**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 02-353         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Service Rules for Advanced       | ) |                              |
| Wireless Services                | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** October 16, 2003 **Released:** November 25, 2003

By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Martin and Adelstein
issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps approving in part,
concurring in part and issuing a separate statement.

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. Introduction 1

II\. background 3

A. AWS Allocation Order 4

B. AWS Service Rules NPRM 8

III\. Discussion 12

A. In General 12

1\. Flexible Use 12

2\. Regulatory Framework 16

3\. Assignment of Licenses 22

[B.]{.smallcaps} Band Plan 27

1\. Geographic Area Licensing 30

2\. Size of Geographic Areas 35

3\. Spectrum Blocks and Pairing 41

C. Band Clearance and Reimbursement 47

1\. The 1710-1755 MHz Band 48

2\. The 2110-2150 MHz Band 52

3\. The 2150-2155 MHz Band 55

D. Licensing and Operational Rules 57

1\. Regulatory Status 57

2\. Ownership Restrictions 61

\(a\) Foreign Ownership 61

\(b\) Spectrum Aggregation Limits; Eligibility Restrictions 64

3\. License Term; Renewal Expectancy 69

4\. Performance Requirements 73

5\. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Spectrum 80

6\. Other Operating Requirements 84

E. Technical Rules 87

1\. Co-Channel Interference Between AWS Licensees Operating in Adjacent
Regions 88

2\. Adjacent Channel Interference Between AWS Licensees 91

3\. Power Limits 95

4\. Spectrum Location of Base and Mobile Transmissions 104

5\. Protecting Incumbent Systems from Interference 112

\(a\) The 2110-2155 MHz Band 112

\(i\) Protection of Part 101 Systems 113

\(ii\) Protection of Part 21 Systems 115

\(iii\) Goldstone, California
Facility.............................................\.......116

\(b\) The 1710-1755 MHz Band 117

\(i\) Department of Defense Operations 118

\(ii\) Non-Department of Defense Operations 124

\(c\) Below 1710 MHz 125

\(d\) Above 1755 MHz 126

\(e\) Below 2110 MHz 127

\(f\) Above 2155
MHz........................................................................
131

6\. RF Safety 132

7\. Canadian and Mexican Coordination 134

F. Competitive Bidding 136

1\. Incorporation by Reference of the Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules
137

2\. Provisions for Designated Entities 144

IV\. Procedural matters 150

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 150

B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 151

C. Further Information 154

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 155

Appendix A: List of Commenters

Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix C: Final Rules

Appendix D: Propagation Formulas

\* \* \* \* \*

# Introduction {#introduction .Style-Heading-1-+-Left}

1.  In this Report and Order, we adopt service rules for Advanced
    Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands,
    including provisions for application, licensing, operating and
    technical rules, and for competitive bidding.[^1] Licensees in these
    bands will have the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile
    service that is consistent with the allocations for this
    spectrum.[^2] We will license this spectrum under our
    market-oriented Part 27 rules and, in order to accommodate differing
    needs, our band plan includes both localized and regional geographic
    service areas and symmetrically paired spectrum blocks with the
    pairings being composed of different bandwidths. Our licensing plan
    will allow the marketplace rather than the Commission to ultimately
    determine what services are offered in this spectrum and what
    technologies are utilized to provide these services. The licensing
    framework that we adopt today for these bands will ensure that this
    spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of
    new and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage
    the growth and development of broadband services.

2.  Our actions today bring us closer to our goals of achieving the
    universal availability of broadband access and increasing
    competition in the provision of such broadband services both in
    terms of the types of services offered and in the technologies
    utilized to provide those services. The wide spread deployment of
    broadband will bring new services to consumers, stimulate economic
    activity, improve national productivity, and advance many other
    objectives -- such as improving education, and advancing economic
    opportunity for more Americans. By encouraging the growth and
    development of broadband, our actions today also foster the
    development of facilities-based competition. We achieve these
    objectives by taking a market-oriented approach to licensing this
    spectrum that provides greater certainty, minimal regulatory
    intervention, and leads to greater benefits to consumers.

# background {#background .Style-Heading-1-+-Left}

3.  The 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands have previously been used for
    a variety of Government and non-Government services. The National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) identified
    the 1710-1755 MHz band for transfer from exclusive use by the
    Federal Government to the Commission for mixed use, effective in
    2004, pursuant to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
    (OBRA-93).[^3] The 2110-2150 MHz band was formerly used by private
    and common carrier fixed microwave services, but in 1992 was
    identified by the Commission for reallocation to services using new
    and innovative technologies under its *Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding.[^4] The 2150-2155 MHz band is currently used by the
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS).

## AWS Allocation Order

4.  In November of last year, we adopted a *Second Report and Order* in
    ET Docket No. 00-258 that allocated spectrum for advanced services
    in the 1710-1755, 2110-2150 and 2150-2155 MHz bands and combined
    these latter two bands into a single 45-megahertz allocation
    (*i.e*., 2110-2155 MHz).[^5] Specifically, in the *AWS Allocation
    Order*, we allocated the 1710-1755 MHz band for fixed and mobile
    services on a co-primary basis contingent on the spectrum becoming
    available for mixed use by January 1, 2004. The 2110-2150 MHz band
    was already allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a primary
    basis. In order to create a second contiguous 45-megahertz band for
    advanced services, we added five megahertz of spectrum to the
    2110-2150 MHz band from the upper adjacent band.[^6] We reallocated
    the 2150-2155 MHz band from MDS, added a mobile allocation to this
    segment, and combined it with the 2110-2150 MHz band. As a result,
    we created two contiguous 45-megahertz bands, both allocated to the
    fixed and mobile services, and made this spectrum available for AWS.

5.  By providing two 45-megahertz blocks of contiguous spectrum that
    could be paired, we allocated a significant amount of spectrum that
    can be used to support a wide variety of AWS applications, including
    though not limited to those associated with "3G" and "IMT-2000"
    technologies. In keeping with our flexible use policies, this
    allocation could be used by current service providers to expand
    their capacity for offering wireless voice and data services.
    Alternatively, it could be used by either current providers or new
    entrants to support the development of entirely new applications
    that are distinct from existing wireless offerings.

6.  Before these bands can be put to effective use, however, incumbent
    licensees in these bands must be relocated to other spectrum. The
    1710-1755 MHz band is currently used for Federal Government
    operations. As indicated above, NTIA originally identified the
    1710-1755 MHz band for transfer in 1995 and indicated that the band
    could be made available to non-Federal Government users on a
    mixed-use basis in 2004.[^7] NTIA noted, however, that Federal
    Government use of this band would have to be protected indefinitely
    at 333 fixed microwave stations used by Federal Power Agencies, at
    111 stations used for aviation-related safety communications, and at
    16 sites used by Department of Defense for fixed microwave, tactical
    radio relay, and aeronautical mobile stations.[^8]

7.  In July 2002, NTIA offered a plan that, if fully implemented, could
    largely clear this band of Federal Government users by no later than
    December 31, 2008.[^9] The plan indicates that in order for the time
    line to be achieved certain actions would be required to be
    accomplished.[^10] Any significant delays in the availability of
    relocation funds or delays in the other assumptions upon which the
    December 31, 2008 clearance date is based could require the
    predicted clearance time line to be revised.[^11] Along with
    requiring commercial users to reimburse Federal users' relocation
    costs, part of this plan requires the Commission to conduct a
    rulemaking that would reallocate other spectrum to accommodate
    Federal systems that otherwise would remain in the 1710-1755 MHz
    band indefinitely. We initiated this rulemaking proceeding with the
    issuance of a *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in ET Docket
    No. 00-258 this past July.[^12]

8.  As discussed above, we created the 2110-2155 MHz band by combining
    two adjacent band segments. The 2110-2150 MHz segment of this band
    is currently used by incumbent point-to-point fixed microwave
    licensees. In the *AWS Allocation Order*, we stated that we will use
    existing relocation rules to provide for the migration of these
    licensees to other spectrum.[^13] The 2150-2155 MHz segment of the
    2110-2155 MHz band is currently used by MDS, and we are considering
    relocation spectrum and procedures for MDS operations in this band
    in another proceeding.[^14]

## AWS Service Rules NPRM

9.  Concurrently with adoption of the *AWS Allocation Order*, we also
    adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in WT Docket No. 02-353
    that sought comment on licensing, technical and operational rules to
    govern the use of the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands.[^15] In the
    *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we proposed licensing and service rules
    that would permit maximum licensee flexibility and sought to remove
    regulatory barriers to innovation. Consistent with this approach, we
    proposed that the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands could be used to
    provide any service, including AWS, that is consistent with the
    bands' fixed and mobile allocations. We proposed to license these
    bands under Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Part 27 provides a
    flexible regulatory framework that we have applied to multiple bands
    and services, which includes basic licensing requirements and sets
    out certain technical requirements to prevent interference. We also
    proposed to assign licenses in these bands through competitive
    bidding and sought comment on a number of auction-related issues,
    including the use of bidding credits, in connection with these
    licensing procedures.

10. In addition, we asked what geographic areas should be used to
    license this spectrum, whether the bands should be divided into
    particular blocks of spectrum, and, if so, what size the blocks
    should be and what pairings would be appropriate for this spectrum.
    Among other proposals, we proposed ten-year license terms, proposed
    to permit post-auction disaggregation and partitioning, and sought
    comment on possible construction requirements. We also sought
    comment on a variety of technical issues, including on how best to
    control in-band and out-of-band interference, appropriate power
    limits, RF safety limits, and Canadian and Mexican coordination.

11. Comments on the *AWS Service Rules NPRM* were due by February 7,
    2003, and reply comments were due by March 14, 2003. Eighteen
    comments and eight reply comments were filed in response to the *AWS
    Service Rules NPRM*. A list of commenters and reply commenters can
    be found in Appendix A. In addition, as permitted under our rules,
    there have been *ex parte* presentations.

# Discussion {#discussion .Style-Heading-1-+-Left}

## In General {#in-general .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

### Flexible Use {#flexible-use .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

12. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we proposed to allow
    licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands flexibility to
    provide any fixed or mobile or combination of fixed and mobile
    services permitted by the United States Table of Frequency
    Allocations. We concluded that this approach was consistent with
    Section 303(y)(2) of the Communications Act, as amended by the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which grants the Commission authority
    to permit flexible use of spectrum if it finds that such use: (1) is
    in the public interest; (2) would not deter investment in
    communications services and systems, or technology development;
    and (3) would not result in harmful interference among users.[^16]
    We sought comment on our tentative conclusion to permit flexible use
    of this spectrum.

13. *Discussion*: In order to promote innovative services and encourage
    the flexible and efficient use of the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands, we permit licensees to use this spectrum for any use
    permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations
    contained in Part 2 of our rules (*i.e.*, fixed or mobile services).
    All of the comments we received on this issue support permitting
    flexible use of this spectrum.[^17] CTIA states "flexibility in
    spectrum regulation can improve access to spectrum, promote
    efficiency and allow spectrum to migrate to the most highly-valued
    uses."[^18] Cingular observes that "\[l\]icensees need flexibility
    to deploy new technologies, implement service innovations, expand
    capacity in response to growing demand, and otherwise respond to
    market forces."[^19] PetroCom states that flexibility gives
    "licensees the freedom to determine the services the public
    desires."[^20] Flexibility thus allows spectrum to move to its
    highest valued use without regulatory lag, an economically efficient
    result.[^21] Given the expected use of the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155
    MHz bands, permitting flexible use of these bands is clearly in the
    public interest.

14. In fact, we believe flexibility will spur investment in
    communication services and systems and technology development. We
    find that permitting licensees to use this spectrum for any use
    permitted by the spectrum's allocation will not deter investment in
    communications services and systems, or technology development. The
    record in this proceeding supports this determination. Ericsson
    states that flexibility "is imperative to ensure the successful
    development and deployment of AWS."[^22] CTIA observes that
    flexibility "fosters the development of innovative, state-of-the-art
    service offerings."[^23] Cingular asserts that flexibility permits
    licensees "to deploy new technologies, implement service
    innovations, expand capacity in response to growing demand, and
    otherwise respond to market forces."[^24] Our experience with
    licensing the Personal Communications Services (PCS) supports the
    conclusion that flexibility spurs investment and service
    innovations. In the PCS bands, flexibility has encouraged industry
    investment, promoted competition, and fostered technology
    innovations. We believe, as PetroCom observes, that flexibility
    "will promote investment in different technologies . . ."[^25]

15. We also find that permitting licensees to employ this spectrum for
    any fixed or mobile use permitted by the United States Table of
    Frequency Allocations will not result in harmful interference among
    spectrum users. The technical rules we adopt below reflect careful
    consideration of potential interference scenarios, both during the
    transition period before incumbents relocate and as the spectrum
    becomes developed.[^26] Further, potential for interference between
    different services and technologies is mitigated by our decision to
    adopt geographic area licensing and a band plan that takes
    interference considerations into account. Finally, the flexibility
    we are permitting will itself provide licensees the ability to
    adjust their operations to minimize any interference that might
    occur. As the TDD Coalition states, "flexibility in choosing various
    technologies for spectrum allocation will negate any significant
    potential interference that occurs when differing technologies are
    permitted to co-locate within the same spectrum band."[^27] Our
    technical rules for the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will
    therefore permit licensees to provide a wide variety of services in
    these bands with a minimum of interference, and will permit both
    in-band and adjacent band licensees to operate with sufficient
    certainty and clarity regarding their rights and
    responsibilities.[^28] In this case, licensees will be able to
    provide any service that is consistent with the spectrum's
    allocation and the operating and technical rules.[^29]

### Regulatory Framework {#regulatory-framework .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

16. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we proposed to
    license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands under Part 27 of the
    Commission's rules.[^30] We reasoned that the flexibility that these
    rules provide is consistent with our proposal that licensees in
    these bands could use this spectrum for any service consistent with
    the bands' fixed and mobile allocations. Alternatively, we sought
    comment on whether the bands should be licensed under Parts 22, 24,
    some other rule part, or a newly created rule part.

17. *Discussion*: We will license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    under Part 27 of the Commission's rules, as those rules are modified
    below to reflect certain characteristics of this spectrum. Our Part
    27 rules reflect a market oriented approach to licensing, and the
    flexibility these rules provide will encourage the deployment of a
    wide variety of fixed and mobile services in these bands. We agree
    with the TDD Coalition that "Part 27 is sufficient to govern these
    bands due to its flexible nature, and the fact that it was created
    for miscellaneous wireless services, and their
    interoperability."[^31] We note, however, that as with other Part 27
    licensees, licensees in these bands will be required to comply with
    rules of general applicability contained in other parts of the
    Commission's rules.[^32]

18. AT&T Wireless, Cingular, CTIA, Ericssson, Motorola, and Verizon
    Wireless oppose licensing this spectrum under Part 27. They argue
    that the bands should be licensed under Part 24 of the Commission's
    rules, which was used to license broadband and narrowband PCS.[^33]
    These commenters state that this spectrum will be used for services
    similar to services already being offered in the PCS bands. They
    assert that applying the same regulatory framework to both the PCS
    and AWS bands will avoid imposing disparate regulatory and technical
    requirements on carriers offering the same or similar advanced
    wireless services in both bands.

19. We disagree with the assertion that these bands should be licensed
    under the Commission's Part 24 rules. While both Part 27 and Part 24
    provide substantial flexibility, our Part 24 rules are
    service-specific and focus exclusively on PCS, whereas our Part 27
    rules provide a broader and more flexible regulatory framework that
    has been applied to different services in multiple spectrum bands
    (*i.e.*, the upper and lower 700 MHz bands and the 2.3 GHz
    band).[^34] There are also several differences between the two rules
    parts that provide slightly greater flexibility to Part 27
    licensees. For example, the Part 24 rules permit fixed and mobile
    services, while the Part 27 rules permit any service consistent with
    a band's allocation.[^35] Part 27 is also more flexible in terms of
    build out requirements, and indeed many commenters supporting Part
    24 regulation actually advocate that we apply more flexible build
    out requirements like those in Part 27.[^36]

20. Based on these considerations, we regard Part 27 as more suitable
    than Part 24 for regulation and licensing of new spectrum to which
    we intend to apply flexible, market-oriented rules. We do not
    believe that proponents of Part 24 licensing will be disadvantaged
    by licensing these bands under Part 27 and, in fact, we see benefits
    to licensing this spectrum under Part 27. The Part 27 rules are
    designed to promote flexibility and permit market forces rather than
    the Commission to determine what services are offered in the
    spectrum licensed under this rule part. Hence, the Part 27 rules
    permit a licensee to provide any services for which its frequency
    bands are allocated.[^37] This light-handed regulatory approach
    means that licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will
    not be restricted to providing Commission-defined services. Spectrum
    licensed under Part 27 can be used in a multiple of ways by the same
    or different licensees, and the spectrum can be put to different
    uses across the country. As a result, the marketplace rather than
    the Commission will determine how this spectrum is to be used, and
    this should not only encourage research and investment but also spur
    the development and deployment of innovative services to consumers.
    Licensing this spectrum under Part 27 also means that licensees in
    these bands will be free to change the services they provide and the
    technologies that they utilize as market conditions change.[^38]

21. In addition, the technical requirements that we adopt below are
    consistent with the technical requirements for broadband PCS, and
    therefore PCS licensees who acquire spectrum in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands will not be subject to disparate treatment. For
    example, we adopt the same out-of-band emission limits for AWS
    transmitters that are currently used for broadband PCS.[^39] As a
    result, only a minimum amount of design modification will be needed
    by PCS equipment manufacturers in producing AWS equipment.

### Assignment of Licenses {#assignment-of-licenses .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

22. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we acknowledged that
    Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the
    Commission to assign certain spectrum, including the majority of the
    AWS bands, through competitive bidding.[^40] We recognized, however,
    that one portion of the AWS bands \-- 2150-2155 MHz \-- is not
    subject to a band specific directive to assign by competitive
    bidding.[^41] We noted that the 2150-2155 MHz band was only subject
    to the general section 309(j) requirement that the Commission assign
    licenses through the use of competitive bidding when mutually
    exclusive applications for initial licenses are accepted for filing,
    unless certain specific statutory exemptions apply.[^42] We also
    tentatively concluded that it serves the public interest to assign
    licenses for all portions of the AWS bands by the same
    mechanism.[^43] Consequently, we explained that if we adopt a
    licensing scheme for all portions of the AWS bands that permits the
    filing of mutually exclusive applications, consistent with both
    statutory obligations, we would resolve such applications through
    competitive bidding.[^44] However, we also sought comment on other
    approaches to assign licenses that include the 2150-2155 MHz portion
    of the AWS bands.[^45] In suggesting other approaches, commenters
    were requested to use the analytical framework established in the
    *BBA Report and Order* regarding the Commission's exercise of its
    309(j) auction authority.[^46]

23. *Discussion*: One commenter supports our tentative conclusion to
    assign all portions of the AWS bands by the same mechanism.[^47]
    Other commenters also generally concur that, to the extent that we
    adopt a licensing scheme that permits the filing of mutually
    exclusive applications, consistent with statutory obligations, we
    should resolve such applications through competitive bidding.[^48]
    In addition, most commenters agree with our proposal to adopt a
    geographic area licensing scheme for the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands.[^49] However, two commenters believe that we should assign
    licenses through other mechanisms or that the Commission should not
    utilize competitive bidding.[^50]

24. Specifically, one commenter, Mizelle, urges the Commission to adopt
    an application process coupled with yearly fees based upon gross
    revenue.[^51] Another commenter, Goldstein, requests that the
    Commission offer licenses to "eligible local exchange carriers" in
    rural areas and not subject such licenses to competitive
    bidding.[^52] Both commenters fail to explain how their proposals
    would comply with the Commission's statutory obligations under
    Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and Section 309(j)
    of the Communications Act.[^53] We note that neither Mizelle nor
    Goldstein specified whether they were addressing all portions of the
    AWS bands or the 2150-2155 MHz band. In addition, they also fail to
    address basic questions that would arise when contemplating an
    alternative mechanism for assigning licenses. For example, Mizelle
    fails to indicate how the Commission might choose between mutually
    exclusive applicants under its proposal. Goldstein's proposal is
    also flawed because there is no indication of the circumstances
    under which a local exchange carrier would be eligible for a
    license. Nor does Goldstein indicate what would occur if a local
    exchange carrier was not interested in a reserved license or if the
    local exchange carrier decided to subsequently sell the license for
    a profit. Thus, in addition to statutory infirmities, both proposals
    raise some of the same policy concerns the Commission encountered in
    prior licensing regimes, *i.e*., comparative hearings or
    lotteries.[^54]

25. As explained below, we are adopting a geographic area licensing
    scheme that permits the filing of mutually exclusive
    applications.[^55] Accordingly, pursuant to Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act and Sections 3002(b), (c)(1)(D), and (c)(3) of
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we must resolve mutually exclusive
    applications for licenses in these bands through competitive
    bidding.[^56] We will address the particular competitive bidding
    rules in a subsequent section.[^57]

26. While initial licenses for this spectrum will be assigned through
    competitive bidding, it also will be possible for entities to
    acquire spectrum in these bands through such post-auction mechanisms
    as disaggregation and partitioning and secondary markets.[^58] In
    our recently released *Secondary Markets Report and Order*, we took
    action to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the development
    of secondary markets.[^59] We adopted new policies and procedures
    that enable most wireless licensees, including Part 27 licensees, to
    lease some or all of their spectrum usage rights to third-party
    spectrum lessees.[^60] The spectrum leasing policies established in
    that proceeding will be applied to the new AWS services established
    in this proceeding in the same manner that those policies apply to
    other Part 27 services (with the exception of Guard Band Manager
    licensing which has its own set of spectrum leasing policies and
    rules), and all other exclusive use Wireless Radio Services.[^61]
    The flexible policies adopted in that proceeding and with respect to
    the AWS bands will allow more entities access to the AWS spectrum
    and permit the marketplace to decide what use is made of this
    spectrum.

## Band Plan {#band-plan .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

27. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we proposed to
    license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands using a geographic
    area licensing scheme (instead of station-defined site-by-site
    licensing) and sought comment on this proposal. In addition, we
    sought comment on the related issue of what size geographic
    licensing area or areas should be used to license this spectrum. We
    asked whether nationwide, regional, local, or some combination of
    these approaches should be used to license this spectrum. We also
    sought comment on the amount of spectrum that should be included in
    each license, and the associated issue of whether the spectrum
    should be paired.

28. *Discussion*: We adopt a geographic area licensing approach to
    license spectrum in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. This
    approach will use both regional and localized service areas. We will
    employ symmetrically paired spectrum blocks with the pairings being
    comprised of different bandwidths. In total, we will make available
    946 licenses for spectrum in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands.
    The table below summarizes our band plan for these two bands.

[Blocks]{.underline} [Pairings]{.underline} [Amount]{.underline}
[Area]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 1710-1720 and 2110-2120 2x10 EA 176

B 1720-1730 and 2120-2130 2x10 REAG 12[^62]

C 1730-1735 and 2130-2135 2x5 REAG 12

D 1735-1740 and 2135-2140 2x5 RSA/MSA 734

E 1740-1755 and 2140-2155 2x15 REAG 12

29. We believe this band plan best implements the auction objectives and
    other guidance set forth in section 309(j), and also best comports
    with the record evidence regarding likely uses of this spectrum.  Of
    course, bidders will be able to aggregate ( *i.e*., acquire
    multiple) licenses during the auction.  In addition, after the
    licenses are awarded, licensees may engage in a variety of secondary
    market transactions (*i.e*., aggregation, disaggregation,
    partitioning, or spectrum leasing).  Therefore, if we have specified
    license dimensions that do not directly meet the needs of
    certain auction applicants, the secondary market will provide them
    with the opportunity to acquire the geographic and bandwidth
    footprints required to implement their business plans. As we note in
    the Competitive Bidding section of this Report and Order, the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"), consistent with
    statutory obligations,[^63] will seek comment on auction-related
    procedural issues, including auction design, prior to the start of
    the AWS auction pursuant to WTB's existing delegated authority.[^64]
    This will provide WTB with an opportunity to weigh the benefits and
    disadvantages of any particular bidding design, prior to the start
    of the auction.

### Geographic Area Licensing {#geographic-area-licensing .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

30. We will license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands using
    geographic area licensing. The record supports this decision with
    only one commenter voicing concern with this approach. None of the
    commenters advocate site-by-site licensing. CTIA states that it
    "strongly supports the Commission's proposal to adopt a geographic
    area \-- rather than a site-by-site \-- licensing scheme for the AWS
    bands."[^65] Cingular observes that "\[g\]eographic area licensing
    is especially beneficial where spectrum is likely to be used for
    services, such as CMRS, that require ubiquity and mobility over wide
    areas."[^66] AT&T Wireless asserts that "the AWS spectrum should be
    licensed on a geographic area basis."[^67] Ericsson states that it
    supports geographic area licensing.[^68] Other commenters implicitly
    agree that geographic area licensing should be used to license these
    bands because their comments address what size geographic areas
    should be used to license this spectrum.[^69]

31. Our experience has been that geographic area licensing offers many
    advantages over site-by-site licensing for the types of services
    expected in these bands. It affords licensees substantial
    flexibility to respond to market demand, which results in
    significant improvements in spectrum utilization. In particular,
    geographic area licensing permits economies of scale because it
    allows licensees to coordinate usage across an entire geographic
    area to maximize the use of spectrum. It also reduces regulatory
    burdens and transaction costs, because licensees do not require
    site-by-site approval and can aggregate their service territories
    without incurring the administrative costs and delays associated
    with site-by-site licensing. This is especially advantageous where
    spectrum is likely to be used for services that require ubiquity and
    mobility over wide areas. As a result, licensees can more rapidly
    roll out their services, which was our experience with PCS.

32. In addition, as noted above, section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act
    of 1997 requires the Commission to assign licenses for the majority
    of the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz spectrum through competitive
    bidding.[^70] A geographic licensing scheme is likely to result in
    the acceptance of mutually exclusive license applications, which
    under section 309(j) must be assigned through competitive bidding.
    Accordingly, a geographic area licensing scheme serves the
    Commission's statutory obligation to assign licenses for the
    majority of these bands through competitive bidding. For this
    additional reason, therefore, we will use a geographic area
    licensing scheme for this spectrum.

33. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) opposes the use of
    geographic area licensing for the 1710‑1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    to the extent that such licensing would permit AWS fixed stations to
    operate within the National Radio Quiet Zone without prior
    coordination.[^71] NRAO requests that the 1718.8-1722.2 MHz band
    remain available for radio astronomy use outside the National Radio
    Quiet Zone and that this spectrum not be made available for use by
    AWS.

34. The Commission has long recognized the National Radio Quiet Zone in
    its rules. Specifically, applicants and licensees planning to
    construct and operate a new or modified station at a permanent fixed
    location within a 13,000 square mile rectangular area must
    coordinate with the NRAO site located at Green Bank, West Virginia
    and the Naval Radio Research Observatory (NRRO) located at Sugar
    Grove, West Virginia.[^72] We find that the requirement to protect
    NRAO and NRRO is in no way compromised by our adoption of geographic
    area licensing for AWS because Section 1.924 applies to applicants
    and licensees regardless of whether they are licensed on a
    site-by-site or geographical area basis. With regard to the other
    radio astronomy observatories listed in footnote US311 of section
    2.106, we note that RAS facilities located outside the National
    Radio Quiet Zone observe in the band 1718.8-1722.2 MHz on an
    unprotected basis.[^73] We continue to believe that this status is
    appropriate for these facilities.[^74] Therefore, we will not adopt
    formal coordination procedures to protect these RAS observatories.
    Where practicable, we do, however, recommend that AWS licensees make
    reasonable efforts to avoid the use of frequencies at stations in
    the fixed and mobile services that could interfere with the RAS
    observatories listed in footnote US311.

### Size of Geographic Areas {#size-of-geographic-areas .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

35. In order to meet competing needs and to provide maximum flexibility,
    we will license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands using a range
    of geographic licensing areas. These include large regional
    licensing areas, smaller regional licensing areas, and local
    licensing areas. The approach we adopt will foster service to rural
    areas[^75] and tribal lands, and will promote investment in and
    rapid deployment of new technologies and services.[^76] By including
    these varied-sized geographic licensing areas in our band plan for
    this spectrum, we promote the policy goal of disseminating licenses
    among a wide variety of applicants.[^77] The record in this
    proceeding supports this approach. While some of the commenters
    request that this spectrum be licensed using nationwide or large
    regional geographic licensing areas,[^78] others request smaller
    localized licensing areas,[^79] and still others request a
    combination of large and small geographic licensing areas.[^80] We
    believe that there is enough spectrum available in these two bands
    to accommodate the competing need for both large and small
    geographic licensing areas and that by including these varied-sized
    areas in our band plan for this spectrum we are providing carriers
    with the flexibility to tailor their licensing areas to meet their
    individual business needs and goals.

36. Offering the three geographic license sizes we have chosen will
    implement the objectives of section 309(j) given the record before
    us.  Offering only a single, large geographic license size would not
    meet the needs of many prospective bidders and could lead to
    post-auction disaggregation and partitioning costs.  On the other
    hand, offering only small geographic licenses intended to be used as
    building blocks would in effect impose unneeded, excess aggregation
    costs (either during an auction or in post-auction secondary
    transactions).  However, specifying three different geographic
    sizes will best directly meet the various expressed needs of
    prospective entrants.  It will also best meet the needs of
    incumbents who have varying spectrum positions today and likely
    varying needs for added spectrum.  However, we have also chosen our
    license definitions so that if they do not directly meet the needs
    of bidders, then combining them is facilitated.

37. Economic Areas (EAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs)
    are related to each other.[^81] EAs can be aggregated to form REAGs.
    As a result of being related to each other, EAs and REAGs can be
    combined to form specific service territories or existing service
    providers can acquire a licensing area in order to supplement their
    existing spectrum capacity. MSAs and RSAs, however, cannot be
    combined to form EAs because several MSAs/RSAs cross EA borders.
    These licensing areas can either be acquired through the competitive
    bidding process, or through post-auction, secondary market
    mechanisms (*e.g.*, partitioning and disaggregation, leasing, etc.).
    Either way, the licensing areas we have chosen will allow licensees
    to make adjustments to suit their individual needs.

38. By utilizing REAGs, we meet the needs of those carriers interested
    in creating regional or nationwide service territories.[^82] For
    instance, a carrier interested in providing this type of service
    could combine the REAGs to create a nationwide service territory.
    Alternatively, a REAG could be combined with geographically related
    EA or MSA to create a regional service area with aggregated
    spectrum. In addition, an existing service provider could chose to
    increase its spectrum capacity by acquiring a REAG or acquire EAs in
    particular areas where it has a need for additional capacity. These
    types of large licensing areas permit carriers to take advantage of
    economies of scale and they allow service providers greater
    flexibility in the build-out of their services, since they are less
    constrained by geographical license limits. These types of licensing
    areas also require less coordination because there are fewer
    adjacent licensees.

39. While some carriers may desire regional or nationwide service
    territories, others are interested in localized service areas. Our
    band plan meets this need by including licensing areas based on MSAs
    and RSAs.[^83] These local service areas will be optimal for
    incumbent operators who may need spectrum capacity only in limited
    areas.  These local service areas also favor smaller entities, such
    as rural telephone companies and small service providers, with
    localized business plans and no interest in providing large-area
    service. As RCA observes, MSAs and RSAs permit entities who are only
    interested in serving rural areas to acquire spectrum licenses for
    these areas alone and avoid acquiring spectrum licenses with high
    population densities that make purchase of license rights too
    expensive for these types of entities.[^84] These types of service
    providers could acquire a RSA and create a new service area or they
    could expand an existing service territory or supplement the
    spectrum they are licensed to operate in by adding a RSA. They could
    also combine a few MSAs and RSAs to create a larger but localized
    service territory. MSAs and RSAs allow entities to mix and match
    rural and urban areas according to their business plans. By being
    smaller, these types of geographic service areas provide entry
    opportunities for smaller carriers, new entrants, and rural
    telephone companies. Their inclusion in our band plan will foster
    service to rural areas and tribal lands and thereby bring the
    benefits of advanced services to these areas.[^85]

40. API and PetroCom assert that the Gulf of Mexico should be licensed
    as a separate service area or areas.[^86] PetroCom states that
    "\[t\]he Commission should separately license one or more service
    areas to cover the Gulf rather than including the Gulf as part of
    larger land based service areas."[^87] PetroCom is concerned that if
    the Gulf is included in a land based service area the licensee of
    that service area could meet its coverage requirements without
    providing service to the Gulf.[^88] We have addressed the issue of
    licensing the Gulf of Mexico in other proceedings and we will follow
    established policy on this issue. Consistent with API's and
    PetroCom's request and with established policy, for Blocks A, B, C,
    D, and E we will separately license the Gulf of Mexico as EA
    licensing area 176,[^89] REAG licensing area 12,[^90] and MSA
    licensing area 306.[^91] As we did in licensing other Part 27
    services, the Gulf of Mexico service area is comprised of the water
    area of the Gulf of Mexico starting 12 nautical miles from the U.S.
    Gulf coast and extending outward.[^92]

### Spectrum Blocks and Pairing {#spectrum-blocks-and-pairing .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

41. We will license the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands using
    symmetrically paired spectrum blocks of five, ten, and fifteen
    megahertz. Most of the commenters support licensing this spectrum
    using spectrum blocks of five, ten, or fifteen megahertz.[^93] No
    one advocates licensing this spectrum using spectrum blocks smaller
    than five megahertz and none argue for spectrum blocks larger than
    15 megahertz. Most of the commenters advocate licensing this
    spectrum using symmetrically paired 10 and 15 megahertz blocks.[^94]
    Two commenters advocate licensing this spectrum using unpaired
    spectrum.[^95]

42. As with our approach to geographic areas, our approach here is to
    offer multiple bandwidth amounts in order to enable the various
    efficient uses of the spectrum suggested by the record without, in
    so far as possible, requiring substantial aggregation during an
    auction or substantial secondary market transactions.  Also as with
    our approach to geographic dimension, however, we have chosen
    bandwidth dimension and arrangement to facilitate aggregation during
    the auction, should individual bidders in fact find that valuable.
    This flexibility will allow carriers to tailor their acquisition of
    spectrum in these bands to meet their individual business plans and
    it will allow market forces rather than the Commission to ultimately
    determine how this spectrum is licensed.

43. Along with allowing licensees to tailor their acquisition of
    licenses to meet their individual business plans, our spectrum block
    arrangement provides licensees with maximum flexibility to resolve
    adjacent band interference issues and issues related to the
    relocation of existing licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands.[^96] By placing the larger 10 and 15 megahertz blocks at
    either end of the two bands, licensees in these segments will have
    sufficient bandwidth and maximum flexibility to resolve adjacent
    band interference concerns. In addition, by placing the smaller
    blocks toward the middle of these two bands, we have made
    aggregation easier. Our band plan allows licensees to acquire
    spectrum in a manner that takes into account existing incumbents in
    these bands and accommodates their eventual relocation out of these
    bands.

44. The record in this proceeding indicates that a bandwidth of at least
    five megahertz is required to accommodate all of the 3G radio
    interfaces.[^97] Five megahertz blocks can be used for new
    technologies and can be used for some data services, including
    Internet access. Paired five megahertz blocks enable a single
    wideband CDMA channel, which is sufficient to provide some forms of
    Internet access. Five megahertz blocks also provide entry
    opportunities for small and rural service providers. The larger ten
    and fifteen megahertz blocks should enable a broader range of
    broadband services, including Internet access at faster speeds.
    These larger blocks should also accommodate future, higher data
    rates, and provide operators with additional capacity, and,
    importantly, with greater flexibility. The larger blocks should also
    be of interest to those service providers contemplating a large
    regional or nationwide service. We believe that the availability of
    blocks of different sizes will allow operators to better accommodate
    their needs, particularly the capacity they need to serve and the
    mix of services (*e.g*., data/voice) they may wish to offer.

45. In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we noted that most carriers in the
    U.S. have indicated plans to provide service that meets the IMT-2000
    data rates by deploying systems based on CDMA2000 and W-CDMA
    technologies.[^98] The record in this proceeding supports this
    observation.[^99] CDMA2000 and W-CDMA technologies employ a
    frequency division duplex (FDD) transmission mode that requires a
    paired-channel architecture and operates in symmetric paired blocks
    of spectrum. FDD is the most commonly used transmission procedure
    for PCS, cellular, and other mobile telephony applications and the
    record indicates it is the technology most likely to be employed in
    this spectrum. As a result, we will license all of the spectrum in
    the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands using symmetrically paired
    spectrum blocks.

46. Our band plan does not include unpaired spectrum that might be
    suitable for use by entities interested in using time division
    duplexing (TDD) transmissions. The TDD Coalition asserts that
    unpaired five megahertz blocks could be used by small carriers to
    offer wireless local assess network (WLAN)-type products.[^100]
    While we remain committed to allowing new and innovative
    technologies to develop in this spectrum, there are certain
    technical constraints that do not allow us at this time to include
    unpaired spectrum in our band plan for this spectrum that might be
    suitable for TDD.[^101] We note that if proponents of TDD can
    conclusively demonstrate that portions of this spectrum could be
    used for such transmissions without causing interference to Federal
    government users or other licensees, we could revisit this issue at
    a future date. In the meantime, we will make every effort to provide
    spectrum opportunities for TDD systems in future allocation and
    spectrum proceedings, such as in the *AWS Allocation*
    proceeding.[^102] Our commitment to finding additional spectrum for
    TDD is supported by our decisions to allocate unpaired spectrum in
    the 1670-1675 MHz band and the lower 700 MHz band.[^103]

## Band Clearance and Reimbursement {#band-clearance-and-reimbursement .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

47. As we explained in the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, the 1710-1755 MHz
    band, the 2110-2150 MHz band, and the 2150-2155 MHz band each have
    incumbents who will be covered by different clearance and
    reimbursement plans. As detailed below, the reimbursement plan for
    the 2110-2150 MHz band was addressed in the *AWS Allocation
    Order*.[^104] Further, we note that the clearance and reimbursement
    plans for the other portions of the AWS bands will not be resolved
    in this order. Accordingly, potential applicants and other
    interested parties are strongly encouraged to monitor the separate
    proceedings and legislative proposals discussed below. Finally, as
    explained below, while we conclude that the public interest supports
    adopting final service rules before all relocation issues have been
    resolved, we are not deciding the timing for licensing or auctions
    in this order.[^105]

### The 1710-1755 MHz Band {#the-1710-1755-mhz-band .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

48. *Background*: The transfer of the 1710-1755 MHz band from Federal
    Government use to non-Government commercial use is subject to the
    provisions of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration Organization Act,[^106] as amended by the Strom
    Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
    (NDAA-99).[^107] NDAA-99 requires new non-Government licensees to
    reimburse Federal users for their relocation costs.[^108] NDAA-99
    requires Federal users to notify NTIA prior to auction of the
    "marginal costs anticipated to be associated with such relocation or
    with modifications necessary to accommodate prospective
    licensees."[^109] NTIA is directed, in turn, to provide such cost
    information to the Commission so that it can make such information
    available to potential auction applicants.[^110] A Federal user
    retains its primary status until relocation is complete and NTIA
    limits or terminates the Federal user's operating license.[^111]
    NDAA-99 also grants the Federal user a limited right to reclaim
    spectrum.[^112] We note, however, that the Department of Commerce
    has proposed legislation to change the reimbursement process by
    creating a relocation fund using auction proceeds ("relocation trust
    fund").[^113]

49. Pursuant to NDAA-99's direction, NTIA adopted rules governing the
    reimbursement process.[^114] The *NTIA Reimbursement Order*,
    however, did not adopt rules that would allow for the sharing of
    relocation costs where more than one licensee benefits from the
    relocation of the federal incumbents.[^115]

50. *Discussion*: As noted above, although this Order will not directly
    address the existing reimbursement scheme and other band clearance
    issues, we received a comment directly related to these issues.
    Specifically, RCA requests that the Commission develop dispute
    resolution procedures when parties cannot agree on relocation cost
    or timing issues.[^116] In support of its request, RCA asserts that
    incumbents must not be permitted to impede use of the 1710-1755 MHz
    band by unreasonable reimbursement demands or delay.[^117] We note,
    however, that with respect to Federal incumbents, the reimbursement
    procedures, including dispute resolution, are governed by rules
    adopted by NTIA in the *NTIA Reimbursement Order*.[^118]

51. Some commenters also request that the release of a final order in
    this proceeding should not occur until there is finality as to the
    relocation and reimbursement plan for Federal incumbents.[^119]
    Alternatively, if the Commission does not delay release of this
    order pending conclusion of the related proceedings, other
    commenters request that the Commission note that, until comparable
    spectrum is allocated for Federal incumbents, the 1710-1755 MHz band
    will be significantly encumbered by Federal operations.[^120] While
    we are sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the commenters
    regarding the uncertainties relating to the reimbursement scheme
    that will finally be implemented, delay in adopting the band plan
    and service rules will not serve to expedite resolution of those
    issues. Further, delay in the adoption of service and competitive
    bidding rules could serve to delay the eventual deployment of AWS
    spectrum. Moreover, by taking this substantial step toward the goal
    of full deployment of AWS spectrum, we increase the likelihood that
    potential applicants and others with an interest in the AWS bands
    will work to ensure that the reimbursement and relocation process is
    expedited.[^121] Thus, our action here should facilitate resolution
    of the relocation and reimbursement process.[^122] With respect to
    the request to note significant incumbency in the 1710-1755 MHz
    band, as noted above*,* Federal incumbents retain their primary
    status until relocation is complete and NTIA limits or terminates
    the Federal incumbent's operating license.[^123]

### The 2110-2150 MHz Band {#the-2110-2150-mhz-band .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

52. *Background*: The *AWS Allocation Order* specified that those
    incumbents in the 2110-2150 MHz band who have primary status would
    be entitled to compensation for relocation under policies based on
    the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding.[^124] Specifically, we noted
    that these incumbents are entitled to compensation for relocation of
    any links that may pose an interference threat to new fixed or
    mobile system licensees, including all engineering, equipment, site,
    and Commission fees.[^125] We note that certain fixed microwave
    incumbents in the 2130-2150 MHz band segment consist of links that
    are paired with frequencies in the 2180-2200 MHz band allocated and
    licensed to MSS. The relocation and reimbursement obligations of
    these paired segments was discussed and resolved in the *AWS
    Allocation Order*.[^126]

53. *Discussion*: As noted above, although this Order will not directly
    address the reimbursement and band clearance issues regarding
    2110-2150 MHz band, we received some comments directly addressing
    such issues.[^127] In addition, one commenter, RCA, requests that
    certain information be provided to auction applicants regarding
    2110-2155 MHz band incumbents prior to auction. Specifically, RCA
    requests that information regarding all incumbent licensees in the
    2110-2155 MHz band and maximum reimbursement liability of the new
    licensees should be disclosed to potential auction applicants not
    less than 90 days prior to the deadline for submission of the FCC
    Form 175 ("short-form application") for any AWS auction.[^128] In
    support of its request, RCA states that interested parties need
    sufficient time to develop business plans, and knowledge of
    relocation costs and related timing issues are important components
    of those plans.[^129] RCA also requests the Commission to determine
    the maximum reimbursement payable to non-Federal incumbents.[^130]
    API opposes both requests.[^131] With respect to the disclosure of
    information regarding the incumbents, API argues that there is
    already a wealth of pertinent information regarding fixed service
    incumbent licensees in the 2.1 GHz band and potential auction
    applicants may access such information via the Commission's
    Universal Licensing System ("ULS") and other licensing
    databases.[^132] Thus, API argues that RCA's request would
    unnecessarily and unfairly shift auction participants' burden of due
    diligence to incumbent licensees. API also argues that a pre-auction
    determination of the maximum reimbursement would unfairly cap
    incumbents' costs.[^133]

54. We deny RCA's request to have incumbents provide auction applicants
    with additional information. Our action here is consistent with our
    actions in prior proceedings.[^134] For example, we denied the
    request of a Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") provider that urged
    the Commission to collect extensive technical, operational, and
    equipment inventory data from fixed service incumbents in the 2 GHz
    band so that MSS operators could better assess the cost of
    relocating such incumbents.[^135] In support of its decision, the
    Commission stated, "enough information is currently available, both
    in our databases and from commercial sources, to permit sufficient
    estimates \[of relocation costs\] for business planning."[^136]
    While we recognize that the due diligence burden on auction
    applicants in encumbered services is not inconsequential, we concur
    with API in that it would be inequitable to shift the burden of due
    diligence onto the incumbents. Further, as we stated in the MSS
    proceeding, we believe that there is sufficient information
    currently available to permit sufficient estimates of relocation
    costs by potential auction applicants.[^137] Similarly, we believe
    that a Commission determination of maximum reimbursement liability
    prior to auction would be contrary to the policy favoring
    negotiation adopted in the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding.[^138]
    Further, such pre-auction determination may inject unnecessary
    administrative delay to any auction because incumbents or interested
    parties might dispute the Commission's determination of maximum
    reimbursement liability.[^139]

### The 2150-2155 MHz Band {#the-2150-2155-mhz-band .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

55. *Background*: In the *AWS Allocation Order*, we reallocated 5
    megahertz at 2150-2155 to the AWS service from MDS but deferred to a
    later proceeding issues relating to MDS licensees, including the
    disposition of the remaining MDS spectrum and identification of
    replacement spectrum and relocation procedures.[^140] Subsequently,
    we adopted a *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in ET Docket No.
    00-258[^141] that, among other things, proposed that if relocation
    were deemed necessary,[^142] MDS incumbents would be entitled to
    comparable facilities or adequate replacement spectrum.[^143] In the
    *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, we also asked for a suggested
    timeframe for clearing the band, the types and magnitude of costs
    that would be involved,[^144] and the amount and location of
    spectrum needed to relocate MDS operations at 2150-2160/2162 MHz. In
    particular, we sought to minimize disruption to existing services
    and to minimize the economic impact on MDS licensees providing those
    services.

56. *Discussion*: As noted above, although this Order will not directly
    address the reimbursement and band clearance issues regarding
    2150-2155 MHz band, we received one comment related to these issues.
    Specifically, WCAI requests that the Commission resolve the pending
    proceedings relating to MDS channels 1 & 2/2A (occupying the
    2150-2160/2162 MHz band)[^145] at one time.[^146] Consistent with
    our decision above, we determine that the public interest is best
    served by proceeding with the adoption of service and competitive
    bidding rules for all portions of the AWS band.

## Licensing and Operational Rules {#licensing-and-operational-rules .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

### Regulatory Status {#regulatory-status .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

57. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we observed that Part
    27 licensees may render any kind of communications service
    consistent with the regulatory status indicated in its license and
    with the Commission's rules applicable to that service.[^147] In
    this case, we indicated that licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands would be free to provide common carrier,
    non-common carrier, or private internal communications or any
    combination of these services in a single license. Under this
    approach, along with being authorized to provide private internal
    communications, applicants would be permitted to select common
    carrier status as well as non-common carrier status for
    authorization in a single license, rather than having to choose
    between common and non-common carrier status. We proposed that
    applicants and licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands be
    required to indicate a regulatory status based on any services they
    choose to provide, and that if a licensee were to change the service
    or services it offers such that its regulatory status would change,
    the licensee must notify the Commission.

58. *Discussion*: We adopt our regulatory status proposal and require
    licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands to comply with
    the regulatory status provisions of section 27.10 of the
    Commission's rules.[^148] Under this flexible regulatory approach,
    licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands may provide
    common carrier, non-common carrier, or private internal
    communications or any combination of these services under a single
    license at any time anywhere within their licensed service
    areas.[^149] Similarly, licensees may use this spectrum to provide
    public safety services, although this spectrum has not been
    designated as exclusive public safety radio service spectrum. This
    broad licensing framework will encourage licensees to develop new
    and innovative services with minimal regulatory restraint. However,
    since the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands have not been allocated
    for broadcast services, licensees may not use these bands for
    broadcast services.

59. To fulfill our enforcement obligations and to ensure compliance with
    Titles II and III of the Communications Act, we will require all
    licensees to identify the regulatory status of the service(s) they
    intend to provide. Consistent with section 27.10 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands will not be required to describe their particular services,
    but only to designate the regulatory status of the service(s). We
    remind potential applicants that an election to provide service on a
    common carrier basis requires that the elements of common carriage
    be present;[^150] otherwise the applicant must choose non-common
    carrier status.[^151] If potential applicants are unsure of the
    nature of their services and their classification as common carrier
    services, they may submit a petition with their applications, or at
    any time, requesting clarification and including service
    descriptions for that purpose.[^152]

60. We also determine that if a licensee elects to change the service or
    services it offers such that its regulatory status would change, the
    licensee must notify the Commission.[^153] A change in a licensee's
    regulatory status will not require prior Commission authorization,
    provided the licensee is in compliance with the foreign ownership
    requirements of section 310(b) of the Communications Act that apply
    as a result of the change.[^154] We require notification within 30
    days of a change made without prior Commission approval. We note,
    however, that a different time period may apply, as determined by
    the Commission, where the change results in the discontinuance,
    reduction, or impairment of the existing service.[^155]

### Ownership Restrictions {#ownership-restrictions .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

###### Foreign Ownership

61. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we observed that
    sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act, as modified by
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, impose foreign ownership and
    citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to
    certain applicants.[^156] We noted that section 27.12 of our rules
    implements these restrictions. In terms of filing applications, we
    proposed that common carriers and non-common carriers be subject to
    the same reporting obligations. We sought comment on this proposal.

62. *Discussion*: Based on our statutory responsibilities, we determine
    that the provisions of section 27.12 of the Commission's rules apply
    to applicants applying for licenses in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155
    MHz bands.[^157] Section 27.12 implements section 310 of the
    Communications Act, as modified by the Telecommunications Act of
    1996.[^158] All applicants are subject to section 310(a), which
    prohibits licenses from being "granted to or held by any foreign
    government or the representative thereof."[^159] In addition, as
    applicable here, an applicant requesting authorization for a common
    carrier, aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed service station
    license would also be subject to the foreign ownership requirements
    of section 310(b).

63. We did not receive any comments opposing our proposal that common
    carriers and non-common carriers be subject to the same reporting
    obligations. In filing applications, therefore, common carriers and
    non-common carriers will not be subject to varied reporting
    obligations. By establishing parity in reporting obligations,
    however, we do not establish a single, substantive standard for
    compliance. For example, we do not and would not deny a license to
    an applicant requesting authorization exclusively to provide
    services not enumerated in section 310(b), solely because its
    foreign ownership would disqualify it from receiving a license if
    the applicant had applied for a license to provide the services
    enumerated in section 310(b). Because we are adopting a flexible
    approach to licensing these bands, we determine that all licensees
    will be subject to the same requirements to file changes in foreign
    ownership information to the extent required by our Part 27 rules.

###### Spectrum Aggregation Limits; Eligibility Restrictions

64. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we noted that the
    Commission had previously decided in 2001 to "sunset" the Commercial
    Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) spectrum aggregation limit, or "spectrum
    cap,"[^160] effective January 1, 2003.[^161] At the time it decided
    to sunset the cap, the Commission also stated that it would continue
    to pursue the objectives of "discourag\[ing\] anticompetitive
    behavior while at the same time maintaining incentives for
    innovation and efficiency,"[^162] but would do so by performing
    case-by-case reviews of proposed CMRS spectrum transactions rather
    than by applying a prophylactic rule.[^163] The Commission also
    found that "to the extent that the initial distribution of spectrum
    through auction is an issue in the future, that is also amenable to
    case-by-case review, in the sense that \[the Commission\] can shape
    the initial distribution through the service rules adopted with
    respect to specific auctions."[^164]

65. Since the CMRS spectrum cap was designated to sunset prior to the
    auctioning of spectrum in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands, we
    observed in the *AWS Service Rules NPRM* that these bands would not
    be subject to any generalized limits on spectrum aggregation, and
    tentatively concluded that we would not need to adopt any
    band-specific service rules addressing spectrum aggregation limits
    applicable to the initial licensing of these bands.[^165] However,
    we did seek comment on whether any such limits are necessary or
    appropriate.[^166] In particular, we sought comment on whether we
    should limit the amount of spectrum in these bands that any one
    entity (or related entities) may acquire at auction in the same
    geographic licensing area.[^167]

66. We further noted that in the initial licensing of some major new
    services, the Commission has limited eligibility beyond the
    requirements of section 310, in order to maximize competition by
    ensuring that at least some licenses go to new entrants.[^168]
    However, we noted that given the current state of competition in the
    CMRS industry, we did not believe that such restrictions were
    necessary for the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands and sought
    comment on this view.[^169] We also inquired as to whether there
    should be any set-asides for new entrants or other types of
    applicants or whether there should be any restrictions barring
    entities (such as incumbent cellular or PCS providers) from
    acquiring licenses in these bands, other than the foreign ownership
    requirements set forth in section 310 of the Communications
    Act.[^170]

67. *Discussion*: We agree with those commenters who oppose a spectrum
    aggregation limit for the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands,[^171]
    and we will impose no specific aggregation limitations on this
    spectrum. We do not agree with U.S. Cellular and RCA, who argued in
    favor of restricting the initial aggregation of spectrum by any
    winning bidder to 20 or 30 megahertz in the same geographic
    licensing area.[^172] We believe that entities should have the
    unrestricted flexibility to aggregate spectrum in these bands.
    Parties should be afforded the flexibility at auction and in the
    secondary market to aggregate sufficient unencumbered spectrum for
    them to make available new and innovative service to the public. As
    we recently recognized in the *Eighth Annual CMRS Competition
    Report,* the CMRS industry continues to experience "increased
    service availability, lower prices for consumers, innovations, and a
    wider variety of service offerings,"[^173] and thus we concluded
    that there is effective competition in the CMRS market.[^174] We
    also concluded that competition for mobile data products is
    developing successfully, as evidenced by the "multitude of mobile
    data services, service providers, pricing plans and devices
    available to consumers."[^175] Given the robust state of competition
    in the CMRS market, we do not feel it is necessary to impose an
    initial aggregation limit on these spectrum bands. We prefer to
    provide potential licensees with maximum flexibility in these
    allocations.

68. We also will not set aside spectrum for designated entities or other
    categories of bidders. Our objectives of ensuring both efficient use
    of spectrum and diversity of licensees can best be achieved by
    adopting a variety of license areas and spectrum block sizes, and
    ensuring the ability of licensees to partition and disaggregate
    their licenses and fully participate in the secondary spectrum
    markets. The adoption of spectrum leasing policies with respect to
    this spectrum should facilitate the ability of wireless licensees to
    lease spectrum usage rights to third parties.[^176] In addition, by
    adopting some smaller geographic licensing areas and some smaller
    spectrum block sizes, we believe we will encourage participation by
    smaller and rural entities, without the necessity of adopting
    set-asides or eligibility restrictions, because such licenses will
    be less expensive and should more closely mirror such bidders needs.
    We do not see a need to supplement the incentives for small business
    participation provided elsewhere in this order by foreclosing any of
    the licenses to other bidders. As we stated in the *AWS Service
    Rules NPRM*, "opening these bands to as wide a range of applicants
    as possible would encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop new
    technologies and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of
    this spectrum."[^177] We also believe that the bidding credits that
    we are adopting below will encourage participation by small
    businesses and entities intending to serve rural areas (including
    tribal lands), and that these bidding credits further mitigate the
    need for adopting set-asides or eligibility restrictions.[^178]

### License Term; Renewal Expectancy {#license-term-renewal-expectancy .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

69. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we proposed a 10-year
    license term for licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands,
    with a renewal expectancy similar to that afforded PCS, cellular,
    and Part 27 licensees.[^179] We stated that a 10-year license term,
    combined with a renewal expectancy, would help to provide a stable
    regulatory environment that would be attractive to investors, and
    thereby encourage development of these frequency bands. We sought
    comment, however, on whether a license term of longer than 10 years
    would be appropriate to achieve these goals and better serve the
    public interest.

70. *Discussion*: Based on the record in this proceeding, we will
    establish an initial license term for licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands of 15 years and subsequent renewal terms of 10
    years, and will modify section 27.13 of our rules to reflect this
    determination.[^180] AT&T Wireless, Cingular, CTIA, Ericsson, RCA,
    and Verizon Wireless argue that given the relocation and band
    clearance issues associated with these bands, it makes sense to
    adjust our usual ten-year license term.[^181] We agree with these
    commenters that the circumstances surrounding the future development
    and deployment of services in these bands warrant an initial license
    term longer than 10 years in order to encourage the investment
    necessary to develop these bands. We believe that an initial 15-year
    license term followed by 10-year renewal terms will provide
    investors with the necessary assurances that a sufficient amount of
    time will be available to recoup the initial costs of developing and
    deploying advanced wireless networks in the these bands.[^182]

71. We also agree with the commenters that licensees in the 1710-1755
    and 2110-2155 MHz bands should have the right to the same renewal
    expectancy as other Part 27 licensees and, therefore, will apply the
    renewal expectancy provisions of section 27.14 of our rules
    applicable to these licensees.[^183] This section provides that a
    renewal applicant receives a preference or renewal expectancy if the
    applicant has provided substantial service during its past license
    term and has complied with the Communications Act and applicable
    Commission rules and policies.[^184] According to this section,
    substantial service is defined as "service which is sound,
    favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which
    just might minimally warrant renewal."[^185] An initial 15-year
    license term, with subsequent 10-year license renewal periods,
    combined with the renewal expectancy provisions of section 27.14,
    will help to provide a stable regulatory environment that will be
    attractive to investors, and thereby encourage development of these
    frequency bands.

72. In the event that a license in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee
    will be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the
    partitioner\'s or disaggregator\'s license term, and will be
    eligible for a renewal expectancy on the same basis as other
    licensees. This approach is similar to the partitioning provisions
    the Commission adopted for MDS,[^186] for the Upper 700 MHz
    licensees,[^187] and for broadband PCS licensees.[^188]
    Specifically, we do not believe that a licensee, by partitioning or
    disaggregation, should be able to confer greater rights than it was
    awarded under the terms of its license grant.

### Performance Requirements {#performance-requirements .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

73. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on
    whether licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands should be
    subject to any performance requirements in addition to a substantial
    service requirement at license renewal.[^189] We noted that in some
    services the Commission has imposed minimum coverage requirements on
    licensees to ensure that spectrum is used effectively and service is
    implemented promptly, and in other services the Commission has
    identified specific coverage criteria as meeting a substantial
    service requirement, but has allowed licensees to make alternative
    showings of substantial service if they do not meet these
    criteria.[^190] We therefore sought comment on whether specific
    coverage requirements should be established for these bands, or
    whether coverage criteria should be adopted as one means, but not
    the exclusive means, of meeting a substantial service
    requirement.[^191] We also sought comment on whether licensees
    should be subject to interim performance requirements prior to the
    end of the license term.[^192]

74. With respect to partitioned or disaggregated licenses, we sought
    comment on whether a partitionee or disagregatee should be bound by
    the standard the Commission adopts in this proceeding. We further
    asked for comment on whether an adjustment to either a substantial
    service requirement or a minimum coverage requirement must be made
    in order to account for the Federal government's continued use of
    the 1710-1755 MHz band until 2004, or its operation of certain
    in-band facilities after that date.[^193] We sought the views of
    commenters as to what action the Commission should take if a
    licensee does not comply with the adopted performance requirements.
    We proposed to apply Section 1.946(c),[^194] which provides for the
    automatic termination of an authorization if a licensee fails to
    commence service or operations by the expiration of its license
    term. Lastly, in discussing the consequences that would flow from a
    licensee\'s failure to comply with its coverage requirements, we
    sought comment on whether the licensee should be prohibited from
    bidding on the geographic area license for the same territory in the
    future.[^195]

75. *Discussion*: We will apply the substantial service requirement in
    section 27.14(a) of the Commission's rules to the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands.[^196] According to that provision, by the end
    of its license term a licensee must provide "substantial service,"
    that is, service that is sound, favorable and substantially above
    the level of mediocre service that just might minimally warrant
    renewal. Compared to a construction standard, Section 27.14(a)'s
    substantial service requirement will provide licensees greater
    flexibility to determine how best to implement their business plans
    based on criteria demonstrating actual service to end users. This
    requirement provides the flexibility required to accommodate the new
    and innovative services that we believe will be forthcoming in these
    bands.

76. Furthermore, this substantial service standard is particularly
    appropriate here because the incumbency of federal and other current
    licensees in these bands would make specific benchmarks for all new
    licensees inequitable. In contrast, the standard we adopt today
    provides us with the flexibility to consider the particular
    circumstances of each licensee and how the level of incumbency has
    had an impact on a particular licensee's ability to build-out and
    commence service in its licensed area.[^197]

77. With respect to interim performance requirements, we agree with RCA,
    who was the sole commenter on this issue, and determine that a
    mid-license term requirement is not needed.[^198] RCA points out
    that in many instances, licensees may meet an interim population
    coverage requirement by installing a small number of cell sites in a
    urban market, with few cell sites in rural markets. RCA argues that
    the public is not well served under such scenarios.[^199] Therefore,
    in keeping with our desire to provide flexibility to licensees to
    implement their business plans, we will not adopt interim
    performance requirements.

78. Only one commenter responded to the Commission's request for
    comments on applying section 1.946(c) to those licensees who fail to
    meet their performance requirement. We agree with Petrocom and find
    that such a failure to meet the performance requirements should
    result in the automatic termination of the license.[^200] This will
    serve the public interest by providing a clear and expeditious
    procedure for dealing with such licenses. In the event that a
    licensee loses its license for failure to comply with the
    Commission's performance requirements, in addition to forfeiting the
    license, the licensee will be ineligible to regain it. The adoption
    of such a rule is in the public interest and is consistent with the
    rules we have adopted for other services.[^201]

79. Finally, having received no comments on this issue, we adopt our
    proposal that in the event a license is partitioned or
    disaggregated, the partitionee or disagregatee should also be bound
    by the substantial service requirement we adopt today. We will apply
    Section 27.15 of the Commission's rules, under which parties to
    partitioning or disaggregation agreements are provided with options
    as to how they may satisfy the requirements set forth in Section
    27.14.[^202]

### Disaggregation and Partitioning of Spectrum {#disaggregation-and-partitioning-of-spectrum .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

80. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we noted that
    geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation is a tool
    utilized by the Commission that is intended to promote efficient
    spectrum use and economic opportunity for a wide variety of
    applicants, including small business, rural telephone,
    minority-owned, and women-owned applicants.[^203] We sought comment
    on whether licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands should
    be able to partition their service areas and disaggregate their
    spectrum and, if so, whether the partitioning and disaggregation
    provisions of section 27.15 of the Commission\'s rules should apply
    to these licensees.

81. *Discussion*: We determine that licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands should have the same ability to partition their
    service territories and disaggregate their spectrum as other
    wireless licensees and, therefore, we will allow them to partition
    their service territories and disaggregate their spectrum to the
    extent permitted by section 27.15 of our rules.[^204] Section
    27.15(a)(2) provides that licensees may apply to partition their
    licensed geographic service areas or disaggregate their licensed
    spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.[^205] In
    addition, this section provides, among other obligations, that the
    partitioning licensee must include with its request a description of
    the partitioned service area and a calculation of the population of
    the partitioned service area and the licensed geographic service
    area.[^206] This section also contains provisions against unjust
    enrichment.[^207]

82. The comments the Commission received on this issue support allowing
    licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands to partition and
    disaggregate. Cingular states that "the Commission should allow
    partitioning and disaggregation so that licensees may fine-tune
    their licenses to satisfy their individual spectrum needs."[^208]
    CTIA states that it "strongly supports permitting partitioning and
    disaggregation in the AWS bands."[^209] CTIA asserts that
    "partitioning and disaggregation will allow licensees to use
    spectrum more efficiently, speed service to underserved areas,
    stimulate competition, provide increased flexibility to licensees
    and facilitate the acquisition of spectrum by a wide variety of
    entities, both large and small."[^210] As the commenters recognize,
    the Commission has permitted partitioning and disaggregation in
    other wireless services, including both Broadband and Narrowband
    PCS,[^211] Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS),[^212] 800 and 900
    MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (SMR),[^213] 39 GHz fixed
    point-to-point microwave,[^214] Local Multipoint Distribution
    Service (LMDS),[^215] Maritime Services,[^216] and paging.[^217] In
    addition, the Commission has permitted other Part 27 licensees,
    including 700 MHz and 2.3 GHz licensees, to partition and
    disaggregate.[^218] Allowing licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands to have the same partitioning and disaggregation
    rights as other wireless licensees, including other Part 27
    licensees, ensures regulatory parity among licensees.

83. While the comments support allowing licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands to partition and disaggregate, RCA expresses
    concern that small rural carriers have insufficient bargaining power
    when negotiating partitioning and disaggregation agreements.[^219]
    Our band plan, however, should make it easier for small businesses
    and rural carriers to acquire spectrum. Specifically, we meet the
    needs of these types of providers by utilizing small licensing areas
    (*i.e*., RSAs and MSAs) and by including small blocks of spectrum.
    We shall also make every effort, in future allocation decisions, to
    establish a home for TDD systems. We remain concerned about ensuring
    that small businesses and rural carriers have access to spectrum. At
    the end of last year, we released a *Notice of Inquiry* that, among
    other issues, examined the effectiveness of our current regulatory
    tools, including partitioning and disaggregation, in facilitating
    delivery of wireless service to rural areas.[^220] Based on the
    record developed in that proceeding, we have recently released a
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comments on various
    proposals to effectuate service to rural areas and
    communities.[^221] In addition, we have recently adopted the
    *Secondary Markets Report and Order*.[^222] These proceedings should
    help ensure that small businesses and rural carriers can acquire
    spectrum to meet their business needs.

### Other Operating Requirements {#other-operating-requirements .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

84. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we cautioned that
    even though licenses for the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands may
    be issued pursuant to one rule part, licensees in these bands may be
    required to comply with rules contained in other parts of the
    Commission's rules by virtue of the particular services that they
    offer.[^223] We sought comment on any provisions in existing,
    service-specific rules that may require specific recognition or
    adjustment to comport with the supervening application of another
    rule part, as well as any provisions that may be necessary in this
    other rule part to fully describe the scope of covered services and
    technologies.

85. *Discussion*: As we stated above, even though licenses for spectrum
    in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be issued pursuant to
    Part 27 of the our rules, the licensees in these bands will be
    required to comply with other rule parts.[^224] Section 27.3 of our
    rules lists some of the other rule parts that maybe applicable to
    licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. Some of these
    rule parts will be applicable by virtue of the fact that they apply
    to all licensees and others will apply depending on the type of
    service these licensees provide. For example:

-   All applicants and licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands will be subject to the application filing procedures for the
    Universal Licensing System, set forth in Part 1 of our rules.[^225]

-   Licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be required
    to comply with the practices and procedures listed in Part 1 of our
    rules for license applications, adjudicatory proceedings, etc.

-   Licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be required
    to comply with the Commission's environment provisions, including
    section 1.1307.[^226]

-   Licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be required
    to comply with the antenna structure provisions of Part 17 of our
    rules.

-   To the extent a licensee in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    provides a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), such service
    would be subject to the provisions of Part 20 of the our rules,
    along with the provisions in Part 27.[^227] Part 20 applies to all
    CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed under other
    parts of our rules.

-   The application of general provisions of Part 27 in­cludes rules
    relat­ed to equal employment opportunity, 911 service, etc.

86. In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on whether there
    are any specific provisions in Part 101 of the Commission's
    rules[^228] that should apply to licensees in the 1710-1755 and
    2110-2155 MHz bands if they provided fixed services even though
    their stations would be licensed under Part 27.[^229] In response to
    this question, CTIA notes that "CMRS licensees (like PCS licensees)
    are permitted to provide fixed services without being subject to
    additional Part 101 requirements."[^230] CTIA expresses concern
    "that imposing additional Part 101 requirements on licensees
    offering fixed services in the AWS bands will subject those
    licensees to disparate regulatory treatment."[^231] While as
    discussed above licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    will be subject to rules of general applicability and certain other
    rule parts depending on the services that they offer, these
    licensees will not be subject to the provisions contained in
    Part 101. The Part 101 rules are service specific rules and apply to
    licenses issued under that rule part.

## Technical Rules {#technical-rules .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

87. Under the United States Table of Frequency Allocations, both Mobile
    Service and Fixed Service operations are permitted for the 1710-1755
    and 2110-2155 MHz bands. While we do not know the specific nature of
    the communications services that will ultimately be offered in this
    spectrum, our intent is to craft technical rules that will enable a
    broad range of services to be provided. In so doing we must also
    have rules that will minimize interference to incumbent co-channel
    and adjacent channel Government and non-Government users. With these
    considerations in mind, we establish, in the following sections, the
    technical rules for operations in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands.

### Co-Channel Interference Between AWS Licensees Operating in Adjacent Regions {#co-channel-interference-between-aws-licensees-operating-in-adjacent-regions .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

88. *Background*: We must provide a means for limiting potential
    interference between AWS systems operating on the same spectrum in
    different geographic areas. In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we
    tentatively concluded that either the "boundary limit" [^232] or
    "coordination" [^233] approaches could be used to satisfy this
    requirement.[^234] We noted that both approaches have advantages and
    disadvantages. Coordination, for example, would likely minimize the
    potential for interference to coordinated stations; but it could
    also impose unnecessary costs in coordinating facilities that have a
    low potential for interference, and could result in undesirable
    strategic or anti-competitive behavior on the part of competing
    licensees. The use of a boundary limit would establish an accepted
    standard, which would enable licensees to deploy facilities in
    boundary areas without the need for coordination; but this approach
    could still require some planning between licensees to ensure that
    spectrum is used efficiently and that potential interference does
    not occur.[^235] If a boundary limit methodology is used, we sought
    comment as to what signal level should be allowed at the
    border.[^236] We also asked whether, if the boundary limit method is
    adopted, we should permit licensees operating in adjoining areas to
    employ alternative, agreed-upon signal limits at their common
    border.

89. *Discussion*: We conclude that the boundary limits should be used to
    address co-channel interference. Both CTIA and Motorola favor the
    use of boundary limits, with Motorola noting that the use of
    boundary limits has "proven to be effective in the deployment of PCS
    service."[^237] Ericsson, on the other hand, suggests "a cooperative
    approach to the resolution of in-band interference issues" and
    contends that agreements between licensees, independent of the
    Commission "are a particularly effective tool that allows adjacent
    operators to set appropriate emission limits" and "facilitate the
    highest and best use of the spectrum."[^238] We believe that the use
    of boundary limits is the best approach for limiting interference in
    border areas of AWS licensees operating on common spectrum
    bands.[^239] It is a method that we have adopted and employed in
    other wireless services, and it is an approach that we believe
    satisfies the requirement in Section 337(d)(1) that we establish
    "interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block and
    service area."[^240] The coordination method also has merit because
    it could, as Ericsson points out, allow carriers to agree to signal
    limits, which could lead to more efficient use of the
    spectrum.[^241] We feel, however, that the most effective way of
    ensuring protection to co-channel licensees in adjoining areas is to
    adopt a standard signal limit for all licensees, at all geographic
    borders. But we shall also permit licensees operating in adjoining
    areas to agree to alternative signal limits at their common borders,
    if they choose to do so. In this way, while a standard signal limit
    will provide a default interference level in the absence of specific
    agreements between parties, alternative limits could enable a higher
    level of service to areas near their borders, which will enable
    licensees to make most efficient use of their spectrum.

90. As to the particular signal limit that should apply under our rules,
    those commenting on this issue favor the use of a 47 dBV/m field
    strength limit. Motorola, for example, suggests that the 47 dBV/m
    limit used under Part 24 for Broadband PCS is more appropriate than
    the 40 dBV/m limit prescribed for the 700 MHz band "because it would
    generally allow for more reliable communications in boundary
    regions."[^242] We agree. Because the types of services that will be
    provided in the AWS band are likely to be similar to the services
    offered in the nearby PCS band, we see no reason to deviate from the
    field strength that has been adopted for that service. We conclude
    that the appropriate field strength limit for the Advanced Wireless
    Service is 47 dBV/m. We therefore require AWS licensees to limit the
    signals from their base and fixed stations operating in the
    2110-2155 MHz band to a predicted[^243]or measured[^244] field
    strength level of 47 dBV/m at their geographic border.

### Adjacent Channel Interference Between AWS Licensees {#adjacent-channel-interference-between-aws-licensees .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

91. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on
    whether AWS licensees should be required to protect adjacent block
    AWS systems through the use of an out-of-band emission (OOBE)
    limitation.[^245] We noted that the OOBE limit that requires
    licensees to atten­uate power levels (P) by at least 43 + 10
    log~10~(P) dB at the edges of their spectrum blocks is commonly
    em­ployed in other wireless servic­es, and it has generally been found
    to be ade­quate in pre­venting adja­cent channel interfer­ence.[^246] No
    commenters disagreed with the adoption of this out-of-band emission
    limit to protect adjacent AWS operations.[^247]

92. *Discussion*: We conclude that the 43 + 10 log~10~(P) out-of-band
    emission limit is appropriate for protecting wireless systems that
    will operate in the AWS bands. We anticipate that AWS systems will
    be similar in design to cellular and PCS systems, and the 43 + 10
    log~10~(P) limit has been used effectively in these services in
    limiting adjacent channel interference. We therefore adopt this
    out-of-band emission limit for all transmitters operating in the AWS
    bands. In the event that, once individual systems are deployed and
    operational, it is determined that this limitation does not prevent
    an AWS transmitter from causing harmful interference, we shall, at
    our discretion, require the licensee of that transmitter to provide
    greater emission attenuation.

93. Lucent agrees with the use of the 43 + 10 log~10~(P) OOBE limit to
    protect adjacent channel operations. However, Lucent proposes a
    modification to the way we traditionally measure out-of-band
    emissions. Lucent refers to its comments to the Commission's *Year
    2002 Biennial Review* proceeding, where it noted that our rule in
    Part 24 describing the procedure for measuring out-of-band emissions
    states that "in the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to
    the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent
    of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
    transmitter may be employed."[^248]

94. Lucent had sought modification to rule 24.238(b) in the context of
    the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's recent periodic review of
    its rules.[^249] The Bureau considered the proposal at that time,
    but declined to modify rule 24.238(b).[^250] We continue to believe
    that the existing rule, as adopted in the recent *Cellular Biennial
    Review First Report and Order*,[^251] provides the most appropriate
    way of measuring out-of-band emissions into adjacent spectrum. Our
    goal in developing out-of-band emission standards is to provide for
    a minimal and predictable level of interference into adjacent
    spectrum. Our existing rule serves that purpose. The modification
    proposed by Lucent, however, could enable licensees with emission
    bandwidth greater than 1.25 MHz to potentially place greater amounts
    of energy into adjacent bands.[^252] We therefore decline to adopt
    this proposal to modify our rules.

### Power Limits {#power-limits .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

95. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on
    what power limits should be established for AWS transmitters.[^253]
    The Commission observed that transmitters used in the private land
    mobile service, cellular radio service, and fixed microwave services
    typically employ substantially different transmitter power levels.
    The Commission also noted that the output powers of potential
    Government co-channel users could range much higher than typical
    non-Government users. Accordingly, the Commission invited comment as
    to what these limits should be and the basis for the suggested
    limits. The Commission also solicited views as to whether we should
    establish power limits for all transmitters, or just mobile
    equipment, or just base station equipment.

96. *Discussion*: We shall adopt the same 1640 watts peak equivalent
    isotropically radiated power (EIRP) limit for AWS base stations in
    the 2110-2155 MHz band that is currently provided for base stations
    operating in broadband PCS under Part 24 of our rules. For AWS
    mobile stations operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band, however, we
    shall adopt a power limit of 1 watt peak EIRP, which is lower than
    the 2 watt peak EIRP limit currently prescribed for mobile stations
    operating in broadband PCS. Most commenters support the application
    of the same power limits for AWS that currently apply to broadband
    PCS. AT&T Wireless, for example, states that "\[s\]ince current CMRS
    carriers will almost certainly be the primary initial licensees in
    the AWS bands, and since the AWS spectrum will most likely be used
    to augment existing wireless offerings, applying the Part 24 \[PCS\]
    rules would promote the most efficient and rapid utilization of
    newly available spectrum by allowing carriers to utilize existing
    infrastructure, technologies, and expertise."[^254] Cingular,
    however, proposes that the output power for AWS mobile stations
    should be measured at the radiofrequency port, rather than based on
    EIRP. Cingular argues that this "would create harmonization between
    the Commission's rules and the ETSI, which, in turn, would
    facilitate research regarding, and deployment of, directive antennas
    at the mobile station."[^255]

97. Although the goals of creating harmonization between our rules and
    those used in Europe and of improving directive antenna technology
    are laudable, we decline to adopt this proposal. A more important
    goal in this proceeding is to, to the extent possible, try to
    provide the same technical criteria for AWS equipment as currently
    exist for broadband PCS. We therefore find that it would be best to
    establish the same method for measuring power in the AWS bands that
    we currently use for measuring power in the broadband PCS
    bands.[^256]

98. In determining the appropriate EIRP limit for the 1710-1755 MHz band
    we must be mindful of the presence of incumbent Government
    operations in that band.[^257] While the majority of the Government
    systems will be relocated to other spectrum, there will continue to
    be Government operations at 16 military facilities for some time,
    including two sites indefinitely. In analyzing the potential for
    interference to the continued Government operations, coordination
    processes would be simplified if mobiles operate with a maximum
    power of 1 watt EIRP. While this is lower than the power currently
    authorized for broadband PCS mobiles, we note that most PCS mobiles
    operate at substantially less power than one watt and thus this
    limit should not be a hindrance to AWS operations. We therefore
    establish the power limit for base and fixed stations operating in
    the 2110-2155 MHz bands as 1640 watts peak EIRP and 100 watts peak
    output power. Fixed, mobile and portable stations operating in the
    1710-1755 MHz band shall be limited to 1 watt EIRP peak power, and
    mobile and portable stations must employ a means for limiting power
    to the minimum necessary for successful communications.[^258]

99. Motorola in its comments notes that under our broadband PCS rules,
    power limits for PCS base stations "are applied irrespective of the
    bandwidth utilized by the licensee's deployed technology."[^259]
    This, according to Motorola, allows technologies using narrower
    bandwidths to "radiate a higher power per unit bandwidth."[^260]
    Motorola therefore suggests that we adopt power limits for the AWS
    bands that are associated with a transmitter's emission bandwidth.
    Specifically, Motorola proposes that for base stations operating in
    the AWS bands with bandwidths less than 1 MHz, our adopted EIRP
    limit would apply. But for base stations with operating bandwidths
    greater than 1 MHz, the EIRP limit would be applied to a 1 MHz
    bandwidth \-- *i.e*., for bandwidths greater than 1 MHz, the power
    limit would be 1640 w/MHz EIRP. Motorola indicates that this would
    "ensure that all wideband systems would radiate the same power per
    unit bandwidth, regardless of the technology utilized."[^261]

100. We do not favor the adoption of this proposal. As an initial
     matter, we are concerned that adopting a rule that permits greater
     power levels for systems using wider bandwidths would create an
     inconsistency between our AWS rules and those of wireless mobile
     services on nearby spectrum, such as PCS and ATC, with the result
     being a loss of regulatory parity among these different services.
     We continue to believe that our focus should be toward decreasing
     power levels whenever possible.[^262] Such efforts will enable us
     to better manage, and make more efficient use of the spectrum.

101. While we do not adopt this proposal in this proceeding, we
     recognize that, as wideband technologies become more prevalent in
     wireless systems, analyzing and determining appropriate power
     levels for such technologies could be a worthwhile undertaking. We
     believe, however, that this issue is more appropriately considered
     in the context of petition for rulemaking, where its impact could
     be considered in the context of not just the AWS band, but other
     wireless bands as well. We therefore invite Motorola, or any other
     interested party, to seek additional consideration of this matter
     through such a petition.

102. We also sought comment on whether to permit higher power limits in
     rural areas than in urban areas, and if so, what those limits might
     be. Motorola recommended that base stations located in rural areas
     be exempted from power limits. In support of this proposal,
     Motorola argues that in exempting rural base stations from power
     limits, we would enable licensees to provide greater geographic
     coverage with fewer base station transmitters, which would
     "\[reduce\] the cost of building out systems in \[rural\]
     areas."[^263] Motorola suggests that this would enable faster
     deployment of 3G services in rural America, which would be
     "consistent with Congress's statutory directive to promote 'the
     development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and
     services for the benefit of the public, including in rural
     areas.'"[^264] We believe that the power limits we have established
     are sufficient to enable licensees operating in rural areas to
     provide coverage throughout their service areas. The power limit of
     1640 EIRP has been used effectively for base stations in PCS and
     furthermore, any excessive power level could cause potentially
     harmful overload interference to nearby, adjacent band receivers.
     We therefore find that it is appropriate to limit the power levels
     to base stations as described above, regardless of their location;
     and thus decline to exempt rural stations from our power limit
     requirement.[^265]

103. Finally, in addition to limiting the power of base stations, we
     must also consider imposing an antenna height limit for such
     stations. A base station's antenna height, in combination with its
     EIRP, quantifies the signal level produced by the station at a
     specific location. In other wireless services, which were initially
     licensed on a site-by-site basis,[^266] it was important to place a
     limit on the coverage area of base stations to limit co-channel
     interference. However, in a service such as AWS, which will be
     licensed from the outset on a geographic area basis, we do not
     believe that, with the requirement to limit signal strength at a
     licensee's geographic border, it is necessary to place a limit on
     the coverage area produced by individual base stations. We
     therefore do not impose antenna height limits on base or fixed
     stations operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band.

### Spectrum Location of Base and Mobile Transmissions {#spectrum-location-of-base-and-mobile-transmissions .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

104. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on
     whether base and mobile transmitters should be allowed to operate
     in both the lower (1710-1755 MHz) and upper (2110-2155 MHz) AWS
     bands or whether, alternatively, we should restrict base station
     transmissions to one band and mobile transmissions to the other
     band.[^267] We noted that NTIA, in reaching its conclusion that 3G
     systems were not likely to cause interference to Government
     operations, had assumed that non-Government base stations would not
     operate in the lower AWS band.[^268] We also observed that in other
     land mobile systems we have generally provided for mobile channels
     in one band paired with base channels in a different band.[^269]

105. *Discussion*: Commenters generally oppose allowing base and mobile
     transmissions in the same band and specifically favor the mandatory
     placement of base stations in the 2110-2155 MHz band and mobile
     stations in the 1710-1755 MHz band. These parties believe that
     permitting base and mobile transmissions in the same band will
     result in interference among AWS users. For example, NTIA states
     that if base stations were allowed in the 1710-1755 MHz band, then
     the conclusions reached in the *NTIA AWS Assessment* regarding the
     sharing of the band by Government and non-Government entities would
     no longer be valid, and that a new assessment of this issue would
     be necessary.[^270] Lucent asserts that permitting "operator
     choice" in locating base and mobile transmissions in the AWS bands
     could result in the potential for interference that "would likely
     demand the use of more stringent out of band energy requirements,
     the use of lower power transmitters, and the designation of guard
     bands."[^271] Verizon Wireless observes that though the Commission
     did not clearly define the PCS base and mobile transmit bands, PCS
     carriers agreed among themselves to locate mobile stations in one
     band and base stations in the other band. Verizon Wireless contends
     that the Commission cannot necessarily "rely on private incentives
     to ensure the type of interference protection that results from
     establishing clearly in advance that one set of frequencies will be
     used for mobile transmit and the other for base transmit."[^272]
     Motorola indicates that the Commission "should clearly" designate
     the lower band for mobile transmissions and the upper band for base
     transmissions, claiming that "harmful interference to adjacent
     channel users" would result if this base and mobile transmissions
     were permitted in the same bands. [^273]

106. In favoring the mandatory placement of mobile transmissions in the
     1710-1755 MHz band and base transmissions in the 2110-2155 MHz
     band, various parties also observe that this action would be
     consistent with international use of this spectrum and would enable
     U.S. consumers to realize the benefits of economies of scale and
     international roaming, which would result from such global
     harmonization. Nokia, for example, points out that, consistent with
     the recommendations of ITU-R M.1036, several countries are now
     using the 2110-2170 MHz band for downlink transmissions in IMT-2000
     networks, and Motorola observes that the 1710-1785 MHz band is
     currently used for mobile transmissions in DCS-1800 spectrum in
     Europe.[^274]

107. The TDD Coalition, however, argues that limiting the lower band to
     mobile transmissions and the upper band to base transmissions would
     prevent TDD-based services from being implemented in either band,
     and that such an action would go "against the FCC's policy of
     flexible allocations to promote advanced wireless communications
     service."[^275] The TDD Coalition points out further that, while
     ITU-R Working Party 8F indicated that the co-existence of TDD and
     FDD systems on adjacent bands in the same geographic area would
     cause interference to the stations of both systems, a "follow-up"
     ITU report is being developed which, according to the TDD
     Coalition, will show that the "interference between TDD and FDD
     systems can 'easily' be mitigated through the use of various
     techniques."[^276]

108. We are concerned about the possibility that certain interference
     conditions could occur if base and mobile stations were permitted
     to operate in the same AWS bands. One such condition is the
     "base-to-base" interference scenario, which occurs when
     transmissions from one base station cause interference to another
     base station attempting to receive on an adjacent channel. When
     base transmit and base receive frequencies (*i.e*., mobile transmit
     frequencies) are far enough apart from one another, as they are in
     most land mobile radio services, this type of interference does not
     take place.[^277] However, if base transmit and receive frequencies
     are spectrally close to one another, then base-to-base interference
     can occur. Similarly, if mobile transmit and mobile receive
     frequencies are close by, then "mobile-to-mobile" interference can
     take place (*i.e*., where a transmitting mobile causes interference
     to another mobile receiving on an adjacent channel).

109. Clearly, these types of interference scenarios are of concern to
     both Government and non-Government users. From the Government
     users' standpoint, the placement of AWS base stations in the
     1710-1755 MHz band could result in base-to-base interference to
     their systems that currently operate below, within, and above that
     band.[^278] Because the Government's assessment of how Government
     and non-Government entities will share this spectrum is based on
     the assumption that only mobile stations would operate in the
     1710-1755 MHz band, the Government might have to re-evaluate this
     assessment if we allow base stations in that band. Non-Government
     users are concerned that mixing base and mobile transmissions in
     the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands would either directly result
     in interference or could require the implementation of costly
     measures to *prevent* interference. For example, if we permitted
     base stations transmissions in the 1710-1755 MHz band, we would
     likely have to impose tighter out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits
     and lower power levels, and possibly even require guard bands and
     interference zones. Stricter OOBE limits would require licensees to
     employ more expensive transmitting equipment; implementing
     interference zones would result in a loss of coverage within a
     licensee's authorized area of operation; and guard bands would
     result in a waste of usable spectrum. The additional costs
     associated with equipment that provides stricter emission limits is
     certainly not a requirement we would want to impose on future
     licensees operating in the AWS bands. And we do not believe that
     the potential loss of spectrum and coverage area that would result
     from the use of guard bands and interference zones are conditions
     we should necessarily accept in our efforts to manage the spectrum
     and provide wireless service to the public.

110. We therefore conclude that base station transmissions will not be
     allowed in the 1710-1755 MHz band and will only be permitted in the
     2110-2155 MHz band.[^279] This decision eliminates any concern
     about excessive potential interference between AWS and Government
     users and enables the transfer of Government spectrum to occur
     without any unnecessary impediments. The decision also allows
     future AWS licensees to operate on AWS spectrum without having to
     satisfy unnecessary technical or operational restrictions, which
     could limit their ability to make efficient use of the spectrum.
     And finally, this decision, as various commenters note, enables the
     United States to remain consistent with global use of the 1710-1755
     MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands; this will facilitate international
     roaming and will enable base and mobile equipment to be
     manufactured at lower cost.

111. While we determine that it is best not to permit base and mobile
     stations to operate in the same AWS bands \-- which effectively
     prevents TDD systems from operating in those bands \-- we continue
     to believe that one of our primary goals in managing the spectrum
     is to facilitate the development of new and different technologies,
     including TDD.[^280] Therefore, as discussed in paragraph 46 above,
     if proponents of TDD can conclusively demonstrate that such
     technologies could be used in these bands or some segments of these
     bands without causing interference to other spectrum users, we
     would be prepared to revisit this issue. We will also make every
     effort to provide spectrum opportunities for TDD systems in
     allocation and spectrum decisions affecting other bands, such as in
     the *AWS Allocation* proceeding.[^281]

### Protecting Incumbent Systems from Interference {#protecting-incumbent-systems-from-interference .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

###### The 2110-2155 MHz Band

112. As we indicated in the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, some fixed
     point-to-point microwave systems authorized under Part 101 of our
     rules will continue to operate in the 2110-2155 MHz band after AWS
     licensing begins.[^282] We therefore asked how such systems should
     be protected from interference from co-channel and adjacent channel
     AWS operations. In particular, we asked whether the TIA
     Telecommunications Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-F should be used to
     provide guidelines for the protection of incumbent systems. Also,
     Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) systems under Part 21 are
     licensed in the 2110-2155 MHz band.[^283] While we are currently
     exploring the possibility of relocating MDS operations to other
     spectrum, until such time as those operations are relocated, they
     must be protected from interference from AWS systems.[^284]

####### Protection of Part 101 Systems

113. Motorola indicates that the TIA TSB 10-F procedures have been
     effective in determining potential interference to incumbent fixed
     microwave receivers operating in the 1850-1990 MHz band, and should
     similarly be used to protect microwave systems in the 2110-2155 MHz
     band.[^285] API agrees that TSB 10-F "sets forth appropriate
     criteria to determine what constitutes an intolerable level of
     interference" to an incumbent user,[^286] but also suggests that
     the coordination procedures developed by the National Spectrum
     Managers Association (WG20.94.045) be allowed to be used to
     evaluate the interference potential to incumbent systems.[^287] In
     addition, API asks us to confirm that the obligation to relocate an
     incumbent licensee "should be triggered by a demonstration of a
     potential interference under the applicable technical standard,
     rather than a showing that any actual interference has
     occurred."[^288]

114. We conclude that AWS licensees should be required to coordinate,
     prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station,
     their frequency usage with co-channel and adjacent channel
     incumbent Part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave licensees
     operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band. We therefore apply to the AWS
     bands the provisions of Section 24.237 of our rules, which details
     the coordination requirements for the protection of incumbent fixed
     microwave systems in the PCS bands.[^289] The procedures described
     in this rule rely on the use of predictive methods for determining
     interference. Thus, in response to API's inquiry regarding the
     triggering mechanism for relocation of fixed microwave systems, we
     find that relocation of such systems may be based on a prediction
     of potential interference and need not be triggered by an
     occurrence of actual interference. Finally, in paragraph (g) of the
     current rule 24.237, we indicate that we would accept the
     procedures developed by any "recognized authority" in determining
     appropriate interference criteria.[^290] The procedures developed
     by the National Spectrum Managers Association would appear to fall
     into this category and could therefore, as API suggests, be used
     for this purpose.

####### Protection of Part 21 Systems

115. As noted above, MDS operations in the 2110-2155 MHz band may
     eventually be relocated to other spectrum.[^291] However, until
     that occurs, we must protect MDS systems from interference from AWS
     operations. We shall therefore require AWS licensees, prior to
     initiating operations from any base or fixed station, to coordinate
     their frequency usage with co-channel and adjacent channel
     incumbent Part 21 MDS licensees.[^292]

####### Goldstone, California Facility

116. The 2110-2120 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for
     earth-to-space (deep space) communications in the Space Research
     service used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
     (NASA).[^293] Operations in this service in the United States are
     limited to deep space communications at the NASA Goldstone Deep
     Space Network (DSN) facility in Goldstone, California. AWS
     licensees will be permitted to operate in the area around Goldstone
     without having to provide protection to the facility. However,
     operation of AWS systems will be affected by transmissions from
     Goldstone. In the *AWS Allocation* *Order*, we concluded that
     because of the nature of operations at Goldstone, a significant
     amount of interference should not occur to AWS systems operating in
     the 2110-2120 MHz band in the vicinity of Goldstone.[^294] However,
     AWS licensees using the 2110-2120 MHz band should be aware that
     this facility may operate at any time at a nominal EIRP of 105.5
     dBW,[^295] along any azimuth, and at elevations as low as 10
     degrees above the horizon. During these transmissions, AWS systems
     operating in the vicinity of Goldstone may become unavailable. AWS
     licensees cannot claim protection from interference due to these
     transmissions. We thus note that future AWS licensees operating in
     spectrum in the 2110-2120 MHz band in the area surrounding
     Goldstone, California should consider this potential for
     interference in developing their systems.

###### The 1710-1755 MHz Band

117. This spectrum is used extensively by the Federal Government for
     both military (Army, Air Force, and Navy) and non-military
     (Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE),
     Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Aviation Agency (FAA),
     Department of Interior (DOI), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
     U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Federal Power Administration (FPA), and
     Department of the Treasury) operations.[^296] The following is a
     description of Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD operations
     in the band and a discussion of the types of protection that shall
     be provided to such operations by AWS licensees.

####### Department of Defense Operations

118. There are 16 military facilities in the country that are classified
     as "protected facilities," and there are various types of systems
     operating at these locations. These include: airborne telemetry and
     video systems; ground operations, including tactical radio relay
     and fixed microwave systems; precision guided munitions (PGM)
     systems; and others.[^297] According to the *NTIA AWS Assessment*
     and subject to the availability of reimbursement funds, DOD is
     expected to relocate all airborne operations at these facilities by
     December, 2008, but until that time, these systems must be
     protected from non-Government operations in the 1710-1755 MHz
     band.[^298] Ground-based systems at the 16 sites shall be converted
     from exclusive Government use to mixed use as of January 1, 2004.
     Ground-based operations will continue on a secondary basis with
     respect to non-Government systems at 14 of those 16 sites. At the
     remaining two locations \-- in Yuma, Arizona and in Cherry Point,
     North Carolina \-- ground-based systems shall continue to operate
     on a primary basis indefinitely and such systems must therefore be
     protected indefinitely from non-Government operations. PGM systems,
     which operate in the 1710-1720 MHz band, shall continue on a
     primary basis at all 16 sites until inventory is exhausted, or
     until the expected clearance date of December 31, 2008, whichever
     is earlier; such systems must therefore be protected from
     non-Government operations during this period of time.[^299] The
     "other" military systems[^300] will relocate to spectrum in other
     bands when such spectrum becomes available.

119. *Protection of the 16 DOD Facilities*: AWS must protect systems
     operating at the 16 DOD facilities from interference until such
     systems are relocated to other spectrum.[^301] In order to protect
     these facilities, AWS licensees will be required to restrict the
     operations of their stations in the 1710-1755 MHz band. The
     February 1995 Spectrum Reallocation Final Report (*1995
     Reallocation Final Report*), Appendix F, Figure F-3 provides a
     table indicating the "radius of operation" for each of the 16
     facilities.[^302] AWS licensees shall therefore be prohibited from
     situating their base and fixed stations at any locations that could
     potentially permit mobile, fixed, and portable stations
     transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz band to cause interference to
     government systems operating within the radii of operation of the
     16 facilities. Thus, AWS licensees shall be required to coordinate
     any operations that could permit mobile, fixed, and portable
     stations as specified in Section 27.1134(a) of the adopted
     rules.[^303] Except for Yuma, Arizona and Cherry Point, North
     Carolina, these various restrictions shall apply until such time as
     the relocation of the Federal systems has been completed.[^304]
     Furthermore, AWS licensees will be required to accept any
     interference received from operations at the 16 facilities. Such
     interference could occur at large distances outside the operating
     radii due to airborne operations within those radii.

120. Motorola, in its comments, expresses concern that aeronautical
     systems operating at the DOD sites will have a significant impact
     on AWS operations.[^305] Specifically, Motorola notes that because
     aircraft can operate at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet,
     interference could be caused to AWS operations more than 400
     kilometers away. We are sympathetic to Motorola's concerns.
     However, there is little that can be done to prevent such
     interference from occurring on occasion. Aeronautical operations at
     these facilities are expected to cease by 2008.[^306] Until that
     time, we encourage Government users at the 16 installations and AWS
     licensees operating in nearby areas to work together to try to
     minimize interference to AWS operations, to the extent possible.

121. *The Yuma, Arizona and Cherry Point, North Carolina Facilities*: As
     noted above, protection of ground systems at the Cherry Point and
     Yuma installations shall continue on a primary basis indefinitely.
     Motorola therefore suggests that the Commission develop mandatory
     coordination procedures between AWS licensees and DOD operations at
     the Cherry Point and Yuma locations.[^307] We disagree with this
     proposal. Because of the critical nature of the operations being
     conducted at these facilities, formal interference criteria are
     needed to protect these sites. Coordination procedures will not
     ensure necessary protection to the military systems operating at
     these locations. Thus, in order to provide appropriate protection
     to DOD operations at these installations, AWS licensees must
     satisfy defined interference-protection criteria. We therefore
     decline to adopt a coordination approach, and shall require AWS
     licensees to provide permanent protection to the Yuma and Cherry
     Point facilities in accordance with the protection measures
     described in paragraph 119, above.

122. *Precision Guided Munitions Systems*: As noted above, PGM systems
     will continue to use the 1710-1720 MHz band on a primary basis
     until all PGM inventory is exhausted, or the expected clearance
     date of December 31, 2008, whichever is earlier. Motorola asks that
     PGM operations be protected through coordination procedures
     developed between DOD and AWS licensees.[^308] We disagree with
     this suggestion as well. The only reliable way to protect these
     important military systems is to require AWS licensees to comply
     with specified interference protection criteria, and we therefore
     decline to adopt the proposal set forth by Motorola. Rather, AWS
     licensees will be required to protect PGM operations at each of the
     16 facilities in accordance with the protection measures described
     in paragraph 119 above until PGM inventory at each facility is
     exhausted, or the expected clearance date of December 31, 2008,
     whichever is earlier.

123. *Unmanned Ground Robotic Systems, Range Timing Distribution
     Systems, and Target Scoring Devices*: These systems are located at
     military test ranges at the 16 protected DOD sites. Until such time
     as these systems are relocated to other spectrum, they shall be
     protected in accordance with the protection measures described in
     paragraph 119 above. No timeline has been established for the
     relocation of these systems.

####### **Non-**Department **of Defense Operations**

124. These are the fixed systems of the remaining Federal agencies
     (*i.e*., DOI, USDA, DOJ, DOE, FAA, FPA, and Department of the
     Treasury), which are to be relocated, subject to the availability
     of relocation funds. According to the *NTIA AWS Assessment*, all
     systems subject to relocation are anticipated to vacate the
     1710-1755 MHz band within 2 years of such funds becoming
     available.[^309] However, because relocation may not occur until
     well after the auction of AWS spectrum, Government and AWS systems
     could operate simultaneously in the 1710-1755 MHz band for some
     time. We must therefore provide protection to Government stations
     from interference from co-channel and adjacent channel AWS systems
     during this time period. Therefore, until such time as AWS
     licensees have reimbursed affected Government licensees and the
     Government licensees have relocated to other spectrum, AWS
     operators shall be required to protect Government fixed systems in
     accordance with the provisions set forth in TIA TSB 10-F,
     "Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems," or its
     successor.[^310]

###### Below 1710 MHz

125. The 1675-1710 MHz spectrum is used by both the Federal Government
     and non-Federal Government in the Meteorological-Satellite Service
     (space-to-earth communications) and from 1675 to 1700 MHz by the
     Federal Government alone in the Meteorological Aids Service
     (radiosonde). It is anticipated that AWS stations operating in the
     1710-1755 MHz band should not cause interference to meteorological
     operations. We therefore impose no general restriction on AWS
     systems to protect such operations. However, there is a potential
     scenario that could result in interference to meteorological
     systems. This would be the condition where a meteorological
     receiver is pointed at a low angle toward the horizon and an AWS
     fixed station (at a height of up to 10 meters above ground) is
     operating nearby and pointing in the direction of the radiosonde
     ground station or the meteorological-satellite earth station.[^311]
     If interference to a meteorological receiver were to occur under
     this scenario and the affected licensee were to notify the AWS
     operator that interference was occurring, the operator would be
     required to modify its station location and/or technical parameters
     as necessary to eliminate the interference.

###### Above 1755 MHz

126. There is considerable Government usage of the spectrum between 1755
     and 1842 MHz, and Government operations in this spectrum shall
     continue after AWS systems are licensed. Government systems must
     therefore be protected from interference from AWS stations
     operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band. The Government has identified
     the following types of operations in the spectrum above 1755 MHz:
     non-DOD systems operating in the 1755-1761 MHz band; DOD operations
     in the 1755-1761 MHz band, which include tactical radio relay and
     airborne telemetry systems located at the 16 protected DOD sites;
     and Space-Ground Link Subsystem (SGLS) and Aircrew Combat Training
     Systems (ACTS) systems operating in the 1761-1842 MHz band at the
     16 sites. In protecting the 16 DOD facilities from co-channel
     interference in accordance with the distance separations indicated
     in the *1995 Reallocation Final Report*, Appendix F, Figure
     F-3,[^312] AWS licensees operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band will
     effectively provide necessary protection to the DOD systems
     operating at those facilities on adjacent spectrum. Thus, no
     further protection of these operations is required by AWS
     licensees. However, AWS licensees will be required to protect
     non-DOD operations above 1755 MHz; and shall provide such
     protection by satisfying the appropriate provisions prescribed in
     TIA TSB 10-F.

###### Below 2110 MHz

127. The 2025-2110 MHz band is used by Government and non-Government
     entities for Earth-to-space transmissions in the Space Operation,
     Space Research, and Earth-Exploration Satellite services. Recently,
     the ITU performed a study of potential interference to satellite
     services from co-channel 3G systems.[^313] In February, we released
     our 2 GHz MSS/ATC Order,[^314] in which we considered the ITU study
     in assessing the likelihood for adjacent channel interference from
     1990-2025 MHz ATC operations to space receivers operating in the
     2025-2110 MHz band. In our analysis, we concluded that neither base
     nor mobile ATC stations operating under our Part 24 out-of-band
     emission standards would cause interference to adjacent band
     satellite receivers.[^315] Given that the potential for
     interference from AWS operations above 2110 MHz to 2025-2110 MHz
     space systems should be no different than interference to such
     systems from ATC operations below 2025 MHz, we find that no special
     requirements are needed to protect space systems operating in the
     2025-2110 MHz band from AWS systems operating in the 2110-2155 MHz
     band.

128. The Earth-Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) stations operating
     in the 2025-2110 MHz band are uplink terminals. As such, they could
     potentially cause interference to AWS mobile or fixed receivers
     operating in the adjacent 2110-2155 MHz band. US footnote 347 in
     the Table of Frequency Allocations grants the non-Government
     Earth-to-space allocation to the EESS in the 2025-2110 MHz band
     with the condition that EESS uplink stations do not cause
     interference to stations operating in accordance with the Table of
     Frequency Allocations. Currently, there are four non-Government
     licensees operating in this band. Due to their limited number, and
     the fact that AWS stations are not yet in operation, we find that
     the four incumbent Earth-to-space EESS stations operating in the
     2025-2110 MHz band will not be required to protect AWS stations.
     However, any non-Government EESS stations authorized after the
     adoption date of this Order shall be required to protect future AWS
     operations. The criteria for protecting AWS operations from future
     EESS uplink stations will be established in a future proceeding.

129. The 2025-2110 MHz band is also used by the Broadcast Auxiliary
     Service (BAS) under Part 74 of our rules, and by the Cable
     Television Relay Service (CARS) under Part 78 of our rules.[^316]
     Both fixed and mobile TV BAS stations and mobile CARS stations are
     authorized in this band, and they are used for Electronic News
     Gathering (ENG) operations, transmitting TV programming material to
     TV studios from wherever news events may be happening.[^317] We are
     concerned that base or fixed stations operating in the 2110-2155
     MHz band, if situated too close to BAS/CARS receive stations, could
     cause interference to such stations. This interference could be due
     to out-of-band emissions falling in the 2025-2110 MHz BAS band or
     due to overload of the receivers operating in that band. We do not
     believe, however, that tightening the out-of-band emission standard
     for AWS base stations would be the most appropriate way to address
     this potential problem. As an initial matter, one of our goals in
     this proceeding is to, to the extent possible, try to provide the
     same technical criteria for AWS equipment as currently exist for
     PCS. Maintaining our 43 + 10 log~10~(P) OOBE standard for AWS
     serves this purpose. Secondly, because of the nature of the
     potential interference scenario at issue, *i.e.,* one where a fixed
     station may cause interference to another fixed station, the
     particular stations can be situated far enough from one another to
     prevent interference from occurring. In addition, the technical
     parameters of the stations (*e.g.*, the orientation of directional
     antennas, the filters in transmitters and receivers) can be
     adjusted so as to minimize interference.

130. We therefore conclude that the best way to deal with the
     possibility of AWS base stations causing interference to BAS and
     CARS stations is to require AWS and BAS/CARS licensees to
     coordinate the location and technical parameters of their stations.
     This approach toward mitigating interference to BAS and CARS
     operations was similarly adopted in the ATC proceeding, where we
     decided that: "ATC operators will be required to protect all
     existing licensees in the adjacent bands."[^318] We shall therefore
     require AWS licensees to coordinate the location of any base or
     fixed stations operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band with BAS/CARS
     licensees operating in their area. Before constructing and
     operating a base or fixed station, AWS licensees shall be required
     to determine the location and licensee of any BAS or CARS station
     authorized in their area of operation, and coordinate their planned
     stations with that licensee.[^319] We shall expect BAS/CARS and AWS
     licensees to work together to develop ways to mitigate
     interference, whether it be through locating their stations as far
     as possible from one another or by implementing one or more
     technical solutions. In the event that mutually satisfactory
     coordination agreements cannot be reached, licensees may seek the
     assistance of the Commission, and we may, at our discretion, impose
     requirements on one or both parties. While we conclude that
     interference can be avoided through coordination, AWS operators
     will be required to protect previously licensed BAS and CARS
     operations in the adjacent 2025-2110 MHz band.

###### Above 2155 MHz

131. The 2155-2160 MHz band is allocated for use by the Multipoint
     Distribution Service (MDS) under Part 21 and by the Fixed Microwave
     Service under Part 101.[^320] In a future proceeding, we will
     decide whether MDS operations in this band should be relocated to
     other spectrum.[^321] Until that decision is made, however, we must
     continue to protect MDS systems operating in the 2155-2160 MHz
     band. In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we sought comment on how MDS
     operations should be protected from interference.[^322] Although
     WCAI expressed concern about potential interference to MDS
     operations, it proposed no specific protection criteria, nor did it
     formally seek special protection measures for MDS.[^323] We thus
     have no basis upon which to make a decision as to how MDS should be
     protected. We therefore do not adopt any such special measures to
     protect MDS operations at this time, and will simply require AWS
     licensees operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band to satisfy the same
     protection criteria to protect MDS licensees that they must employ
     to protect adjacent band AWS licensees (*i.e*., our 43 + 10
     log~10~(P) OOBE standard).

### RF Safety {#rf-safety .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

132. *Background*: In the *AWS* Service *Rules NPRM*, we stated that our
     rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
     are intended to prevent human exposure to potentially unsafe levels
     of radiofrequency (RF) radiation.[^324] To that end, we noted that
     section 1.1307(b) of our rules requires preparation of
     Environmental Assessments when licensees propose to construct fixed
     transmission facilities that exceed specified parameters.[^325] We
     indicated that exposure guidelines for the 2.3 GHz Wireless
     Communications Services (WCS) band are the same as those for
     spectrum at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz.[^326] For WCS, we
     stated that the threshold for environmental review is an effective
     radiated power (ERP) greater than 1,000 watts.[^327]

133. *Discussion*: With regard to RF safety requirements, the Commission
     adopted the 1,000 watts ERP threshold for 2.3 GHz to recognize the
     flexibility with respect to use, power, location, and other factors
     that was accorded licensees operating in that band, and determined
     that this power limit was appropriate to ensure compliance with the
     Commission\'s RF exposure standards for most situations.[^328]
     Moreover, the Commission found the 1,000 watts ERP threshold
     consistent with its existing rules for transmitters and devices of
     comparable use and similar operating frequencies. For the same
     reasons, we adopt the 1,000 watts ERP safety threshold for fixed
     operations in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. We therefore
     will modify sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of our
     rules[^329] to include services and devices applicable to the
     1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. We note, however, that the
     standard we adopt today is subject to change.[^330]

### Canadian and Mexican Coordination {#canadian-and-mexican-coordination .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

134. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we noted that
     section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio
     frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to
     eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable
     radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and
     agreements.[^331] With respect to Canada, we noted that
     coordination of frequency assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz band is
     presently subject to the provisions of Arrangement D of the
     *Agreement between the United States of America and Canada
     concerning Coordination and Use of Radio Frequencies Above 30
     Megacycles per Second*, October 24, 1962, as amended. Additionally,
     we indicated that coordination of assignments in the 2110-2155 MHz
     band is subject to Arrangement A of this Agreement, and assignments
     in the 2150-2155 MHz band are also subject to the *Interim
     Arrangement Concerning the Use of the Frequency Bands 2150-2162 MHz
     and 2500-2690 MHz by MCS and MDS Stations Near the Canada/United
     States of America Border*, June 25, 2002.

135. *Discussion*: At this time, changes to international agreements
     between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning
     the reallocation of this spectrum are not complete. Until such time
     as agreements between the United States, Mexico and Canada become
     effective, we will require the same technical restrictions at the
     border that we adopt for operation between geographic service
     areas, to the extent they are not in violation of current bilateral
     agreements and arrangements. Operations in the 1710-1755 and
     2110-2155 MHz bands must not cause harmful interference across the
     border. When agreements between the United States, Mexico and
     Canada are final and become effective, licensees in the 1710-1755
     and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be expected to comply with these
     agreements. In addition, if these agreements are modified in the
     future, licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands will be
     expected to comply with these modifications.

## Competitive Bidding {#competitive-bidding .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

136. As discussed above, section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
     requires the Commission to assign licenses for the majority of the
     AWS bands through competitive bidding pursuant to section 309(j) of
     the Communications Act.[^332] In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we
     tentatively concluded that it serves the public interest to license
     all portions of the AWS bands, including the 2150-2155 MHz portion
     of the 2110-2155 MHz band, by the same mechanism.[^333] Because we
     have adopted a geographic licensing scheme for all portions of the
     AWS bands that permits the filing of mutually exclusive
     applications, consistent with both statutory obligations, we must
     resolve such applications for licenses in these bands through
     competitive bidding.[^334]

### Incorporation by Reference of the Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules {#incorporation-by-reference-of-the-part-1-standardized-auction-rules .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

137. *Background*: In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we requested comment
     on a number of issues relating to the competitive bidding
     procedures for the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands.[^335] We
     proposed to conduct the auction of initial licenses in these 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.[^336] Specifically, we proposed to employ the
     Part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated
     entities, application and payment procedures, reporting
     requirements, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment.[^337] Under
     this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications
     that the Commission may adopt in our Part 1 proceeding.[^338] We
     also sought comment on whether any of our Part 1 rules or other
     auction procedures would be inappropriate or should be modified for
     an auction of licenses in these bands.

138. *Discussion*: As explained below, we conclude that our Part 1 rules
     and other auction procedures are appropriate for an auction of
     licenses in these bands. While commenters did not specifically
     address whether we should use the general competitive bidding rules
     set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules,
     commenters raised a variety of arguments regarding bidding design
     and other aspects of our auction procedures. For example, CTIA
     suggests that the Commission study whether a package or
     combinatorial bidding design would be appropriate for some of the
     larger spectrum blocks.[^339] U.S. Cellular, however, advocates the
     use of simultaneous multiple round auction methodologies for all EA
     or MSA/RSA licenses without package bidding features.[^340] As we
     have indicated previously, combinatorial (or "package") bidding is
     an auction methodology that may take many forms.[^341] We note that
     the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"), consistent with
     statutory obligations,[^342] will seek comment on auction-related
     procedural issues, including auction design, prior to the start of
     the AWS auction pursuant to WTB's existing delegated
     authority.[^343] This will provide WTB with an opportunity to weigh
     the benefits and disadvantages of any particular bidding design,
     among other auction-specific issues (*e.g.* minimum opening bids),
     prior to the start of the auction. CTIA, U.S. Cellular, all
     potential auction applicants and other interested parties are
     encouraged to participate in this process and submit comments on
     such auction-related procedural issues.

139. One Commenter, RCA, urges the Commission to modify its competitive
     bidding procedures and to allow initial licensees the option of
     returning portions of the license, effectively disaggregating or
     partitioning the license back to the Commission, in exchange for a
     monetary credit toward future auction purchases.[^344] In support
     of its proposal, RCA argues that where spectrum is licensed in
     larger areas, only large companies are able to purchase the
     licenses because rural licensees lack the necessary capital.[^345]
     RCA also asserts that such large companies do not consistently make
     full use of the licenses in rural areas resulting in the existence
     of "unused spectrum."[^346] In those instances, RCA also believes
     that rural licensees are impeded in their ability to obtain
     spectrum through partitioning and disaggregation because large
     companies may dictate the terms for partitioning and disaggregation
     and may also decline to deal with rural licensees.[^347] RCA
     contends that its proposal would help to achieve the dual goals of
     avoiding spectrum warehousing and promoting the use of spectrum in
     rural areas because large companies would have a financial
     incentive to return "unused spectrum" from individual licenses,
     presumably in rural areas, to the Commission for
     reassignment.[^348]

140. As a preliminary matter, we decline to adopt RCA's proposal because
     it would increase the likelihood that the winning bidder in an
     auction is not the party with the highest valued use, thus
     undermining the integrity of the auction system. Under RCA's
     proposal, a party whose plans are more speculative might be
     encouraged to enter into the auction because the Commission would,
     in effect, partially insure auction participants against the risk
     of future loss through the existence of the credit option.[^349]
     Obviously, the Commission does not wish to encourage such behavior.
     Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere in this order, other market
     driven flexible policies are in place that should address many of
     the concerns raised by RCA.[^350]

141. Under RCA's proposal, a licensee would be able to retain a portion
     of the spectrum or a geographic area of a license for a given
     market and return the remainder to the Commission.[^351] We believe
     that permitting the return of a portion of a license in exchange
     for an auction credit as suggested by RCA may result in the
     licensee partitioning spectrum or disaggregating a geographic area
     that is not an optimal geographic area or size.[^352] This, in
     turn, would decrease the likelihood that the new licensee would be
     able to develop innovative services that will allow it to compete
     in the marketplace.[^353] In contrast, if a licensee and a third
     party can identify applications for which disaggregation,
     partitioning, or spectrum leasing is practical, our rules allow and
     we would encourage such a transaction because it would promote the
     rapid development of the full license. This is particularly true in
     light of the new flexibility provided to wireless licensees by our
     recent *Secondary Markets Report and Order*.[^354] We note,
     however, that in certain limited circumstances, the public interest
     might be served by the Commission recovering previously licensed
     spectrum, *e.g*. when spectrum must be cleared in order to be
     reallocated for new uses.

142. Further, we note that a fundamental assumption of RCA's proposal is
     that the AWS band plan will favor larger licensees. However, as we
     explained above, the AWS band plan adopted here includes licenses
     with a variety of geographic sizes that will provide licensees with
     flexibility to implement their business plans and ensure that
     licenses are disseminated to a wide variety of applicants.
     Accordingly, the balance struck in our selection of geographic
     license areas, coupled with our existing partitioning and
     disaggregation procedures and the new flexibility provided by the
     *Secondary Markets Report and Order*, obviates the need to devise a
     new mechanism as proposed by RCA and AT&T Wireless, which, we
     believe, is inappropriate under the band plan that we have adopted.
     Thus, at this time, we decline to adopt the return credit option
     suggested by RCA in the absence of a record demonstrating that the
     public interest is best served by the adoption of such a proposal.
     We further note, however, that we are continuing to examine ways of
     amending our regulations and policies governing the electromagnetic
     spectrum and facilities-based commercial and private wireless
     services that rely on spectrum, in order to promote digital
     migration and rapid and efficient deployment of these services in
     rural and underserved areas. [^355]

143. Consistent with our proposals, we will use the general competitive
     bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's
     rules to conduct the auction of initial licenses in the 1710-1755
     MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands.[^356] Our decision to apply the Part 1
     rules is consistent with our ongoing effort to streamline our
     general competitive bidding rules for all radio services that are
     subject to competitive bidding.[^357] As we stated in the *AWS
     Service Rules NPRM*, application of the general competitive bidding
     rules will be subject to any modifications that the Commission may
     subsequently adopt.[^358]

### Provisions for Designated Entities {#provisions-for-designated-entities .Style-Heading-3Heading-3-Char-+-Left}

144. *Background*: In the *Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion
     and Order*, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility
     requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis,
     taking into account the capital requirements and other
     characteristics of each particular service in establishing the
     appropriate threshold.[^359] In the *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, we
     proposed to adopt the same small business size standards that the
     Commission adopted for broadband PCS[^360] because comments
     received suggested that similar services might be provided in
     AWS.[^361] We also noted that certain commenters, in response to
     the *AWS Allocation NPRM,* the *AWS Allocation Further NPRM,* and
     the *NTIA AWS Assessment,* had suggested a variety of advanced
     wireless services, including, but not limited to, voice, video,
     internet, and high speed data services for the 1710-1755 MHz and
     2110-2155 MHz bands.[^362] We acknowledged that we did not know
     precisely the type of services that a licensee may seek to provide
     in these bands. Nonetheless, we anticipated that the services that
     will be deployed in these bands may have capital requirements
     comparable to those in the broadband PCS service. We also believed
     that the licensees in these bands will be presented with issues and
     costs similar to those presented to broadband PCS licensees,
     including those involved in relocating incumbents, and developing
     markets, technologies, and services. We also noted that at the time
     the broadband PCS service was established, it was similarly
     anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction of a new
     generation of services.[^363]

145. In light of the similarities we identified, we proposed to define a
     "small business" as an entity with average annual gross revenues
     for the preceding three years not exceeding \$40 million, and a
     "very small business" as an entity with average annual gross
     revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding \$15
     million.[^364] We also proposed to provide "small businesses" with
     a bidding credit of 15 percent and "very small businesses" with a
     bidding credit of 25 percent. The bidding credits we proposed were
     those set forth in the standardized schedule in Part 1 of our
     Rules.[^365] Accordingly, we sought comment on the use of these
     standards and associated bidding credits for applicants to be
     licensed in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands, with
     particular focus on the appropriate definitions of small and very
     small businesses as they relate to the size of the geographic area
     to be covered and the spectrum allocated to each license.[^366]

146. We also noted that although AWS services may have significant
     advantages in terms of economies of scale compared to other
     services, the development of AWS services may require an
     unprecedented investment of capital by prospective licensees.
     Accordingly, we invited comment on whether there may be any
     distinctive characteristics to the AWS service or these bands that
     suggest that the adoption of small business size definitions and
     the use of bidding credits would be inappropriate in this instance.
     We also sought comment on whether the small business provisions we
     proposed were sufficient to promote participation by businesses
     owned by minorities and women, as well as rural telephone
     companies.[^367]

147. *Discussion*: As explained below, we adopt the small business size
     standards and accompanying bidding credits proposed in the *AWS
     NPRM*. Commenters generally supported our proposal to adopt the
     same small business size standards that the Commission adopted for
     broadband PCS.[^368] Two commenters, Mizelle and RCA, however,
     suggest that the Commission's attempts to assist designated
     entities through bidding credits have not been effective to level
     the playing field for small businesses that are without ties to
     larger companies.[^369] Further, to the extent we adopt bidding
     credits or eligibility limitations in this service, RCA asserts
     that the Commission should not provide any special benefits to
     designated entities such as rural telephone companies that would
     not also be available to all small businesses.[^370]

148. Although a lack of adequate capital is a critical barrier to
     entering business and successful auction participation by bidders,
     based upon the Commission's experience, the auction process
     provides the best opportunity to date for designated entities to
     acquire licenses. The Commission has long recognized that bidding
     preferences for qualifying bidders provides such bidders with an
     opportunity to compete successfully against large, well-financed
     entities.[^371] In the 34 auctions conducted to date that utilize
     small business bidding credits, 76 percent of the winning bidders
     were small or very small businesses, 7 percent of the winning
     bidders were minority-owned business, 6 percent of the winning
     bidders were women-owned businesses,[^372] and 14 percent of the
     winning bidders were rural telephone companies.[^373] (Some of
     these entities may fall into more than one category *i.e*., a
     women-owned business may also be a small or very small business).
     In addition, an analysis of the Upper 700 MHz Guard Band auctions
     (Auction Nos. 33 and 38), which employed identical small business
     size standards with those we adopt today, indicates that small and
     very small businesses successfully bid for 28 of the 104 licenses,
     or 27 percent of the licenses sold.[^374] Accordingly, contrary to
     the suggestions raised by Mizelle and Goldstein, the record amply
     demonstrates that bidding credits the Commission has offered to
     small businesses have allowed small businesses to effectively
     compete against large, well-financed entities.

149. Accordingly, we adopt the same small business size standards for
     licenses in the 1710-1755/2110-2155 MHz band that the Commission
     adopted for broadband PCS. Specifically, we define a "small
     business" in this band as an entity with average annual gross
     revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding \$40 million,
     and a "very small business" as an entity with average annual gross
     revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding \$15 million.
     Correspondingly, we will provide "small businesses" with a bidding
     credit of 15 percent and "very small businesses" with a bidding
     credit of 25 percent. [^375] The small business size standards and
     corresponding bidding credits that we adopt here will provide a
     variety of businesses, including rural wireless carriers who are
     "small businesses" or "very small businesses," with opportunities
     to participate in the auction of licenses for the AWS bands. These
     standards will also afford licensees substantial flexibility for
     the provision of services with varying capital costs.[^376] The
     Commission has also found that the use of tiered or graduated small
     business definitions is useful in furthering our mandate under
     Section 309(j) to promote opportunities for and disseminate
     licenses to a wide variety of applicants.[^377] Consequently, the
     use of small entity definitions for the AWS bands may result in the
     dissemination of licenses among a wide range of entities,
     consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the
     Act.[^378]

# Procedural matters {#procedural-matters .Style-Heading-1-+-Left}

## Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#regulatory-flexibility-analysis .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

150. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for this
     Report and Order and is included in Appendix B.

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis {#paperwork-reduction-analysis .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

151. This Report and Order contains either new or modified information
     collections. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork
     burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
     and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
     information collections contained in the Report and Order, as
     required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.[^379] Comments
     should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information
     is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
     Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
     utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission**'**s burden
     estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
     the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
     the collection of information on the respondents, including the use
     of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
     technology.

152. Written comments by the public and agencies on the proposed and/or
     modified information collections are due 60 days after the date of
     publication in the Federal Register. Written comments by the OMB on
     the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or
     before 120 days after the date of publication in the Federal
     Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy
     of any comments on the information collections contained herein
     should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal Communications
     Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 1-C804, Washington, D.C.
     20554, or via the Internet to \<Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov\>, and to
     Kim A. Johnson, Policy Analyst, Office of Information and
     Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
     Docket Library, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building (NEOB),
     725 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet
     at \<Kim_A.\_Johnson@omb.eop.gov\>.

153. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during
     regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center,
     Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room
     CY-A257, Washington, D. C. 20554, and on the Commission's Internet
     Home Page: \<[http://www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/)\>. Copies of
     comments and reply comments are also available through the
     Commission**'**s duplicating contractor: Qualex International,
     Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., CY-B4202, Washington, D.C.
     20554 (telephone 202-863-2893). Accessible formats (computer
     diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available
     to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the
     Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426,
     TTY (202) 418-7365, or at \<Brian.Millin@fcc.gov\>.

## Further Information {#further-information .Style-Heading-2-+-Left}

154. For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding,
     contact Eli Johnson or John Spencer, at (202) 418-1310, Policy
     Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
     Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 3-C124,
     Washington, D.C. 20554; or via the Internet to Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov
     or \<John.Spencer@fcc.gov\>.

# ORDERING CLAUSES {#ordering-clauses .Style-Heading-1-+-Left}

155. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10,
     201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333
     of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i),
     157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324,
     332, 333, that this Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED.

156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 27 of the Commission\'s Rules ARE
     AMENDED as specified in Appendix C, effective 60 days after the
     date of publication in the Federal Register. Information
     collections contained in these rules will be effective upon OMB
     approval.

157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
     SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

> Federal Communications Commission
>
> Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: LIST OF COMMENTERS**

**Commenters**:

American Petroleum Institute \[API\]

ArrayComm, Inc.

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. \[AT&T Wireless\]

Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association \[CTIA\]

Ericsson Inc

Fred R. Goldstein, Ionary Consulting

Lucent Technologies Inc.

John Mizelle

Motorola, Inc.

National Radio Astronomy Observatory \[NRAO\]

National Telecommunications and Information Administration \[NTIA\]

Nokia Inc.

PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association

PetroCom License Corporation \[PetroCom\]

Rural Cellular Association \[RCA\]

United Stated Cellular Corporation \[U.S. Cellular\]

Verizon Wireless

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. \[WCAI\]

**Reply Commenters:**

American Petroleum Institute

ArrayComm, Inc.

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

Cingular Wireless LLC

Motorola, Inc.

TDD Coalition

United States Cellular Corporation

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

**APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^380] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the
1.7 and 2.1 GHz Bands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*).[^381]
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposal in the
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^382]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Adopted Rules

In this Report and Order, we adopt service rules for Advanced Wireless
Services (AWS) in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands, including
provisions for application, licensing, operating and technical rules,
and for competitive bidding. Licensees in these bands will have the
flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent
with the allocations for this spectrum.[^383] We will license this
spectrum under our market-oriented Part 27 rules and, in order to
accommodate differing needs, our band plan includes both localized and
regional geographic service areas and symmetrically paired spectrum
blocks with the pairings being composed of different bandwidths. Our
licensing plan will allow the marketplace rather than the Commission to
ultimately determine what services are offered in this spectrum and what
technologies are utilized to provide these services. The licensing
framework that we adopt today for these bands will ensure that this
spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new
and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the
growth and development of broadband services.

Our actions today bring us closer to our goals of achieving the
universal availability of broadband access and increasing competition in
the provision of such broadband services both in terms of the types of
services offered and in the technologies utilized to provide those
services. The widespread deployment of broadband will bring new services
to consumers, stimulate economic activity, improve national
productivity, and advance many other objectives -- such as improving
education, and advancing economic opportunity for more Americans. By
encouraging the growth and development of broadband, our actions today
also foster the development of facilities-based competition. We achieve
these objectives by taking a market-oriented approach to licensing this
spectrum that provides greater certainty, minimal regulatory
intervention, and leads to greater benefits to consumers.

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

We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this
proceeding. We did, however, consider the potential impact of our rules
on smaller entities. For example, we have adopted a building block
approach to the licensing of this spectrum, including some smaller
geographic licensing areas and some smaller spectrum block sizes. We
have also provided for partitioning and disaggregation of licenses and
we have adopted spectrum leasing polices. Finally, we have adopted 15
percent and 25 percent "bidding credits" for small and very small
businesses, respectively. These policies should provide increased
opportunities for small entities to acquire the appropriate amount of
spectrum for their particular needs.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Adopted Rules Will Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^384] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small government
jurisdiction."[^385] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^386] A small business is one which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.[^387]
Nationwide, there are approximately 22.4 million small businesses,
total, according to the SBA data.[^388]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^389] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^390] Last, the definition of "small governmental
jurisdiction" is one with populations of fewer than 50,000.[^391] The
term \"small governmental jurisdiction\" is defined as "governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand."[^392] As of
1997, there were about 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United
States.[^393] This number includes 39,044 county governments,
municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2%)
have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have
populations of 50,000 or more. Thus we estimate the number of small
governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer.

The rules adopted in the Order affect applicants who wish to provide
service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. As discussed in
the Order, we do not know precisely the type of service that a licensee
in these bands might seek to provide. [^394] Nonetheless, we anticipate
that the services that will be deployed in these bands may have capital
requirements comparable to those in the broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and that the licensees in these bands will
be presented with issues and costs similar to those presented to
broadband PCS licensees. Further, at the time the broadband PCS service
was established, it was similarly anticipated that it would facilitate
the introduction of a new generation of service. Therefore, the Order
adopts the same small business size standards here that the Commission
adopted for the broadband PCS service. In particular, the Order defines
a "small business" as an entity with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding \$40 million, and a "very small
business" as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding \$15 million. The Order also
provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very
small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent.

We do not yet know how many applicants or licensees in these bands will
be small entities. Thus, the Commission assumes, for purposes of this
FRFA, that all prospective licensees are small entities as that term is
defined by the SBA or by our two special small business size standards
for these bands. Although we do not know for certain which entities are
likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the 1710-1755 MHz
and 2110-2155 MHz bands are comparable to those used for cellular
service and personal communications service.

**Wireless Telephony Including Cellular, Personal Communications Service
(PCS) and SMR Telephony Carriers.** The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless small businesses within the two
separate categories of **Paging**[^395] and **Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications**. [^396] Under both SBA categories, a
wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According
to the Commission's most recent data,[^397] 1,387 companies reported
that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. Of these
1,387 companies, an estimated 945 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 442
have more than 1,500 employees.[^398] Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most wireless service providers are small entities that
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

## Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

Applicants for AWS licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and the 2110-2155 MHz
bands will be required to submit short-form auction applications using
FCC Form 175.[^399] In addition, wining bidders must submit long-form
license applications through the Universal Licensing System using Form
601,[^400] FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless
Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate
forms.[^401]

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its adopted approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^402]

We have taken significant steps to reduce burdens on small entities
wherever possible. To provide opportunities for small entities to
participate in any auction that is held, we provide bidding credits for
small businesses and very small businesses as defined in Section C of
this FRFA. The bidding credits adopted are 15 percent for small
businesses and 25 percent for very small businesses. We have found that
the use of tiered or graduated small business size standards is useful
in furthering our mandate under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
to promote opportunities for, and disseminate licenses to, a wide
variety of applicants.

Regarding our decision to apply our Part 27 rules to this spectrum,
*see* paragraphs 16-21, we do not anticipate any adverse impact on small
entities. The flexibility afforded by Part 27 or our rules should
benefit large and small entities alike, because licensees will be in a
stronger position to meet changes in demand for services. Under this
approach, all licensees will have the freedom to determine the services
to be offered and the technologies to be used in providing these
services. An alternative to this decision would have been to determine
specific allowable service in each frequency band and apply the
applicable rule part to the licensing of such services. This approach,
however, would be unsatisfactory because it is too restrictive, and in
any event, it is unclear that this approach would benefit small entities
more than the flexible licensing approach we have decided upon today.

Regarding our decision to license this spectrum by geographic area,
*see* paragraphs 27-46, we anticipate that on balance small entities
will benefit from this licensing approach. Geographic licensing in these
bands supports the Commission's overall spectrum management goals in
that it allows licensees to quickly respond to market demand. Small
entities that acquire spectrum that is licensed on a geographic area
basis will benefit from such flexibility. Moreover, we have attempted to
strike a balance here by using varying sizes of geographic areas. For
example, small entities may be more interested in spectrum licensed by
smaller geographic areas rather than in spectrum licensed on a
nationwide or large regional basis. Consequently, we have decided to
include licensing areas based on MSAs and RSAs. As RCA observes, MSAs
and RSAs permit entities who are only interested in serving rural areas
to acquire spectrum licenses for these areas alone and avoid acquiring
spectrum licenses with high population densities that make purchase of
license rights too expensive for these types of entities.[^403] These
types of service providers could acquire an RSA and create a new service
area or they could expand an existing service territory or supplement
the spectrum they are licensed to operate in by adding an RSA. They
could also combine a few MSAs and RSAs to create a larger but localized
service territory. MSAs and RSAs allow entities to mix and match rural
and urban areas according to their business plans. By being smaller,
these types of geographic service areas provide entry opportunities for
smaller carriers, new entrants, and rural telephone companies. Their
inclusion in our band plan will foster service to rural areas and tribal
lands and thereby bring the benefits of advanced services to these
areas.[^404] An alternative to our decision to use geographic areas for
licensing would have been to employ a site-by-site licensing approach.
Site-by-site licensing, however, would be an inefficient licensing
method due to a greater strain on Commission resources and less
flexibility afforded to licensees.

We have also made the decision to license the spectrum in different
bandwidths. We do not believe this will disadvantage small entities, In
fact, we have decided that the RSA/MSA license areas will be licensed as
paired spectrum at 1735-1740 and 2135-2140 for a total of 734 licenses,
thus providing the opportunity for entities to obtain a license
encompassing as little as 10 megahertz of spectrum. Other spectrum will
be licensed in pairs of 10 and 15 MHz blocks, providing flexibility to
licensees in constructing their systems. Our approach provides maximum
flexibility for both small and large entities to offer a wide range of
communications services.

We have also decided to permit the disaggregation and partitioning of
these spectrum blocks, *see* paragraphs 80-83. Licensees will thus be
able to increase or decrease the size of their service areas to better
meet market demands. Allowing licensees to partition and/or disaggregate
their licensed spectrum should improve opportunities for small entities
to acquire spectrum for their particular needs. An alternative to his
approach would have been to prohibit partitioning and disaggregation; we
believe that such an approach could foreclose options for small
entities.

In addition, we have decided that this spectrum will also be subject to
the rules recently adopted the *Secondary Markets Report and
Order*,[^405] *see* paragraph 26. In that *Order*, we took action to
remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the development of secondary
markets. The Order established new policies and procedures that enable
most wireless licensees, including Part 27 licensees, to lease some or
all of their spectrum usage rights to third-party spectrum
lessees.[^406] Application of the new secondary market rules to this
spectrum should help ensure that small businesses and rural carriers can
acquire spectrum to meet their business needs by allowing more entities
access to the AWS spectrum and permit the marketplace, rather than the
Commission, to decide what use is made of this spectrum.

We believe our objectives of ensuring both efficient use of spectrum and
diversity of licensees can best be achieved by adopting a variety of
license areas and spectrum block sizes, and ensuring the ability of
licensees to partition and disaggregate their licenses and fully
participate in the secondary markets. By adopting some smaller
geographic licensing areas and some smaller spectrum block sizes, we
believe we will encourage participation by smaller and rural entities,
without the necessity of adopting set-asides and eligibility
restrictions, because such licenses will be less expensive and should
more closely mirror such bidders' needs. We believe that these same
factors support our decision to decline to adopt other suggested
alternatives, such as spectrum aggregation limits, in this band.

Finally, regarding our decision to require a showing of "substantial
service" at license renewal time, *see* paragraphs 73-79 , we do not
anticipate any adverse impact on small entities. An alternative would
have been to adopt a "minimal coverage" requirement. We believe,
however, that the substantial service standard is better because it will
provide both small and large entities the flexibility to determine how
best to implement their business plans based on actual service to end
users.

## Report to Congress

The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act.[^407] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order,
including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^408]

**APPENDIX C: FINAL RULES**

**PART 27 -- MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES**

1.  The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

2.  The table of contents for Part 27 is amended by adding subpart L as
    follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

**Subpart L -- 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz Bands**

[Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions]{.smallcaps}

27.1101 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.

27.1102 Designated Entities.

[Relocation of Incumbents]{.smallcaps}

27.1111 Relocation of fixed microwave service licensees in the 2110-2150
MHz band.

[Protection of Incumbent Operations]{.smallcaps}

27.1131 Protection of Part 101 operations.

27.1132 Protection of Part 21 operations.

27.1133 Protection of Part 74 and Part 78 operations.

27.1134 Protection of Federal Government operations.

3.  Section 27.1 is amended by adding a subparagraph (8) to
    paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.1 Basis and purpose.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(8\) 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  Section 27.3 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (m) through (p)
    as paragraphs (n) through (q), and by adding new paragraph (m) to
    read as follows:

**§ 27.3 Other applicable rule parts.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(m\) *Part 64, subpart V*. This part sets forth the requirements and
conditions applicable to telecommunications carriers under the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 27.4 is amended by adding a new definition to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.4 Terms and definitions.**

*Advanced wireless service (AWS)*. A radiocommunication service licensed
pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in § 27.5(h).

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 27.5 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.5 Frequencies.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) *1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands*. The following frequencies
are available for licensing pursuant to this part in the 1710-1755 MHz
and 2110-2155 MHz bands:

\(1\) Two paired channel blocks of 10 megahertz each are available for
assignment as follows:

Block A: 1710-1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz; and

Block B: 1720-1730 MHz and 2120-2130 MHz.

\(2\) Two paired channel blocks of 5 megahertz each are available for
assignment as follows:

Block C: 1730-1735 MHz and 2130-2135 MHz; and

Block D: 1735-1740 MHz and 2135-2140 MHz.

\(3\) One paired channel block of 15 megahertz each is available for
assignment as follows:

Block E: 1740-1755 MHz and 2140-2155 MHz.

7.  Section 27.6 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.6 Service areas.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) *1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands*. AWS service areas for the
1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands are as follows:

\(1\) Service areas for Block A (1710-1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz) are
based on Economic Areas (EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section.

\(2\) Service areas for Blocks B (1720-1730 MHz and 2120-2130 MHz), C
(1730-1735 MHz and 2130-2135 MHz), and E (1740-1755 MHz and 2140-2155
MHz) are based on Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) as defined by
paragraph (a) of this section.

\(3\) Service areas for Block D (1735-1740 MHz and 2135-2140 MHz) are
based on cellular markets comprising Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs) as defined by Public Notice Report
No. CL-92-40 "Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information,
Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties," dated January 24, 1992, DA
92-109, 7 FCC Rcd 742 (1992), with the following modifications:

\(i\) The service areas of cellular markets that border the U.S.
coastline of the Gulf of Mexico extend 12 nautical miles from the U.S.
Gulf coastline.

\(ii\) The service area of cellular market 306 that comprises the water
area of the Gulf of Mexico extends from 12 nautical miles off the U.S.
Gulf coast outward into the Gulf.

8.  Section 27.11 is amended by adding a new paragraph (i) to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.11 Initial authorization.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) *1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands*. Initial authorizations
for the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands shall be for 5, 10 or 15
megahertz of spectrum in each band in accordance with § 27.5(h) of this
part.

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

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

\(3\) Authorizations for Block C, consisting of two paired channels of 5
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(h)(2).

\(4\) Authorizations for Block D, consisting of two paired channels of 5
megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in §
27.6(h)(3).

\(5\) Authorizations for Block E, consisting of two paired channels of
15 megahertz each, will be based on those geographic areas specified in
§ 27.6(h)(2).

9.  Section 27.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.13 License period.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) *1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands*. Authorizations for the
1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands will have a term not to exceed ten
years from the date of initial issuance or renewal, except that
authorizations issued on or before December 31, 2009, shall have a term
of fifteen years.

10. Section 27.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:

**§ 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for comparative renewal
proceedings.**

\(a\) AWS and WCS licensees must make a showing of "substantial service"
in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in §
27.13. \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

11. Section 27.15 is amended by revising subparagraph (2) of
    paragraph (a) as follows:

**§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(2\) AWS and WCS licensees may apply to partition their licensed
geographic service area or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any
time following the grant of their licenses.

\* \* \* \* \*

12. Section 27.50 is amended by re-designating paragraph (d) as
    paragraph (e), and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

**§ 27.50 Power and antenna height limits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands:

\(1\) Fixed and base stations transmitting in the 2110-2155 MHz band are
limited to a peak effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of 1640
watts and a peak output power of 100 watts.

\(2\) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the
1710-1755 MHz band are limited to a peak EIRP of 1 watt. Fixed stations
operating in this band are limited to a maximum antenna height of 10
meters above ground, and mobile and portable stations must employ a
means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful
communications.

\* \* \* \* \*

13. Section 27.53 is amended by re-designating paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
    (j), and (k) as paragraphs (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l),
    respectively, and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:

**§ 27.53 Emission limits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) For operations in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands, the
power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log~10~
(P) dB.

\(1\) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or
greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and
adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at
least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission
of the transmitter may be employed. The emission bandwidth is defined as
the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which
all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.

\(2\) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency
shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block edges, both
upper and lower, as the design permits.

\(3\) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or
average values, provided they are expressed in the same parameters as
the transmitter power.

> \* \* \* \* \*

14. Section 27.55 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 27.55 Signal strength limits.**

\(a\) *Field strength limits.* For the following bands, the predicted or
measured median field strength at any location on the geographical
border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed the value specified
unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a
different field strength. This value applies to both the initially
offered service areas and to partitioned service areas.

\(i\) 2110-2155, 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47 dBµ V/m.

\(ii\) 698-764 and 776-794 MHz bands: 40 dBµ V/m.

\(iii\) The paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands and the
unpaired 1390-1392 MHz band (1.4 GHz band): 47 dBµV/m.

\(b\) *Power flux density limit.* For base and fixed stations operating
in the 698-746 MHz band, with an effective radiated power (ERP) greater
than 1 kW, the power flux density that would be produced by such
stations through a combination of antenna height and vertical gain
pattern must not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground
over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting
structure.

15. Section 27.57 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
    follows:

**§ 27.57 International coordination.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands is subject
to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.

16. Section 27.63 is amended to read as follows:

**§ 27.63** **Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns.**

AWS and WCS licensees that construct or modify towers in the immediate
vicinity of AM broadcast stations are responsible for measures necessary
to correct disturbance of the AM station antenna pattern which causes
operation outside of the radiation parameters specified by the FCC for
the AM station, if the disturbance occurred as a result of such
construction or modification.

\(a\) *Non-directional AM stations.* If tower construction or
modification is planned within 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) of a
non-directional AM broadcast station tower, the AWS or WCS licensee must
notify the licensee of the AM broadcast station in advance of the
planned construction or modification. Measurements must be made to
determine whether the construction or modification would affect the AM
station antenna pattern. The AWS or WCS licensee is responsible for the
installation and continued maintenance of any detuning apparatus
necessary to restore proper non-directional performance of the AM
station tower.

\(b\) *Directional AM stations.* If tower construction or modification
is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast
station array, the AWS or WCS licensee must notify the licensee of the
AM broadcast station in advance of the planned construction or
modification. Measurements must be made to determine whether the
construction or modification would affect the AM station antenna
pattern. The AWS or WCS licensee is responsible for the installation and
continued maintenance of any detuning apparatus necessary to restore
proper performance of the AM station array.

17. A new subpart L is added to read as follows:

# Subpart L -- 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz Bands

[Licensing and Competitive Bidding Provisions]{.smallcaps}

**§ 27.1101 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands subject to competitive
bidding.**

Mutually exclusive initial applications for 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155
MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general
competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

**§ 27.1102 Designated Entities.**

\(a\) Eligibility for small business provisions.

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

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

\(b\) Bidding credits.

\(1\) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business, as defined in
this section, or a consortium of small businesses may use a bidding
credit of 15 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii), to lower the
cost of its winning bid on any of the licenses in this part.

\(2\) A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business, as
defined in this section, or a consortium of very small businesses may
use a bidding credit of 25 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii),
to lower the cost of its winning bid on any of the licenses in this
part.

[Relocation of Incumbents]{.smallcaps}

**§ 27.1111 Relocation of fixed microwave service licensees in the
2110-2150 MHz band.**

Part 101, subpart B of the Commission's rules contains provisions
governing the relocation of incumbent fixed microwave service licensees
in the 2110-2150 MHz band.

[Protection of Incumbent Operations]{.smallcaps}

**§ 27.1131 Protection of Part 101 operations.**

All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed
station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel and
adjacent channel incumbent, Part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave
licensees operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band. Coordination shall be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 24.237 of this
title.

**§ 27.1132 Protection of Part 21 operations.**

All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed
station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel and
adjacent channel incumbent Part 21 MDS licensees operating in the
2150-2155 MHz band. In the event that AWS and MDS licensees cannot reach
agreement in coordinating their facilities, either licensee may seek the
assistance of the Commission, and the Commission may then, at its
discretion, impose requirements on either or both parties.

**§ 27.1133 Protection of Part 74 and Part 78 operations.**

AWS operators must protect previously licensed Broadcast Auxiliary
Service (BAS) or Cable Television Radio Service (CARS) operations in the
adjacent 2025-2110 MHz band. In satisfying this requirement AWS
licensees must, before constructing and operating any base or fixed
station, determine the location and licensee of all BAS or CARS stations
authorized in their area of operation, and coordinate their planned
stations with those licensees. In the event that mutually satisfactory
coordination agreements cannot be reached, licensees may seek the
assistance of the Commission, and the Commission may, at its discretion,
impose requirements on one or both parties.

**§ 27.1134 Protection of Federal Government operations.**

\(a\) *Protection of Department of Defense operations in the 1710-1755
MHz band.* The Department of Defense (DoD) operates communications
systems in the 1710-1755 MHz band at 16 protected facilities,
nationwide. AWS licensees must accept any interference received from
these facilities and must protect the facilities from interference. AWS
licensees shall protect the facilities from interference by restricting
the operation of their base and fixed stations from any locations that
could potentially permit AWS mobile, fixed, and portable stations
transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz band to cause interference to
government operations within the radii of operation of the 16 facilities
(the radii of operation of each facility is indicated in the third
column of Table 1 immediately following paragraph (a)(3) of this
section). In addition, AWS licensees shall be required to coordinate any
operations that could permit mobile, fixed, and portable stations to
operate in the specified areas of the 16 facilities, as defined in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Protection of these facilities in this
manner shall take place under the following conditions:

\(1\) At the Yuma, Arizona and Cherry Point, North Carolina facilities,
all operations shall be protected indefinitely.

\(2\) At the remaining 14 facilities, airborne and military test range
operations shall be protected until such time as these systems are
relocated to other spectrum, and precision guided munitions (PGM)
operations shall be protected until such time as these systems are
relocated to other spectrum or until PGM inventory at each facility is
exhausted, whichever occurs first.

\(3\) AWS licensees whose transmit operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band
consist of fixed or mobile operations with nominal transmit EIRP values
of 100 mW or less and antenna heights of 1.6 meters above ground or less
shall coordinate their services around the 16 sites at the distance
specified in row a) of Table 2, below. AWS licensees whose transmit
operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band consist of fixed or mobile
operations with nominal transmit EIRP values of 1 W or less and antenna
heights of 10 meters above ground or less shall coordinate their
services around the 16 sites at the distance specified in row b) of
Table 2, below. These coordination distances shall be measured from the
edge of the operational distances indicated in the third column of Table
1, and coordination with each affected DoD facility shall be
accomplished through the Commander of the facility.

[Table 1:]{.smallcaps} Protected Department of Defense facilities.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------- --
  Location                                                                Coordinates        Radius of Operation  
                                                                                             (km)                 

  Cherry Point, NC..............................\...                      34° 58\' N 076°    100                  
                                                                          56\' W                                  

  Yuma,                                                                   32° 32\' N 113°    120                  
  AZ......\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....   58\' W                                  

  China Lake, CA.................................                         35° 41\' N 117°    120                  
                                                                          41\' W                                  

  Eglin AFB, FL.................................\...                      30° 29\' N 086°    120                  
                                                                          31\' W                                  

  Pacific Missile Test Range/Point Mugu, CA                               34° 07\' N 119°    80                   
                                                                          30\' W                                  

  Nellis AFB, NV.................................                         36° 14\' N 115°    160                  
                                                                          02\' W                                  

  Hill AFB, UT....................................                        41° 07\' N 111°    160                  
                                                                          58\' W                                  

  Patuxent River, MD.............................                         38° 17\' N 076°    80                   
                                                                          25\' W                                  

  White Sands Missile Range, NM..............                             33° 00\' N 106°    80                   
                                                                          30\' W                                  

  Fort Irwin, CA...................................                       35° 16\' N 116°    50                   
                                                                          41\' W                                  

  Fort Rucker, AL.................................                        31° 13\' N 085°    50                   
                                                                          49\' W                                  

  Fort Bragg, NC...................................                       35° 09\' N 079°    50                   
                                                                          01\' W                                  

  Fort Campbell, KY..............................                         36° 41\' N 087°    50                   
                                                                          28\' W                                  

  Fort Lewis, WA.................................                         47° 05\' N 122°    50                   
                                                                          36\' W                                  

  Fort Benning, GA................................                        32° 22\' N 084°    50                   
                                                                          56\' W                                  

  Fort Stewart, GA..............................\...                      31° 52\' N 081°    50                   
                                                                          37\' W                                  
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------- --

[TABLE 2: Coordination Distances For The Protected Department Of Defense
Facilities.]{.smallcaps}

+-------------------------------------+-----+--------------------------+
| 1710-1755 MHz Transmit Operations   | Coo |                          |
|                                     | rdi |                          |
|                                     | nat |                          |
|                                     | ion |                          |
|                                     | Di  |                          |
|                                     | sta |                          |
|                                     | nce |                          |
|                                     | (   |                          |
|                                     | km) |                          |
+-------------------------------------+-----+--------------------------+
| a\) EIRP \<= 100 mW, antenna height |     | > 35                     |
| \<= 1.6 m AG                        |     |                          |
+-------------------------------------+-----+--------------------------+
| b\) EIRP \<= 1 W, antenna height    | >   |                          |
| \<= 10 m AG                         |  55 |                          |
+-------------------------------------+-----+--------------------------+

\(b\) *Protection of non-DoD operations in the 1710-1755 MHz and
1755-1761 MHz bands.* Until such time as non-DoD systems operating in
the 1710-1755 MHz and 1755-1761 MHz bands are relocated to other
spectrum, AWS licensees shall protect such systems by satisfying the
appropriate provisions of TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F,
"Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems," May, 1994 (TSB 10-F).

\(c\) *Protection of Federal Government operations below 1710 MHz.* AWS
licensees operating fixed stations in the 1710-1755 MHz band, if
notified that such stations are causing interference to radiosonde
receivers operating in the Meteorological Aids Service in the 1675-1700
MHz band or a meteorological-satellite earth receiver operating in the
Meteorological-Satellite Service in the 1675-1710 MHz band, shall be
required to modify the stations' location and/or technical parameters as
necessary to eliminate the interference.

\(d\) *Recognition of NASA Goldstone facility operations in the
2110-2120 MHz band.* The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) operates the Deep Space Network (DSN) in the 2110-2120 MHz band
at Goldstone, California (see Table 3). NASA will continue its
operations of high power transmitters (nominal EIRP of 105.5 dBW with
EIRP up to 119.5 dBW used under emergency conditions) in this band at
this location. AWS licensees must accept any interference received from
the Goldstone DSN facility in this band.

[TABLE 3: Location Of The NASA Goldstone Deep Space
Facility.]{.smallcaps}

Location Coordinates Maximum Transmitter Output Power

Goldstone, California 35° 18' N 116° 54' W 500 kW

**§ 27.1135 Protection of non-Federal Government
Meteorological-Satellite operations.**

AWS licensees operating fixed stations in the 1710-1755 MHz band, if
notified that such stations are causing interference to
meteorological-satellite earth receivers operating in the
Meteorological-Satellite Service in the 1675-1710 MHz band, shall be
required to modify the stations' location and/or technical parameters as
necessary to eliminate the interference.

**APPENDIX D: PROPAGATION FORMULAS**

**Basic Formula for Calculating Field Strength at a Distance**

*FS* = 107.2 + *Pt* + 20 log *f* − *PL*

where: *FS* is the field strength at the receiving antenna location, in
dBμV/m

*Pt* is the equivalent isotropically radiated power of the transmitting
station, in dBw

> (*i.e.*, *Pt* = 10 log EIRP, where EIRP is the equivalent
> isotropically radiated power, in watts)

*f* is the transmitter carrier frequency, in MHz

> *PL* is the path loss between isotropic antennas, in dB
>
> Note: The value of *PL* is a function of the distance between the
> transmitting and receiving antennas and the particular propagation
> model utilized, which may incorporate factors such as the transmitting
> and receiving antenna heights, the frequency of the transmitted wave,
> environmental (building heights, clutter) and/or topographical
> (terrain) features.

**Formulas for Calculating Path Loss Between Isotropic Antennas for
Certain Propagation Models**

***Extended COST231-Hata Model***

The Extended COST231-Hata model is appropriate for calculating path loss
of the forward link for base stations using antennas above the rooftop
levels of adjacent buildings, and transmitting in the 1500 to 2000 MHz
frequency range.

*PL* = 46.3 + 33.9 log *f* − 13.82 log *Ht* − *a* + ( 44.9 − 6.55 log
*Ht* ) log *d* + *C*

where: *PL* is the median path loss between isotropic antennas, in dB

*f* is the transmitter carrier frequency, in MHz

*Ht* is the effective height of the transmitting antenna, in meters

Note: 30 m ≤ *Ht* ≤ 200 m

*d* is the distance to the receiving antenna, in kilometers

Note: 1 km ≤ *d* ≤ 20 km

*a* is attenuation, in dB, as a function of the receiving antenna
height, *Hr*, in meters:

For a small or medium-sized city:

*a* = ( 1.1 log *f* − 0.7 ) *Hr* − ( 1.56 log *f* − 0.8 )

For a large city:

*a* = 3.2 ( log 11.75 *Hr* )² − 4.97

Note: 1 m ≤ *Hr* ≤ 10 m

*C* is a correction factor to account for building and tree density:

*C* = 0 dB for medium-sized cities and suburban areas

*C* = 3 dB for metropolitan centers

***Plane Earth Model***

The plane earth (or two-ray) model is a simple model that is appropriate
for calculating path loss between two antennas separated by a few tens
of kilometers over flat terrain where ground reflection can be assumed.
With this model, the path loss is independent of the transmitting
frequency.

*PL* = 119.4 + 40 log *d* − 20 log *Ht* − 20 log *Hr*

where: *PL* is the path loss between isotropic antennas, in dB

*Ht* is the effective height of the transmitting antenna, in meters

*Hr* is the effective height of the receiving antenna, in meters

*d* is the distance to the receiving antenna, in kilometers

Note: *d* \>\> *Ht*, *Hr*

***Free Space Model***

The free space (or geometric spreading) model is a simple model that is
appropriate for calculating path loss between two antennas that have an
unobstructed line-of-sight and are high enough such that ground
reflection is not a significant factor. It is also useful for worst-case
analysis.

*PL* = 32.44 + 20 log *d* + 20 log *f*

where: *PL* is the path loss between isotropic antennas, in dB

*d* is the distance to the receiving antenna, in kilometers

*f* is the transmitter carrier frequency, in MHz

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: Report and Order in the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands*

The 90 MHz of additional licensed spectrum made available today is a key
building block for the broadband Internet future of licensed wireless
service. Across the country, wireless providers \-- from Verizon
Wireless in Washington DC to Monet Mobile Networks in the Dakotas \--
are increasingly utilizing their licensed spectrum holdings to build
infrastructure to support Internet applications. Another ninety
megahertz of spectrum will add momentum to that important trend.
Wireless broadband internet deployment will bring valuable new services
to consumers, stimulate economic activity, improve national
productivity, increase investment, create jobs and advance many other
worthy objectives -- such as improving education and enhancing rural
communications.

Our service rules also reflect several key principles for efficient use
of spectrum as noted by the Commission's Spectrum Policy Task Force,
including:

-   maximizing the flexibility of licensees to choose the types and
    characteristics of the services that they will offer in their
    licensed spectrum;

-   grouping like spectrum uses together so that technically compatible
    operations remain close to one another; and

-   defining spectrum users' rights and responsibilities in the clearest
    manner possible.

The migration to a more market-oriented approach will not always prove
easy. Today's Order, with its emphasis on flexibility, compatibility and
clear definitions of rights, demonstrates how better rules can create
better, more reliable, more affordable services for American consumers.

Our decision also designates spectrum for smaller license areas that may
be particularly useful in rural America. Over the past few months, I
have outlined a vision for competition and innovation in rural
telecommunications. Central to that vision is increasing the spectrum
resources available in rural America -- we also advance that goal today.

Finally, I would like to thank the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) for their extraordinary leadership and
partnership in bringing this proceeding to closure. Without our common
commitment and goals, these spectrum resources would never have been
made available for commercial use.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

*Approving in Part, Concurring in Part*

Re: Report and Order in the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands

Advanced Wireless Services, such as 3G and IMT-2000, obviously hold
tremendous potential for consumers. I join my colleagues and the Bureau
in hopes that these service rules and the auction process will bring
about a robust and efficient use of this spectrum, which is exactly what
we are supposed to be encouraging. I also hope that as we design the
specifics of the auction, we will work hard to learn from those
countries where the 3G rollout is moving ahead successfully and from
countries where 3G auctions may have contributed to problems.

While I approve of the majority of this Order, I have serious concern
with the Commission's decision to move ahead without consolidation
protections in the form of a spectrum aggregation limit. Under the rules
we adopt today, one company could apparently end up controlling the
entire AWS band in a city or a geographic region, leaving no AWS
spectrum for competitors. That's a result I do not like. But we have
arrived at this point because the Commission eliminated the overall
spectrum cap more than a year ago, in a decision from which I dissented.
So the Commission has already crossed the Rubicon. Establishing a limit
for one band alone will not fix the larger mistake that we have already
made. Consumers benefit from the competition that we enjoy in wireless
services today, and we should protect it. So I continue to believe that
we would be better served by protection against one company dominating
too much spectrum in a particular city or region, and my concurrence
instead of approval is intended to make this point.

Thank you.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KEVIN J . MARTIN**

*Re: Report and Order in the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1.7 and 2.1 GHz Bands*

I am pleased to support this item, which adopts service rules for
advanced wireless services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz bands. The
flexible rules we adopt allow the two 45 MHz blocks of contiguous
spectrum at issue to be used for a range of advanced wireless services.
The wireless industry is already on the forefront in offering innovative
new services, and it continues to make advances that will bring exciting
new applications to consumers. For example, since we issued the notice
of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding, camera phones, which send
digital pictures to other phones or computers at the touch of a button,
have become widely available. There are also phones that play MP3s, run
video games, and connect to the Internet with ease. Better and faster
services are becoming available every day.

A crucial ingredient to these services, however, is sufficient spectrum.
This Order provides some of that spectrum, allowing a significant amount
of spectrum to be used for services such as expanded voice, data, and
broadband applications provided over high-speed fixed and mobile
networks -- applications often called "third generation" or "3G." This
item should thus lead to substantial consumer benefits, as new and
better quality services develop in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz bands.

I would like to once again commend all of the different parts of
government for working together to make this happen. In particular, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration deserves
praise for spearheading this effort. NTIA, working with the Department
of Defense, the State Department, the Office of Management and Budget,
and the FCC's staff, developed the blueprint for making this spectrum
available. They accomplished a major step in ensuring that new and
innovative wireless services will be available to American consumers.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Report and Order in the Matter of Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands*

Today is a banner day for wireless service in the United States. By
adopting service and technical rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 1.7 and 2.1 GHz bands, we are moving a step closer to seeing a new
generation of wireless services in this country, including the so-called
third generation or 3G mobile systems. I think our item represents just
the right framework for further innovation in the wireless arena by
promoting continued industry development while employing a light
regulatory touch.

Determining a band plan is an inexact science, at best. I believe that
the Commission should continue to improve the availability of spectrum
to those providers who want to serve smaller areas. Though, we have been
making great strides in this area recently through such work as our
rural wireless NPRM and our secondary markets proceeding.

I have been concerned that large license areas raise auction prices so
high that many companies that want to serve smaller areas cannot even
afford to make a first bid. Large service areas also can have the effect
of creating swaths of fallow spectrum in areas outside of our nation's
populated service areas. Licensees, no matter how large their service
areas are, understandably focus their resources on serving the
more-populated metropolitan areas.

I certainly recognize that there is value in offering larger service
areas for economies of scale and to facilitate larger scale deployments.
Indeed, one of the noteworthy developments of the wireless industry over
the past several years is the development of the so-called "nationwide"
carriers. However, I believe we should find a balance in developing a
band plan, and I am pleased to note that a diverse group of commenters
in this proceeding supported different sizes of license areas for
different blocks of the spectrum.

I believe we got the balance right here. I am especially pleased that
the band plan we adopt today not only provides for several licenses to
be available on a Regional Economic Area Grouping basis, but also
provides for a 2x5 MHz block of spectrum on a RSA/MSA basis and a 2x10
MHz block of spectrum on an Economic Area basis.

In providing a balance of smaller and larger areas, we hopefully offer
something for everyone.

Finally, I also am pleased to support the technical and service rules
that are in this item. In combining the flexibility of Part 27, with the
proven technical rules of Part 24, I believe that we have put in place
just the right regulatory framework. I said back in April that our PCS
service rules should prove a model for our future regulatory efforts for
licensed mobile services, and am pleased to support this aspect of our
item today.

[^1]: AWS is the collective term the Commission uses for new and
    advanced wireless applications, such as voice, data and broadband
    services provided over a variety of high-speed fixed and mobile
    networks, and which are popularly referred to as International
    Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) or "third generation" (3G)
    systems. The "3G" nomenclature is based on the popular view that
    analog cellular systems represent the first generation of advanced
    wireless devices, that digital cellular and broadband Personal
    Communications Service systems represent the second, and that the
    next deployment of wireless technologies (which we include in the
    collective term "AWS") represents the third generation. The
    characteristics of IMT-2000/3G systems are described more fully in
    [Spectrum Study of the 2500-2690 MHz Band, Final
    Report]{.smallcaps}, at 7-10 (OET/MMB/WTB/IB, Mar. 30, 2001) (*FCC
    Final Spectrum Study*). A copy of this report has been placed in the
    docket file of ET Docket No. 00-258, and is available on the
    Internet at \<[http://www.fcc.gov/3G]()\>.

[^2]: The service rules that we adopt today for this spectrum build on
    the policy objectives set forth in the *Spectrum Policy Task Force
    Report*. Spectrum Policy Task Force, ET Docket No. 02-135, *Report*
    (rel. Nov. 15, 2002) (*Spectrum Policy Task Force Report*).

[^3]: Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title VI --
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, NTIA Special Publication
    95-32 (Feb. 1995) (*1995 Reallocation Final Report*); *see also*
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, 107
    Stat. 312 (1993) (OBRA-93). Under OBRA-93, "mixed use" means that
    some of the spectrum transferred from exclusive Government use can
    be partially retained for use by Federal Government stations. *See*
    47 U.S.C. § 923(b)(2).

[^4]: *See generally* Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage the
    Establishment of Services Using New and Innovative Technologies, ET
    Docket No. 92-9, *First Report and Order and Third Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); *Second Report and
    Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); *Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994)*; Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994), *aff\'d*, Association of
    Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC,
    76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (collectively, "*Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding").

[^5]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Second Report
    and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002) (*AWS Allocation Order*),
    *recons pending*.

[^6]: This spectrum was part of a 10-megahertz block (12 megahertz in
    the top fifty markets) that was allocated to MDS in the
    2150-2160/2162 MHz band. MDS stations licensed after 1992 to use the
    2160-2162 MHz band are on a secondary basis.

[^7]: *1995 Reallocation Final Report*, *supra* n.Error: Reference
    source not found.

[^8]: *Id*. at App. E and p. F-4.

[^9]: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, "An Assessment of the Viability of
    Accommodating Advanced Mobile Wireless (3G) Systems in the 1710-1770
    MHz and 2110-2170 MHz Bands," *Report*, at 2-4, rel. July 22, 2002
    (*NTIA AWS Assessment*). The Commission sought comment on the *NTIA
    AWS Assessment.* FCC Seeks Comment On The National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration's Report, *An
    Assessment Of The Viability Of Accommodating Advanced Mobile
    Wireless (3G) Systems In The 1710-1770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz Bands*,
    ET Docket No. 00-258, *Public Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd 14390 (2002). The
    *NTIA AWS Assessment* was incorporated into Amendment of Part 2 of
    the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile
    and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced
    Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems,
    *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, ET Docket No. 00-258, 18 FCC
    Rcd 13235 (2003).

[^10]: *NTIA AWS Assessment* at 2.

[^11]: *Id*. at 2-4 (detailing the assumptions upon which NTIA predicted
    clearance by December 31, 2008).

[^12]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Fourth Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 13235 (2003).

[^13]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23215 ¶ 46.

[^14]: *See AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23212-13 ¶ 41; s*ee
    also* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003); Amendment of Parts 1,
    21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use
    of the Universal Licensing System in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz
    Bands, WT Docket No. 03-66, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 6722 (2003).

[^15]: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and
    2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 17 FCC Rcd 24135 (2002) (*AWS Service Rules NPRM*).

[^16]: Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251
    (1997) (BBA-97); 47 U.S.C. § 303(y); *see* *AWS Service Rules NPRM*,
    17 FCC Rcd 24135, 24140-41 ¶ 12.

[^17]: CTIA Comments at 2-3; Ericsson Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at
    1; PetroCom Comments at 6-8; Cingular Reply Comments at 3-4; TDD
    Coalition Reply Comments at 2-5.

[^18]: CTIA Comments at 2.

[^19]: Cingular Reply Comments at 3.

[^20]: PetroCom Comments at 7.

[^21]: The *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* found that
    "\[f\]lexibility enables spectrum users to make fundamental choices
    about how they will use spectrum (including whether to use it or
    transfer their usage rights to others), taking into account market
    factors such as consumer demand, availability of technology, and
    competition." *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* at 16.

[^22]: Ericsson Comments at 2.

[^23]: CTIA Comments at 3.

[^24]: Cingular Reply Comments at 3.

[^25]: PetroCom Comments at 7.

[^26]: The *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* cautioned that clear
    technical rules (*e.g*., power limits, interference standards) are
    necessary in order to facilitate the co-existence of multiple
    spectrum uses in common and adjacent bands. *Spectrum Policy Task
    Force Report* at 16; *see also* Nokia Comments at 1.

[^27]: TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^28]: *See* Verizon Wireless Comments at 1-3; Cingular Reply Comments
    at 1-3.

[^29]: The *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* recommended that our
    approach to licensing should be to allow licensees to do anything
    not explicitly prohibited by the Communications Act, the
    Commission's rules, Commission orders, licenses or authorizations.
    *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* at 18.

[^30]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24141 ¶ 13.

[^31]: TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 5.

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.3; *see infra* ¶¶ 84-86.

[^33]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 9-11; CTIA Comments at 3-4; Ericsson
    Comments at 2, 10; Motorola Comments at 3-5; Verizon Wireless
    Comments at 3; Cingular Reply Comments at 4-5; Motorola Reply
    Comments at 5.

[^34]: *Compare* 47 C.F.R. § 24.1 *with* 47 C.F.R. § 27.1.

[^35]: *Compare* 47 C.F.R. § 24.3 *with* 47 C.F.R. § 27.2(a).

[^36]: *See infra* ¶¶ 73-79; *see also* Verizon Wireless Comments at
    3-4.

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.2(a).

[^38]: *See infra* ¶¶ 84-86 (discussing other rule parts that may apply
    to licensees in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands).

[^39]: *See infra* ¶¶ 92-94.

[^40]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24141-42 ¶ 15 (citing
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251. §
    3002(b), (c)(1)(D), (c)(3)).

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: *Id*.

[^44]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^45]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24141-42 ¶ 15.

[^46]: *See* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the
    Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, WT Docket No. 99-87, *Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd
    22709, 22717-35 ¶¶ 18-50 (1999) (*BBA Report and Order*). Section
    309(j)(2) exempts from competitive bidding licenses and construction
    permits for public safety radio services, digital television service
    licenses and permits given to existing terrestrial broadcast
    licensees to replace their analog television service licenses, and
    licenses and construction permits for noncommercial educational
    broadcast stations and public broadcast stations described in
    section 397(6) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2).
    Section 647 of the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
    International Telecommunications Act prohibits the Commission from
    employing competitive bidding to assign spectrum or orbital
    locations used for the provision of international or global
    satellite communications services. Pub. L. No. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48
    § 647. In this instance, because there is no broadcast or satellite
    allocation, the noncommercial educational broadcast station and
    Orbit Act exemptions are plainly inapplicable. Similarly, because we
    have not designated the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands as public
    safety radio service spectrum, the public safety radio services
    exemption does not apply.

[^47]: *See* TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 6.

[^48]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Comments at 15 (supporting the Commission's
    tentative conclusion to license the AWS bands through competitive
    bidding pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act);
    Cingular Reply Comments at 1.

[^49]: *See infra* ¶ 30.

[^50]: *See, e.g.,* Mizelle Comments at 1-2; Goldstein Comments at 1;
    *see also* RCA Comments at 2 (arguing that the use of auctions
    "inherently favors entities with access to money from the public
    markets").

[^51]: Mizelle Comments at 1-2.

[^52]: Goldstein Comments at 1.

[^53]: We note that adoption of the assignment mechanisms suggested by
    Mizelle and Goldstein would require an amendment to Section 309(j)
    of the Communications Act.

[^54]: The comparative hearing process was complex and often led to
    proceedings that substantially delayed the award of licenses. *See,
    e.g., Ranger Cellular and Miller Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 2003
    WL 21495159, 1 (D.C. Cir. July 1, 2003) ("*Ranger*") (citations
    omitted); *see also* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, *Second Report and
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2359 ¶ 64 (1994) (finding that comparative
    hearings are lengthy, contentious and complex). Lotteries, by
    contrast, did not compare applicants' qualifications, and sometimes
    resulted in the disqualification of the winner, necessitating a new
    lottery and raising the concern about lottery winners being unjustly
    enriched. *Ranger*, at 1; *see also* Reexamination of the
    Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants,
    *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 7386, 7391 ¶¶ 13,14 (2000). The
    disadvantages of these two systems were recognized in a 1993 report
    by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which stated that,
    "in many respects the FCC's current licensing methods for assigning
    spectrum have not served the public interest." H.R. Rep. No. 111,
    103d Cong., 1st Sess. 248 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 378
    at 575, 580.

[^55]: *See infra* ¶ 30-34.

[^56]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j); Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No.
    105-33, 111 Stat. 251. § 3002(b), (c)(1)(D), (c)(3)).

[^57]: *See infra* ¶¶ 136-149.

[^58]: *See infra* ¶¶ 80-82 (discussing disaggregation and
    partitioning).

[^59]: Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 00-230,
    FCC 03-113 (rel. Oct. 6, 2003) (*Secondary Markets Report and
    Order*).

[^60]: *Id*. at ¶ 84.

[^61]: *Id*.

[^62]: Of the 12 REAGs, the first six cover the continental United
    States and the other six cover smaller areas (*i.e*., Alaska,
    Hawaii, the islands, and the Gulf of Mexico). 47 C.F.R. §
    27.6(a)(1).

[^63]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(E)(i)(obligation to permit notice and
    comment on proposed auction procedures before issuance of bidding
    rules).

[^64]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131(c) (functions of WTB); 0.331 (authority
    delegated to WTB); 0.332 (actions taken under WTB's delegated
    authority); 1.2103 (competitive bidding design options, including
    simultaneous multi-round and combinatorial bidding auctions, among
    others); 1.2104 (competitive bidding mechanisms). *See also*
    Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's rules---Competitive Bidding
    Procedures, *Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order,* *and* *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 5686, 5697-98 ¶ 16 (1997). *See,
    e.g.,* Auction of Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses Scheduled for
    September 24, 2003, Comment Sought on Package Bidding Procedures,
    Reserve Prices or Minimum Opening Bids, and Other Auction
    Procedures, 18 FCC Rcd 6366 (2003).

[^65]: CTIA Comments at 5.

[^66]: Cingular Reply Comments at 9.

[^67]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 1.

[^68]: Ericsson Comments at 3.

[^69]: *See* Motorola Comments at 6; RCA Comments at 2-4; U.S. Cellular
    Comments at 3-8; Verizon Wireless Comments at 8-10; Cingular Reply
    Comments at 9; TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 7.

[^70]: *See supra* ¶ **24**.

[^71]: *See* NRAO Comments at 9.

[^72]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a).

[^73]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote US311. Greenbank is listed in
    footnote US311 as means of reminding applicants and licensees of its
    existence. However, this listing does not alter the requirement for
    AWS licensees to comply with 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a).

[^74]: *See, e.g., AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23205 ¶ 25.

[^75]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

[^76]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(C)(iii).

[^77]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (4)(C).

[^78]: Verizon Wireless Comments at 8-10.

[^79]: ATT Wireless Comments at 4; RCA Comments at 2-4; TDD Coalition
    Reply Comments at 7.

[^80]: CTIA Comments at 5-7; U.S. Cellular Comments at 3-8; Cingular
    Reply Comments at 8-9.

[^81]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6.

[^82]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Comments at 6; U.S. Cellular Comments at 5-8;
    Verizon Wireless Comments at 8.

[^83]: MSAs and RSAs are collectively referred to as Cellular Market
    Areas (CMAs). MSAs and RSAs were originally used to license cellular
    service. 47 C.F.R. § 22.909. They have more recently been refined
    and used for licensing the lower 700 MHz band. 47 C.F.R. §
    27.6(c)(2). For purposes of the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands,
    we will use the same MSAs and RSAs used for licensing the lower 700
    MHz band.

[^84]: RCA Comments at 2-3; *see also* U.S. Cellular Comments at 5-7.

[^85]: While we did not receive any comments from Tribal governments, we
    remain interested in ensuring that the communication needs of these
    communities are met. *See* *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    24146-47 ¶ 25; *see also* Statement of Policy on Establishing a
    Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, *Policy
    Statement*, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

[^86]: API Comments at 8; PetroCom Comments at 3-5.

[^87]: PetroCom Comments at 3.

[^88]: *Id*. at 4.

[^89]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(a)(1).

[^90]: *See* *id*.

[^91]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(c)(2)(ii).

[^92]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(a)(2) and (c)(2)(ii).

[^93]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 7; CTIA Comments at 4-5; Ericsson
    Comments at 4; Lucent Comments at 2; Motorola Comments at 6; Nokia
    Comments at 2; RCA Comments at 4; U.S. Cellular Comments at 3;
    Verizon Wireless Comments at 10; Cingular Reply Comments at 8.

[^94]: *Cf.* Goldstein Comments at 1-3 (advocating blocks of 6.5
    megahertz, 5.625 megahertz, and five megahertz).

[^95]: ArrayComm Reply Comments at 2-4; TDD Coalition Reply Comments at
    8, 15.

[^96]: *See* Verizon Wireless Comments at 5-7.

[^97]: Lucent Comments at 2. Worldwide spectrum for advanced wireless
    services have not been licensed using anything less than five
    megahertz blocks.

[^98]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24148 ¶ 30.

[^99]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 7-8; CTIA Comments at 4-5; Ericsson
    Comments at 4-5; Goldstein Comments at 2-3; Lucent Comments at 1-3;
    Motorola Comments at 5; Nokia Comments at 1-2; Cingular Reply
    Comments at 8.

[^100]: TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 22; *see also* ArrayComm
    Comments at 2.

[^101]: *See* *infra* ¶¶ 104-111.

[^102]: *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003). We note that among other
    alternatives, one possible way this might be accomplished is by
    creating spectrum blocks that are unpaired but appropriately spaced
    so that they are also suitable for paired use, and then auctioning
    using a package bidding design. This could effectively allow bidders
    desiring unpaired spectrum to bid for licenses on that basis, while
    others could bid on a package that pairs the spectrum. The result
    could be an effective market test that determines whether FDD or TDD
    is the highest valued use.

[^103]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.5(c)(2), 27.5(f).

[^104]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23213-15 ¶¶ 42-46 (also
    noting that certain fixed microwave incumbents in the 2130-2150 MHz
    band segment consist of links that are paired with frequencies in
    the 2180-2200 MHz band allocated to MSS).

[^105]: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, consistent with
    statutory obligations will determine the timing for licensing and
    auctions pursuant to its delegated authority*. See* 47 U.S.C.
    §309(j)(3)(E)(i)(ii); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131(c) (functions of WTB);
    0.331 (authority delegated to WTB); 0.332 (actions taken under WTB's
    delegated authority); 1.2103 (competitive bidding design options,
    including simultaneous multi-round and combinatorial bidding
    auctions, among others); 1.2104 (competitive bidding mechanisms);
    *see also* Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's
    rules---Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Order, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order,* *and* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 5686,
    5697-98 ¶ 16 (1997).

[^106]: Pub. L. 102-538, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992).

[^107]: Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920 (1999), as codified at 47 U.S.C.
    § 923(g) (section 923(g)(1)(F) specifically notes that the 1710-1755
    MHz band is subject to NDAA-99); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 301.10(a)(iii)
    (notes that the 1710-1755 MHz band is subject to the reimbursement
    rules promulgated by NTIA pursuant to NDAA-99).

[^108]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A) ("\[a\]ny person on whose behalf a
    Federal entity incurs costs . . . shall compensate the Federal
    entity in advance for such costs. Such compensation may take the
    form of a cash payment or in-kind compensation."). We note that NTIA
    previously provided a summary of the Federal incumbents in the
    1710-1755 MHz band. *NTIA AWS Assessment* at 1-2.

[^109]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A). Previously, NTIA issued a report
    estimating the costs of relocation for Federal operations in the
    1710 -1755 MHz band to alternate frequency bands. NTIA's Special
    Publication 01- 46, *The Potential for Accommodating Third
    Generation Mobile Systems in the 1710-1850 MHz Band: Federal
    Operations, Relocation Costs, and Operational Impacts - Final
    Report*, at 5-1 -- 5-13 (Mar. 2001) (*NTIA AWS Report*). NTIA has
    stated that the final cost estimates for the 1710-1755 MHz band may
    differ from prior estimates based upon the receipt of additional
    data. *NTIA AWS Assessment* at 8.

[^110]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 301.110 (NTIA shall
    provide the Federal entity's estimated marginal cost information to
    the Commission at least 180 days prior to the date on which the
    auction is scheduled to commence).

[^111]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(2); *Mandatory Reimbursement Rules for
    Frequency Band or Geographic Relocation of Federal
    Spectrum-Dependent Systems,* Department of Commerce, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, 67 Fed. Reg.
    41182, 41184 ¶ 18 (June 17, 2002) (*NTIA Reimbursement Order*); *AWS
    Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24149 ¶ 33. We also note that not
    all Federal incumbents in the 1710-1755 MHz band are required to
    relocate. Exempt entities, however, may voluntarily relocate and
    negotiate relocation costs in the same manner as non-exempt
    entities. *Id.* at 41186 ¶¶ 34-35; *see also AWS Allocation NPRM*,
    16 FCC Rcd 596, 613 ¶ 40, 650-653 App. E and F (providing
    information regarding exempt entities).

[^112]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3) ("If within one year after the relocation
    the Federal entity demonstrates to the Commission that the new
    facilities or spectrum are not comparable to the facilities or
    spectrum from which the Federal Government station was relocated,"
    the new licensee "shall take reasonable steps to remedy any defects
    or pay the Federal entity for the expenses incurred in returning the
    Federal Government station to the spectrum from which such station
    was relocated"); *see also AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    24149 ¶ 33.

[^113]: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, "Commerce Department Asks Congress to
    Create Spectrum Relocation Fund for Federal Agencies Whose Spectrum
    Is Reallocated to Commercial Use," NTIA Press Release, July 23, 2002
    (available at
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/relocationfund7242002.htm\>).
    The proposed legislation is available on the NTIA Web site at
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/congress/2002/
    legistransmittal7232002.htm\>; *see also*
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/congress/2003/spectrum0319.htm.//
    legistransmittal7232002.htm\>. Commenters generally support the
    proposed legislation to change the reimbursement process through the
    use of a relocation trust fund. *See, e.g*., CTIA Comments at 16 ;
    Ericsson Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at 9; and Motorola Reply
    Comments at 13-14. In addition, some commenters suggest that the
    relocation trust fund proposal should be expanded to pay for the
    relocation of incumbents in the other AWS bands at issue here. RCA
    Comments at 8. Other commenters urge the Commission to oppose
    proposals to use auction proceeds for alternative purposes. AT&T
    Wireless Reply Comments at 5, referencing, among others, CTIA
    Comments at iii, 15-16; Ericsson Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at
    9-10; RCA Comments at 7-8.

[^114]: 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A); *NTIA Reimbursement Order,* 67 Fed.
    Reg. at 41186 ¶¶ 34-35.

[^115]: *NTIA Reimbursement Order*, 67 Fed. Reg. at 41188 ¶ 46 (NTIA
    stated that through a further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it
    would develop a cost-sharing plan and seek proposals for a
    clearinghouse or some other mechanism for administering a
    cost-sharing plan).

[^116]: RCA Comments at 8.

[^117]: *Id*.

[^118]: *NTIA Reimbursement Order*, 67 Fed. Reg. 41182 at ¶ 66 (adopting
    a requirement for non-binding arbitration where parties have not
    reached agreement after the negotiation/mediation period), 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 301.120, 301.130.

[^119]: NTIA Comments at 3 (arguing that release of a final order in
    this proceeding should occur simultaneously with the release of a
    final order regarding allocation actions for comparable relocation
    spectrum for Federal incumbents); Verizon Wireless Comments at 7
    ("it would be premature to adopt spectrum-clearing rules until the
    Commission has given Congress sufficient time to enact a Spectrum
    Relocation Fund").

[^120]: NTIA Comments at 3, n.4; *see also* TDD Reply Comments at 16
    (supporting NTIA's position).

[^121]: *See* Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Carriage of the
    Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast Stations, Review of
    the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to
    Digital Television, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 20845, 20865, ¶50, ¶53
    (acknowledging the benefits of voluntary agreements to assist in
    band clearing).

[^122]: We note, however, that once the final reimbursement and band
    clearance schemes for all portions of the AWS bands are finalized,
    if we believe it appropriate to modify the rules adopted here, we
    will do so in a separate order.

[^123]: *See supra* ¶ 48 and n.Error: Reference source not found; *AWS
    Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23197-98 ¶ 8.

[^124]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23213 ¶ 42; *AWS
    Allocation NPRM*, 16 FCC Rcd at 618 ¶ 54 n.102; *see also*
    Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New
    Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9, *First Report
    and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7 FCC Rcd 6886
    (1992). In the Emerging Technologies proceeding, we allowed new
    entrants to provide incumbents with comparable facilities using any
    acceptable technology. *Emerging Technologies Third R&O*, 8 FCC Rcd
    6589, 6591, 6603 ¶¶ 5, 36 (1993). Under this policy, incumbents must
    be provided with replacement facilities that allow them to maintain
    the same service in terms of throughput, reliability and operating
    costs. *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 101.91.

[^125]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23213-15 ¶¶ 42-46; *AWS
    Allocation NPRM,* 16 FCC Rcd at 618 ¶¶ 54-55.

[^126]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23213-15 ¶¶ 42-46.

[^127]: For example, API requests that the Commission resolve petitions
    for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Commission's *Second
    Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 95-18 and restates its concerns
    in the comments filed in this proceeding. API Comments at 4 -6
    (referencing the Joint Petition for Clarification and
    Reconsideration, filed by the Fixed Wireless Communications
    Coalition, the Critical Infrastructure Communications Coalition,
    API, the Association of American Railroads, the Association of
    Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. and the
    United Telecom Council, in ET Docket No. 95-18 on September 6,
    2000); *see also* PCIA Comments at 1 (proposing the establishment of
    a band-clearing cost-sharing clearinghouse for the 2110-2150 MHz
    band to facilitate the relocation of point-to-point microwave
    incumbents and also proposing the amendment of section 101.99 to
    allow a cost sharing among all licensees that benefit from the same
    path clearance). PCIA\'s  comments on a cost-sharing clearinghouse
    mirror points subsequently made in a February 24, 2003 Petition for
    Partial Reconsideration of the *AWS Allocation Order*.  PCIA
    Petition for Partial Reconsideration in ET Docket No. 00-258, filed
    February 24, 2003.

[^128]: RCA Comments at 7-8 (requesting information regarding all
    incumbent licensees in the 2110-2155 MHz band and maximum
    reimbursement liability of the new licensees).

[^129]: RCA Comments at 8.

[^130]: *Id*. at 7.

[^131]: API Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^132]: *Id*. at 2-4.

[^133]: *Id*. at 4-5.

[^134]: Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket
    No. 95-18, *Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 12315, at ¶¶ 114-121 (2000) ("*MSS* *Second
    Report and Order*").

[^135]: *MSS Second Report and Order* at ¶ 119.

[^136]: *Id.* at ¶ 120.

[^137]: Relevant information regarding incumbents can be found in the
    Commission's databases, including our Universal Licensing System. In
    contrast, certain information regarding unclassified Federal
    incumbents will only be available after NTIA provides such
    information to the Commission prior to auction. 47 C.F.R. § 301.110
    (b) (detailing the type of information to be provided). We note,
    however, that for sensitive or classified assignments such
    information will not be available prior to the auction. For those
    assignments, the auction winner or new licensee can only have access
    to classified information after obtaining the required security
    clearances, consistent with the National Industrial Security Program
    Operating Manual. 47 C.F.R. § 301.110 (c) and (d).

[^138]: *AWS* Allocation *Order* at ¶¶ 44-46. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §
    101.99 (c) (capping the reimbursement obligation for a subsequent
    new entrant where the initial new entrant relocates a paired link of
    a microwave incumbent).

[^139]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A) (providing that the Commission shall
    seek to promote the development and rapid deployment of new
    technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public
    without administrative or judicial delays).

[^140]: *AWS* Allocation *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23214 ¶ 41; *AWS Service
    Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24150 ¶ 35.

[^141]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003) (*Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*).

[^142]: Under our relocation policies only stations with primary status
    are entitled to relocation. *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    18 FCC Rcd at 2256-57 ¶ 72. Because secondary operations, by
    definition, cannot cause harmful interference to primary operations,
    new entrants are not required to relocate secondary operations.
    *Id*.; 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(c)(2). Before the adoption of the *AWS
    Allocation Order*, the 2150-2160 MHz band was allocated domestically
    to the Fixed Service on a primary basis. *Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2253-54 ¶ 66. As previously stated, MDS
    stations licensed after 1992 to use the 2160-2162 MHz band are on a
    secondary basis. We also note that our relocation policies do not
    dictate that systems be relocated to spectrum-based facilities or
    even to the same amount of spectrum as they currently use, only that
    comparable facilities be provided. *See, e.g.,* Amendment of Section
    2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for
    Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, *Second
    Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 12315 (2000).

[^143]: *Second R&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16061¶ 40; *Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2256 ¶ 71. This would be similar to the
    approach followed in the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding.

[^144]: *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2256 at ¶¶
    71-72.

[^145]: MDS licensees may operate in the 2160-2162 MHz band only in the
    country's top 50 markets. *See supra* n.Error: Reference source not
    found.

[^146]: WCAI defines the related proceedings as including those that
    address reallocating additional spectrum for AWS, relocating
    incumbent licensees displaced by AWS to comparable spectrum,
    reallocating spectrum in the 1990-2000/2020-2052/2165-2180 MHz band
    from MSS for AWS or displaced incumbents, allowing MSS licensees to
    utilize their remaining spectrum for an ancillary terrestrial
    component (ATC), and imposing service rules on AWS and ATC
    operations. WCAI Comments at 1-2.

[^147]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24150-51 ¶ 36.

[^148]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.10.

[^149]: *See* FCC Form 601.

[^150]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(44) ("A telecommunications carrier shall
    be treated as a common carrier under this Act . . ."); *see also* 47
    U.S.C. § 332(C)(1)(A) ("A person engaged in the provision of a
    service that is a commercial mobile service shall, insofar as such
    person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier for purposes of
    this Act . . .").

[^151]: *See* 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 10785, 10848 ¶¶ 121-22 (1997) (*Part
    27 Report and Order*). The Commission examined services in the *LMDS
    Second Report and Order* and explained that any video programming
    service would be treated as a non-common carrier service. 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
    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, 12639-41 ¶¶ 213-15 (1997) (*LMDS Second Report and
    Order*); *aff\'d*, *Melcher v. FCC*, 134 F.3d 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

[^152]: *Part 27* *Report and* Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848 ¶ 121.

[^153]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.10(d). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 27.66(a)-(b).

[^154]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b); *see infra* ¶¶ 61-63.

[^155]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.66(a)-(b).

[^156]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24151-52 ¶ 39.

[^157]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.12.

[^158]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(a),(b).

[^159]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(a).

[^160]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.6.

[^161]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24152 ¶ 40 (citing 2000
    Biennial Regulatory Review: Spectrum Aggregation Limits for
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 01-14, *Report and
    Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22668 (2001) (*recon. pending*) (*Spectrum Cap
    Order*).

[^162]: *Id*. at 24152 ¶ 40 (citing *Spectrum Cap Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at
    22679 ¶ 26 n.71 (citing Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of
    the Communications Act---Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN
    Docket No. 93-252, *Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8105 ¶
    251 (1993))).

[^163]: *Id*. at 24152 ¶ 40 (citing *Spectrum Cap Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at
    22693-94 ¶ 50).

[^164]: *Id.* at 24152 ¶ 40 (citing *Spectrum Cap Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at
    22696 ¶ 54).

[^165]: *Id*. at 24152 ¶ 41.

[^166]: *Id*.

[^167]: *Id*.

[^168]: *Id*. at 24152-53 ¶ 42. For example, the Commission limited
    eligibility for the PCS A and B blocks to entities that were not
    licensees of cellular systems in the same area. *See* Amendment of
    the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications
    Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC
    Rcd 7700, 7744-45 ¶ 105 (1993). In granting the Commission authority
    in section 309(j) of the Communications Act to auction wireless
    spectrum and to impose eligibility requirements as appropriate,
    Congress also directed the Commission to exercise that authority so
    as to "promot\[e\] . . . economic opportunity and competition."
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^169]: *Id*.

[^170]: *Id*.

[^171]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments at 12; CTIA Comments at ii, 7-8;
    Ericsson Comments at 5; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 3-4;
    Cingular Reply Comments at 8.

[^172]: *See* US Cellular Comments at 3, 10-12; RCA Comments at 5.

[^173]: 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, WT Docket No. 02-379, *Eighth* Report, at ¶ 17, FCC
    03-150, rel. July 14, 2003 (*Eighth Annual CMRS Competition
    Report*).

[^174]: *Id.* at ¶ 12.

[^175]: *Id*. at ¶ 219.

[^176]: *See supra* ¶ 26 for a discussion of the application of spectrum
    leasing policies adopted in the *Secondary Markets Report and
    Order*.

[^177]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24153 ¶ 42.

[^178]: *See infra* ¶¶ 144-149.

[^179]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24153-54 ¶ 43.

[^180]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.13.

[^181]: CTIA Comments at 8-9; Ericsson Comments at 5; RCA Comments at 8;
    Verizon Wireless Comments at 4-5; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at
    6-7; Cingular Reply Comments at 6. *See also* *supra* ¶¶ 47-56.

[^182]: Since the relocation process is expected to be completed over
    the next few years, the 15-year license term will only apply to
    initial licenses issued before December 31, 2009. After this date
    the reason for having an initial license term longer than the usual
    10-year license term will no longer be valid.

[^183]: CTIA Comments at 8-9; Ericsson Comments at 5; RCA Comments at 8;
    Cingular Reply Comments at 6.

[^184]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14.

[^185]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).

[^186]: *See* Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
    With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
    Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM Docket
    No. 94-131, *Report and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9614 ¶ 46 (1995).

[^187]: 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, *First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 506-08 ¶ 73-78
    (2000) (*Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order)*.

[^188]: *See* Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services Licensees and Implementation of
    Section 257 of the Communications Act---Elimination of Market
    Barriers, WT Docket No. 96-1148, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 11 FCC Rcd 21831, 21870 ¶¶ 76-77
    (1996).

[^189]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24154 ¶ 47.

[^190]: *Id*. at 24154 ¶ 47.

[^191]: *Id*.

[^192]: *Id*.

[^193]: *Id*. at 24155 ¶ 48.

[^194]: *Id*. at 24155 ¶ 49.

[^195]: *Id*.

[^196]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).

[^197]: *See* Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to
    Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone
    Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 03-222, ¶ 38, rel. Oct. 6, 2003
    (*Rural Services NPRM*) (if new wireless services are licensed using
    geographical areas, the Commission will examine the appropriateness
    of adopting a substantial service or alternative construction
    requirement for the new service at that time).

[^198]: *See* RCA Comments at 5-6.

[^199]: *See id*. at 5.

[^200]: *See* Petrocom Comments at 9.

[^201]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.103(h), 24.203(b), and 27.14(a).

[^202]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15.

[^203]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24155 ¶ 50.
    "Partitioning" is the assignment of geographic portions of a license
    along geopolitical or other boundaries. "Disaggregation" is the
    assignment of discrete portions of "blocks" of spectrum licensed to
    a geographic licensee or qualifying entity. Disaggregation allows
    for multiple transmitters in the same geographic area operated by
    different companies on adjacent frequencies.

[^204]: CTIA Comments at 11-12; Cingular Reply Comments at 9-10; TDD
    Coalition Reply Comments at 19.

[^205]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(a)(2); s*ee also* *Part 27 Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 10836-39 ¶¶ 96-103.

[^206]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(b)(1).

[^207]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(c)(1)(2); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111.

[^208]: Cingular Reply Comments at 9-10.

[^209]: CTIA Comments at 11.

[^210]: *Id*. at 11; *see also* TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 19
    (stating support for CTIA's position).

[^211]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.104 (Narrowband PCS); 47 C.F.R. § 24.714
    (Broadband PCS).

[^212]: *See* Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the
    Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of the Universal Licensing
    System in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, WT Docket No.
    03-66, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 6722 (2003) (proposing 47 C.F.R. § 101.1506).

[^213]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.813 (900 MHz SMR); 47 C.F.R. § 90.911 (800 MHz
    SMR).

[^214]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.56.

[^215]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.1111.

[^216]: 47 C.F.R. § 80.60.

[^217]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.513.

[^218]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.15.

[^219]: RCA Comments at 6-7.

[^220]: Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural
    Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies To
    Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381, *Notice of
    Inquiry*, 17 FCC Rcd 25554 (2002).

[^221]: *Rural Services NPRM*, *supra* n.Error: Reference source not
    found.

[^222]: *See Secondary Markets Report and Order*, *supra* n.Error:
    Reference source not found.

[^223]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24156 ¶ 52.

[^224]: *See supra* ¶ 17.

[^225]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart F.

[^226]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307.

[^227]: 47 C.F.R. Part 20; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 27.3(g).

[^228]: 47 C.F.R. Part 101.

[^229]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24156 ¶ 52.

[^230]: CTIA Comments at 12-13.

[^231]: *Id*. at 13.

[^232]: With this method, licensees would be required to limit the field
    strength of their station's transmissions to some prescribed level
    at their geographic border.

[^233]: Under this approach, licensees operating on the same spectrum in
    adjacent areas would coordinate the location of their stations to
    control interference.

[^234]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24157 ¶ 56.

[^235]: For example, if the base stations of two licensees provide the
    same signal level at a particular location along the border,
    interference could result to the receiving stations of both
    licensees operating at that location. Conversely, if a licensee is
    required to limit its signal to a prescribed level along the border
    and its neighboring licensee does not offer service to that
    particular location, then the level of service the licensee could
    provided in that area could be restricted unnecessarily.

[^236]: We noted that a 40 dBV/m field strength limit is used in the 700
    MHz services, and that a 47 dBV/m field strength limit is used in
    Broadband PCS and WCS. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.236 and 27.55.

[^237]: *See* CTIA Comments at 13-14; Motorola Comments at 10.

[^238]: Ericsson Comments at 7.

[^239]: No commenters indicated a concern that the boundary limit
    approach would lead to anti-competitive behavior among licensees,
    and we are confident that under this approach such behavior will not
    occur.

[^240]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(d)(1).

[^241]: Ericsson Comments at 7.

[^242]: Motorola Comments at 10.

[^243]: Licensees should calculate the 47 dBV/m field strength at their
    border using a predictive model that is appropriate to the
    environment and terrain that exists in their geographic area. 
    Appendix D contains a sampling of predictive models that could be
    used in this calculation.

[^244]: Licensees will be allowed to satisfy the required field strength
    limitation by providing a measured 47 dBV/m signal at their borders.
    They could elect to use this approach in areas where, for example,
    extreme terrain blockage could enable base or fixed stations to be
    located closer to a geographic border than indicated by a predictive
    model.

[^245]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24160 ¶ 64.

[^246]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(3); *see also* *Part 27 Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10857 ¶ 144 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.359(iii),
    22.917(e), 24.238).

[^247]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 9-10; CTIA Comments at 13-14; Ericsson
    Comments at 7; Lucent Comments at 3-4; Motorola Comments at 14.

[^248]: Lucent Comments at 4.

[^249]: In its comments in the *Year 2002 Biennial Review* proceeding
    (WT Docket No. 02-310), Lucent proposed that Section 24.238(b) be
    modified to state that "in the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and
    adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of ether 12.5
    kHz or one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental
    emission of the transmitter may be employed." *See* Lucent Comments
    at 3 (unpaginated).

[^250]: In its decision the Bureau found that "Lucent \[did\] not argue
    that the underlying purpose of the rules (to provide an adequate
    measure of interference protection to other licensees) no longer
    exists or is not necessary in the public interest . . ." *See*
    Federal Communications Commission 2002 Biennial Review, Staff Report
    of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WT Docket No. 02-310, GC
    Docket No. 02-390), December 31, 2002, at p. 57, Appendix IV.

[^251]: *See* Year 2000 Biennial Review -- Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting
    the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and other Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services, WT Docket No. 01-108, *Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    18401, 18410-11 ¶ 46 (2002) (*Cellular Biennial Review First Report
    and Order)*.

[^252]: That is, licensees with emission bandwidths greater than 1.25
    MHz could meet specified emission limits within the first 12.5 kHz
    of adjacent spectrum, but could potentially place greater emissions
    into the spectrum beyond 12.5 kHz than a licensee employing a lesser
    emission bandwidth.

[^253]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24160-61 ¶ 65.

[^254]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 9. AT&T Wireless indicates as well
    that if we were to adopt substantially different technical rules for
    AWS, it would force carriers, in areas where both CMRS and AWS
    spectrum is used, to "construct and maintain two parallel radio
    interface networks, including cell sites, towers, and antennas, in
    order to maintain the same level of service coverage and quality."
    *Id.* at 10.

[^255]: Cingular Reply Comments at 7 (ETSI is the European
    Telecommunications Standards Institute).

[^256]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.232.

[^257]: *See* *infra* ¶¶ 117-123.

[^258]: When the relocation of DOD operations from the 1710-1755 MHz
    band is completed, we may consider raising the power limit for
    fixed, mobile, and portable stations in that band to 2 W EIRP peak
    power.

[^259]: Motorola Comments at 14.

[^260]: *Id*.

[^261]: *Id*.

[^262]: It should also be noted that this proposal would be in conflict
    with our Spectrum Policy Task Force recommendation to "investigate
    rule changes that enable the lowering of permitted power in urban
    areas . . ." *Spectrum Policy Task Force Report* at 64.

[^263]: Motorola Comments at 14-15.

[^264]: *Id.* at 15.

[^265]: We note, however, that in our recently-adopted *Rural Services
    NPRM*, we seek comment on whether to increase the rural power limits
    for PCS and other licensed services. *Rural Services NPRM* at ¶¶
    47-58. Given that AWS network operations and configurations are
    likely to be similar to PCS, if a finding is made that rural power
    limits for PCS should be increased, we could, in the future, explore
    the possibility of similar power increases for AWS.

[^266]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart S (the 800 and 900 MHz
    bands).

[^267]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24161 ¶ 66.

[^268]: *NTIA AWS Assessment* at 6.

[^269]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24161 ¶ 66.

[^270]: NTIA Comments at 3-4.

[^271]: Lucent Comments at 3.

[^272]: Verizon Wireless Comments at 5.

[^273]: Motorola Comments at 3. CTIA, Nokia, and AT&T agree with this
    assertion, citing the findings of ITU-R Working Party 8F Report
    ITU-R M.1036 (draft recommendation on "Frequency Arrangements for
    Implementation of International Mobile Telecommunications-2000
    (IMT-2000) in the Bands 806-960 MHz, 1710-2025 MHz, 2110-2200 MHz
    and 2500-2690 MHz," Doc. 8F/TEMP/330r2). The ITU-R Report recommends
    that the 1.7 GHz band should be used only for mobile transmissions
    and that the 2.1 GHz band should be used only for base
    transmissions. CTIA Comments at 14; Nokia Comments at 1-2
    (unpaginated); and AT&T Comments at 8.

[^274]: Nokia Comments at 3 (unpaginated); Motorola Comments at n.19 and
    20; *see also* Ericsson Comments at 9; Lucent Comments at 3
    (unpaginated); AT&T Wireless Comments at 9.

[^275]: TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 11. PetroCom also opposes
    restricting one type of transmission in one band and the other type
    of transmission in the other band. PetroCom Comments at 8.

[^276]: TDD Coalition Reply Comments at 24.

[^277]: When there is sufficient frequency separation, our traditional
    out-of-band emission limit, *i.e*., the 43 + 10log P limit, and our
    limits on base station power are sufficient to prevent such
    interference from occurring.

[^278]: Even after the relocation of Government spectrum from the
    1710-1755 MHz band is completed, there will continue to be
    Government operations in the spectrum above 1755 MHz and below 1710
    MHz.

[^279]: The 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands are allocated for the
    Mobile and Fixed Services. The Mobile Service consists of base
    stations communicating with mobile stations. The Fixed Service
    consists of fixed stations communicating with other fixed stations.
    In developing our rules for AWS, we must determine how and where
    these various stations shall be permitted to operate within the AWS
    bands. Mobile stations will be allowed in the 1710-1755 MHz band and
    base stations will be permitted in the 2110-2155 MHz band. The
    question is where fixed stations shall and shall not be allowed to
    operate. A fixed station with a relatively high transmitting antenna
    is, with regard to the out-of-band emissions it can place into an
    adjacent band receiver, indistinguishable from a base station
    operating at the same antenna height \-- and as we have indicated,
    the *NTIA AWS Assessment* was based on not permitting base stations
    in the 1710-1755 MHz band because of concerns about interference to
    Government systems operating within, above, and below that band. So
    in order to prevent interference to adjacent band Government
    operations, we shall place a special limit on the fixed stations
    that will be permitted to operate in the 1710-1755 MHz band.
    Specifically, we shall limit the antenna of any fixed station
    operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band to a height of no more than 10
    meters above ground. As indicated in paragraph 103 above, the height
    of antennas of fixed stations operating in the 2110-2155 MHz band,
    however, shall be unrestricted.

[^280]: Significantly, one of the access technologies indicated by the
    ITU in its IMT-2000 standard provides for TDD/CDMA transmissions.

[^281]: *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003).

[^282]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24158 ¶ 61. In the
    *Emerging Technologies* relocation procedures, we indicated that
    incumbent fixed point-to-point links would be moved on an as-needed
    basis.

[^283]: MDS operations are confined to the 2150-2155 MHz portion of the
    2110-2155 MHz band.

[^284]: *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003).

[^285]: Motorola Comments at 11. *See also* Ericsson Comments at 8.

[^286]: API Comments at 7.

[^287]: *Id*. API points out that these procedures have been used in the
    context of the introduction of PCS operations into the 1.9 GHz band.

[^288]: *Id*. at 7-8.

[^289]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.237. Included in the rule shall be the
    requirement that, unless AWS and fixed microwave licensees agree on
    an alternative method, TIA TSB 10-F must be used as the guideline
    for determining the co-channel and adjacent channel fixed microwave
    facilities to be coordinated.

[^290]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.237(g).

[^291]: *See supra* ¶ 112.

[^292]: In the event that AWS and MDS licensees cannot reach agreement
    in coordinating their facilities, they may seek the assistance of
    the Commission, and the Commission may then, at its discretion,
    impose requirements on either or both parties.

[^293]: *See* February 15, 1961 letter from FCC Secretary Waple to
    Director of Telecommunications Executive Office of the President.

[^294]: *AWS Allocation Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23208 ¶ 33.

[^295]: The DSN, under emergency conditions, transmits with EIRP up to
    119.5 dBW.

[^296]: According to the Government Master File (GMF) of January, 2001,
    there are 1,825 Federal frequency assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz
    band.

[^297]: These include unmanned ground robotic systems, range timing
    distribution systems, and target scoring devices.

[^298]: *See supra* ¶ 7.

[^299]: *See NTIA AWS Assessment* at 12.

[^300]: *See supra* n. Error: Reference source not found.

[^301]: TRR operations will continue indefinitely and on a primary basis
    at the Cherry Point and Yuma facilities.

[^302]: The information from the table has been included in rule section
    27.1134.

[^303]: *See* Appendix C final rule section 47 C.F.R. § 27.1134(a). This
    coordination will be accomplished between the AWS licensee and the
    Commander of the affected DoD facility. Notwithstanding this local
    coordination, all parties must recognize that the FCC and NTIA
    maintain the authority to enforce the coordination requirement and
    correct interference (*i.e*., in the event of an interference
    complaint from DoD, the Commission working with NTIA and the AWS
    licensee will rectify the situation).

[^304]: *See supra* ¶ 7 (describing the circumstances and conditions for
    the relocation of Federal systems).

[^305]: Motorola Comments at 12.

[^306]: As discussed above, this date may change. *See supra* ¶ 7.

[^307]: Motorola Comments at 11.

[^308]: Motorola Comments at 12. Motorola also suggests that PGM
    operations be limited to lower altitudes and/or night-time use and
    that AWS licensees be given some advance notification of such
    operations. *Id*.

[^309]: *See supra* ¶ 7.

[^310]: TIA TSB 10-F provides standards for protecting fixed, microwave
    stations from co-channel and adjacent channel operations.

[^311]: Satellite receivers may not be registered in FCC or NTIA
    databases.

[^312]: *See supra* ¶ 119.

[^313]: See ITU-R Study Group 7 Recommendation SA.1154, "Provisions To
    Protect The Space Research (SR), Space Operations (SO) And
    Earth-Exploration Satellite Services (EES) And To Facilitate Sharing
    With The Mobile Service In The 2025-2110 MHz And 2200-2290 MHz
    Bands."

[^314]: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands, IB Docket No. 01-185, *Report and Order and Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) (*ATC Report and
    Order*).

[^315]: *Id*. at 2131-32 (App. C1).

[^316]: 47 C.F.R. Part 74 and Part 78.

[^317]: ENG mobile units, for example, capture programming material in
    the field and transmit the material to fixed ENG receive stations,
    often located on building rooftops. ENG stations may relay
    programming either directly to a TV studio or to the TV studio via
    additional fixed ENG links.

[^318]: *See* *ATC Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2061-62 ¶ 203
    (2003).

[^319]: Information regarding BAS and CARS stations can be obtained by
    consulting local SBE coordination committees.

[^320]: 47 C.F.R. Parts 21, 101. There are no Part 101 systems currently
    licensed in this spectrum.

[^321]: *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Third Report and
    Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2233 (2003).

[^322]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24159-60 ¶ 63.

[^323]: WCAI Comments at 5. WCAI in its comments indicates that it will
    "review with great interest the comments from the AWS community"
    with regard to technical measures that community would provide to
    protect MDS operations. *Id*. at 6. WCAI states, however, that "as a
    preliminary observation it appears that the Commission likely will
    have to impose far more rigorous limitations on AWS out-of-band
    emissions into any relocated MDS channels in the 2155-2180 MHz band
    than the Commission imposes on AWS out-of-band emissions within the
    AWS band." *Id*.

[^324]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24161 ¶ 68; *see also*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1310, 2.1093.

[^325]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). Similarly, sections 2.1091 and 2.1093
    require environmental evaluation of certain mobile and portable
    transmitters prior to equipment authorization or use. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 2.1091, 2.1093. The Commission provides guidance on
    acceptable methods of evaluating compliance with exposure limits in
    OET Bulletin No. 65. OET Bulletin No. 65 (Edition 97-01) was issued
    on August 25, 1997, and is available for downloading at the FCC Web
    Site: \<http://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. Other circumstances may also trigger an
    Environmental Assessment. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a).

[^326]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310.

[^327]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 27.52; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.52
    (PCS).

[^328]: *Part 27 Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10862 ¶ 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 Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and
    Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, WT Docket No. 97-192, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd
    13494, 13541 ¶ 51 (1997).

[^329]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093.

[^330]: *See* Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human
    Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, ET Docket No.
    03-137, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003).

[^331]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24162 ¶ 71; *see also*
    47 C.F.R. § 2.301.

[^332]: *See supra* ¶ 24. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 identified the
    1710-1755 MHz band for competitive bidding in section 3002(c) and
    the 2110-2150 MHz band in section 3002(b). Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111
    Stat. 251 (1997). The timing requirements applicable to both these
    bands were rescinded. Auction Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
    107-195, 116 Stat. 715 (2002).

[^333]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24163 ¶ 72.

[^334]: *See supra* ¶ 30-34.

[^335]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24163-24165 ¶¶ 72-80.

[^336]: *See, e.g.,* Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's
    Rules---Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Order,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 12
    FCC Rcd 5686 (1997); *Third Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 13 FCC Rcd 374 (1997) (*Part 1
    Third Report and Order)*; *Order on Reconsideration of the Third
    Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, and Fourth Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd 15293 (2000) (*Part 1 Recon
    Order/ Fifth Report and Order* and *Fourth Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*); *Seventh Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 17546
    (2001); *Eighth Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 2962 (2002); *Second
    Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order* and *Order
    on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 10180
    (2003), recons. pending.

[^337]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24163 ¶ 73; 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2101 *et seq*.

[^338]: *See Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd
    15293 (2000); *see also Part 1 Recon Order/Fifth Report and Order*,
    15 FCC Rcd 15293 (*recon. pending*).

[^339]: *See* CTIA Comments at 15.

[^340]: *See* U.S. Cellular Corporation Comments at 12-13.

[^341]: Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band
    (Television Channels 52-59), *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 16
    FCC Rcd 7278, 7302-03 ¶ 50, n.120.

[^342]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(E)(i)(obligation to permit notice
    and comment on proposed auction procedures before issuance of
    bidding rules).

[^343]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131(c) (functions of WTB); 0.331 (authority
    delegated to WTB); 0.332 (actions taken under WTB's delegated
    authority); 1.2103 (competitive bidding design options, including
    simultaneous multi-round and combinatorial bidding auctions, among
    others); 1.2104 (competitive bidding mechanisms). *See also*
    Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's rules---Competitive Bidding
    Procedures, *Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order,* *and* *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 12 FCC Rcd 5686, 5697-98 ¶ 16 (1997). *See,
    e.g.,* Auction of Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses Scheduled for
    September 24, 2003, Comment Sought on Package Bidding Procedures,
    Reserve Prices or Minimum Opening Bids, and Other Auction
    Procedures, 18 FCC Rcd 6366 (2003).

[^344]: *See* RCA Comments at 6-7. In a footnote, RCA also appears to
    suggest that such a credit should be transferable. *Id*. at n. 7.
    AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 3.

[^345]: *See* RCA Comments at 6 (urging the Commission to license
    available spectrum "according to MSAs and RSAs rather than by other
    county groupings such as EAs or MEAs.").

[^346]: *See id*.

[^347]: *See* RCA Comments at 6-7; AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 3
    (supports RCA's proposal).

[^348]: *See* RCA Comments at 6-7.

[^349]: The Commission has consistently indicated that it would not
    insure winning bidders against the risk of loss. Requests for
    Refunds of Down Payments Made in Auction No. 35, *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    6283 (explaining that changes in the market value of licenses after
    the close of an auction do not affect a winning bidder's
    obligations), *reversed on other grounds*; Disposition of Down
    Payment and Pending Applications By Certain Winning Bidders in
    Auction No. 35, *Order and Order on Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd
    23354 (2002).

[^350]: *See supra* ¶ 83.

[^351]: RCA Comments at 7.

[^352]: Previously, the Commission has found that "cherry- picking" of
    spectrum in this manner is contrary to the public interest. *See*
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Installment Payment
    Financing For Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT
    Docket No. 97-82, *Second Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 16455, 16463, 16469 ¶¶ 38
    ("These provisions prevent licensees from selectively surrendering
    spectrum for which they may believe they paid too much, or otherwise
    discarding spectrum in markets that may be more difficult to serve
    (commonly referred to as 'cherry-picking' of licenses or
    spectrum)"), 57, 67.

[^353]: *See, e.g*., Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to
    Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, WT Docket
    No. 98-169, *Second Order on Reconsideration of the Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25020, ¶ 19 (rejecting
    a licensee's request to provide disaggregation as part of a
    financial restructuring plan).

[^354]: The Commission has recently adopted a *Report and Order* in the
    secondary markets proceeding that is designed to facilitate the
    ability of Wireless Radio Service licensees to lease spectrum usage
    rights to third parties seeking access to spectrum. *Secondary
    Markets Report and Order*, *supra* n.Error: Reference source not
    found.

[^355]: *Rural Services NPRM* ¶ 1.

[^356]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2101 *et. seq.* (Part 1, Subpart Q \--
    Competitive Bidding Proceedings).

[^357]: In the Part 1 proceeding, the Commission has engaged in an
    ongoing effort to clarify and amend its general competitive bidding
    rules for all auctionable services*.* *See* Amendment of Part 1 of
    the Commission's Rules --- Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Part 1
    Recon Order/ Fifth Report and Order* and *Fourth Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd 15293 (2000) *recons. pending*;
    *Part 1* *Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 376 ¶ 1. The
    Commission has previously observed that continual changes and
    improvements "advance our auction program by reducing the burden on
    the Commission and the public of conducting service-by-service
    auction rule makings." *Id*.

[^358]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24163 ¶ 73.

[^359]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 7269 ¶ 145 (1994) (*Competitive
    Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*); 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2110(c)(1).

[^360]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Order on
    Reconsideration,* 15 FCC Rcd 17384, 17394 ¶ 21 (2000) (summarizing
    the bidding credits offered in broadband PCS C and F Block
    auctions); 47 C.F.R. § 24.720 (1994). The Commission also adopted
    the PCS standards for WCS in the 2.3 GHz band. *Part 27 Report and
    Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 10879 ¶ 194 (employing the small business size
    standards used in broadband PCS because "the advantages of ready
    availability and familiarity to many small businesses that might be
    interested in this spectrum").

[^361]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24164-65 ¶ 77.

[^362]: Qualcomm Comments at 3, filed on Feb. 22, 2001 in response to
    the *AWS Allocation NPRM*; Lucent Comments at 1, filed on Aug. 28,
    2000 in response to the Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET)
    request for comment on the petition filed by the Cellular
    Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA); and Nokia Comments
    at 2 filed on Aug. 28, 2000, in response to the Commission's *Public
    Notice,* DA 00-1673 (rel. July 28, 2000) and the petition filed by
    CTIA.

[^363]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding, *Fifth Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5532,
    5534 ¶ 3 (1994) (*Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order*).

[^364]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24164-65 ¶ 77. We are
    coordinating these proposed small business size standards with the
    U.S. Small Business Administration.

[^365]: In the *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, we adopted a standard
    schedule of bidding credits, the levels of which were developed
    based on our auction experience. *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 403-04 ¶ 47; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2).

[^366]: *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 24164-65 ¶ 77.

[^367]: We also noted that to the extent that commenters proposed
    additional provisions to ensure participation by minority-owned or
    women-owned businesses, they should address how such provisions
    should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial review.
    *Adarand Constructors v. Peña*, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (requiring a
    strict scrutiny standard of review for Congressionally mandated
    race-conscious measures); *United States v. Virginia*, 518 U.S. 515
    (1996) (applying an intermediate standard of review to a state
    program based on gender classification).

[^368]: *See e.g*., CTIA Comments at 15.

[^369]: *See* RCA Comments at n.3, 8-9. Mizelle argues that bidding
    credits only increase the price of a license and ultimately that
    larger companies will always win the license. Mizelle Comments at 2.

[^370]: *See* RCA Comments at n.3, 8-9. In support of its position, RCA
    notes that rural wireless carriers compete with rural telephone
    companies to offer local access services in rural areas. *Id*. Thus,
    RCA concludes that it would provide rural telephone companies with
    an unfair competitive advantage if they were provided special
    benefits.

[^371]: *See, e.g.,* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems;
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding, WT Docket No. 96-18, PR Docket No. 93-253,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10091 ¶ 112 (1999).

[^372]: We note that this information may be underreported because the
    Commission does not require women or minority-owned entities to
    indicate their status.

[^373]: Auction results and related data may be found on the
    Commission's Web site at: \<http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions\>.

[^374]: *See* "39 GHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, Report No.
    AUC-3D-E (Auction No. 30), DA 00-1035 (rel. May 10, 2000). See
    also\< http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/auctions\>.

[^375]: AWS Service Rules NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 24164-65 ¶ 77. On October
    23, 2003, the U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA") approved
    the Commission\'s request to adopt the proposed small business size
    standards for the auction of licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and
    2110-2155 MHz band. The SBA confirmed that these small business size
    standards will provide a beneficial and equitable way to assure
    small business competition for licenses in these bands. *See* Letter
    from Hector V. Barretto, Administrator, Office of Size Standards,
    U.S. Small Business Administration to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief,
    Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated Oct. 23, 2003.

[^376]: *Id.*

[^377]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (4)(C)-(D).

[^378]: Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that in establishing
    eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies the Commission shall
    promote "economic opportunity and competition . . . by avoiding
    excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses
    among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses,
    rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of
    minority groups and women." *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).

[^379]: Pub. L. No. 104-13.

[^380]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612*.*, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^381]: *See* Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7
    and 2.1 GHz Bands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No.
    02-35, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 17 FCC Rcd 24135, xxxx
    (2002) (*Notice*).

[^382]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^383]: The service rules that we adopt today for this spectrum build on
    the policy objectives set forth in the Spectrum Policy Task Force
    Report. Spectrum Policy Task Force, ET Docket No. 02-135, *Report*
    (rel. Nov. 15, 2002) (*Spectrum Policy Task Force Report*).

[^384]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^385]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^386]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C.§ 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^387]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^388]: See SBA, *Programs and Services*, SBA Pamphlet no. CO-0028, at
    page 40 ( July 2002).

[^389]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^390]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office
    of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration) (1992
    Economic Census).

[^391]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^392]: 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

[^393]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.

[^394]: *See* Report and Order, at ¶ 144.

[^395]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513321 (changed to 517211 in October 2002).

[^396]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513322 (changed to 517212 in October 2002).

[^397]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service", Table 5.3, page
    5-5 (Aug. 2003). This source uses data that are current as of
    December 31, 2001.

[^398]: *Id*.

[^399]: *See generally,* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105.

[^400]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(a)(1).

[^401]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2107.

[^402]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).

[^403]: RCA Comments at 2-3; *see also* U.S. Cellular Comments at 5-7.

[^404]: While we did not receive any comments from Tribal governments,
    we remain interested in ensuring that the communication needs of
    these communities are met. *See* *AWS Service Rules NPRM*, 17 FCC
    Rcd at 24146-47 ¶ 25; *see also* Statement of Policy on Establishing
    a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, *Policy
    Statement*, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

[^405]: *See* Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 00-230,
    FCC 03-113, (rel.Oct. 6, 2003) (*Secondary Markets Report and
    Order*).

[^406]: *See id.* at ¶ 84.

[^407]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^408]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).