48506 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: Sec. 1006(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

2996e(b)(1); sec. 1006(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 

2996e(b)(3); sec. 1007(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

2996f(a)(1). 

§ 1621.1 Purpose. 

The part is intended to help ensure 

that recipients provide the highest 

quality legal assistance to clients as 

required by the LSC Act and are 

accountable to clients and applicants for 

legal assistance by requiring recipients 

to establish grievance procedures to 

process complaints by applicants about 

the denial of legal assistance and clients 

about the manner or quality of legal 

assistance provided. 

§ 1621.2 Grievance Committee. 

The governing body of a recipient 

shall establish a grievance committee or 

committees, composed of lawyer and 

client members of the governing body, 

in approximately the same proportion in 

which they are on the governing body. 

§ 1621.3 Complaints by applicants about 

denial of legal assistance. 

A recipient shall establish a simple 

procedure for review of decisions to 

deny legal assistance to applicants. The 

procedure shall, at a minimum, provide: 

A method for the recipient to provide 

applicants with adequate notice as 

practicable of the complaint procedures; 

information about how to make a 

complaint; and an opportunity for 

applicants to confer with Executive 

Director or the Executive Director’s 

designee, and, to the extent practicable, 

with a representative of the governing 

body. The procedure must be designed 

to foster effective communications 

between the recipient and complaining 

applicants. 

§ 1621.4 Complaints by clients about 

manner or quality of legal assistance. 

(a) A recipient shall establish 

procedures for the review of complaints 

by clients about the manner or quality 

of legal assistance that has been 

rendered by the recipient to the client. 

(b) The procedures shall be designed 

to foster effective communications 

between the recipient and the 

complaining client and, at a minimum, 

provide: 

(1) A method for providing a client, at 

the time the person is accepted as a 

client or as soon thereafter as 

practicable, with adequate notice of the 

complaint procedures and how to make 

a complaint; 

(2) For prompt consideration of each 

complaint by the Executive Director of 

the recipient, or the Executive Director’s 

designee, 

(3) An opportunity for the 

complainant, if the Executive Director 

or the Executive Director’s designee is 

unable to resolve the matter, to submit 

an oral and written statement to a 

grievance committee established by the 

governing body as required by section 

1621.2 of this part. The procedures shall 

also: Provide that the opportunity to 

submit an oral statement may be 

accomplished in person, by 

teleconference, or through some other 

reasonable alternative, permit a 

complainant to be accompanied by 

another person who may speak on that 

complainant’s behalf; and provide that, 

upon request of the complainant, the 

recipient shall transcribe a brief written 

statement, dictated by the complainant 

for inclusion in the recipient’s 

complaint file. 

(c) Consistent with its responsibilities 

under 45 CFR 1614.3(d)(3), a recipient 

shall establish a procedure to review 

complaints by clients about the manner 

or quality of legal assistance that has 

been rendered by a private attorney 

pursuant to the recipient’s private 

attorney involvement program under 45 

CFR part 1614. 

(d) A file containing every complaint 

and a statement of its disposition shall 

be preserved for examination by LSC. 

The file shall include any written 

statement submitted by the complainant 

or transcribed by the recipient from a 

complainant’s oral statement. 

Dated: August 14, 2006. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President and General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E6–13700 Filed 8–18–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 20, 22, 

24, 27, 68, 73, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, 

and 101 

[WT Docket No. 06–150, CC Docket No. 94–

102, WT Docket No. 01–309; FCC 06–114] 

Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 

and 777–792 MHz Bands; Revision of 

the Commission’s Rules To Ensure 

Compatibility With Enhanced 911 

Emergency Calling Systems; Hearing 

Aid-Compatible Telephones 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) undertakes an 

examination of possible changes to 

service rules that primarily govern 

wireless licenses in the 698–746, 747–

762, and 777–792 MHz bands (700 MHz 

Band) currently occupied by television 

(TV) broadcasters and being made 

available for new services as a result of 

the digital television (DTV) transition. 

Because of statutory changes, industry 

developments, and the fact more than 

four years have passed since the 

Commission adopted its initial band 

plans and service rules governing these 

licenses, the Commission is revisiting 

various of its earlier rule decisions 

regarding these 700 MHz Band licenses. 

The Commission also is requesting 

comment on: the tentative conclusion 

that services provided by licensees in 

the 700 MHz Band, and in other bands 

subject to Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services rules 

including the Advanced Wireless 

Services in the 1710–1755 MHz and 

2110–2155 MHz bands (AWS–1), should 

be subject to 911 and enhanced 911 

(911/E911) and hearing aidcompatibility requirements to the same 

extent that such services would be 

covered if provided in other bands; and 

how to modify Commission rules to 

ensure that they include all similar 

wireless services. 

DATES: Comments due on or before 

September 20, 2006. Reply comments 

are due on or before October 20, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 06–150, CC 

Docket No. 94–102, WT Docket No. 01–

309, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include 

the following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Mail: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. 

• Accessible Formats: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) for filing comments either 

by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 

202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs including any personal 

information provided. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48507 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Rowan, Special Counsel, 

Spectrum & Competition Policy 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Portals I, Room 6315, Washington, DC, 

20554; and Bill Stafford, Special 

Counsel, Spectrum & Competition 

Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6221, 

Washington, DC, 20554. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Fourth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 

06–150, CC Docket No. 94–102, and WT 

Docket No. 01–309 released August 10, 

2006. The complete text of the NPRM is 

available for public inspection and 

copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Thursday or from 8 

a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The NPRM may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile 

202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI 

at its Web site: http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering 

documents from BCPI please provide 

the appropriate FCC document number, 

FCC 06–114. The NPRM is also available 

on the Internet at the Commission’s Web 

site through its Electronic Document 

Management System (EDOCS): http:// 

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis: This document contains 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. Public and agency comments are 

due on or before September 20, 2006. 

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. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198 (see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ The Commission notes, 

however, that section 213 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 

Public Law 106–113, provides that rules 

governing frequencies in the 746–806 

MHz Band become effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register without regard to 

certain sections of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The Commission is 

therefore not inviting comment on any 

information collections that concern 

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz Band. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on possible changes to 

the part 27 service rules governing 

wireless licenses in the 700 MHz Band 

currently occupied by TV broadcasters 

and being made available for new 

services as a result of the DTV 

transition. More than four years have 

passed since the Commission adopted 

its initial band plans and service rules 

governing these licenses. During that 

time, Congress enacted significant 

statutory changes to the DTV transition 

in the Digital Television and Public 

Safety Act of 2005 (DTV Act). The DTV 

Act could affect the Commission’s 

existing regulatory approach to the 698–

806 MHz Band, which had envisioned 

‘‘early’’ recovery of TV Channels 60–69 

(Upper 700 MHz Band), but had 

anticipated recovery of TV Channels 

52–59 (Lower 700 MHz Band) after the 

DTV transition was complete. In 

addition, during the past four years, 

U.S. consumers have been introduced to 

a variety of innovative wireless services 

and technologies at the same time that 

the number of subscribers for mobile 

telephone services has increased by 

approximately 50 percent. The 

Commission therefore is revisiting 

various of its earlier decisions regarding 

these 700 MHz Band licenses. 

2. This NPRM addresses many of the 

rules applicable to certain spectrum in 

the Upper 700 MHz Band (Television 

Channels 60–69 in the 746–806 MHz 

band) and the Lower 700 MHz Band (TV 

Channels 52–59 in the 698–746 MHz 

band). This includes licenses yet to be 

auctioned in 30 megahertz of spectrum 

in the Upper 700 MHz Band and in 30 

megahertz of spectrum in the Lower 700 

MHz Band, as well as licenses that 

already have been auctioned in 18 

megahertz in the Lower 700 MHz Band. 

Rules applicable to spectrum currently 

occupied by TV Channels 63–64 (764–

776 MHz band) and 68–69 (794–806 

MHz band) are not considered in this 

NPRM because that spectrum has been 

allocated to public safety (and thus is 

not included within the term of the 700 

MHz Band as defined in this NPRM). 

Also, the rules applicable to the Guard 

Band spectrum at 746–747/776–777 

MHz and 762–764/792–794 MHz (which 

also are not included within the 

definition of the 700 MHz Band) are not 

considered in this NPRM except insofar 

as it is a part 27 service to which 911 

and enhanced 911 and hearing aid 

compatibility rules may potentially be 

applied. Finally, in this NPRM the 

Commission does not seek comment on 

the allocation or service rules for 

broadcasting or other legacy operations 

in these bands. 

II. Discussion 

3. Given that seven years have passed 

since the Commission first initiated a 

proceeding on the 700 MHz Band, the 

Commission seeks to evaluate whether 

changes to the existing service rules 

pertaining to 700 MHz Band licenses—

including 48 megahertz of Lower 700 

MHz Band spectrum (Blocks A–E), and 

the 30 megahertz of Upper 700 MHz 

Band spectrum (Blocks C and D)—may 

ultimately permit more effective use of 

this spectrum to better meet the needs 

of today’s consumers. 

A. Size of Service Areas 

1. Need for Additional Access to 

Spectrum Licensed Over Small Service 

Areas 

4. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether, in order to further enhance 

access to spectrum in rural areas, the 

service areas sizes of the licenses to be 

auctioned should be smaller than the 

EAGs provided for under existing rules. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which the assignment of 

spectrum over smaller service areas 

could lead to increased and better 

service in these areas. In addition, 

parties should comment on possible 

transaction costs associated with the 

assignment of additional spectrum over 

small service areas on those service 

providers with business plans to 

provide service to rural areas as part of 

regional or national footprints. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48508 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

factors that the Commission should use 

in balancing the needs of small and 

rural carriers as well as large and 

national carriers as they seek to provide 

service to their rural customers. 

5. When addressing whether to 

license additional 700 MHz Band 

spectrum over small service areas, 

commenting parties should address the 

relationship between their ability to 

obtain licenses at auction and their 

ultimate deployment of service in rural 

areas. For example, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether certain areas 

may continue to have high costs of 

providing service that are unrelated to 

spectrum acquisition costs. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

certain areas may continue to have high 

costs of providing service that are 

unrelated to spectrum acquisition costs 

and whether or not there is a point at 

which the advantages of assigning 

additional small-area licenses diminish 

relative to the disadvantages. 

6. In assessing any particular need 

and/or amount of spectrum, 

commenters should consider the 700 

MHz Band’s potential suitability for 

more rapid deployment of mobile and 

other advanced services in high-cost 

areas given its propagation and other 

technical characteristics. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the benefits due to the propagation 

characteristics of this spectrum make it 

appropriate to assign an additional 

amount of 700 MHz Band spectrum over 

small areas, or whether other 

considerations support licensing the 

bands over EAGs or other large areas. 

7. As compared to other bands, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

potential of 700 MHz Band spectrum to 

support broadband and other new 

applications. Commenters should 

explain how much additional 700 MHz 

Band spectrum licensed over areas other 

than EAGs may be necessary to support 

spectrum-based broadband applications 

in rural areas. 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

the need for greater access to 700 MHz 

Band spectrum on a smaller-area basis. 

In 2005, the Commission increased the 

amount of AWS spectrum to be assigned 

over CMAs due to market developments 

and the support of several commenters, 

including parties representing small and 

larger carriers. Commenters should also 

consider the Commission’s decision to 

assign 12 megahertz of 700 MHz Band 

spectrum over CMAs. To the extent the 

Commission decides not to assign 

additional 700 MHz spectrum over 

small areas, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether at some point in 

the future (e.g., five years, ten years, 

twenty years) consumer demand and 

spectrum-intensive applications and 

technologies could exhaust the capacity 

of spectrum in rural areas that is 

currently assigned over CMAs. 

2. Optimal Service Area Size(s) for 

Remaining Licenses 

9. In the event the Commission 

decides that there is a need for license 

sizes other than EAGs for the 700 MHz 

Band licenses that have yet to be 

auctioned, the Commission must 

determine the appropriate initial service 

area size, or combination of sizes, for 

those licenses. For instance, the 

Commission could modify the current 

service area designations for the 700 

MHz Band to include one or more 

license sizes other than EAGs, or a 

combination thereof, or keep in place 

the service areas currently reflected in 

its rules. The Commission therefore 

seeks comment on the license size or 

combination of license sizes that should 

be provided. 

10. First, the Commission seeks 

general comment on the costs associated 

with the initial service area sizes the 

Commission adopts in the 700 MHz 

Band. The Commission recognizes that 

consumer needs and geographic 

coverage will change over time, and the 

Commission anticipates that there will 

be a need for providers to aggregate or 

disaggregate spectrum holdings as they 

address these evolving needs and 

market demands. Accordingly, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

transaction costs associated with preand post-auction aggregation and 

disaggregation. Both large nationwide 

providers as well as small regional and 

rural providers may be able to make use 

of this spectrum, yet the optimal size of 

geographic service area is different for 

these two types of providers, and 

licenses for areas that are larger or 

smaller than desired will impose 

transaction costs on those parties that 

wish to acquire them. Thus, the 

Commission considers the degree and 

likelihood of such costs as 700 MHz 

Band spectrum is licensed in the future, 

and the extent to which the transaction 

costs of aggregating, disaggregating, or 

partitioning spectrum are a significant 

concern for those parties that most 

highly value this spectrum. Parties 

should also address any costs resulting 

from the unwillingness to divide 

spectrum and service areas due to a lack 

of license marketability or other 

financial considerations. 

11. In addition to seeking comment on 

the continued use of the EAGs in the 

band, which consist of six geographic 

service areas, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to license the 

unauctioned spectrum, for example, by 

using the twelve Regional Economic 

Area Groupings (REAGs), the 52 Major 

Economic Areas (MEAs), or some other 

large regional licensing area. To the 

extent the Commission adopts large 

geographic service areas for the 700 

MHz Band other than EAGs, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

REAGs may have advantages over EAGs. 

On the other hand, the Commission 

requests comment on whether 

substituting REAGs for EAGs may have 

disadvantages. 

12. If the Commission determines that 

smaller areas should be provided, it 

could license the spectrum or some part 

thereof on the basis of local areas, such 

as Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs), Rural Service Areas (RSAs), or 

EAs. The Commission seeks comment 

on the use of smaller, local license areas 

based on these, or some other small area 

sizes. In particular, the Commission 

asks that commenters address the 

request by Rural Cellular Association 

(RCA), as supported by other parties, 

that the Commission assign additional 

CMA-sized licenses in the 700 MHz 

Band. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether a combination of 

different license sizes should be 

adopted and, if so, what combination 

should be reflected in its rules for the 

spectrum. 

13. Notwithstanding the flexibility of 

use that permits 700 MHz Band 

spectrum to be used for any service 

consistent with the band’s allocation, 

commenting parties should describe any 

anticipated 700 MHz Band service 

offerings that demonstrate a need for 

greater access to this spectrum on a 

specific geographic basis. Commenters 

should explain how certain service area 

sizes correspond to the business plans 

of potential licensees and thus avoid the 

transaction costs that could be 

associated with aggregation, 

disaggregation, or partitioning. 

Commenters should also identify the 

service area sizes that best suit the 

anticipated uses for 700 MHz Band 

spectrum. The Commission could assign 

all remaining spectrum in the 700 MHz 

Band using a combination of larger and 

smaller areas. Alternatively, it could 

employ medium-sized license areas 

(e.g., MEAs). In such a case, commenters 

should consider whether the use of 

medium-sized initial service areas 

would be less efficient than a 

combination of differently sized service 

areas, given that transaction costs would 

be potentially incurred by auction 

winners of both small and large service 

areas that may have to aggregate, 

partition, or disaggregate spectrum in 

order to meet their particular spectrum 

needs. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48509 

14. The Commission seeks comment 

on the type of services that commenters 

believe will be accommodated in the 

service areas they favor, the economic 

advantages of adopting their favored 

approach, and what sized service area 

would be most advantageous for the 

particular service. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether changes 

related to developments in technology 

should affect the appropriate size of 

initial service areas. If there are different 

types of new technologies and services 

being created for these markets, 

commenters should address whether 

such developments support a certain 

service area size for portions of the 700 

MHz Band. 

15. In addressing the appropriate 

size(s) of service areas for 700 MHz 

Band licenses, the Commission seeks 

comment on any impact of using 

smaller service areas that cannot be 

used as building blocks to create larger 

service areas should the Commission 

adopt a combination of license area 

sizes for the unauctioned spectrum in 

the 700 MHz Band. Specifically, under 

a combination approach, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it would be preferable to assign licenses 

over large and small areas that are based 

on the same geographic unit (e.g., MEAs 

and EAs). 

16. In the 700 MHz Band, the Gulf of 

Mexico was divided between two EAGs 

for EAG licensing, whereas it was 

designated as a separate area for CMA 

licensing. In the event that the 

Commission decides to revise its prior 

determinations regarding license sizes 

in the 700 MHz Band, the Commission 

seek comment on including the Gulf of 

Mexico as part of larger service areas, or 

whether the Commission should 

separately license one or more service 

areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico. 

3. Spectrum Block(s) Suitable for 

Potential Reassignment 

17. In the event that the Commission 

decides to provide for service area sizes 

other than EAGs in future 700 MHz 

Band auctions, the Commission seeks 

comment on which of the spectrum 

block(s) in the band that have not been 

auctioned should be re-designated to a 

different service area size or sizes. The 

Commission seeks comment, for 

example, on the Rural 

Telecommunications Group’s (RTG) 

suggestion that the Commission provide 

CMA licensing in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band’s Block B and in the Upper 700 

MHz Band’s Block C. 

18. With respect to the blocks in the 

Upper 700 MHz Band, the Commission 

seeks comment on the use of CMA or 

other small service area licenses, and 

which spectrum block or blocks in that 

band, if any, should be licensed on that 

basis. The Commission asks 

commenters to consider the presence of 

public safety systems, which, under 

Commission rules, receive special 

protection against harmful interference. 

For example, equipment operating in 

the Upper 700 MHz Band Blocks C and 

D must meet strict out-of-band emission 

(OOBE) limits to protect public safety 

operations. Due to the relatively small 

spectral separation between these blocks 

and the public safety spectrum, such 

equipment may have to employ 

enhanced filtering, which would likely 

add to the cost of base and mobile 

equipment. On the other hand, there 

may be certain spectrum blocks within 

the Upper 700 MHz Band that, because 

they are farther removed from the public 

safety spectrum, will require less costly 

equipment than equipment operating in 

spectrum blocks closer to the public 

safety bands. Thus, the Commission 

seeks comment on the impact of 

equipment costs in general if the 

Commission decides to revise the size of 

service area for Upper 700 MHz Band 

spectrum. The Commission seeks 

comment on which spectrum blocks in 

the current Upper 700 MHz band plan 

(i.e., Blocks C or D), or in any revised 

band plan, would incur the greatest and 

least equipment costs and the extent to 

which such additional costs could affect 

the provision of service. 

19. Given these possible 

considerations relating to equipment 

costs, the Commission also seeks 

comment on whether any new CMA or 

other small service area licenses should 

be located in the Lower 700 MHz Band, 

rather than the Upper 700 MHz Band, if 

the Commission decides to revise 

existing band plans to provide for small 

area licenses. In the event that 

additional equipment cost issues might 

make it preferable to locate new smallarea licenses in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether its 6 megahertz spectrum 

blocks would efficiently facilitate the 

implementation of 1xEV–DO and 

Wideband Code Division Multiple 

Access (CDMA) technologies—the thirdgeneration (3G) technologies of CDMA 

and GSM networks—in the Lower 700 

MHz Band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether 802.16 (WiMax), a 

possible alternative to 1xEV–DO and 

Wideband CDMA technologies, would 

support a variety of bandwidths, 

including 6 megahertz, and whether 

WiMax potentially could be readily 

accommodated on Lower 700 MHz Band 

spectrum blocks. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

ability of 6 megahertz segments to 

accommodate high-speed data systems 

similar to the MediaFLO multi-media 

system being implemented by 

Qualcomm Inc. (Qualcomm) on Block D 

in the Lower 700 MHz Band. 

20. In the event the Commission 

decides to locate additional CMA or 

other small service area licenses in the 

Lower 700 MHz Band, the Commission 

seeks comment on which spectrum 

blocks in that band should be licensed 

on that basis. The Commission asks that 

comments address whether any 

particular spectrum blocks in the Lower 

700 MHz Band (i.e., Blocks A, B, and/ 

or E) would be better suited for smallarea licensing than other blocks, and to 

state the reasons for supporting the use 

of any one or more of these spectrum 

blocks for this purpose. 

21. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on the impact of 

designating the unpaired 6 megahertz 

Block E in the Lower 700 MHz Band for 

small-area licensing. If 6 megahertz is 

sufficient to meet small and/or rural 

carriers’ spectrum needs, commenters 

should address whether there are 

broadband technologies that can operate 

on unpaired spectrum such that the 6 

megahertz of spectrum in Block E would 

be suitable for potential reassignment. 

On the other hand, the Commission 

seeks comment on what spectrum in the 

Lower 700 MHz Band should be 

licensed over CMAs or other small 

service areas if additional paired 

spectrum is determined to be necessary 

and/or appropriate for small service 

areas. 

22. The Commission notes that if it 

locates a CMA-based license adjacent to 

an EAG (or other differently sized area) 

in the Lower or Upper 700 MHz Band, 

there may be an impact on aggregation, 

including on the level of transaction 

costs. Thus, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether aggregation may 

be more difficult and complicated to 

accomplish if spectrum blocks of 

differing geographic sizes are located 

adjacent to one another, and what effect 

those factors should have on its 

consideration of the current band plan. 

23. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, and to what 

extent, there would be an impact on the 

need to provide protection to TV 

Channel 51 if the Commission were to 

provide for licensing areas that are 

smaller than EAGs in the adjacent 

Lower 700 MHz Band Block A. 

B. Size of Spectrum Blocks 

24. To the extent the Commission 

decides to auction and assign additional 

licenses over service area sizes other 

than the six EAGs, the Commission also 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48510 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission could better accommodate 

such assignments by reconfiguring or 

sub-dividing existing spectrum blocks 

in the band plans in the 700 MHz Band. 

The Commission seeks comment 

generally on whether the Commission 

should reconfigure the license blocks in 

the Upper 700 MHz Band, the Lower 

700 MHz Band, or both. Although the 

Commission believes the Commission 

should retain the current band plan in 

the Lower 700 MHz Band, the 

Commission nevertheless seeks 

comment on potential changes to the 

size of the spectrum blocks in the Lower 

700 MHz Band. The Commission also 

discusses the possibility of revising the 

size and pairing of licensed spectrum 

blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on dividing the 20-megahertz 

Block D license in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band into two or more license blocks. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how to make 

more licenses available to be potentially 

assigned on a geographic basis or bases 

smaller than EAGs, and on ways to 

provide licenses that may better reflect 

recent developments. Although the 

Commission seeks comment on this 

issue primarily with respect to 

unauctioned licenses, there are certain 

issues which the Commission seeks 

comment on that relate to already 

auctioned spectrum, i.e., whether to 

change the size and location of the 

spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band, and the use of a ‘‘two-sided 

auction.’’

25. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the spectrum blocks in the 

Lower 700 MHz Band should be 

maintained at their current 6 megahertz 

alignment and sizes. The spectrum 

comprising Lower 700 MHz Band 

Blocks C and D, consisting of 18 of the 

48 megahertz in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band, has already been auctioned, and 

the Commission believes that the 

location of these auctioned blocks limits 

its ability to reconfigure the remaining 

spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band. The Commission is seeking 

comment in this NPRM on the use of 5 

megahertz blocks in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band. However, the use of 5 megahertz 

blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band 

appears to be problematic. For example, 

considering only the 12 megahertz of 

spectrum located at 698–710 MHz (i.e., 

Blocks A and B), if the Commission 

were to place two 5 megahertz blocks in 

this band, this would leave two 

megahertz of spectrum in the band that 

would have to be separately assigned. 

Also, because the 698–710 MHz band is 

paired with the 728–740 MHz band, this 

circumstance would apply to the 728–

740 MHz band as well. The Commission 

nevertheless seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should make any 

changes to the size and location of 

spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz 

Band and, if so, what those changes 

should be. 

26. With respect to the Upper 700 

MHz Band, the Commission seeks 

comment on U.S. Cellular Corporation’s 

(USCC) proposal to divide the current 

20 megahertz Block D into two separate 

10 megahertz blocks. USCC proposes 

that one of the new 10 megahertz blocks 

be assigned over EAs, and the other new 

10 megahertz block be assigned over 

EAGs. The Commission seeks comment 

on possibly increasing the overall 

number of licenses available in any 

given geographic area by dividing Upper 

700 MHz Band Block D into two or more 

smaller-sized blocks, and thus provide 

one or more additional licenses. 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the provision of an 

additional 10 megahertz paired block in 

the Upper 700 MHz Band (by dividing 

the current Block D into two such 

blocks) would facilitate the 

implementation of a wider variety of 

technologies in the band. A 10 

megahertz paired block can readily 

accommodate Wideband CDMA and 

1xEV–DO technologies, and dividing 

Block D into two such blocks would, 

therefore, provide an additional license 

that could employ one of these 

technologies. In addition, commenters 

should address whether 5 megahertz 

segments accommodate other systems 

that have recently been developed. 

28. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to divide the 

current 20 megahertz paired Block D 

into more than two smaller paired 

blocks to better accommodate other new 

technologies. For example, systems 

based on 802.16 standards (WiMax) 

could potentially operate on a variety of 

bandwidths ranging from 1.25 to 20 

megahertz, including a number of 

bandwidths that are 5 megahertz or 

smaller. Accordingly, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether a division of 

the 10 megahertz segments of paired 

Block D to create two or more smaller 

blocks—e.g., 1.25, 1.75, and 7 megahertz 

blocks—might better accommodate this 

technology. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other possible block 

sizes—either larger or smaller than the 

current blocks sizes—that might be 

supported by other existing or potential 

technologies. 

29. On the other hand, the 

Commission seeks comment on any 

disadvantages that may result from subdividing Upper 700 MHz Band Block D 

into two or more blocks. Comments 

should address whether the two licenses 

in the Upper 700 MHz Band (along with 

the five total licenses in the Lower 700 

MHz Band) are sufficient to help 

enhance competition among a wide 

variety of providers and applicants. The 

Commission asks that comments 

consider whether a 20 megahertz paired 

block licensed on, e.g., CMAs, in the 

Upper 700 MHz Band would help 

enhance competition among a wider 

variety of providers and applicants. 

30. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should subdivide Block D into two 10 megahertz 

paired blocks given that, in doing so, the 

overall spectrum efficiency of the band 

may be decreased. The Commission 

seeks comment as well on whether, if it 

sub-divides Block D into two blocks, it 

should necessarily divide the block into 

two equal-sized 10 megahertz block 

pairs. WiMax, for example, may be able 

to be accommodated on 5 megahertz 

blocks, but the WiMax Forum has 

certified the use of 3.5, 7, and 10 

megahertz bandwidths for 802.16-based 

equipment. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the effect of changing the 

block sizes on the overall spectrum 

efficiency of the band based on other 

existing or potential technologies. 

31. Finally, the Commission asks that 

commenters addressing proposals to 

reconfigure existing spectrum blocks in 

the 700 MHz Band also address existing 

and/or potential opportunities to 

aggregate new licenses and existing 

licenses. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether, for 700 MHz 

Band licenses, any changes to 

Commission competitive bidding rules 

are necessary or desirable in order to 

facilitate the efficient aggregation of new 

licenses, in light of the existing 

spectrum blocks for 700 MHz Band 

licenses and any spectrum blocks that 

may be proposed. 

32. The Commission further notes 

that, following an auction, parties that 

wish to do so may aggregate spectrum 

covered by new 700 MHz Band licenses 

with spectrum covered by existing 700 

MHz Band licenses available in the 

secondary market. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether any 

Commission action is necessary or 

desirable to facilitate the aggregation of 

new and existing 700 MHz Band 

licenses in the secondary market, in 

light of the existing and/or proposed 

700 MHz Band spectrum blocks. If so, 

the Commission asks that commenters 

address whether any such steps require 

changes to existing Commission 

competitive bidding or secondary 

market rules. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48511 

33. Alternatively, the Commission 

could facilitate such aggregation of 

spectrum by enabling an auction in 

which licenses for currently unassigned 

spectrum as well as licenses for 

spectrum previously assigned in the 700 

MHz Band could be offered for sale in 

a single auction, a mechanism 

sometimes referred to as a ‘‘two-sided 

auction.’’ Such a ‘‘two-sided auction’’

could be implemented in several ways. 

As one example, the Commission might 

allow incumbent licensees to return 

their licenses to the Commission in 

exchange for a credit, which could be 

based on the prices of licenses for 

spectrum formerly associated with the 

returned licenses as determined in an 

auction. Alternatively, the Commission 

might allow existing licensees to offer 

their licenses in the auction, but 

relinquish the licenses in exchange for 

a credit only if prices (and related credit 

values) reached a certain level. A 

variation on this approach would be to 

allow incumbents to include their 

licenses in the auction inventory but 

‘‘pay themselves’’ the winning bid if 

they chose to outbid other participants. 

In any of these alternatives, the 

Commission could provide that credits 

received in exchange for returned 

spectrum licenses would be 

transferable, and that bidders could use 

the credits to obtain other spectrum 

licenses in the same auction or another 

auction of spectrum licenses for the 

same or a different service. 

Consequently, incumbent licensees 

could exchange their current licenses 

for other spectrum licenses using 

credits, or transfer the credits to other 

bidders wishing to obtain licenses. 

34. Commenters addressing actions 

the Commission might take to create a 

two-sided auction should address 

details of how the existing licenses 

could be incorporated into the auction, 

how the incumbent licensees could be 

compensated for ‘‘selling’’ a license, and 

whether any particular aspects of such 

an auction, either discussed in the 

NPRM or proposed by commenters, 

might exceed the Commission’s 

competitive bidding authority, under 

either the Commission’s current rules or 

the Communications Act. In particular, 

commenters should consider whether 

the use of credits, or other means of 

compensating incumbents for their 

licenses, may require additional 

authority or the adoption of new 

Commission rules or procedures. 

Among other things, commenters 

should consider whether there are 

particular design elements of a twosided auction that would help such a 

mechanism work more efficiently. 

Commenters also should address the 

extent to which a two-sided auction, by 

offering all available (Commission-held 

and previously assigned) spectrum 

simultaneously, may provide an 

alternative with lower transaction costs 

as compared to the secondary market 

and whether such an alternative is 

needed. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether the use of a 

two-sided auction could or would 

promote opportunities for interested 

parties to better meet their needs for 

particular amounts of spectrum in this 

band. The Commission asks whether an 

ability to acquire more spectrum or 

aggregate it differently would help 

promote service, especially in rural 

areas. Finally, commenters should 

address any issues or other matters 

which may relate to competitive bidding 

as a result of conducting a two-sided 

auction in the 700 MHz Band. 

C. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and 

Provision of Service to Consumers 

35. First, the Commission considers 

the possibility of modifying 

performance requirements for 

unauctioned licenses to the extent they 

could better promote both spectrum 

access and service provision. Second, 

for all 700 MHz Band licensees, the 

Commission seeks comment on options 

that may facilitate access to spectrum in 

the secondary market for all potential 

service providers, including those 

specifically seeking to deliver service to 

rural areas. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on policies the 

Commission could implement to 

promote service on tribal lands. 

1. Performance Requirements 

36. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it needs to revise the 

existing ‘‘substantial service’’

performance requirement, or possibly 

adopt alternative build-out rules, for 

unauctioned licenses in the 700 MHz 

Band in order to further access to 

spectrum and provision of service to 

consumers, including those in rural 

areas. To the extent commenters believe 

the current requirement, or its safe 

harbors, should be revised, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

other approaches may offer certain 

additional benefits that outweigh 

possible additional costs. These options 

could involve adopting rules that 

require specific actions by licensees in 

order to retain their licenses. 

37. The current performance 

requirement for the 700 MHz Band is 

based on the ‘‘substantial service’’

standard defined in 47 CFR 27.14(a). 

The Commission seeks comment as to 

the effectiveness of this approach in 

promoting service in the unauctioned 

portions of the 700 MHz Band, 

especially in rural areas. Under this 

standard, the Commission established 

‘‘safe harbors’’ to provide examples of 

what would be considered substantial 

service in the 700 MHz Band. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any changes to these safe harbors are 

warranted to better promote service to 

all areas. To the extent commenters 

address whether 47 CFR 27.14(a) or its 

safe harbors should be revised, they 

should also consider whether any other 

provisions in the existing part 27 rules 

require specific recognition or 

adjustment to comport with the 

potential application of those 

performance requirements for 700 MHz 

Band licensees. For example, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it needs to clarify the extent to which 

certain of the Commission’s non-part 27 

rule parts, as listed in 47 CFR 27.3, 

apply to 700 MHz Band licensees with 

regard to performance requirements 

relating to build-out and/or provision of 

service. In addition, the Commission 

notes that 47 CFR 27.15 describes inter 

alia elections for geographic partitioning 

and spectrum disaggregation to ensure 

the Commission’s performance 

requirements are met when licenses are 

divided spectrally or geographically 

between two or more parties. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to change any aspect of 47 CFR 27.15 in 

order to help ensure the provision of 

service to consumers, including any 

rural areas that are part of a partitioned 

or disaggregated license. 

38. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should further 

define safe harbors for licensees seeking 

to meet the part 27 ‘‘substantial service’’

standard on 700 MHz Band spectrum. 

The Commission notes, for example, 

that the Commission’s safe harbors for 

700 MHz Band licensees did not 

specifically mandate that a particular 

level of service be provided in rural 

areas. Rather, the Commission cites past 

statements that a licensee that limits 

buildout to urban and high density areas 

will not necessarily be ensured of 

license renewal even if it meets the 

construction benchmarks, as well as 

past statements that it believed 

substantial service requires the licensee 

to buildout in rural areas as well. The 

Commission cites past guidance on rural 

construction which established a safe 

harbor for providing mobile service to 

rural areas. In particular, the 

Commission cites statements that a 

mobile wireless service licensee in 

various bands, including the 700 MHz 

Band, can provide substantial service by 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48512 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

serving at least 75 percent of the 

geographic area of at least 20 percent of 

the ‘rural areas’ within its licensed area. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether this ‘‘rural safe harbor’’ for 

mobile wireless services should 

continue to apply to the 700 MHz Band 

licenses that have not been auctioned, 

or whether it should be revised. The 

Commission also seeks comment as to 

whether to apply a safe harbor to other 

types of services (e.g., fixed) in the 700 

MHz Band and, if so, what other 

services should be included and how 

the safe harbor should be defined. In 

addition, the Commission asks how 

‘‘coverage’’ would be measured for these 

other services so as to improve 

incentives to serve rural areas. Finally, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether there are other safe harbors 

pertaining to construction in rural areas 

that should fulfill the substantial service 

requirement and that would provide 

additional regulatory certainty regarding 

the Commission’s performance 

requirements. 

39. As an alternative to maintaining 

the substantial service standard that the 

Commission previously determined 

should apply to the 700 MHz Band, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should apply more specific 

construction benchmarks to the 

unauctioned licenses in the 700 MHz 

Band. In the past, such construction 

benchmarks have required a licensee to 

make service available to a certain 

percentage of the population or 

geographic area. 

40. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should adopt a 

population-based construction 

requirement as part of any possible 

revisions to the licensing rules in some 

or all of the spectrum bands to be 

auctioned in the 700 MHz Band. If such 

a benchmark were adopted, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

precise population benchmark that 

should be adopted, and whether it 

should be more extensive than the 

previous Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) rules, such as requiring 

coverage sufficient to provide service to 

one-half of the population of the license 

area within five years and three-fourths 

within ten years. 

41. As another option, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a benchmark based on geography for 

700 MHz Band unauctioned licenses 

would be more effective in promoting 

service to underserved areas without 

offsetting disadvantages. In this NPRM, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether geographic-based benchmarks 

warrant further consideration and, in 

particular, whether these rules could be 

designed to promote build-out in rural 

portions of these licenses yet to be 

auctioned. If so, the Commission seeks 

comment on how such a geographybased benchmark could or should be 

structured. The Commission also seeks 

comment on any other geographic 

benchmarks that would be appropriate 

for these licenses. For any proposed 

benchmark, the Commission asks 

commenters to describe how the 

Commission should apply it to the 

variety of fixed, mobile, broadcast, and 

private services that are authorized in 

this spectrum. 

42. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should consider 

adopting a ‘‘keep what you use’’ relicensing mechanism for the 

unauctioned spectrum in the 700 MHz 

Band, similar to the approach adopted 

for Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

(cellular) service in the 1980s. Under a 

‘‘keep what you use’’ rule, the 

Commission would reclaim any 

‘‘unused’’ spectrum in a license area 

after a pre-defined period of time. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should consider a modified 

version of this rule, such as a ‘‘triggered 

keep what you use’’ rule, in which the 

Commission, rather than reclaiming 

‘‘unused’’ spectrum after a period of 

time, would reclaim spectrum only in 

the event a party other than the licensee 

(e.g., a spectrum lessee) seeks access to 

the licensed spectrum in an unserved 

portion of the license area. Similarly, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider applying either the ‘‘keep what 

you use’’ rule or ‘‘triggered keep what 

you use’’ rule only to a portion of the 

spectrum (e.g., one-half) of the spectrum 

that otherwise would be reclaimed, or 

eligible for reclamation, by the 

Commission. 

43. Given that these variations of the 

‘‘keep what you use’’ approach may 

make unused spectrum available to 

other parties interested in gaining access 

to spectrum, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it may be an 

effective means to provide additional 

service, including in rural areas. To the 

extent that licensees may be less likely 

to use the spectrum in rural portions of 

their license areas, the Commission also 

seeks comment as to whether the 

Commission should apply this approach 

only to licenses covering rural areas, or 

only to that portion of licenses that 

covers rural areas. 

44. To the extent commenters believe 

a ‘‘keep what you use’’ mechanism is 

appropriate, the Commission seeks 

comment on how ‘‘use’’ could or should 

be defined, given the goals the 

Commission seeks to further. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on how it should define what 

type of activities demonstrate that the 

spectrum is being ‘‘used’’ in this 

context, considering that the part 27 

rules facilitate a wide variety of services 

and uses in this band. 

2. Facilitating Access to Spectrum in the 

Secondary Market 

45. In addition to facilitating access to 

spectrum based on Commission rules 

relating to the size of geographic license 

areas and spectrum blocks, the 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

extent to which it could facilitate access 

through possible revisions to its existing 

secondary markets policies and rules 

applicable to both unauctioned and 

previously auctioned licenses in the 700 

MHz Band. The Commission notes that 

it took significant steps in 2003 and 

2004 to facilitate the ability of entities, 

through spectrum leasing arrangements, 

to gain access to licensed spectrum in 

areas and amounts suited to their 

particular spectrum needs, including 

through a streamlined or immediate 

approval process for transfers and 

assignments of licenses. 

46. Given the passage of time, the 

Commission now seeks comment on 

whether there are additional 

mechanisms relating to its secondary 

market policies that should be adopted 

so as to help move spectrum from 

licensees to other entities that place a 

higher value on its use. For instance, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

requiring licensees to make ‘‘good faith’’

efforts to negotiate with potential 

spectrum lessees could help increase 

access to spectrum, including in rural 

areas, and thus promote the 

development of these markets. Potential 

‘‘good faith’’ requirements could take 

one of several forms. At a minimal level, 

licensees could be required to establish 

a contact point for potential lessees, e.g., 

providing the name and contact 

information of a designated 

representative in the licensee’s 

organization who would accept 

inquiries from potential spectrum 

lessees. Under an alternative approach, 

licensees could be required to engage in 

‘‘good faith’’ negotiations with potential 

spectrum lessees, with the Commission 

determining the minimum steps 

necessary to meet this requirement. For 

example, 700 MHz Band licensees could 

be required to have a minimum number 

of meetings with potential spectrum 

lessees and/or provide their terms for an 

acceptable spectrum leasing 

arrangement. Would the use of such 

requirements for licensees in the 700 

MHz Band encourage licensees to more 

seriously consider the opportunity cost 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48513 

of the spectrum they hold but do not 

use? On the other hand, given the large 

number and diverse nature of potential 

users in this band, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether a 

requirement to, e.g., establish contact 

and/or communicate with all interested 

parties would be unduly burdensome or 

subject to abuse. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether it should 

adopt additional mechanisms to 

encourage partitioning and/or 

disaggregation of 700 MHz Band 

spectrum and the extent to which such 

policies ultimately may promote more 

service, especially in rural areas. 

47. In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it could use its 

existing oversight role during the 

license renewal process to review a 700 

MHz Band licensee’s actions during its 

license term, including its participation 

in secondary market transactions, and 

evaluate issues related to spectrum 

access, service to rural areas, or both. 

Under this approach, licensees of 

unauctioned and auctioned 700 MHz 

Band spectrum would be subject to 

greater informational filings and 

Commission review at renewal even if 

they are not involved in a comparative 

renewal proceeding. 

3. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and 

the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands 

48. Ensuring that qualifying tribal 

lands have access to affordable, quality 

telecommunications services continues 

to be a goal of the Commission. 

Promoting access to spectrum and the 

provision of service on tribal lands is an 

important means to meet that goal. 

Accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on what steps, if any, it can 

take with regard to the 700 MHz Band 

to further facilitate access to spectrum 

and the provision of service to tribal 

lands. Some of these steps, such as the 

performance requirements discussed in 

this NPRM, generally would be 

applicable to the unauctioned spectrum 

in the 700 MHz Band. In contrast, 

policies to facilitate access to spectrum 

in tribal lands could be applied to both 

unauctioned and the already auctioned 

spectrum in this band. 

49. The Commission’s rules currently 

promote deployment of wireless 

services on tribal lands through its 

Tribal Lands Bidding Credit. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should make any potential 

adjustments to its Tribal Land Bidding 

Credit rules as they apply to the 700 

MHz Band licenses to be auctioned in 

order to further the deployment of 

wireless services to tribal lands. The 

Commission also seeks comment on use 

of the Tribal Land Bidding Credit in this 

context given statutory requirements 

that the Commission commence the 

auction for recovered analog broadcast 

spectrum no later than January 28, 2008, 

and deposit the proceeds from such an 

auction in the Digital Television 

Transition and Public Safety Fund no 

later than June 30, 2008. For instance, 

the Commission asks whether it needs 

to reduce for the 700 MHz Band auction 

the 180 day period that winning bidders 

currently have to obtain a Tribal Lands 

Bidding Credit. Alternatively, the 

Commission asks whether it should 

accept as sufficient from winning 

bidders in a 700 MHz Band auction 

either self-certification or a promise to 

negotiate in good faith with the tribal 

government. In either case, the 

Commission would thereby rely, at least 

in part, on the winning bidder’s need to 

obtain consent of the tribal government 

to ensure that the tribes are adequately 

included in the process. The 

Commission asks what, if any, other 

changes should be made to the Tribal 

Lands Bidding Credit process in light of 

the special circumstances for the 700 

MHz Band. In addition, given the 

statutory deadlines, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether its goal of 

promoting the deployment of wireless 

services to tribal lands would be better 

served with respect to the 700 MHz 

Band by exploring other means to 

promote access to spectrum and the 

provision of service in tribal lands. 

50. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should consider 

applying a ‘‘keep what you use’’

performance requirement to the tribal 

lands portion of geographic license 

areas, even if it decides to apply some 

other standard, such as substantial 

service, to all other areas of a license 

that are not tribal lands. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any policies designed to facilitate access 

to spectrum, such as requiring ‘‘good 

faith’’ negotiations or other efforts by 

licensees in response to a request for a 

spectrum lease, should be applied 

specifically to tribal lands, even if the 

Commission decides not to apply these 

policies to non-tribal license areas. 

Similarly, the Commission asks whether 

there are other steps that it could take 

to revise its partitioning and 

disaggregation rules in order to better 

facilitate access to spectrum on tribal 

lands. Commenters also should 

consider, as discussed in this NPRM, 

whether the provision of service to 

tribal lands could be codified as a 

criteria or factor relevant to a licensee’s 

demonstration that renewal is in the 

public interest. 

51. To the extent the Commission 

should revise its performance 

requirements and/or policies to 

facilitate access to spectrum and apply 

these policies only to tribal lands, it 

seeks comment generally on how such 

a process should be implemented. For 

instance, the Commission seeks 

comment on how a ‘‘keep what you 

use’’ approach for tribal lands would 

operate in the event all other license 

areas were subject to different 

performance requirements. Similarly, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

feasibility of applying one set of 

secondary markets rules to those 

portions of a license that cover tribal 

lands while applying different rules to 

the rest of a licensee’s geographic area. 

52. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it would facilitate 

access to spectrum and promote service 

to tribal lands to create license areas 

based on the contours of a reservation 

or any tribal boundary line. The 

Commission seeks comment whether 

adopting this policy would have the 

unintended consequence of partitioning 

off licenses covering tribal lands such 

that the newly created license areas will 

remain unbuilt, because companies will 

bid only for the licenses not covering 

the tribal lands. For instance, the 

Commission asks whether it would 

generally be economically feasible to 

provide service only within a tribal land 

service area. The Commission notes 

that, unlike other service areas, many 

tribal land service areas would result in 

licensed areas wholly contained within 

the larger geographic area of other 

licensees. The Commission asks 

whether: (1) Interference issues would 

be more significant because of the 

greater number of borders between 

licensed service areas; and (2) 

limitations of system design may make 

it difficult to engineer solutions around 

multiple small areas. It asks whether 

any of these technical obstacles could be 

mitigated by limiting tribal land license 

areas to tribal lands of a particular size 

or greater, or to those not contained 

wholly within another license area. The 

Commission also asks commenters to 

address possible auction-related 

difficulties caused by this approach, 

especially those for potential bidders. 

For instance, if the Commission were to 

implement this approach for a single 

spectrum block for which the basic 

geographic area was CMAs, the 585 

federally recognized tribal lands, 

combined with the 734 CMAs, would 

result in 1319 separate licenses being 

offered for that one block. 

53. Finally, in the event the 

Commission adopts other policies 

discussed in this NPRM, such as 

increasing the number of spectrum 

blocks made available and/or the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48514 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

amount of spectrum assigned by small 

geographic license areas in the 700 MHz 

Band, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether policies focused solely on 

tribal lands would be necessary. 

D. Criteria for Renewal 

54. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to amend its rules to clarify 

or modify the requirements and 

procedures of the renewal process for 

licenses in the 700 MHz Band, 

including both licenses that have 

already been auctioned and those that 

have yet to be auctioned. For example, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether to use renewal criteria to 

replace the procedures for the filing of 

competing applications at renewal time. 

For instance, the licenses could revert to 

the Commission for re-auction should a 

license not be renewed. The 

Commission also asks commenters to 

address whether any amendments of its 

rules on the renewal process should be 

limited to the unauctioned 700 MHz 

Band licenses, or whether any such 

amendments also should apply to those 

700 MHz Band licenses which already 

have been auctioned in order to have a 

unitary regime for these licenses. The 

renewal criteria and process for 

authorizations for the 700 MHz Guard 

Bands at Blocks A and B in the Upper 

700 MHz Band are beyond the scope of 

this NPRM. 

55. The Commission first seeks 

comment on whether 700 MHz Band 

licensees should be subject to 

requirements at renewal in addition to 

any end-of-term performance 

requirements. Licensees are required to 

meet ‘‘substantial service’’ under the 

performance requirements of 47 CFR 

27.14(a) as well as in the context of any 

renewal proceedings under 47 CFR 

27.14(b) of the Commission’s rules. 

Although renewal of 700 MHz Band 

licensees is governed under 47 CFR 

27.14(b) through (d) of the 

Commission’s rules, which indicates 

that a comparative process is used to 

choose among renewal applicants based 

on certain showings, the rule does not 

describe the factors that the Commission 

will consider in connection with a 

license renewal application to the extent 

no competing application is filed. When 

establishing the part 27 rules that apply 

to the 700 MHz Band, the Commission 

notes that it stated only that it will 

require that a renewal application 

include at a minimum the following 

showing for a renewal expectancy: (1) A 

description of current service in terms 

of geographic coverage and population 

served or links installed; (2) an 

explanation of the licensee’s record of 

expansion, including a timetable for the 

construction of new base sites or links 

to meet changes in demand for service; 

(3) a description of the licensee’s 

investments in its system; and (4) copies 

of any Commission orders finding the 

licensee to have violated the 

Communications Act or any 

Commission rule or policy, and a list of 

any pending proceedings that relate to 

any matter described by the 

requirements for the renewal 

expectancy. Although the Commission 

did not codify any special informational 

showings from 700 MHz renewal 

applicants unless they are ‘‘involved in 

a comparative renewal proceeding’’

triggered by the filing of a competing 

application, 47 CFR 27.14(b), licensees’

renewal applications are nevertheless 

subject to Commission’s review and 

approval based on general public 

interest factors (e.g., amount and type of 

service provided by the licensee during 

its license term). Accordingly, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should amend its rules to define the 

standards and informational filings that 

apply to license renewal applications 

for these licenses. These criteria for 

renewal would apply to 700 MHz 

authorizations that have been assigned, 

transferred, partitioned or disaggregated 

during their license terms. In particular, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

requirements (or factors) that should be 

considered for 700 MHz Band licensees 

at renewal, including: the level of 

service and whether it was 

‘‘substantial’’; whether service was ever 

interrupted and discontinued; whether 

service has been provided to any rural 

areas; whether a licensee has received 

any requests from others seeking to 

enter into spectrum leasing 

arrangements, and whether it has 

entered into any such arrangements; and 

any other factors typically associated 

with assessments of a licensee’s level of 

service to the public. Commenters 

should address which, if any, of these 

or other elements should be codified as 

requirements for renewal or, in the 

alternative, whether the Commission 

should list factors that are relevant to a 

licensee’s demonstration that renewal is 

in the public interest. 

56. In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should integrate 

47 CFR 27.14(a)’s ‘‘substantial service’’

performance requirement, and any new 

end-of-term requirements, into the 

renewal process for 700 MHz Band 

licenses. The Commission notes that, in 

its past orders, it focused on renewal in 

the context of partitioned and 

disaggregated licenses, and stated that to 

the extent a licensee meets the 

substantial service performance 

requirement, it will be deemed to have 

met this element of the renewal 

expectancy requirement regardless of 

which of the construction options it has 

chosen. Accordingly, to the extent the 

Commission’s renewal requirements 

and at least some of its performance 

requirements apply at the end of a 

license term, the Commission seeks 

comment on the advantages and 

disadvantages of combining these 

requirements into, for example, a single 

substantial service provision in 47 CFR 

27.14 of the Commission’s rules. This 

rule section requires that licensees 

demonstrate ‘‘substantial’’ service both 

as a ‘‘construction requirement’’ ‘‘within 

the prescribed license term’’ and to 

obtain a renewal expectancy preference 

in a comparative hearing. 47 CFR 

27.14(a) and (b). Thus, the 

Commission’s rules require substantial 

service by the end of a 700 MHz Band 

licensee’s term, the same point at which 

renewal filings would be reviewed and 

potentially granted. See 47 CFR 

27.14(a). 

57. For instance, instead of requiring 

the enforcement of separate rules 

regulating construction or 

discontinuance of service, see 47 CFR 

1.955(a)(3) (providing that wireless 

licenses automatically terminate if 

service is permanently discontinued 

and stating that ‘‘permanent 

discontinuance’’ is defined in either the 

specific authorization or the service 

rules governing that authorization); but 

see 47 CFR 27.66 (requiring Part 27 

licensees that discontinue service to 

notify the Commission in certain 

contexts, but not providing a definition 

of ‘‘permanent discontinuance’’), the 

Commission could replace such end-ofterm/mid-term requirement(s) and 

require 700 MHz Band licensees to 

submit informational showings in their 

renewal applications based on factors 

that could be used to determine whether 

a grant of renewal is in the public 

interest. Under this approach, all 

licensees, included those holding 

authorizations that have been assigned, 

transferred, partitioned or disaggregated 

during their license terms, would be 

subject to review on these criteria, and 

the Commission would not need to have 

separate procedures for assessing 

satisfaction of construction standards 

(e.g., standards pertaining to partitioned 

licenses under 47 CFR 27.15(d)(1)), and 

for determining whether renewal 

criteria have been met. In the event that 

the Commission decides to integrate 

performance requirements and end-ofterm requirements into the renewal 

process for 700 MHz Band licensees, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48515 

licensees who fail to meet such 

requirements could be subject to 

potential forfeiture penalties. If, for 

example, a licensee files for renewal, 

but fails to meet the substantial service 

requirement, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it could be subject 

to forfeiture penalties under this 

approach. 

58. Finally, under a modified or 

combined 47 CFR 27.14 standard, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to use codified renewal criteria to 

measure the 700 MHz Band licensees’

level of service instead of relying on any 

performance incentives that may arise 

due to the possibility of competing 

applications being filed against a 

renewal (with the concomitant need for 

the incumbent to demonstrate 

‘‘substantial service’’ to receive a 

renewal expectancy preference). 

Although 47 CFR 27.14(b) through (d) of 

Commission rules indicates that a 

comparative process is used to choose 

among renewal and competing 

applicants, it is unclear what type of 

comparative hearing is to be employed. 

Under a modified 47 CFR 27.14 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

could eliminate the filing of competing 

applications at renewal time and, for 

example, adopt a process by which 

licenses revert to the Commission for reauction if a license is not renewed. To 

the extent such an approach is adopted, 

commenters should address the 

procedures for renewal processing, the 

components of a renewal filing and any 

demonstrations of ‘‘substantial’’ service 

or other requirements, provisions for 

petitions to deny renewal applications, 

and procedures governing dismissal/ 

denial of renewal applications and 

subsequent re-licensing through 

competitive bidding to competing 

bidders. For example, if the Commission 

dismisses or denies a renewal 

application, the spectrum could 

automatically revert to either the 

Commission (in the case of geographicarea licenses) to re-license using 

competitive bidding or to the 

geographic-overlay licensee (in the case 

of site-specific licenses subject to 

reversionary rights for geographicoverlay licensees) as part of its licensed 

service area. Moreover, the petitioner 

could be eligible to participate in any 

auction of the non-renewed license. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the petition to 

deny process, coupled with the ability 

of a petitioner to participate in any 

subsequent auction to re-license 

spectrum that reverts to the Commission 

for lack of renewal, creates sufficient 

incentives to challenge inferior service 

or poor qualifications of licensees at 

renewal and thereby protect the public 

interest. 

E. Length of License Terms 

59. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the license terms applicable 

to both the unauctioned and auctioned 

spectrum in the 700 MHz Band should 

be revised and, if so, in what manner. 

As the Commission notes, the Guard 

Band spectrum, and the rules applicable 

thereto, is not within the scope of this 

NPRM. Section 27.13(b), 47 CFR 

27.13(b), of the Commission’s rules 

provides that initial license 

authorizations for spectrum in the 700 

MHz Band will extend until January 1, 

2015, except that a part 27 licensee 

commencing broadcast services will be 

required to seek renewal of its license 

for such services at the termination of 

the eight-year term following 

commencement of such operations. The 

Commission also asks whether the 

Commission should establish a uniform 

license term regardless of regulatory 

status associated with the services being 

provided. 

60. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the license terms for both 

the unauctioned and already auctioned 

700 MHz Band licenses should be 

revised in consideration of the delays in 

auctioning most of the licenses in the 

700 MHz Band, the new mandate under 

the DTV Act to auction all spectrum in 

the 700 MHz Band by a date certain, 

and/or the establishment in the DTV Act 

of a date certain for the end of the DTV 

transition. Comments should address 

the impact that these factors may have 

on the development and use of the 

spectrum in the context of the 

appropriate license term length for the 

700 MHz Band. The Commission notes 

that the period extending from the new 

firm deadline for the DTV transition, 

February 17, 2009, to the current 

January 1, 2015, termination date set 

forth in 47 CFR 27.13(b) is shorter than 

both the ten-year license term generally 

afforded to many other (including 

CMRS) licensees and the eight-year 

average time for complying with the 

performance requirements which the 

Commission considered when the 

current rule was first adopted in 2000. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the changes to the DTV 

transition mandated by the DTV Act 

warrant a modification of the license 

terms currently in 47 CFR 27.13(b) of 

the rules. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other considerations and 

developments that would support (or 

not support) extending or revising the 

license terms of these licenses. 

61. In the event that a change in the 

license term for these 700 MHz Band 

licenses is warranted, the Commission 

seeks comment on what new license 

terms should be adopted. First, the 

Commission invites comment on 

whether it should adopt a new initial 

license term that would extend to a date 

certain, and what that date should be. 

For instance, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the license term 

should extend until February 18, 2017. 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

adoption of a license term that 

recognized an eight-year period after the 

then-target date for the end of the DTV 

transition, a new license term extending 

until February 18, 2017 would cover a 

period of eight years after the new firm 

deadline for the transition. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether some other specific date may 

be more appropriate. 

62. In the alternative, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether a new 

license term should extend for a 

specified period of time rather than be 

tied to a specific termination date and, 

if so, what that period of time should be. 

For instance, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the license term 

should be amended to extend for a 

period not to exceed ten years from the 

date of initial issuance or renewal. 

There may also be factors that relate 

specifically to the 700 MHz Band that 

support adopting a license term of some 

other length than ten years. Thus, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

47 CFR 27.13(b) should be revised to 

provide a different term, either longer 

than ten years (e.g., 15 years), or less 

than ten years if conditions warrant 

such a change. 

63. The Commission asks that 

comments on the length of license terms 

also address its discussion in this NPRM 

concerning potential revisions to the 

performance requirements for licensees 

in the 700 MHz Band. The ‘‘substantial 

service’’ construction requirement in 

Section 27.14(a) of the rules requires 

that licensees make a ‘‘substantial 

service’’ showing ‘‘within the prescribed 

license term set forth in § 27.13.’’ See 47 

CFR 27.14(a). If the Commission alters 

the length of license term, commenters 

should consider whether the 

Commission should modify or amend 

the existing performance requirements 

in 47 CFR 27.14. 

64. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to establish a 

uniform license term for all services 

provided by 700 MHz Band licensees, 

regardless of regulatory status. Licensees 

in the 700 MHz Band are authorized to 

provide a combination of different 

services in a single license: Common 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48516 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

carrier, non-common carrier, private 

internal communications, and broadcast 

services. These licensees also are 

permitted, consistent with Commission 

rules, to switch their regulatory status at 

any time prior to the end of their license 

period. As reflected in 47 CFR 27.13(b) 

of the rules, to the extent licensees offer 

services that qualify as broadcasting 

under the Communications Act, an 

eight-year license term applies from the 

onset of broadcast operations, whereas 

the license term extends until January 1, 

2015 for non-broadcast operations. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

impact of the two different license terms 

set forth in 47 CFR 27.13(b), depending 

on the service offered, on those 

situations where a licensee deploys 

services with both broadcast and nonbroadcast components under a single 

license authorization. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the operation 

and impact of the two license terms on 

those situations where a licensee 

changes the type of service offered 

between broadcast and non-broadcast 

services during the term of the license. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

what changes, if any, should be made to 

its current approach of administering 

different license terms within a single 

authorization. 

F. Power Limits and Related 

Requirements 

65. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to modify the power limits 

that apply to base stations operating in 

either the unauctioned or auctioned 

spectrum in the 700 MHz Band. Power 

limits for the Guard Band and Public 

Safety spectrum is beyond the scope of 

this NPRM. 

66. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether, and to what extent, the 

power limit of 1 kW ERP, which 

currently applies to base stations 

operating in Blocks C and D of the 

Upper 700 MHz Band, should be 

revised. Specifically, commenters 

should address whether a need or 

demand exists for a higher power limit 

in the Upper 700 MHz Band and what 

additional types of services could be 

implemented in the band if a higher 

power limit is permitted. The 

Commission requests that any 

commenters that propose raising the 

power limit in the Upper 700 MHz Band 

submit a technical analysis showing 

how their proposal would not increase 

the risk of interference to adjacent 

operations. Because the Commission is 

concerned that any increase in power 

beyond the current 1 kW ERP limit 

could cause interference to Public 

Safety and Guard Band systems 

operating in the Upper 700 MHz Band, 

commenters should address whether 

permitting higher powered 

transmissions could cause interference 

to Public Safety or Guard Band 

operations. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a higher power limit, along with a 3 

milliwatts/m2 or similar PFD limit, will 

adequately protect Public Safety and 

Guard Band mobile and base station 

operations from interference. If not, the 

Commission asks what PFD limits, or 

other restrictions, would be necessary to 

protect such operations. As the 

Commission discusses in the NPRM, the 

protection of commercial base stations 

from high-powered adjacent band 

transmissions is achieved through, 

among other things, the significant 

height differential that is likely to exist 

between high-powered transmitting 

antennas and commercial base station 

receive antennas. However, because 

Public Safety and Guard Band base 

station antennas may not operate at the 

same low heights as commercial base 

station antennas, Public Safety and 

Guard Band base stations could be 

susceptible to interference from adjacent 

band, high-powered base stations. Thus, 

more stringent technical requirements 

would appear to be needed to protect 

such stations. Given the importance the 

Commission attaches to preventing 

interference to Public Safety operations, 

the Commission will not adopt any 

modifications to its power limit rules 

that would cause interference to such 

operations in the Upper 700 MHz Band. 

67. The Commission seeks comment 

as well on whether a PFD limit would 

necessarily have to be applied to highpowered transmissions originating in all 

upper and lower C and D block 

spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band, 

or whether it might be necessary to 

apply PFD limits to stations operating in 

only certain Upper 700 MHz Band 

spectrum blocks to protect Public Safety 

and Guard Band operations. In the event 

the Commission finds that certain 

spectrum blocks could accommodate 

such transmissions without the need for 

a PFD limit, the Commission asks 

commenters whether it should permit 

high-powered transmissions only on 

these spectrum blocks. 

68. The Commission also asks 

whether, if commenters believe that a 

general approach of employing PFD 

limits may not be sufficiently effective 

in preventing interference from higherpowered transmissions to adjacent 

channel operations, or if such 

transmissions could potentially cause 

interference to co-channel operations, 

the Commission should limit any 

increase in permissible power to, e.g., 

20 kW, 10 kW, or 5 kW ERP, or not 

modify the current 1 kW ERP power 

limit at all. Commenters should also 

address whether such ‘‘intermediate’’

power limits in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band might be able to be implemented 

in some, or all, of the commercial Upper 

700 MHz Band spectrum without the 

need for PFD limits to protect adjacent 

channel operations. In addition, 

regardless of whether the Commission 

decides to increase the power limit for 

base stations in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band, the Commission asks if it should, 

consistent with PCS and AWS, double 

the existing power limit, to 2 kW ERP, 

for rural areas only in the Upper 700 

MHz Band (without the need for a PFD 

limit) and what benefit such an increase 

might provide in the provision of 

service in rural areas. 

69. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether any additional 

modifications to its Upper 700 MHz 

Band power limit rules would be 

appropriate. For example, in the event 

that the Commission authorizes base 

stations operating in all or in portions 

of the commercial blocks in the Upper 

700 MHz Band to employ higher 

powered transmissions, the Commission 

asks whether it should adopt the same 

notification procedures for highpowered Upper 700 MHz Band 

operations that the Commission 

currently applies to high-powered 

Lower 700 MHz Band operations, and 

asks whether such notification 

procedures will adequately protect other 

Upper 700 MHz Band licensees from 

interference. 

70. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to revise the 50 

kW ERP power limit that applies to base 

stations operating in the Lower 700 

MHz Band. In the first instance, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to revise the power limit with respect to 

the unauctioned portion of the Lower 

700 MHz Band. 

71. The Commission also asks 

whether it should reduce the current 

power limit to, e.g., 20 kW, 10 kW, 5 kW 

ERP, or even to 1 kW ERP because of 

possible concerns that the Lower 700 

MHz Band PFD limit does not 

adequately limit adjacent channel 

interference from 50 kW ERP 

transmissions or believe that the 

potential exists for co-channel 

interference from transmissions at that 

power level. Finally, commenters 

should address whether the 

Commission should, consistent with 

PCS and AWS, adopt a power limit of 

2 kW ERP for rural areas only (without 

the need for a PFD limit) for base 

stations operating in the Lower 700 

MHz Band. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48517 

72. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether any revisions to 

the Lower 700 MHz Band power limit 

should be uniformly applied across the 

entire band, i.e., including the existing 

licenses in Blocks C and D as well as the 

unauctioned Blocks A, B, and E. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

whether, and to what extent, applying a 

revised power limit to existing licenses 

in Blocks C and D to provide for 

uniform treatment across the band, will 

promote the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity, or the 

provisions of the Communications Act, 

as amended. The Commission also asks 

that commenters address whether any 

public interest benefits resulting from a 

change in the Lower 700 MHz Band 

power limit would outweigh any 

additional costs that may be associated 

with such a change. 

73. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether any additional 

modifications to its Lower 700 MHz 

Band power limit rules would be 

appropriate. For example, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the current notification procedures that 

apply to high-powered Lower 700 MHz 

Band operations will adequately protect 

adjacent band Lower 700 MHz Band 

licensees from interference. 

G. 911/E911 and Hearing AidCompatible Wireless Handsets 

74. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that it should amend its part 

20 rules to clarify that certain services 

offered using both unauctioned and 

previously auctioned spectrum in the 

700 MHz Band and spectrum in other 

bands subject to part 27, such as AWS–

1, should be subject to the 911/E911 and 

hearing aid-compatibility requirements. 

75. Sections 20.18(a) and 20.19(a), 47 

CFR 20.18(a) and 20.19(a), currently 

specify that service providers within 

certain enumerated radio services 

(cellular, PCS, and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR)) are subject to the 911/ 

E911 and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements. These rule sections have 

not been expanded to include licensees 

providing service in later authorized, 

additional wireless services such as in 

the 700 MHz Band, although many of 

the services permitted in the 700 MHz 

Band can be expected to be very similar 

to services presently subject to the 911/ 

E911 and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements. 

76. In 2003, the Commission 

broadened the scope of its wireless E911 

rules, which applied only to licensees of 

particular services specified in the rules, 

so that the requirements extended to 

various other services and devices to the 

extent that they met certain specified 

criteria. Under that action, a service or 

device provider, whether or not it is a 

licensee, is to be subject to E911 rules 

based on whether: (1) It offers real-time, 

two-way voice service that is 

interconnected to the public switched 

network on either a stand-alone basis or 

packaged with other 

telecommunications services; (2) the 

customers using the service or device 

have a reasonable expectation of access 

to 911 and E911 services; (3) the service 

competes with traditional CMRS or 

wireline local exchange service; and (4) 

it is technically and operationally 

feasible for the service or device to 

support E911. The Commission also 

may use other factors in making its 

determination. Applying these criteria, 

the Commission determined in 2003 to 

amend its rules to include additional 

service offerings within the scope of the 

E911 requirements, including 

telematics, and resold and prepaid 

mobile wireless services. 

77. Based on the past establishment of 

these criteria, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that services 

provided in the 700 MHz Band that 

meet these criteria should be subject to 

the 911/E911 requirements. The 

Commission also tentatively concludes 

that services provided in the 700 MHz 

Band that meet these same criteria, with 

some minor adjustments respecting 

access to hearing aid-compatible 

phones, should be subject to the hearing 

aid-compatibility requirements. Further, 

the Commission tentatively concludes 

that the public safety and accessibility 

objectives of the 911/E911 and hearing 

aid compatibility rules would be served 

by application of these rules to services 

provided in the 700 MHz Band and 

meeting the above criteria. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

tentative conclusions. 

78. The Commission expects as well 

that other services provided, at least in 

part, using spectrum subject to part 27, 

such as AWS–1, may meet the above 

criteria and thus also should be subject 

to 911/E911 and hearing aidcompatibility requirements. 

Accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on a tentative conclusion that 

services provided using bands subject to 

part 27, including AWS–1, that meet 

these criteria should also be subject to 

the 911/E911 and hearing aidcompatibility requirements. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

what changes to the industry standard 

governing digital wireless handsets 

compatibility with hearing aids, ANSI 

C63.19–2006, would be necessary in 

order to establish measurement methods 

and parametric requirements for 

services provided in the 700 MHz Band. 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on the time necessary to 

complete such changes to the standard. 

79. Finally, 47 CFR 20.18(a) and 

20.19(a) presently limit the applicability 

of the 911/E911 and hearing aid 

compatibility requirements to specific 

radio services. As a result, the 

Commission would need to propose rule 

amendments to apply the 911/E911 and 

hearing aid-compatibility requirements 

each time a new service is authorized in 

the future that would meet the above 

criteria. Therefore, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should amend 47 CFR 

20.18(a) and 20.19(a) to ensure that all 

similar wireless services that meet the 

four above criteria will be subject to the 

911/E911 and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

80. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules addressed in this NPRM. The 

IRFA is set forth in the Appendix to the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on the IRFA. These comments 

must be filed in accordance with the 

same filing deadlines as comments filed 

in response to the NPRM, and must have 

a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. Section 213 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act 2000 provides that 

the RFA shall not apply to the rules and 

competitive bidding procedures for 

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz Band. 

In particular, this exemption extends to 

the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 

of Title 5, United States Code, Section 

3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

632) and Section 3507 and 3512 of Title 

44, United States Code. Consolidated 

Appropriations Act 2000, Public Law 

106–113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, 

Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 

Cong. Rec. H12493–94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 

47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) 

through (B). The Commission 

nevertheless believes that it would serve 

the public interest to analyze the 

possible significant economic impact of 

the proposed policy and rule changes in 

this band on small entities. Accordingly, 

the IRFA in the Appendix of the NPRM 

includes an analysis of (and seeks 

comment on) this impact in connection 

with all spectrum that falls within the 

scope of this NPRM, including spectrum 

in the 746–806 MHz Band. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48518 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

81. This NPRM contains proposed 

new or modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this NPRM, as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due on or before 

September 20, 2006. 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. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198 (see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ The Commission notes, 

however, that Section 213 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000 

provides that rules governing 

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz Band 

become effective immediately upon 

publication in the Federal Register 

without regard to certain sections of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Consolidated 

Appropriations Act 2000, Public Law 

106–113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, 

Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 

Cong. Rec. H12493–94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 

47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) 

through (B). The Commission is 

therefore not inviting comment on any 

information collections that concern 

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz Band. 

C. Other Procedural Matters 

1. Ex Parte Presentations 

82. The rulemaking this NPRM 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

2. Comment Filing Procedures 

83. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties may file comments on 

or before September 20, 2006 and reply 

comments on or before October 20, 

2006. All filings related to this NPRM 

should refer to WT Docket No. 06–150, 

CC Docket No. 94–102, and WT Docket 

No. 01–309. Comments may be filed 

using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. 

84. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. 

ECFS filers must transmit one electronic 

copy of the comments for WT Docket 

No. 06–150, CC Docket No. 94–102, and 

WT Docket No. 01–309. In completing 

the transmittal screen, filers should 

include their full name, U.S. Postal 

Service mailing address, and WT Docket 

No. 06–150, CC Docket No. 94–102, and 

WT Docket No. 01–309. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

85. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (although the Commission 

continues to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. 

Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

should also send a copy of their 

comments to: Michael Rowan, Special 

Counsel, Spectrum & Competition 

Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6315, 

Washington, DC 20554; and Bill 

Stafford, Special Counsel, Spectrum & 

Competition Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6221, 

Washington, DC 20554. The 

Commission’s contractor will receive 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

The filing hours at this location are 8 

a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must 

be held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

86. Parties shall serve one copy with 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 

II, Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300, 

or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

87. Documents in WT Docket No. 06–

150, CC Docket No. 94–102, and WT 

Docket No. 01–309 will be available for 

public inspection and copying during 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, Room 

CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The documents 

may also be purchased from BCPI, 

telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile 

(202) 488–5563, TTY (202) 488–5562, email fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

3. Accessible Formats 

88. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Contact the Commission to request 

reasonable accommodations for filing 

comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CARTS, etc.) by e-mail: 

FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: 202–418–0530 

(voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

89. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules considered in this 

NPRM. Written public comments are 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48519 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, this NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

90. Section 213 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act 2000 provides that 

the RFA shall not apply to the rules and 

competitive bidding procedures for 

frequencies in the 746–806 MHz Band. 

In particular, this exemption extends to 

the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 

of Title 5, United States Code, Section 

3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

632) and Section 3507 and 3512 of Title 

44, United States Code. Consolidated 

Appropriations Act 2000, Public Law 

106–113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, 

Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 

Cong. Rec. H12493–94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 

47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) 

through (B). The Commission 

nevertheless believes that it would serve 

the public interest to analyze the 

possible significant economic impact of 

the proposed policy and rule changes in 

this band on small entities. Accordingly, 

this IRFA contains an analysis of this 

impact in connection with all spectrum 

that falls within the scope of this NPRM, 

including spectrum in the 746–806 MHz 

Band. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

91. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on possible changes to 

the rules governing wireless licenses in 

the 700 MHz Band, spectrum that does 

not include the Upper 700 MHz Guard 

Bands nor the portions of the Upper 700 

MHz Band that have been allocated for 

public safety services. These spectrum 

bands in the 698–806 MHz band have 

been allocated to new fixed, mobile, and 

broadcast services. Under the DTV Act, 

the Commission is required to 

commence an auction of previously 

unauctioned spectrum in the 700 MHz 

Band no later than January 28, 2008. In 

response to the changes made by the 

DTV Act affecting the 700 MHz Band, 

and because more than four years have 

passed since the Commission previously 

established band plans and service rules 

for this spectrum, the NPRM revisits 

some of the Commission’s earlier 

decisions regarding the service rules for 

licenses in this band. 

92. Specifically, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether there is a need to 

revise the size of the geographic service 

areas for the remaining unauctioned 

spectrum in the band, including the 

possibility of using smaller areas, such 

as the 734 CMAs composed of MSAs 

and RSAs. The NPRM then seeks 

comment on whether to modify the size 

of certain 700 MHz Band spectrum 

blocks, including the possibility of 

dividing Block D in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band into smaller blocks. The NPRM 

also requests input on whether to add or 

revise performance requirements for 

unauctioned spectrum, including such 

alternatives as specific construction 

benchmarks. In addition, the NPRM 

seeks comment on options that may 

facilitate access to spectrum in the 

secondary market for all licenses in the 

700 MHz Band, as well as on policies 

the Commission could implement to 

promote service to tribal lands. 

93. The NPRM then seeks comment 

on several additional issues relating to 

both auctioned and unauctioned 

licenses in the 700 MHz Band. For these 

licenses, comment is sought on whether 

to clarify or modify the rules and 

criteria for license renewal. The NPRM 

also seeks comment on whether to 

revise and possibly extend the term of 

licenses, as well as whether to modify 

the existing power limits in both the 

Upper 700 MHz and the Lower 700 MHz 

Bands. In light of the importance of 

public safety operations in the 700 MHz 

Band, the Commission states that it 

would take no action that would cause 

harmful interference to public safety 

licensees in the band. 

94. Finally, the NPRM requests 

comment on the tentative conclusion 

that services provided by licensees in 

the 700 MHz Band, and in other bands 

subject to part 27 of the rules, should be 

subject to E911 and hearing aidcompatibility requirements to the same 

extent that such services would be 

covered if provided in other bands. It 

then seeks comment on how to modify 

Commission rules to ensure that they 

include all similar wireless services, 

referred to as Wireless Radio Services 

(WRS). 

B. Legal Basis 

95. The potential actions about which 

comment is sought in this NPRM would 

be authorized pursuant to the authority 

contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7, 

10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A)–(C), 

222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)–

(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 332, 

333, 336, 337, 614, 615, and 710 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 

155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 

222(d)(4)(A)–(C), 222(f), 222(g), 

222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)–(5), 251(e)(3), 

301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

314, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 

534, 535, and 610. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

96. 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. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

97. This NPRM could result in rule 

changes that, if adopted, would create 

new opportunities and obligations for 

Commission wireless licensees. Under 

the NPRM, any of the changes to the 

Commission’s rules which may occur as 

a result of the NPRM would be limited 

to Upper 700 MHz and Lower 700 MHz 

Band licensees in the 698–746, 747–762, 

and 777–792 MHz spectrum bands, with 

one exception. In the NPRM, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

tentative conclusion that services 

provided in the 700 MHz Band, and in 

other bands subject to part 27, should be 

subject to requirements concerning 911/ 

E911 and hearing aid-compatible 

handsets to the extent they meet certain 

criteria. The NPRM then seeks comment 

on how to modify Commission rules to 

ensure that they include all similar 

WRS. Thus, because such revisions 

potentially could affect small entity 

licensees holding licenses in many 

wireless services (and not just bands 

which are subject to part 27 of the 

Commission’s rules), this IRFA includes 

estimates of the number of small entities 

in each of the categories of WRS 

identified below. 

98. Since this rulemaking proceeding 

applies to multiple services, this IRFA 

analyzes the number of small entities 

affected on a service-by-service basis. 

When identifying small entities that 

could be affected by the Commission’s 

new rules, this IRFA provides 

information describing auctions results, 

including the number of small entities 

that were winning bidders. However, 

the number of winning bidders that 

qualify as small businesses at the close 

of an auction does not necessarily 

reflect the total number of small entities 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48520 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

currently in a particular service. The 

Commission does not generally require 

that licensees later provide business size 

information, except in the context of an 

assignment or transfer of control 

application where unjust enrichment 

issues are implicated. Consequently, to 

assist the Commission in analyzing the 

total number of potentially affected 

small entities, the Commission requests 

commenters to estimate the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

any rule changes that might result from 

this NPRM. 

1. Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services (MWCS) 

99. Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 

2305–2320 MHz and 2345–2360 MHz 

bands. The Commission defined ‘‘small 

business’’ for the wireless 

communications services (WCS) auction 

as an entity with average gross revenues 

of $40 million for each of the three 

preceding years, and a ‘‘very small 

business’’ as an entity with average 

gross revenues of $15 million for each 

of the three preceding years. The SBA 

has approved these definitions. The 

Commission auctioned geographic area 

licenses in the WCS service. In the 

auction, which commenced on April 15, 

1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there 

were seven bidders that won 31 licenses 

that qualified as very small business 

entities, and one bidder that won one 

license that qualified as a small business 

entity. 

100. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. 

In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the 

Commission adopted size standards for 

‘‘small businesses’’ and ‘‘very small 

businesses’’ for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits and installment 

payments. A small business in this 

service is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $40 million for the preceding 

three years. Additionally, a ‘‘very small 

business’’ is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues that are not 

more than $15 million for the preceding 

three years. SBA approval of these 

definitions is not required. An auction 

of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) 

licenses commenced on September 6, 

2000, and closed on September 21, 

2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 

licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five 

of these bidders were small businesses 

that won a total of 26 licenses. A second 

auction of 700 MHz Guard Band 

licenses commenced on February 13, 

2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. 

All eight of the licenses auctioned were 

sold to three bidders. One of these 

bidders was a small business that won 

a total of two licenses. 

101. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. 

The Commission released a Report and 

Order authorizing service in the Upper 

700 MHz band. An auction for these 

licenses, previously scheduled for 

January 13, 2003, was postponed. 

102. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. 

The Commission adopted criteria for 

defining three groups of small 

businesses for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits. The 

Commission has defined a small 

business as an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $40 million for the preceding 

three years. A very small business is 

defined as an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues that are not 

more than $15 million for the preceding 

three years. Additionally, the Lower 700 

MHz Band has a third category of small 

business status that may be claimed for 

Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/ 

RSA) licenses. The third category is 

entrepreneur, which is defined as an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues that are not more than $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these small size 

standards. An auction of 740 licenses 

(one license in each of the 734 MSAs/ 

RSAs and one license in each of the six 

Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) 

commenced on August 27, 2002, and 

closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 

740 licenses available for auction, 484 

licenses were sold to 102 winning 

bidders. Seventy-two of the winning 

bidders claimed small business, very 

small business or entrepreneur status 

and won a total of 329 licenses. A 

second auction commenced on May 28, 

2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and 

included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses 

and 476 CMA licenses. Seventeen 

winning bidders claimed small or very 

small business status and won sixty 

licenses, and nine winning bidders 

claimed entrepreneur status and won 

154 licenses. 

103. Government Transfer Bands. The 

Commission adopted small business 

size standards for the unpaired 1390–

1392 MHz, 1670–1675 MHz, and the 

paired 1392–1395 MHz and 1432–1435 

MHz bands. Specifically, with respect to 

these bands, the Commission defined an 

entity with average annual gross 

revenues for the three preceding years 

not exceeding $40 million as a ‘‘small 

business,’’ and an entity with average 

annual gross revenues for the three 

preceding years not exceeding $15 

million as a ‘‘very small business.’’

Correspondingly, the Commission 

adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent 

for ‘‘small businesses’’ and a bidding 

credit of 25 percent for ‘‘very small 

businesses.’’ This bidding credit 

structure was found to have been 

consistent with the Commission’s 

schedule of bidding credits, which may 

be found at Section 1.2110(f)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

found that these two definitions will 

provide a variety of businesses seeking 

to provide a variety of services with 

opportunities to participate in the 

auction of licenses for this spectrum and 

will afford such licensees, who may 

have varying capital costs, substantial 

flexibility for the provision of services. 

The Commission noted that it had long 

recognized that bidding preferences for 

qualifying bidders provides such 

bidders with an opportunity to compete 

successfully against large, well-financed 

entities. The Commission also noted 

that it had found that the use of tiered 

or graduated small business definitions 

is useful in furthering its mandate under 

Section 309(j) to promote opportunities 

for and disseminate licenses to a wide 

variety of applicants. An auction for one 

license in the 1670–1674 MHz band 

commenced on April 30, 2003 and 

closed the same day. One license was 

awarded. The winning bidder was not a 

small entity. 

104. Advanced Wireless Services. In 

the AWS–1 Report and Order, the 

Commission adopted rules that affect 

applicants who wish to provide service 

in the 1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 

MHz bands. The Commission did not 

know precisely the type of service that 

a licensee in these bands might seek to 

provide. Nonetheless, the Commission 

anticipated 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 AWS–1 Report and Order adopts the 

same small business size standards that 

the Commission adopted for the 

broadband PCS service. In particular, 

the AWS–1 Report and Order defines a 

‘‘small business’’ as an entity with 

average annual gross revenues for the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48521 

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 AWS–1 

Report and Order also provides small 

businesses with a bidding credit of 15 

percent and very small businesses with 

a bidding credit of 25 percent. 

105. Broadband Radio Service 

(formerly Multipoint Distribution 

Service) and Educational Broadband 

Service (formerly Instructional 

Television Fixed Service). Multichannel 

Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) 

systems, often referred to as ‘‘wireless 

cable,’’ transmit video programming to 

subscribers using the microwave 

frequencies of the Multipoint 

Distribution Service (MDS) and 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(ITFS). In its recently issued BRS/EBS 

Report and Order in WT Docket No. 03–

66, the Commission comprehensively 

reviewed its policies and rules relating 

to the ITFS and MDS services, and 

replaced the MDS with the Broadband 

Radio Service and ITFS with the 

Educational Broadband Service in a new 

band plan at 2495–2690 MHz. In 

connection with the 1996 MDS auction, 

the Commission defined ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity that, together 

with its affiliates, has average gross 

annual revenues that are not more than 

$40 million for the preceding three 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

of this standard. The MDS auction 

resulted in 67 successful bidders 

obtaining licensing opportunities for 

493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 

67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as 

a small business. At this time, the 

Commission estimates that of the 61 

small business MDS auction winners, 48 

remain small business licensees. In 

addition to the 48 small businesses that 

hold BTA authorizations, there are 

approximately 392 incumbent MDS 

licensees that have gross revenues that 

are not more than $40 million and are 

thus considered small entities. 

106. In addition, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Cable and Other Program 

Distribution, which is: All such firms 

having $13.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. According to Census Bureau 

data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 

firms in this category that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms 

had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 43 firms had receipts of 

$10 million or more but less than $25 

million. Thus, under this size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. 

2. Additional Wireless Radio Services 

(WRS) 

107. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for small businesses in the 

category ‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications.’’ Under that SBA 

category, a business is small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees. For the 

census category of ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications,’’ Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were 1,397 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,378 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this category and size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

108. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I 

Licensees. The 220 MHz service has 

both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase 

I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 

1992 and 1993. There are approximately 

1,515 such non nationwide licensees 

and four nationwide licensees currently 

authorized to operate in the 220 MHz 

Band. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to such 

incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. 

To estimate the number of such 

licensees that are small businesses, the 

Commission applies the small business 

size standard under the SBA rules 

applicable to ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications’’

companies. This category provides that 

a small business is a wireless company 

employing no more than 1,500 persons. 

For the census category of ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications,’’

Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 

there were 1,397 firms in this category 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,378 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this category and size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

109. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II 

Licensees. The 220 MHz service has 

both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The 

Phase II 220 MHz service is subject to 

spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz 

Third Report and Order, the 

Commission adopted a small business 

size standard for defining ‘‘small’’ and 

‘‘very small’’ businesses for purposes of 

determining their eligibility for special 

provisions such as bidding credits and 

installment payments. This small 

business standard indicates that a 

‘‘small business’’ is an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $15 million for 

the preceding three years. A ‘‘very small 

business’’ is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues that do not exceed $3 million 

for the preceding three years. The SBA 

has approved these small size standards. 

Auctions of Phase II licenses 

commenced on September 15, 1998, and 

closed on October 22, 1998. In the first 

auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in 

three different sized geographic areas: 

three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional 

Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, 

and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. 

Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were 

sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won 

373 licenses in the first 220 MHz 

auction. A second auction included 225 

licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG 

licenses. Fourteen companies claiming 

small business status won 158 licenses. 

A third auction included four licenses: 

2 BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in 

the 220 MHz Service. No small or very 

small business won any of these 

licenses. 

110. Paging. In the Paging Second 

Report and Order, the Commission 

adopted a size standard for ‘‘small 

businesses’’ for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits and installment 

payments. A small business is an entity 

that, together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues not exceeding $15 million for 

the preceding three years. The SBA has 

approved this definition. An auction of 

Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) 

licenses commenced on February 24, 

2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of 

the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were 

sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming 

small business status won 440 licenses. 

An auction of MEA and Economic Area 

(EA) licenses commenced on October 

30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 

2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 

5,323 were sold. 132 companies 

claiming small business status 

purchased 3,724 licenses. A third 

auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in 

each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in 

all but three of the 51 MEAs 

commenced on May 13, 2003, and 

closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven 

bidders claiming small or very small 

business status won 2,093 licenses. 

Currently, there are approximately 

24,000 Private Paging site-specific 

licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier 

Paging licenses. According to the 

Commission’s Trends in Telephone 

Service, 375 such carriers reported that 

they were engaged in the provision of 

either paging or ‘‘messaging service.’’ Of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

these, the Commission estimates that 

370 are small, under the SBA-approved 

small business size standard. The 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of private and common carrier paging 

providers would qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. 

111. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into 

six frequency blocks designated A 

through F, and the Commission has held 

auctions for each block. The 

Commission has created a small 

business size standard for Blocks C and 

F as an entity that has average gross 

revenues of less than $40 million in the 

three previous calendar years. For Block 

F, an additional small business size 

standard for ‘‘very small business’’ was 

added and is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates, has average 

gross revenues of not more than $15 

million for the preceding three calendar 

years. These small business size 

standards, in the context of broadband 

PCS auctions, have been approved by 

the SBA. No small businesses within the 

SBA-approved small business size 

standards bid successfully for licenses 

in Blocks A and B. There were 90 

winning bidders that qualified as small 

entities in the Block C auctions. A total 

of 93 ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘very small’’ business 

bidders won approximately 40 percent 

of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and 

F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission 

reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block 

licenses; there were 113 small business 

winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, 

the Commission completed the auction 

of 422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction 

35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this 

auction, 29 qualified as ‘‘small’’ or ‘‘very 

small’’ businesses. Subsequent events 

concerning Auction 35, including 

judicial and agency determinations, 

resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block 

licenses being available for grant. 

112. Narrowband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

Commission held an auction for 

Narrowband Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) licenses that commenced 

on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 

1994. A second commenced on October 

26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 

1994. For purposes of the first two 

Narrowband PCS auctions, ‘‘small 

businesses’’ were entities with average 

gross revenues for the prior three 

calendar years of $40 million or less. 

Through these auctions, the 

Commission awarded a total of forty-one 

licenses, 11 of which were obtained by 

four small businesses. To ensure 

meaningful participation by small 

business entities in future auctions, the 

Commission adopted a two-tiered small 

business size standard in the 

Narrowband PCS Second Report and 

Order. A ‘‘small business’’ is an entity 

that, together with affiliates and 

controlling interests, has average gross 

revenues for the three preceding years of 

not more than $40 million. A ‘‘very 

small business’’ is an entity that, 

together with affiliates and controlling 

interests, has average gross revenues for 

the three preceding years of not more 

than $15 million. The SBA has 

approved these small business size 

standards. A third auction commenced 

on October 3, 2001 and closed on 

October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders 

won 317 (MTA and nationwide) 

licenses. Three of these claimed status 

as a small or very small entity and won 

311 licenses. 

113. Specialized Mobile Radio. The 

Commission awards ‘‘small entity’’

bidding credits in auctions for 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz bands to firms that had 

revenues of no more than $15 million in 

each of the three previous calendar 

years. The Commission awards ‘‘very 

small entity’’ bidding credits to firms 

that had revenues of no more than $3 

million in each of the three previous 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

these small business size standards for 

the 900 MHz Service. The Commission 

has held auctions for geographic area 

licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began 

on December 5, 1995, and closed on 

April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming 

that they qualified as small businesses 

under the $15 million size standard won 

263 geographic area licenses in the 900 

MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR 

auction for the upper 200 channels 

began on October 28, 1997, and was 

completed on December 8, 1997. Ten 

bidders claiming that they qualified as 

small businesses under the $15 million 

size standard won 38 geographic area 

licenses for the upper 200 channels in 

the 800 MHz SMR band. A second 

auction for the 800 MHz band was held 

on January 10, 2002 and closed on 

January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA 

licenses. One bidder claiming small 

business status won five licenses. 

114. The auction of the 1,050 800 

MHz SMR geographic area licenses for 

the General Category channels began on 

August 16, 2000, and was completed on 

September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 

108 geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels in the 800 

MHz SMR band qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard. In an auction completed on 

December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 

Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 

channels of the 800 MHz SMR service 

were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 

19 claimed ‘‘small business’’ status and 

won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all 

three auctions, 40 winning bidders for 

geographic licenses in the 800 MHz 

SMR band claimed status as small 

business. 

115. In addition, there are numerous 

incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees 

and licensees with extended 

implementation authorizations in the 

800 and 900 MHz bands. The 

Commission does not know how many 

firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz 

geographic area SMR pursuant to 

extended implementation 

authorizations, nor how many of these 

providers have annual revenues of no 

more than $15 million. One firm has 

over $15 million in revenues. The 

Commission assumes, for purposes of 

this analysis, that all of the remaining 

existing extended implementation 

authorizations are held by small 

entities, as that small business size 

standard is established by the SBA. 

116. Private Land Mobile Radio. 

Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) 

systems serve an essential role in a 

range of industrial, business, land 

transportation, and public safety 

activities. These radios are used by 

companies of all sizes operating in all 

U.S. business categories, and are often 

used in support of the licensee’s 

primary (non-telecommunications) 

business operations. For the purpose of 

determining whether a licensee of a 

PLMR system is a small business as 

defined by the SBA, the Commission 

could use the definition for ‘‘Cellular 

and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications.’’ This definition 

provides that a small entity is any such 

entity employing no more than 1,500 

persons. The Commission does not 

require PLMR licensees to disclose 

information about number of 

employees, so the Commission does not 

have information that could be used to 

determine how many PLMR licensees 

constitute small entities under this 

definition. Moreover, because PMLR 

licensees generally are not in the 

business of providing cellular services 

but instead use the licensed facilities in 

support of other business activities, the 

Commission notes that the current 

Census numbers are likely overbroad. 

The Commission also notes that, for 

some such licensees, it might be 

appropriate to assess PLMR licensees 

under the standards applied to the 

particular industry subsector to which 

the licensee belongs. 

117. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed 

microwave services include common 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48523 

carrier, private-operational fixed, and 

broadcast auxiliary radio services. 

Currently, there are approximately 

22,015 common carrier fixed licensees 

and 61,670 private operational-fixed 

licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio 

licensees in the microwave services. 

The Commission has not yet defined a 

small business with respect to 

microwave services. For purposes of 

this analysis, the Commission will use 

the SBA’s definition applicable to 

‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications’’ companies—that 

is, an entity with no more than 1,500 

persons. The Commission does not have 

data specifying the number of these 

licensees that have more than 1,500 

employees, and thus is unable at this 

time to estimate with greater precision 

the number of fixed microwave service 

licensees that would qualify as small 

business concerns under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that there are 22,015 or fewer 

small common carrier fixed licensees 

and 61,670 or fewer small private 

operational-fixed licensees and small 

broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in 

the microwave services that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted as a result of the NPRM. The 

Commission notes, however, that the 

common carrier microwave fixed 

licensee category includes some large 

entities. 

118. 39 GHz Service. The Commission 

defines ‘‘small entity’’ for 39 GHz 

licenses as an entity that has average 

gross revenues of less than $40 million 

in the three previous calendar years. 

‘‘Very small business’’ is defined as an 

entity that, together with its affiliates, 

has average gross revenues of not more 

than $15 million for the preceding three 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

these definitions. The auction of the 

2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 

12, 2000, and closed on May 8, 2000. 

The 18 bidders who claimed small 

business status won 849 licenses. 

119. Local Multipoint Distribution 

Service. An auction of the 986 Local 

Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) 

licenses began on February 18, 1998, 

and closed on March 25, 1998. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ for 

LMDS licenses as an entity that has 

average gross revenues of less than $40 

million in the three previous calendar 

years. An additional classification for 

‘‘very small business’’ was added and is 

defined as an entity that, together with 

its affiliates, has average gross revenues 

of not more than $15 million for the 

preceding three calendar years. These 

regulations defining ‘‘small entity’’ in 

the context of LMDS auctions have been 

approved by the SBA. There were 93 

winning bidders that qualified as small 

entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 

93 small and very small business 

bidders won approximately 277 A Block 

licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On 

March 27, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 

small and very small business winning 

bidders that won 119 licenses. 

120. 218–219 MHz Service. The first 

auction of 218–219 MHz (previously 

referred to as the Interactive and Video 

Data Service or IVDS) spectrum resulted 

in 178 entities winning licenses for 594 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). 

Of the 594 licenses, 567 were won by 

167 entities qualifying as a small 

business. For that auction, the 

Commission defined a small business as 

an entity that, together with its affiliates, 

has no more than a $6 million net worth 

and, after federal income taxes 

(excluding any carry over losses), has no 

more than $2 million in annual profits 

each year for the previous two years. In 

the 218–219 MHz Report and Order and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 

Commission defined a small business as 

an entity that, together with its affiliates 

and persons or entities that hold 

interests in such an entity and their 

affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues not exceeding $15 million for 

the preceding three years. A very small 

business is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and persons 

or entities that hold interests in such an 

entity and its affiliates, has average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved of these 

definitions. At this time, the 

Commission cannot estimate the 

number of licenses that will be won by 

entities qualifying as small or very small 

businesses under its rules in future 

auctions of 218–219 MHz spectrum. 

Given the success of small businesses in 

the previous auction, and the 

prevalence of small businesses in the 

subscription television services and 

message communications industries, the 

Commission assumes for purposes of 

this analysis that in future auctions, 

many, and perhaps all, of the licenses 

may be awarded to small businesses. 

121. Location and Monitoring Service. 

Multilateration Location and Monitoring 

Service (LMS) systems use non-voice 

radio techniques to determine the 

location and status of mobile radio 

units. For purposes of auctioning LMS 

licenses, the Commission has defined 

‘‘small business’’ as an entity that, 

together with controlling interests and 

affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues for the preceding three years 

not exceeding $15 million. A ‘‘very 

small business’’ is defined as an entity 

that, together with controlling interests 

and affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues for the preceding three years 

not exceeding $3 million. These 

definitions have been approved by the 

SBA. An auction for multilateration 

LMS licenses commenced on February 

23, 1999, and closed on March 5, 1999. 

Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 

licenses were sold to four small 

businesses. The Commission cannot 

accurately predict the number of 

remaining licenses that could be 

awarded to small entities in future LMS 

auctions. In addition, there are 

numerous site-by-site nonmultilateration licensees, and the 

Commission does not know how many 

of these providers have annual revenues 

of no more than $15 million. The 

Commission assumes, for purposes of 

this analysis, that all of these licenses 

are held by small entities, as that small 

business size standard is established by 

the SBA. 

122. Rural Radiotelephone Service. 

The Commission uses the SBA 

definition applicable to cellular and 

other wireless telecommunication 

companies, i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 1,000 licensees in the 

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the 

Commission estimates that there are 

1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service that 

may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted as a result of the 

NPRM. 

123. Air-Ground Radiotelephone 

Service. The Commission uses the SBA 

definition applicable to cellular and 

other wireless telecommunication 

companies, i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and the 

Commission estimates that almost all of 

them qualify as small entities under the 

SBA definition. 

124. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. 

This service operates on several ultra 

high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast 

channels that are not used for TV 

broadcasting in the coastal area of the 

states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At 

present, there are approximately 55 

licensees in this service. The 

Commission uses the SBA definition 

applicable to cellular and other wireless 

telecommunication companies, i.e., an 

entity employing no more than 1,500 

persons. The Commission is unable at 

this time to estimate the number of 

licensees that would qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. The 

Commission assumes, for purposes of 

this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

are small entities, as that term is defined 

by the SBA. 

125. Multiple Address Systems. 

Entities using Multiple Address Systems 

(MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into 

two categories: (1) Those using the 

spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) 

those using the spectrum for private 

internal uses. With respect to the first 

category, the Commission defines 

‘‘small entity’’ for MAS licenses as an 

entity that has average gross revenues of 

less than $15 million in the three 

previous calendar years. ‘‘Very small 

business’’ is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates, has average 

gross revenues of not more than $3 

million for the preceding three calendar 

years. The SBA has approved of these 

definitions. The majority of these 

entities will most likely be licensed in 

bands where the Commission has 

implemented a geographic area 

licensing approach that would require 

the use of competitive bidding 

procedures to resolve mutually 

exclusive applications. The 

Commission’s licensing database 

indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, 

there were a total of 8,670 MAS station 

authorizations. Of these, 260 

authorizations were associated with 

common carrier service. In addition, an 

auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 

EAs began November 14, 2001, and 

closed on November 27, 2001. Seven 

winning bidders claimed status as small 

or very small businesses and won 611 

licenses. 

126. With respect to the second 

category, which consists of entities that 

use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to 

accommodate their own internal 

communications needs, MAS serves an 

essential role in a range of industrial, 

safety, business, and land transportation 

activities. MAS radios are used by 

companies of all sizes, operating in 

virtually all U.S. business categories, 

and by all types of public safety entities. 

For the majority of private internal 

users, the definitions developed by the 

SBA would be more appropriate. The 

applicable definition of small entity in 

this instance appears to be the ‘‘Cellular 

and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications’’ definition under 

the SBA rules. This definition provides 

that a small entity is any entity 

employing no more than 1,500 persons. 

The Commission’s licensing database 

indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of 

the 8,670 total MAS station 

authorizations, 8,410 authorizations 

were for private radio service, and of 

these, 1,433 were for private land 

mobile radio service. 

127. Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. 

The rules at issue could affect 

incumbent licensees who were relocated 

to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz 

band, and applicants who wish to 

provide services in the 24 GHz band. 

The Commission did not develop a 

definition of small entities applicable to 

existing licensees in the 24 GHz band. 

Therefore, the applicable definition of 

small entity is the definition under the 

SBA rules for ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications.’’ This 

definition provides that a small entity is 

any entity employing no more than 

1,500 persons. The Commission believes 

that there are only two licensees in the 

24 GHz band that were relocated from 

the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, 

Inc. The Commission understands that 

Teligent and its related companies have 

less than 1,500 employees, though this 

may change in the future. TRW is not a 

small entity. Thus, only one incumbent 

licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small 

business entity. 

128. Future 24 GHz Licensees. With 

respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz 

band, the Commission has defined 

‘‘small business’’ as an entity that, 

together with controlling interests and 

affiliates, has average annual gross 

revenues for the three preceding years 

not exceeding $15 million. ‘‘Very small 

business’’ in the 24 GHz band is defined 

as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average gross revenues not exceeding $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these 

definitions. The Commission will not 

know how many licensees will be small 

or very small businesses until the 

auction, if required, is held. 

129. Cable Television Relay Service. 

This service includes transmitters 

generally used to relay cable 

programming within cable television 

system distribution systems. The Census 

Bureau has defined a category of Cable 

and Other Program Distribution as 

follows: ‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged as 

third-party distribution systems for 

broadcast programming. The 

establishments of this industry deliver 

visual, aural, or textual programming 

received from cable networks, local 

television stations, or radio networks to 

consumers via cable or direct-to-home 

satellite systems on a subscription or fee 

basis. These establishments do not 

generally originate programming 

material.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Cable 

and Other Program Distribution, which 

is: All such firms having $13.5 million 

or less in annual receipts. According to 

Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 

a total of 1,191 firms in this category 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and 43 firms had 

receipts of $10 million or more but less 

than $25 million. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

130. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 

eleven are small under this size 

standard. In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers. Industry data indicate that, 

of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 

systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 

and an additional 379 systems have 

10,000–19,999 subscribers. Thus, under 

this second size standard, most cable 

systems are small. 

131. Cable System Operators. The 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for small cable system operators, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but ten 

are small under this size standard. The 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million, and therefore it is 

unable to estimate more accurately the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small under this size 

standard. 

132. Multichannel Video Distribution 

and Data Service. Multichannel Video 

Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) 

is a terrestrial fixed microwave service 

operating in the 12.2–12.7 GHz band. 

Licenses in this service were auctioned 

in January 2004, with 10 winning 

bidders for 192 licenses. Eight of these 

10 winning bidders claimed small 

businesses status for 144 of these 

licenses. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48525 

133. Amateur Radio Service. These 

licensees are believed to be individuals, 

and therefore are not small entities. 

134. Aviation and Marine Services. 

Small businesses in the aviation and 

marine radio services use a very high 

frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio 

and, as appropriate, an emergency 

position-indicating radio beacon (and/or 

radar) or an emergency locator 

transmitter. The Commission has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically applicable to these 

small businesses. For purposes of this 

analysis, the Commission uses the SBA 

small business size standard for the 

category ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Telecommunications,’’ which is 1,500 

or fewer employees. Most applicants for 

recreational licenses are individuals. 

Approximately 581,000 ship station 

licensees and 131,000 aircraft station 

licensees operate domestically and are 

not subject to the radio carriage 

requirements of any statute or treaty. 

For purposes of the Commission’s 

evaluations in this analysis, the 

Commission estimates that there are up 

to approximately 712,000 licensees that 

are small businesses (or individuals) 

under the SBA standard. In addition, 

between December 3, 1998 and 

December 14, 1998, the Commission 

held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast 

licenses in the 157.1875–157.4500 MHz 

(ship transmit) and 161.775–162.0125 

MHz (coast transmit) bands. For 

purposes of the auction, the 

Commission defined a ‘‘small’’ business 

as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average gross revenues for the preceding 

three years not to exceed $15 million 

dollars. In addition, a ‘‘very small’’

business is one that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average gross revenues for the preceding 

three years not to exceed $3 million 

dollars. There are approximately 10,672 

licensees in the Marine Coast Service, 

and the Commission estimates that 

almost all of them qualify as ‘‘small’’

businesses under the above special 

small business size standards. 

135. Personal Radio Services. 

Personal radio services provide shortrange, low power radio for personal 

communications, radio signaling, and 

business communications not provided 

for in other services. The Personal Radio 

Services include spectrum licensed 

under part 95 of the rules. These 

services include Citizen Band Radio 

Service (CB), General Mobile Radio 

Service (GMRS), Radio Control Radio 

Service (R/C), Family Radio Service 

(FRS), Wireless Medical Telemetry 

Service (WMTS), Medical Implant 

Communications Service (MICS), Low 

Power Radio Service (LPRS), and MultiUse Radio Service (MURS). There are a 

variety of methods used to license the 

spectrum in these rule parts, from 

licensing by rule, to conditioning 

operation on successful completion of a 

required test, to site-based licensing, to 

geographic area licensing. Under the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

make a determination of which small 

entities are directly affected by the rules 

being adopted. Since all such entities 

are wireless, the Commission applies 

the definition of cellular and other 

wireless telecommunications, pursuant 

to which a small entity is defined as 

employing 1,500 or fewer persons. 

Many of the licensees in these services 

are individuals, and thus are not small 

entities. In addition, due to the mostly 

unlicensed and shared nature of the 

spectrum utilized in many of these 

services, the Commission lacks direct 

information upon which to base an 

estimation of the number of small 

entities under an SBA definition that 

might be directly affected by the 

proposed rules. 

136. Despite the paucity, or in some 

instances, total absence, of information 

about their status as licensees or 

regulatees or the number of operators in 

each such service, users of spectrum in 

these services are listed as a matter of 

Commission discretion in order to fulfill 

the mandate imposed on the 

Commission by the RFA to regulate 

small business entities with an 

understanding towards preventing the 

possible differential and adverse impact 

of the Commission’s rules on smaller 

entities. Further, the listing of such 

entities, despite their indeterminate 

status, should provide them with fair 

and adequate notice of the possible 

impact of the instant proposals. 

137. Public Safety Radio Services. 

Public Safety radio services include 

police, fire, local government, forestry 

conservation, highway maintenance, 

and emergency medical services. There 

are a total of approximately 127,540 

licensees in these services. 

Governmental entities as well as private 

businesses comprise the licensees for 

these services. All governmental entities 

with populations of less than 50,000 fall 

within the definition of a small entity. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

138. The NPRM seeks to evaluate 

whether changes to the existing service 

rules pertaining to 700 MHz Band 

licenses may ultimately permit more 

effective use of this spectrum to better 

meet the needs of today’s consumers. To 

the extent the Commission’s past 

decisions no longer reflect the best 

approach with regard to the license area 

sizes, band plan, performance 

requirements, renewal criteria, length of 

license terms, power limits, and 911/ 

E911 & hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements, the NPRM seeks comment 

on the possibility of making appropriate 

adjustments to various requirements 

that will serve the public interest. 

139. Although the NPRM does not 

propose any specific rules with new 

reporting, recordkeeping or other 

compliance requirements for small 

entities on the aforementioned issues, 

the Commission is open to comment on 

what, if any, requirements it should, or 

should not, impose for small entities if 

it adopts new rules based on the 

proposals in the NPRM. For example, 

there is the possibility that modifying 

performance requirements and 

secondary market provisions for certain 

700 MHz Band licenses could require 

new reporting and recordkeeping 

practices for small entities regarding 

where and how spectrum is used. In 

addition, new renewal criteria could 

possibly be established such that the 

Commission would codify new 

requirements for renewal or, in the 

alternative, list factors that are relevant 

to licensees’ (including small entities’) 

informational showings that renewal is 

in the public interest. Under such a 

proposal, the NPRM states that such 

licensees may have to report on factors 

such as the level of service and whether 

it was ‘‘substantial’’; whether service 

was ever interrupted and discontinued; 

whether service has been provided to 

any rural or tribal areas; whether a 

licensee has received any requests from 

others seeking to enter into spectrum 

leasing arrangements, and whether it 

has entered into any such arrangements; 

and any other factors typically 

associated with assessments of a 

licensee’s level of service to the public. 

The NPRM also seeks comment on 

whether any additional modifications to 

700 MHz Band power limit rules would 

be appropriate; in this regard, it states 

that such action could result in, e.g., the 

use of the notification procedures for 

high-powered Upper 700 MHz Band 

operations that are currently applied to 

high-powered Lower 700 MHz Band 

operations. A tentative conclusion to 

require certain 700 MHz Band, and part 

27, licensees to comply with the 911/ 

E911 and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements (as well as seeking 

comment on whether to apply these 

requirements to licensees in other WRS) 

is another example of a projected 

compliance requirement that could 

affect small entities. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
48526 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

140. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) and exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

141. In the NPRM, the Commission 

specifically considers small business 

alternatives in seeking comment on the 

existing size of geographic service areas 

for the 700 MHz Band. Specifically, the 

NPRM seeks comment on whether there 

is a need for additional small geographic 

service area licenses in the band, such 

as the 734 CMAs. The Commission 

notes that the Rural Cellular Association 

claims that small entities are unable to 

compete effectively for licenses that 

combine rural and major metropolitan 

areas and the availability of RSAs (as 

opposed to other small units) is 

especially important to small and rural 

carriers given their potential greater 

interest in serving these high-cost areas 

than large regional and nationwide 

carriers. 

142. On this question of the optimal 

size of the service areas for the 700 MHz 

Band, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether firms, including small entities, 

need additional access to spectrum over 

small service areas. It considers in 

general the economic impact to small 

entities of the possible transaction costs 

associated with the assignment of 

additional spectrum over small and 

large service areas alike. For example, 

the NPRM seeks comment on the factors 

that the Commission should use in 

balancing the needs of small and rural 

carriers as well as large and national 

carriers as they seek to provide service 

to their rural customers. 

143. The NPRM also seeks comment 

on the optimal service area size(s) for 

the remaining unauctioned licenses to 

the extent a demonstrated need exists 

for smaller or other sized areas. With 

respect to impacts to small entities, the 

NPRM states that both large nationwide 

providers as well as small regional and 

rural providers may be able to make use 

of the 700 MHz Band, yet explains that 

the optimal size of geographic service 

area is different for these two types of 

providers, and licenses for areas that are 

larger or smaller than desired will 

impose transaction costs on those 

parties that wish to acquire them. The 

NPRM seeks comment on the degree and 

likelihood of such economic costs as 

700 MHz Band spectrum is licensed in 

the future, and the extent to which the 

transaction costs of aggregating, 

disaggregating, or partitioning spectrum 

are a significant concern for those 

parties that most highly value this 

spectrum, including small entities. The 

NPRM also discusses how certain 

providers in the 700 MHz Band have 

focused on smaller sized service areas, 

and it notes that a number of small 

providers have acquired Lower 700 

MHz Block C spectrum apparently to 

provide services specifically to rural 

areas over RSAs. Thus, the NPRM seeks 

comment on what the optimal size for 

smaller areas would be, as well as how 

the size of licensed geographic service 

area impacts the services that are 

currently being developed, and which 

may be developed, for use of the 700 

MHz Band. 

144. The NPRM then seeks comment 

on which spectrum blocks in the 700 

MHz Band would be suitable for 

licensing over small or other sized areas. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on the impact of designating 

the unpaired 6 megahertz Block E in the 

Lower 700 MHz Band for small-area 

licensing. Regarding this significant 

alternative, the NPRM inquires if 6 

megahertz is sufficient to meet small 

and/or rural carriers’ spectrum needs, 

and asks commenters to address 

whether there are broadband 

technologies that can operate on 

unpaired spectrum such that the 6 

megahertz of spectrum in Block E would 

be suitable for potential reassignment. 

Taking into account the resources 

available to small entities, the NPRM 

also addresses how any need for small 

and rural carriers to provide adjacent 

TV Channel 51 protection might affect 

their ability to provide service to those 

areas if Block A were designated for 

small area licensing. 

145. In addition to seeking comment 

on the size of service areas, the 

Commission seeks comment on possibly 

changing the size of spectrum blocks in 

the 700 MHz Band plan. To the extent 

the Commission decides to auction and 

assign additional licenses over service 

area sizes other than the six EAGs, the 

NPRM seeks comment on whether 

reconfiguring or sub-dividing existing 

spectrum blocks in the band plans in 

the 700 MHz Band could better 

accommodate such assignments and 

thereby facilitate access to spectrum by 

small entities. In particular, the NPRM 

seeks comment on dividing the 20- 

megahertz Block D license in the Upper 

700 MHz Band into two or more license 

blocks to create additional opportunities 

for firms to acquire spectrum, including 

small business and rural providers. 

146. In the next section of the NPRM, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should take additional action 

with regard to the spectrum in the 700 

MHz Band so as to help facilitate access 

to that spectrum and the provision of 

service to all consumers, including 

those in rural areas. In contrast to the 

significant alternatives on the size of 

geographic service areas and/or 

spectrum blocks that may help increase 

access to spectrum at auction for a wide 

variety of entities, this section seeks 

comment on whether the Commission’s 

existing ‘‘substantial service’’

performance requirements and related 

policies pertaining to 700 MHz Band 

licenses serve to facilitate deployment 

of wireless services in the 700 MHz 

Band. For example, the NPRM seeks 

comment on significant alternatives that 

impact small entities, such as the 

possibility of adopting ‘‘keep what you 

use’’ re-licensing mechanisms. It also 

seeks comment on options that may 

facilitate access to spectrum in the 

secondary market for all potential 

service providers, including small 

entities and those specifically seeking to 

deliver service to rural areas and tribal 

lands. 

147. The next portions of the NPRM 

seek comment on potential changes to 

several of the Commission’s initial 

determinations applicable to 700 MHz 

Band licenses, changes which could 

affect small entities. First, the NPRM 

requests comment on whether to amend 

Commission rules to clarify the 

requirements and procedures of the 

renewal process for 700 MHz Band 

licenses, particularly as they relate to 

existing rules requiring demonstrations 

of ‘‘substantial service’’ for renewal 

applicants involved in comparative 

proceedings. Second, the NPRM invites 

comment on extending the license terms 

of 700 MHz Band licenses to an 

expiration date beyond 2015 in order to 

afford licensees a sufficient period of 

time for deployment of new 700 MHz 

Band services once the DTV transition 

is complete. Third, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether the power limits 

in the existing rules for the 700 MHz 

Band spectrum should be revised. In 

addition to the possible new reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements that could impact small 

entities, it is not anticipated that any 

rules adopted in this area would 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 48527 

adversely impact small entities. Both 

small and large entities may benefit 

from changes to these rules. 

148. Finally, because Commission 

rules have not been expanded to include 

licensees (including small entities) 

providing service in later authorized, 

additional WRS such as the 700 MHz 

Band, the NPRM seeks comment on the 

tentative conclusion that services 

provided by licensees in the 700 MHz 

Band, and in other bands subject to part 

27 of the rules such as AWS–1, should 

be subject to E911 and hearing aidcompatibility requirements to the same 

extent that such services would be 

covered if provided in other bands. It 

then seeks comment on how to modify 

Commission rules to ensure that they 

include all similar WRS. Because many 

of the services permitted across the 

WRS can be expected to be similar to 

services presently subject to the 911/ 

E911 and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements, the NPRM seeks comment 

on whether to amend the rules to ensure 

that all similar wireless services that 

meet certain criteria discussed in the 

NPRM will be subject to the 911/E911 

and hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements. To minimize significant 

economic impact to the many firms, 

including small entities, that are or will 

become licensees in the various WRS, 

the NPRM seeks comment on impacts 

including, e.g., the time necessary to 

complete such changes to the standards. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

149. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

150. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7, 

10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A) 

through (C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 

222(h)(4) through (5), 251(e)(3), 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 

316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 614, 

615, and 710 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 

208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A) through (C), 

222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4) 

through (5), 251(e)(3), 301, 302, 303, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 534, 535, and 

610 that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

are hereby adopted. 

151. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on or before September 20, 2006 and 

reply comments on or before October 

20, 2006. 

152. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, and Second Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–7051 Filed 8–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Parts 1515, 1570, and 1572 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

and 125; 46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15 

[Docket Nos. TSA–2006–24191; USCG–

2006–24196] 

RIN 1652–AA41 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) Implementation in 

the Maritime Sector; Hazardous 

Materials Endorsement for a 

Commercial Driver’s License 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, United States Coast 

Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security, through the Transportation 

Security Administration and the United 

States Coast Guard, published an Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking titled 

‘‘Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) Implementation in 

the Maritime Sector; Hazardous 

Materials Endorsement for a 

Commercial Driver’s License’’ on May 

22, 2006. In response to letters from 

Congress about the proposed rule, we 

sent out the letter below and want to 

make the public aware of this 

correspondence. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this Notice as well 

as the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Comments received are all available 

in the dockets for this rulemaking. The 

dockets are available electronically at 

http://dms.dot.gov as well as at the 

Docket Management Facility located in 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. The dockets may be 

located by the following docket 

numbers: TSA docket number TSA–

2006–24191 or Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2006–24196. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions related to TSA’s proposed 

TWIC standards: Greg Fisher, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 

22202–4220, TWIC Program, 571–227–

4545; e-mail: credentialing@dhs.gov. 

For legal questions regarding the 

proposed TWIC rule: Christine Beyer, 

TSA–2, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 22202–4220; telephone 

(571) 227–2657; facsimile (571) 571–

1380; e-mail Christine.Beyer@dhs.gov. 

For questions concerning the Coast 

Guard provisions of the proposed TWIC 

rule: LCDR Jonathan Maiorine, 

Commandant (G–PCP–2), United States 

Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593; telephone 1–

877–687–2243. 

For questions concerning viewing or 

submitting material to the docket: Renee 

V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Management System, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; telephone (202) 493–0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

22, 2006, the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) and the United 

States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) 

published a joint Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in the Federal Register 

titled ‘‘Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC) 

Implementation in the Maritime Sector; 

Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a 

Commercial Driver’s License.’’ 71 FR 

29396. This NPRM included a 45-day 

comment period and announced four 

public meetings to be held in Newark, 

NJ, Tampa, FL, St. Louis, MO, and Long 

Beach, CA. 

Since that time, TSA and Coast Guard 

have received several letters from 

Members of Congress on the NPRM. We 

recently responded to these letters and 

wanted to share our response with the 

public. The body of the letter, which 

can also be found in the dockets for this 

rulemaking, reads as follows: 

Thank you for your comments on the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1