Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19575 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves establishment of a safety zone 

on the waters of the East River during 

a firework works display. This rule 

appears to be categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Commandant Instruction. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public 

Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T01–0130 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0130 Safety Zone; Wedding 

Fireworks Display, Boston Inner Harbor, 

Boston, MA. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following area 

is a temporary safety zone: All navigable 

waters from surface to bottom, within a 

450-foot radius of position 42°21′19′′ N, 

071°02′32′′ W. This position is located 

approximately 450-feet off of Anthony’s 

Pier 4, Boston Inner Harbor Boston, MA. 

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section ‘‘Designated on-scene 

representative’’ is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port Boston (COTP) to act on the 

COTP’s behalf. 

(c) Effective Period. This rule will be 

effective and will be enforced from 

8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on May 19, 2012. 

(d) Regulations. 

(1) The general regulations contained 

in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the 

following regulations, apply. 

(2) No vessels, except for fireworks 

barge and accompanying vessels, will be 

allowed to enter into, transit, or anchor 

within the safety zone without the 

permission of the COTP or the 

designated on-scene representative. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP or the designated on-scene 

representative. Upon being hailed by a 

U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the regulated area 

shall contact the COTP or the 

designated on-scene representative via 

VHF channel 16 or 617–223–3201 

(Sector Boston Command Center) to 

obtain permission. 

(5) Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the regulated area 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or the designated onscene representative. 

Dated: March 15, 2012. 

J.N. Healey, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Boston. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7782 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 27 

[WT Docket No. 12–69; FCC 12–31] 

Promoting Interoperability in the 700 

MHz Commercial Spectrum; 

Interoperability of Mobile User 

Equipment Across Paired Commercial 

Spectrum Blocks in the 700 MHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the customers of Lower 700 MHz B and 

C Block licensees would experience 

harmful interference—and if so, to what 

degree—if the Lower 700 MHz band 

were interoperable. The Commission 

also explores the next steps should it 

find that interoperability would cause 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission has a longstanding interest in 

promoting the interoperability of mobile user 

equipment in a variety of contexts as a means to 

promote the widest possible deployment of mobile 

services, ensure the most efficient use of spectrum, 

and protect and promote competition. 

limited or no harmful interference to 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block 

licensees, or that such interference can 

reasonably be mitigated through 

industry efforts and/or through 

modifications to the Commission’s 

technical rules or other regulatory 

measures. The Commission initiates this 

proceeding to promote interoperability 

in the Lower 700 MHz band and to 

encourage the efficient use of spectrum. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before June 1, 2012, 

and reply comments on or before July 

16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 12–69, by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or 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: 

Brenda Boykin, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

2062, email Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT 

Docket No. 12–69, adopted March 21, 

2012, and released March 21, 2012. The 

full text of the NPRM is available for 

inspection and copying during business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

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

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Also, it may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; the 

contractor’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 

378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or 

email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of 

the NPRM also may be obtained via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) by entering the 

docket number WT Docket No. 12–69. 

Additionally, the complete item is 

available on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Introduction 

1. The Communications Act directs 

the Commission to, among other things, 

promote the widest possible 

deployment of communications 

services, ensure the most efficient use of 

spectrum, and protect and promote 

vibrant competition in the marketplace. 

On each occasion where the 

Commission has made available new 

spectrum for mobile telephony and/or 

broadband, it has strived to meet these 

important goals. This was the case when 

the Commission launched its 

proceeding to free up the 700 MHz band 

for commercial mobile services, as it 

expressly recognized the need to 

‘‘balance several competing goals, 

including facilitating access to spectrum 

by both small and large providers, 

providing for the efficient use of the 

spectrum, and better enabling the 

delivery of broadband services in the 

700 MHz Band.’’ 

2. Since the completion of the 700 

MHz auction and the subsequent 

clearing of the spectrum, however, 

certain Lower 700 MHz A Block 

licensees have asserted that the 

development of two distinct band 

classes within the Lower 700 MHz band 

has hampered their ability to have 

meaningful access to a wide range of 

advanced devices. The result, they 

argue, is that this spectrum is being 

built out less quickly than anticipated 

(and in some cases not at all), so that a 

large number of Lower 700 MHz A 

Block licensees are unable to provide 

the level of service and degree of 

competition envisioned at the close of 

the auction and as contemplated by the 

Communications Act. The 700 MHz 

band, at 70 megahertz, one of the largest 

commercial mobile service bands, is the 

only non-interoperable commercial 

mobile service band. 

3. The record to date in response to 

the underlying Petition for Rulemaking 

reveals disagreement over the rationale 

for the distinct band classes, and the 

wisdom of maintaining both. At its core, 

the dispute is whether a unified band 

class would result in harmful 

interference to Lower 700 MHz 

licensees in the B and C Blocks and 

whether, if harmful interference exists, 

it reasonably can be mitigated. 

4. There is express agreement, 

however, that a unified band class 

across the Lower 700 MHz band has the 

potential to yield significant benefits for 

all licensees. Indeed, as AT&T, the 

primary holder of Lower B and C Block 

licenses, affirmed in a recent letter to 

the Commission, ‘‘[AT&T] indeed 

anticipate[s] that there would be 

increased opportunity [if interference 

concerns were addressed] for 

commercial relationships with A Block 

licensees.’’ Unfortunately, no industryled solution to the lack of 

interoperability has yet emerged. 

5. Therefore, the Commission initiates 

this rulemaking proceeding to promote 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band and to encourage the efficient use 

of spectrum.1 The Commission will 

evaluate whether the customers of 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees 

would experience harmful 

interference—and if so, to what 

degree—if the Lower 700 MHz band 

were interoperable. The Commission 

also explores the next steps should it 

find that interoperability would cause 

limited or no harmful interference to 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block 

licensees, or that such interference can 

reasonably be mitigated through 

industry efforts and/or through 

modifications to the Commission’s 

technical rules or other regulatory 

measures. 

II. Background 

6. 700 MHz Band. The 700 MHz band 

(698–806 MHz), illustrated in the 

following figure, is comprised of 70 

megahertz of commercial, non-guard 

band spectrum, 4 megahertz of guard 

band spectrum, 24 megahertz of public 

safety: Spectrum, and 10 megahertz of 

spectrum that will be reallocated for 

public safety use pursuant to recent 

Congressional mandate. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19577 

2 47 CFR 73.622(f)(8). Maximum ERP of 1000 kW 

is allowed if antenna HAAT is at or below 365 

meters. For higher HAAT levels, lower maximum 

ERP is allowed according to the ‘‘Maximum 

Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for DTV 

Stations on Channels 14–59, All Zones’’ table. 

3 47 CFR 27.50(c)(7). Lower 700 MHz C, D, and 

E Block fixed and base stations may operate at total 

power levels up to 50 kW ERP in their authorized 

6 megahertz spectrum blocks. In the recent ATTQualcomm transaction, in which AT&T acquired all 

of the Lower 700 MHz D Block licenses and Lower 

700 MHz E Block licenses covering 70 million 

people, the Commission conditioned the 

assignment of these licenses on AT&T’s compliance 

with the requirements that: (1) It operates on the 

associated spectrum under the same power limits 

and antenna height restrictions that apply to the 

Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Block licensees; (2) it 

does not use the acquired licenses for uplink 

transmission; and (3) its operations on the 

associated spectrum avoid undue interference to 

operations of other Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C 

Block licensees, as specified therein. Application of 

AT&T Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated For 

Consent To Assign Licenses and Authorizations, 

Order, WT Docket No. 11–18, 26 FCC Rcd 17589, 

17616–18 paras. 61–68 (2011) (AT&T/Qualcomm 

Order). 

4 Its world-wide partners come from Asia, Europe, 

and North America. 3GPP’s many technical 

specification groups meet in various countries 

throughout the year to carry out the organization’s 

mission. See 3GPP—About 3GPP, http:// 

www.3gpp.org/-About-3GPP (last visited Mar. 12, 

2012). For the schedules of the meetings, see 

3GPP—3GPP Calendar, http://www.3gpp.org/3GPPCalendar (last visited Mar. 12, 2012). 

5Hereinafter, the Commission refers to each 3GPP 

LTE Operating Band as a ‘‘Band Class.’’ For 

example, the Commission refers to 3GPP LTE 

Operating Band 12 as ‘‘Band Class 12.’’ 

7. As shown above, the Lower 700 

MHz band spectrum (698–746 MHz) 

consists of 48 megahertz of commercial 

spectrum, with three blocks of 12 

megahertz each of paired spectrum 

(Lower A, B, and C Blocks), and two 

blocks of 6 megahertz each of unpaired 

spectrum (Lower D and E Blocks). The 

Lower A Block spectrum is adjacent to 

Channel 51 (692–698 MHz), which has 

been allocated for TV broadcast 

operations at power levels of up to 1000 

kW.2 The Lower A Block is also 

adjacent to the unpaired Lower 700 

MHz E Block, where licensees (along 

with Lower 700 MHz D Block licensees) 

may operate at power levels up to 50 

kW.3 The Upper 700 MHz band (746– 

806 MHz) consists of the C Block, which 

is comprised of 22 megahertz of paired 

spectrum for commercial use, two guard 

bands, the public safety allocation, and 

the D Block, which consists of 10 

megahertz of paired spectrum that will 

be reallocated for use by public safety 

entities, in accordance with the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012. 

8. Assignment of Licenses in the 700 

MHz Band. The Commission has 

assigned licenses for the 700 MHz band 

through several auction proceedings. 

The Commission auctioned licenses for 

the guard bands in the Upper 700 MHz 

band in 2000, and it initially auctioned 

licenses in the Lower C and D Blocks in 

2002. In 2008, the Commission 

auctioned licenses in the Lower 700 

MHz band A, B, and E Blocks, as well 

as the Upper 700 MHz band C Block. 

9. Performance Requirements. In 

adopting rules for the 700 MHz band, 

the Commission’s goals included 

promoting commercial access to 700 

MHz band spectrum, as well as 

providing licensees with flexibility in 

the services to be offered and the 

technologies to be deployed. For the 

Lower 700 MHz C and D Block licenses 

that were auctioned in 2002, the 

Commission required licensees to 

provide ‘‘substantial service’’ to their 

license service areas no later than the 

end of the license term. In 2007, the 

Commission adopted performance 

requirements for licenses in the 700 

MHz band that subsequently were 

auctioned in 2008, including Lower 700 

MHz A Block. Specifically, Cellular 

Market Area (CMA)-based and 

Economic Area (EA)-based licensees are 

required to provide service sufficient to 

cover 35 percent of the geographic area 

of their licenses within four years and 

70 percent of this area within ten years 

(the license term), and Regional 

Economic Area Grouping (REAG) 

licensees must provide service sufficient 

to cover 40 percent of the population of 

their license areas within four years and 

75 percent of the population within ten 

years. For licensees that fail to meet the 

applicable interim benchmark, the 

license term is reduced by two years, 

which would require that the end-ofterm benchmark be met within eight 

years, and the Commission may take 

other enforcement action. At the end of 

the license term, licensees that fail to 

meet the end-of-term benchmark are 

subject to a ‘‘keep what you use’’ rule, 

which will make unused spectrum 

available to other potential users. 

10. Development of 3GPP Technical 

Standards. Industry standards for LongTerm Evolution (LTE) wireless 

broadband technology are developed by 

the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 

(3GPP), a consensus-driven 

international partnership of industrybased telecommunications standards 

bodies. 3GPP, established in 1998, is an 

industry-based group and it is not 

associated with any governmental 

agency.4 In the Lower 700 MHz band, 

there are two different 3GPP operating 

bands: 5 Band Class 12, which covers 

operations in the Lower A, B, and C 

Blocks, and Band Class 17, which 

covers operations in the Lower B and C 

Blocks only. The spectrum to which 

Band Class 17 applies is a subset of the 

spectrum covered by Band Class 12. 

Entities involved in the creation of Band 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP12.004</GPH>
19578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6See §§ 6.2.2, 6.6.2, and 6.6.2.2.3 of 3GPP TS 

36.101 V9.9.0 (2011–09). The class 3 devices (UE) 

maximum transmit power is 23dBm for all bands 

with ±2dB tolerance, and Table 6.6.2.2.3–1 specifies 

the spectrum emission limits for available channel 

bandwidths. 

7Receiver blocking requirements address a 

receiver’s ability to receive at least 95% of the 

maximum throughput at its assigned channel in the 

presence of an unwanted interfering signal falling 

into the device receive band or into the first 

adjacent 15 megahertz. See Table 7.6.1.1–2, Section 

7.6.1 of 3GPP TS 36.104 V9.9.0 (2011–09). Unlike 

Band Class 17, 3GPP determined that Band Class 12 

cannot achieve the typical minimum specification 

for blocking interference from the Lower 700 MHz 

E Block, so this requirement was omitted from the 

Band 12 technical specification. 

Class 17 during 3GPP proceedings assert 

that it was necessary to create a separate 

band class for Lower 700 MHz B and C 

Block licenses in order to avoid 

interference issues from DTV in 

Channel 51 and high power operations 

in the E Block. In the Upper 700 MHz 

band, the Band Class 13 specification 

provides for operations in the Upper C 

Block, and Band Class 14 provides for 

operations in the public safety spectrum 

(including the Upper 700 MHz D Block). 

3GPP has adopted certain technical 

specifications for user equipment 

operating in different 700 MHz bands. 

Output power and the OOBE 

specifications for LTE equipment are the 

same for all commercial paired 

frequencies in the Lower 700 MHz 

band.6 The 3GPP specifications differ 

for receiver blocking requirements. The 

3GPP specified requirements for 

receiver blocking are the same for Band 

Class 13 and Band Class 14 equipment, 

but Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 

each have different and distinct 

blocking requirements, due to 

differences in each band’s relative 

proximity to neighboring high-powered 

operations in the E block.7

11. 700 MHz Interoperability Petition 

for Rulemaking. In late 2009, an alliance 

comprised of four Lower 700 MHz A 

Block licensees (Petitioners) filed a 

petition for rulemaking, asking the 

Commission to ‘‘assure that consumers 

will have access to all paired 700 MHz 

spectrum that the Commission licenses, 

to act so that the entire 700 MHz Band 

will develop in a competitive fashion, 

and to adopt rules that prohibit 

restrictive equipment arrangements that 

are contrary to the public interest.’’ 

Petitioners request the Commission to 

require that all mobile units for the 700 

MHz band be capable of operating over 

all frequencies in the band. Petitioners 

further request ‘‘an immediate freeze on 

the authorization of mobile equipment 

that is not capable of operation on all 

paired commercial 700 MHz 

frequencies.’’ The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau sought 

comment on the Petition in 2010. See 75 

FR 9210. All future filings concerning 

RM–11592 should be made in this 

docket, WT Docket No. 12–69. 

12. The Commission received 18 

comments and 13 reply comments in 

response to the Petition. Commenters 

are divided on the merits of the relief 

sought in the Petition. Commenters in 

support of the Petition include smaller, 

regional 700 MHz licensees, a coalition 

including Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, 

trade associations representing rural and 

smaller providers, a coalition of public 

interest groups, and public safety 

associations. These supporters assert 

that the mobile devices currently being 

developed for AT&T and Verizon 

Wireless preclude supporting operation 

on Lower A Block spectrum and that 

this is contrary to the public interest 

and anti-competitive. They argue that 

small providers that acquired Lower 

band 700 MHz Block A spectrum are left 

without viable and widely usable 

equipment options. Thus, they contend 

that unless Verizon Wireless and AT&T 

are required to support Band Class 12 in 

their devices, Lower A Block licensees 

will not be able to obtain devices with 

competitive economies of scale. They 

also argue that requiring full 700 MHz 

support will maximize roaming 

opportunities. Specifically, Petitioners 

assert that a prerequisite for negotiating 

roaming agreements is the availability of 

capable devices and that there is no 

basis for negotiation if there are no 

mobile devices that work across 700 

MHz frequency blocks. While the 

Petition requests interoperability across 

the entire 700 MHz band, subsequent 

filings from some of the proponents of 

an interoperability requirement, 

including parties to the Petition, have 

asked the Commission to first focus on 

establishing an interoperability 

requirement for the Lower 700 MHz 

band. 

13. In their initial comments, parties 

such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless, 

device manufacturers Motorola and 

Qualcomm, and TIA, a manufacturer 

trade association, opposed the Petition. 

They argued that without Band Class 17 

filtering, Lower 700 MHz B and C 

licensees will face greater levels of 

harmful interference. Further, they 

suggested that an interoperability 

requirement at that time, spring 2010, 

would have unnecessarily delayed the 

deployment of 700 MHz mobile 

broadband devices. They contended that 

the existing 3GPP band classes were 

crafted through an open process and are 

responsive to the realities of the 

engineering and manufacturing 

constraints of the Commission-defined 

spectrum blocks. Further, AT&T 

asserted that nothing prevents 700 MHz 

A Block licensees from negotiating 

roaming deals with any provider 

offering services on other 700 MHz 

blocks. AT&T also argued that even if A 

Block licensees will have greater 

difficulty or face higher costs in 

developing handsets for use on the A 

Block, those disadvantages are fully 

reflected in the lower prices A Block 

licensees paid to obtain A Block 

spectrum. 

14. Workshop on Interoperability. Last 

year, to update the record and gather 

additional information, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau held a 

workshop on the status and availability 

of interoperable mobile user equipment 

across commercial spectrum blocks in 

the 700 MHz band. Panelists included a 

range of industry experts, including 

licensees holding spectrum in different 

portions of the 700 MHz band, as well 

as public interest advocates and 

equipment manufacturers. In addition to 

exploring solutions for promoting the 

development and availability of 

equipment for the 700 MHz band, the 

workshop discussed providers’ 

technology choices, such as the planned 

deployment of LTE, and how these 

technology choices affect equipment 

availability, competition, and roaming. 

Panelists discussed the technical 

feasibility of an interoperability 

condition, as well as how an 

interoperability requirement might 

affect such factors as device cost and 

performance, and the need for 

additional development and testing. 

15. Other Developments Regarding 

the 700 MHz Band. On March 15, 2011, 

CTIA and RCA filed a petition for 

rulemaking and request for licensing 

freezes on Channel 51, urging the 

Commission to facilitate the deployment 

of wireless broadband services in the 

Lower 700 MHz A Block by providing 

a stable interference environment that 

allows licensees to plan network 

deployments. The petition noted the 

potential for interference between 

Channel 51 broadcast and Lower 700 

MHz A Block licensees. On March 28, 

2011, the Media Bureau requested 

comment on the petition, and in August 

2011, the Media Bureau adopted a 

freeze on the filing of certain 

applications with respect to operations 

on Channel 51. The freeze covers (1) 

applications for low power television, 

TV translator, replacement translators, 

and Class A television facilities on 

Channel 51, and displacement 

applications on this channel; and (2) 

applications for minor change for low 

power and full power television stations 

on Channel 51. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19579 

16. AT&T/Qualcomm Transaction. 

On January 13, 2011, AT&T and 

Qualcomm filed an application for 

Commission consent to the assignment 

or transfer of control of all eleven of 

Qualcomm’s D and E Block licenses in 

the Lower 700 MHz band to AT&T. The 

Commission sought comment on the 

proposed transaction. Several parties 

asked the Commission to impose 

requirements relating to device 

interoperability as a condition of 

approving the transaction. After 

examination of the record, the 

Commission approved the assignment 

on December 22, 2011, but declined to 

adopt an interoperability condition. The 

Commission observed that even 

assuming that the lack of Lower 700 

MHz interoperability causes significant 

competitive harm, such harm already 

existed independent of the license 

transfer applications. The Commission 

concluded that the better course would 

be to consider the numerous technical 

issues raised by the lack of 

interoperability through a rulemaking 

proceeding, which the Commission 

undertakes in this NPRM. 

III. Discussion 

A. Challenges To Achieving 

Interoperability 

17. The Commission historically has 

been interested in promoting 

interoperability. Beginning with the 

licensing of cellular spectrum, the 

Commission has opined that consumer 

equipment should be capable of 

operating over the entire range of 

cellular spectrum as a means to ‘‘insure 

full coverage in all markets and 

compatibility on a nationwide basis.’’ 

Although the Commission did not adopt 

a rule to require band-wide 

interoperability for PCS, it again 

stressed the importance of 

interoperability by acknowledging 

industry efforts to establish voluntary 

interoperability standards and asserted 

that ‘‘[t]he availability of 

interoperability standards will deliver 

important benefits to consumers and 

help achieve the Commission’s 

objectives of universality, competitive 

delivery of PCS, that includes the ability 

of consumers to switch between PCS 

systems at low cost, and competitive 

markets for PCS equipment.’’ The 

Commission also stated that if PCS 

technology did not develop in a manner 

to accommodate roaming and 

interoperability, it might consider ‘‘what 

actions the Commission may take to 

facilitate the more rapid development of 

appropriate standards.’’ 

18. Availability of End-User 

Equipment. According to the 

Petitioners, a lack of interoperability in 

the Lower 700 MHz band has cut off 

meaningful access for many Lower A 

Block licensees to cutting-edge devices, 

and even those that do have access are 

able to acquire only a fraction of what 

other 700 MHz licensees are able to 

procure. Petitioners and proponents of a 

near-term interoperability requirement 

make essentially two arguments. 

Specifically, Vulcan argues that 

equipment vendors currently first serve 

the needs of ‘‘the unique band class that 

is dominated by AT&T’’ and that this 

slows the time to market for Lower A 

Block licensees because they experience 

a lack of access to new devices and face 

delays in the development of standards, 

chipsets, and equipment. Similarly, 

RTG asserts that equipment 

manufacturers have little incentive to 

innovate and provide compatible 

devices for smaller markets, particularly 

when providing interoperable devices 

would run contrary to their largest 

customers’ desires. 

19. Petitioners and other proponents 

also claim that an interoperability 

requirement should enable Lower A 

Block licensees and other Lower 700 

MHz licensees to benefit from 

economies of scale with respect to 

mobile devices, which in turn would 

promote greater affordability that can be 

passed along to consumers. RCA argues 

that even where Band Class 12 

equipment can be made available, the 

costs are unnecessarily inflated by the 

limited scale resulting from the lack of 

interoperability across the 700 MHz 

spectrum. According to the record, 

Cellular South was able to find a 

manufacturer willing to supply it with 

devices that included, at a minimum, 

Band Class 12 frequencies, but ‘‘the cost 

of obtaining such devices without the 

economies of scale available based upon 

demand for similar devices by a 

nationwide carrier made pursuing the 

opportunity not economically feasible.’’ 

Cellular South asserts that the necessary 

‘‘scale’’ to obtain pricing that would 

allow it to bring devices to market 

would be expected to involve more than 

one million devices and in any case no 

less than a half million devices. 

20. Nationwide providers AT&T and 

Verizon Wireless respond that Lower 

700 MHz A Block licensees are free to 

negotiate with device manufacturers. 

Verizon Wireless claims that ‘‘those 

decisions have to be made by those 

carriers to meet their own individual 

business plans. Verizon Wireless has 

nothing to do with those decisions.’’ 

Verizon Wireless also asserts that there 

are at least 33 companies that 

manufacture devices for the U.S. market 

and that Petitioners ‘‘provide no 

evidence about their efforts (or the 

apparent lack thereof) to obtain the 

devices they want, either individually 

or through a consortium, from any of 

these potential suppliers.’’ 

21. The Commission seeks comment 

on Petitioners’ and other proponents’ 

argument that an interoperability 

requirement in the 700 MHz band is 

necessary to obtain affordable, advanced 

mobile devices to deploy service to 

consumers in smaller, regional, and 

rural service areas. To what extent have 

any Lower A Block licensees 

successfully negotiated with equipment 

vendors to date? What efforts have other 

Lower A Block licensees undertaken to 

negotiate with equipment vendors? 

Would an interoperability requirement 

help enable Lower A Block licensees to 

benefit from economies of scale with 

respect to mobile devices, and what 

would be the benefits to consumers? Do 

manufacturers require a provider to 

purchase a minimum number of 

devices? If so, what is that number and 

is it prohibitive for a smaller provider to 

achieve such a scale? The Commission 

seeks data and evidence in support of 

all of these claims. 

22. Effect on the Deployment of 

Advanced Broadband Services. The 

record to date suggests that, unless 

mobile user equipment is capable of 

operating on all paired commercial 

Lower 700 MHz spectrum, the 

deployment of facilities-based mobile 

broadband networks could be 

hampered, particularly in rural and 

unserved areas. The Commission notes 

that a significant number of Lower A 

Block licenses are held by smaller, rural, 

and regional licensees. Petitioners and 

proponents argue that requiring all 

Lower 700 MHz licensees to use 

interoperable equipment would increase 

the likelihood that these Lower A Block 

licensees can obtain the necessary 

financing to deploy networks and 

devices. They add that the inability of 

small and regional providers to obtain 

interoperable devices impedes their 

ability to compete in the provision of 4G 

services, makes it difficult to maintain 

current customers and acquire new 

ones, results in equipment costs that are 

higher than for other bands, and creates 

uncertainty for spectrum holders that 

could have adverse effects on 

investment in deployment of networks 

and devices. RCA and Triad argue that 

Lower A Block licensees’ inability to 

obtain affordable end user devices could 

cause the A Block spectrum to remain 

fallow for an extended period of time. 

23. AT&T responds that an 

interoperability requirement in the 

Lower 700 MHz spectrum would 

impose unreasonable burdens on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

AT&T’s ability to build out its Lower 

700 MHz spectrum. Specifically, AT&T 

claims that such a requirement would 

create ‘‘substantial disruption and delay 

to [its] current LTE deployment plans 

and significant additional costs.’’ AT&T 

claims that if it were required to 

abandon plans to use Band Class 17 and 

deploy a network around Band Class 12, 

it would need to upgrade its LTE base 

stations and develop and obtain ‘‘new 

chipsets, devices and radio equipment, 

a process that usually takes years to 

complete.’’ It also asserts that adding 

Band Class 12 capabilities into its 

mobile devices along with Band Class 

17 capabilities would make the devices 

substantially larger, likely shorten 

battery life, and potentially require the 

tradeoff of other uses, such as bands 

used for international roaming. In 

addition, as discussed below, AT&T’s 

objections also stem from issues 

associated with potential interference 

concerns from Channel 51 operations 

and high power Lower E Block 

broadcasts. 

24. The Commission asks commenters 

to submit additional detailed metrics to 

evaluate the effects of an 

interoperability requirement on 

competition. Specifically, would the use 

of interoperable equipment promote 

consumer choice by facilitating the 

portability of mobile devices between 

service providers, thereby allowing 

consumers to switch more easily 

between providers? At the same time, 

would deployment of Lower 700 MHz B 

and C Block service be delayed by a 

move towards interoperability, either by 

rule or industry agreement? What would 

be the relevant costs associated with 

possible Commission action? What costs 

would Lower 700 MHz B and C 

licensees who have already committed 

to Band Class 17, or who plan to do so, 

incur if the Commission adopts an 

interoperability rule in the Lower 700 

MHz spectrum? 

25. Would a requirement that mobile 

user equipment be capable of operating 

on all paired commercial Lower 700 

MHz spectrum facilitate deployment of 

facilities-based mobile broadband 

networks in rural and unserved areas? 

Are Lower A Block licensees just as 

likely to obtain funding and obtain 

affordable mobile equipment without 

Commission action? The Commission 

also seeks specific data and anecdotal 

evidence to support claims that an 

interoperability obligation would 

require complete redesign and upgrade 

of devices and base stations. The 

Commission seeks additional 

information on the necessary changes to 

chipsets and the timeframes these 

changes will impose. 

26. U.S. Cellular recently announced 

the planned launch of a 4G LTE network 

that will cover 25 percent of U.S. 

Cellular’s customers and will use the 

700 MHz licenses of its partner, King 

Street Wireless. C-Spire, in contrast, 

reportedly has delayed its previously 

announced launch of its 4G LTE 

network. The Commission asks Lower A 

Block licensees to provide detailed 

information on the effect that a lack of 

interoperability has had, if any, on their 

efforts to deploy service. Commenters 

should be as specific as possible and 

should, where possible, include data or 

affidavits. 

27. Roaming. A number of 

commenters argue that an 

interoperability requirement would 

promote roaming among 700 MHz 

licensees. These proponents argue that 

requiring the use of interoperable 

equipment in the Lower 700 MHz band 

would promote the commercial 

availability of mobile device equipment 

for all Lower 700 MHz licensees. 

Without that equipment, Lower 700 

MHz A Block licensees maintain they 

cannot build out their networks, which 

they claim is a prerequisite for the 

negotiation of roaming agreements. 

Petitioners also claim that they have no 

reason to expect such mobile devices to 

be available on a widespread, affordable 

basis in the 700 MHz band and without 

such devices, there is nothing to 

negotiate. Petitioners contend that small 

rural and regional carriers are in no 

position to place bulk orders for mobile 

devices that work in the Lower 700 MHz 

A Block and also work in other 700 

MHz frequency blocks. They claim that 

AT&T and Verizon Wireless are the only 

ones who hold the market power with 

the device manufacturers and the two 

carriers currently are developing mobile 

devices that work exclusively on their 

bands. Without interoperable devices, 

Petitioners state that there will be no 

roaming in the 700 MHz band. 

28. NTCA states that mobile 

customers rely on and expect a 

‘‘seamless experience’’ that is made 

possible by roaming arrangements. 

Without roaming, NTCA explains that 

customers will experience ‘‘isolated 

islands of service.’’ Further, Petitioners 

and other supporters assert that even if 

Band Class 12 equipment were 

available, from a technical perspective, 

Band Class 17 device users would be 

unable to roam on Band Class 12 

networks operating on Block A. They 

argue that a lack of interoperability 

leaves customers of small carriers 

‘‘without an option for a nationwide 

service, perpetually unable to roam on 

the networks of the large carriers.’’ 

29. AT&T and Verizon Wireless 

respond that the Lower A Block 

licensees are not prevented from 

negotiating roaming arrangements with 

providers offering services on the other 

700 MHz blocks. AT&T also responds 

that A Block licensees are free to 

negotiate with handset manufacturers to 

design, manufacture and deploy 

wireless handsets and other devices that 

operate within the spectrum bands that 

are needed based upon their spectrum 

holdings and business plans, including 

Band Class 12 or other commercial 

spectrum.’’ AT&T argues that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission should not take action to 

force carriers to utilize a certain 

spectrum band for roaming,’’ but that 

carriers should be able ‘‘to choose their 

roaming partners based on factors like 

network compatibility, price, coverage, 

and call quality.’’ The Commission 

seeks comment on whether 

interoperability would promote 

reasonable roaming arrangements 

among 700 MHz providers and would 

increase the number of providers that 

are technologically compatible for 

roaming partnership. 

B. Potential for Harmful Interference 

30. Even if the record demonstrates 

that the existence of two distinct band 

classes in the Lower 700 MHz band is 

creating a device and network 

deployment problem, the Commission 

must ultimately resolve the central 

question as to whether a single band 

class would cause widespread harmful 

interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C 

Block licensees, who would otherwise 

use Band Class 17 devices rather than 

Band Class 12. 

31. Interoperability issues are 

particularly relevant at this time, as 

licensees are in the process of deploying 

LTE in the Lower 700 MHz band. As of 

December 2011, AT&T has launched 

LTE service using its Lower 700 MHz B 

and C Block licenses in 15 markets. In 

addition, as noted above, U.S. Cellular 

recently announced the planned launch 

of an LTE network that will cover 25 

percent of its customers and will use the 

700 MHz licenses of its partner, King 

Street Wireless. As discussed earlier, 

there are two Lower 700 MHz band LTE 

standards for the Lower 700 MHz band, 

with 3GPP Band Class 17 spanning the 

B and C Blocks, and Band Class 12 

spanning the A, B, and C Blocks. Some 

commenters have argued that this, in 

turn, fragments the device ecosystem for 

LTE devices that operate in the Lower 

700 MHz band and prevents 

interoperability. 

32. Commenters argue that there 

would be two primary interference 

concerns for providers operating in the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19581 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks if these 

providers were to substitute Band Class 

12 for Band Class 17 in newly-offered 

devices (as opposed to adding Band 

Class 12 capabilities into devices along 

with Band Class 17): (1) Reverse 

intermodulation interference from 

adjacent DTV Channel 51 operations; 

and (2) blocking interference from 

neighboring high-powered operations in 

the Lower 700 MHz E Block. The 

Commission focuses its technical 

analysis on these two primary issues. 

The Commission notes that some 

commenters also express concern 

regarding the need to deploy wider 

filters in order to migrate to Band Class 

12. The Commission observes, however, 

that a transition from Band Class 17 to 

Band Class 12 does not necessitate a 

change to base station filtering. 

Operators deploying networks in the 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks can 

continue to filter base station receivers 

as they would for Band Class 17, and 

thus interference from Channel 51 to B 

and C Block base stations is the same 

regardless of whether Band Class 12 

devices or Band Class 17 devices are 

used. Commenters also raise other 

potential interference concerns, 

including interference from Band Class 

12 devices into Channel 51 television 

receivers, and other interference issues 

that are specific to operations in the A 

Block. The Commission does not 

address those issues herein. The 

Commission focuses the scope of this 

proceeding to interference to Lower 700 

MHz B and C Block operations that may 

result from the adoption of Band Class 

12 devices by Lower 700 MHz B and C 

licensees, whether voluntarily or by 

regulatory mandate. 

33. AT&T asserts that both reverse 

intermodulation and blocking 

interference are significant issues. It 

expects that managing and mitigating 

the interference from Channel 51 and 

any high power Lower E Block 

broadcasts to its network would account 

for the greatest expenses, and that its 

customers would not, on balance, 

benefit from AT&T migrating to Band 

Class 12. AT&T argues that if it were 

required to use Band Class 12 devices as 

opposed to Band Class 17 devices, its 

customers would be forced to use 

devices that would expose them to 

interference risks (from Channel 51 and 

the E Block) they otherwise would not 

face. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

AT&T affirms that it does not object to 

supporting interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band, assuming supply chain 

availability, if interference challenges 

from Channel 51 and the Lower 700 

MHz E Block licensees are addressed to 

its satisfaction. 

34. With regard to the Channel 51 

interference concerns, Motorola’s view 

in its original 3GPP proposal to create 

Band Class 17 was that reverse 

intermodulation interference could 

happen when Band Class 12 devices are 

close to high-powered Channel 51 

transmission towers, which it believes 

could result in in-band interference 

because of the limited radio frequency 

(RF) filtering capability of Band Class 12 

filters. According to Motorola’s paper, 

‘‘the key issue’’ in determining the 

possibility of such interference is ‘‘the 

level of the DTV Channel 51 wideband 

signal that would be present at the UE 

antenna port based on a reasonable 

deployment scenario,’’ but Motorola 

does not provide evidence showing the 

circumstances that could produce 

conditions suitable to create reverse 

intermodulation interference from 

Channel 51. 

35. Proponents of an interoperability 

requirement argue that no reverse 

intermodulation interference would 

occur, and that if an operator does 

experience any such interference, 

solutions exist to mitigate Channel 51 

interference concerns to Band Class 12 

devices operating in the B and/or C 

Blocks. According to Cellular South and 

King Street Wireless, ‘‘With [less than 

five megahertz] Tx bandwidth, any 

Channel 51–700 intermodulation 

products would not fall within the 

device receive blocks (no selfinterference issue).’’ They represent that 

this is because a strong signal from 

Channel 51 must mix with a full-power 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block device 

transmission, but ‘‘LTE base stations do 

not allow devices to transmit at full 

power with [greater than five megahertz] 

bandwidth due to a self-desense issue.’’ 

Essentially, Cellular South and King 

Street Wireless argue that power 

amplifier linearity in a mobile device 

improves considerably when it is not 

transmitting at full power and that if the 

device transmitted bandwidth is less 

than five megahertz, then 

intermodulation products resulting from 

the combination of Channel 51 and 

Lower 700 MHz band C Block transmit 

frequencies would not cause 

intermodulation interference. Finally, 

they point out that if intermodulation 

interference is experienced, the wireless 

operator ‘‘may deploy an LTE base 

station several hundred meters away 

from the Channel 51 station to control 

device transmit power and provide a 

stronger downlink desired signal.’’ 

36. Vulcan performed lab and field 

tests to test the assertion that ‘‘reverse 

intermodulation distortion caused by 

Channel 51 using a Band Class 12 

device would create an interfering 

signal in the B Block receiver.’’ Based 

on the results of lab tests, Vulcan 

concludes that a minimum signal level 

of 0 dBm from Channel 51 would be 

necessary to create an interference 

signal at the noise floor of the B Block 

receiver, and field measurements 

showed that Channel 51 transmissions 

were no stronger than -21 dBm. The 

report indicates that the strongest signal 

strength in the field measurements of 

DTV Channel 51 is typically much 

lower than necessary to generate 

noticeable reverse intermodulation 

interference. AT&T responds that the 

tests referenced by Vulcan do not 

represent real-world situations, because 

the tests occurred only within a two 

kilometer radius of the Channel 51 

tower, whereas stronger signals from 

Channel 51 can occur at closer 

distances. 

37. With regard to interference from 

Lower E Block operations, Motorola 

asserts that receiver blocking 

performance may be degraded when 

Band Class 12 devices are close to highpowered Lower E Block transmission 

towers, due to limited Band Class 12 

device out-of-band blocking rejection. 

According to AT&T, Band Class 17, with 

an extra six megahertz of separation 

from the Lower E Block, was created to 

alleviate this concern, so that the device 

filter can provide sufficient attenuation 

of the E Block transmissions. It further 

asserts that Band Class 12 has suboptimal filtering because of the lack of 

sufficient frequency separation between 

the Lower E Block and the starting 

frequencies of Band Class 12. 

38. The Coalition for 4G asserts that 

network operators can eliminate 

potential interference from Lower E 

Block operations by deploying the A, B, 

or C Block base stations near the E Block 

transmitters. In support of its position 

that interference from Lower 700 MHz 

E Block transmitters is manageable for 

Band Class 12 devices operating in 

Lower 700 MHz B and C blocks, 

Vulcan’s lab and field tests assess the 

severity of interference issues to Band 

Class 12 devices from high power 50 kW 

transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz E 

Block. The tests indicate that the 

Atlanta field measurements of the 

highest signal power ratios between the 

50 kW Lower E Block and B Block are 

typically 15 to 30 dB lower than 

necessary to produce Lower B Block 

receiver blocking. The tests conclude 

that real-world tests found the 

anticipated interference circumstances 

are manageable and Band Class 17 is 

redundant. Vulcan also asserts that the 

test results confirm Band Class 12 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8AT&T/Qualcomm Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17617 

para. 67. Specifically, the condition requires AT&T 

to ‘‘(1) coordinate with the A, B, or C Block licensee 

to mitigate potential interference; (2) mitigate 

interference to A, B, or C Block operations within 

30 days after receiving written notice from the A, 

B, or C Block licensee; and (3) ensure that D/E Block 

transmissions in areas where another licensee holds 

the A, B, or C Block license are filtered at least to 

the extent that D/E Block transmissions are filtered 

in markets where AT&T holds the A, B, or C Block 

license, as applicable.’’ Id. U.S. Cellular urges the 

Commission to seek comment on and adopt a rule 

that imposes conditions on Lower E Block licensees 

consistent with the power limit restrictions, 

requirement for downlink-only transmissions, and 

interference mitigation requirements in the 

conditions adopted in the AT&T/Qualcomm Order. 

U.S. Cellular asserts that ‘‘[i]mposition of such 

conditions will serve the public interest by helping 

to accelerate the further development of the Lower 

700 MHz ecosystem.’’ Letter from Grant B. 

Spellmeyer, Executive Director, Federal Affairs and 

Public Policy, U.S. Cellular, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

FCC, filed March 15, 2012, at 1. 

devices performance would not be 

worse than Band Class 17 devices, and 

that Band Class 17 already has greater 

levels of internal interference from 

within the Lower B and C Blocks. 

39. In response, AT&T disagrees 

generally with the effectiveness of these 

potential mitigation techniques, stating 

that (1) increasing the number of cell 

sites near E Block transmitters or 

Channel 51 towers would increase the 

cost of providing 4G service, which 

would eventually be passed on to 

consumers, and (2) given the limited 

number of available site locations, 

coordination alone is insufficient to 

solve Band Class 12 interference issues. 

AT&T also asserts that adequate 

coverage of a 50 kW mobile broadcast 

service in the market in which Vulcan 

conducted its testing would require at 

least thirteen Lower 700 MHz E Block 

transmitters, which would lead to 

higher signal levels compared to the 

four transmitters that were active when 

testing was conducted by Vulcan. It is 

unclear, however, how much higher the 

signal levels may be close to a Lower E 

Block transmitter that is surrounded by 

twelve additional E Block transmitters 

versus one that is surrounded by only 

three. Whereas more base stations will 

improve overall signal levels and 

coverage, basic engineering calculations 

would suggest that any increase to the 

signal levels close to each base station, 

where signals may be strong enough to 

cause in-band receiver blocking 

interference to neighboring bands, 

would be negligible. 

40. The Commission seeks comment 

on these and any additional technical 

and operational factors that should be 

taken into consideration in any 

transition to an interoperable Lower 700 

MHz band. The Commission asks 

interested parties to submit 

measurements and quantitative analyses 

regarding the magnitude and extent of 

the interference risk from adjacent 

Channel 51 and Lower Block E 

transmissions for Band Class 12 devices 

operating in the Lower B and C Blocks. 

How effective are existing mitigation 

measures, such as coordination between 

Lower 700 MHz and DTV Channel 51 

licensees? Further, what innovative 

technical measures might be introduced 

in the near future, such as better 

performing RF duplexers and filters? 

What additional interoperability 

solutions exist or are being developed to 

address these interference concerns? 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

the performance of Band Class 12 

devices compared to Band Class 17 

devices, as well as on other factors 

relating to the operations in the Lower 

B and C Blocks. Furthermore, in the 

event unwanted harmful interference 

cannot be mitigated in some areas, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the potential harm resulting from 

interference in those areas is 

outweighed by the public interest 

benefits that would result from 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band, and what factors should be 

considered in balancing these concerns. 

41. As noted above, should Band 

Class 12 be substituted in devices for 

Band Class 17, operational issues may 

arise to the extent that a single network 

must be capable of supporting more 

than one device band class. That is, if 

a licensee chooses to continue 

supporting its existing grandfathered 

Band Class 17 devices, the wireless 

network will need to support both Band 

Class 17 devices and Band Class 12 

devices. The Commission seeks 

comment on possible ways to address 

this issue. Since the two Band Classes 

overlap in frequencies, the Commission 

thinks it is likely that there are 

relatively simple, cost effective 

solutions that will allow a single 

network to accommodate devices from 

both band classes. For example, would 

the Equivalent Home Public Land 

Mobile Network file (EHPLMN) update 

in devices allow the LTE network to 

support both Band Class 12 and Band 

Class 17 devices? 

42. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether there are measures it should 

take to address Lower 700 MHz 

interference concerns that may be 

preventing the voluntary adoption of 

Band Class 12 by Lower B and C Block 

licensees. The Commission notes that 

AT&T asks it to ‘‘modify the rules 

governing service in Channel 51 and in 

the 700 MHz Lower E Block to permit 

power levels, out of band emissions and 

antenna heights that are no greater than 

those currently permitted in the 700 

MHz Lower A and B blocks, to allow 

downlink only in the Lower E Block and 

uplink only in Channel 51, and to 

relocate any incumbent high power 

broadcast operations out of Channel 51 

and the Lower E Block.’’ In approving 

AT&T’s acquisition of Qualcomm’s 

Lower 700 MHz licenses (comprising all 

of the Lower 700 MHz D Block licenses 

and five of the Lower E Block licenses), 

the Commission included a condition 

that AT&T operate under the same 

power limits and height restrictions 

applicable to Lower 700 MHz A and B 

Block licensees, which will reduce the 

instances of high-powered operations in 

the Lower D and E Blocks. Specifically, 

the Commission stated that ‘‘AT&T must 

operate on the Lower D and E Block 

licenses consistent with the limits set 

forth in Section 27.50(c), excluding 

Subsection 27.50(c)(7).’’ The 

Commission also conditioned the 

transaction on AT&T’s use of this 

spectrum only for downlink 

transmissions. In addition, it 

conditioned the transaction on AT&T 

taking certain steps to mitigate possible 

interference caused by AT&T’s use of 

the Lower D and E Blocks to the uplink 

operations of licensees operating in the 

Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Blocks, 

including mitigating interference within 

30 days after receiving written notice 

from the A, B, or C Block licensee.8

43. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should modify its rules for 

Lower 700 MHz D and E Block 

operations, using the technical 

conditions set forth in the AT&T/ 

Qualcomm decision as a template. 

Modifying the Commission’s rules in 

this manner would lead to consistency 

in the technical requirements for the 

Lower D and E Blocks and would help 

to address potential harmful 

interference from operations on the 

Lower E Block licenses that are not held 

by AT&T. Would these modifications 

adequately address concerns that Lower 

B and C Block licensees may experience 

harmful interference from Lower D and 

E Block operations if they transition to 

Band Class 12? As a practical matter, 

would modifying the Commission’s 

rules in this manner encourage Lower B 

and C Block licensees to voluntarily 

adopt interoperable devices? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how such modifications would affect 

the operations and plans of Lower E 

Block licensees, other than AT&T. What 

other modifications to the Lower 700 

MHz D and E Block technical 

operational rules should the 

Commission consider and what are the 

costs and public interest benefits of 

these alternative rules? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19583 

9The Commission notes that certain recent ex 

parte filings urge it to consider interoperability 

across the entire 700 MHz band in light of the 

recent passage of the Spectrum Act, either now or 

in a future proceeding. See, e.g., Letter from Harold 

Feld, Legal Director, Public Knowledge, to Marlene 

H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 13, 2012 at 2; Letter 

from Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Vice President, 

Federal Regulatory Affairs, T–Mobile USA, Inc., to 

Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 13, 2012 at 1, 

4. The Commission’s focus on the Lower 700 MHz 

band in this NPRM does not preclude the 

Commission from considering broader 

interoperability issues, including interoperability 

across the entire 700 MHz band, in the future. 

10The recent technical study submitted by a 

consortium of several Lower 700 MHz A Block 

licensees focuses on interference issues associated 

with the use of Band Class 17 versus Band Class 

12 in the Lower 700 MHz Band. See Letter from 

Mark W. Brennan, Hogan Lovells, Counsel to 

Vulcan, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed Nov. 25, 

2011, Attachment, ‘‘Study to Review Interference 

Claims that have Thwarted Interoperability in the 

Lower 700 MHz Band.’’ The Commission notes that 

requiring interoperability in the Upper 700 MHz 

Band would introduce additional and unique 

interference scenarios, particularly technical issues 

related to implementing both Band Class 13 and 

Band Class 14 in a single device, as well as the use 

of such a device while also protecting GPS receivers 

and Public Safety Narrowband operations. 

44. With respect to potential 

interference as a result of Channel 51 

operations, are there steps the 

Commission could take to reduce the 

threat of such potential interference that 

would balance the needs and rights of 

Channel 51 incumbents with Lower 700 

MHz licensees? What role, if any, 

should the passage of the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

which gives the Commission authority 

to conduct incentive auctions, including 

in the television broadcast bands, have 

in the Commission’s approach to 

potential interference from Channel 51 

to the Lower 700 MHz band licensees? 

Could any measures be implemented 

without causing an undue burden on 

existing licensees? What is the 

likelihood that Channel 51 licensees 

will experience interference from 

operations in the Lower 700 MHz band? 

Vulcan asserts that ‘‘Band Class 12 

device interference into TV receivers is 

a claim that has never been 

substantiated,’’ and that the potential for 

Channel 51 licensees to cause 

interference to A Block base stations ‘‘is 

a deployment issue to be managed by 

the Lower A Block licensees.’’ Aside 

from regulatory measures, what steps 

should the Commission take to 

encourage voluntary industry efforts to 

find solutions to interference concerns? 

45. Other Issues. Commenters are 

concerned that if a provider adds Band 

Class 12 capabilities into mobile devices 

along with Band Class 17 (as opposed to 

substituting Band Class 12 for Band 

Class 17 in newly offered devices), the 

devices will be adversely affected with 

respect to form factor, cost, and battery 

life. The Commission seeks comment on 

these assertions. What network-specific 

issues would arise, and how could 

licensees address those issues? How 

difficult or costly would it be for 

licensees to address any networkspecific issues? Are there interim as 

well as long-term solutions that might 

be employed, and what is their timing? 

Are there any roaming or legacy device 

support issues that one solution may 

address that another may not? Given the 

highly technical and complex nature of 

this proceeding, the Commission seeks 

qualitative and quantitative data and 

engineering analyses to support 

commenters’ claims. 

46. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether its efforts should 

be focused exclusively—as they are 

now—on interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band, as opposed to the entire 

band. As the Commission noted above, 

although the Petition initially requests 

an interoperability requirement that 

requires mobile equipment to be capable 

of operating on all paired commercial 

frequency blocks in both the Upper and 

Lower 700 MHz bands, subsequent 

filings from some of the proponents of 

an interoperability requirement focus on 

requiring the use of Band Class 12 

devices in the Lower 700 MHz band.9

The Commission notes that there are 

unique interference environments and 

different technology-related issues, 

including the ability of equipment to 

accommodate multi-band 

interoperability, that are specific to the 

Lower versus Upper 700 MHz bands, as 

well as additional issues pertaining to 

consideration of requiring equipment to 

accommodate multi-band 

interoperability.10

C. Promoting Interoperability 

47. Assuming the Commission 

concludes that concerns regarding 

harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz 

B and C Block licensees are not a 

reasonable obstacle to interoperability 

or can be mitigated through industry 

efforts and/or Commission action, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there is likely to be a timely industry 

solution to interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band, or whether additional 

regulatory measures will be necessary to 

promote interoperability across the 

Lower 700 MHz band. Commenters 

currently supporting Band Class 17 

suggest that resolving interference 

concerns would encourage the use of 

Band Class 12. For example, Verizon 

asserts that it ‘‘fully supports 

commercial development of Band Class 

12 devices,’’ and that ‘‘actions 

addressing interference issues would 

spur evolution of the device market 

toward full Lower 700 MHz 

interoperability.’’ AT&T asserts that, if 

interference challenges from high power 

broadcasts in Channel 51 and in the 

Lower 700 MHz E Block are addressed 

satisfactorily, it will not object to 

supporting interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band. Further, AT&T contends 

that ‘‘these challenges can and should 

be addressed.’’ Absent a regulatory 

mandate to implement interoperability, 

will Lower 700 MHz licensees 

voluntarily ensure that all of the Lower 

700 MHz spectrum used for mobile 

transmit is included in their mobile 

equipment? 

48. In what timeframe would a 

voluntary migration to interoperable 

devices reasonably take place? The 

Commission notes that while U.S. 

Cellular recently announced that it has 

impending plans to launch 4G LTE 

service, together with its partner King 

Street Wireless L.P., it nevertheless 

asserts that ‘‘the Commission must still 

act quickly to address issues related to 

interoperability within the lower 700 

MHz bands.’’ Similarly, proponents of 

an interoperability requirement argue 

that action must be taken by the end of 

2012. Aside from the widespread and 

exclusive adoption of Band Class 12 in 

devices, which would necessitate only a 

single duplexer solution, what other 

solutions exist that might address 

interoperability concerns without 

regulatory intervention and within a 

reasonable timeframe? What would be a 

reasonable timeframe for a path to 

interoperability, and how will this 

timing affect consumers and 

competition? 

49. The Commission thinks that an 

industry solution to the question of 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band would be preferable because such 

a solution allows the market greater 

flexibility in responding to evolving 

consumer needs and dynamic and fastpaced technological developments. At 

the same time, the Commission 

recognizes that if the industry fails to 

move timely toward interoperability 

once interference concerns are 

adequately addressed (by regulatory 

action or otherwise), additional 

regulatory steps might be appropriate to 

further the public interest. The 

Commission staff will remain vigilant in 

monitoring the state of interoperability 

in the Lower 700 MHz band to ensure 

that the industry is making sufficient 

progress. What metrics and quantifiable 

data can the Commission use to measure 

whether the industry is making 

adequate progress towards achieving 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band? In the event that such steps are 

warranted, the Commission seeks 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

comment on whether it would be 

necessary to mandate interoperability in 

the Lower 700 MHz band or whether 

there are other, flexible regulatory 

measures that the Commission should 

consider. 

50. In the event that interference 

concerns are reasonably addressed and 

the Commission is left with no other 

option to maximize innovation and 

investment in the Lower 700 MHz band 

besides mandating mobile device 

interoperability, one approach would be 

to require Lower 700 MHz A, B, or C 

Block licensees, with respect to their 

networks operating in this spectrum, to 

use only mobile user equipment that has 

the capability to operate across all of 

these blocks. For example, those 

licensees deploying LTE in the Lower 

700 MHz band would no longer be 

allowed to offer mobile units operating 

on Band Class 17, which provides for 

operation on only the Lower 700 MHz 

B and C Blocks. Those licensees 

deploying LTE in the Lower 700 MHz 

band would substitute Band Class 17 

with Band Class 12. The Commission 

notes that this approach focuses on 

mobile user device interoperability and 

would not require modifications to 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block 

licensees’ base stations beyond those 

necessary to support Band Class 12 

devices operating on these licensees’ 

authorized Lower 700 MHz frequencies 

only. In other words, the Commission is 

not contemplating requiring licensees to 

implement base station operations on 

frequencies they do not have the 

potential to use, in order to spur 

production of base station elements that 

can be used only by licensees operating 

on other frequencies. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach and 

how, if adopted, it would promote key 

public interest objectives, including 

competition and consumer choice 

among mobile broadband service 

providers, the widespread deployment 

of 4G networks, particularly in rural and 

unserved areas, the availability of 

additional innovative 4G devices, and 

increased roaming opportunities. In 

order to facilitate a smooth transition to 

interoperable mobile equipment use in 

the Lower 700 MHz band, the 

Commission would propose a 

reasonable transition period of no longer 

than two years after the effective date of 

an interoperability requirement, thereby 

minimizing the possibility of stranded 

investments in existing equipment. 

Furthermore, the Commission would 

propose to grandfather the use of 

devices already in use by consumers as 

of the transition deadline, so that 

consumers using existing Band Class 17 

equipment would not be adversely 

affected. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach—as well as 

on any alternative approaches, 

including associated costs and 

benefits—that might equally satisfy the 

Commission’s public interest objectives 

in promoting the widespread 

deployment of broadband service and 

increased competition and consumer 

choice in the mobile broadband 

marketplace. 

51. The Commission notes that, in 

considering whether to adopt rules to 

promote the development of 

interoperable equipment in the Lower 

700 MHz band, the Commission will 

consider a number of factors, including 

the costs or burdens that any such new 

obligation would impose on licensees or 

others, and whether the costs would be 

offset by benefits to consumers, 

including those that would result from 

innovation in the marketplace, 

increased investments in networks, or 

additional competition. The 

Commission therefore requests 

comment on the costs and the benefits 

of adopting rules that would promote 

interoperability. The Commission also 

seeks comment on the costs and benefits 

of an industry-based solution to 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band. Are there cost savings to consider, 

or conversely, are there costs that Lower 

700 MHz licensees would incur if the 

industry resolved the interoperability 

issue without a regulatory mandate? 

52. Commenters should quantify the 

costs of implementing any proposed 

solutions to the interference issues 

discussed above. The Commission seeks 

comment on costs that Lower 700 MHz 

B and C licensees are likely to incur in 

order to comply with a device 

interoperability requirement, including 

quantification of the costs to develop 

and obtain new compatible chipsets or 

front ends; design and manufacture new 

mobile devices; and develop any 

hardware or software changes necessary 

to implement an interoperability 

requirement. How much will the costs 

and prices of devices change as a result 

of an interoperability requirement? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

revenue implications an interoperability 

requirement would have for providers 

and device manufacturers. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

quantifiable ways in which licensees 

may benefit from a sunset of devices 

capable of operating only on a subset of 

paired Lower 700 MHz frequencies. For 

example, will Lower 700 MHz licensees 

achieve economies of scale in devices? 

The Commission seeks quantification of 

these economies of scale. What cost 

savings might result from an 

interoperability rule? The Commission 

also seeks comment on the potential 

costs associated with interoperability if 

interference cannot be mitigated in 

some areas. In these areas, will the 

public interest benefits from 

interoperability outweigh the costs? 

53. The Commission seeks data on 

consumer benefits that may result from 

interoperability, including greater 

affordability and availability of 4G 

equipment, increasing consumer choice 

in equipment, promoting the 

widespread deployment of broadband 

services, providing greater options in 

selecting a service provider, and 

facilitating greater roaming 

opportunities. How would a rule 

requiring interoperability affect 

innovation and investment, both in the 

near term and in the longer term? 

Would such a requirement foster 

additional competition, and how would 

any increase in competition be 

measured? 

54. What are the particular benefits to 

consumers or others that would result 

from a device interoperability 

requirement that includes a reasonable 

transition period (e.g., two years) and 

grandfathers the use of existing, noninteroperable devices after the transition 

deadline? The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs that licensees 

may incur in continuing to offer service 

for non-interoperable devices. How long 

will such devices need to be supported? 

Are there any classes of customers that 

will require longer-term support than 

others? Further, the Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which the 

proposed transition period minimizes or 

alleviates any adverse economic impact 

to licensees and device manufacturers. 

Is there an optimal transition period that 

would reduce costs to the extent 

practicable while maximizing benefits? 

55. In providing responses to these 

questions, the Commission asks 

commenters to take into account only 

those costs and benefits that directly 

result from the implementation of 

particular rules that could be adopted. 

Commenters should identify the various 

costs and benefits associated with a 

particular requirement. Further, to the 

extent possible, commenters should 

provide specific data and information, 

such as actual or estimated dollar 

figures for each specific cost or benefit 

addressed, including a description of 

how the data or information was 

calculated or obtained, and any 

supporting documentation or other 

evidentiary support. 

56. Legal authority. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on its 

authority to mandate a device 

interoperability requirement should 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19585 

11See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 301 (stating that ‘‘[i]t is the 

purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain 

the control of the United States over all the 

channels of radio transmission; and to provide for 

the use of such channels, but not the ownership 

thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, 

under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no 

such license shall be construed to create any right, 

beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the 

license’’). 

12See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 301 (authorizing the 

Commission to issue licenses for use of radio 

spectrum); 47 U.S.C. 304 (stating that ‘‘[n]o station 

license shall be granted by the Commission until 

the applicant therefore shall have waived any claim 

to the use of any particular frequency or of the 

electromagnetic spectrum as against the regulatory 

power of the United States because of the previous 

use of the same, whether by license or otherwise’’); 

47 U.S.C. 307(a) (stating that Commission shall 

grant licenses ‘‘if public convenience, interest, or 

necessity will be served thereby, subject to the 

limitations of [the Communications Act]’’); 47 

U.S.C. 309(j)(3) (requiring the Commission to design 

and conduct competitive bidding systems for 

issuance of licenses to promote the purposes of 

section 1 of the Act and specified statutory 

objectives, including ‘‘the development and rapid 

deployment of new technologies, products, and 

services for the benefit of the public, including 

those residing in rural areas’’). 

13See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 303(r) (stating that if ‘‘the 

public convenience, interest, or necessity requires 

[, the Commission] shall * * * prescribe such 

restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with 

law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 

of this Act’’); Schurz Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 

982 F.2d 1043 (7th Cir. 1992) (Communications Act 

invests Commission with ‘‘enormous discretion’’ in 

promulgating licensee obligations that the agency 

determines will serve the public interest). 

14 47 U.S.C. 303(b). 

15 47 U.S.C. 303(g). See also 47 U.S.C. 151 

(creating the Commission for the purpose of 

regulating communications in order to make 

available to all people of the United States a rapid, 

efficient, nationwide and world-wide 

communication service with adequate facilities at 

reasonable prices). 

16See 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1) (stating that ‘‘[a]ny 

station license or construction permit may be 

modified by the Commission either for a limited 

time or for the duration of the term thereof, if in 

the judgment of the Commission such action will 

promote the public interest, convenience, and 

necessity’’); see also Committee for Effective 

Cellular Rules v. FCC, 53 F.3d 1309 (DC Cir. 1995). 

17See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 302a(a) (providing 

Commission with authority, consistent with the 

public interest, convenience and necessity, to make 

reasonable regulations ‘‘governing the interference 

potential of devices which in their operation are 

capable of emitting radio frequency energy by 

radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient 

degree to cause harmful interference to radio 

communications’’). 

18See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 303(e) (providing 

Commission with authority to ‘‘[r]egulate the kind 

of apparatus to be used with respect to its external 

effects and the purity and sharpness of the 

emissions from each station and from the apparatus 

therein’’) and 47 U.S.C. 303(f) (providing 

Commission with authority to ‘‘[m]ake such 

regulations not inconsistent with law as it may 

deem necessary to prevent interference between 

stations and to carry out the provisions of this 

Act’’). 

19 Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825–845 MHz 

and 870–890 MHz for Cellular Communications 

Systems; and Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the 

Commission’s Rules Relative to Cellular 

Communications Systems, CC Docket No. 79–318, 

Report and Order, 86 FCC 2d 469, 482 (1981). 

20See 47 U.S.C. 303(r). The Commission has 

imposed voice roaming requirements for 

interconnected CMRS providers under, inter alia, 

its Title II authority, and requirements to promote 

the availability of data roaming arrangements 

under, inter alia, its Title III authority. See, e.g., 

Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers and 

Other Providers of Mobile Data Services, WT 

Docket No. 05–265, Order on Reconsideration and 

Continued 

interference concerns be reasonably 

addressed and there be no industry 

solution in place. The record is divided 

on this issue. On the one hand, 

Petitioners argue that the Commission 

should find the current contractual 

arrangements between wireless 

providers and equipment providers 

unlawful under Section 201(b), which 

prohibits unjust or unreasonable 

practices in connection with 

communications services, and Section 

202(a), which prohibits unjust or 

unreasonable discrimination. Petitioners 

also claim that a device interoperability 

requirement would fall within the 

purview of Section 1 of the 

Communications Act, which directs the 

Commission to establish policies that 

promote the provision of 

communications service to all people of 

the United States, without 

discrimination. Petitioners argue that, at 

a minimum, ‘‘Section 1 can be 

combined by the Commission with 

other ‘express delegations of authority’ 

to enable the Commission to exercise 

ancillary jurisdiction over issues that 

are reasonably related to the policies 

stated in Section 1.’’ Commenters also 

reference additional sections of the 

Communications Act as support for 

Commission authority, including: 

Section 4(i), which specifies that the 

Commission ‘‘may * * * make such 

rules and regulations * * * as may be 

necessary in the execution of its 

functions;’’ Section 254(b)(3), which 

sets forth universal service principles; 

Section 303(g), to ‘‘encourage the larger 

and more effective use of radio in the 

public interest;’’ Section 303(r), which 

directs the Commission to prescribe 

such restrictions and conditions as 

necessary to carry out the provisions of 

the Act; Section 307(b), which directs 

the Commission to consider a ‘‘fair, 

efficient and equitable’’ distribution of 

radio services in applications for 

licenses, modifications, and renewals; 

and Section 706, which encourages the 

reasonable and timely deployment of 

advanced telecommunications 

capability to all Americans through 

‘‘measures that promote competition in 

the local telecommunications market, or 

other regulating methods that remove 

barriers to infrastructure investment.’’ 

57. On the other hand, other 

commenters argue that Petitioners fail to 

cite a valid legal basis to adopt such an 

interoperability requirement. Both 

Verizon and AT&T argue that Sections 

201 and 202 prohibit providers from 

unreasonable practices or 

discrimination among consumers. 

Verizon and AT&T also argue that the 

other provisions referenced by 

supporters of an interoperability 

requirement do not grant the 

Commission the authority to regulate 

equipment, or else are not substantive 

grants of authority for Commission 

action. 

58. The Commission observes that, 

under Title III of the Communications 

Act, the Commission has broad and 

extensive authority to manage the use of 

spectrum.11 This authority includes the 

power and obligation to condition the 

Commission’s licensing actions on 

compliance with requirements that the 

Commission deems consistent with the 

public interest, convenience, and 

necessity,12 including operational 

requirements, if the condition or 

obligations will further the goals of the 

Communications Act without 

contradicting any basic parameters of 

the agency’s authority.13 It also includes 

the powers to ‘‘prescribe the nature of 

the service to be rendered by each class 

of licensed stations and each station 

within any class,’’ 14 to ‘‘generally 

encourage the larger and more effective 

use of radio in the public interest,’’ 15

and to modify licenses if, in the 

judgment of the Commission, such 

action will promote the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity.16

Furthermore, the Communications Act 

provides the Commission with broad 

powers under such provisions as 

Section 302(a) to promulgate regulations 

designed to address radio frequency 

(RF) interference, including the 

regulation of devices that are capable of 

emitting RF energy,17 and Section 

303(e) and (f), which empower the 

Commission to regulate licensees and 

the equipment and apparatus they use.18

59. The Commission seeks comment 

on its statutory authority to adopt a 

device interoperability requirement. The 

Commission notes that it has previously 

required interoperability across licensed 

spectrum as a means to ‘‘insure full 

coverage in all markets and 

compatibility on a nationwide basis.’’ 19

In addition, by promoting the 

availability of subscriber handsets and 

network buildout of Lower 700 MHz A 

Block licenses an interoperability 

requirement of the type discussed here 

can facilitate the provision of roaming 

services, which is subject to 

Commission rules.20 The Commission 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 

FCC Rcd 4181, 4184 para. 5 (2010) (based on 

Commission’s Title II authority); Reexamination of 

Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio 

Service Providers and Other Providers of Mobile 

Data Services, WT Docket No. 05–265, Second 

Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5411, 5439–46 paras. 

61–68 (2011) (based on Commission’s Title III 

authority). 

21The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–612, has been 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’), 

Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 

22See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

23 Id. 

seeks comment on its analysis of these 

Title III statutory provisions as a basis 

for its authority to take the actions 

proposed herein. 

IV. Conclusion 

60. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission is focused 

primarily on resolving a long-running 

dispute over the threat of interference to 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees 

either by agreement on the part of these 

licensees to be interoperable with the 

Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees, or by 

a regulatory mandate for such 

interoperability. Should the 

Commission find that interference 

concerns are truly minimal or can be 

reasonably mitigated, then the 

Commission, along with industry, must 

determine the next best steps to ensure 

interoperability. The Commission’s aim 

is to explore various options through 

this proceeding that help achieve the 

ultimate goal of interoperability. 

V. Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

61. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the 

RFA),21 the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact of the 

policies and rules proposed in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Written public comments are 

requested on the IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadline for 

comments on the NPRM provided in the 

item. The Commission will send a copy 

of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).22

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register.23

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

62. Certain Lower 700 MHz A Block 

licensees have asserted that the 

development of two distinct band 

classes within the Lower 700 MHz band 

has hampered their ability to have 

meaningful access to a wide range of 

advanced devices. The Commission 

initiates this rulemaking proceeding to 

promote interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band. The Commission states 

that the Communications Act directs it 

to, among other things, promote the 

widest possible deployment of 

communications services, ensure the 

most efficient use of spectrum, and 

protect and promote vibrant 

competition in the marketplace. In this 

NPRM, the Commission’s objective is to 

evaluate whether the customers of 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees 

would experience harmful interference, 

and if so to what degree, if the Lower 

700 MHz were interoperable. Assuming 

that interoperability would cause 

limited or no harmful interference to 

Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees 

or that such interference can reasonably 

be mitigated through industry efforts 

and/or through modifications to the 

Commission’s technical rules or other 

regulatory measures, the Commission 

asks whether there is likely to be a 

timely industry solution to 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band, or whether additional regulatory 

measures will be necessary to promote 

interoperability across the Lower 700 

MHz band, such as requiring Lower 700 

MHz A, B, or C Block licensees, with 

respect to their networks operating in 

this spectrum, to use only mobile user 

equipment that has the capability to 

operate across all of these paired 

commercial 700 MHz blocks. 

63. The Commission considers 

whether a requirement that mobile user 

equipment be capable of operating on 

all paired commercial Lower 700 MHz 

spectrum could foster deployment of 

facilities-based mobile broadband 

networks, particularly in rural and 

unserved areas. The Commission also 

considers whether such a requirement 

would increase the likelihood that the 

Lower A Block licensees can obtain the 

necessary financing to deploy networks 

and devices, particularly in smaller and 

regional areas. The Commission 

considers the extent to which Lower A 

Block licensees have successfully 

negotiated with equipment vendors, 

whether an interoperability requirement 

will enable the A Block licensees to 

benefit from economies of scale with 

respect to mobile devices and whether 

manufacturers require a provider to 

purchase a minimum number of 

devices. The Commission considers 

whether interoperability would promote 

reasonable roaming arrangements 

among 700 MHz providers and would 

increase the number of providers that 

are technologically compatible for 

roaming partnership. 

64. With respect to the technical 

issues, the Commission states that it 

must ultimately resolve the central 

question as to whether a single band 

class would cause widespread harmful 

interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C 

Block licensees, who would otherwise 

use Band Class 17 devices rather than 

Band Class 12. The Commission’s goal 

is to determine the extent of two 

primary interference concerns for 

providers operating in the Lower 700 

MHz B and C Blocks if these providers 

substitute Band Class 12 for Band Class 

17 in newly-offered devices: (1) Reverse 

intermodulation interference from 

adjacent DTV Channel 51 operations; 

and (2) blocking interference from 

neighboring high-powered operations in 

the Lower 700 MHz E Block. The 

Commission considers and seeks 

comment on the extent of the 

interference risk from adjacent Channel 

51 and Lower Block E transmissions for 

Band Class 12 devices operating in the 

Lower B and C Blocks, the effectiveness 

of existing mitigation measures, and the 

extent of any innovative technical 

measures in the near future, or that can 

be developed. The Commission also 

considers how licensees can continue to 

support its existing grandfathered Band 

Class 17 devices and Band Class 12 

devices. 

65. Through the NPRM, the 

Commission’s objective is to develop a 

record to determine whether there are 

measures it should take to address 

Lower 700 MHz interference concerns 

that may be preventing a voluntary 

adoption of Band Class 12 by Lower B 

and C Block licensees. For instance, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to modify its technical rules for Lower 

700 MHz D and E Block operations. In 

addition, the Commission considers 

steps to take to reduce the threat of 

potential interference to balance the 

needs and rights of Channel 51 

incumbents with Lower 700 MHz 

licensees. 

66. The Commission thinks that an 

industry solution to the question of 

interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz 

band would be preferable to a regulatory 

approach because such a solution 

allows the market greater flexibility in 

responding to evolving consumer needs 

and dynamic and fast-paced 

technological developments. The 

Commission considers what would be a 

reasonable timeframe for a voluntary 

migration to interoperability and how 

such timing may affect consumers and 

competition. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19587 

24 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

25 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’ 

26 15 U.S.C. 632. 

27 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

28See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-

geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_

lang=en. 

29Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 

777–792 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06–150, 

Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure 

Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency 

Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94–102, § 68.4(a) of 

the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing AidCompatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01–309, 

Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 

1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize 

Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, 

WT Docket No. 03–264, Former Nextel 

Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band 

Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the 

Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 06–169, 

Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband 

Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 

MHz Band, PS Docket No. 06–229, Development of 

Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements 

for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety 

Communications Requirements Through the Year 

2010, WT Docket No. 96–86, Declaratory Ruling on 

Reporting Requirement Under Commission’s Part 1 

Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket No. 07–166, 

Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) 

(700 MHz Second Report and Order). 

30See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, 

Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008). 

31See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698– 

746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52– 

59), Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002). 

32See id., 17 FCC Rcd at 1087–88 para. 172. 

33See id. 

67. However, the Commission 

recognizes that if the industry fails to 

move timely toward interoperability 

once interference concerns are 

adequately addressed, by regulation or 

otherwise, additional regulatory steps 

might be appropriate to further the 

public interest. If interference concerns 

are reasonable addressed and the 

Commission is left with no other option 

to maximize innovation and investment 

in the Lower 700 MHz band besides 

mandating mobile device 

interoperability, one approach to 

achieve the Commission’s goals would 

be to require Lower 700 MHz A, B, or 

C Block licensees, with respect to their 

networks operating in this spectrum, to 

use only mobile user equipment that has 

the capability to operate across all of 

these blocks. For example, the 

Commission considers whether to 

prohibit those licensees deploying LTE 

in the Lower 700 MHz band from 

offering mobile units that operate on 

Band Class 17, which provides for 

operation on only the Lower 700 MHz 

B and C Blocks. In order to facilitate the 

goal of a smooth transition to 

interoperable mobile equipment use in 

the Lower 700 MHz band, the 

Commission would propose a transition 

period of no longer than two years after 

the effective date of an interoperability 

requirement. The Commission also 

would propose to grandfather the use of 

devices already in use by consumers as 

of the transition deadline, so that 

consumers using existing Band Class 17 

equipment would not be adversely 

affected. 

B. Legal Basis 

68. The authority for the actions taken 

in this Notice is contained in Sections 

1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 

309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

154(j), 301, 302a(a), 303(b), 303(e), 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 

309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1), and Sections 

1.401 et seq. of the Commission’s rules. 

47 CFR 1.401 et seq. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

69. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 24 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.25 A 

‘‘small business concern’’ is one which: 

(1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).26

70. In the following paragraphs, the 

Commission further describes and 

estimates the number of small entity 

licensees that may be affected by an 

interoperability rule. Implementing a 

mobile user equipment interoperability 

requirement in the Lower 700 MHz 

band affects 700 MHz spectrum 

licensees. 

71. This IRFA analyzes the number of 

small entities affected on a service-byservice basis. When identifying small 

entities that could be affected by the 

Commission’s new rules, this IRFA 

provides information that describes 

auction results, including the number of 

small entities that were winning 

bidders. However, the number of 

winning bidders that qualify as small 

businesses at the close of an auction 

does not necessarily reflect the total 

number of small entities currently in a 

particular service. The Commission 

does not generally require that licensees 

later provide business size information, 

except in the context of an assignment 

or a transfer of control application that 

involves unjust enrichment issues. 

72. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carrier (except satellite). The 

appropriate size standard under SBA 

Rules is for the category Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers. The size 

standard for that category is that a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees.27 Census Bureau data for 

2007, which now supersede data from 

the 2002 Census, show that there were 

3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 

1,000 employees or more. Thus, under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities that may be 

affected by its proposed action.28

73. Upper 700 MHz Band Licensees. 

In the 700 MHz Second Report and 

Order, the Commission revised its rules 

regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.29

On January 24, 2008, the Commission 

commenced Auction 73 in which 

several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz 

band were available for licensing: 12 

Regional Economic Area Grouping 

licenses in the C Block, and one 

nationwide license in the D Block.30

The auction concluded on March 18, 

2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming 

very small business status (those with 

attributable average annual gross 

revenues that do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years) and 

winning five licenses. 

74. Lower 700 MHz Band Licensees. 

The Commission previously adopted 

criteria for defining three groups of 

small businesses for purposes of 

determining their eligibility for special 

provisions such as bidding credits.31

The Commission defined a ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity that, together 

with its affiliates and controlling 

principals, has average gross revenues 

not exceeding $40 million for the 

preceding three years.32 A ‘‘very small 

business’’ is defined as an entity that, 

together with its affiliates and 

controlling principals, has average gross 

revenues that are not more than $15 

million for the preceding three years.33


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

34See id., 17 FCC Rcd at 1088 para. 173. 35See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, 

SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999). 36See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, 

Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (2002). 37See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, 

Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (2003). 38See id. 39 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC 

Rcd at 15359 n.434. 40See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, 

Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (2008). 

41The NAICS Code for this service is 334220. See 

13 CFR 121.201. See also http:// 

factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&- 

fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&- 

ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en. 42See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ 

IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&- 

fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&- 

ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en. 

43See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

Additionally, the lower 700 MHz 

Service had a third category of small 

business status for Metropolitan/Rural 

Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses— 

‘‘entrepreneur’’—which is defined as an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues that are not more than $3 

million for the preceding three years.34

The SBA approved these small size 

standards.35 An auction of 740 licenses 

(one license in each of the 734 MSAs/ 

RSAs and one license in each of the six 

Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was 

conducted in 2002. Of the 740 licenses 

available for auction, 484 licenses were 

won by 102 winning bidders. Seventytwo of the winning bidders claimed 

small business, very small business or 

entrepreneur status and won licenses.36

A second auction commenced on May 

28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 

included 256 licenses.37 Seventeen 

winning bidders claimed small or very 

small business status, and nine winning 

bidders claimed entrepreneur status.38

In 2005, the Commission completed an 

auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 

MHz band. All three winning bidders 

claimed small business status. 

75. In 2007, the Commission 

reexamined its rules governing the 700 

MHz band in the 700 MHz Second 

Report and Order.39 An auction of A, B 

and E Block 700 MHz licenses was held 

in 2008.40 Twenty winning bidders 

claimed small business status (those 

with attributable average annual gross 

revenues that exceed $15 million and do 

not exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years). Thirty three winning 

bidders claimed very small business 

status (those with attributable average 

annual gross revenues that do not 

exceed $15 million for the preceding 

three years). 

76. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ 41 The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 

establishments in this category that 

operated for part or all of the entire year. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 919 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 771 had less than 100 

employees and 148 had more than 100 

employees.42 Thus, under that size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

77. This NPRM proposes no new 

reporting or recording keeping 

requirements. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

78. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.43

79. As an alternative to a regulatory 

approach, the Commission considers the 

impact of a timely voluntary industry 

solution to interoperability in the Lower 

700 MHz band. The Commission 

considers how this alternative approach 

may affect consumers and competition. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

economic impact of this approach on 

licensees, including small entities. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on other alternative 

approaches to interoperability in the 

Lower 700 MHz band that would reduce 

or eliminate economic adversity on 

licensees, including small entities. 

80. Whether the Commission 

implements an interoperability 

requirement, or an industry solution, it 

seeks comment on the relevant costs 

and benefits on small entities. The 

Commission considers the potential 

benefits to consumers, innovation, and 

investment. In addition, it considers the 

revenue implications, cost savings, or 

adverse economic impact of an 

interoperability rule or an industrybased solution for Lower 700 MHz 

providers and device manufacturers. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

81. None. 

VI. Other Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules 

82. The proceeding initiated by this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must: (1) List all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made; and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19589 

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. 

B. Filing Requirements 

83. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 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: (1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’), (2) 

the Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

• 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. 

Æ 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. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

84. Comments, reply comments, and 

ex parte submissions will be available 

for public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

CY–A257, Washington, DC, 20554. 

These documents will also be available 

via ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

85. To request information in 

accessible formats (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

FCC’s Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). This 

document can also be downloaded in 

Word and Portable Document Format 

(PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov. 

86. For additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brenda Boykin of 

the Spectrum and Competition Policy 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, at (202) 418–2062. 

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

87. As required by the Regulatory 

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

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

relating to this NPRM. The IRFA is 

attached to this NPRM. Written public 

comments are requested on the IRFA. 

These comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines as comments filed in response 

to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

as set forth on the first page of this 

document and have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

88. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

VII. Ordering Clauses 

89. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 

302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 

303(r), 304, 307(a), 309(j)(3), and 

316(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 

154(i), 154(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 

309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1), and § 1.401 et 

seq. of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.401 et seq., that this Notice in WT 

Docket No. 12–69 IS adopted. 

90. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Rulemaking of the 700 MHz 

Block A Good Faith Purchaser Alliance 

is granted to the extent described 

herein. 

91. It is further ordered that the 

proceeding in RM–11592 is hereby 

terminated. 

92. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Bulah P. Wheeler, 

Deputy Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7760 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0167] 

RIN 2126–AB20 

Electronic On-Board Recorders and 

Hours of Service Supporting 

Documents 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

session. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will 

hold a public listening session to solicit 

information, concepts, ideas, and 

comments on Electronic On-Board 

Recorders (EOBRs) and the issue of 

driver harassment. Specifically, the 

Agency wants to know what factors, 

issues, and data it should consider as it 

addresses the distinction between 

productivity and harassment: What will 

prevent harassment from occurring; 

what types of harassment already exist; 

how frequently and to what extent 

harassment happens; and how an 

electronic device such as an EOBR, 

capable of contemporaneous 

transmission of information to a motor 

carrier, will guard against (or fail to 

guard against) harassment. Additionally, 

the Agency will solicit concepts, ideas, 

and comments from enforcement 

personnel on the hours-of-service (HOS) 

information they would need to see on 

the EOBR display screen to effectively 

enforce the HOS rules at the roadside 

and the type of evidence they would 

need to retain in order to support 

issuing drivers citations for HOS 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS