26396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposal Two), filed May 25, 

2018. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

July 16, 2018. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. 

Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12200 Filed 6–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 27 

[WT Docket No. 18–120; FCC 18–59] 

Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on 

proposed service rules on the 2.5 GHz 

band and on refinements to the adopted 

rules in this document. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 9, 2018; reply comments are due on 

or before August 6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 18–120, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov, 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Schauble of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at 202–418–0797 

or by email to John.Schauble@fcc.gov. 

For information regarding the PRA 

information collection requirements 

contained in this PRA, contact Cathy 

Williams, Office of Managing Director, 

at (202) 418–2918 or Cathy.Williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 

18–120, FCC 18–59, adopted and 

released on May 10, 2018. The complete 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying from 8 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) 

Monday through Thursday or from 8 

a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 445 

12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text is available on the Commission’s 

website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by 

using the search function on the ECFS 

web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ 

ecfs/. Alternative formats are available 

to persons with disabilities by sending 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

Comment Filing Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

website for submitting comments. In 

completing the transmittal screen, filers 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket number, WT Docket 

No. 18–120. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, 

Annapolis, MD 20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 888– 

835–5322 (tty). 

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the 

Commission’s rules, this NPRM shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26397 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 

has made available a method of 

electronic filing, written ex parte 

presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (‘‘RFA’’), the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities of the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM. The 

Commission requests written public 

comment on the analysis. Comments 

must be filed in accordance with the 

same deadlines as comments filed in 

response to the NRPM and must have a 

separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains proposed 

new or modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. The 2.5 GHz band (2496–2690 

MHz) constitutes the single largest band 

of contiguous spectrum below 3 

gigahertz and has been identified as 

prime spectrum for next generation 

mobile operations, including 5G uses. 

Significant portions of this band, 

however, currently lie fallow across 

approximately one-half of the United 

States, primarily in rural areas. 

Moreover, access to the Educational 

Broadband Service (EBS) has been 

strictly limited since 1995, and current 

licensees are subject to a regulatory 

regime largely unchanged from the days 

when educational TV was the only use 

envisioned for this spectrum. The 

Commission proposes to allow more 

efficient and effective use of this 

spectrum band by providing greater 

flexibility to current EBS licensees as 

well as providing new opportunities for 

additional entities to obtain unused 2.5 

GHz spectrum to facilitate improved 

access to next generation wireless 

broadband, including 5G. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

additional approaches for transforming 

the 2.5 GHz band, including by moving 

directly to an auction for some or all of 

the spectrum. 

II. Background 

2. EBS, formerly known as ITFS 

(Instructional Television Fixed Service), 

permits the transmission of 

instructional material for the formal 

education of students by accredited 

public and private schools, colleges, and 

universities. 

3. Currently, eligibility to hold an EBS 

license is limited to (1) accredited 

public and private educational 

institutions, (2) governmental 

organizations engaged in the formal 

education of enrolled students, and (3) 

nonprofit organizations whose purposes 

are educational and include providing 

educational and instructional television 

materials to accredited institutions and 

governmental organizations. EBS 

licenses generally are held by state 

government agencies, state universities 

and university systems, public 

community and technical colleges, 

private universities and colleges, public 

elementary and secondary school 

districts, private schools (including 

Catholic school systems and other 

religious schools), public television and 

radio stations, hospitals and hospital 

associations, and other non-profit 

educational entities. 

4. EBS licensees operate in 114 

megahertz of the 2.5 GHz band; the 

remaining 80 megahertz is assigned to 

the Broadband Radio Service (BRS). EBS 

licensees are authorized to operate on 

the A, B, C, D, and G channel groups, 

with each group comprised of three 5.5 

MHz channels in the lower or upper 

band segment and one 6 MHz channel 

in the mid-band segment. Since 1983 

the Commission has allowed EBS 

licensees to lease their excess capacity 

to commercial providers, but it has 

required EBS licensees to retain five 

percent of their capacity for educational 

use, and it further has required that they 

use each channel at least 20 hours per 

week for educational purposes. 

5. Currently, there are 1,300 EBS 

licensees holding over 2,190 licenses. 

EBS licenses generally are based on a 

35-mile radius circular Geographic 

Service Area (GSA) (with an area of 

1934 square miles), although due to a 

historical license modification process 

the Commission adopted in 2005, many 

EBS licenses have much smaller, 

irregular GSAs. Incumbent EBS licenses 

cover only about one half of the 

geographic area of the United States in 

any given channel. In the rest of the 

country, mostly rural areas west of the 

Mississippi River, the 2.5 GHz spectrum 

remains unassigned. There is some EBS 

spectrum unassigned in urban areas as 

well, but such spectrum generally is 

only available in small, irregularly 

shaped areas between GSAs that are 

considerably smaller than the area of a 

35-mile radius circle. 

6. The Commission suspended the 

processing of EBS applications in 1993. 

Only twice since then has the 

Commission opened filing windows for 

EBS applications. In 1995, the 

Commission provided a five-day 

window for the filing of applications for 

new construction permits and for major 

changes to existing EBS facilities. And 

in 1996, the Mass Media Bureau 

announced a sixty-day window for the 

filing of a limited class of applications, 

but during that window, it only 

permitted the filing of EBS modification 

applications and amendments to 

pending EBS applications proposing to 

co-locate with an authorized wireless 

cable facility. 

7. During the past 20 years, the 

Commission, on several occasions, has 

considered assigning EBS spectrum 

licenses by auction. Most recently, the 

Commission in 2008 decided to use 

competitive bidding to license 

unassigned BRS spectrum but held that 

a ‘‘broader record should be developed 

on how to distribute licenses for 

unassigned EBS spectrum,’’ and it 

sought further comment on how to 

license unassigned EBS spectrum in the 

BRS/EBS Second FNPRM. 

8. In response to the BRS/EBS Second 

FNPRM, commenters proposed various 

alternative licensing schemes, including 

awarding licenses through a 

comparative point system; permitting 

only consortia to apply for a Basic 

Trading Area (BTA) license (an area 

consisting of several counties 

surrounding a common commercial 

center); permitting existing licensees to 

expand their respective GSAs to the 

borders of the BTA, which would 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26398 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission notes that it followed a similar 

automatic process when ITFS licensees were 

awarded a protected service area (‘‘PSA’’), the 

precursor to a GSA, and when the PSA was 

expanded from 15 miles to 35 miles. The 

Commission also notes that pursuant to our existing 

rules, grandfathered EBS licensees on the E and F 

channel groups would not be permitted to expand 

their GSAs. 47 CFR 27.1216. Pursuant to 47 CFR 

27.1216, because there may be both EBS and BRS 

stations on the same channels in the same market, 

grandfathered E and F group EBS channels have 

previously been limited in their ability to expand 

their GSAs. This may still be the case. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

rationalizing the holdings of grandfathered EBS 

licensees on the E and F channel groups would be 

feasible, whether the Commission could use a 

similar rationalization scheme as proposed herein 

for EBS generally, and whether doing so would 

facilitate more intensive use of 2.5 GHz spectrum. 

eliminate all white space and in turn, 

eliminate the need to file applications 

for new licenses (‘‘GSA maximization’’); 

and permitting licensees to expand their 

respective GSAs to the borders of the 

BTA after accepting applications for 

new stations (reverse GSA 

maximization). Subsequently, on June 6, 

2014, the Catholic Technology Network, 

the National EBS Association, the 

Wireless Communications Association 

International, and the Hispanic 

Information and Telecommunications 

Network, Inc. proposed a multi-step 

process for licensing unassigned EBS 

spectrum. Unused EBS spectrum, 

however, has remained generally 

unavailable since 1995. 

III. Discussion 

9. In accordance with the 

Commission’s goal of making additional 

spectrum available for flexible use, and 

to promote use of 2.5 GHz frequencies 

that have been unassigned for far too 

long, the Commission proposes and 

seeks comment on a number of steps to 

encourage and facilitate more efficient 

use of this spectrum. First, given the 

irregularity of current EBS geographic 

service areas (as well as outdated 

regulatory requirements), the 

Commission proposes to rationalize 

existing EBS holdings so that existing 

licensees have new opportunities to put 

2.5 GHz spectrum to its highest and best 

use. Second, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to open one or 

more local priority filing windows so 

that existing licensees, Tribal Nations, 

and educational entities could get 

access to unassigned spectrum in the 2.5 

GHz band. Third, the Commission 

proposes to use geographic area 

licensing to assign any remaining 

spectrum, which may result in the 

auction of any licenses for 2.5 GHz 

spectrum still unassigned after 

rationalizing holdings and any new 

filing windows. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

additional approaches for transforming 

the 2.5 GHz band, including by moving 

directly to an auction for some or all of 

the spectrum. The Commission believes 

the proposed changes discussed herein 

will reduce unnecessary regulatory 

burdens on licensees, promote greater 

spectrum efficiency, and facilitate the 

full use of EBS spectrum to provide 

advanced mobile broadband services, 

particularly in rural areas where this 

spectrum sits idle today. 

A. Rationalizing Existing 2.5 GHz 

Holdings 

10. Ensuring that the radio spectrum 

is used efficiently and intensively is an 

important public interest goal—a goal 

that also serves the interests of the 

existing licensees. The Commission 

traditionally has recognized that a 

spectrum policy based on flexible use in 

regular geographic areas has several 

advantages. Such flexible use licensing 

can promote broadband deployment, 

ensure the spectrum is put to its most 

beneficial use, allow licensees to 

respond to consumer demand for new 

services, and maximize the probability 

of success for new services. 

1. Regular Geographic License Areas 

11. As an initial step, the Commission 

proposes to rationalize the GSAs of 

existing EBS licensees, except 

grandfathered licensees in the E and F 

Channel groups, to a defined geographic 

area, namely, the sum of census tracts 

that are covered by, or that intersect, a 

licensee’s existing GSA. The 

Commission proposes that such 

rationalization should occur 

automatically (i.e., the Commission 

would update our licensing records to 

reflect the change), so existing licensees 

would not be required to file 

applications with the Commission or 

otherwise notify the Commission to 

effectuate this change.1

12. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether such expansion should 

include every census tract that is 

covered by or that intersects the 

licensee’s existing GSA. Alternatively, 

should a census tract be included only 

if a minimum percentage of that census 

tract overlaps the GSA, and, if so, what 

should that minimum percentage 

threshold be (e.g., 10 percent, 25 

percent, 50 percent)? The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether, if the 

Commission adopts a minimum 

percentage overlap threshold, that 

minimum percentage should be a 

percentage of the census tract’s 

geography or of the census tract’s 

population. 

13. Second, the Commission proposes 

that, in this rationalization process, each 

current EBS GSA will be converted to a 

single license made up of all the census 

tracts it covers or intersects, rather than 

converted to a collection of separate 

licenses, each the size of a single census 

tract. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. 

14. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to resolve situations 

in which two or more co-channel GSAs 

overlap the same census tract(s), and 

whether simply setting the threshold for 

required overlap at 50 percent in order 

to include the census tract in the GSA 

is the best way to address such a 

situation. Are there other ways to 

address situations in which co-channel 

GSAs overlap the same census tracts? 

15. Modifying EBS licenses to GSAs 

based on census tracts should generate 

two particular benefits. First, since 

census tract boundaries are predetermined and follow regular 

geographic separation patterns (e.g., 

divisions based on streets), the 

boundaries of census tract-based GSAs 

should be easier to determine than a 

circular GSA that cuts across regular 

geographic boundaries. 

16. Second, rationalizing incumbent 

EBS licenses based on census tracts 

would yield white spaces that also are 

based on the boundaries of census tracts 

and/or counties (since census tracts nest 

into counties), rather than irregular 

shapes and slivers. This regularity in the 

shape and size of white spaces would 

facilitate new entry into the 2.5 GHz 

band. The Commission seeks comment 

on these views. Commenters should 

discuss the costs and benefits of such a 

license area change. 

17. As an alternative to basing GSAs 

on census tracts, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should expand existing GSAs to include 

the counties covered by or that intersect 

the GSA. Under this alternative, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to include a county only if a minimum 

percentage of the county overlaps the 

GSA and, if so, what that minimum 

percentage should be (e.g., 50 percent, 

75 percent). The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, if it adopts a 

minimum percentage overlap threshold, 

that the minimum percentage should be 

a percentage of the county’s geography 

or of the county’s population. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to resolve situations 

where more than one EBS licensee is in 

the same county, and whether and to 

what extent automatic expansion on a 

county basis will result in inefficient 

use of spectrum. 

18. The Commission also seeks 

comment on any other issue that may 

arise from rationalizing existing EBS 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26399 

2 If the EBS licensee’s lease provides for an option 

or right or right of first refusal with respect to a 

license, the provisions of the contract would apply, 

subject to the requirement that all assignments and 

transfers of Commissions licenses are subject to 

Commission consent. 

3While the Commission proposes to eliminate 

EBS-specific term-related restrictions for leases, the 

Commission does not propose to eliminate the 

requirement that lease notifications must be refiled 

for each new license term. 

holdings and allowing EBS licensees to 

apply to expand their GSA boundaries. 

In addition to the criteria stated above, 

are there any other requirements that 

existing licensees should satisfy in order 

to be permitted to expand into the 

vacant area of a county? For instance, 

should the right to expand to county 

boundaries be limited to licensees that 

provide service to a given percentage of 

that county? If so, what should the 

minimum percentage be? Should the 

minimum percentage be a percentage of 

the county’s geography or of the 

county’s population? Should the 

Commission establish a requirement 

that the incumbent licensee’s GSA cover 

a minimum percentage of the area in a 

county before it is allowed to expand 

into the remainder of the county? In the 

alternative, should the Commission 

simply have existing licensees maintain 

their current contours, rather than 

rationalizing existing holdings? 

Commenters should discuss cost and 

benefits of any advocated approach and 

support their position with quantitative 

and qualitative data. 

2. Additional Flexibility for EBS 

Licenses 

19. Granting additional flexibility to 

EBS licensees has been an effective 

means of allowing better use of the 2.5 

GHz band. In 1983, when the 

Commission allowed 2.5 GHz licensees 

to lease excess capacity, it provided 

educators with another means of 

acquiring the resources needed to 

operate Instructional Television Fixed 

Source (ITFS) facilities for education. In 

2004, when the Commission created 

BRS and EBS, the more flexible 

technical rules allowed the bands to be 

used for broadband services. Now, 

significant amounts of commercial 

broadband data flow through the 2.5 

GHz band. The Commission believes 

subsequent events have confirmed the 

Commission’s prediction that 

‘‘consumer benefits will be maximized 

if BRS/EBS licensees are able to take 

advantage of the flexible use standard in 

Part 27.’’ The Commission now seeks 

comment on granting additional 

flexibility to EBS licensees in order to 

promote more intensive and efficient 

spectrum use. 

20. First, the Commission proposes to 

provide EBS licensees with the 

flexibility to assign or transfer control of 

their licenses to entities that are not 

EBS-eligible. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to eliminate the 

limit on what entities can hold EBS 

licenses (rule 27.1201) and make clear 

that licensees may assign or transfer 

control of their licenses to other entities. 

The Commission notes that the existing 

licensees have built out their systems 

since 2011 and understand how they 

use their EBS licenses as well as the 

availability of wireless broadband in 

their area. Under this proposal, the 

decision whether to lease or transfer a 

license would rest with the EBS 

licensee.2 There is little reason to think 

that, at this point in time, the 

Commission is better positioned than 

licensees themselves to determine how 

to maximize the use of 2.5 GHz 

spectrum for licensees and their 

communities. And there is little reason 

to think that licensees should not be 

allowed to decide for themselves 

whether to continue to hold their 

licenses or to transfer their licenses to 

a third party in the secondary market. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

21. EBS licensees whose licenses were 

granted via waiver since the EBS filing 

freeze was instituted are currently 

prohibited from leasing the spectrum. 

Consistent with our consideration of 

providing additional secondary-markets 

flexibility to existing EBS licensees, the 

Commission proposes to eliminate any 

special restrictions on such licensees; 

accordingly, those whose licenses were 

granted via waiver would have the same 

flexibility to lease their spectrum or to 

transfer or assign their licenses as the 

Commission proposes for other EBS 

licensees. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

22. The Commission also seeks 

comment on eliminating the educational 

use requirements for EBS licensees. The 

educational use requirements, which 

have not been updated since 1998 were 

based on the use of analog video and 

permitted many administrative uses to 

fulfill the educational requirement. 

However, most EBS licensees or their 

commercial lessees are providing digital 

broadband service, offered 24/7, at the 

school itself, at home, or anywhere 

within the licensee’s GSA. It appears the 

existing educational use requirements 

are out of date and do not fit the actual 

use of the spectrum. Given the 

additional flexibility the Commission is 

granting EBS licensees, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether there is 

value in attempting to update the 

educational use requirements—who is 

better positioned to determine the 

highest and best use of 2.5 GHz 

spectrum, the Commission or licensees? 

Commenters should explain and 

quantify the benefits and costs of these 

regulatory requirements, including 

whether to update them (and if so, 

how). 

23. The Commission also proposes to 

eliminate the current restrictions on 

EBS lease terms. Under existing rules, 

EBS licensees are prohibited from 

leasing their facilities for a term longer 

than 30 years and lessees are required 

to provide EBS lessors with the 

opportunity to revisit their lease terms 

at years 15, 20, and 25 to review their 

‘‘educational use requirements in light 

of changes in educational needs, 

technology, and other relevant factors 

and to obtain access to such additional 

services, capacity, support, and/or 

equipment as the parties shall agree 

upon in the spectrum leasing 

arrangement to advance the EBS 

licensee’s educational mission.’’ To that 

end, the Commission proposes to 

eliminate these lease restrictions on a 

going-forward basis.3 The Commission 

also seeks comment on any other 

revisions needed to fully rationalize our 

rules for the transferability, leasing, and 

use of EBS spectrum. Are there other 

restrictions that unnecessarily reduce 

the ability of licensees to put this 

spectrum to its highest and best use? 

24. Finally, the Commission asks 

whether, in light of the actions the 

Commission takes in this proceeding, it 

should modify our treatment of EBS in 

the spectrum screen. In the Mobile 

Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 

the Commission concluded that it was 

necessary to include most EBS spectrum 

into the spectrum screen ‘‘to reflect 

today’s marketplace realities.’’ While 

the Commission found that EBS 

spectrum generally was suitable and 

available for the provision of mobile 

telephony/mobile broadband services, it 

did apply a discount. Specifically, the 

Commission first excluded the five 

percent of the EBS capacity that is 

reserved for educational uses because it 

remains committed to EBS spectrum 

serving educational purposes. Second, it 

excluded the EBS white space. After 

taking these discounts into 

consideration, the Commission, in 2014, 

included 89 megahertz of EBS spectrum 

in the screen. Are any changes to this 

treatment warranted? Should the 

Commission reconsider the spectrum 

aggregation screen? 

B. Opportunities To Acquire New 2.5 

GHz Licenses 

25. Once the Commission has 

rationalized the holdings of existing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26400 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4To be clear, should another licensee already 

hold licenses for census tracts in that county, the 

Commission would not intend the countyexpansion to encompass those areas. 

EBS licensees, unassigned portions of 

the 2.5 GHz band will be ready for new 

assignment—bringing new 

opportunities to rural communities that 

have lacked access to this spectrum 

before. The Commission proposes to use 

geographic area licensing to assign any 

remaining spectrum, which should 

result in the auction of licenses for 

unassigned portions of the 2.5 GHz band 

and seek comment on whether it should 

first open up to three new local priority 

filing windows to give existing 

licensees, Tribal Nations, and 

educational entities an opening to 

access 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve their 

local communities. The Commission 

also proposes build-out requirements for 

these new licenses to ensure that all 

Americans have the opportunity to 

benefit from the 2.5 GHz band. 

1. New Local Priority Filing Windows 

26. When the Commission reopened 

applications for the 2.5 GHz band in 

1985, it expressed a ‘‘strong preference’’ 

for local applicants in the licensing 

process. The Commission found then 

that local applicants were ‘‘convincingly 

demonstrated . . . to be the best 

authorities for evaluating their 

educational needs and the needs of 

others they propose to serve in their 

communities,’’ to ‘‘best understand the 

educational needs . . . of their 

communities,’’ and to ‘‘act most 

responsibly in designing and developing 

[2.5 GHz] systems.’’ It thus opened a 

‘‘local priority period’’ to give ‘‘more 

local entities . . . the opportunity to fill 

more channels as financial support from 

non-[instructional] use becomes more 

widespread.’’ 

27. Now that the Commission is again 

opening the 2.5 GHz band for additional 

licensing, the Commission starts by 

seeking comment on whether the 

Commission should open up to three 

new filing windows for qualifying 

applicants that want to use currently 

unassigned 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve 

their local communities. In each filing 

window, qualifying applicants would 

have the opportunity to apply for one or 

more vacant channels of EBS spectrum 

in areas where the applicant can show 

it has a local presence. The first filing 

window would be for existing EBS 

licensees, the second for Tribal Nations, 

and the third for other educational 

entities. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should open any new local priority 

filing windows, if any, as well as the 

details of such windows in turn. 

28. In responding, commenters should 

discuss whether such priority filing 

windows to assign licenses is consistent 

with our statutory authority to assign 

licenses that could be used for 

telecommunications, and Commission 

policy and precedent regarding use of 

competitive bidding. Also, should these 

entities be given preference over others, 

in light of other benefits provided to 

these entities, such as various Universal 

Service programs, including E-Rate and 

the Connect America Fund? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether such filing windows can be 

misused and result in unjust 

enrichment, with licenses being sold or 

leased to ineligible entities for profit. 

What effect might these priority 

windows have on the attractiveness of 

the remaining spectrum for other 

applicants? Should the Commission 

have one combined priority window for 

these entities, or the three the 

Commission seeks comment on below? 

29. Local Presence. When the 

Commission previously created a local 

priority period, it defined as ‘‘local’’ 

those ‘‘institutions and organizations 

that are physically located in the 

community, or metropolitan area, where 

service is proposed.’’ The Commission 

proposes for any new local priority 

filing window, should the Commission 

choose to implement this approach, to 

similarly require an applicant to 

demonstrate, as part of the application 

process, that it is physically located 

within the license area applied for. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

requirement and what it would mean in 

practice. For example, should a college 

or university be considered to be 

physically located in any area in which 

it has a campus? Should an entity 

created by a state or local government 

for the purpose of serving formal 

educational needs, such as a public 

school or a school district, be 

considered to be physically located in 

every area where it has a school 

building? Should having a physical or 

mailing address within a particular area, 

be sufficient to demonstrate that the 

applicant has a local presence within 

that area? Are there any situations in 

which simply having some sort of 

physical address is not indicative of the 

local presence of an applicant? 

Commenters should discuss whether the 

proposed definition of local presence 

would serve the public interest and 

provide any relevant qualitative and 

quantitative data to support their 

positions. 

30. Commenters also should address 

what documentation applicants must 

provide to make such a demonstration. 

Should the determination of whether an 

applicant is considered to have a local 

presence be based solely on an 

applicant’s physical location(s) and/or 

physical address(es)? Commenters 

should discuss other factors that should 

be considered and explain how any 

factors that they suggest will ensure that 

the local priority filing window is 

available only to local applicants. The 

Commission also seeks comment any 

other issues that it may need to address 

to implement a local presence 

requirement. 

31. The Commission notes that the 

majority of current EBS licensees, such 

as school districts, schools, colleges and 

universities, appear to have a local 

presence where they have licenses. It 

also appears that the entities most likely 

to be affected by a local presence 

requirement are the ‘‘national’’ 

licensees. Although national licensees 

serve a purpose in providing 

educational services to educational 

institutions and students, educational 

entities with a local presence have a 

closer understanding of the needs of 

their local communities and are more 

likely to use 2.5 GHz spectrum to meet 

such needs, especially in rural areas. 

Entities with a local presence are part of 

the communities they wish to serve, and 

requiring local presence would increase 

the likelihood that the EBS spectrum 

would be put to beneficial use for local 

communities. The Commission seeks 

comment on these views. 

32. Local Priority Filing Window 1: 

Existing Licensees. If the Commission 

decides to use priority filing windows, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should open a window for 

existing EBS licensees. Opening such a 

window would allow existing licensees 

that are already providing service in a 

significant portion of a county (and have 

a local presence in that county) to 

expand their service to the county 

border.4 Existing licensees have already 

deployed service throughout a portion 

may be best positioned to quickly put 

the white-spaces in their local area to 

use through an edging-out strategy. In 

addition, since a number of school 

districts are based on county 

boundaries, allowing county expansion 

could allow county-based school 

districts to better provide services to the 

students within their districts, and in 

many cases, to provide services to those 

students at home, as well as on school 

premises. Alternatively, such a window 

would preclude other applicants from 

accessing 2.5 GHz white spaces, 

including new entrants long excluded 

from the band. The Commission seeks 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26401 

5The Commission seeks comment on whether 

holders of special temporary authority (an STA) 

who are not full-fledged licensees should qualify for 

such a window. Should the Commission expect 

them to have the permanent facilities in place to 

quickly expand service to the county edge? 

6Alternatively, should the Commission authorize 

any ‘‘Native American Tribal entity’’ to participate, 

including any entity that is listed on the U.S. 

Secretary of the Interior’s currently published list 

of Indian Tribes recognized to be eligible for the 

special programs and services provided by the 

United States to Indians because of their status as 

Indians? See The Federally Recognized Indian Tribe 

List Act of 1994 (Indian Tribe Act, Pub. L. 103–154, 

108 Stat. 4791 (1994)) (Indian Tribe Act). 

comment on opening such a local 

priority filing window. 

33. Were the Commission to open 

such a window, it would propose to 

limit participation to existing licensees 

as of the adoption of this NPRM.5

Setting a firm, fixed date allows all 

commenters and the Commission to 

easily discern what entities would be 

potential applicants for this window 

should the Commission adopt it. 

Furthermore, applicants in this window 

would be limited to seeking countybased licenses only in counties where 

they have a local presence. And finally, 

applicants in this window would be 

limited to seeking county-based licenses 

only where they hold, after the 

rationalization of existing license areas, 

licenses on a particular channel that 

cover at least 25 percent of census tracts 

in a county. The Commission seeks 

comment on these conditions. In 

particular, what adjustments to these 

conditions, if any, would be appropriate 

to ensure that the goals of such a 

window would be met? For example, 

should the Commission require 

licensees to hold licenses covering even 

more of a county (say 50 percent of 

census tracts)? Or should the 

Commission require that a local 

presence of the licensee lie inside the 

county but outside the already-licensed 

area of the licensee (under a theory that 

licensees should be permitted to expand 

to cover areas where they have a 

physical presence but otherwise 

restricted so that new licensees have the 

opportunity to participate in the 2.5 

GHz band)? 

34. What other conditions, if any, 

should the Commission adopt on 

participants in such a window? For 

example, should the Commission 

exclude channels in counties in which 

more than one existing licensee would 

qualify for expansion on a single 

channel? If so, how would the 

Commission determine all counties in 

which existing licensees meet the local 

presence requirement? Alternatively, 

should the Commission only exclude 

channels in counties in which more 

than one licensee holds licenses 

covering at least 25 percent of the 

census tracts in the county? Should the 

Commission exclude tribal areas that are 

contained within a county that would 

be subject to the Tribal Nations window 

discussed below? The Commission 

seeks comment on these and any other 

issues related to opening a new local 

priority filing window for existing 

licensees. 

35. Local Priority Filing Window 2: 

Rural Tribal Nations. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission, if it decides to pursue this 

approach, should open a new local 

priority filing window for rural Tribal 

Nations. The Commission has 

recognized that ‘‘members of federallyrecognized American Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Villages and other 

residents of Tribal lands have lacked 

meaningful access to wired and wireless 

communications services.’’ Opening 

such a window would allow rural Tribal 

Nations an opportunity to access 2.5 

GHz spectrum to address educational 

and communications needs of their 

communities and residents on rural 

Tribal lands, including the deployment 

of advanced wireless services to areas 

that have too long been without. 

Alternatively, such a window would 

preclude other applicants from 

accessing 2.5 GHz white spaces. The 

Commission seeks comment on opening 

such a local priority filing window. 

36. Were the Commission to open 

such a window, it would propose to 

limit participation to federallyrecognized American Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Villages located in rural 

areas.6 Such a request would appear to 

comport with Native Public Media’s 

request to open the 2.5 GHz band to 

Indian Tribes and Tribal Governments 

to account for the special trust 

relationship between Tribal Nations and 

the Federal Government and the fact 

that Native Americans are acutely 

underrepresented in communications 

media. Furthermore, applicants in this 

window would be limited to seeking 

new licenses only in rural areas where 

they have a local presence—that would 

include rural Tribal lands associated 

with the Tribal Nation itself. The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

much of the license area would need to 

be Tribal lands to qualify. Would 25 

percent be sufficient? 50 percent? The 

Commission further seeks comment on 

how to define rural Tribal lands for 

these purposes. Should the Commission 

use the definition of rural Tribal lands 

used for E-rate program and Lifeline; 

i.e., Tribal Lands that are not part of ‘‘an 

urbanized area or urban cluster area 

with a population equal to or greater 

than 25,000’’? The Commission asks 

commenters to discuss any issues that 

may arise out of a particular definition 

of Tribal Lands. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to exclude lands 

that currently are not inhabited by 

members of the Tribal Nations and/or 

are held as private property from the 

definition. To this end, the Commission 

requests comment on how to ensure that 

the only entities eligible to participate 

in this filing window are entities that 

meet our definition of a Tribal Nation, 

and whose Tribal lands are lands where 

tribal members reside as a group and are 

not used for purely commercial 

purposes. The Commission seeks 

comment on these conditions. In 

particular, what adjustments to these 

conditions, if any, would be appropriate 

to ensure that the goals of such a 

window would be met? 

37. The Commission next seeks 

comment on whether licenses granted 

for white spaces in such a local priority 

window should be at the county level or 

on a census-tract-by-census-tract basis. 

Commenters should discuss why a 

particular geographic area size would be 

appropriate taking into account all 

relevant information, including border 

interference coordination needs, 

propagation characteristics of the band, 

and the services that will be offered. 

The Commission notes that using a 

smaller license area (census tracts) 

would increase the fit between areas 

licensed to Tribal Nations and Tribal 

lands, but may have offsetting efficiency 

losses. Commenters should discuss the 

costs and benefits of any advocated 

approach and support their position 

with quantitative and qualitative data. 

38. The Commission also proposes 

that, if it were to adopt such a local 

priority filing window, it would not 

limit the number of channels that a 

Tribal Nation could acquire. Given the 

state of wireless technologies (including 

the use of progressively wider 

channels), the Commission believes that 

allowing access to contiguous spectrum 

on any number of available channels 

would more efficiently accommodate 

varying business models and spectrum 

needs for wireless broadband. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

39. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on any other ways by which 

it could encourage the use of 2.5 GHz 

spectrum on Tribal Lands. Should the 

Commission impose any additional 

obligations to ensure that Tribal Nations 

hold 2.5 GHz licenses for the benefit of 

their Tribal community? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

and any other issues related to opening 

a new local priority filing window for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26402 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

7As before, the Commission seeks comment on 

whether holders of special temporary authority (an 

STA) who are not full-fledged licensees should 

qualify for such a window. 8 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E). 

Tribal Nations, and in particular it seeks 

government-to-government consultation 

and coordination with federally 

recognized Tribes on these issues and 

the input of inter-Tribal government 

associations and Native representative 

organizations. 

40. Local Priority Filing Window 3: 

New Educational Entities. To the extent 

that the Commission implements any 

filing windows, it seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should open a 

new local priority filing window for 

educational entities that do not 

currently hold any 2.5 GHz licenses. 

Opening such a window would allow 

new educational entities that have never 

had the opportunity to benefit from 

holding and using 2.5 GHz spectrum 

(and that have a local presence in a 

particular area) the opportunity to 

access this spectrum for the first time. 

The Commission notes that the majority 

of requests for waiver of the current 

filing freeze have come from educators 

with a local presence in the 

communities that they wish to serve. 

Alternatively, such a window would 

preclude the auction of any licenses for 

remaining 2.5 GHz white spaces. The 

Commission seeks comment on opening 

such a local priority filing window. 

41. Were the Commission to open 

such a window, it would propose to 

limit participation to accredited 

institutions as well as governmental 

organizations engaged in the formal 

education of enrolled students who are 

not 2.5 GHz licensees as of the adoption 

of this NPRM.7 Setting a firm, fixed date 

allows all commenters and the 

Commission to easily discern what 

entities would be potential applicants 

for this window should it adopt it. 

Furthermore, applicants in this window 

would be limited to seeking licenses 

only in areas where they have a local 

presence. The Commission seeks 

comment on these conditions. In 

particular, what adjustments to these 

conditions, if any, would be appropriate 

to ensure that the goals of such a 

window would be met? 

42. The Commission next seeks 

comment on whether licenses granted 

for white spaces in such a local priority 

window should be at the county level or 

on a census-tract-by-census-tract basis. 

Commenters should discuss why a 

particular geographic area size would be 

appropriate taking into account all 

relevant information, including border 

interference coordination needs, 

propagation characteristics of the band, 

and the services that will be offered. 

Since a number of school districts are 

based on county boundaries, would 

allowing county-based licenses allow 

county-based school districts to better 

provide services to the students within 

their districts, and in many cases, to 

provide services to those students at 

home, as well as on school premises? 

Commenters should discuss the costs 

and benefits of any advocated approach 

and support their position with 

quantitative and qualitative data. 

43. The Commission also proposes 

that, if it were to adopt such a local 

priority filing window, it would not 

limit the number of channels that a new 

educational entity could acquire. Given 

the state of wireless technologies 

(including the use of progressively 

wider channels), the Commission 

believes that allowing access to 

contiguous spectrum on any number of 

available channels would more 

efficiently accommodate varying 

business models and spectrum needs for 

wireless broadband. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

44. Local Priority Filing Process. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate time frame for any new 

local priority filing windows. How long 

should the Commission keep this 

window open, and how much notice 

should be given to applicants before the 

filing window opens? For example, 

should each such filing window last 30 

days with at least 90 days’ notice to 

potential applicants of the licenses 

available? The Commission asks entities 

that are interested in participating in the 

application window and obtaining 2.5 

GHz licenses to indicate their interests 

and the difficulties that they may face 

to help us evaluate any possible 

technical and process issues that may 

arise in implementing one or more new 

local priority filing windows for 

applicants and processing such 

applications. Given technical 

limitations of the Universal Licensing 

System (ULS), the Commission notes 

that it may not be able to accept 

applications for all available EBS 

licenses in one general filing window. If 

that is the case, and the Commission 

divides the available licenses among 

multiple filing windows, how should 

such division be implemented: by 

region; by population, with the most 

populous States first or last; 

alphabetically; or by some other 

method? The Commission seeks 

comment on these and related issues. 

45. Resolving Mutually Exclusive 

Applications. The Act requires that, if 

the Commission accepts mutually 

exclusive applications for initial 

spectrum licenses, the Commission 

‘‘shall grant the license . . . through a 

system of competitive bidding.’’ The 

Commission assigns licenses for 

commercial and private internal use 

through competitive bidding in order to 

place the licenses in the hands of the 

parties that value them most highly and 

that are able to use them most 

effectively. If the Commission decides to 

create one or more local priority filing 

windows, as discussed here, it would 

result in relatively few mutually 

exclusive applications, but such a result 

is not precluded. Therefore, should the 

Commission receive mutually exclusive 

applications, it must use competitive 

bidding to assign initial licenses subject 

to mutually exclusive applications. The 

Commission seeks comment on limiting 

such competitive bidding to the 

mutually exclusive applicants in that 

particular filing window, however. In 

addition, the Commission proposes to 

employ the part 1 rules governing 

competitive bidding design, unjust 

enrichment, application and payment 

procedures, reporting requirements, and 

the prohibition on certain 

communications between auction 

applicants. The Commission does not 

propose to adopt designated entity 

provisions. Under this proposal, such 

rules would be subject to any further 

modifications that the Commission may 

adopt for its part 1 general competitive 

bidding rules in the future. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

46. The also seeks comment on 

whether to allow a settlement window 

for the filers to resolve any mutual 

exclusivity before the Commission 

accept any application for a 2.5 GHz 

license. The Commission also seeks 

comment on any alternative 

‘‘engineering solutions, negotiation, 

threshold qualifications, service 

regulations, and other means’’ 8 of 

avoiding mutually exclusive 

applications for new licenses that might 

further the public interest and comply 

with the Act. 

47. Holding Periods for Licenses 

Acquired through a Local Priority Filing 

Window. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to impose a 

special holding period on any license 

acquired through a local priority filing 

window, if any. Although the 

Commission generally seeks to facilitate 

the free transfer of licenses among 

parties, granting certain entities local 

priority filing windows is premised on 

the idea that such entities are uniquely 

qualified to hold spectrum licenses and 

ensures that the licenses are put to their 

highest and best use—something that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26403 

9 In the BRS/EBS Second FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on a variety of issues 

related to licensing EBS spectrum in the Gulf of 

Mexico. The Commission need not address whether 

to eliminate restrictions on EBS spectrum in the 

Gulf of Mexico because, as explained herein, the 

Commission proposes to eliminate restrictions on 

all remaining ‘‘white space’’ EBS spectrum and 

make it available for commercial use via 

competitive bidding. 

could not occur if such an entity quickly 

flipped that license to another, 

nonqualifying entity. Should the 

Commission expect that these licenses 

are likely to be used by the licensee, or 

that they ultimately will be leased or 

sold to others who are not eligible for 

the priority preference? Should the 

Commission implement a holding 

period that deters the lease or sale of 

spectrum to ineligible entities? What 

factors should the Commission consider 

in establishing a holding period? What 

is the most appropriate length for a 

holding period so as to alleviate 

concerns involving any potential for 

speculative behavior or acquisition of 

2.5 GHz licenses by entities that do not 

have a bona fide interest in providing 

service? Would a three, five, or sevenyear or more holding period be most 

appropriate for these circumstances? In 

determining the appropriate length of 

holding period, should the Commission 

consider the chances for and mitigate 

the potential unjust enrichment by those 

receiving a priority preference? Are 

there additional steps that should be 

taken to ensure that entities are not 

unjustly enriched? Should the 

Commission require the licensee to 

demonstrate completion of certain 

buildout requirements before allowing a 

transfer of control? Should the 

Commission prohibit an EBS licensee 

that is granted a license during one of 

the local priority windows proposed 

herein from leasing 100 percent or some 

other percentage of their capacity to a 

commercial entity during the holding 

period? The Commission seeks 

comment on these issues. 

48. For EBS licenses granted via the 

local priority windows proposed above, 

the Commission proposes to require that 

licensees must reserve a minimum of 20 

percent of the capacity of their channels 

for educational uses that ‘‘further the 

educational mission of accredited 

public and private schools’’ consistent 

with paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 27.1203 

of the Commission’s rules and may not 

enter into spectrum leasing 

arrangements involving this reserved 

capacity. For EBS licensees that choose 

to provide a broadcast-type service, the 

Commission proposes to require such 

licensees to offer 20 hours per channel, 

per week of educational programming. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. 

2. Licensing White Spaces 

49. The Commission proposes, after 

any new licenses have been assigned 

through one or more local priority filing 

windows should the Commission 

choose to implement that approach, that 

any remaining 2.5 GHz spectrum 9 be 

made available for commercial use via 

competitive bidding. The Commission 

proposes that it would conduct an 

auction for licenses of EBS spectrum in 

conformity with the general competitive 

bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart 

Q, of the Commission’s rules. As 

proposed above for mutually exclusive 

applications filed in the three EBS filing 

windows, the Commission proposes to 

employ the part 1 rules governing 

competitive bidding design, unjust 

enrichment, application and payment 

procedures, reporting requirements, and 

the prohibition on certain 

communications between auction 

applicants. The Commission also 

proposes not to apply designated entity 

preferences in this auction. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

50. The Commission seeks comment 

on the appropriate geographic size of 

new 2.5 GHz white space licenses (e.g., 

county, census tract, or something else) 

and the size of the channel blocks (e.g., 

existing channels or the entire available 

band). Commenters should discuss the 

costs and benefits of adopting their 

proposed geographic area size and 

channel block size and why such area 

and channel block sizes would serve the 

public interest taking into account all 

the characteristics of this band. 

51. Consistent with our longstanding 

approach, the Commission would 

initiate a public notice process to solicit 

public input on certain details of 

auction design and the auction 

procedures. This public notice process 

would address auction-specific matters 

such as the competitive bidding design 

and mechanisms, minimum opening 

bids and/or reserve prices, caps on 

bidding credits, and payment 

procedures. In advance of the auction, 

another public notice would announce 

the auction procedures and provide 

detailed instructions for potential 

auction participants. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether any of 

our part 1 rules should be modified for 

an auction of licenses in these frequency 

bands. 

3. Requirements for New 2.5 GHz 

Licenses 

52. The current performance 

requirements for licensees in the 2.5 

GHz band were set forth in 2006, as part 

of the ongoing efforts to transition the 

band to the new band plan established 

in 2004. The 2006 BRS/EBS Second 

Report and Order established a 

substantial service regime for BRS and 

EBS licensees and required licensees to 

demonstrate compliance by May 1, 

2011. The 2006 BRS/EBS Second Report 

and Order also established specific safe 

harbors, including 30 percent 

population coverage for mobile or pointto-multipoint use, or six permanent 

links per million for fixed point-to-point 

services. The 2006 BRS/EBS Second 

Report and Order also established an 

educational safe harbor for EBS 

licensees, consisting of 20 hours of 

educational use per channel, per week. 

In 2010, the Commission established a 

new requirement for new BRS licenses 

issued after November 6, 2009: The 

licensee must make a showing of 

substantial service within four years 

from the date of issue of the license. The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

effective these performance 

requirements have been. 

53. Last year, the Commission 

adopted a unified regulatory framework 

for the Wireless Radio Services (WRS) 

that replaced the existing patchwork of 

service-specific rules regarding renewal, 

comparative renewal, continuity of 

service, and partitioning and 

disaggregation, with clear, consistent 

rules of the road for WRS licensees. The 

Commission included BRS in the new 

WRS framework, but excluded EBS from 

the WRS framework on the ground that 

‘‘this service presents unique issues that 

are under consideration in’’ this present 

proceeding. 

54. Performance Requirements for 

New 2.5 GHz Licenses. The Commission 

proposes more robust performance 

requirements for any new 2.5 GHz 

licenses granted through a local priority 

filing window or a system of 

competitive bidding. For mobile and 

fixed point-to-multipoint services, the 

Commission proposes an interim 

benchmark of 50 percent population 

coverage and a final benchmark of 80 

percent population coverage. For fixed 

point-to-point services, the Commission 

proposes an interim benchmark of 20 

point-to-point links per million persons 

(one link per 50,000 persons) in a 

license area, and a final benchmark of 

40 point-to-point links per million 

persons (one link per 25,000 persons) in 

a licensed area. These benchmarks are 

slightly higher than those for the AWS– 

3 and WCS bands (which have similar 

propagation characteristics) given the 

maturity of technologies already 

developed and deployed in the 2.5 GHz 

band. For educational broadcast 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26404 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10Should an MVPD operator decide that it wishes 

to discontinue video service and transition to the 

new band plan, it can follow the process 

established by the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau in Antilles Wireless, LLC d/b/a USA Digital, 

et al., Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 8052, 

8058, paras. 13–14 (WTB 2010). 

11 In an overlay auction, the auction winner 

acquires spectrum rights ‘‘subject to the exclusion 

of overlapping, co-channel incumbent’’ licensees. 

Typically, if an incumbent license cancels or is 

forfeited, the overlay licensee automatically 

acquires the right to operate in the area formerly 

covered by the incumbent license. 

services, the Commission seeks 

comment on an interim benchmark of 

50 percent population coverage and a 

final benchmark of 80 percent 

population coverage. The Commission 

seeks comment on these performance 

benchmarks and on any other 

requirements that may be more 

appropriate for this band. Are there 

considerations specific to this band that 

would warrant a different approach? 

Are there new technological 

developments, or issues specific to the 

2.5 GHz band, that render a usage-based 

approach or any other approach suitable 

here? When should the interim 

benchmark showing be required? What 

penalty should apply to licensees that 

do not meet it? In addition, because the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to adopt a licensing framework based on 

census tracts, the Commission also 

seeks comment on how such a 

framework would affect performance 

requirements. Is there some other 

method of evaluating meaningful 

service, beyond traditional metrics, that 

might be more appropriate considering 

the size of license areas? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are other more 

appropriate construction requirements 

for educational services. 

55. Renewal Standards. The 

Commission also proposes to bring any 

new 2.5 GHz licenses granted through a 

local priority filing window or a system 

of competitive bidding into the unified 

regulatory renewal framework for WRS. 

The Commission believes that updating 

the renewal standards in this manner 

will encourage rapid deployment of 

next generation wireless services, 

including 5G. The Commission also 

seeks comment on bringing existing EBS 

licensees, once their licenses have been 

rationalized as discussed earlier, into 

the WRS framework for license renewal. 

What are the costs and benefits of each 

approach? 

C. Cleaning Up the 2.5 GHz Rules 

56. The process for transitioning BRS 

and EBS licensees to the new band plan 

was completed in 2011. While a few 

Multichannel Video Programming 

Distributors have received waivers to 

opt out of the transition so that they can 

continue providing service, all other 

licensees have transitioned to the new 

band plan. It therefore appears that the 

transition rules are no longer 

necessary.10 The Commission believes it 

is in the public interest to eliminate 

regulations that are out of date and no 

longer necessary. The Commission 

therefore proposes to eliminate the BRS/ 

EBS transition rules. 

57. The Commission also proposes to 

make various non-substantive, clarifying 

amendments to § 27.1206. The proposed 

changes are contained in the Proposed 

Rules. The changes are designed to 

make the rules easier to understand 

without changing the substantive 

requirements for BRS. The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposed 

changes. 

D. Additional Approaches for 

Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band 

58. The Commission seeks comment 

on other approaches to rationalizing and 

opening up the 2.5 GHz band for more 

productive and intensive use. Generally, 

are there better ways to restructure the 

2.5 GHz band that will ensure that it is 

put to its highest and best use? In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on other licensing and auction 

ideas and alternatives to the local 

priority filing window approach. 

Commenters should provide 

information about the costs and benefits 

of any approach suggested. 

59. For instance, should the 

Commission, regardless of the scope of 

incumbent operations, create new 

geographic area licenses? If so, what 

types of geographic area licenses should 

the FCC create? Should the Commission 

license the spectrum based on census 

tracts or counties or some other size? 

Commenters should discuss whether 

their view of the appropriate geographic 

area size changes if the Commission is 

considering licenses that encompass 

more than the white spaces previously 

discussed, and if so why. Additionally, 

what channel size or sizes should the 

Commission use in licensing this 

spectrum? 

60. If the FCC were to adopt this 

approach, how would the Commission 

account for reasonable investmentbacked expectations and incumbent 

operations? Would a different approach 

than those considered in section III.A. 

above be preferable, and if so why? For 

example, should the Commission 

convert incumbent licenses into new, 

flexible use spectrum licenses that 

would be subject to its secondary 

market rules? If so, how? Should our 

approach to incumbent licensees 

depend on or consider the existing and/ 

or historic use of the spectrum by those 

incumbent licensees, including, for 

instance, the construction of facilities or 

degree to which the spectrum has 

consistently been put to use? 

61. Should the Commission consider 

moving directly to auction for this 

spectrum, rather than open priority 

filing windows for certain entities? In 

section III.B.2, the Commission seeks 

comment on auctioning the white 

spaces, but, instead, should the 

Commission consider other auction 

options, such as an incentive auction of 

this spectrum in order to provide 

incentives for incumbents to make 

underutilized spectrum available for 

commercial use? In particular, should 

the Commission rely on § 6402 of the 

Spectrum Act, now codified at 47 U.S.C. 

309(j)(8)(G) (or some other source of 

authority) to encourage incumbent 

licensees to relinquish voluntarily some 

or all of their spectrum usage rights to 

permit the assignment of new initial 

licenses subject to flexible-use service 

rules? Are there other means of 

assigning licenses and promoting more 

efficient uses that the Commission 

should consider, such as an overlay 

auction 11 or other auction mechanisms? 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

implications of moving directly to 

auction. 

62. Regardless of the particular 

approach the Commission takes to 

facilitate more intensive use of the 2.5 

GHz spectrum, should the Commission 

allow all entities that are interested in 

using this spectrum the same 

opportunity to acquire licenses in this 

band? In other words, should the 

Commission not adopt local priority 

filing windows or otherwise grant 

preferential treatment to potential 

licensees based on their identity or 

other criteria? 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

63. 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 proposed in the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided on the first page of 

the NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26405 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

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

Proposed Rules 

64. In the NPRM, the Commission 

take steps to permit more flexible use of 

the 2496–2690 MHz (2.5 GHz) band by 

current EBS licensees and to provide 

new opportunities for EBS eligible 

entities, Tribal Nations, and commercial 

entities to obtain unused 2.5 GHz 

spectrum to facilitate improved access 

to next generation wireless broadband, 

including 5G, for both educational and 

commercial uses. As mentioned in the 

NPRM, roughly half of EBS spectrum 

currently is unassigned, while the other 

half is assigned in geographic areas of 

various sizes and shapes and is subject 

to unique use and transfer restrictions. 

The irregularity in the current 

geographic service areas, combined in 

some cases with outdated regulatory 

requirements has impeded the efficient 

deployment of services, such as mobile 

broadband, in this spectrum band. 

Consistent with the Commission’s goal 

of making additional spectrum available 

for flexible use, and to promote use of 

EBS frequencies that have been 

unassigned for far too long, the 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on a number of steps to 

encourage and facilitate more efficient 

use of the 2.5 GHz band. Additionally, 

since the process for transitioning BRS 

and EBS licensees to the new band plan 

was completed in 2011, the Commission 

proposes to eliminate the BRS/EBS 

transition rules. The Commission 

believes it is in the public interest to 

eliminate these regulations that are out 

of date and no longer necessary. 

B. B. Legal Basis 

65. The proposed actions are 

authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3, 

4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 

309, and 310 of the Communications 

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

152, 154(i), 157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 

307, 308, 309, 310 and Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302. 

C. C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

66. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

67. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. The 

Commission therefore describes here, at 

the outset, three broad groups of small 

entities that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9 percent 

of all businesses in the United States 

which translates to 28.8 million 

businesses. 

68. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016, 

there were approximately 356,494 small 

organizations based on registration and 

tax data filed by nonprofits with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

69. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2012 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,056 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 37,132 General 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,184 Special purpose governments 

(independent school districts and 

special districts) with populations of 

less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census 

Bureau data for most types of 

governments in the local government 

category show that the majority of these 

governments have populations of less 

than 50,000. Based on this data the 

Commission estimates that at least 

49,316 local government jurisdictions 

fall in the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

70. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees and 12 had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Thus under 

this category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

71. Broadband Radio Service and 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Broadband Radio Service systems, 

previously referred to as Multipoint 

Distribution Service (MDS) and 

Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 

Service (MMDS) systems, and ‘‘wireless 

cable,’’ transmit video programming to 

subscribers and provide two-way highspeed data operations using the 

microwave frequencies of the BRS and 

EBS (previously referred to as the 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(ITFS)). 

72. BRS—In connection with the 1996 

BRS auction, the Commission 

established a small business size 

standard as an entity that had annual 

average gross revenues of no more than 

$40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The BRS auctions 

resulted in 67 successful bidders 

obtaining licensing opportunities for 

493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 

67 auction winners, 61 met the 

definition of a small business. BRS also 

includes licensees of stations authorized 

prior to the auction. At this time, based 

on our review of licensing records, the 

Commission estimates that of the 61- 

small business BRS auction winners, 

based on our review of licensing 

records, 48 remain small business 

licensees. In addition to the 48 small 

businesses that hold BTA 

authorizations, there are approximately 

86 incumbent BRS licensees that are 

considered small entities (18 incumbent 

BRS licensees do not meet the small 

business size standard). After adding the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26406 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

number of small business auction 

licensees to the number of incumbent 

licensees not already counted, there are 

currently approximately 133 BRS 

licensees that are defined as small 

businesses under either the SBA or the 

Commission’s rules. 

73. In 2009, the Commission 

conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 

licenses in the BRS areas. The 

Commission offered three levels of 

bidding credits: (i) A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that exceed $15 million and do not 

exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years (small business) received a 

15 percent discount on its winning bid; 

(ii) a bidder with attributed average 

annual gross revenues that exceed $3 

million and do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years (very small 

business) received a 25 percent discount 

on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that do not exceed $3 million 

for the preceding three years 

(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 

concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 

licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, 

two bidders that claimed small business 

status won 4 licenses; one bidder that 

claimed very small business status won 

three licenses; and two bidders that 

claimed entrepreneur status won six 

licenses. 

74. EBS—Educational Broadband 

Service has been included within the 

broad economic census category and 

SBA size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers since 

2007. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers are comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA’s small 

business size standard for this category 

is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 3,117 firms 

that operated that year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

75. In addition to Census data, the 

Commission’s Universal Licensing 

System indicates that as of March 2018 

there are 1,300 licensees holding over 

2,190 active EBS licenses. The 

Commission estimates that of these 

2,190 licenses, the majority are held by 

non-profit educational institutions and 

school districts, which are by statute 

defined as small businesses. 

D. D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

76. The Commission expects the rules 

proposed in the NPRM will impose new 

or additional reporting or recordkeeping 

and/or other compliance obligations on 

small entities as well as other EBS 

licensees and EBS eligible entities. The 

Commission discusses it proposals and 

the obligations that would result below, 

and seeks comment on these matters, 

including cost and benefit analyses 

supported by quantitative and 

qualitative data from the parties in the 

proceeding. 

77. Rationalizing the GSAs of 

incumbent EBS Licensees. The 

Commission proposes to rationalize the 

GSAs of incumbent EBS licensees, 

except grandfathered licensees in the E 

and F Channel groups, to a defined 

geographic area, namely, the sum of 

census tracts that are covered by, or that 

intersect with, a licensee’s existing GSA. 

The Commission proposes that, in this 

rationalization process, each current 

EBS GSA will be converted to a single 

license made up of all the census tracts 

it covers, rather than converted to a 

collection of separate census tract-sized 

licenses. The Commission also proposes 

that EBS licensees with a local presence 

in a county be given the opportunity to 

apply to expand their GSA to the 

boundaries of a county where they have 

a local presence. Licensees who take 

advantage of that option would be 

subject to new performance 

requirements. As an alternative to 

basing GSAs on census tracts, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should expand existing GSAs to 

include the county (or counties) covered 

by or that intersect the GSA. 

78. Additional Flexibility for EBS 

Licenses. The Commission proposes to 

provide EBS licensees with the 

flexibility to assign or transfer control of 

their licenses to entities that are not 

EBS-eligible. To provide additional 

flexibility and to facilitate the most 

efficient use of the EBS spectrum 

through a market-based mechanism, the 

Commission proposes to allow an 

incumbent EBS licensee, in addition to 

leasing a portion of its license, to assign 

or transfer control of its entire license to 

entities that do not meet the eligibility 

criteria contained in § 27.1201 of the 

Commission’s rules. If the incumbent 

EBS licensee were to choose to assign or 

transfer its license, the new licensee 

would not be required to comply with 

the educational use requirements in 

§ 27.1203 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether licensees whose license were 

granted via waiver, should be given 

additional flexibility to lease their 

spectrum or to transfer or assign their 

licenses freely. Given this flexibility to 

transfer or assign an entire EBS license 

to non-eligible entities, free of 

educational use requirements, the 

Commission also proposes to eliminate 

the educational use requirements in 

§ 27.1203 for all EBS licensees. The 

Commission also proposes to eliminate 

restrictions on EBS lease terms on a 

going forward basis and ask whether 

additional revisions are necessary to 

fully rationalize our rules for the 

transferability, leasing and use of EBS 

spectrum. 

79. Opportunities to Acquire New 2.5 

GHz Licenses. The Commission 

proposes to auction off licenses for 

unassigned portions of the 2.5 GHZ 

band and seek comment on whether it 

should first open up to three new local 

priority filing windows to give existing 

licensees, Tribal Nations and 

educational entities an opportunity to 

access 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve their 

local communities. The Commission 

also proposes build-out requirements for 

these new licenses to ensure that all 

Americans have the opportunity to 

benefit from the 2.5 GHz band. 

80. New Local Priority Filing 

Window—Local Presence. The 

Commission proposes to require an 

applicant to demonstrate as part of the 

application process that it has a local 

presence, and that an EBS-eligible entity 

should be considered to have a ‘‘local 

presence’’ when it is physically located 

within the license area where service is 

proposed. The Commission seeks 

comment on what documentation 

applicants must provide to demonstrate 

that they have a local presence. 

81. Local Priority Filing Window 1: 

Existing Licensees. The Commission 

seeks comment on opening a window 

that would permit existing 2.5 GHz 

licensees to expand their service to the 

county border if they were able to 

demonstrate that they had a local 

presence in that county, and if they 

covered at least 25 percent of census 

tracts in that county. Such a window 

would allow existing licensees to 

quickly put white space to use, but it 

would also preclude new entrants. 

82. Local Priority Filing Window 2: 

Tribal Nations. The Commission seeks 

comment on opening a new filing 

priority filing window for Tribal 

Nations. The Commission proposes to 

limit participation to federallyrecognized American Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Villages that also have a 

local presence. The Commission also 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26407 

proposes not to limit the number of 

channels that a Tribal Nations could 

apply for as EBS-eligible entities for the 

purposes of participating in the Native 

National entity filing window. The 

Commission asks commenters to 

propose other ways by which it could 

encourage the use of EBS spectrum on 

Tribal Lands and in Native 

communities. 

83. Local Priority Filing Window 3: 

New Educational Entities. The 

Commission seeks comment on opening 

a new local priority filing window for 

educational entities that do not hold any 

2.5 GHz spectrum. The Commission 

would propose to limit participation in 

such a window to accredited 

institutions as well as governmental 

organizations engaged in the formal 

education of enrolled students who are 

not 2.5 GHz licensees as of the adoption 

of this NPRM and only in areas in 

which they have a local presence. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to assign new EBS licenses on a countywide or census tract basis. 

84. Local Priority Filing Process. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate time frame for any of the 

new local priority filing windows, how 

long the windows should be open, and 

how much notice to give. The 

Commission asks entities that are 

interested in participating in the 

application window and obtaining 2.5 

GHz licenses to indicate their interests 

and the difficulties that they may face 

to help us evaluate any possible 

technical and process issues that may 

arise in implementing one or more new 

local priority filing windows for 

applicants and processing such 

applications. 

85. Resolving Mutually Exclusive 

Applications. While the Commission 

does not anticipate many mutually 

exclusive applications based on the 

local priority filing windows, it notes 

that the Communications Act requires 

that assign initial licenses subject to 

mutually exclusive applications through 

competitive bidding. The Commission 

proposes to limit such competitive 

bidding to the mutually exclusive 

applications filed during a particular 

window, and ask for comment on that. 

The Commission asks for comment on 

whether the Commission should permit 

a settlement window to resolve such 

mutual exclusivity. The Commission 

also proposes to employ the part 1 rules 

governing competitive bidding design, 

unjust enrichment, application and 

payment procedures, reporting 

requirements, and the prohibition on 

certain communications between 

auction applicants, and seeks comment 

on this proposal. 

86. Holding Periods for Licenses 

Acquired Through a Local Priority Filing 

Window. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to impose a 

special holding period, and for how 

long, on any license acquired through a 

local priority filing window in order to 

ensure that licenses are not immediately 

flipped to a nonqualifying entity. The 

Commission asks whether a three, five, 

or seven-year holding period would be 

most appropriate for these 

circumstances. The Commission also 

asks whether licensees should be 

required to meet certain buildout 

requirements before allowing a transfer. 

87. Licensing White Spaces. The 

Commission proposes that after any new 

licenses have been assigned through one 

or more local priority filing windows, 

any remaining 2.5 GHz spectrum would 

be made available for commercial use 

via competitive bidding using our 

general part 1 competitive bidding rules. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and on the appropriate size of 

such licenses and the size of channel 

blocks. The Commission also proposes 

to apply designated entity preferences 

in this auction, and to eliminate the EBS 

eligibility criteria contained in § 27.1201 

of the rules with respect to unassigned 

spectrum and ask for comment on these 

proposals. 

88. Requirements for New 2.5 GHz 

Licenses. The Commission proposes 

more robust construction requirements 

for new 2.5 GHz licenses granted based 

on the proposed local priority filing 

window in the NPRM or a system of 

competitive bidding. For mobile and 

fixed point-to-multipoint services, the 

Commission proposes an interim 

benchmark of 50 percent population 

coverage and a final benchmark of 80 

percent population coverage. For fixed 

point-to-point services, the Commission 

proposes an interim benchmark of 20 

point-to-point links per million persons 

(one link per 50,000 persons) in a 

license area, and 40 point-to-point links 

per million persons (one link per 25,000 

persons) in a licensed area. For 

educational broadcast services that 

provide least 20 hours of educational 

use per channel per week, the 

Commission seeks comment on an 

interim benchmark of 50 percent 

population coverage and a final 

benchmark of 80 percent population 

coverage. The Commission also 

proposes to bring any new 2.5 GHz 

licenses granted through a local priority 

filing window or a system of 

competitive bidding into the unified 

regulatory renewal framework for WRS. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

bringing existing EBS licensees into the 

WRS framework for license renewal 

once their licenses have been 

rationalized. 

89. Cleaning Up the 2.5 GHz Rules. 

The Commission proposes to eliminate 

the BRS/EBS transition rules since the 

process for transitioning BRS and EBS 

licensees to the new band plan was 

completed in 2011 and the rules no 

longer appear necessary. The 

Commission also proposes to make 

various non-substantive, clarifying 

amendments to § 27.1206 to make the 

rules easier to understand without 

changing the substantive requirements 

for BRS. The proposed changes are 

contained in the Proposed Rules of the 

NRPM, and the Commission seeks 

comment on these proposed changes. 

E. E. Steps Taken To Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

90. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use or performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rules, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

91. The Commission does not believe 

that its proposed changes will have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities however, to get a better 

understanding costs and benefits 

associated with proposals and any 

alternatives raised in this proceeding as 

mentioned above in the previous 

section, the Commission has requested 

that commenters discuss the costs and 

benefits supported by quantitative and 

qualitative data of any approach 

advocated. The proposed changes 

expanding the use of the 2.5 GHz band 

will benefit small entities as well as 

entities of other sizes by reducing 

unnecessary regulatory burdens on 

licensees, promoting greater spectrum 

efficiency, and facilitating the full use of 

EBS spectrum to provide advanced 

mobile broadband services, particularly 

in rural areas where this spectrum sits 

idle today. Moreover, the proposed 

reforms will permit more flexible use of 

this spectrum by small and other sized 

entities that currently hold EBS licenses 

and will provide new opportunities for 

EBS eligible entities, Tribal Nations, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
26408 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

commercial entities to obtain unused 

2.5 GHz spectrum to facilitate improved 

access to next generation wireless 

broadband, including 5G, for both 

educational and commercial uses. 

92. More specifically, the 

Commission’s proposed rationalization 

process for incumbent EBS licensees 

that would occur automatically allowing 

incumbent licensees to avoid a 

requirement to file applications with the 

Commission or to otherwise notify the 

Commission to effectuate this change 

would minimize some costs and/or 

administrative burdens on small entities 

associated with the rule, if adopted. 

Small entities should also benefit from 

removal of the filing freeze for new EBS 

licenses and the requirement that EBS 

eligible entities applying for a new 

license must have a local presence in 

the areas in which they wish to provide 

service, which will provide them greater 

opportunity to obtain EBS spectrum to 

meet the needs of their communities. In 

addition, small entities should benefit 

from the increased flexibility of our 

proposal to allow EBS licensees with 

the flexibility to assign or transfer 

control of their licenses to entities that 

are not EBS-eligible. The Commission 

believes that, at this point in time, 

licensees are in the best position to 

determine how to use their licenses, or, 

alternatively, whether to transfer their 

licenses to a third party in the 

secondary market. 

93. For existing EBS licenses the 

Commission’s action declining to issue 

proposals creating new performance or 

renewal requirements will spare small 

entities and other existing EBS licensees 

the costs of new compliance 

requirements in these areas. With 

respect to performance requirements 

adopted for all new EBS licenses, the 

Commission believes such requirements 

are necessary to ensure that spectrum is 

being put into use and has proposed a 

variety of metrics to provide small 

entities as well as other licensees with 

a variety of means by which they may 

demonstrate compliance. The 

Commission anticipates that updating 

the performance requirements in this 

manner will encourage rapid 

deployment of next generation wireless 

services, including 5G, which will 

benefit small entities and the industry 

as a whole. 

F. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

94. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

95. It is ordered, pursuant to the 

authority found in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(i), 

7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 

and 310 of the Communications Act of 

1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 

157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 

309, 310, and Section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and Section 

1.411 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 

CFR 1.411, that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

96. It is further ordered that notice is 

hereby given of the proposed regulatory 

changes described in this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and that 

comment is sought on these proposals. 

97. 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, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 

27 

Communications common carriers, 

Communications equipment, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1 and 27 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 

160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 

1451, 1452, and 1455, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.949 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1.949 Application for renewal of 

authorization. 

* * * * * 

(c) Implementation. Covered Sitebased Licenses, except Common Carrier 

Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service 

(part 101, subpart I of this chapter), and 

Covered Geographic Licenses in the 600 

MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 

MHz Commercial Services (part 27, 

subpart F); Advanced Wireless Services 

(part 27, subpart L) (AWS–3 (1695–1710 

MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 

MHz) and AWS–4 (2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz) only); and H Block 

Service (part 27, subpart K) must 

comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) 

of this section. Broadband Radio Service 

and Educational Broadband Service 

licenses (part 27, subpart M) initially 

issued after [effective date of final rule] 

must comply with paragraphs (d) 

through (h) of this section. All other 

Covered Geographic Licenses must 

comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) 

of this section beginning on January 1, 

2023. Common Carrier Fixed Point-toPoint Microwave Service (part 101, 

subpart I) must comply with paragraphs 

(d) through (h) of this section beginning 

on October 1, 2018. 

* * * * * 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 

307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, 

and 1452, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Amend § 27.14 by revising 

paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 27.14 Construction Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(o)(1) All BRS and EBS licensees 

issued after [effective date of final rule], 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

performance requirements described in 

this paragraph. All equipment used to 

demonstrate compliance must be in use 

and actually providing service, either 

for internal use or to unaffiliated 

customers, as of the interim deadline or 

the end of the license term, whichever 

is applicable. 

(2) Licensees relying on mobile 

service must demonstrate reliable signal 

coverage of 50% of the population of the 

geographic service area by the interim 

deadline, and 80% of the population of 

the geographic service area by the end 

of the license term. 

(3) Licensees relying on fixed service 

must demonstrate operation of one link 

for each 50,000 persons in the 

geographic service area by the interim 

deadline, and one link for each 25,000 

persons in the geographic service area 

by the end of the license term. 

* * * * * 

§ 27.1201 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 27.1201. 

■ 6. Revise § 27.1206 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1206 Geographic Service Area. 

(a) BRS: 

(1) For BRS incumbent licenses 

granted before September 15, 1995, the 

GSA for a channel is the GSA as created 

on January 10, 2005. 

(2) For BRS BTA authorization 

holders, the GSA for a channel is the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 26409 

BTA, subject to the exclusion of 

overlapping, co-channel incumbent 

GSAs created on January 10, 2005. 

(3) If an incumbent BRS license is 

cancelled or is forfeited, the GSA area 

of the incumbent station shall dissolve 

and the right to operate in that area 

automatically reverts to the GSA 

licensee that held the corresponding 

BTA. 

(b) For EBS: 

(1) Incumbent EBS licensees. (i) The 

GSA of EBS licenses on the E and F 

channel groups is defined in § 27.1216. 

EBS licensees on the E and F channel 

groups are prohibited from expanding 

their GSAs. 

(ii) For EBS licenses not in the E and 

F channel groups in effect as of 

[effective date of final rule], the GSA for 

a channel consists of all census tracts 

which are covered by or intersect its 

GSA existing as of [effective date of final 

rule]. 

(2) New initial EBS licenses. The GSA 

for a channel for new initial licenses 

issued after [effective date of final rule], 

is the county [census tract] for which 

the license is issued, subject to the 

exclusion of overlapping, co-channel 

incumbent GSAs. 

■ 7. Revise § 27.1214 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1214 EBS spectrum leasing 

arrangements and grandfathered leases. 

(a) All leases of current EBS spectrum 

entered into prior to January 10, 2005 

and in compliance with leasing rules 

formerly contained in part 74 of this 

chapter may continue in force and 

effect, notwithstanding any 

inconsistency between such leases and 

the rules applicable to spectrum leasing 

arrangements set forth in this chapter. 

Such leases entered into pursuant to the 

former part 74 rules of this chapter may 

be renewed and assigned in accordance 

with the terms of such lease. All 

spectrum leasing arrangements leases 

entered into after January 10, 2005, 

pursuant to the rules set forth in part 1 

and part 27 of this chapter, must comply 

with the rules in those parts. 

(b) For leasing arrangements entered 

into between July 19, 2006 and 

[effective date of final rule], the 

maximum permissible term of an EBS 

spectrum leasing arrangement 

(including the initial term and all 

renewal terms that commence 

automatically or at the sole option of the 

lessee) shall be 30 years. Any spectrum 

leasing arrangement in excess of 15 

years that is entered into on or after July 

19, 2006 and before [effective date of 

final rule] must include terms which 

provide the EBS licensee on the 15th 

year and every 5 years thereafter, with 

an opportunity to review its educational 

use requirements in light of changes in 

educational needs, technology, and 

other relevant factors and to obtain 

access to such additional services, 

capacity, support, and/or equipment as 

the parties shall agree upon in the 

spectrum leasing arrangement to 

advance the EBS licensee’s educational 

mission. 

■ 8. Revise § 27.1217 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1217 Competitive bidding procedures 

for the Broadband Radio Service and the 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Mutually exclusive initial 

applications for BRS and EBS licenses 

are subject to competitive bidding. The 

designated entity provisions in 

§ 27.1218 shall not apply to auctions 

held after [effective date of final rule]. 

The general competitive bidding 

procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q 

of this chapter will apply unless 

otherwise provided in this subpart. 

§ § 27.1230 through 27.1239 [Removed] 

■ 9. Remove §§ 27.1230 through 

27.1239. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12183 Filed 6–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS