 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for
mobile and portable stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 MHz band;

\(3\) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a
factor not less than 76 + 10 log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for
fixed stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 MHz band;

\(4\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section
is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a
resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be employed;

\(5\) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of
this section is based on the use of measurement instrumentation such
that the reading taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should be
adjusted to indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.

\(e\) For operations in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, emissions
in the band 1559-1610 MHz shall be limited to --70 dBW/MHz equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband signals, and --80 dBW
EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the
purpose of equipment authorization, a transmitter shall be tested with
an antenna that is representative of the type that will be used with the
equipment in normal operation.

\(f\) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.

19\. Section 27.55 is amended to read as follows.

**§ 27.55 [Field strength limits]{.underline}.**

The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the
geographical border of a Part 27 service area shall not exceed the value
specified for the following bands, unless the adjacent affected service
area licensees agree to a different field strength. This value applies
to both the initially offered service areas and to partitioned service
areas.

\(a\) 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47 dBuV/m

\(b\) 747-762 and 777-792 MHz bands: 40 dBuV/m

20\. Section 27.60 is added to read as follows.

**§ 27.60 [TV/DTV interference protection criteria]{.underline}.**

Base, fixed, control, and mobile transmitters in the 747‑762 MHz and
777‑792 MHz frequency bands must be operated only in accordance with the
rules in this section to reduce the potential for interference to public
reception of the signals of existing TV and DTV broadcast stations
transmitting on TV Channels 59 through 68.

(a)  [D/U ratios]{.underline}. Licensees must choose site locations that
are a sufficient distance from co‑channel and adjacent channel TV and
DTV stations, and/or must use reduced transmitting power or transmitting
antenna height such that the following minimum desired
signal-to-undesired signal ratios (D/U ratios) are met.

(1)  The minimum D/U ratio for co-channel stations is 40 dB at the
hypothetical Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of
the TV station or 17 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour (41 dBμV/m)
(88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.

(2)  The minimum D/U ratio for adjacent channel stations is 0 dB at the
hypothetical Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of
the TV station or -23 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour (41 dBμV/m)
(88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.

(b)  [TV stations and calculation of contours]{.underline}. The methods
used to calculate TV contours and antenna heights above average terrain
are given in §§ 73.683 and 73.684 of this chapter. Tables to determine
the necessary minimum distance from the 747-762 MHz or 777-792 MHz
station to the TV/DTV station, assuming that the TV/DTV station has a
hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contour of 88.5 kilometers
(55 miles), are located in § 90.309 and labeled as Tables B, D, and E.
Values between those given in the tables may be determined by linear
interpolation. The locations of existing and proposed TV/DTV stations
during the period of transition from analog to digital TV service are
given in Part 73 of this chapter and in the final proceedings of
MM Docket No. 87-268. The DTV allotments on Channels 60 through 68 are:

  -------------- -------------- ------------- --------- ---------- -----------
  STATE          CITY           NTSC TV Ch.   DTV Ch.   ERP (kW)   HAAT (m.)

  California     Concord        42            63        61         856

  California     Long Beach     18            61        413.6      725

  California     Los Angeles    2             60        865.9      1107

  California     Los Angeles    11            65        688.7      896

  California     Los Angeles    13            66        679.7      899

  California     Riverside      62            68        180.1      723

  California     Sacramento     10            61        1000       595

  California     Stockton       64            62        63.5       874

  New Jersey     Newark         13            61        198.7      500

  New Jersey     Vineland       65            66        107.8      280

  Pennsylvania   Allentown      39            62        50         302

  Pennsylvania   Philadelphia   6             64        1000       332

  Pennsylvania   Philadelphia   10            67        791.8      354

  Puerto Rico    Aguada         50            62        50.1       343

  Puerto Rico    Arecibo        60            61        55         242

  Puerto Rico    Mayaguez       16            63        50.1       347

  Puerto Rico    Naranjito      64            65        50.1       142

  Puerto Rico    Ponce          7             66        407.4      826

  Wisconsin      Milwaukee      18            61        519.8      307
  -------------- -------------- ------------- --------- ---------- -----------

DTV stations on Channel 59 must be considered even though they are not
indicated in the above table. The transition period is scheduled to end
on December 31, 2006. After that time, unless otherwise directed by the
Commission, 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz stations will no longer be
required to protect reception of co-channel or adjacent channel TV/DTV
stations.

(1)  Licensees of stations operating within the ERP and HAAT limits of §
27.50 of this part must select one of three methods to meet the TV/DTV
protection requirements, subject to Commission approval:

(i)  utilize the geographic separation specified in the tables
referenced below;

(ii)  submit an engineering study justifying the proposed separations
based on the actual parameters of the land mobile station and the actual
parameters of the TV/DTV station(s) it is trying to protect; or,

(iii)  obtain written concurrence from the applicable TV/DTV station(s).
If this method is chosen, a copy of the agreement must be submitted with
the application.

(2)  The following is the method for geographic separations.

(i)  Base and fixed stations that operate in the 747-762 MHz band having
an antenna height (HAAT) less than 152 m. (500 ft.) shall afford
protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in
accordance with the values specified in Table B (co-channel frequencies
based on 40 dB protection) and Table E (adjacent channel frequencies
based on 0 dB protection) in § 90.309 of this chapter. For base and
fixed stations having an antenna height (HAAT) between 152-914 meters
(500-3,000 ft.) the effective radiated power must be reduced below 1
kilowatt in accordance with the values shown in the power reduction
graph in Figure B in § 90.309 of this chapter. For heights of more than
152 m. (500 ft.) above average terrain, the distance to the radio path
horizon will be calculated assuming smooth earth. If the distance so
determined equals or exceeds the distance to the hypothetical or
equivalent Grade B contour of a co-channel TV/DTV station (*i.e.*, it
exceeds the distance from the appropriate Table in § 90.309 to the
relevant TV/DTV station), an authorization will not be granted unless it
can be shown in an engineering study (*see* paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section) that actual terrain considerations are such as to provide the
desired protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m for TV and
41 dBμV/m for DTV stations) or unless the effective radiated power will
be further reduced so that, assuming free space attenuation, the desired
protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBμV/m for TV and 41 dBμV/m
coverage contour for DTV stations) will be achieved. Directions for
calculating powers, heights, and reduction curves are listed in § 90.309
for land mobile stations. Directions for calculating coverage contours
are listed in §§ 73.683-685 for TV stations and in § 73.625 for DTV
stations.

(ii)  Control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables) that
operate in the 777-792 MHz band are limited in height and power and
therefore shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel
TV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in Table D
(co-channel frequencies based on 40 dB protection for TV stations and 17
dB for DTV stations) in § 90.309 of this chapter and a minimum distance
of 8 kilometers (5 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV station
hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contours (adjacent channel
frequencies based on 0 dB protection for TV stations and - 23 dB for DTV
stations). Since control, fixed, and mobile stations may affect
different TV/DTV stations than the associated base or fixed station,
particular care must be taken by applicants/licensees to ensure that all
appropriate TV/DTV stations are considered (*e.g.* a base station may be
operating within TV Channel 62 and the mobiles within TV Channel 67, in
which case TV Channels 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 must be protected).
Control, fixed, and mobile stations shall keep a minimum distance of
96.5 kilometers (60 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV stations.
Since mobiles and portables are able to move and communicate with each
other, licensees must determine the areas where the mobiles can and
cannot roam in order to protect the TV/DTV stations.

(iii)  In order to protect certain TV/DTV stations and to ensure
protection from these stations which may have extremely large contours
due to unusual height situations, an additional distance factor must be
used by all base, fixed, control, and mobile stations. For all
co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an HAAT
between 350 and 600 meters, licensees must add the following DISTANCE
FACTOR to the value obtained from the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and
to the distance for control, fixed, and mobile stations on adjacent
TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).

DISTANCE FACTOR  =  (TV/DTV HAAT - 350) ÷ 14 in kilometers, where HAAT
is the TV or DTV station antenna height above average terrain obtained
from its authorized or proposed facilities, whichever is greater.

For all co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an
antenna height above average terrain greater than 600 meters, licensees
must add 18 kilometers as the DISTANCE FACTOR to the value obtained from
the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and to the distance for control,
fixed, and mobile stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).

Note: The 88.5 km (55 mi) Grade B service contour (64 dBμV/m) is based
on a hypothetical TV station operating at an effective radiated power of
one megawatt, a transmitting antenna height above average terrain of
610 meters (2000 feet) and the Commission\'s R-6602 F(50,50) curves.
*See* § 73.699 of this chapter. Maximum facilities for TV stations
operating in the UHF band are 5 megawatts effective radiated power at an
antenna HAAT of 610 meters (2,000 feet). *See* § 73.614 of this chapter.
The equivalent contour for DTV stations is based on a 41 dBμV/m signal
strength and the distance to the F(50,90) curve. *See* § 73.625 of this
chapter.

21\. A new section 27.66 is added to read as follows:

§ 27.66 [Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
service]{.underline}.

\(a\) [Involuntary act]{.underline}. If the service provided by a fixed
common carrier licensee is involuntarily discontinued, reduced, or
impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the licensee must promptly
notify the Commission, in writing, as to the reasons for discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service, including a statement when normal
service is to be resumed. When normal service is resumed, the licensee
must promptly notify the Commission.

\(b\) [Voluntary act by common carrier]{.underline}. If a fixed common
carrier licensee voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or impairs service
to a community or part of a community, it must obtain prior
authorization as provided under § 63.71 of this chapter. An application
will be granted within 30 days after filing if no objections have been
received.

\(c\) [Voluntary act by non-common carrier]{.underline}. If a fixed
non-common carrier licensee voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or
impairs service to a community or part of a community, it must given
written notice to the Commission within seven days.

\(d\) [Notifications and requests]{.underline}. Notifications and
requests identified in paragraphs(a) through (c) of this section should
be sent to: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Radio
Services, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 17325.

22\. Section 27.308 is amended by deleting the phrase "WCS (see subparts
C and D of this part as appropriate)" and inserting the phrase
"applicable frequency band (*see* subparts C, D, and F of this part, as
appropriate)" in lieu thereof.

23\. A new subpart F is added to read as follows.

Subpart F -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 747-762 MHz and
777-792 MHz Bands.

**§ 27.501 [747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding]{.underline}.**

Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the 747-762 MHz
and 777-792 MHz bands are subject to competitive bidding procedures. The
procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of this chapter will apply
unless otherwise provided in this part.

**§ 27.502 [Designated entities]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Eligibility for small business provisions]{.underline}.

\(1\) A small business is an entity that, together with its controlling
interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40
million for the preceding three years.

\(2\) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.

\(3\) For purposes of determining whether an entity meets either of the
definitions set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section,
the gross revenues of the entity, its controlling interests and
affiliates shall be considered on a cumulative basis and aggregated. An
applicant seeking status as a small business or very small business
under this section must disclose on its short- and long-form
applications, separately and in the aggregate, the gross revenues of the
applicant (or licensee), its controlling interests and affiliates for
each of the previous three years.

\(4\) Persons or entities that hold interests in an applicant (or
licensee) that are affiliates of each other or have an identity of
interests identified in **§** 1.2110(b)(4)(iii) of this chapter will be
treated as though they were one person or entity and their ownership
interests aggregated for purposes of determining an applicant's (or
licensee's) compliance with the requirements of this section.

\(5\) Where an applicant (or licensee) cannot identify controlling
interests under the standards set forth in this section, the gross
revenues of all interest holders in the applicant, and their affiliates,
will be attributable.

\(6\) A consortium of small businesses (or a consortium of very small
businesses) is a conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture
between or among mutually independent business firms, each of which
individually satisfies the definition in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section (or each of which individually satisfies the definition in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section). Where an applicant or licensee is a
consortium of small businesses (or very small businesses), the gross
revenues of each small business (or very small business) shall not be
aggregated.

\(7\) Designated entities must describe on their long-form applications
how they satisfy the requirements for eligibility for designated entity
status, and must list and summarize on their long-form applications all
agreements that affect designated entity status such as partnership
agreements, shareholder agreements, management agreements and other
agreements, including oral agreements, establishing, as applicable, *de
facto* or *de jure* control of the entity. Such information must be
maintained at the licensee's facilities or by its designated agent for
the term of the license in order to enable the Commission to audit
designated entity eligibility on an ongoing basis.

\(b\) [Controlling interest]{.underline}*.*

\(1\) For purposes of this section, a controlling interest includes
individuals or entities with either *de jure* or *de facto* control of
the applicant. *De jure* control is evidenced by holdings of greater
than 50 percent of the voting stock of a corporation, or in the case of
a partnership, general partnership interests. *De facto* control is
determined on a case-by-case basis. An entity must disclose its equity
interest and demonstrate at least the following indicia of control to
establish that it retains *de facto* control of the applicant:

\(i\) The entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the
board of directors or management committee;

\(ii\) The entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire
senior executives that control the day-to-day activities of the
licensee; and

\(iii\) The entity plays an integral role in management decisions.

\(2\) The following rules apply for the calculation of certain
interests*.*

\(i\) Ownership interests shall be calculated on a fully diluted basis;
all agreements such as warrants, stock options, and convertible
debentures will generally be treated as if the rights thereunder already
have been fully exercised.

\(ii\) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest
equity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock shall be
attributed as specified below.

\(iii\) Stock interests held in trust shall be attributed to any person
who holds or shares the power to vote such stock, to any person who has
the sole power to sell such stock, and to any person who has the right
to revoke the trust at will or to replace the trustee at will. If the
trustee has a familial, personal, or extra‑trust business relationship
to the grantor or the beneficiary, the stock interests held in trust
will be attributed to the grantor or beneficiary, as appropriate.

\(iv\) Non‑voting stock shall be attributed as an interest in the
issuing entity.

\(v\) Limited partnership interests shall be attributed to limited
partners and shall be calculated according to both the percentage of
equity paid in and the percentage of distribution of profits and losses.

\(vi\) Officers and directors of an entity shall be considered to have
an attributable interest in the entity. The officers and directors of an
entity that controls a licensee or applicant shall be considered to have
an attributable interest in the licensee or applicant.

\(vii\) Ownership interests that are held indirectly by any party
through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by
successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in
the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution
benchmark to the resulting product, except that if the ownership
percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent
or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100
percent interest.

\(viii\) Any person who manages the operations of an applicant or
licensee pursuant to a management agreement shall be considered to have
a controlling interest in such applicant or licensee if such person, or
its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in
practices or activities that determine, or significantly influence:

\(A\) The nature or types of services offered by such an applicant or
licensee;

\(B\) The terms upon which such services are offered; or

\(C\) The prices charged for such services.

\(ix\) Any licensee or its affiliate who enters into a joint marketing
arrangement with an applicant or licensee, or its affiliate, shall be
considered to have a controlling interest, if such applicant or
licensee, or its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise
engage in practices or activities that determine, or significantly
influence:

\(A\) The nature or types of services offered by such an applicant or
licensee;

\(B\) The terms upon which such services are offered; or

(D) The prices charged for such services.

\(c\) [Bidding credits]{.underline}. A winning bidder that qualifies as
a small business or a consortium of small businesses as defined in this
section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(iii) of
this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business
or a consortium of very small businesses as defined in this section may
use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii) of this chapter.

##  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

**Appendix C**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.490277777777778in"
height="5.0152777777777775in"}

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS

Re: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions
to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168

I strongly support our action today, unleashing 30 MHz of prime spectrum
for a variety of wireless services, including fixed and mobile Internet
access. I am excited about the prospect of wireless alternatives to the
local loop and/or Internet connections to mobile devices -- as
determined by a robust marketplace. Our decision best balances the needs
of these competing demands for the same spectrum.

Our decision also recognizes the paramount importance of shielding the
public safety bands from interference. Our further actions on the guard
bands established in this order first and foremost should ensure the
protection of public safety communications.

While I support the order, I would have preferred to act concurrently on
the licensing and service rules for the 6 MHz of guard bands. These
guard bands, which are adjacent to the public safety spectrum, also are
adjacent to the spectrum allocated today. The licensing and service
rules that will apply to the guard bands also may effect business
strategies of those planning to bid on the 30 MHz. Potential bidders
therefore should have the opportunity to factor into their business
plans the rules governing the guard bands when considering participation
in the auctions governing this newly available spectrum.

Despite my regret that we have not acted concurrently on the full 36 MHz
of spectrum, I do look forward to the expeditious resolution of the
subsequent actions the Commission will take on these new commercial
allocations. I await with anticipation the new advanced wireless
services that will be provided to consumers as a result of our action
today, and to the competition that will result in the marketplace from
the initiation of these new services.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH,

Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part

Re: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions
to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168

As an initial matter, I wish to applaud the Wireless Bureau and the
Office of Engineering and Technology for their tireless work in
producing this item. Recent legislation greatly expedited our
consideration of these issues. The Bureau and OET have made every effort
to give full and fair consideration to the positions of all of the
parties in order to reach the best policy results. By and large, I
believe they have succeeded in crafting flexible and technology-neutral
rules that will facilitate the prompt availability of significant
spectrum for the highest valued uses.

The Order's approach to the primary spectrum blocks warrants particular
praise. As the communications marketplace becomes increasingly
competitive and dynamic, the Commission will be challenged to craft
rules that allow for maximum flexibility in utilizing spectrum. This
proceeding presented such a challenge. The sizing of spectrum blocks,
the geographic licensing units, the aggregation and disaggregation
rules, and the auction approach all have implications for the types of
service providers that will succeed in the auction. Our task to balance
the competing interests for the size and width of spectrum blocks has
not been easy, but I believe we have done our best to preserve as many
service and technology options as practicable in designing our rules for
the primary spectrum blocks.

I must, however, part company with my colleagues on the item's approach
to our statutory obligation to craft rules which protect public safety
licensees from harmful interference. Rather than creation of so-called
"guard bands," I would have been inclined to resolve our mandate by
establishing strict interference limits with significant penalties for
noncompliance. This approach is consistent with our statutory charge to
"establish interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block
and service areas."[^338] I believe such a system would have
appropriately left it to the marketplace to determine the appropriate
uses of the spectrum and left to us the obligation to enforce rules that
protect public safety licensees from interference. This approach would
also have taken the Commission out of the difficult role of assessing
the appropriate size and use of the guard bands. Nonetheless, there may
well be some utility to the guard band concept as a basis for
establishing boundaries and thresholds for interference. The creation of
such bands alone may not have warranted a dissent.

However, even assuming "guard bands" are a necessary and appropriate
convention, I am not convinced that a full 6 MHz is necessary to protect
public safety. Indeed, it appears that 4 MHz or less would have provided
a sufficient guard band to protect public safety licensees. Some parties
have suggested that 6 MHz is necessary based on some other factors --
such as the need for additional private spectrum or the need to create a
viable market for "guard band spectrum." It may indeed be true that
private users need additional spectrum or that 6 MHz is necessary to
create a thriving market in guard band spectrum -- but I find neither of
these priorities in the statute. Nor do I believe these goals
necessarily further the statute's purpose. Thus, to the extent I
acquiesce the creation of guard bands at all, I would do so based only
on an interference rationale and allocate only 4 MHz for such bands.

Today's item stops there. It only establishes the size of the guard
bands. However, I feel compelled to express some concerns about some
proposals that have gained currency in recent months about potential
restrictions on the use of the guard bands. These items will be resolved
in our Second Report and Order, but I wish to take this opportunity to
state clearly my view of these pending issues.

I believe these guard bands should be open to all bidders willing to
accept our interference limits on these bands. Although I believe the
band manager concept is an innovative and potentially useful spectrum
management tool, I cannot support proposals that would limit eligibility
to a particular type of licensee. It seems to me the Commission should
not be dictating business models to our licensees. In essence this
limitation would say, if you want this spectrum, here is what your
company needs to look like. I see no basis for such a proposed
limitation. In addition, there may be many licensees who can use the
guard bands for higher valued purposes than the band manager concept
will allow. If a licensee can protect public safety, win the auction,
and offer wireless Internet access to underserved areas, who are we to
stop that higher-valued use based on some interest in testing a spectrum
management tool?

In addition, the statute specifically requires that this spectrum be put
to "commercial use." Whether band managers even qualify as a "commercial
use" has been the subject of substantial debate. These doubts are only
magnified by proposals to limit eligibility to "band managers" and
preclude traditional "commercial" licensees who are prepared to comply
with our interference limits.

I am also unconvinced by those who argue that we must limit guard band
auction eligibility in order to "test" the band manager concept. In my
view, the concept can be tested when band managers compete against other
licensees in an open auction. You cannot truly test the concept by
fixing the result, so that only band managers can win. Moreover, we
should not in good conscience adopt any proposals that eliminate an
opportunity for legitimate commercial entities to compete for spectrum
simply because they fail to meet newly-minted criteria for a new
non-statutory licensee, the band manager.

There are other questions that remain about these band manager
proposals. First, it is not clear how a band manager is different from
any other licensee that can lease its spectrum to other users. Second,
how would a band manager fit into our traditional common carrier
jurisprudence? What impact does that classification have on universal
service? Although these regulatory issues may well be resolved, the band
manager proposals create lingering doubts in my mind about the
desirability of restricting eligibility to this class of new licensees.

My concerns about the various guard band proposals being considered in
the Second Report and Order should not overshadow the overall strength
of this item as an effort to permit market forces to determine the
most-highly valued use of this spectrum. American business and consumers
stand to gain significant benefits from this flexible,
technology-neutral approach.

[^1]: *See* Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    337(a), as added by § 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.
    L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).

[^2]: *See* Public Comment Sought on Issues Related to Guard Bands in
    the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz Spectrum Block (WT Docket No.
    99-168), *Public Notice*, January 7, 2000.

[^3]: *See* Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22953
    (1998) *(Reallocation Report and Order*), *recon*., 13 FCC Rcd 21578
    (1998) (*Reallocation Reconsideration*).

[^4]: *See* Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix E, Section 213.
    *See also* 145 Cong. Rec. at H12494-94, H12501 (Nov. 17, 1999),
    "Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
    September 30, 2000, and for other purposes." (*Consolidated
    Appropriations*).

[^5]: Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the
    Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the New
    Millennium, *Policy Statement*, FCC 99-354, November 22, 1999,
    (*Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement*), 1999 WL 1054886 (1999).

[^6]: Recent growth trends in voice and data wireless applications are
    described in the *Fourth CMRS Competition Report*. Implementation of
    Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
    Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With
    Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, *Fourth Report*, 14 FCC Rcd
    10145 (1999).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(y). *See* paras. 20-25.

[^8]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(e). See Advanced Television Systems and
    Their Impact Upon Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket
    No. 87-268, *Reconsideration of Fifth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    6860, 6887 (1998).

[^9]: *See* Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    337(a).

[^10]: *See* Section 337(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    337(b)(2)(a).

[^11]: *See Consolidated Appropriations*, Appendix E, § 213. *See also*
    145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999).

[^12]: Balanced Budget Act of 1997, § 3004 (adding new §§ 337(a) and
    337(b) of the Communications Act).

[^13]: *See* Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Service (*DTV Proceeding*), MM Docket
    No. 87-268, *Fifth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997),
    *recon.,* 13 FCC Rcd 6860 (1998); *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 14588 (1997), *recon.,* 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998).

[^14]: *Reallocation Reconsideration*, 13 FCC Rcd at 21582-83 paras.
    12-14.

[^15]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No.
    99-168, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, FCC 99-97, June 3, 1999
    (*NPRM*), 1999 WL 350460.

[^16]: *NPRM* at paras. 6-15.

[^17]: As explained more fully at paras. 10 and 23-25, we use the term
    "inter-service" to refer to issues involving the relation between
    broad categories of services, such as "broadcast" or "fixed
    wireless," that are treated as distinct "services" for purposes of
    the Table of Allocations. In the discussion generally, we use the
    term "wireless services" to refer to terrestrial fixed and mobile
    wireless services other than conventional television and radio
    broadcasting.

[^18]: *NPRM* at para. 6.

[^19]: *NPRM* at paras. 7-10.

[^20]: *NPRM* at paras. 11-13.

[^21]: *NPRM* at para. 15.

[^22]: *NPRM* at para. 10.

[^23]: *NPRM* at paras. 10, 8.

[^24]: Section 303(y) authorizes the Commission "to allocate
    electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide flexibility of use" if
    consistent with international agreements and:

    \(2\) the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for
    public comment, that---

    such an allocation would be in the public interest;

    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)(2).

[^25]: Motorola Comments at 9.

[^26]: Motorola Comments at 9; AirTouch Comments at 15-16. *See also*
    Resolution of Interference Between UHF Channels 14 and 69 and
    Adjacent-channel Land Mobile Operations, MM Docket No. 87-465,
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry*, 2 FCC Rcd
    7328 (1987).

[^27]: Motorola Comments at 9.

[^28]: US WEST Comments at 7.

[^29]: AirTouch Comments at 14; *see also* US WEST Comments at 6-9.

[^30]: Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 3-6, *citing* Public Notice, "The
    FCC's Advisory Committee For the 2000 World Radio Communications
    Conference Offers Additional Draft Proposals On WRC 2000 Issues," DA
    99-1364 (released July 14, 1999).

[^31]: Metricom Reply at 4-6; RTG Comments at ii-iii, 1.

[^32]: Quote from MSTV Comments at 3; *see also* TWDC Comments at 2-4.

[^33]: NTA Comments at 1-2. The NAB supports service rules that ensure
    protection from interference to existing broadcasters, but does not
    advocate service rules configured to encourage additional
    conventional television licenses. NAB Comments at 2-3.

[^34]: *See* ArrayComm Comments at 3-4; AMTA Comments at 2 n3; and
    Motorola Comments at 3-4. AirTouch asserts that the *Conference
    Report* states "unlimited flexibility can introduce a level of
    entrepreneurial uncertainty that could ultimately retard the
    development of new services and technology." AirTouch Comments at 5,
    *citing* H. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 581 (1997), *reprinted at*
    1997 USCCAN 201.

[^35]: *See, e.g.*, AMTA Comments at 1-2; Motorola Comments at 1-2,
    16-17, and Motorola *Ex Parte* Filing of October 18, 1999; PCIA
    Comments at 3-5; ArrayComm Comments at 5-8.

[^36]: Metricom Reply Comments at 2-4.

[^37]: Such services, to the extent they may be offered on these bands,
    will not necessarily resemble current radio and television broadcast
    services subject to Part 73 and Part 74 of our Rules, but could
    still meet the statutory definition of "broadcasting." *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 153(6). (The term "broadcasting" means the "dissemination
    of radio communications intended to be received by the public,
    directly or by the intermediary of relay stations.") Because such
    new broadcast-type services on these bands will necessarily use
    lower power levels than even existing low-power television service,
    and may differ significantly in both technical and public policy
    respects from conventional broadcasting, we have not sought to
    anticipate or develop a regulatory framework, beyond the technical
    and operational rules we adopt in this Report and Order or that
    already apply to broadcast services generally.

[^38]: *See, e.g.*, Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 6-8; Intek Comments at
    4; ITA Comments at 5-7; Metricom Reply at 4-6; Motorola Comments at
    8; PCIA Comments at 4; US WEST Comments at 6-8.

[^39]: AirTouch Comments at 13. AirTouch recognizes that Commission
    rules authorize cellular and broadband PCS licensees to provide
    fixed service on a co-primary basis with mobile operations, and does
    not object to that type of flexible use authorization. AirTouch
    Comments at 12; *see* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.901(d) and 24.3.

[^40]: AMTA Comments at 12; APCO Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at 8;
    PCIA Comments at 4; RTG Comments at 11-12; US WEST Comments at 6.

[^41]: AMTA Comments at 12.

[^42]: *See, e.g.*, Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 6-8; Intek Comments at
    4; ITA Comments at 5-7; Metricom Reply at 4-6; Motorola Comments at
    8; PCIA Comments at 4; US WEST Comments at 6-8.

[^43]: Formulas for maximum television transmitter power levels are
    specified in Section 73.614 of the Commission's Rules. While 5000 kW
    is the maximum power for UHF NTSC stations, less than a fifth of
    licensed stations use that level of power; in Washington, D.C., for
    example, the powers used by four UHF stations range from 2450 kW to
    5000 kW. The maximum power permitted PCS licensees in the 900 MHz
    bands, in contrast, is 3500 watts, more than 1000 times less. 47
    C.F.R. § 24.312. The central problem arises from the disparity,
    amounting to several orders of magnitude, between even a
    comparatively modest conventional television facility and a
    maximum-power PCS license. As described in Section III.D.3, we here
    adopt maximum power levels for these bands of 1000 watts and 30
    watts for the lower and upper band segments respectively.

    The high transmission power characteristic of conventional analog or
    digital television service, and the channelization of that spectrum
    into 6 megahertz sections, reflect standards developed to establish
    a nationally consistent television service, which has generally been
    implemented by allocating bands limited to television service.
    Neither the high power levels nor the preconfigured 6 megahertz
    spectrum blocks characteristic of conventional television service
    are necessary, however, for the flexible range of existing and
    contemplated wireless services.

[^44]: *See* Motorola October 27, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.610. Additional distance separation
    requirements applicable to conventional television operations on
    Channels 14-69 are specified in Table II of 47 C.F.R. § 73.698.

[^46]: *See*, *e.g.*, Cisco November 1, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing; *see
    also, e.g.,* CEMA filings.

[^47]: *See* 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(D).

[^48]: RTG asserts that allowing broadcast use on these bands is
    inconsistent with Sections 309(j) and 706 of the Act, because rules
    permitting broadcast use "will dramatically reduce the amount of
    spectrum actually made available for advanced telecommunications
    services in rural areas." RTG Comments at 12. *See also* FreeSpace
    October 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^49]: *See* FreeSpace October 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing; Clearwire
    Reply at 3-4.

[^50]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).

[^51]: *Reallocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22962 para. 18.

[^52]: Metricom Reply at 5. CEMA contends too broad an approach to
    flexibility "may have the undesired effect of deterring those
    investments needed to provide communications services and encourage
    new technologies on the newly allocated spectrum. The potential
    sharing of this spectrum between broadcast service licensees and
    fixed and mobile wireless licensees, alone, complicate these
    issues." CEMA Comments at 14. *See also* US WEST Comments at 7.

[^53]: *See Reallocation Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22960, 22962
    (paras. 14, 19).

[^54]: Southern Comments at 3-5. The Commission is required to consider
    the effect of its policies on competitive conditions within the
    relevant markets, Southern asserts, *citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs.
    Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co*., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), and
    Southern contends it faces unique competitive concerns in the SMR
    context. *See also* Southern November 4, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^55]: AirTouch Comments at 4-6. At the same time, however, AirTouch
    states that it does not object to flexible use provisions that
    provide for co-primary use by cellular and PCS licensees and mobile
    operations. AirTouch Comments at 11-12.

[^56]: Metricom Reply at 2-4.

[^57]: *See* *NPRM* at para. 11 n.24.

[^58]: *See, e.g.,* Section 309(j)(3) (safeguards to protect the public
    interest in the use of the spectrum) and Section 309(j)(4) (elements
    of regulations implementing competitive bidding authority).

[^59]: *NPRM* at para. 6.

[^60]: *NPRM* at paras. 57-70.

[^61]: *NPRM* at paras. 79-83.

[^62]: Metricom Reply at 5-8. Metricom also proposes that the successful
    bidder be required to make a payment for each transmitter deployed,
    based on power and bandwidth.

[^63]: MSTV Comments at 4-8.

[^64]: AirTouch Comments at 6.

[^65]: Cisco November 10, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^66]: AMTA Comments at 7-9; Free Space October 13, 1999 *Ex Parte*
    Filing at 2; Motorola Comments at 7; PCIA Comments at 5; Intek
    Comments at 5-6; US WEST Comments at 3-6.

[^67]: Motorola October 27, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^68]: Southern Comments at 2-4, 6-7.

[^69]: Motorola states that "\[l\]ack of activity towards defining a
    service for the WCS band is the clearest indication that such
    extreme flexibility does not work in the real world. While auction
    revenues should not be equated with the public interest, we also
    note that the WCS auctions attracted less than one percent of the
    revenue projected by budget experts." Motorola Comments at 5,
    *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).

[^70]: AMTA Comments at 1-2.

[^71]: PCIA Comments at 2.

[^72]: See Section III.E.

[^73]: H. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 12 (1997), *reprinted at* 1997
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 201.

[^74]: *Id*. at 580.

[^75]: APCO Comments at 2-5; NCC August 25, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing; IAFC
    Comments at 2-3. *See also* Motorola Comments at 14-17; Region 20
    Comments at 3-4.

[^76]: Motorola October 27, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^77]: FreeSpace, for example, proposes bands with low out of band
    emission levels adjacent to public safety bands. FreeSpace October
    13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 4-6.

[^78]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 337(f)(1).

[^79]: *See* Lucent November 15, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^80]: FreeSpace October 5, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing; FreeSpace November
    30, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing (Presentation to National Coordination
    Committee at November 18-19, 1999 meeting.)

[^81]: "AT&T Revs Up Portable Access Battle," Fred Dawson, October 18,
    1999, <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn> (downloaded Oct. 19, 1999).

[^82]: "Development of 384 kbps PHS Communication Device," [MPT
    News]{.smallcaps}, June 21, 1999 at 4. While the time division
    duplex transmission used by PHS does not dedicate bandwidth to data
    transmission in a manner directly comparable to channelized
    frequency division systems, the demonstration of this capability on
    a system widely used for voice and alphanumeric messaging is
    suggestive.

    Telcordia, however, suggests in its November 4, 1999, *Ex Parte*
    Filing, that DECT, PACS, and Personal Handyphone Service (PHS),
    while containing "well-defined data transport protocols," would be
    best at providing moderate-rate (64-128 kb/s) data service.

[^83]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

[^84]: Telcordia November 4, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2.

[^85]: AirTouch Comments at 16-17; AirTouch Reply at 10-11; Bell
    Atlantic Mobile Reply at 2-5.

[^86]: Lucent November 15, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^87]: US WEST states that the economics of manufacturing new equipment
    for use in this band, and the preference of wireless service
    providers to establish services of national scope, require that a
    significant amount of spectrum be designated for a single nationwide
    license to enable a new nationwide competitor. US WEST modified its
    original proposal to ask that we designate 20 megahertz as a
    national license, and 10 megahertz for regional licensing. US WEST
    Comments at 4-6; US WEST November 15, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing.

[^88]: Cisco November 11, 1999, *Ex Parte* Filing at 3.

[^89]: AirTouch Comments at 16-17; AMTA Comments at 7-8; US WEST
    Comments at 2-5.

[^90]: Determination of maximum allowable power levels is discussed in
    Section III.D.3.

[^91]: *See* ClearWire Reply at 3; FreeSpace Communications Oct. 13,
    1999; *Ex Parte* Filing at 6-7; ArrayComm Comments at 5-7.

[^92]: ArrayComm Comments at 10; DDI Pocket Reply at 3-4; Clearwire at
    3.

[^93]: [PHS Guidebook]{.smallcaps}, July, 1998, Japan Ministry of Posts
    and Telecommunications; DDI Comments at 2-3.

[^94]: ArrayComm Reply at 5-6, *citing* Baskerville Communications
    Corp., "Japan Takes Quiet Road to Third-Generation Explosion," [3G
    Mobile]{.smallcaps}, May 19, 1999, at 6.

[^95]: There is little record comment on the appropriate regulatory
    treatment for new broadcast-type services, although several
    commenters note that different considerations inform the regulatory
    structures for broadcast services and nonbroadcast services. *See,
    e.g.*, CEMA Comments at 14. However, we cannot anticipate the nature
    of those broadcast services that may be developed in the future for
    use of this spectrum in conformance to to the power limits and band
    configurations adopted in this Order. While we do not make specific
    determinations here regarding any new broadcast-type services, we
    remind potential applicants that certain broadcast regulations are
    mandatory as a matter of statute and thus must apply to such
    services. The provision of new broadcast-type services compliant
    with Part 27 technical standards does not alter the underlying
    nature of such services, or the licensee's related regulatory and
    statutory obligations.

[^96]: This regulatory framework was established in response to the
    Congressional mandate in Section 3001 of the Omnibus Consolidated
    Appropriations Act of 1997 to reallocate and assign the use of the
    frequencies at 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz. Omnibus Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).

[^97]: *NPRM* at para. 57.

[^98]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96-228,
    *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10797-10802 (paras. 25-36) (*Part 27
    Report and Order).*

[^99]: We have since proposed application of the Part 27 framework to
    development of service and operational rules for other spectrum
    bands. See, e.g., *47 GHz Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 16968 (para. 51).

[^100]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10845-48 (paras.
    118-122).

[^101]: TWDC Comments at 9; TWDC Reply at 8-9; MSTV Comments at 14;
    Alaskan Choice Comments at 4.

[^102]: TWDC Comments at 9; TWDC Reply at 8.

[^103]: *See* Section 27.10 of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47
    C.F.R. § 27.10. *See also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    10848 (para. 121). *See also* Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21,
    and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz
    Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 19.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To
    Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution
    Service And for Fixed Satellite Services, Petitions for
    Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the
    Commission\'s Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service
    Rules, CC Docket No. 92-297, Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer
    Preference, PP-22, *Second Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 12 FCC
    Rcd 12545, 12644 (para. 223) (1997) (*LMDS Second Report and
    Order*); 47 C.F.R. § 101.1013.

[^104]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(a). *See* Section 27.66 of the Commission's
    Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.66. *See also* discussion of
    operating rules, *infra*.

[^105]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.12, 27.302. *See also Part 27 Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 10829, para. 83.

[^106]: 47 U.S.C. § 310.

[^107]: AirTouch Comments at 22-25; BAM Reply at 11-12.

[^108]: This proposal is opposed by AirTouch (Comments at 22-24); Bell
    Atlantic Mobile (Reply at 12); and MSTV (Comments at 14). KM
    supports limiting the spectrum obtained by a single licensee (KM
    Comments 4).

[^109]: *See* Section 20.6(a) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    20.6(a). S*ee also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10832-34
    (paras. 87-91).

[^110]: *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review\--Spectrum Aggregation
    Limits for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No.
    98-205, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association\'s Petition
    for Forbearance from the 45 MHz CMRS Spectrum cap, Amendment of
    Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules\--Broadband PCS
    Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum
    Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of
    the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Report and Order*,
    FCC 99-244, released Sept. 22, 1999, 1999 WL 734848 (*Spectrum Cap
    Report and Order*).

[^111]: *Spectrum Cap Report and Order* at para. 11.

[^112]: *NPRM* at para. 28.

[^113]: AirTouch Comments at 20-22; BAM Reply at 11; MSTV Comments at
    14. RTG argues that applying the spectrum cap to this spectrum would
    preclude deployment of advanced 3G services to rural areas. RTG
    Comments at 9-10. *See also* RTG Reply at 9.

[^114]: UTC argues that the imposition of a spectrum cap on CMRS
    services provided on the spectrum would create needed parity between
    broadcast and CMRS providers. UTC Comments at 4. S*ee also* KM
    Comments at 4.

[^115]: Given the commercial nature of the spectrum and our recent (and
    significant) public safety allocation in the 700 MHz band, providers
    of public safety services as defined in Section 337(f) of the
    Communications Act will not likely be interested in participating in
    the auction of this spectrum or acquiring spectrum in post auction
    transactions. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(f).

[^116]: *Spectrum Cap Report and Order* at paras. 20-27, 66-67.

[^117]: *Spectrum Cap Report and Order* at paras. 20-27, 66-67.

[^118]: *See, e.g.*, *LMDS Second Report and Order* at pages
    12634-12639.

[^119]: *See Spectrum Cap Report and Order* at paras. 33-36.

[^120]: Section 27.6 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.6; *see
    also, Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814-16 (paras.
    54-60) (1997) .

[^121]: "REAs" (Regional Economic Areas) refer to the 12 regions
    established in the WCS auction, which at that time were known as
    Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs). See OET mapping
    information on the FCC website \<www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/\>.

[^122]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10814-15 (para. 55).

[^123]: *See* Appendix C. The *220 Third Report and Order* established
    groupings of EAs into six regions of approximately equal population
    size based on the 1990 census. *See,* In the Matter of Amendment of
    Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the
    220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket
    No. 89-552, RM-8506, Implmentation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Regulatory Treatment of
    Mobile Services Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC
    97-57, *Third Report and Order; Fifth Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 12 FCC Rcd. 10943, (Appendix E) (1997) (*220 Third
    Report And Order)*.

[^124]: *See*, *e.g.*, US WEST Comments at 2; Freespace Oct. 13; 1999
    *Ex Parte* Filing at 2-3, 11-13.

[^125]: *See* AirTouch Comments at 19-20; BAM Reply at 10; FreeSpace
    Oct. 13; 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 11-12 (referring to AT&T, Sprint,
    Vodafone-AirTouch/Bell Atlantic merger, Nextel, VoiceStream buying
    up Omnipoint and 360° Comm); US WEST Comments at 3 (arguing for 24
    megahertz national and 12 megahertz in areas no smaller than MEAs in
    order to offer a 3G migration path for wireless companies now
    holding 10 megahertz broadband PCS licenses).

[^126]: See FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2-3.

[^127]: See FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 6-7.

[^128]: AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct.
    13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 11.

[^129]: AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct.
    13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 12.

[^130]: AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10.

[^131]: AirTouch at Comments 18-19; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 *Ex Parte*
    Filing at 12 (noting the difficulty of coordination in this band
    already encumbered with existing TV licensees).

[^132]: AirTouch Comments at 18-19.

[^133]: BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at
    11.

[^134]: RTG Comments at 3 (seeking to enable rural providers who have
    extensive physical plant requirements, to afford to bid for a
    manageable sized region).

[^135]: SBC Comments at 3 (noting that licensing by SMAs and RSAs would
    enable reuse of existing towers constructed for build-out of
    cellular service).

[^136]: KM Comments at 3-4 (pointing out that local stations are
    essential to broadcasting); MSTV at 11 (arguing that broadband
    providers attempt to reach a market which shares similar regional
    interests and concerns).

[^137]: For the purposes of the 220 MHz Auction, the Economic Area
    Groupings did not include the Gulf of Mexico. For the current
    auction, we will divide the Gulf by a line of demarcation which
    corresponds to the boundary established for the "Western Gulf
    Planning Area" as mapped by the Mineral Management Services Bureau
    of the Department of Interior (MMS). All services to east of that
    line of demarcation (MSS's Eastern and Central Planning Areas) will
    be part of the Southeast EAG (EAG 3) and all services to the west
    (MSS's Western Gulf Planning Area) will be part of the
    Central/Mountain EAG (EAG 5). Having the service area extend into
    the Gulf will provide service for oil rigs and other mining
    installations located there without the difficult interference
    issues that have arisen in the past when one licensee served the
    Gulf and different licensee the adjoining land. *See,* In re
    Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the
    Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 97-112, Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of
    Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to
    Modify Other Cellular Rules, CC Docket No. 90-6, *Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 4578 (1997). MMS's
    boundaries were selected because they are the basis for the leased
    mineral rights areas which are the major economic divisions in the
    Gulf and because the mapping data is public information available on
    their website. See
    \<www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html\>

[^138]: *Supra,* notes 130-142.

[^139]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).

[^140]: *See Consolidated Appropriations*, Appendix E, Sec. 213. *See
    also* 145 Cong. Rec. at H12493-94, (Nov. 17, 1999).

[^141]: *See* WCS *R&O*, FCC 97-50, at n. 139 (citing as examples the
    auctions for PCS Narrowband and Broadband A/B blocks).

[^142]: Cisco Nov. 10, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2.

[^143]: *See infra*, Competitive Bidding Section.

[^144]: For example, this may be what has happened in CMRS where a
    combination of very large number of small license areas and multiple
    standards has led to difficult roaming issues and operational
    inefficiencies (e.g., the need for multiple mode phones) which, in
    turn, has led to greater costs in the form of higher roaming rates.

[^145]: These geographic areas should permit industry to internalize the
    costs of developing its own standards. We find that the REA licenses
    purchased as a 10 megahertz block with the capability of aggregating
    to nationwide build-out is a sufficient segment to help facilitate
    the standard-setting process. Smaller regions could hinder the
    evolution of appropriate standards.

[^146]: US WEST Comments at 4-6.

[^147]: Cisco Nov. 10, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 3.

[^148]: *See* Southern Reply at 7 (advocating licensing on the basis of
    EAs) and Freespace Oct. 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2 (proposing a
    system requiring as little as 4 megahertz of spectrum).

[^149]: *See infra,* Competitive Bidding Section regarding bidding
    credits.

[^150]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 310(a), 310(b).

[^151]: *See* AirTouch Comments at 25.

[^152]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.12. *See also* Section 27.302 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.302.

[^153]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b). *See* Revisions to Part 21 of the
    Commission\'s Rules regarding the Multipoint Distribution Service,
    CC Docket No. 86-179, *Report and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 4251, 4253
    (para. 16) (1987) (*MDS Report and Order*); Streamlining the
    Commission\'s Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and
    Licensing Procedures, IB Docket No. 95-117, *Report and Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd 21581, 21599 (para. 43) (1996) (*Satellite Rules Report and
    Order*); *LMDS Second Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12651 (para.
    243).

[^154]: *See* Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
    Telecommunications Market, IB Docket No. 97-142 , Market Entry and
    Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, IB Docket No. 95-22,
    *Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 23891,
    23935-47 (paras. 97-132) (1997). We did not amend our rules for
    broadcast licenses, which are not covered by the WTO Basic
    Telecommunications Agreement.

[^155]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.13.

[^156]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(b).

[^157]: *See, e.g.,* AirTouch Comments at 26; SBC Comments at 4; *but
    see* AMTA Comments at 9; MSTV Comments at 14.

[^158]: AirTouch Comments at 25-26.

[^159]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a).

[^160]: *See* Section III.B.6., *infra.*

[^161]: This date may be extended under particular circumstances set
    forth in 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(B) including for those markets where
    15 percent or more households do not have access to either
    DTV-equipped receivers or multi-channel video. In addition, given
    the large geographic licensing areas, each with a number of
    incumbent broadcasters, we are setting a definite license term,
    rather than one dependent on the date on which incumbent
    broadcasters complete their digital television transition.

[^162]: *See* Section 27.15(e) of the Commission\'s Rules at Appendix B,
    47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e); *see also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 10840, para. 106.

[^163]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(b). *See also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 10840-41, 10843-44, paras. 106-107, 113.

[^164]: *NPRM* at para. 33.

[^165]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). This section defines substantial service
    as "service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a
    level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant
    renewal." *See Part 27 Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 10843-45,
    paras. 111-115.

[^166]: AirTouch Comments at 25-26.

[^167]: *See* Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B,
    47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).

[^168]: *See Part 27 Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 10843-44, para.
    113.

[^169]: *See Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10843, para. 112.

[^170]: *See* *Part 27 Report and Order* at 10844-45, paras. 114-115,
    *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).

[^171]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(C).

[^172]: AMTA Comments at 8-9; RTG Comments at 6-7.

[^173]: *See* Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services Licensees; Implementation of
    Section 257 of the Communications Act -- Elimination of Market Entry
    Barriers, WT Docket No. 96-148, *Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 21831, 21843-44, paras. 13-17,
    (1996) (*Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*).

[^174]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15.

[^175]: *See Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10836-39, paras.
    96-103.

[^176]: *See Part 27 Report and Order* at 10836-37, 10839, paras. 97-99,
    102, *citing* *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 21847-48, paras. 23-24.

[^177]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(b)(1).

[^178]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(c). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111.

[^179]: *See* Section 27.15(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix
    B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e)(1). *See also Partitioning and
    Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21857, para. 42.

[^180]: *See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 21857, para. 43.

[^181]: *See* Section 27.15(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix
    B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e)(2). *See also Partitioning and
    Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21865, paras. 62-63.

[^182]: *See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 21864-65 (para. 61).

[^183]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(b), 309(c). S*ee also* Section 309(d) regarding
    petitions to deny; 47 U.S.C. § 309(d).

[^184]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j) nt. 3.

[^185]: *See Consolidated Appropriations*, Appendix E, § 213. *See also*
    145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999).

[^186]: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission\'s Rules -- Competitive
    Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, Allocation of Spectrum
    Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685 MHz,
    ET Docket No. 94-32, *Third Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 431 (para. 98)
    (1997), *recon. pending*.

[^187]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2108(b), 1.2108(c).

[^188]: As with the licensing rules, there is little record comment on
    the appropriate treatment for new broadcast-type services operating
    in this spectrum. We have not attempted to anticipate the nature of
    services that may be developed under the service and technical rules
    adopted here, or to determine how the regulations discussed below
    would apply to new broadcast-type services. We remind potential
    applicants, however, that certain regulations are mandatory as a
    matter of statute and thus must apply to such services.

[^189]: Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications
    Act -- Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No.
    93-252, *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1463-90, paras.
    124-213, (1994) (*CMRS Second Report and Order*) (*authorizing*
    forbearance from 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205, 211 and 214), *recon.
    pending.*

[^190]: Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association\'s Petition for
    Forbearance from Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability
    Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    FCC 99-19, (rel. Feb. 9, 1999, 1999) WL 58618.

[^191]: Personal Communications Industry Association\'s Broadband
    Personal Communications Services Alliance\'s Petition for
    Forbearance For Broadband Personal Communications Services, Biennial
    Regulatory Review\--Elimination or Streamlining of Unnecessary and
    Obsolete CMRS Regulations, Forbearance from Applying Provisions of
    the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT
    Docket No. 98-100, Further Forbearance from Title II Regulation for
    Certain Types of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, GN
    Docket No. 94-33, GTE Petition for Reconsideration or Waiver of a
    Declaratory Ruling, MSD-92-14, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 16857 (1998).

[^192]: *See* Section 10 of the Communications Act; 47 U.S.C. § 160.

[^193]: "Complete detariffing" refers to a policy of neither requiring
    nor permitting non-dominant interexchange carriers to file tariffs
    pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act for their
    interstate, domestic, interexchange services. *See,* Policy and
    Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace,
    Implementation of Section 245(g) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, *Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd 20730 (1996) (*Detariffing Second Report and Order*); *stay
    granted, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC*, No. 96-1459 (D.C.
    Cir. Feb. 13, 1997); Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate,
    Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 245(g) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, *Order
    on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 15014, 15016, 15047-54 (para. 2 n.5,
    paras. 59-73) (1997) (*Detariffing Reconsideration Order*); Policy
    and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace,
    Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, *Second Order on Reconsideration
    and Erratum*, 14 FCC Rcd 6004 (1999) (*Detariffing Second
    Reconsideration Order*).

[^194]: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --- Elimination of Part 41
    Telegraph and Telephone Franks, CC Docket No. 98‑119, *Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 2379 (1999).

[^195]: Federal Communications Bar Association\'s Petition for
    Forbearance from Section 310(d) of the Communications Act Regarding
    Non-Substantial Assignments of Wireless Licenses and Transfers of
    Control Involving Telecommunications Carriers and Personal
    Communications Industry Association's Broadband Personal
    Communications Services Alliance's Petition for Forbearance for
    Broadband Personal Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 6293 (1998); *see also* Biennial Regulatory
    Review \-- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90,
    95, 97 and 101 of the Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate Development
    and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless
    Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 98-20, *Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027; *but see* Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2,
    21, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules To Redesignate the 27.5-29.5
    GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band,
    To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution
    Service And for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297,
    Petitions for Further Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications
    for Waiver of the Commission\'s Common Carrier Point-to-Point
    Microwave Radio Service Rules, *Fourth Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    11655, 11669-71, paras. 27-29, (1998). *See also* 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review \-- Streamlining of Mass Media Applications,
    Rules, and Processes, MM Docket No. 98-43, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 11349, 11376-79, paras. 72-82, (1998).

[^196]: *CMRS Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 1463-90, paras
    124-213. The statutory sections identified in the Order include 47
    U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205, 211 and 214.

[^197]: 47 U.S.C. § 214(a).

[^198]: 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart E; 47 C.F.R. Parts 61-64.

[^199]: AirTouch Comments at 26-27.

[^200]: AMTA Comments at 10-11. UTC asks the Commission to forbear from
    requiring PMRS providers to obtain prior consent to *pro forma*
    transfers, as it has previously done with CMRS providers. UTC
    Comments at 4-5. Given the commercial nature of the spectrum, this
    request is beyond the scope of this proceeding.

[^201]: We recently acted to forbear from requiring all common carriers
    to seek authority for interlocking directorates. Thus, common
    carriers that offer fixed services on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794
    MHz bands are also exempt from this requirement. *See* 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review of Part 62 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket
    No. 98-195, *Report and Order*, FCC 99-163 (rel. Jul. 16, 1999).

[^202]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71.

[^203]: Implementation of Section 402(B)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone &
    Telecommunications Alliance, CC Docket No. 71-11, AAD File No.
    98-43, *Report and Order*, FCC 99-104 (rel. Jun 30, 1999).

[^204]: *See* Section 27.66 of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47
    C.F.R. § 27.66. This approach is consistent with the modification of
    Section 101.305(c) of the Commission\'s Rules adopted for LMDS.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.305(c); *see also* *LMDS Second Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12654-55 (paras. 252-55).

[^205]: *NPRM* at para. 55.

[^206]: *Id.*

[^207]: *Id.* at para. 56.

[^208]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.2.

[^209]: *See* FCC Form 601, item number 35.

[^210]: *See* Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite
    Service, IB Docket 98-21, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 13 FCC
    Rcd 6907, 6924-6925 (1998) (*DBS NPRM*).

[^211]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.2.

[^212]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 27, Subpart C -- Technical Standards.

[^213]: *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN
    Docket 93-252, *Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8097-8100,
    paras 231-237 (1994) (*CMRS Third Report and Order*).

[^214]: Sections 22.321, 90.168 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
    22.321, 90.168.

[^215]: Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has invalidated as
    unconstitutional the outreach portions of the Commission's EEO
    program requirements for broadcast stations and remanded to the
    Commission for a determination whether the non-discrimination rule
    is within its statutory authority. *See* Lutheran Church-Missouri
    Synod v. FCC, Case No. 97-1116, 141 F.3d 344, *reh'g denied*, 154
    F.3d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1998). We have initiated a rulemaking on our
    Part 73 Rules EEO Rules. *See* Review of the Commission's Broadcast
    and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity rules and Policies, MM Docket
    No. 98-204, and Termination of the EEO Streamlining Proceeding, MM
    Docket No. 96-16, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 23004
    (1998).

[^216]: *See* 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(1)(A) (stating in relevant part "\[a\]
    person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial
    mobile service shall . . . be treated as a common carrier for
    purposes of this Act"). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.815 (stating in
    relevant part "\[e\]ach common carrier licensee or permitee with 16
    or more full time employees shall file with the Commission . . . an
    annual employment report").

[^217]: *See* Sections 27.51, 27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61, 27.63
    of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.51, 27.54, 27.56, 27.57,
    27.59, 27.61, 27.63; *see also Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 10848-65, paras. 123-161.

[^218]: In a "coordination" approach, licensees operating on the same
    spectrum in adjacent areas would coordinate the location of their
    stations in order to control interference.

[^219]: The "field strength" approach requires a licensee to limit the
    field strength of its station transmissions to some prescribed level
    at the licensee's geographic border.

[^220]: *NPRM* at para. 60.

[^221]: AirTouch Comments at 29.

[^222]: SBC Comments at 4-5.

[^223]: *See* Sections 90.7, 90.689, and 90.671, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.7,
    90.689, and 90.671.

[^224]: *See* Section 90.419(f), which permits SMR licensees to operate
    fixed services on a co-primary basis with their mobile operations.
    47 C.F.R. § 90.419(f).

[^225]: The predicted 40 dBu/v field strength shall be calculated using
    Figure 10 of Section 73.699 of this chapter, with a correction
    factor for antenna height differential of --9 dB. 47 C.F.R. §
    73.699, Fig. 10.

[^226]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(d)(1).

[^227]: H. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 12 (1997, *reprinted at* 1997
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 201.

[^228]: *NPRM* at para. 69.

[^229]: IMSA/IAFC Comments at 2; Harris Comments at 2; SBC Comments at
    5; AirTouch Comments at 29.

[^230]: APCO Comments at 4.

[^231]: Motorola Reply at 12.

[^232]: *Id.* at 15-16.

[^233]: Motorola describes this scenario as causing possible
    interference to public safety mobile receivers from emissions from
    commercial base transmitters. Motorola December 2, 1999 *Ex Parte*
    Filing at 1.

[^234]: *Id.* at 5 (unpaginated). This limit, as descriibed, is the
    equivalent to requiring that the out-of-band emission be attenuated
    by at least 87 + 10 log P in a 6.25 kHz bandwidth.

[^235]: FreeSpace December 16, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 1.

[^236]: Bell Atlantic December 9, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 3.

[^237]: *Id.* at 4.

[^238]: Reversing the base and mobile transmit bands creates different
    interference scenarios at the 764 MHz, 776 MHz, and 794 MHz
    interfaces than exist under the base/mobile configuration currently
    used in the 700 MHz public safety bands \-- in particular, replacing
    what Motorola considers to be a very undesirable "mobile-to-mobile"
    interference scenario at the 776 MHz interface with a "base-to-base"
    interference scenario at that interface. Motorola December 6, 1999
    *Ex Parte* Filing at 4-5 (unpaginated); Motorola December 13, 1999
    *Ex Parte* Filing at 2 (unpaginated).

[^239]: Motorola December 13, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2 (unpaginated).

[^240]: This limit is the equivalent to requiring that out-of-band
    emissions be attenuated by at least 92 + 10log P in a 6.25 kHz
    bandwidth. Motorola recommends that, in addition to applying this
    level of protection to public safety, commercial licensees operating
    in the upper band be required to "work with public safety operators
    to resolve instances of interference." *Id.* at 3 (unpaginated).

[^241]: This limit is the equivalent to requiring that out-of-band
    emissions be attenuated by at least 65 + 10 log P in a 6.25 kHz
    bandwidth. *Id.* at 4 (unpaginated).

[^242]: APCO further notes that one of the principal reasons for
    adopting the current band plan for the 764-776/794-806 MHz public
    safety bands is the "potential for integrated and interoperable
    radio systems across the bands. APCO December 16, 1999 *Ex Parte*
    Filing at 2.

[^243]: US WEST December 21, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 1. US WEST
    anticipates that the proposed stadards would affect carrier's
    ability to provide viable wireless services using existing IS-95
    CDMA technologies, and the impact of the standards on the use of
    wideband CDMA technologies "could even be more acute." *Id.* at 2.

[^244]: FLEWUG December 9, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 5.

[^245]: Motorola December 22, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing at 2. Under
    Motorola's "reversed band" approach, this would be the 764 MHz
    interface. When the 746-764 MHz band is used for base transmissions
    and the 776-794 MHz band is used for mobile transmissions, this
    would be the 794 MHz interface.

[^246]: *Id.* at 2. Under Motorola's "reverse band" approach, this would
    be the 794 MHz interface.

[^247]: *Id.* at 4.

[^248]: *See* January 5, 2000 letter from William T. Hatch, Acting
    Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Thomas Sugrue,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission.

[^249]: *Id. See also, e.g.,* Motorola December 2, 1999 *Ex Parte*
    Filing; FLEWUG December 9, 1999 *Ex Parte* Filing; Dary DeForest,
    *Analysis into Potential Interference from Out-of-Band Emissions to
    Public Safety Operations in the 821-824/866-869 MHz Band,* Industry
    Canada, December 4, 1998; Joe Kuran, *A Conflict of Public
    Interest*, Mobile Radio Technology, March 1999.

[^250]: *See, generally,* Bell Atlantic Comments; Lucent Comments;
    IMSA/IAFC Comments; Harris Comments; SBC Comments; and AirTouch
    Comments.

[^251]: We agree with APCO that reversing the mobile and base transmit
    bands, as Motorola proposes, would be in contradiction of our
    intention to provide for integratation of public radio systems
    across the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands. *See Public Safety Spectrum
    Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 168 (1998). We therefore reject
    this proposal.

[^252]: This assumes a band plan that would provide for base
    transmissions in the 747-762 MHz band and mobile transmissions in
    the 777-792 MHz band.

[^253]: As recommended by NTIA, we restrict the out-of-band emissions
    from 30 megahertz base station transmitters into both the 764-776
    MHz and the 794-806 MHz public safety bands.

[^254]: We believe that it would be more difficult for manufacturers to
    produce mobile and portable equipment that could meet a stringent
    OOBE standard than it would for manufacturers to produce base
    station equipment to meet such a standard due to cost considerations
    and the need to minimize power consumption in mobile and portable
    equipment.

[^255]: In our adopted band plan, this interference scenario would occur
    with respect to the 794-806 MHz public safety band. *See* Motorola
    *Ex Parte* Filing of December 22, 1999 at 5.

[^256]: We note that historically-followed coordination procedures,
    requiring cooperation and accommodation by both commercial and
    public safety entities, may resolve many instances of potential
    interference.

[^257]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.52.

[^258]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093. The RF radiation
    exposure limits are set forth in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1310, 2.1091, and
    2.1093, as modified in Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental
    Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62, *Report
    and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996); First Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17512 (1997); *Second Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997) (*RF Guidelines Second
    Reconsideration Order*).

[^259]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10861 (para. 154
    n.344), noting that 1,000 watts ERP equates to 1,640 watts EIRP. In
    the *RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order*, the Commission
    increased the exclusion threshold for mobile devices operating above
    1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts ERP. *RF Guidelines Second
    Reconsideration Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 13514 (para. 51).

[^260]: SBC Comments at 5.

[^261]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10862, para. 154
    n.345, noting that, in a pending petition for reconsideration of the
    *RF Guidelines Report and Order*, the Commission was considering
    whether to revise the threshold for requiring routine evaluation of
    mobile devices above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts. This change
    was made in the *RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order*.

[^262]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.1091.

[^263]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093.

[^264]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093.

[^265]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10862 (para. 154
    n.346). OET Bulletin No. 65 (Edition 97-01) was issued on August 25,
    1997, and is available for downloading at the FCC Web Site:
    www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. Copies of OET Bulletin No. 65 also may be
    obtained by calling the FCC RF Safety Line at (202) 418-2464.

[^266]: Antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted in
    accordance with Table 1 in Section 27.50 of our Rules, as amended.
    47 C.F.R. § 27.50.

[^267]: Radio transmitters produce energy not only on the desired
    frequency (such as 784 MHz) but also lesser amounts of energy on
    multiples of the desired frequency, known as harmonics. In this
    example, the second harmonic (twice the desired frequency) would be
    1568 MHz. Although most of the power generated is on the desired
    frequency, very sensitive receivers can detect the smaller amounts
    of power generated on the harmonic frequencies.

[^268]: The GPS is in operation, and will be the United States component
    of the GNSS. GPS utilizes the lower portion of the
    Radionavigation-Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) allocation from
    1559-1610 MHz on a primary basis, and is maintained by the United
    States Department of Defense. The other component of the GNSS is
    GLONASS, the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite
    System, which will use the 1598-1605 MHz portion of that allocation
    (i.e., the second harmonic frequencies of TV channels 68 and 69)
    when the system reaches its final frequency configuration after
    2005.

[^269]: GNSS, as currently envisioned, will consist of the GPS and
    GLONASS systems that provide radionavigation satellite services
    (RNSS) worldwide.

[^270]: *See* May 11, 1999 letter from William T. Hatch, Acting
    Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Dale Hatfield,
    Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications
    Commission.

[^271]: For purposes of NTIA\'s analysis, interference from wideband
    emissions was considered to have a bandwidth in the range of 100 kHz
    to 1 MHz; interference from narrowband emissions was considered to
    have a bandwidth less than or equal to 700 Hz. The limits identified
    by NTIA are based on international recommendations by RTCA and ETSI
    for mobile earth terminals in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS).
    *See* RTCA Inc. Special Committee 159, Assessment of Radio Frequency
    Interference Relevant to the GNSS, Document No, RTCA/DO-235, January
    27, 1997; European Testing and Standards Institute (ETSI) standards
    TBR-041 and TBR-042 for Mobile Earth Terminals in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    and 2.0 GHz range, respectively.

[^272]: The out-of-band emissions include both spurious and harmonic
    emissions.

[^273]: We determined that the standard recommended by NTIA would
    require approximately 85-90 dB suppression for typical full-power
    mobile equipment and approximately 75-80 dB for handhelds and
    portables. For the purposes of the GLONASS standard, we assumed the
    narrowband limit of -80 dBW as sufficient for commercial services
    bandwidths of up to 150 kHz. *NPRM* at paras. 73-78.

[^274]: AirTouch Comments at 30.

[^275]: USGPS Comments at 3.

[^276]: USGPS Comments at 4 n.4.

[^277]: *Id.* at 4.

[^278]: USGPS incorporates by reference, and attaches its comments in
    the GMPCS proceeding. In that proceeding, USGPS further notes that
    USGPS and the United States, in ITU-R study group activities earlier
    in 1999, were prepared to accept the --70 dBW/MHz limitation,
    provided that it was made clear that this value would not be applied
    to any emitters other than 1-3 GHz MSS METs without independent
    studies. *See* USGPS Reply at 8.

[^279]: NTIA Comments at 1. AirTouch suggests that our proposed OOBE
    emission limits could be difficult to meet for portable units, but
    does not suggest that they would be so difficult as to prevent
    equipment manufacturers from producing mobiles and portables meeting
    those limits. We have not received any indication from any potential
    700 MHz band equipment manufacturers commenting in this proceeding
    that it will be difficult to suppress wideband OOBE to the --70
    dBW/MHz level.

[^280]: USGPS Reply at 7.

[^281]: AirTouch Satellite Services, Inc. Application For Blanket
    Authority To Construct And Operate Up To 50,000 Mobile Satellite
    Earth Terminals Through The GLOBALSTAR Mobile Satellite System,
    *Order and Authorization,* PA 99-2010, October 4, 1999, paras.
    10-13.

[^282]: USGPS testing concluded that under "co-location" conditions,
    wideband OOBE of --70 dBW/MHz completely prevented GPS receivers
    from tracking and securing fixes from GPS satellites.

[^283]: Codified at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^284]: *See NPRM* at para. 82.

[^285]: Section 309(j)(2) of the Act, which exempts "public safety radio
    services" from competitive bidding, defines that term as including
    "private internal radio services used by State and local governments
    and non‑government entities and emergency road services provided by
    not‑for‑profit organizations, that (i) are used to protect the
    safety of life, health, or property; and (ii) are not made
    commercially available to the public." 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A).
    Section 337, which directs the Commission to allocate 24 megahertz
    of spectrum for "public safety services," defines that term as
    services\--

    > the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of
    > life, health, or property; that are provided\-- (i) by State or
    > local government entities; or
    >
    > \(ii\) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a
    > governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such
    > services; and
    >
    > that are not made commercially available to the public by the
    > provider.

    47 U.S.C. § 337(f)(1).

[^286]: AirTouch Comments at 30-31.

[^287]: KM Comments at 3; MSTV Comments at 9-10.

[^288]: APCO Comments at 6; Southern Comments at 4n.8, 8.

[^289]: *See* Section I, *supra*.

[^290]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii); 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(c).

[^291]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.502(a).

[^292]: *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 447-49,
    paras. 124-25.

[^293]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g).

[^294]: We adopted a similar rule for the General Wireless
    Communications Service. *See* Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz
    Transferred from Federal Government Use, ET Docket No. 94-32,
    *Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 624, 652-53, paras. 71-73
    (1995).

[^295]: *See NPRM* at para. 83.

[^296]: *Id*.

[^297]: *Id*.

[^298]: The most recent comprehensive order in this proceeding was the
    *Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*. *See* Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules --
    Competitive Bidding, WT Docket No. 97-82, Allocation of Spectrum
    Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685 MHz,
    ET Docket No. 94-32, *Third Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 13 FCC Rcd 374 (1997) ("*Part 1
    Third Report and Order*" and "*Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*"), *recon. pending.*

[^299]: TWDC Comments at 8.

[^300]: *See NPRM* at paras. 85-86.

[^301]: *Id*. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b); 47 C.F.R. § 27.210(b);
    47 C.F.R. § 101.1209(b).

[^302]: *NPRM* at para. 87. *See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña*,
    515 U.S. 200 (1995); *United States v. Virginia*, 518 U.S. 515
    (1996).

[^303]: For the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the Commission is
    exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires Federal agencies to
    obtain Small Business Administration approval before adopting small
    business size standards. *See* *Consolidated Appropriations*,
    Appendix E, Section 213(a)(4)(B). *See also* 145 Cong. Rec. at
    H12493, Nov. 17, 1999.

[^304]: *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 477-78,
    paras. 185-87.

[^305]: *See* Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate
    the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies
    for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite
    Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, *Second Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 12545, 12692-93 (1997); Amendment of Part 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems
    in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, *Second Report
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 19079, 19169 (1997); Amendment of Part 90 of
    the Commission\'s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle
    Monitoring Systems, PR Docket No. 93-61, *Second Report and Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15194 (1997).

[^306]: Alaskan Choice Comments at 5.

[^307]: *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04,
    paras. 47-48.

[^308]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(2)(iii).

[^309]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii).

[^310]: In other words, very small businesses may not accumulate a 15
    percent credit and a 25 percent credit.

[^311]: *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04, para.
    47.

[^312]: KM Comments at 4-5.

[^313]: In the competitive bidding proceeding, the Commission concluded
    that the record clearly demonstrates that the primary impediment to
    participation by designated entities is lack of access to capital.
    *See* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    \-\-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Fifth Report and
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5537, para. 10 (1994) ("*Competitive Bidding
    Fifth Report and Order*"). Bidding credits, established in response
    to Congress' directive that such entities be given the opportunity
    to provide spectrum-based services, were designed in particular to
    ease the difficulties women and minorities often experience in
    gaining access to capital. *Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 5571-79, paras. 93-110.

[^314]: APCO Comments at 6-7.

[^315]: *See* Alaskan Choice Comments at 4 (suggesting preferences for
    minorities, women, and underserved communities).

[^316]: *See Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 386, para.
    14.

[^317]: *See* Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 14626-27 (para. 80)(1997)(*DTV
    Sixth Report and Order*).

[^318]: Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band,
    ET Docket No. 97-157, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd
    14141, 14148, para. 17 (1997)(*Reallocation Notice*).

[^319]: *See* *Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd. 152
    (1998) at 217-227, paras. 146-164.

[^320]: *Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order*, at 218, para. 148.

[^321]: *See* Further Sharing of the UHF Television Band by Private Land
    Mobile Radio Services, General Docket No. 85-172, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 101 FCC 2d 852, 865 (1985), *proceeding
    suspended*, 2 FCC Rcd 6441 (1987).

[^322]: *Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order* at 220-227, paras.
    150-164.

[^323]: Certain of our decisions with regard to TV protection in the
    Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order are the subject of
    reconsideration. To the extent that our actions with regard to that
    reconsideration result in subsequent changes to the rules adopted in
    that proceeding, those changes may be reflected as they apply or are
    relevant.

[^324]: Motorola Comments at 18.

[^325]: The provisions of Section 90.545 of our Rules will be contained
    in Section 27.60 of our Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 27.60.

[^326]: In addition, licensees operating fixed stations in the 747-762
    MHz band must comply with the relevant provisions for "base
    stations" in Section 90.309 of our Rules; and licensees operating
    fixed stations in the 777-792 MHz band must comply with the relevant
    provisions for "control stations" in Section 90.309 of our Rules. 47
    C.F.R. § 90.309.

[^327]: 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14). *See* *also* *DTV Proceeding* 12 FCC Rcd
    12809, 12832 (1997), para. 54 (outlining elements of the transition
    schedule "by the sixth year from the date of adoption of this
    *Report and Order* a requirement of 50% simulcasting of the video
    programming of the analog channel on the DTV channel; by the seventh
    year, a 75% simulcasting requirement; by the eighth year, a 100%
    simulcasting requirement, until the analog channel is terminated and
    that spectrum returned.").

[^328]: *NPRM* at para. 99.

[^329]: *See, e.g.,* US WEST Comments at 10.

[^330]: *DTV Proceeding*, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12834, para. 60.

[^331]: *DTV Proceeding*, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12834, para. 59.

[^332]: *DTV Proceeding*, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12834, para. 57.

[^333]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 336-337.

[^334]: *See Consolidated Appropriations*, Appendix E, Sec. 213. *See
    also* 145 Cong. Rec. at H12493-94, (Nov. 17, 1999).

[^335]: Both Canada and Mexico have been notified that the Commission
    has changed the allocation of these bands, and the Commission has
    discussed with them the possibility of mutually compatible spectrum
    use in all three countries.

[^336]: Many agreements have used the geographic distance of 120 km from
    the border as the coordination or effected area. We will apply this
    criterion until agreements are reached.

[^337]: *See* Section IV, *supra.*

[^338]: 47 U.S.C. § 337 (d)(1).