44128 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27 

[GN Docket No. 18–122; GN Docket No. 17– 

183; RM–11791; RM–11778; FCC 18–91] 

Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 

4.2 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) adopts a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to pursue 

the joint goals of making 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band spectrum available for new 

wireless uses while balancing desired 

speed to the market, efficiency of use, 

and effectively accommodating 

incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) 

and Fixed Service (FS) operations in the 

band. The Commission seeks comment 

on various proposals for transitioning 

all or part of the band for flexible use, 

terrestrial mobile spectrum, with 

clearing for flexible use beginning at 3.7 

GHz and moving higher up in the band 

as more spectrum is cleared. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

potential changes to its rules to promote 

more efficient and intensive fixed use of 

the band on a shared basis starting in 

the top segment of the band and moving 

down the band. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 29, 2018; reply comments are 

due on or before November 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 18–122, 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/. 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: 

Ariel Diamond of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at (202) 418–2803 

or ariel.diamond@fcc.gov, Anna Gentry 

of the Wireless Telecommunication 

Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202–418– 

7769 or anna.gentry@fcc.gov, or 

Christopher Bair of the International 

Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202–418– 

0945 or chistopher.bair@fcc.gov. For 

information regarding the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, contact Cathy 

Williams, Office of Managing Director, 

at (202) 418–2918 or cathy.williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the NPRM portion of the 

Commission’s Order and NPRM, GN 

Docket No. 18–122, FCC 18–91, adopted 

on July 12, 2018 and released on July 

13, 2018. The complete text of this 

document, as well as comments, reply 

comments, and ex parte submissions, 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, GN Docket 

No. 18–122. 

• 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 Order and 

NPRM shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44129 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with 

§ 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, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present IRFA of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

attached FNPRM. Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines specified in the 

FNPRM for comments. The Commission 

will send a copy of this FNPRM, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The NPRM may result in new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on such requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. 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. In this proceeding, the Commission 

is pursuing the joint goals of making 

spectrum available for new wireless 

uses while balancing desired speed to 

the market, efficiency of use, and 

effectively accommodating incumbent 

Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed 

Service (FS) operations in the band. To 

gain a clearer understanding of the 

operations of current users in the band, 

the Commission collects information on 

current FSS uses. The Commission then 

seeks comment on various proposals for 

transitioning all or part of the band for 

flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum, 

with clearing for flexible use beginning 

at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in the 

band as more spectrum is cleared. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

potential changes to the Commission’s 

rules to promote more efficient and 

intensive fixed use of the band on a 

shared basis starting in the top segment 

of the band and moving down the band. 

To add a mobile, except aeronautical 

mobile, allocation and to develop rules 

that would enable the band to be 

transitioned for more intensive fixed 

and flexible uses, the Commission 

encourages commenters to discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits 

associated with any proposed approach 

along with other helpful technical or 

procedural details. 

II. Background 

A. 5G Leadership and Closing the 

Digital Divide 

2. America’s appetite for wireless 

broadband service is surging. And while 

mobile traffic is surging in sections of 

the United States, many communities 

still lack access to meaningful 

broadband connectivity. More intensive 

use of spectrum can allow wireless 

operators to fill in gaps in the current 

broadband landscape. Additional 

spectrum must be identified, however, if 

the Commission is to seize the 5G future 

and meet the connectivity needs of all 

Americans. 

3. Enabling next generation wireless 

networks and closing the digital divide 

will require efficient utilization of the 

low-, mid-, and high-bands. In recent 

years, the Commission has taken several 

steps to use low-band spectrum below 

3.7 GHz more efficiently and intensely, 

and it has paved the way for new 

opportunities in high-band spectrum 

above 24 GHz. Having identified 

additional spectrum in low- and highbands, the Commission now seeks to 

identify mid-band spectrum for wireless 

broadband services. Mid-band spectrum 

is well-suited for next generation 

wireless broadband services due to the 

combination of favorable propagation 

characteristics (compared to high bands) 

and the opportunity for additional 

channel re-use (as compared to low 

bands). 

4. Congress recently addressed the 

pressing need for additional spectrum 

for wireless broadband, including both 

mobile and fixed services, in the FY 

2018 omnibus spending bill, which 

includes the MOBILE NOW Act under 

Title VI of RAY BAUM’S Act. The 

MOBILE NOW Act directs that spectrum 

be made available for new technologies 

and to maintain America’s leadership in 

the future of communications 

technology. Section 603(a)(1) of the 

MOBILE NOW Act requires that no later 

than December 31, 2022, the Secretary 

of Commerce, working through the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA), and 

the Commission ‘‘shall identify a total of 

at least 255 megahertz of Federal and 

non-Federal spectrum for mobile and 

fixed wireless broadband use.’’ In 

making 255 megahertz available, 100 

megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be 

identified for unlicensed use, 100 

megahertz below 6000 MHz shall be 

identified for use on exclusive, licensed 

basis for commercial mobile use, 

pursuant to the Commission’s authority 

to implement such licensing in a 

flexible manner, and 55 megahertz 

below 8000 MHz shall be identified for 

licensed, unlicensed, or a combination 

of uses. 

5. Additionally, § 605(b) of the 

MOBILE NOW Act specifically requires 

the Commission to evaluate ‘‘the 

feasibility of allowing commercial 

wireless services, licensed or 

unlicensed, to use or share use of the 

frequencies between 3700 megahertz 

and 4200 megahertz,’’ which the 

Commission sought comment on in May 

1, 2018 Public Notice. The Commission 

notes that there is no federal allocation 

for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. The 

Commission intends to consult with 

NTIA and the heads of each affected 

Federal agency, as required by the Act, 

regarding the Federal entities, stations, 

and operations in the band, and the 

required issues and assessments for the 

report under § 605(b). This NPRM, in 

conjunction with the report under 

§ 605(b), furthers the Commission’s 

evaluation of mid-band spectrum to 

meet § 603’s statutory mandate as well 

as to accommodate projected future 

demand. 

B. 2017 Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry 

6. In the 2017 Mid-Band NOI, the 

Commission began an evaluation of 

whether spectrum in-between 3.7 GHz 

and 24 GHz can be made available for 

flexible use—particularly for wireless 

broadband services. The Mid-Band NOI 

sought comment in particular on three 

mid-range bands that have garnered 

interest from stakeholders for expanded 

flexible use (3.7–4.2 GHz, 5.925–6.425 

GHz, and 6.425–7.125 GHz), and it 

asked commenters to identify other midVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Aug 28, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM 29AUP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44130 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission notes that the International 

Bureau waived the coordination requirement for the 

duration of the freeze for applications filed during 

the filing window (April 19, 2018 to October 17, 

2018). Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing 

Window Public Notice at 3–4. 

2Registrants are required to notify the 

Commission when a receive-only earth station is no 

longer operational or when it has not been used to 

provide any service during any 6-month period. 47 

CFR 25.131(i). 

range frequencies that may be suitable 

for expanded flexible use. In the interest 

of clarity and expeditiously making 

spectrum available for wireless 

broadband use, this NPRM will evaluate 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band individually, and 

the Commission may address other midband spectrum bands, including the 

5.925–6.425 and 6.425–7.125 GHz 

bands, in subsequent item(s). 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. The Future of Incumbent Usage of 

3.7–4.2 GHz 

1. Protecting Incumbent Earth Stations 

7. The Commission proposes to 

protect incumbent earth stations from 

harmful interference as the Commission 

increases the intensity of terrestrial use 

in the band. The Commission seeks 

comment on how to define the 

appropriate class of incumbents for 

protection. For FSS earth station 

licensees and registrants, the 

Commission proposes to define 

incumbent stations as earth stations 

that: (1) Were operational as of April 19, 

2018; (2) are licensed or registered (or 

had a pending application for license or 

registration) in the IBFS database as of 

October 17, 2018; and (3) have timely 

certified the accuracy of information on 

file with the Commission to the extent 

required by the Order. Although earth 

stations that have not filed an exhibit 

demonstrating coordination with 

terrestrial FS stations are unprotected 

from interference by FS links, that 

requirement is of less relevance today 

given the minimal FS usage in the band, 

as well as the fact that the Commission 

proposes new terrestrial uses for which 

coordination with existing FS users will 

have little value. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes to protect even 

such earth stations so long as they meet 

the criteria described above.1

8. The Commission proposes to 

exclude from the definition of 

incumbents any earth stations that are 

not licensed or registered in IBFS, or 

that are licensed or registered in IBFS, 

but for which the licensee/registrant 

does not timely file the certification 

required in the Order. The Commission 

further proposes that unregistered FSS 

earth stations could continue to receive 

transmissions lawfully, but would 

operate on an unprotected basis as to 

any licensed operations in the band. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether incumbents that are small 

entities face any special or unique 

issues with respect to the transition 

such that they should be defined 

differently or have different obligations. 

9. The Commission asks that 

commenters be specific in defining a 

protected incumbent and in explaining 

the relative obligations and/or rights 

that protected incumbents may have 

under each approach for more intense 

terrestrial use of the band. Which 

categories of incumbents must new 

flexible use licensees relocate under 

each approach, what would be the 

standard for determining the need to 

relocate each category of incumbents, 

and what are the terms or rules pursuant 

to which these relocations will occur? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

specific relief that should be provided to 

each class of incumbents. For example, 

should incumbent earth station 

operators be provided with filters to 

block transmissions from flexible use 

operations, should they receive filters 

and the technical assistance necessary 

to install them or repoint earth station 

antennas as necessary, or should earth 

station operators be provided with a 

lump sum to be used at their own 

discretion, either to upgrade existing 

facilities or to enable the switch to other 

means of transmission? Who would be 

responsible for reimbursing incumbent 

earth station operators and C-band 

customers for costs incurred in any 

transition, and how would such cost 

reimbursement be accomplished? How 

would disputes relating to cost 

reimbursement be resolved? What 

would be the basis for establishing 

reasonable cost reimbursements? For 

example, would it take into account any 

required improvements or replacement 

to an existing antenna or its supporting 

structure? Would it cover any required 

technological assistance? How should 

satellite news gathering vehicles or 

other temporary-fixed earth stations be 

addressed? 

a. Limiting New Earth Stations 

10. On April 19, 2018, the staff 

released the Freeze and 90-Day Earth 

Station Filing Window Public Notice, 

which froze applications for new or 

modified earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band to preserve the current 

landscape of authorized operations 

pending action as part of the 

Commission’s ongoing inquiry into the 

possibility of permitting mobile 

broadband use and more intensive fixed 

use of the band through this proceeding. 

The Commission now seeks comment 

on revising the Part 25 rules to 

permanently limit eligibility to file 

applications for earth station licenses or 

registrations to incumbent earth 

stations. This would mean that earth 

station operators that register or license 

their existing stations by October 17, 

2018, would be able to modify these 

stations at the registered location but 

not add new stations in new locations, 

and applications for new earth station 

registrations would not be allowed. 

Limiting new earth stations in this 

manner would provide a stable spectral 

environment for more intensive 

terrestrial use. 

b. Removing Uncertified Earth Stations 

11. In response to the Mid-band NOI, 

the Commission received comments 

from a variety of stakeholders, many of 

which addressed whether the 

Commission’s IBFS data about current 

operations in the band is complete and 

up to date. Some commenters stressed 

the importance of identifying existing 

unregistered earth stations before the 

Commission makes any substantial 

changes to the operations permitted in 

the band, while other commenters 

contend that there may be earth stations 

in the database that are no longer in 

operation.2

12. Regarding the first concern, in the 

Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing 

Window Public Notice, the International 

Bureau announced as an exception to 

the freeze, a 90-day window for earth 

stations to register in IBFS. Also, to 

obtain the best information possible on 

existing earth stations in this band in 

furtherance of the Commission’s 

ongoing inquiry without imposing a 

potentially unnecessary economic 

burden on eligible FSS earth station 

applicants in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

filing within the 90-day window, the 

International Bureau granted a 

temporary waiver of the frequency 

coordination requirement. 

Subsequently, the International Bureau 

extended the filing window by 90 days 

until October 17, 2018, waived 

additional provisions of the rules, 

clarified that multiple antennas located 

at the same address or geographic 

location may be filed under a single 

registration application and pay a single 

filing fee, and announced the 

availability of an additional option to 

facilitate the registration of large 

numbers of geographically diverse earth 

stations under a single ‘‘network’’ 

license and single fee. 

13. Regarding the second concern, the 

staff noted that ‘‘after the 90-day 

window closes, the Commission may 

determine to require all licensees, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44131 

3 Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window 

Public Notice at 5. The staff also advised all 

potential applicants that ‘‘the Commission may, for 

purposes of further action following the NOI, 

choose to take into consideration only those earth 

stations that are licensed, registered, or have 

pending applications for license or registration on 

file in IBFS as of [the close of the filing window].’’ 

Id at 5. 

4Above, the Commission proposes to limit the 

definition of incumbent earth stations to licensed or 

registered stations for which the operator timely 

files the required certification, or for which the 

operators timely filed for new or modified 

registrations between April 19, 2018 and October 

17, 2018 pursuant to the Earth Station Filing 

Window Public Notices. 

5The Commission notes that under Part 25, a 

station authorization shall be automatically 

terminated in whole or in part without further 

notice to the licensee upon the removal or 

modification of the facilities which renders the 

station not operational for more than 90 days, 

unless specific authority is requested. Id. 

§ 25.161(c). 

registrants, and operators with pending 

applications for license or registration of 

FSS earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band to file a certification that the earth 

station was operational as of the start of 

the freeze and remains operational at 

the time of the certification along with 

additional technical details regarding 

their operations to inform the 

Commission’s resolution of issues raised 

in the inquiry.’’ 3 In the Order, the 

Commission requires operators of earth 

stations licensed or registered in IBFS 

(except those that file new or modified 

registrations between April 19, 2018, 

and October 17, 2018, under the 

modified registration process outlined 

in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station 

Filing Window Public Notice) to file 

certifications as to the accuracy of all 

information in IBFS concerning their 

existing FSS earth station operations.4

14. To ensure that the Commission 

has the best information possible on 

existing earth stations in this band, the 

Commission proposes to update IBFS to 

remove 3.7–4.2 GHz band earth station 

licenses or registrations for which the 

licensee or registrant does not file the 

certifications required in the Order (to 

the extent they were licensed or 

registered before April 19, 2018). The 

Commission specifically proposes that 

an earth station registered in IBFS be 

automatically terminated unless the 

registrant timely files the certification 

required by the Order (to the extent they 

were licensed or registered before April 

19, 2018). The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

c. Maintenance of IBFS Data Accuracy 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on how—once the accuracy of 3.7–4.2 

GHz band earth station data has 

improved—to ensure that earth station 

data remains accurate to facilitate 

frequency coordination and maximize 

efficient use of the spectrum. How often 

do the frequencies received by a given 

earth station change? The Commission 

seeks comment on whether, for a 

constructed and operational earth 

station,5 any combination of frequency, 

azimuth, and elevation listed in the 

license or registration that is unused for 

more than, e.g., 180 days, should be 

deleted from the license or registration 

to minimize unnecessary constraints on 

successful frequency coordination of 

new operations. 

16. In addition, the Commission asks 

for parties to comment on whether to 

require an earth station licensee or 

registrant in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to 

certify periodically, e.g., annually, the 

continued accuracy of the information 

on file with the Commission. Should 

any requirements that the Commission 

adopts to help ensure that IBFS data 

remains accurate become effective after 

a transition period? 

d. Revising the Coordination Policy 

17. Receive-only earth stations cannot 

cause interference, but under the 

Commission’s current rules they can be 

coordinated and licensed or registered 

with the Commission to protect them 

from terrestrial microwave stations in 

bands shared co-equally with the FS. 

Section 25.203 requires FSS applicants 

to coordinate their proposed frequency 

use prior to filing their license 

applications with the Commission. 

Earth station applicants, to the extent 

practicable, must select sites and 

frequencies in areas where the 

surrounding terrain and existing 

frequency use will minimize the 

possibility of harmful interference 

between the sharing services. An earth 

station applicant, prior to filing an 

application to register or license with 

the Commission, must coordinate its 

proposed frequency usage with existing 

terrestrial users and with applicants that 

have filed for terrestrial station 

authorizations. The purpose of this 

coordination requirement is to establish 

the baseline level of interference that an 

earth station must accept in frequency 

bands shared by the FS and FSS on a 

co-primary basis. The coordination 

results entitle the FSS earth station to 

the interference protection levels agreed 

to during coordination, including 

against subsequent FS licensees. 

Currently, registered or licensed earth 

stations in the C-band are generally 

coordinated and authorized to use the 

entire band across the full geostationary 

arc, a policy known as full-band, fullarc. 

18. A reexamination of the full-band, 

full-arc coordination policy is 

appropriate in light of the Commission’s 

goal to maximize spectrum efficiency 

and use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

including more intensive terrestrial use 

of the band. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes that for purposes 

of interference protection, earth station 

operators will be entitled to protection 

only for those frequencies, azimuths, 

and elevation angles and other 

parameters reported as in regular use 

(i.e., at least daily) in response to future 

information collections, until the 

incumbent starts the coordination 

process for an application to modify its 

license or registration in IBFS for its 

earth station. The Commission further 

proposes that such modification 

applications identify and include a 

coordination report for the specific 

combinations of frequency, azimuth, 

and elevation angle that the incumbent 

intends to use and that such technical 

information be reflected on the earth 

station application and authorization. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

19. At the same time, the Commission 

acknowledges that the full-band, full-arc 

policy has certain advantages, e.g., it 

affords FSS operational flexibility, and 

the Commission seeks comment about 

the consequences of eliminating the 

policy. Specifically, how would this 

policy alter current business models and 

operations of C-band licensees and 

registrants? Are there alternatives to 

eliminating this policy that would have 

less of an impact on the current C-band 

business models and operations without 

sacrificing the efficiency maximizing 

goals of the Commission’s proposal? 

e. Information on Incumbent FSS 

Operations 

20. In the Order, the Commission 

directs incumbent FSS earth station 

operators to certify as to the accuracy of 

existing information in IBFS, and 

require incumbent FSS space station 

operators to provide additional 

information. To develop a more 

complete record on existing FSS 

operations in this band, the Commission 

proposes to require earth station 

operators to file additional information 

on their existing facilities. To the extent 

that the information requested would 

duplicate information already available 

in IBFS, the Commission will direct the 

International Bureau to permit operators 

to certify that the information in IBFS 

remains accurate in lieu of providing 

the information again. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on requiring authorized earth 

station operators (including operators 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44132 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

6To reduce the burden on FSS earth station 

operators and ensure the accuracy of data obtained 

during the information collection process, IB would 

release a public notice that will provide guidance 

about how to obtain or calculate the information. 

7SES and Intelsat provided many questions that 

could be asked about the nature of such earth 

stations and their patterns of use, but it may be 

difficult to quantify deployments for these earth 

stations other than typical capacity used when they 

are deployed and perhaps the area or areas within 

which they are typically used. Intelsat, SES July 3, 

2018 Ex Parte Letter (GN Docket Nos. 17–183, 18– 

122). 

that file new or modified registrations 

between April 19, 2018, and October 17, 

2018) to provide the following 

information for each antenna under 

each call sign: 6

• Earth station call sign; 

• geographic location; 

• licensee and point of contact 

information; 

• antenna gain; 

• azimuth and elevation gain pattern; 

• antenna azimuth relative to true 

north; 

• antenna elevation angle; 

• satellite(s) at which the earth 

station is pointed; 

• transponder number(s) and how 

often each transponder is used: 

Regularly (i.e., at least daily); 

infrequently; or backup capacity; 

• antenna site elevation and height 

above ground. 

21. The Commission’s consideration 

of some transition options may also 

benefit from additional, more granular 

information on FSS earth station and 

space station operations in the band. For 

example, information on the type of 

content (i.e., audio or video feeds), the 

total bandwidth occupied by particular 

users or content feeds, and the identity 

of the content provider could provide 

additional clarity on the actual usage of 

the band. In addition, more granular 

information on the nature of any 

periodic usage of transponder capacity 

(i.e., daily, weekly or once a year) could 

provide additional clarity on the 

availability of spectrum in the band. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether to seek additional information 

from incumbent FSS earth station or 

space station operators beyond what is 

included in the list above. Should the 

Commission seek additional 

information on transponder loading, 

content type, content provider 

information, periodic usage, or other 

data that would provide a more detailed 

picture of the actual usage of the band? 

Should the Commission collect other 

information to more fully assess 

spectrum utilization in the band? 

22. In the Order, the Commission 

requires operators of temporary fixed or 

transportable earth stations to file 

information concerning their existing 

operations, including the area within 

which the equipment is typically used 

and the frequency and duration of such 

use. Consistent with the Commission’s 

proposal to collect additional 

information from fixed FSS earth 

stations, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and to what extent 

the Commission should collect 

additional information specifically with 

respect to temporary fixed or 

transportable earth stations. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the categories of information 

proposed above for fixed FSS earth 

stations would need to be modified or 

supplemented with respect to temporary 

fixed or transportable earth stations.7

For example, would it be useful to 

further quantify the frequency or extent 

of use for these operations and, if so, 

how should they be quantified? 

Commenters should provide a clear 

rationale for any additional information 

collection along with an analysis of the 

costs and benefits of such additional 

collections. 

23. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to collect the 

information described above on a 

nationwide basis or whether it may be 

appropriate to conduct an initial 

information collection for an initial 

sample of areas. For example, should 

the Commission collects information 

from entities based on a representative 

sampling of different types of areas, 

such as urban, suburban, and rural 

areas? If so, how should the sample be 

determined? The Commission seeks 

comment on this and any other 

methodology that will effectively 

balance the potential burden that an 

information collection may impose 

against the need to evaluate the 

feasibility of clearing more spectrum in 

this band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether small entities and 

entities operating in rural areas face any 

special or unique issues with respect to 

the information collection such that 

they would require certain 

accommodations or additional time to 

comply. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of an 

additional information collection on 

this band. 

24. Commenters should describe, with 

specificity, how any additional 

information collection would support a 

given transition proposal and should 

provide a detailed assessment of the 

costs and benefits of such additional 

collections. The Commission also 

encourages commenters to submit any 

information that could inform the 

Commission’s consideration of specific 

transition proposals, including the types 

of information described in this section. 

2. Limiting New Space Station 

Operators 

25. On June 21, 2018, the 

International Bureau released the Space 

Station Freeze Public Notice, which 

froze the filing of certain space-station 

applications in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

To limit speculative applications for 

satellite usage of the band in light of this 

proceeding, the Commission proposes to 

revise the rules to similarly bar new 

applications for space station licenses 

and new petitions for market access 

concerning space-to-Earth operations in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. These revisions 

would not extend to applications for 

extension, cancellation, replacement or 

modification of existing authorizations. 

Additionally, the Commission proposes 

that this freeze would not bar operators 

with existing space station 

authorizations in the band as of June 21, 

2018, from filing applications for 

additional space stations, if 

authorization of such space stations 

would promote more efficient use of the 

band. The Commission seeks comment 

on the Commission’s proposal. 

3. Sunsetting Incumbent Point-to-Point 

Fixed Services 

26. Due to the declining use of the 

band for fixed point-to-point FS links as 

well as the availability of other 

spectrum options for point-to-point 

links, the Commission proposes to 

sunset point-to-point FS use in the 

band. In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether existing fixed 

links should be grandfathered or 

transitioned out of the band over some 

time period, after which all licenses 

would either be cancelled or modified 

to operate on a secondary, noninterference basis. If the latter, how long 

would incumbent users have to 

transition from the band? Three years? 

Five years? And should the Commission 

differentiate in treatment between those 

with permanent licenses and those with 

temporary licenses? Or those that have 

or are willing to relocate to the upper 

portion of the band? 

B. Increasing the Intensity of Terrestrial 

Use 

27. The Commission describes several 

potential approaches for repurposing 

the band and the Commission 

encourages commenters in discussing 

their proposals to consider the 

economic tradeoffs described herein. 

Figure 1 below demonstrates the current 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44133 

8The Commission notes that commenters in this 

proceeding have argued that IBFS significantly 

undercounts the number of existing, but 

unregistered, earth stations. For purposes of this 

study the Commission used earth stations currently 

licensed or registered in IBFS. 

and proposed future allocations and 

potential uses of the band. 

28. The Commission recognizes that 

co-channel sharing of spectrum between 

the FSS and more intensive terrestrial 

wireless use in the same geographic area 

may be difficult. For example, frequency 

coordination allows FSS and terrestrial 

fixed microwave to share the band on a 

co-primary basis, but coordination of 

mobile systems would be more 

complicated because the movement of 

the devices would require analyses and 

interference mitigation to FSS earth 

stations in this band spread over many 

locations within any given geographic 

area. In addition, because the C-band 

satellites are in geostationary orbit 

approximately 36,000 km above the 

equator, the signals received at the earth 

stations are extremely weak. This means 

that terrestrial mobile operations could 

cause harmful interference to the earth 

station receivers over large distances 

absent adequate protection. 

29. Geographic sharing may be 

similarly difficult. Current Commission 

policy permits earth stations to 

coordinate reception across the entire 

GSO arc and over the entire 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band, which would exclude mobile 

wireless operations from transmitting 

across the entire band in a wide area 

around each earth station. For purposes 

of illustration, Figure 2 below shows a 

hypothetical 20 km exclusion zone 

around each earth station in the 

continental United States in the 

International Bureau Filing System 

(IBFS) database as of early May 2018.8

These exclusion zones would cover 

83.25% of the United States population. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP29AU18.001</GPH>
44134 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

30. The Commission was able to 

establish the Citizens Broadband Radio 

Service in the 3550–3700 MHz despite 

the presence of FSS receivers because 

there are only FSS earth stations in 35 

cities and two MSS gateways in the 

3600–3700 MHz band. This is unlike the 

current incumbent earth station 

environment in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

Therefore, subject to confirming the 

landscape of existing earth stations 

through the certifications required by 

the Order, co-channel sharing between 

FSS and mobile wireless could exclude 

a majority of the population from 

receiving flexible fixed and mobile 

broadband service in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band unless FSS use of the band is 

modified or FSS protection criteria are 

significantly relaxed. The Commission 

recognizes that the affected population 

would likely be less if the Commission 

was to only protect the earth stations 

based on the transponder frequencies 

received at each site and actual antenna 

azimuth and elevation, but the overall 

assessment that mobile service would 

not be viable for much of the population 

would remain the same. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

assessment. 

31. Notably, the Commission believes 

that increased terrestrial use of the band 

is ripe to meet the Commission’s 

mandate under the MOBILE NOW Act 

to identify (with NTIA) 255 megahertz 

of spectrum for mobile and fixed 

wireless broadband use. For purposes of 

meeting § 603(a)(1), § 603(a)(3)(E) states 

‘‘[s]pectrum that the Commission 

determines had more than de minimis 

mobile or fixed wireless broadband 

operations within the band on the day 

before the date of enactment of this Act’’ 

is non-eligible for purposes of satisfying 

the 255 megahertz requirement. The 

Commission believes that there was no 

more than a de minimis amount of 

mobile or fixed wireless broadband 

operations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band on 

March 22, 2018 (the day before the date 

of enactment of the MOBILE NOW Act) 

for purposes of fulfilling § 603. 

Specifically, since FSS is neither an 

‘‘unlicensed use’’ nor an ‘‘exclusive, 

licensed basis for commercial mobile 

use,’’ FSS services are not included in 

the de minimis exception under 

§ 603(a)(3)(E). Additionally, FSS in the 

band is predominantly used for the 

delivery of video programming with 

only a de minimis portion of the 

satellite capacity used to provide data 

services. The Commission notes that 

there is no mobile allocation in the band 

and the Commission’s licensing 

database indicates that there are only 

115 fixed point-to-point licenses in the 

band. Thus, any portion of this band 

made available for flexible terrestrial or 

more intensive fixed use would help 

satisfy the requirement of § 603(a)(1) to 

identify a total of at least 255 megahertz 

of spectrum for ‘‘mobile and fixed 

wireless broadband use.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

findings. 

32. The Commission seeks comment 

on approaches for expanding flexible 

and more intensive fixed use of the 

band without causing harmful 

interference to incumbent operations. In 

discussing how much of the band 

should be made available for flexible 

use, more intensive fixed use, or 

maintained just for incumbent uses, the 

Commission asks commenters to 

address the relative present and future 

economic value of each of these services 

to individuals and businesses in the 

United States. What are the tradeoffs in 

accommodating one type of use instead 

of another? And what are the costs 

associated with accommodating new 

uses? Commenters should provide a 

detailed cost-benefit analysis in their 

proposal and address the relative 

economic values of alternative uses and 

the implementation costs of their 

specific proposal vis-a`-vis other possible 

approaches to the band. The 

Commission also asks commenters to 

address the economic impact of the 

implementation time frame associated 

with their chosen approach. 

33. The Commission proposes to add 

a non-federal mobile, except 

aeronautical mobile, service allocation 

to the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, and given the 

Commission’s conclusion that cochannel sharing is not feasible, seek 

comment on several proposals below to 

clear all or part of the band for flexible 

use. In particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the economic benefits of 

introducing a new allocation for mobile, 

except aeronautical mobile, and flexible 

use relative to the introduction of pointto-multipoint FS, perhaps shared with 

FSS, in all or part of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band. Commenters should consider the 

economic value of current and future 

use cases for each type of service, 

including benefits and opportunity costs 

to consumers and the Nation’s economy 

overall, as well as to unserved or 

underserved areas and specialized 

market segments (e.g., education, 

telemedicine, and manufacturing). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP29AU18.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44135 

9The Commission notes, however, that orbital 

slots are rivalrous. 

Commenters should also address the 

benefits of international harmonization 

both in terms of devices and network 

deployments. In addition, the 

Commission encourages commenters to 

consider the economic impact on 

consumers and businesses in rural 

communities and areas that are 

unserved or underserved by current 

broadband providers, as well as any 

economic impact on small businesses. 

The Commission also asks commenters 

to address how long it will take to 

transition various amounts of this band 

to flexible use or to point-to-multipoint 

FS use, how much such a transition will 

cost for each 100 megahertz that is 

transitioned, and how expeditiously the 

transition can be completed. 

34. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the current and future 

economic value of FSS in the band. 

How intensively is this spectrum used 

by existing FSS licensees and how 

intensely will it be utilized in the 

future? Is spectrum in the band 

allocated to FSS currently being used 

efficiently and are there technologies 

that may facilitate more efficient use of 

spectrum in the band by FSS licensees 

without significant disruption to 

consumers and businesses that rely on 

these services? Are there alternative 

technologies available that could wholly 

or partially replace the services 

provided by FSS without significant 

disruption to existing customers? How 

long would it take and how much 

would it cost to transition existing 

customers to these alternative 

technologies? How may the cost-benefit 

analysis shift depending on how much 

spectrum is transitioned at particular 

times? Are there other considerations 

that the Commission should consider 

when assessing the most economically 

efficient allocation of the band between 

services? And would such 

considerations differ depending on 

when and how much spectrum is 

ultimately transitioned to flexible use? 

1. Mechanisms for Expanding Flexible 

Use 

35. Repurposing of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

spectrum bands allocated to FSS raises 

at least three economic problems, some 

of which have not arisen in previous 

spectrum auctions. The first two 

problems are direct consequences of the 

C-band licensing structure, while the 

last is common to all spectrum 

reallocations. First, because all FSS 

licensees have equal, nonexclusive 

rights to the entire band under part 25 

of the Commission’s rules, they cannot 

compete in the same way that broadcast 

television licensees did in the broadcast 

incentive auction. Second, this 

nonexclusive licensing problem creates 

an incentive for an FSS licensee to 

overstate the value it assigns to the 

spectrum in order to increase the share 

of auction revenue it may receive. The 

Commission will refer to this as the 

‘‘holdout’’ problem. Third, repurposing 

some of the 3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum band 

will reduce the amount of spectrum 

available for FSS, which lowers 

industry capacity and could lead to 

higher prices for downstream services, 

such as the transmission of video to 

cable head ends. The Commission notes 

that the first and last problems create 

opposite incentives for FSS licensees. 

The first provides an incentive to 

repurpose less than the efficient amount 

of spectrum while the last may create an 

incentive to repurpose more than the 

efficient amount. 

36. The broadcast incentive auction 

relied on competition among licensees 

to induce broadcast incumbents to 

reveal the least amount they must be 

paid to relinquish their spectrum rights. 

Many broadcast licenses were 

substitutes because if one licensee bid to 

relinquish its spectrum usage rights this 

could make spectrum available to 

repack other broadcast stations and free 

spectrum for flexible use. In the 3.7–4.2 

GHz FSS, all licensees must agree to 

relinquish their spectrum rights in a 

given geographic area in order to 

reassign spectrum and therefore licenses 

are not substitutes and competition is 

limited. 

37. In addition to the problem that 

satellite licensees will not be competing 

to supply spectrum in the same way that 

television licensees did in the 

broadband incentive auction, there is an 

additional problem concerning how the 

satellite licensees will split any 

revenues from repurposing. In order to 

increase its share of auction revenues, a 

FSS licensee may have an incentive to 

overstate the value it assigns to the 

spectrum or to withhold its consent to 

repurpose. The holdout problem is the 

inverse of a public goods problem. The 

500 megahertz of spectrum allocated for 

FSS is a public good, in that several 

distinct companies make non-exclusive, 

non-rivalrous use of the spectrum 

within a geographic area.9 Were the 

spectrum unallocated, the FSS 

providers would face a classic public 

goods problem since the total value of 

the spectrum is the sum of the values of 

the FSS operators. With property rights 

assigned to FSS operators, the 

Commission faces a reverse public 

goods problem: How to recover an 

efficient amount of a public good which 

is no longer efficiently allocated? In the 

classic public goods problem, if 

individuals are asked to pay for the 

public good based on their valuation of 

that good, they will have an incentive to 

understate their value for the public 

good to lower their payment. In the 

reverse problem, however, each FSS 

licensee has an incentive to overstate its 

value of the spectrum in order to 

increase its payment. 

38. Several mechanisms have been 

developed to generate an efficient 

allocation of public goods, including 

one proposed by Hal Varian. In the 

standard public goods case, Varian 

proposed that individuals have the 

opportunity to subsidize the 

contributions of others towards the 

public good in a first-stage and then 

decide how much to contribute in a 

second-stage. Can such mechanisms be 

adapted to solve the holdout problem 

under consideration here? For example, 

in the first stage might each party 

announce the share of the payment it 

receives that it will give to each other 

party and in the second stage nominate 

how much spectrum to clear? Can such 

a mechanism be modified to mitigate 

the incentive to clear less than the 

efficient amount of spectrum? Some 

commenters suggest having the FSS 

providers meet, privately negotiate, and 

agree to put spectrum up for auction. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

relative merits of FSS provider 

cooperation versus a more formal, noncooperative mechanism, especially with 

regard to the three economic problems. 

39. FSS operators currently compete 

to provide communication services (for 

example, to deliver programming 

content to rural cable companies). For 

the efficient allocation of spectrum, the 

social value of these services needs to be 

balanced against the social value of 

alternative services that could be 

provided by that spectrum, such as 

mobile data. Several commenters, such 

as the American Cable Association, 

contend that earth stations can and do 

switch providers, suggesting that 

competition currently exists in the Cband. Since a reduction in industry 

capacity generally leads to higher 

prices, reducing the spectrum associated 

with FSS may have the unintended 

consequence of increasing the price of 

FSS services and consequently of 

downstream services. Conversely, such 

a reduction should correspond with an 

increase in industry capacity for highspeed wireless broadband services, 

which would tend to lead to lower 

prices. How should the Commission 

evaluate proposed mechanisms with 

regard to their effect on downstream 

users of FSS and wireless broadband 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44136 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10The Commission recognizes that other 

transmission methods may also compete against 

satellite transmission via C-band spectrum. For 

example, in certain urban and suburban areas 

where fiber is widely deployed, fiber may be a costeffective alternative. And there may be other radio 

spectrum that can deliver video transmission, such 

as the Ku band. 

services? How should the Commission 

take into account other opportunities to 

deliver these services—such as other 

means of transmitting programming data 

like alternative satellite bands 10 or fiber 

and other means of transmitting highspeed broadband like other mid-band 

spectrum or fiber—in evaluating these 

effects? 

40. In addition, the value of spectrum 

in alternative uses like mobile data is 

likely highest in dense urban areas. 

When the Commission has sold 

spectrum by geographic region, the 

prices obtained have been positively 

correlated with population density. FSS 

substitutes, particularly fiber, are most 

prevalent in urban areas while in rural 

areas there are fewer FSS substitutes. 

Thus, in rural areas, typically the value 

of the spectrum remaining in FSS is 

relatively high while the opportunity 

cost of clearing less flexible-use 

spectrum is relatively low, suggesting 

that the amount of spectrum repurposed 

should vary across geographic areas. 

The Commission therefore seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should repurpose a minimum amount of 

spectrum nationwide, and make 

additional fully unencumbered 

spectrum available in any areas where it 

is less costly to transition earth stations 

to other forms of transmission. Under 

this approach, the Commission also 

seeks comment on the appropriate size 

of such regions. If the regions are too 

small, this could make mobile data use 

impractical because it would not give 

wireless providers sufficient flexibility 

to scale their networks using this band, 

while if the regions are too large, this 

could threaten rural services because 

those regions would not be attractive to 

small and rural wireless providers. Is it 

practical to create regions based on the 

existence of alternatives to FSS like 

fiber? The Commission seeks comment 

on whether any flexible use licenses 

should also be overlay licenses, for 

which the terrestrial licensee is 

obligated to protect licensed or 

registered earth stations and can use any 

spectrum that becomes available by 

clearing earth stations. 

41. Another consideration in the 

geographical division of spectrum 

involves the parties to compensate. 

Instead of paying FSS operators for 

relinquishing spectrum usage rights 

nationwide or in specific geographic 

regions a mechanism instead might pay 

earth stations for relinquishing access to 

C-band spectrum in specific geographic 

areas. Such earth stations might 

discontinue use in these areas by 

discontinuing receiving content or by 

receiving it by alternative transmission 

infrastructure like fiber, where the 

content might be delivered to the fiber 

from C-band earth stations in rural 

areas. Would such a mechanism present 

an alternative supplier of spectrum— 

with either the FSS operators or the 

earth stations effectively releasing 

spectrum rights? The Commission notes, 

however, that the holdout problem for 

licensed earth stations is likely more 

severe because there are more such 

earth stations that are independently 

owned than satellite operators. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

practicality and social value of 

compensating licensed earth stations in 

exchange for agreeing to no longer be 

licensed to receive in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band. In particular, would such a 

mechanism protect those earth stations 

but not unlicensed earth stations? Also, 

how would satellite operators be 

compensated for loss of revenues after 

the expiration of their contracts with 

content providers serving the licensed 

earth stations that discontinued their 

reliance on satellite delivery of content? 

a. A Market-Based Mechanism 

42. The commission seeks comment 

on whether the Commission should 

adopt rules that would facilitate a 

market-based approach to transitioning 

incumbents from some or all of the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band. Under such an approach, 

the Commission would authorize 

incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily 

clear all or part of the band. Satellite 

operators in the band could choose to 

make some or all of their spectrum 

available to terrestrial operators on the 

secondary market in exchange for 

compensation. Under such an approach, 

satellite operators could be responsible 

for clearing the portion of the band that 

would be made available for flexible 

use, including notifying earth stations of 

the need to modify their operations and 

compensating them for any costs 

associated with that transition. 

43. A secondary market approach 

might make spectrum available more 

quickly than other available 

mechanisms, such as an FCC auction, 

and thus could facilitate rapid 

deployment of next generation wireless 

broadband networks. In addition, such 

an approach could leverage the 

technical and operational knowledge of 

satellite space station operators while 

relying on market incentives to promote 

economic efficiency. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether a marketbased approach could effectively and 

rapidly facilitate new terrestrial 

deployments in the band. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether a market-based approach that 

allows FSS licensees to coordinate their 

capacity would raise any antitrust 

concerns. 

44. The Commission seeks comment 

on the efficacy of using a market-based 

approach to transition some or all of the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band to flexible terrestrial 

use. The Commission observes, and 

some commenters in the record 

maintain, that a significant benefit of a 

market-based approach may be a more 

rapid introduction of C-band spectrum 

to the market. For example, Intel, 

Intelsat, and SES claim that their 

consortium approach would result in 

licensed mobile services within 18–36 

months of a Commission order. 

Commenters also should address the 

costs and benefits of this approach visa`-vis the alternative proposals set forth 

in this section. 

45. The Commission seeks comment 

on using a market-based approach 

through a Transition Facilitator, a 

cooperative entity created by relevant 

satellite operators to coordinate 

negotiations, clearing, and repacking the 

band. The Commission notes that 

because of the holdout problem, a 

market-based approach in which FSS 

licensees act independently is unlikely 

to succeed. Consequently, should the 

Commission allow, encourage, or 

require satellite operators to cooperate 

in negotiating with potential terrestrial 

mobile licensees and in clearing an 

agreed amount of spectrum? A marketbased approach that uses a Transition 

Facilitator would enable the satellite 

operators to use private negotiations to 

obtain participation and agreement from 

the relevant satellite operators, rather 

than requiring the Commission to 

address holdouts using more regulatory 

mechanisms. 

46. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether using a market-based 

approach in which FSS operators form 

a Transition Facilitator would produce 

an economically efficient outcome. 

Specifically, would allowing all 

potential sellers to agree on the amount 

and price of the spectrum that will be 

repurposed result in a situation in 

which those sellers offer a lower 

quantity than is socially efficient? Is that 

concern mitigated by the fact that the 

market for spectrum for high-speed 

broadband services is much broader 

than just the 3.7–4.2 GHz band? The 

Commission seeks comment regarding 

some of these concerns about the 

potential effects of allowing collective 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44137 

11 In this context, clearing refers to relinquishing 

interference protection. Satellite transmissions that 

do not cause interference to terrestrial operations 

would not necessarily have to be cleared. 

12The Commission will release a Public Notice 

announcing the start of the transition period. 

action by C-band satellite operators 

below. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether a Transition 

Facilitator raises any particular antitrust 

concerns. 

47. A transition under a market-based 

approach could be undertaken in a fourstep process. The first step would 

involve the industry voluntarily forming 

a Transition Facilitator composed of 

eligible C-band satellite operators.11 In 

the second step, the Transition 

Facilitator would negotiate with any 

interested terrestrial operators and 

incumbent users. In the third step, the 

Commission would review the 

Transition Facilitator’s plan and 

conditionally authorize terrestrial 

licenses in the band. And in step four, 

the Transition Facilitator would clear 

the negotiated-for spectrum, making it 

available for flexible use while 

protecting incumbent earth stations 

through a variety of potential means. 

The Commission notes as well that a 

market-based process need not be a onetime event—a Transition Facilitator 

could negotiate with parties for 

compensation and protection, seek 

Commission review and conditional 

authorization, and clear new spectrum 

multiple times to ensure the total 

spectrum dedicated to flexible use 

meets market demands. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

effectiveness of such a four-step process. 

In addition, the Commission invites 

commenters supporting a market-based 

approach to suggest additional details to 

the steps described below or other 

specific approaches for implementation. 

48. Step 1: Formation of a Transition 

Facilitator.—The first step in the 

process would be for the industry to 

form a Transition Facilitator. Once the 

Transition Facilitator is formed and 

ready to begin negotiations with 

potential licensees, the Transition 

Facilitator would notify the Commission 

of its membership, its charter, i.e., its 

structure, objectives, and planned 

operation, and its compliance with any 

rules adopted as a result of this 

proceeding. Once the Transition 

Facilitator has filed its notification, the 

Commission would have 60 days to 

review the filing and formally object to 

its creation through an order. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

process. What additional information 

might the Commission need to conduct 

such a review? Should any parties have 

the opportunity to formally object? 

Should the Commission be required to 

affirmatively approve or reject the 

formation of a Transition Facilitator, 

and if so on what timeline? 

49. There is record support for a 

centralized facilitator. Intelsat and 

SES—the two largest incumbent satellite 

operators in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band— 

support a consortium-based facilitator. 

While Eutelsat raises concerns regarding 

how satellite operators eligible to 

participate in a market-based approach 

would be defined it has stated publicly 

that it wants to participate. In 

considering such an approach, the 

Commission thus asks commenters to 

address how to define eligibility to 

participate in the Transition Facilitator. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

opening eligibility to participate in the 

Transition Facilitator to all C-band 

satellite operators providing service to 

any part of the United States pursuant 

to an FCC-issued license or grant of 

market access. Should the Commission 

limit eligibility in any way, such as 

requiring service throughout the lower 

48 states? 

50. Given the holdout problem, the 

Commission does not propose to require 

that all eligible satellite operators agree 

to a Transition Facilitator before it can 

take effect. Instead, the Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate 

number of satellite spectrum interests in 

the band—a majority? all but one?—that 

should be represented by the Transition 

Facilitator to effectuate a successful 

transition. Are a minimum number of 

operators required to participate in the 

Transition Facilitator for this approach 

to work? If this number is not met, 

should the Transition Facilitator be 

approved by the Commission? 

51. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what the Transition 

Facilitator should do if one or more 

eligible C-band satellite operators 

choose not to participate in the 

Transition Facilitator. Are any 

Commission actions necessary if one or 

more eligible C-band satellite operators 

do not join the Transition Facilitator? 

The Commission notes that Intelsat and 

SES propose that eligible C-band 

satellite operators that do not join a 

centralized facilitator would 

nonetheless have their ‘‘reconfiguration 

and relocation costs covered.’’ How 

would such a process work? Should the 

Transition Facilitator, or members of the 

Transition Facilitator, negotiate with 

non-participating satellite companies to 

ensure the spectrum is successfully 

repurposed? Or should nonparticipating satellite companies be 

bound by the decisions of the Transition 

Facilitator? If the latter, would a nonparticipating satellite company be 

limited to recouping its costs? Or would 

it be even eligible to recoup costs so 

long as the Transition Facilitator 

adequately protects its associated 

incumbent earth stations? 

52. If there are earth station registrants 

or licensees that have no contractual 

relationship with any of the members of 

the Transition Facilitator or any FSS 

space station operators, will that create 

difficulties in clearing the band during 

later steps in the process? If so, how can 

those difficulties be addressed? Is there 

any reason that the Transition 

Facilitator would not able to negotiate 

with earth stations that don’t have 

contractual relationships with any of the 

Transition Facilitator’s members? 

Should there be a requirement that the 

C-band operators participating in the 

Transition Facilitator have contractual 

relationships with a minimum 

percentage of protected incumbent earth 

stations to avoid these potential 

difficulties? Should the Transition 

Facilitator be required to work with 

non-participating satellite companies to 

protect incumbent earth stations, or 

should the Transition Facilitator be free 

to work directly with those entities? 

53. To ensure that the transition 

process proceeds expeditiously, should 

the Commission establish a benchmark 

for the Transition Facilitator filing of six 

months after Federal Register 

publication of an order in this 

proceeding? 12 What if a Transition 

Facilitator is not created within the 

specified timeframe? Should the 

Commission have in place other means 

of reassigning the spectrum? Finally, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

what form of supervisory authority the 

Commission should maintain over the 

Transition Facilitator, if any. 

54. Step 2: Negotiation Period.—The 

next step in the process would be to 

undertake negotiations for spectrum 

rights in the band. The Commission 

anticipates that the Transition 

Facilitator would engage in a multi-step 

process to negotiate with prospective 

licensees and protected incumbent earth 

stations in the band. The result of these 

negotiations would be a Transition 

Facilitation Plan that would lay out 

what spectrum would be made available 

for flexible use (and where) as well as 

the steps the Transition Facilitator plans 

to take to ensure that protected 

incumbent earth stations continue to 

have access to the content or bandwidth 

they currently receive using C-band 

earth stations. 

55. For example, the negotiation 

process could include the following 

steps. First, the Transition Facilitator 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44138 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

would identify the profit-maximizing 

feasible amount of spectrum to make 

available by soliciting inquiries from all 

interested terrestrial wireless parties 

and negotiating for specific spectrum 

blocks and markets. This amount of 

spectrum demanded might adjust 

during the course of negotiations. The 

Transition Facilitator would then 

conclude private agreements to protect 

incumbent earth stations and determine 

the total available supply. Next, having 

balanced the supply and the demand, 

the Transition Facilitator would provide 

each prospective licensee with a 

certification of the specific spectrum 

block(s) and market(s) negotiated for in 

the associated private agreement. 

Finally, the Transition Facilitator would 

file its Transition Facilitation Plan with 

the Commission. The Commission seeks 

detailed comment on this possible 

approach, including what, if any, 

Commission oversight is warranted. The 

Commission also seeks comment on this 

approach’s costs and benefits as well as 

any alternative approaches. 

56. Given the high demand for and 

high-value of mid-band spectrum, the 

Commission should strive to adopt a 

mechanism that will repurpose a 

socially efficient amount of spectrum in 

the band. Intelsat-SES-Intel believe that 

consortium members could make 

approximately 100 megahertz of 

spectrum available for licensed 

terrestrial service via privately 

negotiated agreements between 

consortium members and prospective 

terrestrial licensees. In addition, under 

that proposal, consortium members 

would clear an additional 40 to 60 

megahertz above this spectrum to act as 

an internal band to protect against 

harmful interference from transmissions 

in the adjacent spectrum. Intel 

maintains that, if the demand for 

terrestrial mobile spectrum is as robust 

as commonly believed by 5G supporters, 

this market-based approach could clear 

additional spectrum beyond the 100 

megahertz proposed by Intelsat and SES 

in the same timeframe. The Commission 

notes that T-Mobile asserts that a 

market-based approach ‘‘creates 

tremendous uncertainty regarding the 

availability of this spectrum for mobile 

broadband services and will likely 

result in inefficient reallocation of 

spectrum.’’ To address this concern, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to require that an Initial Minimum 

Spectrum Benchmark—a socially 

efficient amount of spectrum—be 

repurposed in the band in order to use 

a market-based approach, and what this 

amount should be. Should the 

Commission set the Initial Minimum 

Spectrum Benchmark to be 100 

megahertz, given the comments of 

Intelsat and SES? Would a higher or 

lower benchmark be appropriate? 

Should the Commission require the 

Transition Facilitation Plan to require 

the clearing of at least the Initial 

Minimum Spectrum Benchmark for 

approval? In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether an internal 

protection band is necessary both above 

and below (i.e., below 3.7 GHz) the 

repurposed spectrum. What benchmarks 

should be set for clearing an internal 

protection band? Commenters should 

describe the appropriate amount of 

spectrum to be repurposed, taking into 

account economic considerations and 

the expected time and costs associated 

with repurposing the spectrum. 

57. To ensure a timely transition 

process, should the Commission set 

specific benchmarks for the completion 

of initial negotiations with potential 

terrestrial licensees as well as protected 

incumbent earth stations? Intel, Intelsat, 

and SES maintain that such negotiations 

could be completed within three to 

eight months. The Commission asks 

commenters to consider whether eight 

months is an appropriate benchmark for 

completion of Transition Facilitator 

negotiations and submission of the 

Transition Facilitation Plan. What 

should be the effect of a failure to meet 

such a benchmark? 

58. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to ensure that the market-based 

approach’s negotiation process will 

facilitate a competitive and open 

market. For example, should the 

Commission require that all parties act 

in good faith? What other rules could 

the Commission adopt to ensure 

competition in the marketplace? The 

Commission notes that T-Mobile raises 

concerns that satellite operators could 

choose to limit the amount of spectrum 

available for flexible use in order to 

increase their profits, while others claim 

it will not take into sufficient account 

the interests of protected incumbent 

earth stations. How can the Commission 

ensure the negotiation process accounts 

for the interests of all stakeholders that 

have interests in the band—from new 

wireless entrants to existing satellite 

operators to protected incumbent earth 

stations, from those living in rural 

America to those living in cities? Would 

Commission oversight of this marketbased approach—or over the Transition 

Facilitator—benefit in any way from 

insights from antitrust law? 

59. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what role, if any, the 

Commission should play to facilitate or 

oversee these private market 

negotiations. For example, should the 

Commission allow some flexibility for 

the negotiators to make more spectrum 

available in some markets than others, 

potentially allowing a limited number of 

earth stations to continue to operate 

using wider bandwidths in certain areas 

where wireless operators are less 

interested in deploying (e.g., remote 

rural areas)? Should the Commission 

have some input on the FSS frequencies 

to be made available for private-market 

negotiations? How should these 

determinations be made? A marketbased approach would not likely result 

in mutually exclusive applications for 

the Commission to consider if, for 

example, a negotiated agreement with 

the Transition Facilitator is a 

prerequisite for applying for a license in 

this band. Would this negotiation satisfy 

the Commission’s obligation in the 

public interest to use negotiation to 

avoid mutual exclusivity pursuant to 

§ 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications 

Act? 

60. The Commission also asks 

commenters to discuss the requirements 

and safeguards that the Commission 

should adopt, if any, to ensure that 

these privately negotiated agreements 

result in a timely and complete 

transition. The Commission will expect 

parties to negotiate a full range of 

transition commitments and penalties 

for failure to meet transition 

benchmarks. Nonetheless, does the 

Commission need to adopt baseline 

requirements, such as defining 

comparable facilities, including the 

relocation of incumbent operations to 

another band, to fiber, and/or to more 

efficient technologies? What would be 

the relative costs and benefits associated 

with adopting such requirements? 

Would such definitions or rules 

minimize disruption to existing 

operations during the transition? Are 

there mechanisms the Commission can 

adopt to ensure that all or specific 

categories of incumbents are not 

adversely affected by repacking of this 

band? For example, should the 

Commission require FSS space station 

licensees that are going to cease 

transmitting on a primary basis to notify 

earth stations receiving those signals? 

Could the parties determine that the 

transitioning of facilities should be 

undertaken by the terrestrial licensee 

instead of the Transition Facilitator? If 

so, would the parties or the FCC 

establish a benchmark for completing 

such a transition? Should the Transition 

Facilitator be required to have a 

mechanism for receiving reports from 

incumbents that experience disruptions, 

and should the Transition Facilitator 

also be required to notify the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44139 

Commission when it receives such 

reports? The Commission invites 

commenters to address the specific form 

of notification required, the time period 

for providing each notification, and the 

costs and benefits of each notification 

requirement. 

61. If the Commission’s role were 

more limited, what level of 

transparency, if any, should be required 

during the negotiation process? For 

example, should satellite operators be 

required to notify the Commission 

regarding the status of on-going 

negotiations? What types of information 

should be included in such a notice? 

Further, should the Commission require 

the filing of periodic reports (e.g., 

quarterly, bi-annually, annually) to 

ensure that the overall transition of this 

band will be completed in a timely 

manner? What should such reports 

include? The Commission encourages 

interested parties to provide detailed 

comments regarding the level of 

Commission oversight envisioned for 

this process including how such 

oversight comports with the 

Commission’s obligation to assign 

spectrum in the public interest. 

62. Step 3: Conditional Authorization 

of Mobile Licensees.—Upon the 

submission of a Transition Facilitation 

Plan, the next step would be 

Commission review and approval of the 

plan, followed by applications for 

terrestrial license authorizations filed 

pursuant to the plan. The Commission 

seeks comment on this process. To 

facilitate a streamlined review, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

allowing applications for new terrestrial 

authorizations to be filed at the same 

time as a Transition Facilitation Plan, or 

while the Commission reviews that 

plan. And to avoid undue delay in 

commencing the band clearing process, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate timing, criteria, and 

conditions that should apply to new 

license authorizations. 

63. The Commission seeks comment 

on conducting the review of the 

Transition Facilitation Plan. Most 

specifically, how should the 

Commission ensure that protected 

incumbent earth stations are indeed 

protected? What types of certifications 

should be required to ensure that the 

Commission can take all appropriate 

actions to ensure that the Transition 

Facilitator and its members carry out the 

Transition Facilitation Plan and 

appropriately protect, compensate, and 

ensure adequate access for relevant 

stakeholder? Should the Commission 

make the plan available to comment, 

and what confidential information is 

likely to be included? How should the 

Commission evaluate the various 

methods suggested for protecting 

incumbent earth stations, such as 

installing filters, extending fiber, 

offering service on new satellites or in 

new satellite bands, offering service 

over microwave links, and creating 

geographic separation from harmful 

interference (likely only in rural areas)? 

What level of granularity should the 

Commission require the steps of the 

Transition Facilitation Plan to meet? 

And how long should the Commission 

have to review and approve or reject a 

Transition Facilitation Plan? 

64. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to address initial licensing 

applications. First, the Commission 

seeks comment on establishing a 30-day 

filing window for new terrestrial license 

applications. Prospective licensees 

would file an application for any new 

licenses they have agreed to acquire 

through their negotiations with the 

Transition Facilitator, along with a 

certification from the Transition 

Facilitator to clear that portion of the 

band for the terrestrial operator’s use. 

Should the Commission require any 

other specific information to be 

submitted as part of the application 

process? Applications would be 

accepted and reviewed pursuant to the 

requirements and procedures set forth 

in part 1 of the Commission’s rules, 

including, among other things, the filing 

of certain FCC forms, release of a public 

notice listing the application as 

accepted for filing, and the opportunity 

for third parties to file petitions to deny 

the application. Upon the Commission’s 

review and confirmation that the 

applicant has complied with all other 

Commission filing and qualification 

requirements, the Commission would 

grant a license subject to certain 

conditions discussed below. Second, the 

Commission could treat the Transition 

Facilitation Plan as an application for 

all the flexible use licenses that would 

be made available as a result of it being 

carried out, and then allow the 

Transition Facilitator and prospective 

licensees to file separate applications to 

transfer those licenses as the parties saw 

fit. Under this approach, the Transition 

Facilitation Plan would also have to 

comport with the requirements and 

procedures set forth in Part 1 of the 

Commission’s rules and would be 

conditioned as discussed below. 

65. The Commission will condition 

authorizations for licensed terrestrial 

operations on the licensee not 

commencing operations until the 

Transition Facilitation Plan’s 

protections for incumbent earth stations 

have been carried out in that area (and 

subject to those conditions to the extent 

the plan requires geographic or other 

sharing). The provisions of any private 

agreement to transition designated 

spectrum to licensed terrestrial 

operations would therefore need to 

comply with the service rules the 

Commission may ultimately adopt in 

this proceeding. For example, under this 

approach, the deadlines for a licensee’s 

regulatory obligations, including 

construction benchmarks, would begin 

running on the date of license issuance. 

The Commission therefore anticipates 

that private agreements would take 

construction deadlines into account 

when negotiating the date by which the 

Transition Facilitator must clear the 

relevant spectrum such that the licensee 

may commence operations. However, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider the individually negotiated 

time periods for band clearing when 

setting the deadlines for each licensee’s 

satisfaction of its construction 

benchmarks. The Commission seeks 

comment on these and any other 

conditions on new license 

authorizations that would facilitate 

efficient implementation of the marketbased approach. 

66. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on what, if any, 

conditions should be placed on the 

license with respect to the protection or 

relocation of the approximately 115 

incumbent microwave links in the band 

that would sunset under out proposal. 

For example, should the Commission 

require as a condition of the license that 

new licensees either protect or relocate 

incumbent users under the same part 27 

and part 101 rules used for incumbent 

microwave links in the Advanced 

Wireless Services (AWS) bands or under 

some other protection and/or relocation 

mechanism? 

67. To ensure a timely transition 

process, should the Commission set 

specific benchmarks for the completion 

of its review of the Transition 

Facilitation Plan and the processing of 

conditional authorizations? Intel, 

Intelsat, and SES expect the review 

process would take two to seven 

months, and propose the license grant 

would trigger certain obligations under 

private agreements, including the 

clearing of the band within 12–20 

months. The Commission seeks 

comment on a process whereby the 

Commission would take action on all 

unopposed applications found 

acceptable for filing within four months 

from the commencement of the filing 

window discussed above (i.e., a 30-day 

filing window plus three months of 

review). Upon completion of the fourmonth application and review process, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44140 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13The entire area covered by a new license would 

not need to be cleared in order for licensees to begin 

operating. Instead, subject to their individual 

agreements, the Transition Facilitator could begin 

notifying licensees of their ability to begin 

operations once certain portions of the area covered 

by the license (e.g., counties) have been cleared. 

the Commission would notify the 

Transition Facilitator that it may begin 

clearing the designated spectrum in the 

band. The Commission seeks comment 

on this approach to triggering the 

commencement of the band-clearing 

process. Should the process instead be 

triggered only upon the Commission’s 

grant of all licenses negotiated by the 

Transition Facilitator? Or is a certain 

critical mass of license grants sufficient 

to begin clearing incumbent users from 

the band? For example, to avoid undue 

delay of licensed operations in the band, 

would it be appropriate to begin 

clearing the band upon issuance of 

licenses authorized for operation in a 

certain portion of contiguous spectrum 

in the band? The Commission seeks 

comment on these and any other 

benchmarks that may be appropriate. 

68. The Commission also recognizes 

that the Transition Facilitator may find 

it necessary and beneficial to modify 

certain aspects of its Transition 

Facilitation Plan. The Commission 

therefore seeks comment on allowing 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau to approve minor amendments 

to the Transition Facilitation Plan that 

would not increase harmful interference 

to protected incumbent earth stations. 

69. The Commission notes that the 

ultimate assignment of any license is 

subject to FCC approval under § 310(d) 

of the Communications Act. The 

Commission therefore seeks comment 

on the application process described 

above and any other application criteria 

that may be appropriate to fulfill the 

Commission’s statutory obligations to 

license spectrum in the public interest 

and ensure that spectrum is put to its 

highest and best use. 

70. Step 4—Band Clearing. Following 

approval of the Transition Facilitation 

Plan and grant of new terrestrial 

licenses in the band, the final step 

would be clearing certain incumbent 

users as needed from the designated 

spectrum and giving new terrestrial 

licensees access to their licensed 

spectrum. The Commission seeks 

comment on the best way to effectuate 

this process. 

71. The Commission seeks comment 

on reasonable benchmarks for 

incumbents to cease transmitting on a 

primary basis in the portion of the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band that becomes available for 

flexible use, a process Intel, Intelsat, and 

SES expect to take 12–20 months. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

providing the Transition Facilitator with 

20 months to clear incumbent users 

from the designated spectrum in the 

band. Under this approach, the 

Transition Facilitator would be 

responsible for enforcing the various 

private agreements between new 

terrestrial licensees and incumbent 

users to clear the band. As spectrum 

becomes available for licensed use, the 

Transition Facilitator would notify 

licensees that they may begin operating 

in particular areas covered by their 

licenses where the spectrum has been 

cleared.13 In light of the Commission’s 

expectation that spectrum will be 

cleared incrementally over the course of 

the 20-month band-clearing process, the 

Commission proposes to require the 

Transition Facilitator to provide 

periodic updates notifying the 

Commission of the specific spectrum 

that has been cleared. Should the 

Commission require the Transition 

Facilitator to file status reports at 

various benchmarks (e.g., every four 

months)? The Commission seeks 

comment on these and any other 

benchmarks that may be appropriate to 

promote timely completion of the bandclearing process. 

72. Finally, in light of our goal to 

promote the rapid deployment of new 

licensed terrestrial operations in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band, the Commission 

seeks comment on any further 

safeguards that should apply during the 

band-clearing process to ensure the 

transition is completed within a 

reasonable period of time. The 

Commission expects that the private 

agreements between new terrestrial 

licensees and incumbent users would 

contain provisions and penalties 

sufficient to address either party’s 

failure to satisfy their respective 

contractual obligations in a timely 

manner. In addition to, and 

independent of, those private 

agreements, the Commission seeks 

comment on any appropriate penalties 

that should apply in the event that the 

Transition Facilitator is unable to clear 

the designated spectrum within the 20- 

month time period discussed above. 

What, if any, opportunities to cure 

should the Commission provide? For 

example, should the Commission allow 

new terrestrial licensees and incumbent 

users that default on their private 

agreements to re-enter the process 

beginning with Step 2 negotiations? If 

so, should the Commission apply more 

abbreviated time periods for the 

completion of each step? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

and any other actions that may be 

appropriate to provide adequate 

opportunity for successful completion 

of a market-based approach, while also 

ensuring a rapid and efficient transition 

to flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

b. Auction Mechanisms 

73. The Commission seeks comment 

on various auction approaches to 

expand flexible use of the band. 

Specifically, the Commission asks 

commenters to consider whether an 

overlay auction, incentive auction, 

capacity auction or other auction 

mechanism could be used to create 

opportunities for flexible use of the 

band. 

74. Overlay Auction.—An overlay 

license authorizes operations for an 

entire geographic area but requires the 

licensee to protect existing incumbents 

from interference indefinitely, i.e., until 

the rights are relinquished. The 

Commission notes that the Commission 

has used overlay licensing to transition 

several bands from site-based to 

geographic-area licensing. 

75. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the Commission shall accept 

applications for one or more overlay 

licenses—assigned by competitive 

bidding if mutually exclusive 

applications for it were accepted—that 

would permit an overlay licensee to 

negotiate with both incumbent space 

station licensees and earth station 

owners and operators to clear all or part 

of the band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

shall require the overlay licensee(s) to 

transfer flexible use licenses in the 

secondary market (i.e., limit an 

individual licensee from holding more 

than a certain amount of spectrum in 

each market). Under this approach, the 

overlay licensee(s) would have the right 

to flexible use of any spectrum that 

becomes available as a result of 

incumbents’ relinquishing their 

spectrum usage rights. If this approach 

were adopted, the Commission’s 

presumption would be that incumbent 

space station licensees could bid 

individually, but not as a consortium. 

Allowing incumbents to bid collectively 

would eliminate the possibility of 

competition among them for the overlay 

license, and would discourage other 

potential bidders from participating in 

the auction. To encourage participation 

in the auction, are there rules the 

Commission can adopt to share the risk 

(between bidders and the U.S. Treasury) 

of a less profitable repurpose than 

anticipated? The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, if no voluntary 

agreement is reached between an 

overlay licensee and earth station 

operators after some number of years, 

the earth station operators should be 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44141 

required to discontinue operation in 

some portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

if requested by the overlay licensee and 

if the overlay licensee delivers 

equivalent quality service to the 

locations of the earth stations that 

would no longer be protected. The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

equivalent quality service should be 

defined, especially with respect to 

reliability. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how many years 

incumbent earth station operators 

should have before they would no 

longer receive protection in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band, and whether this deadline 

should apply to all areas or only to highpopulation-density areas. If the latter, 

how should such areas be defined? 

76. Would assigning an overlay 

license or licenses for all of the band 

expedite flexible use of more of the 

band compared to other approaches? 

Compared to the market-based proposal, 

the overlay license approach potentially 

would allow non-incumbent bidders to 

develop innovative ways to clear the 

spectrum and clear more spectrum or 

varying amounts of spectrum depending 

on the relative costs and benefits of such 

repurposing. On the other hand, an 

overlay licensee may take longer to clear 

spectrum because the two largest FSS 

space station operators appear to 

already have an agreement on how to 

clear at least 100 megahertz for flexible 

use. 

77. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how all parties that would 

be affected by repurposing 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band spectrum should be treated. In 

particular, should the space station 

operators relinquishing spectrum or the 

overlay licensee be required to provide 

incumbent earth station operators 

comparable replacement facilities or 

media? Would an overlay auction 

expedite the provision of terrestrial 

mobile services in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

or facilitate making more than 100 

megahertz of the band available for 

flexible use? Commenters should also 

address the potential costs and benefits 

of an overlay approach for consumers 

and businesses in rural and underserved 

communities, as well as any economic 

impact on small businesses, and discuss 

any rules or procedures that could be 

implemented to ensure that the needs of 

these communities and businesses are 

adequately addressed. The Commission 

invites comment on these issues and on 

other matters that it may need to 

address to conduct an overlay auction in 

this band. 

78. Incentive Auction.—The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

approaches using the Commission’s 

general incentive auction authority to 

introduce flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band. One commenter suggests that 

‘‘[FSS incumbent] satellite operators, 

earth station licensees, and microwave 

licensees all could participate in a 

reverse auction and choose from among 

several options including, for example, 

vacating the band for another or a fiber 

alternative; limiting operations to a 

smaller swath of spectrum; or moving to 

a more remote location.’’ A forward 

auction would then generate the 

revenues from new entrants to support 

the reverse auction results, and repack 

incumbents into the remaining portion 

of the band for FSS and/or move earth 

stations to more remote locations. 

79. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether a variation of the incentive 

auction could work in the context of the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band. The Commission 

notes that in the case of the 

Commission’s incentive auction 

authority, there is a legal aspect to the 

problem of FSS satellite operators’ 

incentives to reduce the amount of 

spectrum for repurposing discussed 

above. Specifically, the Commission’s 

legal authority to use that mechanism 

depends on having ‘‘at least two 

competing licensees participate in the 

reverse auction.’’ Would the Varian 

approach, discussed above, satisfy the 

statutory requirement that an incentive 

auction have at least two competing 

bidders take part in the reverse auction? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

means of inducing supply competition, 

such as by bringing in alternative bands 

as substitutes, both to insure a more 

competitive and efficient outcome, and 

to meet the legal requirement of having 

competing licensees participate in the 

reverse auction. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether provision of 

supply by licensed earth stations can 

substitute for provision by FSS 

operators. 

80. Capacity Auction.—As an 

alternative to paying satellite 

incumbents to directly relinquish their 

rights to operate on specified 

frequencies, the Commission seeks 

comment on a reverse auction for 

satellite transponder capacity that could 

be used to compensate the satellite 

incumbents for giving up C-band 

transponder capacity in order to enable 

the Commission to reallocate C-band 

spectrum to flexible use. Under this 

approach, an individual bidder in the 

reverse auction would help to clear 

spectrum by bidding to relinquish some 

(or all) of the bundle of rights they hold 

under their licenses and the 

Commission’s rules to lease capacity to 

other parties, so as to allow alternative 

use of the bands of spectrum associated 

with specific transponders. Potential 

bidders could be any FCC licensee that 

could make transponder capacity 

available in, for example, either the Cband or Ku-band, as discussed further 

below. Satellite operators could offer 

capacity created by launching new 

satellites in vacant orbital slots and/or 

by relinquishing some or all of their 

existing capacity. 

81. At the time of any incentive 

auction, could satellite customers or 

earth stations in their own right be 

eligible to offer capacity? For example, 

could they make available capacity 

through mechanisms such as 

substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill 

their capacity needs, reducing the 

amount or quality of programming 

distributed, or using greater 

compression to reduce the capacity 

required to carry a given amount of 

programming or data? C-band capacity 

lost due to the reduced amount of 

available spectrum and that was not 

relinquished in the reverse auction by 

C-band satellite operators, could be 

repacked onto replacement capacity for 

the remaining lives of those lost 

transponders. This would compensate 

C-band licensees for their lost capital 

investments, but not for the loss of their 

spectrum. The amount of C-band 

spectrum reallocated could be 

determined by the reverse auction in 

combination with a forward auction for 

cleared spectrum. Adapting the 

approach of the broadcast incentive 

auction, the amount cleared could be 

the largest amount for which forward 

auction revenues exceed the cost of 

repacking the remaining C-band services 

plus any other compensation, e.g., for 

the loss of spectrum, and the cost of 

running the auction. The Commission 

seeks comment on a capacity auction 

and whether such a mechanism could 

be used to create flexible use in the 

band. 

82. Several commenters propose that 

Ku-band capacity could be utilized for 

C-band services. Other commenters 

raise the concern that Ku-band capacity 

is not a reliable replacement spectrum 

for C-band services. The Commission 

seeks comment on Ku-band capacity as 

a replacement for C-band, including as 

an alternative for infrequent, portable, 

or more temporary uses such as for 

breaking news or live sporting events. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

how to define capacity for purpose of 

this approach. What capacity definition 

meets the needs of such an auction? 

Depending on the band, what 

adjustments would be appropriate to 

ensure a unit of capacity in the band is 

comparable with a C-band unit of 

capacity? Would comparable 

communication capacity be defined in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44142 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

terms of throughput, reliability, and 

operating costs? 

83. Advocates for a capacity auction 

should specifically discuss the 

Commission’s legal authority as well as 

implementation details and options. For 

example, could the Commission use its 

general incentive auction authority to 

hold a capacity auction? Which parties 

should be allowed to participate in the 

reverse auction? Is there a way for end 

users to participate and, if so, how 

would their costs be compensated? 

Would this approach incentivize 

bidders to make the appropriate 

tradeoffs among inputs such as 

compression technology and bandwidth 

in producing capacity? How could a 

capacity auction be designed to allocate 

capacity efficiently over time? Would 

this require the reverse auction to 

establish separate prices for capacity in 

each year? Would capacity need to be 

defined as packages of capacity at 

specified dates, and would a 

combinatorial auction be needed to 

determine auction winners and prices? 

84. The Commission seeks comment 

on the applicability of § 647 of the 

Open-market Reorganization for the 

Betterment of International 

Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act) to 

a capacity or other auction mechanism. 

The Commission tentatively concludes 

that the prohibition is not applicable 

here, as any auctioned spectrum would 

be used for a new domestic terrestrial 

service, and the spectrum capacity 

auction does not propose to assign by 

competitive bidding orbital locations or 

spectrum used for the provision of 

international or global satellite 

communications services. The 

Commission also tentatively concludes 

that the participation in an incentive 

auction by Ku-band operators to provide 

spectrum capacity to C-band operators 

would not violate the ORBIT Act, 

because this would not constitute an 

‘‘assignment’’ of satellite spectrum, 

because the Ku-band operators would 

only be giving up some of their licensed 

spectrum capacity, rather than ceding 

their actual licenses. The Commission 

seeks comment on this tentative 

conclusion and invite commenters to 

discuss the ORBIT Act’s application to 

any proposed auction mechanism. 

85. The Commission also invites 

comment on other novel incentive 

auction mechanisms under the 

Commission’s general incentive auction 

authority. Commenters should provide 

data on the costs and benefits associated 

with any proposed approach along with 

other helpful technical or procedural 

details. Commenters should also 

address the potential costs and benefits 

of an incentive-auction approach for 

consumers and businesses in rural and 

underserved communities, as well as 

any economic impact on small 

businesses, and they should discuss any 

rules or procedures that could be 

implemented to ensure that the needs of 

these communities and businesses are 

adequately addressed. 

c. Alternative Mechanisms 

86. The Commission also seeks 

comment on approaches that combine 

various elements of the mechanisms 

discussed above, as well as other 

mechanisms for transitioning all or part 

of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band for wireless 

broadband use. Commenters offering 

sequential alternatives should address 

the circumstances under which one 

method of transitioning the band would 

end and a subsequent one would begin. 

Are any conditions necessary to prevent 

one approach from precluding later 

alternatives? 

87. In response to the Mid-Band NOI, 

T-Mobile proposed a hybrid approach 

that would combine elements of an 

incentive auction and the market-based 

approach. Under this proposal, a 

consortium of satellite operators (similar 

to the Transition Facilitator discussed 

above) and potential wireless bidders 

would participate in a phased auction 

process with both forward and reverse 

auction components. First, the 

Commission would conduct a 

simultaneous or near simultaneous 

auction of the band on a geographic 

basis to establish the initial price per 

area. Second, in those areas where 

satellite operators were all willing to 

clear all 500 megahertz at the prices 

established in the initial phase, the 

spectrum would be sold and these areas 

would be deemed ‘‘cleared’’ for flexible 

terrestrial wireless use. The Commission 

would then determine an appropriate 

amount of the remaining spectrum to 

reserve for satellite use and the forward 

and reverse auction processes would 

repeat until a Commission-determined 

amount of spectrum has been cleared. 

Although T-Mobile proposes that 

auction revenues would be split 

between the federal government and the 

satellite operators, with the latter 

responsible for end-user relocation costs 

as applicable, the Commission 

tentatively concludes there could be 

statutory barriers to this aspect of the 

proposal, and seek comment. 

88. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether T-Mobile’s proposal, or a 

variant of this proposal, would solve or 

ameliorate the three economic problems 

discussed above. As discussed, there is 

a legal aspect to the problem of FSS 

satellite operators’ incentives to reduce 

the amount of spectrum for repurposing 

because the Commission’s incentive 

auction authority requires at least two 

competing participants in the reverse 

auction. Would T-Mobile’s proposal, or 

a variant of that proposal, comply with 

the requirement that an incentive 

auction have two competing licensees in 

the reverse auction, as well as other 

requirements associated with the 

Commission’s general incentive auction 

authority? 

89. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether a hybrid approach that 

combines elements of the approaches 

discussed above would strike a balance 

between incumbent and new entrant 

interests. If the Commission decides to 

clear and auction the entire band, but 

reserve some of the band for satellite use 

in certain areas, what is the minimum 

amount that should be cleared for 

flexible wireless use? Would the 

minimum amount differ based on 

geographic area? Should the 

Commission consider auctioning a 

majority of the band, versus the entire 

band, and if so, what would be the 

appropriate amount of spectrum to be 

cleared under such an approach? How 

can the Commission ensure that the 

band is transitioned in a timely manner? 

Should a backstop approach be triggered 

by a FSS operator’s failure to clear the 

band in a timely manner? Is this the 

right balance, or is there a better way 

that traditional relocation could be used 

as a backstop approach to any hybrid 

mechanism? Additionally, would this 

approach allow the Commission to meet 

its statutory requirements under its 

general incentive auction authority? 

90. The Commission asks commenters 

to provide data on the costs and benefits 

associated with any hybrid approach 

over other possible or suggested 

methods. If the Commission adopted a 

split-revenue approach, under which 

revenue would be split between the 

federal government and the satellite 

operators, how would those funds be 

distributed? Are there are legal obstacles 

to such an approach? Commenters 

should also address the potential costs 

and benefits of any hybrid or alternative 

approach for consumers and businesses 

in rural and underserved communities, 

as well as any economic impact on 

small businesses, and discuss any rules 

or procedures that could be 

implemented to ensure that the needs of 

these communities and businesses are 

adequately addressed. Commenters 

should provide complete proposals to 

the extent technically and economically 

feasible. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44143 

2. More Intensive Point-to-Multipoint 

Fixed Use 

91. In connection with the 

Commission’s proposals above to reform 

the full-band, full-arc earth station 

coordination policy, the Commission 

seeks comment on rule changes to Part 

101 to allow point-to-multipoint FS use 

of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band and invite 

parties to offer alternative rules or 

requirements that will allow for the 

more intensive point-to-multipoint FS 

use of the band. In doing so, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

permitting fixed wireless would affect 

the possible future clearing of the band 

for flexible use and the use of the band 

for satellite operations. The Commission 

seeks to protect incumbent FSS earth 

stations from harmful interference and 

avoid disruption to existing operations 

in the band. Accordingly, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

impact that point-to-multipoint use 

would have on the flexibility of FSS 

earth stations to modify their operations 

in response to technical and business 

needs. The Commission emphasizes 

that—under the proposals in this 

NPRM—point-to-multipoint would 

operate on a secondary basis vis-a`-vis 

FSS in any part of the band in which 

FSS continues to operate during a 

transition period to accommodate 

repacking and, thereafter, on a 

frequency-coordinated basis to protect 

actual FSS operations. 

92. Channel Plan.—The Commission 

seeks comment on amending § 101.101 

to permit point-to-multipoint FS in 

some portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

The Commission seeks further comment 

on amending the existing channel plan 

for FS in the band (paired 20 megahertz 

channels for frequency division duplex 

(FDD)) to allow time division duplex 

(TDD) on unpaired 20 megahertz 

channels. The Commission asks 

commenters to address interference 

concerns between FDD and TDD, 

explain how, or if, they could coexist in 

the portion of the band not being used 

for flexible use, and discuss 

coordination and interference rules that 

must apply if both were to be permitted. 

Should the Commission allow licensees 

to aggregate contiguous 20 megahertz 

channels up to a maximum of 160 

megahertz of bandwidth? To the extent 

a licensee has 40 megahertz of 

unconstructed spectrum in a licensed 

service area, should the Commission 

require construction before allowing the 

licensee to acquire additional spectrum 

in the licensed service area? The 

Commission invites alternative 

proposals with specific discussion of 

the costs and benefits as to each. The 

Commission also seeks comment 

generally on the technical 

improvements to allow for better band 

utilization. 

93. The Commission seeks comment 

on authorizing point-to-multipoint FS 

service, on a primary basis, in some 

portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that 

does not become available for flexible 

use. The Commission proposes that 

flexible use licensees would operate in 

the lower segment of the band (starting 

at 3.7 GHz) and, if additional spectrum 

is cleared in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, it 

would be relatively easy and costeffective to expeditiously deploy more 

flexible use in the lower segment of this 

band that has been cleared and is 

contiguous to the spectrum for which 

flexible use is already licensed. The 

Commission also seeks comment as to 

whether, regardless of how much 

spectrum becomes available for flexible 

use in the near term, to make available 

for licensed point-to-multipoint use up 

to 160 megahertz (e.g., 4.04–4.2 GHz) to 

accommodate a transition from FSS to 

flexible use working-up from 3.7 GHz. 

Alternatively, the Commission seeks 

comment on making available for pointto-multipoint use 40 megahertz, 100 

megahertz or up to 320 megahertz. 

94. Service Area of Each Point-toMultipoint FS Access Point.—The 

Commission seeks comment on the best 

approach to define a point-to-multipoint 

FS access point service area. The 

Broadband Access Coalition requests 

frequency coordinated, site-specific 

license areas, defined as a circle 

designated by a specified radial distance 

from a center point. Should the 

Commission define a service area based 

on a specified geographic access point 

location and maximum radius? As an 

alternative, should the Commission 

consider coverage arc sector(s) (e.g., 0°N 

to 30°) around the access point location 

and specified radii, and what should 

such coverage arcs be based on (e.g., 

antenna beamwidth)? If a maximum 

radius around an access point is 

specified, should the Commission adopt 

a single value for all access points or 

values relative to whether the access 

point is in densely populated or rural 

areas? For example, the Broadband 

Access Coalition proposes 10 kilometers 

for densely populated areas and 18 

kilometers for rural areas. If the 

Commission allows different radii based 

on area population density, what 

threshold should the Commission use to 

differentiate between densely 

populated, rural, and other areas? 

Should the definition of ‘‘rural’’ for 

these purposes be the definition used 

for the E-Rate program? If based on a 

population density, should the 

population be based on residents or 

businesses, or perhaps some 

combination of both? Should this 

information be based on the most 

current available U.S. Census database 

at the time of the license application? Is 

there some other metric that would be 

better suited to determining the 

appropriate maximum radius limit? The 

Commission seeks comment on 

variations of these approaches, as well 

as those of alternatives that might not 

necessarily be limited to circles, arcs, or 

population density. 

95. Frequency Coordination and 

Interference Protection.—The 

Commission seeks comment on 

technical requirements for frequency 

coordination between point-tomultipoint FS applicants and licensees 

and FSS under Part 25 and point-topoint FS, if they are grandfathered or 

otherwise remain in the band, under 

part 101. Under the Commission’s 

current rules, the technical aspects of 

coordination between FSS and 

terrestrial operations are based on 

Appendix 7 of the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio 

Regulations and certain 

recommendations of the ITU 

Radiocommunication Sector and the 

technical aspects of coordination 

between terrestrial licensees are based 

on Telecommunications Industry 

Association’s Telecommunications 

System Bulletin (TSB) 10–F or other 

procedures generally following 

acceptable good engineering practices. 

The Commission asks parties to 

comment on how either of the above or 

other standards, such as those 

developed by the European 

Telecommunications Standards Institute 

(ETSI) or another organization, may be 

applicable or adaptable to point-tomultipoint FS operations in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there are 

interference protection criteria set forth 

in other parts of the Commission’s rules 

that may be adapted to protect FSS earth 

stations from interference by point-tomultipoint operations in the portion of 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that does not 

become available for flexible use. Are 

there technical operating characteristics 

of point-to-multipoint equipment, such 

as power levels, that would require us 

to adopt different values to protect FSS 

earth stations from interference by 

point-to-multipoint operations? The 

Commission asks that commenters be 

specific in addressing the technical 

requirements for coordination. 

96. The Commission seeks comment 

on allowing a point-to-multipoint FS 

applicant to coordinate each access 

point by sector based on the radius 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44144 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

around the geographic coordinates of 

the site, the antenna characteristics (e.g., 

beamwidth), and a maximum number of 

client devices to be deployed within a 

specific distance from the access point. 

Should point-to-multipoint FS 

applicants be required to submit 

frequency coordination for each access 

point, including geographic coordinates 

of the access point, frequency range, 

power and antenna characteristics, 

service area limits, maximum number of 

future authorized client devices, and the 

power and antenna characteristics of 

individual client devices? How will 

prior coordination be achieved for 

point-to-multipoint access points when 

the location, height, and technical 

characteristics of the client devices in 

the access point service area are not 

available at the time of access point 

coordination? If some probability of 

location/height is assigned for the 

maximum number of client locations in 

order to develop an interference profile 

for purposes of coordination, the 

resulting interference predictions will 

have some associated probability of 

interference occurrence; in that case 

should point-to-multipoint licensees be 

able to add up to the maximum number 

of client devices without independently 

coordinating each client device? Should 

client devices be subject to additional 

technical limitations, such as minimum 

directional antenna requirements, EIRP 

limits, or other criteria to limit their 

interference potential? Should the 

maximum number of client devices be 

specified for each channel? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

above proposals and, whether, if a 

point-to-multipoint FS applicant cannot 

successfully coordinate a geographic 

service area, it should be permitted to 

coordinate client devices on a path-topath basis. Parties should address the 

technical requirements of the above, 

offer alternatives, and specifically detail 

the costs and benefits of each proposal. 

97. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the administrative process 

that should apply to the coordination of 

point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 

band. Under the current rules, the 

administrative aspects of the 

coordination process are set forth in 

§ 101.103(d) in the case of coordination 

of terrestrial stations with earth stations 

and in § 25.203 in the case of 

coordination of earth stations with 

terrestrial stations. What modifications 

to §§ 101.103(d), 25.203, or to another 

rule must be made to govern the 

administrative process that will apply to 

the coordination of point-to-multipoint 

FS operations with FSS and point-topoint FS, if grandfathered or remain in 

the band, and the coordination of FSS 

and point-to-point FS, if grandfathered 

or remain in the band, with point-tomultipoint FS operations in the band? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

subjecting point-to-multipoint FS 

applicants to an expedited coordination 

process with mandatory electronic 

notification and response. Should an 

expedited process, if adopted, govern 

coordination that occurs beginning 90 

days after the adoption of final rules 

published in the Federal Register? The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

other modifications to the Commission’s 

rules with respect to the coordination 

administrative process that would 

reduce the economic impact of the 

proposed rule changes on small entities. 

98. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on the possibility of 

adopting an automated coordination 

process for point-to-multipoint FS 

applications. There is a lack of a 

consensus in the record as to when, or 

if, the Commission will be in a position 

to propose and adopt rules for 

automated coordination of point-tomultipoint FS applications in the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band. The Broadband Access 

Coalition contends that automated 

coordination should not be the same as 

the Spectrum Allocation Server (SAS) 

system for licensing in the 3.5 GHz 

band. However, the Broadband Access 

Coalition believes that the existing 

process can be modified and automated 

over time to incorporate real-time, realworld FSS protection criteria and enable 

coordination between and among pointto-point FS, if grandfathered or remain 

in the band, and point-to-multipoint FS 

based on FSS, point-to-point FS and 

point-to-multipoint FS industry 

standards of protection criteria to be 

developed by affected stake-holders. 

Several commenters including IEE 

DySPAN, OTI &PK, and Federated, 

support using a spectrum access 

database similar to the sharing system 

used below 3.7 GHz for the Citizens 

Broadband Radio Service. Google offers 

another variant contending that a 

lightweight database supported 

authorization framework would enable 

the efficient deployment of fixed 

broadband access (FBA) systems. 

However, the satellite industry and 

content providers have strong objections 

to more intensive use of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

by FS and have raised very specific 

concerns over the lack of proven 

methods for spectrum sharing with 

more intensive fixed use in this band. 

Satellite operators also raise concern 

about the ability of point-to-multipoint 

systems to quickly remedy interference 

when it is identified or to accommodate 

FSS earth stations when they change 

frequencies. The Commission seeks 

comment on the above. The 

Commission also asks that, given the 

lack of consensus, parties continue to 

work together to offer a more widely 

supported proposal for the Commission 

to consider. 

99. Power Limits.—The Commission 

seeks comment on adopting power 

limits for point-to-multipoint FS 

operations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. The 

Commission existing rules for FS 

provide power limits based on the link 

length. With point-to-multipoint FS 

service areas, individual links between 

access points and client devices will 

vary in length. Should the Commission 

apply a rule to point-to-multipoint FS 

links specifying a minimum path length, 

similar to those specified for point-topoint FS links in § 101.143 or is some 

other variation of this rule more 

applicable to point-to-multipoint FS 

operations? What should the 

Commission’s power limits be for pointto-multipoint FS service? The 

Broadband Access Coalition has 

proposed a 50 dBm EIRP limit and a 

maximum conducted power of 1 Watt. 

Should the access point EIRP be 

scalable with bandwidth? Likewise, 

should client devices be limited to 50 

dBm EIRP regardless of bandwidth? If 

not scalable, how do changes in 

bandwidth impact frequency 

coordination? Should the Commission 

apply the emission limits set forth in 

§ 101.111 to point-to-multipoint FS 

operations in this band, or would some 

other limits be more appropriate to 

protect adjacent-band operations? The 

Broadband Access Coalition anticipates 

that point-to-multipoint FS systems 

would be able to meet existing Part 101 

out-of-band emission limits, without 

modification, but the Commission seeks 

comment as to this issue. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

other proposals. The Commission notes 

that the adjacent 4.2–4.4 GHz band is 

allocated to the aeronautical 

radionavigation service on a primary 

basis and that, at WRC–15, the 4.2–4.4 

GHz band was also allocated to the 

aeronautical mobile (R) service on a 

primary basis in all ITU Regions with 

use reserved for WAIC systems. WAIC 

systems are onboard short range 

wireless systems that will replace 

substantial portions of aircraft wiring. 

These systems increase aircraft safety by 

providing dissimilar redundancy in 

communications links between aircraft 

systems. The Commission solicits 

comment on the needed out-of-band 

emission limit required to protect the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44145 

aeronautical radionavigation service in 

the 4.2–4.4 GHz band. 

100. Antenna Standards.—The 

Commission asks parties to provide 

detailed technical comments as to 

antenna standards that should apply to 

point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band. Section 101.115 of 

the Commission’s rules specifies the 

maximum beamwidth, minimum 

antenna gain and radiation suppression 

envelope for FS antennas in this band. 

How should these antenna standards be 

modified to accommodate the range of 

antennas typically used in point-tomultipoint applications? The Broadband 

Access Coalition Petition proposes that, 

unlike point-to-point FS licensees 

subject to § 101.115, point-to-multipoint 

FS licensees be permitted to use any 

antenna in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that 

meets the minimum performance 

requirements for access points and 

client devices. Specifically, the 

Broadband Access Coalition Petition 

proposes that a point-to-multipoint FS 

licensee would be required to specify 

the gain; azimuth; polarization; height; 

azimuth and elevation half-power 

beamwidths; and tilt (e.g., ¥10 degrees) 

for sectorized antennas and gain, height 

and any electrical tilt for omnidirectional antennas. Should the 

Commission specify a minimum 

radiation suppression at some angle 

from the edge of the main beam for 

sectorized antennas? The Commission 

seeks comment on the above and invite 

parties to offer alternative proposals. 

What are the relative costs and benefits 

for each proposal? How would each 

proposal affect other users in the band 

or provide mechanisms to address 

interference? 

101. Client Devices.—The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should require 

directional antennas on outdoor pointto-multipoint client devices and if so 

what should those antenna standards 

be? Would antenna standards for client 

devices make coordination easier? The 

Commission asks that commenters 

address the minimum antenna gain and 

minimum suppression from main beam 

centerline. Should client devices be 

limited to outdoor antennas only and 

permanently affixed at the client 

location? Should the Commission allow 

portable indoor client devices, and 

should such devices be allowed under 

point-to-multipoint or flexible use 

rules? If the Commission permits 

portable client devices with nondirectional antennas, how will this 

impact the access point service area 

frequency coordination with incumbent 

licensees? 

102. Frequency Agility and Radio 

Capabilities.—The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should require point-to-multipoint FS 

radios (both access points and client 

devices) to be frequency agile and thus 

capable of operating across the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band or allow radios to be agile 

over 3.7–4.2 GHz so long as the flexible 

use portion of the band is locked out 

and be able to accommodate any 20 

megahertz channel assignment? The 

Broadband Access Coalition requests 

that licensed point-to-multipoint radios 

(both access points and client devices) 

be frequency agile and thus capable of 

operating across the entire 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band, and accommodate any 20 

megahertz channel assignment. 

Additionally, should the Commission 

require that client devices be capable of 

modifying channel and bandwidth 

assignment when prompted by the 

associated access point? Should access 

points be software upgradable to 

communicate with future automated 

database and client devices to be 

capable of following instructions from 

associated access point to change 

channels and bandwidth, as necessary? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how such requirements might be 

implemented in regulations, or whether 

any such features may instead be 

developed by manufacturer technical 

standards and/or multi-stakeholder 

interest groups. 

103. Construction.—The Commission 

seeks comment on the construction 

deadlines and notifications that should 

apply to point-to-multipoint FS 

licensees in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

Should the Commission require pointto-multipoint FS licensees to build out, 

within 12 months, and operate at least 

one access point and at least five client 

radios in licensed areas or lose 

protection for the service area? If a 

point-to-multipoint FS licensee fails to 

meet the above requirements, should the 

Commission allow links already in 

service from that access point to 

maintain coordinated protection on an 

individual, path-by-path basis to protect 

existing customers served by those 

links? In addition, the Commission 

encourages commenters to consider the 

economic impact on consumers and 

businesses in rural communities and 

areas that are unserved or underserved 

by current broadband providers, as well 

as any economic impact on small 

businesses. The Commission asks 

parties to comment on this proposal, 

offer alternative proposals, and discuss 

the relative costs and benefits for each 

proposal. 

104. Additionally, § 101.141(a)(3)(ii) 

requires that ‘‘traffic loading payload 

shall exceed 50 percent of payload 

capacity within 30 months of 

licensing.’’ The Commission recognizes 

that the minimum traffic loading 

payload requirement in 

§ 101.141(a)(3)(ii) was designed for 

symmetrical traffic and that IP traffic is 

often asymmetrical. Should the 

Commission therefore not adopt a 

requirement for point-to-multipoint FS 

licensees or do parties have alternative 

proposals for us to consider? 

105. Equipment Access/RF 

Exposure.—Section 101.131(a) requires 

that ‘‘[t]he equipment at the operating 

and transmitting positions must be so 

installed and protected that it is not 

accessible to, or capable of being 

operated by, persons other than those 

duly authorized by the licensee.’’ The 

Broadband Access Coalition states that 

client radios providing low power 

point-to-multipoint services will operate 

from residential premises and will not 

present a radiofrequency (RF) hazard 

because, when operated at full power, 

the RF exposure keep-out zone for 

point-to-multipoint client radios 

operating at the proposed maximum 

EIRP level is less than 0.6 meters (2 

feet). The Commission anticipates that 

client devices would likely be mounted 

in such a way as to provide a good 

connection back to the access point, free 

from obstructions within the 

transmission path, and so while such an 

installation may not strictly comply 

with the access restriction requirement 

in the Commission’s rules, it is possible 

that other regulatory examples or 

analogies may apply to point-tomultipoint situations where home 

subscriber devices are involved. For 

example, fixed wireless licensees with 

home-installed consumer equipment are 

generally required to attach a label to 

transceiver antennas that: (1) Provides 

adequate notice regarding potential 

radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., 

information regarding the safe minimum 

separation distance required between 

users and transceiver antennas; and (2) 

references the applicable FCC-adopted 

limits for radiofrequency exposure 

specified in § 1.1310. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether a similar 

requirement for point-to-multipoint 

client devices may be a preferred 

alternative to § 101.1310 of the 

Commission’s rules. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

possibility that there may be any other 

potential use cases, such as wireless 

routers or other types of devices, that 

may require separate consideration for 

the purposes of equipment 

authorization and RF exposure 

compliance. The Commission notes that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44146 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14The use of 20 megahertz blocks will enable 

transmission efficiencies achieved by 5G voluntary 

standards, including Long-Term Evolution (‘‘LTE’’) 

derivatives. Vivint Wireless Comments at 3. 

all transmitters must comply with the 

Commission’s exposure limits and 

requirements of §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 

2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission’s 

rules, as applicable. 

106. ULS Requirements.—What 

technical data should point-tomultipoint FS licensees be required to 

provide in ULS? The Commission notes 

that the Broadband Access Coalition 

requests in its petition that the 

applicant’s frequency coordination 

should correspond to the specific 

equipment and antenna orientation the 

applicant selects, and so the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

at least that same information used for 

frequency coordination should be 

entered into the Commission’s licensing 

database. At a minimum should 

licensees be required to provide the 

antenna gain, azimuth, polarization, 

height, half-power beamwidth (azimuth 

and elevation), and tilt (e.g. ¥10°) for 

each access point by sector? 

3. Service Rules for Flexible Use 

107. The scope of the service rules 

adopted herein will vary depending on 

the mechanism ultimately adopted by 

the Commission to expand flexible use 

in the band. For convenience, the 

Commission refers to this indeterminate 

amount of spectrum as the Mid-Band 

Flexible Use or ‘‘MBX’’ spectrum. 

Assuming that the Commission 

ultimately decides to add a mobile, 

except aeronautical mobile, allocation 

and to make some or all of the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band available for flexible use, in 

this section the Commission proposes or 

seeks comment on band plan, licensing 

and operating and technical rules for the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band spectrum that 

becomes available for terrestrial mobile 

and fixed flexible-use. The Commission 

proposes to license this spectrum under 

the Commission’s flexible-use, part-27 

rules that permit licensees to provide 

any fixed or mobile service consistent 

with the allocations for this spectrum, 

subject to rules necessary to prevent or 

minimize harmful interference. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach. The Commission also seeks 

comment, however, on whether there 

are any services, e.g., Internet of Things, 

that would not qualify under 

§ 603(a)(2)(B) of the MOBILE NOW Act, 

which requires the Commission to 

identify 100 megahertz below 6000 MHz 

for use on exclusive, licensed basis for 

commercial mobile use, pursuant to the 

Commission’s authority to implement 

such licensing in a flexible manner? 

a. Band Plan 

108. Block Sizes.—The Commission 

seeks comment on appropriate block 

size to promote efficient and robust use 

of the band for next generation wireless 

technologies, including 5G. Currently, 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band is licensed 

terrestrially by 20 megahertz channels 

for fixed use. However, the current 

channelization of the band should not 

affect the Commission’s consideration of 

alternate band plans. Therefore, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate block size(s) to best 

accommodate the fullest range of 

terrestrial wireless services.14 Would 20 

megahertz blocks be appropriate for the 

wireless technologies that are likely to 

be deployed in this band? Should the 

Commission allow blocks to be 

aggregated to provide greater capacity 

where needed? Or, would licensing the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band in larger block sizes 

(e.g., 50–100 megahertz) better support 

5G services while promoting 

competition? Would a mix of channel 

sizes improve efficiency and flexibility 

for a wider variety of users in the band? 

109. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the appropriate 

block sizes should be affected by the 

specific transition mechanism adopted 

by the Commission. For example, if the 

Commission adopts a market-based 

approach, the Commission seeks 

comment on allowing parties to define 

block sizes in their agreements. In this 

regard, would a default block size that 

could be aggregated and disaggregated 

help facilitate a market-based process? 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of their 

proposals. 

110. Spectrum Block Configuration.— 

The Commission generally has licensed 

bands that support mobile broadband 

services on a paired basis but specified 

the downlink and uplink bands only 

when necessary to avoid harmful 

interference, e.g., to Federal 

incumbents. The Commission 

recognizes that the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

spectrum that becomes available for 

flexible use could be configured in any 

number of paired or unpaired modes. 

The Commission therefore seeks 

comment on a range of options. If the 

Commission adopts an unpaired 

approach, are any administrative 

measures necessary to keep track of how 

spectrum blocks are being used? The 

Commission invites comment on what 

approach to take, and the costs and 

benefits of particular approaches. 

Above, the Commission discusses 

various mechanisms for expanding 

flexible use in all or part of the band. 

The Commission asks proponents of the 

various approaches described whether 

there are issues specific to this section 

and their preferred approach. 

111. Use of Geographic Licensing.— 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

approach in several other bands used to 

provide fixed and mobile services, the 

Commission proposes to license the 

3.7–4.2 GHz MBX spectrum on an 

exclusive, geographic area basis. 

Geographic area licensing provides 

flexibility to licensees, promotes 

efficient spectrum use, and helps 

facilitate rapid assignment of licenses, 

utilizing competitive bidding when 

necessary. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach, including 

the costs and benefits of adopting a 

geographic area licensing scheme. In the 

event that a party does not support 

using geographic licensing, it should 

explain its position, describe what type 

of licensing scheme it supports and 

identify the costs and benefits 

associated with its alternative licensing 

proposal. 

112. Service Areas.—The Commission 

seeks comment on the appropriate 

service areas for any flexible use 

licenses. In determining the appropriate 

geographic license size, the Commission 

must consider several factors, including: 

(1) Facilitating access to spectrum by 

both small and large providers; (2) 

providing for the efficient use of 

spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment 

of wireless broadband services to 

consumers, especially those in rural 

areas and Tribal lands; and (4) 

promoting investment in and rapid 

deployment of new technologies and 

services. In light of these statutory 

considerations, the Commission asks 

commenters to discuss and quantify the 

economic, technical, and other public 

interest considerations of licensing on a 

PEA, county, nationwide, or other basis. 

The Commission asks commenters to 

address the costs and benefits of their 

recommended licensing approach. 

113. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a licensing approach for 

the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS–1, AWS–3, 

AWS–4, and the H Block, the 

Commission issued separate licenses for 

the Gulf of Mexico. In the Upper 700 

MHz band, however, the Commission 

included the Gulf of Mexico in larger 

service areas. Commenters who 

advocate a separate service area or areas 

to cover the Gulf of Mexico should 

discuss what boundaries should be 

used, and whether special interference 

protection criteria or performance 

requirements are necessary due to the 

unique radio propagation characteristics 

and antenna siting challenges that exist 

for Gulf licensees. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44147 

114. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the service areas 

should be affected by the specific 

transition mechanism adopted by the 

Commission. For example, if the 

Commission adopts a market-based 

approach, the Commission seeks 

comment on allowing parties to define 

service areas in their agreements. In this 

regard, would a default service-area size 

smaller than the contiguous 48 states 

that could be aggregated and 

disaggregated help facilitate a marketbased process? If the Commission 

adopts an overlay auction, the 

Commission seeks comment on issuing 

a single nationwide license, or 

alternatively issuing licenses for five 

regions: (1) The contiguous 48 states 

and the Gulf of Mexico, (2) Alaska, (3) 

Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and (5) Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and 

American Samoa. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits of their proposals. 

115. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a licensing approach for 

the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS–1, AWS–3, 

AWS–4, and the H Block, the 

Commission issued separate licenses for 

the Gulf of Mexico. In the Upper 700 

MHz band, however, the Commission 

included the Gulf of Mexico in larger 

service areas. Commenters who 

advocate a separate service area or areas 

to cover the Gulf of Mexico should 

discuss what boundaries should be 

used, and whether special interference 

protection criteria or performance 

requirements are necessary due to the 

unique radio propagation characteristics 

and antenna siting challenges that exist 

for Gulf licensees. 

b. Licensing and Operating Rules 

116. The Commission seeks to afford 

licensees the flexibility to align licenses 

in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band with licenses 

in other spectrum bands governed by 

Part 27 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission therefore proposes that 

licensees in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

comply with licensing and operating 

rules that are applicable to all Part 27 

services, including assignment of 

licenses by competitive bidding, flexible 

use, regulatory status, foreign ownership 

reporting, compliance with construction 

requirements, renewal criteria, 

permanent discontinuance of 

operations, partitioning and 

disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

approach and ask commenters to 

identify any aspects of the 

Commission’s general Part 27 service 

rules that should be modified to 

accommodate the particular 

characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

The Commission asks proponents of the 

various mechanisms described above 

whether there are issues specific to this 

section and their preferred approach. 

117. In addition, the Commission 

seeks comment on service-specific rules 

for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, including 

eligibility, mobile spectrum holdings 

policies, license term, performance 

requirements, renewal term 

construction obligations, and other 

licensing and operating rules. In 

addressing these issues, commenters 

should discuss the costs and benefits 

associated with these proposals and any 

alternatives that commenters propose. 

118. Eligibility.—Consistent with 

established Commission practice, the 

Commission proposes to adopt an open 

eligibility standard for licenses in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether adopting an open 

eligibility standard for the licensing of 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band would encourage 

efforts to develop new technologies, 

products, and services, while helping to 

ensure efficient use of this spectrum. 

The Commission notes that an open 

eligibility approach would not affect 

citizenship, character, or other generally 

applicable qualifications that may apply 

under the Commission’s rules. 

Commenters should discuss the costs 

and benefits of the open eligibility 

proposal on competition, innovation, 

and investment. Above, the Commission 

discusses various mechanisms for 

expanding flexible use in all or part of 

the band. The Commission asks 

proponents of the various approaches 

described above whether there are 

issues specific to this section and their 

preferred approach. Finally, a person 

who has been, for reasons of national 

security, barred by any agency of the 

Federal Government from bidding on a 

contract, participating in an auction, or 

receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a 

license that is required by 47 U.S.C. 

Chapter 13 (the Spectrum Act) to be 

assigned by a system of competitive 

bidding under § 309(j) of the 

Communications Act. In the event that 

the Commission assigns licenses 

through competitive bidding, the 

Commission proposes to apply this 

ineligibility provision to the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band. 

119. Mobile Spectrum Holdings.— 

Spectrum is an essential input for the 

provision of mobile wireless services, 

and to implement provisions of the 

Communications Act, the Commission 

has developed policies to ensure that 

spectrum is assigned in a manner that 

promotes competition, innovation, and 

efficient use. 

120. The Commission seeks comment 

generally on whether and how to 

address any mobile spectrum holdings 

issues involving 3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum 

to meet the Commission’s statutory 

requirements and ensure competitive 

access to the band. Similar to the 

Commission’s approach in the 2017 

Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, 

the Commission proposes not to adopt 

a pre-auction bright-line limit on the 

ability of any entity to acquire spectrum 

in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band through 

competitive bidding at auction. Since 

such pre-auction limits may 

unnecessarily restrict the ability of 

entities to participate in and acquire 

spectrum in an auction, the Commission 

is not inclined to adopt such limits 

absent a clear indication that they are 

necessary to address a specific 

competitive concern, and the 

Commission seeks comment on any 

specific concerns of this type. 

121. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether this band should 

be included in the Commission’s 

spectrum screen, which helps to 

identify markets that may warrant 

further competitive analysis, for 

evaluating proposed secondary market 

transactions. If the Commission does 

determine that an auction is 

appropriate, the Commission seeks 

comment on reviewing holdings on a 

case-by-case basis when applications for 

initial licenses are filed post-auction to 

ensure that the public interest benefits 

of having a threshold on spectrum 

applicable to secondary market 

transactions are not rendered 

ineffective. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how the 

similarity of this spectrum to spectrum 

currently included in the screen should 

be factored into the Commission’s 

analysis, including the suitability of 

3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum for use in the 

provision of mobile telephony or 

broadband services. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify any costs and 

benefits associated with any proposals 

on the applicability of mobile spectrum 

holdings policies to 3.7–4.2 GHz 

spectrum. The Commission discusses 

above various mechanisms for 

expanding flexible use in all or part of 

the band. The Commission asks 

proponents of the various approaches 

described above whether there are 

issues specific to this section and their 

preferred approach. For example, 

should the Commission impose limits 

on the amount of spectrum acquired by 

one party through a market-based 

mechanism? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44148 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

15The Communications Act does not specify a 

term limit for wireless radio services licenses. The 

only statutory limit on license terms is eight years 

for licenses in the broadcast services. See 47 U.S.C. 

307(c)(1); see also 47 CFR 73.1020(a). 

16 In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission defined 

a ‘‘fixed point-to-point link’’ as ‘‘a radio 

transmission between point-to-point stations (as 

already defined in part 30), where transmit power 

exceeds + 43 dBm.’’ Under this definition, stations 

or devices transmitting using lower power levels 

will not count towards the number of fixed links 

required under the performance metric. Licensees 

whose networks include such low-power 

connections may rely on another part of their 

network to demonstrate buildout (e.g., mobile area 

coverage or higher-power fixed backhaul links). See 

2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, 32 

FCC Rcd at 11008–09, paragraph 66 through 68. 

122. License term.—The Commission 

seeks comment on a 15-year term for 

licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.15 The 

Commission believes that 15 years will 

afford licensees sufficient time to 

achieve this significant buildout 

obligation. The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

this proposal. In addition, the 

Commission invites commenters to 

submit alternate proposals for the 

appropriate license term, which should 

similarly include a discussion on the 

costs and benefits. 

123. Performance requirements.—The 

Commission establishes performance 

requirements to ensure that spectrum is 

intensely and efficiently utilized. The 

Commission has applied different 

performance and construction 

requirements to different spectrum 

bands based on considerations relevant 

to those bands. The Commission 

continues to believe that performance 

requirements play a critical role in 

ensuring that licensed spectrum does 

not lie fallow. 

124. Accordingly, considering the 

unique characteristics of this band, and 

to ensure that licensees begin providing 

service to consumers in a timely 

manner, the Commission seeks 

comment on adopting specific 

quantifiable benchmarks as an 

important component of its performance 

requirements. The Commission seeks 

comment on requiring a 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band licensee, relying on mobile or 

point-to-multipoint service in 

accordance with the Commission’s part 

27 rules, to provide reliable signal 

coverage and offer service to at least 

forty-five (45) percent of the population 

in each of its license areas within six 

years of the license issue date (first 

performance benchmark), and to at least 

eighty (80) percent of the population in 

each of its license areas within 12 years 

from the license issue date (second 

performance benchmark). For licensees 

relying on point-to-point service, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring them to demonstrate within 

six years of the license issue date (first 

performance benchmark) that they have 

four links operating and providing 

service, either to customers or for 

internal use, if the population within 

the license area is equal to or less than 

268,000. If the population within the 

license area is greater than 268,000, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring a licensee relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate it has at 

least one link in operation and 

providing service per every 67,000 

persons within a license area. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring licensees relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate within 12 

years of the license issue date (final 

performance benchmark) that they have 

eight links operating and providing 

service, either to customers or for 

internal use, if the population within 

the license area is equal to or less than 

268,000. If the population within the 

license area is greater than 268,000, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring a licensee relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate it is 

providing service and has at least two 

links in operation per every 67,000 

persons within a license area. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

in order to be eligible to be counted 

under the point-to-point buildout 

standard, a point-to-point link must 

operate with a transmit power greater 

than + 43 dBm.16

125. The Commission believes that 12 

years will provide sufficient time for 

any 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee to meet the 

proposed coverage requirements. The 

Commission anticipates that after 

satisfying the 12-year second 

performance benchmark, a licensee will 

continue to provide reliable signal 

coverage, or point-to-point links, as 

applicable, and offer service at or above 

that level for the remaining three years 

in the proposed 15-year license term 

prior to renewal. Establishing 

benchmarks before the end of the 

license term will ensure continuity of 

service over the license term, which is 

essential to the Commission’s 

evaluation under the Commission’s 

renewal standards. 

126. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the proposals 

discussed above represent the 

appropriate balance between licenseterm length and a significant final 

buildout requirement. The Commission 

seeks comment on the proposed 

buildout requirements and any potential 

alternatives. The Commission, for 

example, seeks comment on alternative 

methodologies for measuring population 

coverage requirements in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Above, the Commission 

discusses various mechanisms for 

expanding flexible use in all or part of 

the band. The Commission asks 

proponents of the various approaches 

described above whether there are 

issues specific to this section and their 

preferred approach. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether small 

entities face any special or unique 

issues with respect to buildout 

requirements such that they would 

require certain accommodations or 

additional time to comply. Finally, 

commenters should discuss and 

quantify how any supported buildout 

requirements will affect investment and 

innovation, as well as discuss and 

quantify other costs and benefits 

associated with the proposal. 

127. Internet of Things (IoT) 

Performance Requirements.—While the 

Commission proposes performance 

benchmarks based on population 

coverage applicable for a range of fixed 

and mobile services, the Commission 

recognizes that 3.7–4.2 GHz licenses 

have flexibility to provide services 

potentially less suited to a population 

coverage metric. In particular, licensees 

providing IoT-type fixed and mobile 

services may benefit from an alternative 

performance benchmark metric, and the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate metric to accommodate 

such service offerings. As the 

Commission did in Spectrum Frontiers, 

the Commission acknowledges that 

some IoT-type services may have 

difficulty meeting the population-based 

metrics that the Commission proposes 

for fixed and mobile services. In 

Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission 

modified its existing part 30 rules to 

adopt a specific definition of ‘‘fixed 

point-to-point link,’’ which includes the 

use of point-to-point stations as already 

defined in part 30 and is based on 

power level. This definition is intended 

to separate ‘‘traditional’’ point-to-point 

links from the sensor and device 

connections the Commission anticipates 

will be part of new Internet of Things 

networks in these bands. This definition 

applies to a network of fixed sensors or 

smart devices operating at low power 

over short distances. The Commission 

seeks comment on applying the same 

framework here and invite commenters 

to suggest new metrics that will 

accommodate innovative services in 

mid-band spectrum. The Commission 

also seeks comment on how relatively 

lower power point-to-point operations 

at or below a transmit power of + 43 

dBm should be required to meet the 

buildout rules for 3.7–4.2 GHz licensees. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44149 

17 In most license areas, the residential 

population is unevenly distributed. In those areas, 

building a network covering 65% of the geographic 

area would require more intensive deployment than 

one covering 65% of the population, suggesting that 

a lower percent coverage requirement for 

geographic area could be appropriate. 

128. The Commission seeks 

additional comment on what metric it 

should adopt to accommodate IoT 

services, while recognizing the 

difficulty of crafting an IoT-specific 

metric, especially while the relevant 

technologies and use cases are still 

being developed. For example, a 

performance metric based on geographic 

area coverage (or presence) could allow 

for networks that provide meaningful 

service but deploy along lines other 

than residential population. Consistent 

with the Commission’s approach above 

seeking comment on a first and second 

performance benchmark, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

following metrics as an option for MBXspectrum licensees to fulfill their 

buildout requirements: geographic area 

coverage of 35 percent of the license 

area at the first (six-year) performance 

benchmark, and geographic area 

coverage of 65 percent of the license 

area at the second (12-year) performance 

benchmark. The Commission also seeks 

comment on an alternative requirement 

of presence in 35 percent of subset units 

of the license area, such as census tracts, 

counties, or some other area at the first 

performance benchmark, and presence 

in 65 percent of subset units at the 

second benchmark. A standard 

requiring presence in subset units of a 

license area could accommodate 

deployments, such as sensor networks, 

that are not designed to provide mobile 

or point-to-multipoint area coverage, 

and for whom calculating ‘‘coverage of 

65 percent of the area’’ would therefore 

not be a meaningful standard. Licensees 

would demonstrate compliance with 

this metric through a showing of the 

equipment or deployments that are part 

of a network that is actually providing 

service, either to external customers or 

for internal uses. 

129. The Commission suggests these 

levels of geographic coverage as an 

attempt to maintain parity between the 

requirements in these metrics and the 

requirements of its earlier proposal 

based on population coverage.17 The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

coverage levels, including any 

suggestions of alternative levels of 

coverage that might be more 

appropriate. The Commission also 

emphasizes that any metric it adopts to 

accommodate IoT services would, like 

the population coverage and fixed link 

metrics ultimately adopted, be available 

to any MBX-spectrum licensee. While 

the Commission suggests an additional 

metric in order to facilitate the 

deployment of IoT and other innovative 

services, there would be no requirement 

that a licensee build a particular type of 

network or provide a particular type of 

service in order to use whatever metric 

the Commission ultimately adopts. 

Above, the Commission discusses 

various mechanisms for expanding 

flexible use in all or part of the band. 

The Commission asks proponents of the 

various approaches described above 

whether there are issues specific to this 

section and their preferred approach. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

stakeholders to fully develop a record 

on this issue. 

130. Penalty for Failure to Meet 

Performance Requirements.—Along 

with performance benchmarks, the 

Commission seeks to adopt meaningful 

and enforceable penalties for failing to 

meet the benchmarks. The Commission 

seeks comment on which penalties will 

most effectively ensure timely build-out. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

that, in the event a 3.7–4.2 GHz MHz 

licensee fails to meet the first 

performance benchmark, the licensee’s 

second benchmark and license term 

would be reduced by two years, thereby 

requiring it to meet the second 

performance benchmark two years 

sooner (at 10 years into the license term) 

and reducing its license term to 13 

years. The Commission further proposes 

that, in the event a 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee 

fails to meet the second performance 

benchmark for a particular license area, 

its authorization for each license area in 

which it fails to meet the performance 

requirement shall terminate 

automatically without Commission 

action. 

131. The Commission proposes that, 

in the event a licensee’s authority to 

operate terminates, the licensee’s 

spectrum rights would become available 

for reassignment pursuant to the 

competitive bidding provisions of 

§ 309(j). Further, consistent with the 

Commission’s rules for other licenses, 

including AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4 and 

H Block, the Commission proposes that 

any 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits 

its license for failure to meet its 

performance requirements would be 

precluded from regaining the license. 

132. Compliance Procedures.—In 

addition to compliance procedures 

applicable to all Part 27 licensees, 

including the filing of electronic 

coverage maps and supporting 

documentation, the Commission 

proposes that such electronic coverage 

maps must accurately depict the 

boundaries of each license area in the 

licensee’s service territory. If a licensee 

does not provide reliable signal 

coverage to an entire license area, the 

Commission proposes that its map must 

accurately depict the boundaries of the 

area or areas within each license area 

not being served. Further, the 

Commission proposes that each licensee 

also must file supporting documentation 

certifying the type of service it is 

providing for each licensed area within 

its service territory and the type of 

technology used to provide such 

service. Supporting documentation 

must include the assumptions used to 

create the coverage maps, including the 

propagation model and the signal 

strength necessary to provide reliable 

service with the licensee’s technology. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

Commission’s proposal. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether small entities face any special 

or unique issues with respect to the 

transition such that they would require 

additional time to comply. 

133. Renewal Term Construction 

Obligation.—In addition to, and 

independent of, the general renewal 

requirements contained in § 1.949 of the 

Commission’s rules, which apply to all 

Wireless Radio Services (WRS) 

licensees, the Commission also seeks 

comment on application of specific 

renewal term construction obligations to 

3.7–4.2 GHz licensees. 

134. The WRS Renewal Reform 

FNPRM proposed to apply rules 

adopted in that proceeding to all 

flexible geographic licenses. Given the 

Commission’s proposal to license this 

band on a geographic basis for flexible 

use, any additional renewal term 

construction obligations proposed in the 

WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also 

would apply to licenses in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are unique 

characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

that might require a different approach 

than the various proposals raised by the 

WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM. For 

example, while the vast majority of 

existing wireless radio services have 10- 

year license terms, here the Commission 

seeks comment on a 15-year license 

term for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. Do any 

of the Commission’s proposals for this 

band, such as potentially longer license 

terms, necessitate a more tailored 

approach than the rules of general 

applicability proposed in the WRS 

Renewal Reform FNPRM? For instance, 

should the Commission requires 

buildout to 85 percent of the population 

by the end of second license term? 

Commenters advocating rules specific to 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band should address 

the costs and benefits of their proposed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44150 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

rules and discuss how a given proposal 

will encourage investment and 

deployment in areas that might not 

otherwise benefit from significant 

wireless coverage. Above, the 

Commission discusses various 

mechanisms for expanding flexible use 

in all or part of the band. The 

Commission asks proponents of the 

various approaches described above 

whether there are issues specific to this 

section and their preferred approach. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether to require an applicant 

deploying IoT applications in the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band to exceed its original 

construction metric by an additional 

five percent in its next full renewal 

term. 

135. Competitive Bidding 

Procedures.— The Commission seeks 

comment above on the types of licenses 

for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that would 

best serve the public interest. In the 

event that the Commission accepts 

mutually exclusive applications for 

licenses in the band, the Commission 

will grant the licenses through a system 

of competitive bidding, consistent with 

the Commission’s statutory mandate. 

Accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on a number of proposals 

relating to competitive bidding for 

licenses for spectrum in this band, 

including the costs and benefits of those 

proposals. 

136. Consistent with the competitive 

bidding procedures the Commission has 

used in previous auctions, the 

Commission proposes that the 

Commission would conduct any auction 

for licenses for spectrum in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band in conformity with the 

general competitive bidding rules set 

forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the 

Commission’s rules. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to employ the 

part 1 rules governing competitive 

bidding design, designated entity 

preferences, unjust enrichment, 

application and certification 

procedures, payment procedures, 

reporting requirements, and the 

prohibition on certain communications 

between auction applicants. Under this 

proposal, such rules would be subject to 

any modifications that the Commission 

may adopt for its part 1 general 

competitive bidding rules in the future. 

In this NPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on general application of the 

part 1 competitive bidding rules to any 

auction of 3.7–4.2 GHz licenses. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether any of the Commission’s part 1 

rules would be inappropriate or should 

be modified for an auction of licenses in 

this frequency band. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

following proposals for bidding credits 

for designated entities in this band. As 

with other flexible use licenses in recent 

years, the Commission proposes in this 

band to adopt bidding credits for the 

two larger designated entity business 

sizes provided in the part 1 rules. The 

Commission also proposes to offer rural 

service providers a designated entity 

bidding credit for licenses in this band. 

Commenters addressing these proposals 

should consider what details of licenses 

in the band may affect whether 

designated entities will apply for them. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

new or revised rules that would be 

necessary to implement an incentive 

auction if the Commission adopted that 

approach. Would a tailored version of 

the rules adopted for the reverse auction 

portion of the broadcast incentive 

auction be appropriate? 

c. Technical Rules 

137. Power Limits for Fixed and Base 

Stations.—The current rules for AWS–1, 

AWS–3 and AWS–4 limit base station 

power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts 

EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 

one megahertz and to 1640 watts per 

MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths 

greater than one megahertz and they 

double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 

3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. The 

same limits apply to broadband PCS 

stations. There are a few services that 

have a power limit of 2000 Watts per 

MHz, most notably, the recent 600 MHz 

band. In the Commission’s experience 

the AWS limits have provided good 

service while avoiding harmful 

interference. Further, the higher power 

limit for rural areas may promote the 

Commission’s goals of furthering rural 

deployment of broadband services. 

Therefore, the Commission proposes to 

extend § 27.50(d)(1)–(2) to apply to both 

fixed and base stations in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz MBX-spectrum. Thus, the power 

limits are proposed to be 1640 watts 

EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 

one megahertz and to 1640 watts per 

MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths 

greater than one megahertz. For 

operation in rural areas, defined as any 

county with population density of 100 

or fewer persons per square mile, based 

upon the most recently available 

population statistics from the Bureau of 

the Census, the power limits are 

proposed to be 3280 watts EIRP for 

emission bandwidths less than one 

megahertz and to 3280 watts per MHz 

EIRP for emission bandwidths greater 

than one megahertz. These power limits 

apply to the sum of the power of all 

antenna elements of the fixed or base 

station. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. Are the 

power levels the Commission proposes 

sufficient to provide robust mobile 

broadband service as well as being 

practical and realistic in this particular 

spectrum? Alternatively, would the 

proposed power levels need to be 

reduced to avoid the blocking of 

receivers operating in the adjacent 

Citizen’s Broadband Radio Service at 

3.5–3.7 GHz? The Commission invites 

commenters who propose alternative 

solutions to provide specific technical 

details and thorough analysis to support 

their proposals. 

138. It is anticipated that this new 

band may be able to accommodate much 

wider channel bandwidths than in the 

past. Current plans for 5G deployments 

are capable of channel bandwidths of as 

much as 100 MHz at frequencies below 

6 GHz. There is some concern regarding 

the total power of a wide bandwidth 

channel when the power limit is 

specified as a power density level. 

Should the Commission propose a limit 

on the total power of a base station in 

order to relieve potential blocking? One 

possible solution is that the total power 

of a base station should be limited to 75 

dBm EIRP, summed over all antenna 

elements, for fixed and base stations. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

139. The Commission notes that the 

power limit for most AWS services is 

specified based on an RMS-equivalent 

or average power measurement. This 

power measurement methodology is 

preferred for advanced digital 

modulation schemes that could create 

very short duration power spikes, while 

the overall power remains low. There 

are a few services whose power limit is 

specified based on a peak power 

measurement. The Commission 

proposes that the power limit be based 

on the average power measurement and 

seek comment on this proposal. 

140. Power Limits for Mobiles and 

Portables.—The Commission proposes 

to limit the power of mobiles and 

portables in the 3.7–4.2 GHz MBX 

spectrum to 1 Watt (30 dBm). While 

power limits for flexible use mobile 

services vary in the Commission’s rules 

(e.g., 50 milliwatts per MHz EIRP for 

WCS, 2 Watts EIRP for PCS, 3 Watts ERP 

in the 600 MHz band, 1 Watt EIRP for 

the AWS–1 and AWS–3 uplink bands, 

and 2 Watts EIRP for the AWS–4 uplink 

band); most device operate at levels 

under 1 Watt to preserve battery life, 

meet exposure limits and meet power 

control requirements. The limit the 

Commission proposes falls within a 

range of values typically seen in AWS 

services, and should provide adequate 

power for the 5G mobile applications 

envisioned for the MBX spectrum 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44151 

considering the similarity in 

propagation characteristics for the MBXspectrum band and AWS bands. Indeed, 

most commercial services, including 

LTE, CDMA and UMTS, commonly 

deploy mobile devices which operate at 

a maximum output power of 23 dBm 

(200 milliwatts), regardless of higher 

FCC power limits. However, there are a 

few new power class II LTE devices 

being developed with slightly higher 

output power of 26 dBm. Similar 

devices are expected for the new 5G 

standard as well. This development 

warrants continued flexibility in the 

rules to allow for a wider range of 

devices types. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. The 

Commission further proposes that 

mobile and portable stations operating 

in these bands must employ a means for 

limiting power to the minimum 

necessary for successful 

communications. 

141. Out of Band Emissions Limits.— 

The limits the Commission sets on out 

of band emissions are important to 

protecting services in adjacent bands. 

This band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz 

Citizens Broadband Radio Service and 

will also be adjacent to any service that 

remains in a portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

FSS band after the Commission adopts 

and completes a transition plan. The 

Commission proposes that out of band 

emissions be kept to a level that will 

provide protection to incumbent 

services in adjacent bands, while 

allowing the full use of the new band. 

The Commission proposes to apply the 

longstanding limit on out of band 

emissions of ¥13 dBm/MHz at the 

authorized channel edge as measured at 

the antenna terminals. This out of band 

emission level has been used 

successfully to protect adjacent 

operations from harmful interference in 

several AWS bands. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal and 

whether to apply more stringent out of 

band emission limits beyond the band 

edge, as described below. 

142. The out of band emission limits 

that the Commission adopts for the 

MBX spectrum will depend on the 

characteristics of the services likely to 

be deployed in the MBX spectrum and 

the coexistence needs of services in the 

adjacent bands. Notably, to ensure 

effective coexistence with adjacent band 

services, it may be necessary to adopt 

more stringent out of band emission 

limits beyond the edges of the band. For 

example, in the Citizens Broadband 

Radio Service, the Commission limits 

out of band emission to ¥25 dBm/MHz 

at or beyond 10 megahertz outside of the 

band edge and ¥40 dBm/MHz at or 

beyond 20 megahertz outside of the 

band edge. The Commission seeks 

comment on the out of band emission 

limits that will be needed to facilitate 

widespread deployment of next 

generation wireless services in the MBX 

spectrum while ensuring effective 

coexistence with the services operating 

in the adjacent bands. Commenters 

should analyze the costs and benefits of 

different options and provide detailed 

technical analysis in support of their 

proposals. 

143. To fully define an emissions 

limit, the Commission’s rules generally 

specify details on how to measure the 

power of the emissions, such as the 

resolution bandwidth. For most AWS 

bands, the resolution bandwidth used to 

determine compliance with this limit 

for base stations is one megahertz or 

greater, except that within one 

megahertz of the channel edge where a 

resolution bandwidth of at least one 

percent of the emission bandwidth of 

the fundamental emission of the 

transmitter may be employed. Rather 

than allow use of a bandwidth 

dependent resolution bandwidth near 

the channel edge, the Upper Microwave 

Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules 

under Part 30 instead specify use of a 

one megahertz resolution bandwidth but 

allow an out of band emission limit of 

¥5 dBm per megahertz from the 

channel edge out to 10 percent of the 

channel. Considering that the MBX 

spectrum, like UMFUS, will likely 

employ much larger signal bandwidths 

than AWS, should the MBX spectrum 

rules adopt the AWS approach to 

defining the resolution bandwidth or 

follow the UMFUS approach? 

144. Finally, should the same out of 

band emission limits apply to both base 

stations and mobile handsets? While the 

Commission finds that mobile handsets 

can meet the out of band emission limit 

the Commission has proposed, they also 

operate at lower power levels and their 

size could restrict the implementation of 

more stringent emission limits that 

would require nonstandard filtering. 

However, base station equipment may 

have more flexibility to implement more 

stringent filters if necessary to protect 

adjacent services. The Commission 

seeks comment on all aspects of the 

emission limits for mobile and portable 

devices as part of the discussion above. 

145. Coexistence with FSS Operations 

Above the MBX Spectrum.—The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

additional technical protection criteria, 

beyond out of band emission limits, are 

necessary to ensure effective 

coexistence with adjacent band FSS 

operations. As discussed above, several 

of the transition mechanisms under 

consideration could make available a 

portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

available for flexible use, while allowing 

continued widespread FSS operations 

in adjacent portions of the band. For 

example, under the proposal submitted 

by Intelsat and SES, the 3700–3800 MHz 

portion of the band would be initially 

cleared for flexible use along with an 

additional 40 to 60 megahertz of guard 

band adjacent to and above it. As part 

of the clearing process, Intelsat and SES 

have proposed to install a filter or 

replace the Low Noise Block converter 

(LNB) in every earth station so as to 

prevent 5G transmission in the 3700– 

3800 MHz from saturating the LNB of 

the earth stations. Intelsat and SES state 

that they are working with 

manufacturers to define the desired 

filter characteristics such as the 

rejection, roll-off, and insertion loss, but 

have not provided any specific 

numbers. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such additional 

requirements are necessary to ensure 

coexistence with adjacent band 

operations. 

146. In general, the width of the guard 

band and roll-off of the filter determine 

the amount of out-of-band rejection 

provided to a receiver. The Commission 

seeks comment on the earth station 

receiver protection criteria, necessary 

rejection performance from the external 

filter, and amount of spectrum it 

requires for the filter roll off. Should the 

protection limit of the FSS earth stations 

be based solely on interference-to-noise 

ratio (I/N) regardless of the actual FSS 

carrier power and/or earth station 

configuration? Should the Commission 

establish a baseline FSS earth station 

configuration (antenna, LNB, receiver) 

for any interference and protection 

assumptions? Given the signal strength 

differential between the terrestrial and 

satellite systems, can terrestrial wireless 

base or mobile stations cause saturation 

of the LNB of FSS earth stations? Could 

an external filter be tunable across 

3700–4200 MHz band? Will there be a 

minimum distance separation required 

between MBX transmitters and earth 

station receivers? What are the tradeoffs 

among filter performance, required 

guard band, level of protection, and cost 

of such filter? The Commission requests 

commenters to provide details of 

assumptions and analysis including 

MBX transmit power level, earth station 

protection limit, propagation model, 

antenna aperture and off-axis isolation. 

147. Alternatively, should the 

Commission define the MBX transmit 

power limit, out of band emission 

limits, and guard band and allow the 

satellite service providers to determine 

how to protect the earth station 

receivers? The Commission typically 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44152 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

18The carrier power is the power received by the 

earth station from the satellite. 

19The Commission has adopted specific rules to 

protect TT&C earth stations that operate in in and 

adjacent to the 3.55–3.7 GHz band. These rules 

require that the aggregate passband RF power 

spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter 

and antenna at the location of a TT&C FSS earth 

station produced by all Citizens Broadband Service 

Devices within 40km of the earth station shall not 

exceed a median RMS value of ¥129 dBm/MHz. 

See 47 CFR 96.17. 

does not specify receiver performance, 

and there are many variables that 

contribute to the receiver blocking 

performance from strong transmit 

signals in an adjacent band, including 

external filter, low-noise amplifier 

(LNA), mixer and other RF components, 

and digital signal processing in the 

baseband. Given the current design and 

operation of the earth stations, each 

earth station receiver may be impacted 

differently for a given MBX transmit 

power. Therefore, it may be more 

practical for satellite service providers 

to determine how to protect the earth 

station receivers given the allowed 

transmit power level and out of band 

emission limits. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

148. The guard band used for receiver 

filter rejection can also be used to 

enhance the out of band emission 

performance of MBX transmitters. The 

Commission seeks comment on the out 

of band emission limit necessary at the 

upper end of guard band in order to 

ensure coexistence with earth station 

receivers. Does this out of band 

emission limit allow ubiquitous 

operation of base stations and mobile 

stations or does it require a minimum 

distance separation from earth station 

receivers? The Commission requests 

commenters to include proposed out of 

band emission at the upper end of guard 

band, propagation model, antenna gains 

and off-axis isolation between MBX 

transmitters and earth station receivers 

in their analysis. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether this guard 

band could be used for other purposes 

such as coordinated fixed point-tomultipoint operations, a low power 

wireless broadband system, indoor-only 

system, or unlicensed use. 

149. Coexistence with FSS Operations 

in the MBX Spectrum. There may be 

some FSS earth stations operating cochannel with MBX, depending on the 

mechanisms of expanding flexible use 

as described above. The Commission 

seeks comment on the coexistence 

challenges between terrestrial mobile 

services and the FSS earth stations that 

may remain in the cleared spectrum and 

on any specific rules that should be 

adopted to ensure effective coexistence 

between these services. In other bands, 

the Commission has adopted exclusion 

or coordination zones to protect cochannel FSS earth stations from harmful 

interference. Would exclusion zones or 

coordination zones be appropriate to 

protect any existing FSS earth stations 

in the MBX spectrum? If so, how should 

the size of the exclusion zone or 

coordination zone be determined? 

Should the Commission instead specify 

interference protection limits that the 

terrestrial systems must meet to protect 

the earth stations? Such protection 

limits could take the form, for example, 

of an interference-to-noise ratio (I/N), 

carrier to interference-plus-noise ratio 

(C/I+N),18 or a power density at the FSS 

receiver. If so, how would such a 

protection limit be modeled and 

enforced? In applying a protection limit, 

exclusion zone, or coordination zone, 

how should the aggregate interference 

from multiple base stations and 

associated mobile devices from the 

different MBX licensees be taken into 

account? Should the Commission 

require that earth stations remaining in 

the band be moved to less populated 

areas or can RF shielding of earth 

stations be employed to reduce the size 

of exclusion or coordination zones? 

150. Coexistence with FSS Operation 

Below 3700 MHz.—There are 120 FSS 

earth stations that are authorized in the 

3600–3700 MHz band. Yet, unlike FSS 

earth stations operating above 3800 

MHz, Intelsat and SES have not 

proposed any particular means of 

protecting these earth stations against 

interference. Given that there will be no 

guard band to help prevent interference 

in this band, should operators of these 

stations be included in any transition 

mechanisms, including possible 

relocation to transponders above the 

MBX spectrum? How should these earth 

stations be treated during any transition 

process that is adopted for the MBX 

spectrum? If an earth station continues 

to receive signals below 3700 MHz, 

could the receiver be modified to 

protect the LNB from the MBX 

transmitters (e.g., by adding a filter)? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

alternative means for mitigating 

interference to protect any continued 

FSS downlink operation below 3700 

MHz. 

151. The Commission seeks comment 

and quantitative analysis to demonstrate 

if the proposed MBX spectrum power 

and emission limits are sufficient, 

without additional mitigation methods, 

to protect any FSS earth station 

operation below 3700 MHz. The 

Commission expects that a minimum 

propagation loss plus additional 

attenuation would be required to protect 

FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz, 

depending on the separation distance 

between FSS and MBX-spectrum 

transmitters, the RF propagation 

environment, and FSS antenna (gain) 

orientation. Would exclusion zones or 

coordination zones be required around 

the earth stations? 

152. The Commission seeks comment 

on the achievable RF shielding around 

the FSS earth stations and the cost 

thereof. Would using RF shielding be 

sufficient to protect FSS earth stations 

below 3700 MHz? In addition, or 

alternatively, would it be possible for 

the MBX spectrum licensees to engineer 

around the FSS antenna sites, such that 

the predicted propagation loss and 

additional attenuation of base/mobile 

emissions (fundamental power and out 

of band emission) would be sufficient to 

ensure that co-channel/out of band 

emission and blocking FSS thresholds 

were not exceeded? 

153. Coexistence with Telemetry, 

Tracking, and Command.—FSS Earth 

stations that are used for telemetry, 

tracking and command of satellites have 

assignments near 3700 MHz, 3950 MHz, 

and 4200 MHz. These telemetry, 

tracking and command licenses may list 

widely varying bandwidths in IBFS. 

Most assignments are no more than 1– 

2 megahertz wide; however, others are 

less specific, and are recorded across the 

entire passband of the earth station 

receiver (i.e., 3625–4200 MHz). Since 

there are a limited number of telemetry, 

tracking and command earth stations, 

should the Commission consider 

protection on a case-by-case basis 

through coordination between MBXspectrum licensees and FSS earth 

station operators? What are the 

appropriate coexistence criteria for 

telemetry, tracking and command 

receivers 19 and do they differ from 

other earth station receivers? What 

interference mitigation techniques could 

be used to protect telemetry, tracking 

and command earth stations? For 

example, could RF shielding effectively 

reduce the interference to the telemetry, 

tracking and command earth stations? 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether telemetry, tracking and 

command earth stations located in or 

near densely populated areas could be 

relocated to more remote locations and, 

if so, how much such relocations would 

cost. Because telemetry, tracking and 

command transmissions are a function 

of satellite design and cannot be 

changed following launch, the 

Commission recognizes that earth 

stations receiving telemetry, tracking 

and command transmissions in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44153 

20 In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the 

Commission has adopted out-of-channel emission 

limits of ¥13 dBm/MHz starting at the channel 

edges and ¥25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz of 

the channel edges. Additionally, the Commission 

adopted an out of band emission limit of ¥40 dBm/ 

MHz beyond 20 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz band 

edges. 47 CFR 96.41(e). The Commission is 

currently considering proposals to change the 

emission limits based on claims that more relaxed 

limits are necessary to facilitate wider channels in 

the 3.5 GHz band. See Promoting Investment in the 

3550–3700 MHz Band, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 32 

FCC Rcd 8071, 8089–8092 paragraph. 50 through 58 

(2017). 

MBX spectrum will require protection 

for the lifetime of the satellite. The 

Commission seeks comment on if 

protection of these operations would 

require a different approach depending 

on whether telemetry, tracking and 

command earth stations are within or 

outside of the MBX spectrum. 

154. Coexistence with Citizens 

Broadband Radio Service Operations in 

the 3550–3700 MHz Band.—The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

compatibility between Citizens 

Broadband Radio Service and MBX 

systems, including the suitability of the 

out of band emission limit proposed 

above.20 One concern about deploying a 

robust mobile broadband service 

adjacent to the Citizens Broadband 

Radio Service arises from the relatively 

higher power limits proposed above. 

One possibility for preventing 

interference between the services would 

be to impose adjacent channel power 

limits that could limit the differential 

between power levels for adjacent 

stations operating in the same area. 

Such a limit would be specified as a 

ratio between the total power in the 

channels immediately adjacent to an 

MBX-spectrum station to the total 

power in the MBX-spectrum station’s 

emission bandwidth. Should the 

Commission specify such a ratio for 

MBX-spectrum devices, and if so, what 

limit would be appropriate? 

155. Field Strength Limit and Market 

Boundaries.—If the Commission 

ultimately decide to license the MBX 

spectrum based on geographic service 

areas that are less than nationwide, the 

Commission will have to ensure that 

such licensees do not cause interference 

to co-channel systems operating along 

common geographic borders. The 

current rules for AWS–1, AWS–3 and 

AWS–4 address the possibility of 

harmful co-channel interference 

between geographically adjacent 

licenses by setting a field strength limit 

from base stations of 47 dBmV/m at the 

edge of the license area. In the 600 MHz 

band, the Commission adopted a field 

strength limit of 40 dBmV/m. In the 

UMFUS rules, the Commission adopted 

a limit of ¥76 dBm/m2/MHz at a height 

of 1.5 meters above ground at the border 

of a licensee’s service area. 

156. The 47 dBmV/m limit that has 

been used in the AWS rules was 

developed at a time when signal 

bandwidths were much smaller than are 

likely to be used in the MBX spectrum. 

Furthermore, the 47 dBmV/m limit did 

not have an associated bandwidth. In 

the H Block proceeding, Sprint 

requested that the Commission modify 

the boundary limit to set a reference 

measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, with 

the aim of limiting boundary power 

density to the equivalent of that first 

applied to PCS systems in 1993. At that 

time, operators were deploying mostly 

Digital AMPS, PCS1900 and CDMA 

technologies, which had channel 

bandwidths of 30 kHz, 200 kHz and 1.25 

MHz, respectively. Sprint claims that 

because today’s LTE transmissions 

operate on much wider bandwidths up 

to 20 MHz, a 47 dBmV/m limit measured 

over the full channel bandwidth will 

effectively result in a comparatively 

lower power level. Sprint proposed to 

adjust the field strength limit from 47 

dBmV/m to 62 dBmV/m per MHz. 

Verizon has made a similar claim in the 

Incentive Auctions proceeding, 

proposing a field strength limit of 50 

dBmV/m per MHz. 

157. The Commission agrees with 

Sprint and Verizon that the market 

boundary limit should be related to the 

signal bandwidth. The Commission 

proposes to adopt the same ¥76 dBm/ 

m2/MHz power flux density limit at the 

service area boundaries as is used for 

the UMFUS rules. This UMFUS limit 

was calculated based on an interference 

criterion of 0 dB I/N and made 

assumptions about a typical antenna 

gain. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether the interference criterion 

and technical assumptions are 

appropriate 

158. Finally, the Commission 

proposes that adjacent affected area 

licensees may voluntarily agree upon 

higher field strength boundary levels. 

This concept is already codified in the 

field strength rules for both PCS and 

AWS services, as Sprint acknowledges. 

Accordingly, to maintain consistency 

with the PCS and other AWS bands, the 

Commission proposes to permit 

adjacent area licensees to agree to a 

higher field strength limit 

159. Antenna Height Limits.—The 

Commission proposes, as discussed 

below, that the flexible antenna height 

rules that apply to AWS–1 and AWS– 

3 should generally also apply to MBX 

spectrum. Specific antenna height 

restrictions for AWS–1 and AWS–3 base 

stations are not set forth in part 27 of the 

Commission rules. However, all part 27 

services are subject to § 27.56, which 

bans antenna heights that would be a 

hazard to air navigation. Furthermore, 

the limitations of field strength at the 

geographical boundary of the license 

discussed above also effectively limit 

antenna heights. The Commission 

similarly proposes that no unique 

antenna height limits are needed for 

MBX-spectrum facilities; rather, the 

Commission believes that the general 

height restrictions are sufficient. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal, including the costs and 

benefits of the proposal and any 

alternatives. The Commission does not 

propose a height limit for fixed stations 

in the MBX spectrum. Although fixed 

stations were limited to 10 meters above 

ground in the AWS–1 band and were 

prohibited in the AWS–3 band. There 

are no antenna height limits for fixed 

stations in the AWS–4 band, since, 

unlike the former, it is not directly 

adjacent to certain Federal incumbents. 

Using this same reasoning, the 

Commission proposes no antenna height 

limits for fixed operation in the MBX 

spectrum. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and request 

technical support for any alternative 

proposals. 

160. Canadian and Mexican 

Coordination.—Section 27.57(c) of the 

Commission’s rules provide that several 

AWS services, including WCS, AWS–1, 

AWS–3, AWS–4 and the H Block, are 

subject to international agreements with 

Mexico and Canada. The Commission 

proposes to apply the same limitation to 

the new MBX spectrum. Until such time 

as any adjusted agreements between the 

United States, Mexico, and/or Canada 

can be agreed to, operations must not 

cause harmful interference across the 

border, consistent with the terms of the 

agreements currently in force. The 

Commission notes that further 

modification (of the proposed or final 

rules) might be necessary in order to 

comply with any future agreements with 

Canada and Mexico regarding the use of 

these bands. The Commission seeks 

comment on this issue, including the 

costs and benefits of alternative 

approaches to this issue. 

161. General Part 27 Rules—There are 

several additional technical rules 

applicable to all Part 27 services, 

including §§ 27.51 Equipment 

authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 

Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas 

structures; air navigation safety, and 

27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast 

station antenna patterns. As operations 

in the MBX spectrum will be a Part 27 

service, the Commission proposes that 

all of these general Part 27 rules should 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44154 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees, 

including licensees who acquire their 

licenses through partitioning or 

disaggregation (to the extent the rules 

permit such aggregation). The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach, including its costs and 

benefits. 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

162. 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 this 

NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth 

in Appendix B of the NPRM. Written 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 

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. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

163. The NPRM seeks comment and 

makes proposals on a range of potential 

opportunities for more intensive fixed 

or flexible uses—particularly for 

wireless broadband services—in 500 

megahertz of mid-band spectrum 

between 3.7–4.2 GHz (the band). In 

doing so, the NPRM proposes to add a 

mobile, except aeronautical mobile, 

allocation to the band and seeks 

comment on transitioning all or part of 

the band to terrestrial wireless 

broadband services. The actions are 

another step in the Commissions efforts 

to close the digital divide by providing 

wireless broadband connectivity across 

the nation and to secure U.S. leadership 

in the next generation of wireless 

services, including fifth-generation (5G) 

wireless, Internet of Things (IoT), and 

other advanced spectrum-based 

services. 

164. In this proceeding, the 

Commission is pursuing the joint goals 

of making spectrum available for new 

wireless uses while effectively 

accommodating incumbent Fixed 

Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed 

Service (FS) operations in the band. The 

NPRM seeks comment on various 

proposals for transitioning all or part of 

the band for flexible use. The NPRM 

also proposes and seeks comment on 

revisions to Parts 25 and 101 of the 

Commission’s rules to promote more 

intensive fixed use of the band. 

Additionally, as part of the 

Commission’s proposal to add a mobile, 

except aeronautical mobile, allocation, 

and to develop rules that would enable 

the band to be transitioned for more 

intensive fixed and flexible uses, the 

Commission encourages commenters to 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits associated with any proposed 

approach along with other helpful 

technical or procedural details. 

165. The 3.7–4.2 GHz band is 

currently allocated in the United States 

exclusively for non-federal use on a 

primary basis for the FSS (space-toEarth) and the FS. For FSS, the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band (space-to-Earth or downlink) 

is paired with the 5.925–6.425 GHz 

band (Earth-to-space or uplink), and 

collectively these bands are known as 

the ‘‘conventional C-band.’’ 

Domestically, satellite operators use this 

band to provide downlink signals of 

various bandwidths to licensed transmit 

receive, registered receive-only, and 

unregistered receive-only earth stations 

throughout the United States. 

Geostationary orbit (GSO) FSS satellites 

operating in the C-band typically have 

24 transponders, each with a bandwidth 

of 36 megahertz received by one or more 

earth stations. Predominant GSO FSS 

uses include delivery of programming 

content to television and radio 

broadcasters, including transportable 

antennas used to cover live news and 

sports events, cable television and small 

master antenna systems, as well as the 

backhaul of telephone and data traffic. 

The band is also used for reception of 

telemetry signals transmitted by 

satellites, typically near 3.7 or 4.2 GHz. 

166. Mid-band spectrum, in 

conjunction with lower and higher 

bands, is well suited for next generation 

wireless broadband services due to the 

combination of favorable propagation 

characteristics (as comparted to bands 

above 24 GHz) and the opportunity for 

additional channel re-use (as compared 

to bands below 3.7 GHz). With the everincreasing demand for more data on 

mobile networks, wireless network 

operators have increasingly focused on 

providing more data capacity rather 

than providing coverage over large areas 

from individual base stations. One 

technique for providing increased 

capacity is to use smaller cell sizes—i.e., 

have each base station provide coverage 

over a smaller area. Using higher 

frequencies can be advantageous for 

deploying a higher density of base 

stations. The decreased propagation 

distances at higher frequencies reduces 

the interference between base stations 

using the same frequency, thereby 

allowing base stations to be more 

densely packed and increasing the 

overall system capacity. Therefore, midband spectrum presents wireless 

providers with the opportunity to 

deploy base stations using smaller cells 

to get higher spectrum reuse than the 

lower frequency bands while still 

providing indoor coverage. Relative to 

higher bands, mid-band spectrum also 

offers favorable propagation 

characteristics for fixed wireless 

broadband services in less densely 

populated areas. 

167. In the NPRM the Commission 

proposes to add a non-federal mobile, 

except aeronautical mobile, service 

allocation to the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, and 

based on the Commission’s conclusion 

that co-channel sharing is not feasible, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

several proposals to clear all or part of 

the band for flexible use. Because the 

NPRM seeks comment on several 

alternate approaches for making 

portions of the band available for 

flexible use, the appropriate operational 

and technical restrictions on terrestrial 

and FSS use of the band will depend on 

the selected mechanism for expanding 

flexible use in the band. Specifically, 

the NPRM seeks comment on three 

potential mechanisms for expanding 

flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band: (1) 

A market-based mechanism, (2) auctions 

mechanisms, and (3) alternative 

mechanisms. In pursuing the 

Commission’s goal of creating 

additional opportunities for wireless 

broadband in mid-band spectrum, under 

each approach, the Commission seeks to 

balance incumbent interests, speed to 

market, and efficiency of use. 

B. Legal Basis 

168. The proposed action is taken 

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, 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. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

169. 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 rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44155 

21On April 19, 2018, the staff froze applications 

for new or modified fixed microwave stations and 

earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to preserve 

the current landscape of authorized operations 

pending action as part of the Commission’s ongoing 

inquiry into the possibility of permitting mobile 

broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the 

band through this proceeding. To provide the 

Commission and commenters with more accurate 

information about existing earth stations, however, 

the International Bureau, as a limited exception to 

the freeze, concurrently opened a 90-day window 

during which entities that own or operate existing 

FSS earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band could 

file an application to register or license the earth 

station, or file an application to modify an existing 

registration or license. On June 21, 2018, the 

International Bureau extended this filing-window 

for an additional 90 days until October 17, 2018, 

and also imposed a freeze on new space stations in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A small business 

concern is one that: (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. 

170. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s action 

may, over time, 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. 

171. 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). 

172. 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 we 

estimate that at least 49,316 local 

government jurisdictions fall in the 

category of ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ 

173. 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 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 1000 

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. 

174. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The category has a small 

business size standard of $32.5 million 

or less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of satellite telecommunications 

providers are small entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

175. The potential rule changes 

proposed in this NPRM, if adopted, 

could impose some new reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements on some small entities. In 

addition to the proposed rule changes 

associated with the proposed 

mechanisms for expanding flexible use 

in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, there could be 

new service rule compliance 

obligations. For new licensed flexible 

uses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the NPRM 

seeks comment on various service rules 

that should apply, including 

construction benchmarks and technical 

operating requirements. In the event the 

Commission adopts the proposed 

service rules and issues licenses for 

flexible use in the band, any small 

entity licensee would be required to 

satisfy construction requirements, and 

comply with limits on power, out of 

band emissions, field strength, antenna 

height, and other existing coordination 

requirements. Licensees would be 

responsible for making certain 

construction demonstrations with the 

Commission through the Universal 

Licensing System showing that they 

have satisfied the relevant construction 

benchmarks. 

176. The projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements proposed in the NPRM 

will apply to all entities in the same 

manner. The Commission believes that 

applying the same rules equally to all 

entities in this context promotes 

fairness. The revisions the Commission 

may ultimately adopt however, should 

benefit small entities by giving them 

more information about opportunities in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, more flexibility 

to provide a wider range of services, and 

more options for gaining access to 

wireless spectrum. 

177. Application/Petition Freeze & 

Part 25 and 101 Modifications. 

Applications for new or modified earth 

stations, applications for new or 

modified fixed microwave stations, and 

applications for new space stations 

operating in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band were 

previously frozen by the International, 

Wireless Telecommunications, and 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureaus.21 The Bureaus took these 

actions to preserve the current 

landscape of authorized operations 

while the Commission proceeded with 

an ongoing inquiry into the possibility 

of permitting mobile broadband use and 

more intensive fixed use of the band in 

this proceeding. To reexamine the 

existing full-band, full-arc coordination 

policy, the NPRM proposes to revise the 

Commission’s rules to bar new 

applications for space station licenses 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44156 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

22 In the Order, the Commission directed 

temporary fixed or transportable FSS earth station 

operators and FSS space station operators in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band to provide certain information on 

their current operations. 

and new petitions for market access 

concerning space-to-Earth operations in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. Additionally, the 

NPRM seeks comment on modifying the 

Commission’s part 25 rules to require 

operators of licensed or registered FSS 

earth stations receiving in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band to coordinate only the 

specific combinations of frequency, 

azimuth, and elevation angle that they 

regularly use and that such technical 

information be reflected on each earth 

station application and authorization. 

The NPRM seeks comment on whether 

this information should form the basis 

for protection from terrestrial stations. 

178. The NPRM further proposes to 

update IBFS to remove 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band earth station licenses or 

registrations for which the licensee or 

registrant does not file the certifications 

required in the Order (to the extent they 

registered before April 19, 2018) and, 

more specifically, proposes that an earth 

station licensed or registered in IBFS be 

automatically terminated unless the 

licensee or registrant timely files the 

certification required by the Order. The 

NPRM seeks comment on revising the 

part 25 rules to limit eligibility to file 

applications for earth station licenses or 

registrations to incumbent earth 

stations, including comments on the 

relative costs and benefits of such a 

restriction. 

179. The NPRM proposes to define 

incumbent earth stations as only those 

earth stations that (1) were operational 

as of April 19, 2018, (2) are licensed or 

registered in IBFS, or had a pending 

application for license or registration as 

of October 17, 2018, and (3) the 

licensee/registrant timely filed the 

certification required by the Order. The 

Commission further proposes that 

unregistered FSS earth stations lawfully 

receiving transmissions could continue 

to operate on an unprotected basis. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

incumbents that are small entities face 

any special or unique issues with 

respect to the transition such that they 

should be defined differently or have 

different obligations. 

180. Because the Commission’s 

consideration of some transition options 

may benefit from additional, more 

granular information on FSS earth 

station and space station operations in 

the band, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether to seek additional information 

from FSS earth station or space station 

operators,22 including information on 

transponder use, satellite points of 

communication, and other technical and 

operational data that would provide a 

more detailed picture of the actual usage 

of the band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether small entities face 

any special or unique issues with 

respect to proposed information 

collections such that they would require 

certain accommodations or additional 

time to comply. Commenters have been 

asked to describe, with specificity, how 

any additional information collection 

would support a given transition 

proposal and should provide a detailed 

assessment of the costs and benefits of 

such additional collections. 

181. Comments have also been sought 

by the Commission on amending 

§ 101.101 of the Commission’s rules to 

permit point-to-multipoint FS 

broadband service in a portion of the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band. In order to 

accommodate point-to-multipoint 

operations, the NPRM seeks comment 

on several amendments that may be 

necessary to part 25 and part 101 of the 

Commission’s rules that currently apply 

to FS. The part 25 and 101 rules that 

would apply to point-to-multipoint FS 

operators would include regulatory 

requirements and restrictions including 

power limits, frequency coordination, 

and potential construction 

requirements. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on the appropriate channel 

plan, power limits, service areas, 

antenna standards, and construction 

requirements for point-to-multipoint 

operations in the band. Further, the 

NPRM seeks comment on any necessary 

technical requirements for frequency 

coordination between point-tomultipoint FS applicants and licensees 

and other operators in the band, 

including equipment authorizations for 

client devices that may be operated by 

persons other than those duly 

authorized by the licensee. The NPRM 

also seeks comment on whether to 

sunset the existing point-to-point FS 

operations in the band. 

182. Transitioning Mechanisms. The 

transition to more intensive fixed and 

flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

will require Commission action to clear 

existing incumbent users from the band. 

The NPRM discusses various 

mechanisms for clearing incumbent 

users from the band. Each of these 

potential mechanisms for transitioning 

the band to flexible use—(1) a marketbased mechanism, (2) auctions 

mechanisms, (3) alternative 

mechanisms—would require small 

entities that are incumbent operators in 

the band to participate in some sort of 

negotiation and agreement (either 

through the secondary market or 

through a Commission-administered 

auction) to reassign their spectrum 

access rights. Incumbents operating in 

the spectrum designated for new 

licensed flexible use would further be 

required to relocate their operations to 

different bands, potentially requiring 

reconfiguration or replacement of their 

existing facilities. However, once 

relocated, such operators and licensees 

would remain subject to the same 

Commission rules and obligations under 

which they are already operating. 

183. In light of the differing 

approaches to transitioning the band to 

flexible use and the obligations that 

would result, the NPRM seeks comment 

from the parties on each mechanism. 

Specifically, for the market-based 

mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment 

on whether the Commission should 

adopt rules that would enable a marketbased mechanism to the clearing of 

incumbents from some or all of the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band, introducing flexible use 

in the band or encouraging more 

intensive fixed use while 

simultaneously protecting critical 

services offered by incumbents (i.e., FSS 

space stations, FSS earth stations, FS 

licensees). Under such an approach, the 

Commission would seek to encourage 

incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily 

clear the spectrum. Satellite operators in 

the band could choose to make some or 

all of their spectrum available to 

terrestrial operators on the secondary 

market. In return, terrestrial operators 

would compensate affected incumbents. 

A secondary market approach could 

make spectrum available more quickly 

than other available mechanisms, such 

as an auction, and thus could facilitate 

rapid deployment of next generation 

wireless broadband networks. Moreover, 

such an approach could leverage the 

technical and operational knowledge of 

satellite space station operators while 

relying on market incentives to promote 

economic efficiency. The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether a market-based 

mechanism could effectively and 

rapidly facilitate new terrestrial 

deployments in the band. 

184. More specifically, the NPRM 

states that a transition under a marketbased mechanism could be undertaken 

in a four-step process. The first step 

would involve the industry voluntarily 

forming a Transition Facilitator 

composed of eligible C-band satellite 

operators. In the second step, the 

Transition Facilitator would negotiate 

with any interested terrestrial operators 

and incumbent users. In the third step, 

the Commission would review the 

Transition Facilitator’s plan and 

conditionally authorize terrestrial 

licenses in the band. And in step four, 

the Transition Facilitator would clear 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44157 

the negotiated-for spectrum, making it 

available for flexible use while 

protecting incumbent earth stations 

through a variety of potential means. 

The NPRM notes as well that a marketbased process need not be a one-time 

event—a Transition Facilitator could 

negotiate with parties for compensation 

and protection, seek Commission review 

and conditional authorization, and clear 

new spectrum multiple times to ensure 

the total spectrum dedicated to flexible 

use meets market demands. 

185. For auctions as a transition 

mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment 

on approaches using the Commission’s 

general auction authority to introduce 

flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

Incentive auctions provide the 

Commission with new tools to make 

additional spectrum available for 

broadband. Incentive auctions are a 

voluntary, market-based means of 

repurposing spectrum by encouraging 

licensees to compete to voluntarily 

relinquish spectrum usage rights in 

exchange for a share of the proceeds 

from an auction of new licenses to use 

the repurposed spectrum. The NPRM 

therefore seeks comment on whether an 

incentive auction could work in the 

context of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

186. Recognizing that the band’s 

incumbent structure presents unique 

issues distinct from those present in the 

broadcast incentive auction, the NPRM 

seeks comment on possible approaches 

to inducing satellite incumbents to 

reveal the least amount they must be 

paid to relinquish any given amount of 

spectrum. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should accept applications for overlay 

licenses—assigned by competitive 

bidding if mutually exclusive 

applications for it were accepted—that 

would permit the overlay licensees to 

negotiate with incumbent licensees to 

clear all or part of the band and then 

transfer flexible use licenses in the 

secondary market. An overlay license 

authorizes operation for an entire 

geographic area but requires the licensee 

to protect existing incumbents from 

interference indefinitely, i.e., until the 

rights are relinquished. The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether assigning overlay 

licenses in the band would expedite 

flexible use of more of the band 

compared with other approaches. Under 

this approach, the overlay licensee 

would have the right to flexible use of 

any spectrum that becomes available as 

a result of incumbents’ relinquishing 

their spectrum usage rights. The NPRM 

seeks comment on how other parties 

that would be affected by repurposing 

3.7–4.2 GHz band spectrum should be 

treated, and whether the overlay 

licensee or the satellite incumbents 

relinquishing spectrum should be 

required to provide incumbent earth 

station operators comparable 

replacement facilities or media. 

187. With the auctions mechanism, 

the NPRM further seeks comment, as an 

alternative to paying satellite 

incumbents to relinquish spectrum 

usage rights, on conducting a reverse 

auction for satellite transponder 

capacity that could be used to replace 

lost C-band transponder capacity 

resulting from reallocating C-band 

spectrum to flexible use. Under this 

approach, an individual bidder in the 

reverse auction could contribute 

towards clearing spectrum. Potential 

bidders could be any FCC licensee that 

could make transponder capacity 

available in either C-band or Ku-band. 

Satellite bidders could offer capacity 

created by launching new satellites in 

vacant orbital slots and by relinquishing 

existing capacity. Satellite customers 

can offer capacity made available by 

substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill 

their capacity needs, reducing the 

amount or quality of programming 

distributed, or using greater 

compression to reduce the capacity 

required to carry a given amount of 

programming or data. C-band 

transponder capacity that is lost due to 

the reduced amount of available 

spectrum and that was not relinquished 

in the reverse auction by C-band 

satellite operators, could be repacked 

onto replacement capacity for the life of 

those lost transponders. This would 

compensate C-band licensees for their 

lost capital investments, but not for the 

loss of their spectrum. The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether under this 

approach such additional compensation 

for the loss of spectrum should be 

accomplished by extending the length of 

time free replacement capacity is offered 

or by some other means, e.g., a financial 

payment. 

188. As another possible transition 

mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment 

on approaches that combine various 

elements of the mechanisms discussed 

above, as well as other mechanisms for 

transitioning all or part of the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band for wireless broadband use. 

For example, the NPRM seeks comment 

on a hybrid approach under which the 

Commission would auction a majority 

of the band under traditional 

mechanisms and grant FSS operators 

flexible use authority (i.e., allowing 

them to use a market-based approach) 

for the rest of the band so long as they 

timely clear the auctioned portion. The 

NPRM asks whether the Commission 

could use this approach or another 

combination of approaches to strike a 

balance between incumbent and new 

entrant interests and, if so, how much 

of the band should be cleared under a 

traditional mechanism and how much 

could be left for FSS space station 

operators to clear under a market 

approach. The NPRM seeks comment on 

how the Commission can ensure the 

band is transitioned in a timely manner 

and whether a backstop mechanism 

should be triggered by a FSS operator’s 

failure to clear the band in a timely 

manner. The NPRM asks commenters to 

provide data on the costs and benefits 

associated with any alternative 

mechanism over other possible or 

suggested methods. 

189. Recognizing that the transition to 

flexible use licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band will be complicated logistically 

and needs to be carried out promptly in 

order to get the repurposed spectrum 

into the hands of flexible use licensees 

to address spectrum needs, the NPRM 

seeks comment on a range of transition 

issues applicable to each of the 

alternative mechanisms for expanding 

flexible use discussed above. The NPRM 

seeks comment on reasonable deadlines 

for implementation of each mechanism, 

or other approaches suggested by 

commenters, including deadlines for 

incumbents to cease transmitting on a 

primary basis in the portion of the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band that becomes available for 

flexible use. The NPRM seeks comment 

on how to define the appropriate class 

of incumbents for protection and 

possible reimbursement purposes and 

the relative obligations and/or rights 

that each category of incumbents may 

have under each mechanism. Further, 

the NPRM seeks comment on what 

requirements and safeguards the 

Commission should adopt to ensure the 

timely and complete transition of all 

required incumbents pursuant to each 

mechanism for expanding flexible use 

in the band. Such requirements and 

safeguards could include, among others: 

Requiring all parties act in good faith; 

adopting a definition of comparable 

facilities; adopting financial or 

regulatory protections that can ensure 

that all transition obligations are 

satisfied in the event of bankruptcy or 

other events; and any technical rules 

that the Commission needs to adopt to 

apply specifically during the transition. 

Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should seek 

additional information from FSS earth 

station and space station operators in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that would 

provide additional clarity on the actual 

usage and availability of spectrum in the 

band. 

190. Assuming that the Commission 

ultimately decides to add a mobile, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44158 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

except aeronautical mobile, allocation 

and make some or all of the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band available for flexible use, the 

NPRM proposes and seeks comment on 

band plans, licensing and operating, and 

technical rules for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

spectrum that becomes available for 

terrestrial mobile and fixed flexible use. 

The NPRM proposes to license this 

spectrum under the Commission’s 

flexible use, part 27 rules that permit 

licensees to provide any fixed or mobile 

service consistent with the allocations 

for this spectrum, subject to rules 

necessary to prevent or minimize 

harmful interference. 

191. Band Plan(s). The NPRM seeks 

comment on whether to license 

according to part 27 nationwide or only 

in the contiguous 48 states and whether 

there are issues unique to any of the 

areas outside of the contiguous 48 that 

would make it impractical to transition 

all or part of the band to flexible use. 

The NPRM seeks comment on 

appropriate block size(s) to promote 

efficient and robust use of the band for 

next generation wireless technologies, 

including 5G. Recognizing that the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes 

available for flexible use could be 

configured in any number of paired or 

unpaired modes, the NPRM seeks 

comment on a range of options for 

paired and/or unpaired blocks and the 

costs and benefits of particular 

approaches. Finally, consistent with the 

Commission’s approach in several other 

bands used to provide fixed and mobile 

services, the NPRM proposes to license 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz Mid-Band Flexible Use 

(MBX) spectrum on an exclusive, 

geographic area basis. The NPRM seeks 

comment on an appropriate geographic 

license area size(s) for this band and 

asks commenters to discuss and 

quantify the economic, technical, and 

other public interest considerations of 

licensing on a PEA, county, nationwide, 

or other basis. 

192. Licensing and Operating Rules. 

In order to afford licensees the 

flexibility to align licenses in the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band with licenses in other 

spectrum bands governed by part 27 of 

the Commission’s rules, the NPRM 

proposes that licensees in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band comply with licensing and 

operating rules that are applicable to all 

part 27 services, including assignment 

of licenses by competitive bidding, 

flexible use, regulatory status, foreign 

ownership reporting, compliance with 

construction requirements, renewal 

criteria, permanent discontinuance of 

operations, partitioning and 

disaggregation, and spectrum leasing, 

and seeks comment on this approach. 

The NPRM also proposes an open 

eligibility standard for licenses in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band and seeks comments 

on the proposal that should include a 

discussion of the costs and benefits of 

the open eligibility proposal on 

competition, innovation, and 

investment. The adoption of an open 

eligibility approach would not affect 

citizenship, character, or other generally 

applicable qualifications that may apply 

under the Commission’s rules. The 

NPRM further seeks comment on a 15- 

year term for licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band. Finally, in the event that the 

Commission assigns licenses for the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band through competitive 

bidding, the Commission proposes to 

exclude from eligibility a person who 

has been, for reasons of national 

security, barred by any agency of the 

Federal Government from bidding on a 

contract, participating in an auction, or 

receiving a grant. 

193. Regarding mobile spectrum 

holding policies, the Commission 

proposes not to adopt a pre-auction 

bright-line limit on the ability of any 

entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band through competitive bidding 

at auction similar to the Commission’s 

approach in the 2017 Spectrum 

Frontiers Order and FNPRM. 

Additionally, if an auction is chosen as 

the mechanism to transition to flexible 

uses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the 

Commission proposes to review 

holdings on a case-by-case basis when 

applications for initial licenses are filed 

post-auction to ensure that the public 

interest benefits of having a threshold 

on spectrum applicable to secondary 

market transactions are not rendered 

ineffective. 

194. Performance Requirements. The 

NPRM seeks comment on requiring a 

3.7–4.2 GHz band licensee, relying on 

mobile or point-to-multipoint service in 

accordance with the Commission’s part 

27 rules, to provide reliable signal 

coverage and offer service to at least 

forty-five (45) percent of the population 

in each of its license areas within six 

years of the license issue date (first 

performance benchmark), and to at least 

eighty (80) percent of the population in 

each of its license areas within 12 years 

from the license issue date (second 

performance benchmark). For licensees 

relying on point-to-point service, the 

NPRM seeks comment on requiring 

them to demonstrate within six years of 

the license issue date (first performance 

benchmark) that they have four links 

operating and providing service, either 

to customers or for internal use, if the 

population within the license area is 

equal to or less than 268,000. If the 

population within the license area is 

greater than 268,000, the NPRM seeks 

comment on requiring a licensee relying 

on point-to-point service to demonstrate 

it has at least one link in operation and 

providing service per every 67,000 

persons within a license area. Further, 

the NPRM seeks comment on requiring 

licensees relying on point-to-point 

service to demonstrate within 12 years 

of the license issue date (final 

performance benchmark) that they have 

eight links operating and providing 

service, either to customers or for 

internal use, if the population within 

the license area is equal to or less than 

268,000. If the population within the 

license area is greater than 268,000, the 

NPRM seeks comment on requiring a 

licensee relying on point-to-point 

service to demonstrate it is providing 

service and has at least two links in 

operation per every 67,000 persons 

within a license area. 

195. While the NPRM seeks comment 

on performance benchmarks based on 

population coverage applicable for a 

range of fixed and mobile services, the 

NPRM recognizes that 3.7–4.2 GHz 

licenses have flexibility to provide 

services potentially less suited to a 

population coverage metric. In 

particular, licensees providing Internet 

of Things-type fixed and mobile services 

may benefit from an alternative 

performance benchmark metric, and the 

NPRM seeks comment on the 

appropriate metric to accommodate 

such service offerings. 

196. Along with performance 

benchmarks, the NPRM seeks comment 

on which penalties will most effectively 

ensure timely build-out. Specifically, 

the NPRM states that, in the event a 3.7– 

4.2 GHz licensee fails to meet the first 

performance benchmark, the licensee’s 

second benchmark and license term 

would be reduced by two years, thereby 

requiring it to meet the second 

performance benchmark two years 

sooner (at 10 years into the license term) 

and reducing its license term to 13 

years. The NPRM proposes that, in the 

event a 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee fails to 

meet the second performance 

benchmark for a particular license area, 

its authorization for each license area in 

which it fails to meet the performance 

requirement shall terminate 

automatically without Commission 

action. Additionally, the Commission 

also proposes that, in the event a 

licensee’s authority to operate 

terminates, the licensee’s spectrum 

rights would become available for 

reassignment pursuant to the 

competitive bidding provisions of 

§ 309(j). Further, consistent with the 

Commission’s rules for other licenses, 

including AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4, and 

H Block, the NPRM proposes that any 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44159 

3.7–4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its 

license for failure to meet its 

performance requirements would be 

precluded from regaining the license. 

197. Compliance Procedures. In 

addition to compliance procedures 

applicable to all part 27 licensees, 

including the filing of electronic 

coverage maps and supporting 

documentation, the NPRM proposes that 

such electronic coverage maps must 

accurately depict the boundaries of each 

license area in the licensee’s service 

territory. If a licensee does not provide 

reliable signal coverage to an entire 

license area, the NPRM proposes that its 

map must accurately depict the 

boundaries of the area or areas within 

each license area not being served. 

Further, the NPRM proposes that each 

licensee also must file supporting 

documentation certifying the type of 

service it is providing for each licensed 

area within its service territory and the 

type of technology used to provide such 

service. Supporting documentation 

must include the assumptions used to 

create the coverage maps, including the 

propagation model and the signal 

strength necessary to provide reliable 

service with the licensee’s technology. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these proposals. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether small 

entities face any special or unique 

issues with respect to the transition 

such that they would require additional 

time to comply. 

198. Renewal Term Construction 

Obligations. The WRS Renewal Reform 

FNPRM proposed to apply rules 

adopted in that proceeding to all 

flexible geographic licenses. Given the 

proposal to license this band on a 

geographic basis for flexible use, any 

additional renewal term construction 

obligations proposed in the WRS 

Renewal Reform FNPRM also would 

apply to licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band. Accordingly, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether there are unique 

characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band 

that might require a different approach 

than the various proposals raised by the 

WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM. 

199. Competitive Bidding Procedures. 

Consistent with the competitive bidding 

procedures the Commission has used in 

previous auctions, the NPRM proposes 

that the Commission would conduct any 

auction for licenses for spectrum in the 

3.7–4.2 GHz band in conformity with 

the general competitive bidding rules 

set forth in part 1, Subpart Q, of the 

Commission’s rules. Specifically, the 

NPRM proposes to employ the part 1 

rules governing competitive bidding 

design, designated entity preferences, 

unjust enrichment, application and 

certification procedures, payment 

procedures, reporting requirements, and 

the prohibition on certain 

communications between auction 

applicants. Under this proposal, such 

rules would be subject to any 

modifications that the Commission may 

adopt for its part 1 general competitive 

bidding rules in the future. The NPRM 

seeks comment on whether any of the 

Commission’s part 1 rules would be 

inappropriate or should be modified for 

an auction of licenses in this frequency 

band. In particular, the NPRM seeks 

comment on the following proposals for 

bidding credits for designated entities in 

this band. As with other flexible use 

licenses in recent years, the NPRM 

proposes to adopt in this band, bidding 

credits for the two larger designated 

entity business sizes provided in the 

part 1 rules. The NPRM also proposes to 

offer rural service providers a 

designated entity bidding credit for 

licenses in this band. The NPRM asks 

commenters addressing these proposals 

to consider what details of licenses in 

the band may affect whether designated 

entities will apply for them. 

200. Technical Rules. Consistent with 

existing rules for other advanced 

wireless services, the NPRM proposes 

power limits for fixed and base stations 

of 1640 watts EIRP for emission 

bandwidths less than one megahertz 

and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for 

emission bandwidths greater than one 

megahertz. For mobiles and portables in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the NPRM 

proposes to limit the power to 1 Watt 

(30 dBm). The NPRM also proposes that 

the power limit measurement 

methodology be based on the average 

power measurement and seeks comment 

on this proposal. Additionally, the 

NPRM proposes that mobile and 

portable stations operating in the 3.7– 

4.2 GHz band must employ a means for 

limiting power to the minimum 

necessary for successful 

communications. 

201. For out-of-band-emissions, the 

NPRM proposes that emissions be kept 

to a level that will provide protection to 

incumbent services in adjacent bands, 

while allowing the full use of the new 

band, and therefore proposes to apply 

the longstanding limit on out-of-bandemission of ¥13 dBm/MHz at the 

authorized channel edge as measured at 

the antenna terminals. Further, the 

NPRM seeks comment on whether 

additional technical protection criteria, 

beyond out-of-band-emission limits, are 

necessary to ensure effective 

coexistence with adjacent band FSS 

operations. 

202. To implement field strength limit 

at market boundaries, the NPRM 

proposes to adopt a ¥76 dBm/m2/MHz 

power flux density limit at the service 

area boundaries, and further proposes 

that adjacent affected area licensees may 

voluntarily agree upon higher field 

strength boundary levels and to permit 

such agreement. Regarding antenna 

height, the NPRM proposes that the part 

27 flexible antenna height rules that 

apply to AWS–1 and AWS–3 should 

generally also apply to MBX spectrum, 

that no unique antenna height limits are 

needed for MBX-spectrum facilities and 

that no antenna height limits are needed 

for fixed operation in the MBX 

spectrum. The Commission seeks 

comments on these proposals, including 

cost and benefit information. 

203. For new MBX spectrum, the 

NPRM proposes to apply the limitations 

to Canada and Mexico from § 27.57(c) of 

the Commission’s rules that provide that 

several AWS services, including WCS, 

AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4 and H Block 

are subject to international agreements 

with Mexico and Canada. Lastly, the 

NPRM proposes that several additional 

technical rules applicable to all part 27 

services, including §§ 27.51 Equipment 

authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 

Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas 

structures; air navigation safety, and 

27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast 

station antenna patterns should apply to 

all MBX-spectrum licensees, including 

licensees who acquire their licenses 

through partitioning or disaggregation 

(to the extent the rules permit such 

aggregation). The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach, including its 

costs and benefits. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

204. 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 small entities; (3) the 

use of performance rather than design 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof 

for small entities.’’ 

205. In this proceeding, the 

Commission seeks to identify potential 

opportunities for additional flexible 

access—particularly for wireless 

broadband services—in 500 megahertz 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44160 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

of mid-band spectrum between 3.7–4.2 

GHz. While lacking specific data in 

general, which includes data on small 

entities, the Commission has taken steps 

to enable it to minimize the economic 

burden on small entities that could 

occur if some of the rule changes or 

approaches proposed in the NPRM are 

adopted. Throughout the NPRM, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

small entities face any special or unique 

issues with respect to the information 

collection such that they would require 

certain accommodations or additional 

time to comply. The Commission also 

seeks comment on modifications that 

could be made to the Commission’s 

rules regarding administrative processes 

that would reduce the economic 

impacts of proposed rule changes on 

small entities. Seeking comments 

specifically targeting small entities 

should provide the Commission with 

the requisite data to consider the most 

cost-effective approach to minimize the 

economic impact for such entities while 

achieving its statutory objectives. 

206. With respect to the application 

freeze and information collection for 

incumbent earth stations operating in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the Commission 

has taken several steps to reduce the 

economic burden of its actions. During 

the freeze on new earth station 

applications and filing window for 

incumbent FSS earth station operators, 

the International Bureau granted a 

temporary waiver of the frequency 

coordination requirement in the band. 

To ensure that earth station data 

contained in the Commission’s IBFS 

remains accurate to facilitate frequency 

coordination and maximize efficient use 

of the spectrum, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether, for a constructed 

and operational earth station, any 

combination of frequency, azimuth, and 

elevation listed in the license or 

registration that is unused for more 

than, e.g., 180 days, must be deleted 

from the license or registration. By 

proposing to delete data for earth 

stations that are unused, the NPRM 

seeks to minimize unnecessary 

constraints on successful frequency 

coordination of new operations, which 

reduces the economic impact on small 

entities, who often have more limited 

resources to allocate towards such 

regulatory compliance burdens. The 

NPRM also proposes to adopt specific 

definitions of each class of incumbents 

that would require protection and be 

entitled to possible reimbursement for 

clearing the band. This proposal has the 

dual benefit to small entities of creating 

a means for compensating any 

unexpected costs they may experience 

as a result of transitioning the band to 

flexible use, as well as providing a clear 

definition of the class of operators that 

requires interference protection and 

coordination, thereby avoiding overly 

burdensome and unnecessary 

obligations. 

207. The NPRM seeks comment on 

several ways to facilitate more intensive 

fixed use of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band by 

allowing point-to-multipoint operations 

in the band through rules that will 

promote more efficient use of the 

limited spectrum available. In doing so, 

the NPRM makes several proposals to 

reduce the burden of frequency 

coordination for any new point-tomultipoint licensees, which would 

benefit small entities, and seeks 

comment on rules that are narrowly 

tailored to the needs of point-tomultipoint operations in particular, 

without the need for unnecessary 

regulatory burdens. The NPRM seeks 

comment on subjecting point-tomultipoint FS applicants to an 

expedited coordination process with 

mandatory electronic notification and 

response, and on the possibility of 

adopting an automated coordination 

process for point-to-multipoint FS 

applications. The NPRM asks 

commenters to discuss specifically any 

modifications that could be made to the 

Commission’s coordination rules that 

would reduce the economic impact on 

small entities. In seeking comment on 

the appropriate construction 

requirements to apply to point-tomultipoint operations, the NPRM asks 

commenters to consider the economic 

impact on consumers and businesses in 

rural communities and areas that are 

unserved or underserved by current 

broadband providers, as well as any 

economic impact on small businesses. 

208. The NPRM discusses various 

proposals to reallocate and transition 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to more intensive 

fixed and flexible use, and seeks 

comment on ways to minimize the 

economic impact of any rule changes 

specifically with respect to small 

entities. For example, in seeking 

comment on whether to seek additional 

information from FSS earth station 

registrants or space station licensees, the 

NPRM asks whether small entities face 

any special or unique issues with 

respect to the information collection 

such that they would require certain 

accommodations or additional time to 

comply. 

209. Further, in its discussion of the 

three potential mechanisms for 

transitioning the band to flexible use— 

(1) market-based mechanism, (2) 

auctions mechanisms, (3) alternative 

mechanisms—the Commission seeks 

specific comment on the costs, benefits, 

and potential economic impact on small 

businesses, and asks commenters to 

discuss any rules or procedures that 

could be implemented to ensure that the 

needs of these communities and 

businesses are adequately addressed. 

Each of these transition mechanisms 

rely heavily on a competitive 

marketplace to set the value of spectrum 

and compensate incumbents for the 

costs of relocating, reconfiguring, and 

potentially lost opportunity cost. 

Specifically, for small entities that may 

be incumbent satellite or earth station 

operators in the band, the Commission 

is focused on facilitating competition in 

the band and ensuring that all relevant 

interests, not just those of the largest 

companies, are represented. This will 

help to reduce the potential economic 

impact on small entities. 

210. The NPRM also seeks comment 

on applying 15-year license terms for 

any licensees issued in the 3.7–4.2 GHz 

band. Specifically for small entities who 

must allocate resources carefully over 

the length of their license term, and 

have more limited funds should they be 

required to compete at auction for a 

particular license, the certainty of a 

longer license term would provide 

licensees with sufficient incentive to 

make the long-term investments 

necessary for compliance. 

211. The Commission finds an 

overriding public interest in 

encouraging investment in wireless 

networks, facilitating access to scarce 

spectrum resources, and promoting the 

rapid deployment of mobile services to 

Americans. All licensees, including 

small entities, play a crucial role in 

achieving these goals. Thus while the 

NPRM does not propose any exemption 

for small entities, as mentioned above, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

alternative obligations, timing for 

implementation, scope of subject 

licenses, penalties for failure, and other 

measures that could accommodate the 

needs and resources of small entities. 

The Commission will carefully consider 

these matters as it relates to small 

entities before adopting final rules in 

this proceeding. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

212. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

213. 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, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44161 

309, 310, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and 1.411 of 

the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.411, 

that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is hereby adopted. 

214. 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. 

215. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by the 

Broadband Access Coalition on June 21, 

2017, RM–11791, is granted to the 

extent indicated herein and is otherwise 

denied. 

216. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by the 

Fixed Wireless Communications 

Coalition, Inc, on October 11, 2016, 

RM–11778, is granted to the extent 

indicated herein and is otherwise 

denied. 

217. 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 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 

and 27 

Practice and procedure, 

Communications common carrier, 

Communications equipment, Reporting 

and recording requirements, Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1, 2, 25, 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), 154(j), 

155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 

1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.907 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Covered Geographic 

Licenses’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1.907 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Covered Geographic Licenses. 

Covered geographic licenses consist of 

the following services: 1.4 GHz Service 

(part 27, subpart I); 1.6 GHz Service 

(part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and 

Digital Electronic Message Services (part 

101, subpart G); 218–219 MHz Service 

(part 95, subpart F); 220–222 MHz 

Service, excluding public safety licenses 

(part 90, subpart T); 600 MHz Service 

(part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz 

Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F 

and H); 700 MHz Guard Band Service 

(part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz 

Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 

90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized 

Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart 

S); Mid-Band Flexible Use Service (part 

27, subpart O); Advanced Wireless 

Services (part 27, subparts K and L); 

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 

(Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart 

G); Broadband Personal 

Communications Service (part 24, 

subpart E); Broadband Radio Service 

(part 27, subpart M); Cellular 

Radiotelephone Service (part 22, 

subpart H); Dedicated Short Range 

Communications Service, excluding 

public safety licenses (part 90, subpart 

M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); 

Local Multipoint Distribution Service 

(part 101, subpart L); Multichannel 

Video Distribution and Data Service 

(part 101, subpart P); Multilateration 

Location and Monitoring Service (part 

90, subpart M); Multiple Address 

Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); 

Narrowband Personal Communications 

Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and 

Radiotelephone Service (part 22, 

subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF 

Public Coast Stations, including 

Automated Maritime 

Telecommunications Systems (part 80, 

subpart J); Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service (part 30); and Wireless 

Communications Service (part 27, 

subpart D). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.9005 by adding 

paragraph (mm) to read as follows: 

§ 1.9005 Included services. 

* * * * * 

(mm) The Mid-Band Flexible Use 

Service in the 3700–4200 MHz band. 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

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

336, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 5. Amend § 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, by revising page 

41 and, under ‘‘Non-Federal 

Government (NG) Footnotes,’’ adding 

footnote NG182 to read as follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

EP29AU18.003</GPH>sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Table of Frequency Allocations 3500-5460 MHz (SHF) 

International Table United States Table 

Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table 

(See previous page) 3500-3700 3500-3600 3500-3550 3500-3550 

FIXED FIXED RADIOLOCATION G59 Radiolocation 

FIXED-SATELLITE FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 

(space-to-Earth) MOBILE except aeronautical mobile (ground-based) G11 0 

3550-3650 3550-3600 

MOBILE except aeronaubcal 5.433A 

RADIOLOCATION G59 FIXED 

mobile Radiolocation 5.433 

AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

Radiolocat1on 5.433 

(ground-based) G11 0 

US105 US433 

3600-4200 3600-3700 3600-3650 

FIXED FIXED FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

(space-to-Earth) MOBILE except aeronautical mobile US107 US245 

Mobile Radiolocation 5 433 MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

US1 05 US107 US245 US433 US105 US433 

3650-3700 3650-3700 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

NG169 NG185 

MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

5.435 

US1 09 US349 US109 US349 

3700-4200 3700-4200 3700-4200 

FIXED FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) NG180

MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

EP29AU18.004</GPH>sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

I 

MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

4200-4400 4200-4400 

AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 5 438 AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 

5.439 5.440 5.440 US261 

4400-4500 4400-4940 4400-4500 

FIXED FIXED 

MOBILE 5.440A MOBILE 

4500-4800 4500-4800 

FIXED FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 5 441 5.441 US245 

MOBILE 5 440A 

4800-4990 4800-4940 

FIXED 

MOBILE 5.440A 5.442 US113 US245 US342 US113 US342 

Radio astronomy 4940-4990 4940-4990 

FIXED 

MOBILE except aeronautical mobile 

5.149 5.339 5.443 5.339 US342 US385 G122 5.339 US342 US385 

4990-5000 4990-5000 

FIXED RADIO ASTRONOMY US74 

MOBILE except aeronautical mobile Space research (passive) 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

Space research (pass1ve) 

5149 US246 
44164 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 

Non-Federal Government (NG) 

Footnotes 

* * * * * 

NG182 In the band 3700–4200 MHz, 

the following provisions shall apply to 

geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) fixedsatellite service (space-to-Earth) 

operations: 

(a) Space stations authorized prior to, 

or authorized as a result of an 

application filed prior to, June 21, 2018 

may continue to operate on a primary 

basis, but no applications for new space 

station authorizations or new petitions 

for market access shall be accepted for 

filing after that date, other than 

applications by existing operators in the 

band seeking to make more efficient use 

of the band. Applications for extension, 

cancellation, replacement, or 

modification of existing space station 

authorizations in the band will continue 

to be accepted and processed normally. 

(b) Earth station operations shall not 

claim protection from terrestrial 

stations, unless the requirements of 47 

CFR 25.203(n) are satisfied. 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 6. The authority citation for Part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 7. Amend § 25.203 by adding 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 25.203 Choice of sites and frequencies. 

* * * * * 

(n) Earth stations operating in the 

3700–4200 MHz band shall receive 

interference protection from terrestrial 

stations only to the extent that (1) the 

earth station was operational as of April 

19, 2018, (2) the earth station was 

licensed or registered (or had a pending 

application for license or registration) in 

the IBFS database as of October 17, 

2018, and (3) the operator timely 

certified the accuracy of information on 

file with the Commission to the extent 

required by the Order adopted in FCC 

18–XXX. Earth stations failing to satisfy 

any of the above may continue to 

operate, but such operations shall be on 

an unprotected basis. 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 8. 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. 

■ 9. Amend § 27.1 by adding paragraph 

(b)(15) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1 Basis and purpose. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(15) 3700–4200 MHz. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 27.13 by adding 

paragraph (m) to read as follows: 

§ 27.13 License period. 

* * * * * 

(m) 3700–4200 MHz band. 

Authorizations for the 3700–4200 MHz 

band will have a term not to exceed 15 

years from the date of issuance or 

renewal. 

■ 11. Amend § 27.14 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraphs (a) and (k), and 

adding paragraph (u) to read as follows: 

§ 27.14 Construction requirements. 

(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the 

exception of WCS licensees holding 

authorizations for the 600 MHz band, 

Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728– 

734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 

MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E 

in the 722–728 MHz band, Block C, C1 

or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 

MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–2310 

MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands, Block 

B in the 2310–2315 MHz and 2355–2360 

MHz bands, Block C in the 2315–2320 

MHz band, Block D in the 2345–2350 

MHz band, and 3700–4200 MHz band, 

and with the exception of licensees 

holding AWS authorizations in the 

1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz 

bands, the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180– 

2200 MHz bands, or 1695–1710 MHz, 

1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz 

bands, must, as a performance 

requirement, make a showing of 

‘‘substantial service’’ in their license 

area within the prescribed license term 

set forth in § 27.13. * * * 

* * * * * 

(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS 

authorizations in the spectrum blocks 

enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), 

(q), (r), (s), (t), and (u) of this section, 

including any licensee that obtained its 

license pursuant to the procedures set 

forth in paragraph (j) of this section, 

shall demonstrate compliance with 

performance requirements by filing a 

construction notification with the 

Commission, within 15 days of the 

expiration of the applicable benchmark, 

in accordance with the provisions set 

forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * * 

* * * * * 

(u) The following provisions apply to 

any licensee holding an authorization in 

the 3700–4200 MHz band: 

(1) A licensee shall provide reliable 

signal coverage and offer service within 

six (6) years from the date of the initial 

license to at least forty-five (45) percent 

of the population in each of its license 

areas (‘‘First Buildout Requirement’’). 

(2) A licensee shall provide reliable 

signal coverage and offer service within 

twelve (12) years from the date of the 

initial license to at least eighty (80) 

percent of the population in each of its 

license areas (‘‘Second Buildout 

Requirement’’). 

(3) If a licensee fails to establish that 

it meets the First Buildout Requirement 

for a particular license area, the 

licensee’s Second Buildout Requirement 

deadline and license term will be 

reduced by two years. 

(4) If a licensee fails to establish that 

it meets the Second Buildout 

Requirement for a particular license 

area, its authorization for each license 

area in which it fails to meet the Second 

Buildout Requirement shall terminate 

automatically without Commission 

action, and the licensee will be 

ineligible to regain it if the Commission 

makes the license available at a later 

date. 

(5) To demonstrate compliance with 

these performance requirements, 

licensees shall use the most recently 

available decennial U.S. Census Data at 

the time of measurement and shall base 

their measurements of population 

served on areas no larger than the 

Census Tract level. The population 

within a specific Census Tract (or other 

acceptable identifier) will be deemed 

served by the licensee only if it provides 

reliable signal coverage to and offers 

service within the specific Census Tract 

(or other acceptable identifier). To the 

extent the Census Tract (or other 

acceptable identifier) extends beyond 

the boundaries of a license area, a 

licensee with authorizations for such 

areas may include only the population 

within the Census Tract (or other 

acceptable identifier) towards meeting 

the performance requirement of a single, 

individual license. For the Gulf of 

Mexico license area, the licensee shall 

demonstrate compliance with these 

performance requirements, using offshore platforms, including production, 

manifold, compression, pumping and 

valving platforms as a proxy for 

population in the Gulf of Mexico. 

■ 12. Amend § 27.50 by revising the 

introductory text to paragraphs (d), 

(d)(1), and (d)(2) and paragraph (d)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle. 

* * * * * 

(d) The following power and antenna 

height requirements apply to stations 

transmitting in the 1695–1710 MHz, 

1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 44165 

1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 

2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 

2155–2180 MHz, 2180–2200 MHz, and 

3700–4200 MHz bands: 

(1) The power of each fixed or base 

station transmitting in the 1995–2000 

MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, 

2180–2200 MHz band, or 3700–4200 

MHz band and located in any county 

with population density of 100 or fewer 

persons per square mile, based upon the 

most recently available population 

statistics from the Bureau of the Census, 

is limited to: 

* * * * * 

(2) The power of each fixed or base 

station transmitting in the 1995–2000 

MHz, the 2110–2155 MHz 2155–2180 

MHz band, 2180–2200, or 3700–4200 

MHz band and situated in any 

geographic location other than that 

described in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section is limited to: 

* * * * * 

(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (handheld) stations operating in the 1710– 

1755 MHz band and mobile and 

portable stations operating in the 1695– 

1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 3700– 

4200 MHz bands are limited to 1 watt 

EIRP. Fixed stations operating in the 

1710–1755 MHz band are limited to a 

maximum antenna height of 10 meters 

above ground. Mobile and portable 

stations operating in these bands must 

employ a means for limiting power to 

the minimum necessary for successful 

communications. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 27.53 by revising 

paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 27.53 Emission limits. 

* * * * * 

(h) AWS emission limits—(1) General 

protection levels. Except as otherwise 

specified below, for operations in the 

1695–1710 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz, 

1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz, 

1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, 

2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz, 

2180–2200 MHz, and 3700–4200 MHz 

bands, the power of any emission 

outside a licensee’s frequency block 

shall be attenuated below the 

transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 

43 + 10 log10 (P) dB. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 27.55 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 27.55 Power strength limits. 

* * * * * 

(d) Power flux density for stations 

operating in the 3700–4200 MHz band. 

The predicted or measured Power Flux 

Density from any Base Station operating 

in the 3700–4200 MHz bands at any 

location on the geographical border of a 

licensee’s service area shall not exceed 

¥76dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 

meters above ground) unless the 

adjacent affected service area licensee(s) 

agree(s) to a different PFD. 

■ 15. Amend § 27.57 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 27.57 International coordination. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operation in the 1695–1710 MHz, 

1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 

1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 

2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 

2155–2180 MHz, 2180–2200 MHz, and 

3700–4200 MHz bands is subject to 

international agreements with Mexico 

and Canada. 

■ 16. Add subpart O to read as follows: 

Subpart O—3700–4200 MHz Band 

Sec. 

27.1400 3700–4200 MHz band subject to 

competitive bidding. 

27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700– 

4200 MHz band. 

§ 27.1400 3700–4200 MHz band subject to 

competitive bidding. 

Mutually exclusive initial 

applications for 3700–4200 MHz band 

licenses are subject to competitive 

bidding. The general competitive 

bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR 

part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will 

apply unless otherwise provided in this 

subpart. 

§ 27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700– 

4200 MHz band. 

(a) Eligibility for small business 

provisions—(1) Definitions—(i) Small 

business. A small business is an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, its 

controlling interests, and the affiliates of 

its controlling interests, has average 

gross revenues not exceeding $55 

million for the preceding three (3) years. 

(ii) Very small business. A very small 

business is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates, its controlling interests, 

and the affiliates of its controlling 

interests, has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $20 million for the preceding 

three (3) years. 

(2) Bidding credits. A winning bidder 

that qualifies as a small business, as 

defined in this section, or a consortium 

of small businesses may use the bidding 

credit of 15 percent, as specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A 

winning bidder that qualifies as a very 

small business, as defined in this 

section, or a consortium of very small 

businesses may use the bidding credit of 

25 percent, as specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter. 

(b) Eligibility for rural service provider 

bidding credit. A rural service provider, 

as defined in § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this 

chapter, that has not claimed a small 

business bidding credit may use the 

bidding credit of 15 percent specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18288 Filed 8–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2