22720 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 

[WT Docket No. 12–70; ET Docket No. 10– 

142; WT Docket No. 04–356; FCC 12–32] 

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 

Services in the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz Bands, etc. 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes and/or seeks 

comments on service, technical, 

assignment, and licensing rules for 

flexible terrestrial use of spectrum 

currently assigned to the Mobile 

Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz 

band. These proposed rules are 

designed to increase the Nation’s supply 

of spectrum for mobile broadband, 

provide for flexible use of this spectrum, 

encourage innovation and investment in 

mobile broadband, and provide a stable 

regulatory environment in which 

broadband deployment could develop. 

This proposal would carry out a 

recommendation in the National 

Broadband Plan that the Commission 

enable the provision of stand-alone 

terrestrial services in this spectrum. 

With this proceeding we intend to fulfill 

the Commission’s previously stated plan 

to create a solid and lasting foundation 

for the provision of terrestrial services 

in the 2 GHz band. The Commission 

also seeks comment on an alternative 

band plan involving additional 

spectrum at 1695–1710 MHz that the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) has 

proposed to reallocate from Federal to 

commercial use. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 17, 2012. Submit reply comments 

on or before June 1, 2012. Written 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requirements, subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, Public Law 104–13, should be 

submitted on or before June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. You may submit 

comments, identified by FCC 12–32, or 

by WT Docket No. 12–70, ET Docket No. 

10–142, WT Docket No. 04–356, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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. 

• Availability of Documents: 

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. 

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: 

Kevin Holmes of the Broadband 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, at (202) 418–BITS. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Judith B. 

Herman at (202) 418–0214, or via the 

Internet at PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 

Inquiry, FCC 12–32, adopted and 

released on March 21, 2012. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

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

facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is 

also available on the Commission’s Web 

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

edocs_public/attachment/FCC-12- 

32A1doc. Alternative formats (computer 

diskette, large print, audio cassette, and 

Braille) are available by contacting Brian 

Millin at (202) 418–7426, TTY (202) 

418–7365, or via email to 

bmillin@fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should 

reference the docket numbers in this 

proceeding, WT Docket No. 12–70, ET 

Docket No. 10–142, WT Docket No. 04– 

356. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the 

Internet by accessing the ECFS: 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D 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. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 

445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing 

hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be 

disposed of before entering the 

building. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

D People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (tty). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22721 

D Document FCC 12–32 contains 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the PRA. It 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507 of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document. PRA 

comments should be submitted to 

Judith B. Herman at (202) 418– 

0214, or via the Internet at 

PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov 

or via fax at 202–395–5167. 

D To view a copy of this information 

collection request (ICR) submitted 

to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain, (2) look for the section of 

the Web page called ‘‘Currently 

Under Review,’’ (3) click on the 

downward-pointing arrow in the 

‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, 

(4) select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of 

agencies presented in the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ 

button to the right of the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of 

FCC ICRs currently under review 

appears, look for the Title of this 

ICR and then click on the ICR 

Reference Number. A copy of the 

FCC submission to OMB will be 

displayed. 

D Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis: 

D This document contains proposed 

new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the 

general public and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

comment on the information 

collection requirements contained 

in this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific 

comment on how we might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns 

with fewer than 25 employees. 

D OMB Control Number: 3060–1030. 

D Title: Service Rules for Advanced 

Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1.7 

GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands. 

D Form Number: N/A. 

D Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

D Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, and state, local, or 

tribal government. 

D Number of Respondents: 979 

respondents; 1,630 responses. 

D Estimated Time per Response: 2 

hours. 

D Frequency of Response: Annual, 

semi-annual, one time, and on 

occasion reporting requirements; 

record keeping requirements; and 

3rd party disclosure requirements. 

D Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

D Total Annual Burden: 32,384 hours. 

D Total Annual Cost: $581,800. 

D Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A. 

D Nature and Extent of 

Confidentiality: There is no need for 

confidentiality. 

D Needs and Uses: The Commission 

will be submitting this proposed 

new or modified information 

collection to the Office of 

Management and Budget as a 

revision of a currently approved 

information collection under OMB 

Control Number 3060–1030. The 

Commission has not changed its 

recordkeeping and/or third party 

disclosure requirements; however, 

the Commission expects to revise 

its reporting requirements in this 

collection by increasing the total 

annual burden hours from 32,379 to 

32,384 hours to accommodate 

2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz spectrum band (AWS–4) 

operators. There is no change in the 

total annual cost burden. 

D The proposed new or modified 

information collection will be used 

by the Commission staff to review 

and determine whether an AWS–4 

licensee satisfies the renewal 

criteria showing at the time of 

license renewal for AWS–4 

operators, meets its performance 

requirements obligations, meets its 

discontinuance of service 

oblications, and satisfies its 

obligation to protect Mobile 

Satellite Services from harmful 

interference, pursuant to §§ 1.949, 

27.14, 27.17, and 27.1136, 

respectfully, of the Commission’s 

rules. Section 1.949 sets forth the 

renewal criteria showing at the time 

of license renewal; § 27.14 sets forth 

the construction requirements a 

licensee must meet in order to 

satisfy its performance 

requirements in their licensed area; 

§ 27.17 sets forth the terms in which 

a licensee’s authorization will 

terminate if it permanently 

discontinues its services; and 

§ 27.1136 requires AWS–4 licensees 

to protect Mobile Satellite Service 

operations from harmful 

interference. Without this 

information, the Commission would 

not be able to carry out its statutory 

responsibilities. 

Summary 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we propose to increase the 

Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile 

broadband by removing unnecessary 

barriers to flexible use of spectrum 

currently assigned to the Mobile 

Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz 

band. This proposal would carry out a 

recommendation in the National 

Broadband Plan that the Commission 

enable the provision of stand-alone 

terrestrial services in this spectrum. 

(Connecting America: The National 

Broadband Plan (2010) (National 

Broadband Plan), available at http:// 

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/DOC–296935A1.pdf (last 

visited Mar. 19, 2012)). We do so by 

proposing service, technical, 

assignment, and licensing rules for this 

spectrum. These proposed rules are 

designed to provide for flexible use of 

this spectrum, to encourage innovation 

and investment in mobile broadband, 

and to provide a stable regulatory 

environment in which broadband 

deployment could develop. 

Additionally, in our Notice of Inquiry, 

we seek comment on potential ways to 

free up additional valuable spectrum to 

address the Nation’s growing demand 

for mobile broadband spectrum. 

2. With this proceeding we intend to 

fulfill the Commission’s previously 

stated plan to create a solid and lasting 

foundation for the provision of 

terrestrial services in 40 megahertz of 

spectrum in the 2 GHz band. As 

indicated in the National Broadband 

Plan, each MSS band is differently 

situated and therefore merits a bandspecific approach to the expansion of 

terrestrial use. For example, the 2 GHz 

MSS band, unlike other MSS bands, has 

terrestrial Fixed and Mobile allocations 

and is comprised of large, contiguous 

blocks of spectrum. This Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking directly follows 

on the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, 

in which the Commission laid the 

predicate for full terrestrial use of the 2 

GHz MSS band. See Fixed and Mobile 

Services in the Mobile Satellite Service 

Bands at 1525–1559 MHz and 1626.5– 

1660.5 MHz, 1610–1626.5 MHz and 

2483.5–2500 MHz, and 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz, 76 FR 31252 

(2011). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22722 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

AWS–4 

3. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (AWS–4 Notice), we build 

on the Commission’s recent actions to 

enable the provision of terrestrial 

mobile broadband service in up to 40 

megahertz of spectrum in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz spectrum 

bands. We propose terrestrial service 

rules for these spectrum bands that 

would generally follow the 

Commission’s part 27 rules, modified as 

necessary to account for issues unique 

to the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz spectrum bands. Given the 

proximity of these spectrum bands to 

spectrum bands previously identified as 

Advanced Wireless Services or AWS, in 

our proposal we refer to these spectrum 

bands as ‘‘AWS–4’’ or ‘‘AWS–4 

spectrum.’’ We are mindful that this 

spectrum is now allocated on a coprimary basis for Mobile Satellite and 

for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile services 

and that MSS licensees already have 

authorizations to provide service in the 

band. Accordingly, as explained below, 

we seek comment on a proposal that 

AWS–4 terrestrial service rules will 

need to provide for the protection of 2 

GHz MSS systems from harmful 

interference caused by AWS–4 systems. 

Finally, for each of the issues identified 

below, we seek comment on the most 

efficient manner to address the issue. If 

a party believes any of these issues 

would be more properly resolved in 

another Commission proceeding, we 

request that the party identify those 

issues and the relevant Commission 

proceeding. 

4. In the sections that follow, we seek 

comment on a number of parameters 

governing the licensing, use, and 

assignment of the spectrum, including 

their costs and benefits. We ask that 

commenters take into account only 

those costs and benefits that directly 

result from the implementation of the 

particular rules that could be adopted, 

including any proposed requirement or 

potential alternative requirement. 

Commenters should identify the various 

costs and benefits associated with a 

particular proposal. 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. 

A. AWS–4 Band Plan 

5. In this section, we make two 

overarching proposals to establish the 

AWS–4 band plan. First, we propose to 

pair the two AWS–4 spectrum bands. 

Second, we propose block sizes and a 

geographic area licensing scheme to 

define license boundaries. 

1. Paired Spectrum (Uplink/Downlink) 

6. The spectrum in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands is 

presently licensed as paired spectrum 

for mobile satellite use. The 2000–2020 

MHz band serves as an uplink band and 

2180–2200 MHz band serves as a 

downlink band. We propose to pair the 

AWS–4 blocks, consistent with the 

existing 2 GHz MSS licenses and the 

Commission’s treatment of other bands 

used for mobile wireless and broadband 

service, AWS and PCS. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We also seek 

comment on whether we should take 

any action to ensure that equipment for 

the AWS–4 band is interoperable across 

both paired blocks. 

7. Specifically, we propose to adopt 

the same uplink and downlink pairing 

designations for provision of terrestrial 

service as presently exists for satellite 

service in this spectrum: 2000–2020 

MHz would serve as an uplink band; 

2180–2200 MHz would serve as a 

downlink band. Adopting the same 

uplink/downlink pairing approach for 

AWS–4 as for 2 GHz MSS may facilitate 

the continued use of the existing 

satellites for MSS. We seek comment on 

the above proposals and proposed 

AWS–4 band plan. We also seek 

comment on two alternative 

possibilities, in which the uplink band 

would be shifted up 5 megahertz to 

2005–2025 MHz or up 10 megahertz and 

compressed to 2010–2025 MHz, as 

discussed below. 

2. Spectrum Block Size 

8. We also propose to license the 

spectrum in paired 10-megahertz blocks 

for each license area. Currently, the 2 

GHz MSS spectrum is assigned as two 

paired blocks: Block A pairs 2000–2010 

MHz with 2190–2200 MHz and Block B 

pairs 2010–2020 MHz with 2180–2190 

MHz. We observe, however, that the 3rd 

Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) 

standards organization is in the process 

of examining whether to change the 

duplex spacing for Band 23, which 

includes this spectrum, from a spacing 

that corresponds to the existing duplex 

spacing to one that would remove the 

variable duplex spacing. We seek 

comment on which pairing approach to 

apply. We ask commenters to discuss 

the affect the ongoing 3GPP process 

should have on our decision. In 

addition, commenters seeking 

alternative spectrum block sizes should 

support their recommendations with 

evidence that these alternative schemes 

will promote greater efficiency and 

more flexible use of the bands than the 

proposed approach. Commenters also 

should discuss and quantify any 

associated costs or benefits of 

implementing the proposals discussed 

above or any alternative schemes. 

9. Our proposal to license AWS–4 

spectrum in paired 10-megahertz blocks 

reflects several considerations. First, the 

MSS band is currently licensed as 

paired 10-megahertz blocks. Issuing 

AWS–4 licenses with equivalent 

bandwidth would facilitate coordination 

between the two services. Second, 

establishing paired 10-megahertz blocks 

strikes a balance between potentially 

enabling multiple licensees in any given 

geographical area (i.e., different 

licensees in each 10 + 10 block pair) and 

allowing the use of newer highbandwidth technologies. We seek 

comment on these approaches. 

10. We also seek comment on 

adopting a flexible paired single block 

option that, in the event a single 

licensee holds both the A and B Blocks, 

would allow that entity to combine 

them into one paired 20-megahertz 

block and use these contiguous 

spectrum blocks seamlessly with 

flexibility to design its network and 

respond effectively to any business and 

technical needs. Alternatively, if we 

were to adopt a licensing mechanism 

that allows AWS–4 spectrum licensees 

to be held by entities other than the 

existing 2 GHz MSS licensees, we seek 

comment on whether this spectrum 

should be licensed in smaller block 

sizes. 

3. Geographic Area Licensing 

11. We propose to license the AWS– 

4 band using a geographic area licensing 

approach, and we seek comment on this 

proposal. A geographic licensing area 

approach is well suited for the types of 

fixed and mobile services that would 

likely be deployed in this band. 

Additionally, geographic licensing is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

licensing approach adopted for the 

AWS–1 bands, and proposed for both 

the AWS–2 and the AWS–3 bands. In 

the event that interested parties do not 

support geographic licensing for the 

AWS–4 spectrum, those commenters 

should explain their position and 

identify the costs and benefits 

associated with an alternative licensing 

proposal and what type of licensing 

scheme it supports. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22723 

12. Assuming that we utilize a 

geographic area approach for licensing 

these bands, we must determine the 

appropriate size(s) of service areas on 

which licenses should be based. In 

previous AWS service rule proceedings 

the Commission has sought to balance 

policy goals of fostering service to rural 

areas and tribal lands, and promoting 

investment in and rapid deployment of 

new technologies and services 

consistent with its obligations under 

section 309(j) of the Communications 

Act. To do that, the Commission, among 

other things, established spectrum 

blocks in three geographic area sizes. In 

regard to the AWS–4 spectrum, 

however, we propose to apply a single 

size geographic area. We propose that 

any new AWS–4 licenses should be 

assigned on an Economic Area (EA) 

basis. See 47 CFR 27.6. Assigning AWS– 

4 in EA geographic areas would allow 

AWS–4 licensees to make adjustments 

to suit their individual needs. EA 

license areas are small enough to 

provide spectrum access opportunities 

for smaller carriers. EA license areas 

also nest within and may be aggregated 

up to larger license areas that have been 

used by the Commission for other 

services, such as Major Economic Areas 

(MEAs) and Regional Economic Area 

Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to 

create larger service areas. Depending 

on the licensing mechanism we adopt, 

licensees may aggregate or otherwise 

adjust their geographic coverage through 

auction or through secondary markets. 

We seek comment on this approach. We 

ask commenters to discuss and quantify 

the economic, technical, and other 

public interest considerations of any 

particular geographic scheme for this 

particular band, as well as the impact 

that any such scheme would have on 

rural service and competition. 

13. We also seek comment on 

including the Gulf of Mexico in our 

licensing scheme for these bands. We 

question whether to include it as part of 

larger service areas, as we did for the 

Upper 700 MHz band, or whether we 

should separately license a service area 

or service areas to cover the Gulf of 

Mexico. Commenters who advocate a 

separate service area or areas to cover 

the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what 

boundaries should be used, and whether 

special interference protection criteria 

or performance requirements are 

necessary due to the unique radio 

propagation characteristics and antenna 

siting challenges that exist for Gulf 

licensees. 

B. Technical Issues 

14. When the Commission adopted 

the MSS/ATC regime in 2003, it 

addressed intra-service and adjacentband interference concerns, and enacted 

unique MSS/ATC technical rules in part 

25 of the Commission’s rules, which did 

not fully align with the technical rules 

for similar terrestrial operations in other 

bands. The ATC interference rules for 

the 2 GHz MSS band are contained in 

rule 25.252. See 47 CFR 25.252. 

Subsequently, in addressing requests for 

ATC authority by the two 2 GHz MSS 

authorization holders, ICO and 

TerreStar, the Commission granted them 

waivers of several of the part 25 ATC 

interference rules. See New ICO 

Satellite Services G.P. Application for 

Blanket Authority to operate Ancillary 

Terrestrial Component base stations and 

dual-mode MSS–ATC mobile terminals 

in the 2 GHz MSS Bands, DA 09–38, 

Order and Authorization, 24 FCC Rcd 

171 (2009) (ICO Waiver Order). In 

general, these waivers resulted in 

aligning the terrestrial requirements for 

the 2 GHz MSS band operators more 

closely with the part 27 technical rules 

that apply to AWS–1 license holders. 

Based on review of current interference 

possibilities, we propose an approach 

that would permit deployment under 

the current rules and waivers by 

proposing that the technical rules and 

license conditions applicable today to 

the provision of terrestrial services in 

the 2 GHz MSS bands should generally 

apply to the AWS–4 bands. 

15. In general, our aim in establishing 

technical rules is to maximize the 

flexible use of spectrum while 

appropriately protecting incumbent 

operations in neighboring bands. The 

technical rules we propose below are 

based on the rules for AWS–1 spectrum, 

with specific additions or modifications 

designed to protect broadband PCS 

services operating in the 1930–1995 

MHz band, as well as future services 

operating in the 1995–2000 MHz band, 

from harmful interference from AWS–4 

mobile devices operating in the 2000– 

2020 MHz band. Any rules would also 

address protection of Federal operations 

in the 2200–2290 MHz band from 

harmful interference from AWS–4 base 

stations operating in the 2180–2200 

MHz band. We also seek comment on 

whether modifications to these rules 

might be warranted in order to provide 

for more flexible use of AWS–4 

spectrum, while at the same time 

protecting other spectrum uses from 

interference. 

1. OOBE Limits 

16. In the proposed band plan, AWS– 

4 spectrum would be issued in paired 

10-megahertz blocks, using Economic 

Area licenses. Therefore, interference 

must be considered between AWS–4 

blocks and adjacent bands, between 

different blocks within the AWS–4 

band, and between different geographic 

area licenses within the AWS–4 band. 

a. Interference Between Adjacent Block 

AWS–4 Licensees 

17. Emissions limit. To minimize 

harmful interference, the Commission’s 

rules often limit the amount of RF 

power that may be emitted outside of 

the assigned block of an RF transmitter. 

The Commission has previously 

concluded that attenuating base station 

out-of-band emissions (OOBE) by 

43+10*log10(P) dB at the edge of an 

assigned block, where P is the transmit 

power in watts, is appropriate to 

minimize harmful electromagnetic 

interference between terrestrial 

operations in the 2180–2190 MHz and 

2190–2200 MHz blocks. Similarly, the 

Commission has previously found that 

attenuating terrestrial mobile emissions 

by 43+10*log10(P) dB outside the 

assigned block will minimize 

interference within the 2000–2020 MHz 

band. Furthermore, when the 

Commission created the service rules for 

AWS–1, it concluded that this level of 

attenuation is appropriate for protecting 

wireless systems that will operate in the 

AWS bands. See Service Rules for 

Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 

GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, 69 FR 5711 

(2003) (AWS–1 Report and Order). At 

the time, the Commission noted that 

this limit is commonly employed in 

other wireless services, and it has 

generally been found to be adequate in 

preventing adjacent channel 

interference. This level of attenuation is 

now established in the Commission’s 

rules for the AWS band, both for both 

mobile station and base station 

emissions. This OOBE limit also applies 

in the broadband PCS band. 

18. Measurement procedure. To fully 

define an emissions limit, the 

Commission’s rules generally specify 

details of how to measure the power of 

the emissions, such as the measurement 

bandwidth. The part 25 ATC rules 

determine mobile station compliance 

with the OOBE limit based on a 

measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or 

greater. For AWS–1, the measurement 

bandwidth used to determine 

compliance with this limit for both 

mobile stations and base stations is 

generally 1 MHz, with some 

modification within the first 1 MHz. 

Previously, the Commission concluded 

the AWS–1 measurement procedure was 

also appropriate for mobile stations 

operating in 2000–2020 MHz. At that 

time the Commission did not address 

the measurement procedure for base 

stations operating in 2180–2200 MHz. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

However, as mentioned above, in the 

AWS–1 band this procedure applies to 

mobile and base transmissions. We 

believe that it is similarly reasonable to 

apply this procedure to both mobile and 

base transmissions in the AWS–4 band. 

19. Proposal. To address potential 

harmful electromagnetic interference 

within the AWS–4 band, we propose 

that § 27.53(h) of the Commission’s 

rules, which includes OOBE attenuation 

of 43+10*log10(P) dB and the associated 

measurement procedure, should be 

expanded to apply to AWS–4 operations 

in the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands. We seek comment on this 

proposal. Commenters should discuss 

and quantify the costs and benefits of 

this proposal and any proposed 

alternative approaches. 

b. Interference With Services in 

Adjacent and Other Bands 

20. After considering interference 

between adjacent blocks within the 

AWS–4 band in the previous section, 

we next examine the adjacent and 

nearly adjacent bands outside the AWS– 

4 band. In so doing, we seek to establish 

rules that permit flexible use of the 

AWS–4 band, while effectively 

protecting operations in adjacent bands 

from harmful interference. We begin our 

examination of adjacent band 

interference by considering whether 

attenuation greater than 43+10*log10(P) 

dB—a level the Commission frequently 

applies to adjacent band operations—is 

needed to prevent harmful 

electromagnetic interference from the 

AWS–4 band to other bands. Although 

the previous section only discussed 

43+10*log10(P) for interference within 

the band, that attenuation applies to all 

transmissions outside the assigned 

block, including emissions in other 

bands. 

21. Interference with operations below 

1995 MHz. The AWS–4 uplink band at 

2000–2020 MHz is 5 megahertz from the 

broadband PCS downlink band at 1930– 

1995 MHz. To protect PCS mobile 

receivers from harmful electromagnetic 

interference from mobile stations 

transmitting in the 2000–2020 MHz 

band, the ATC rules specify an 

attenuation of 70+10*log10(P) dB below 

1995 MHz. We propose that this 

emission limit should continue to apply 

to terrestrial operations in the 2000– 

2020 MHz band, and that a rule should 

be added to part 27 that fixed and 

mobile transmitters operating in 2000– 

2020 MHz must attenuate emissions 

below 1995 MHz by 70+10*log10(P) dB. 

We further propose that this attenuation 

should be measured using the existing 

measurement procedure of § 27.53(h) 

discussed above. We seek comment on 

these proposals. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits of this proposal and any 

proposed alternative approaches. 

22. Interference with operations in 

1995–2000 MHz. The part 25 ATC 

technical rules also include a linear 

interpolation of OOBE attenuation 

between 70+10*log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz 

and 43+10*log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz. 

However, recently enacted legislation 

directs the Commission to allocate the 

1995–2000 MHz band (AWS–2 Upper H 

block) for commercial use, and to 

auction and grant new initial licenses 

for the use of this spectrum under 

flexible-use service rules. Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

Pub. L. 112–96, section 6401(b). Given 

this statutory directive and considering 

that the 1995–2000 MHz block is 

adjacent to existing broadband PCS 

downlink operations, it is likely that 

this block will be used for terrestrial 

downlink operations. This will 

exacerbate the existing potential for 

harmful interference between downlink 

operations below 2000 MHz and uplink 

operations above 2000 MHz. For 

example, commenters to the 2 GHz 

Public Notice have suggested that a 

guard band of 5 MHz or more would be 

necessary to prevent interference 

between downlink operations in 1930– 

1995 MHz and uplink operations in 

2000–2020 MHz. To address this 

apparent tension, we seek comment on 

three alternative proposals for OOBE 

limits in 1995–2000 MHz. 

23. First, we could maintain the 

existing linear interpolation. However, 

this would offer the 1995–2000 MHz 

block less protection than the existing 

PCS blocks, which as discussed above is 

70+10*log10(P) dB below the transmit 

power. In addition, meeting this limit 

may have a negative impact on mobile 

transmitters in 2000–2020 MHz, as the 

mobile station components, such as 

power amplifiers and filters, may not 

have sharp enough roll off 

characteristics to meet this limit when 

operating in the lower parts of the band, 

particularly when operating at the 

maximum power level supported. In 

this regard, we observe that, in 

standardizing the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands as Band 23, 

3GPP has allowed for up to 12 dB of 

additional power reduction below the 

maximum transmit power for mobile 

stations in 2000–2010 MHz to meet the 

Commission’s current rules. As the 

mobile transmit power affects the ability 

of the mobile station to reach the base 

station, this reduction of power would 

appear to have a significant impact on 

cell coverage, uplink throughput, and 

ultimately the usability of this 

spectrum. 

24. Second, we could require that 

fixed and mobile transmitters operating 

in 2000–2020 MHz attenuate emissions 

below 2000 MHz by 70+10*log10(P) dB, 

consistent with the emissions limit 

below 1995 MHz. We note, however, 

that this level may be difficult to meet 

for mobile transmitters in 2000–2020 

MHz, as it requires even sharper roll off 

from mobile stations than the previous 

alternative. 

25. Third, we could require that fixed 

and mobile transmitters operating in 

2000–2020 MHz attenuate emissions 

below 2000 MHz by 43+10*log10(P) dB, 

symmetric with existing limits for PCS 

emissions in 2000–2020 MHz and 

broadly consistent with Commission 

rules as discussed above. In this case, if 

future service rules for 1995–2000 MHz 

have the same requirement, then the 

licensees above and below 2000 MHz 

would be placed on a more equal 

footing, and could determine among 

themselves if there is a need for any 

stricter limits. 

26. We seek comment on each of these 

alternatives. For each alternative, we ask 

commenters to address whether the 

proposal is adequate to protect expected 

uses of the 1995–2000 MHz band. 

Commenters should address and 

quantify the magnitude and effect of any 

possible harmful interference, such as 

the impact on link budgets or coverage 

areas. Commenters should also address 

the amount of spectrum that may be 

unusable or partially usable in either 

band. For each alternative, we also seek 

comment on the impact on operations in 

the 2000–2020 MHz band, including 

whether mobile stations will be able to 

utilize the entire 2000–2020 MHz band 

while meeting the proposed limit, and 

if not, the amount of spectrum that may 

be unusable or usable only at a reduced 

power, as well as the extent of any such 

power reductions. 

27. For all three alternatives, we 

propose that the attenuation should be 

measured using the existing 

measurement procedure of § 27.53(h) 

discussed above. We seek comment on 

this proposal. 

28. Finally, in the event that the 

record shows none of these three 

proposals sufficiently addresses issues 

of interference with 1995–2000 MHz, 

we seek comment on two additional 

proposals. First, we seek comment on an 

alternative proposal to shift the uplink 

band up 5 megahertz from 2000–2020 

MHz to 2005–2025 MHz, including the 

lower portion of the AWS–2 ‘‘J’’ Block 

at 2020–2025 MHz. This concept was 

part of Ericcson’s proposal in its 

comments in response to the 2 GHz 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22725 

Public Notice. Would this shift proposal 

better mitigate interference with the 

AWS–2 H Upper block and PCS 

downlink bands, increasing the value of 

the spectrum for mobile broadband and 

other uses? Further, would this 

alternative approach allow for more 

productive use of the ‘‘stranded’’ lower 

portion of the AWS–2 J Block (2020– 

2025 MHz) should the Commission 

eventually decide to auction the upper 

portion of the J Block as part of an 

extended AWS–3 band? Second, we 

seek comment on an alternative 

proposal to shift the uplink band up 10 

megahertz, while compressing the band 

from 20 to 15 megahertz, resulting in an 

uplink band of 2010–2025 MHz. For this 

alternative, in light of the interference 

issues that may impact the terrestrial 

use of 2000–2005 MHz, we seek 

comment on whether shifting the 

spectrum to a 15 megahertz band at 

2010–2025 MHz would result in the 

actual loss of spectrum usable for 

terrestrial broadband service. 

29. For both spectrum shift 

alternatives, we propose that the shift 

apply to the lower end of the band for 

both terrestrial and satellite service. 

Shifting the satellite service out of the 

2000–2005 MHz or the 2000–2010 MHz 

blocks (in a manner consistent with the 

terrestrial service) would mitigate 

against the possibility of mobile satellite 

devices causing harmful interference 

into the 1995–2000 MHz block. The 

2020–2025 MHz block is not presently 

allocated for satellite service. 47 CFR 

2.106. We do not intend to shift the 

satellite service into this block. We seek 

comment on this proposal including its 

costs and benefits. Lastly, in considering 

the spectrum shift alternatives, we seek 

comment on how each might affect all 

of the applicable proposals contained in 

this AWS–4 Notice, including without 

limitation the technical protections 

discussed in this section, the 

assignment proposals, and relocation 

and cost sharing proposals discussed 

below. 

30. Interference with operations in 

2020–2025 MHz. The AWS–4 uplink 

band will be adjacent to the AWS–2 

Lower J block, 2020–2025 MHz. 

Although the part 25 ATC rules adopted 

in 2003 originally attenuated the mobile 

station emissions in this range by a 

linear interpolation from 43+10*log10(P) 

dB at 2020 MHz to 70+10*log10(P) dB at 

2025 MHz, the Commission separately 

proposed in 2004 to apply a standard of 

43+10*log10(P) to the AWS–2 J block. 

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 

Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995– 

2000 MHz, 2175–2180 MHz and 1.7 

GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, 63 FR 63489 

(2004). In 2009, in the ICO Waiver 

Order, the Commission waived the part 

25 ATC rules and instead applied the 

43+10*log10(P) to OOBE in 2020–2025 

MHz from transmitters operating in 

2000–2020 MHz. See ICO Waiver Order. 

We propose that no additional 

attenuation beyond 43+10*log10(P) dB is 

needed to protect services in the 2020– 

2025 MHz band. We seek comment on 

this approach. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits of this proposal and any 

proposed alternative approaches. 

31. Inference with operations above 

2025 MHz. The AWS–4 uplink band is 

5 megahertz from the 2025–2110 MHz 

band, which includes broadcast 

auxiliary service (BAS) and cable 

television service (CARS) operations, as 

well as certain Federal government 

operations. Although the ATC rules 

originally limited the mobile emissions 

to 70+10*log10(P) above 2025 MHz, in 

2009, the Commission waived the part 

25 ATC rule and instead applied the 

43+10*log10(P) standard. See ICO 

Waiver Order. As the interference 

potential between these bands has not 

changed significantly since then, we 

propose that no additional attenuation 

beyond 43+10*log10(P) dB is needed to 

protect operations above 2025 MHz. We 

seek comment on this approach. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of this 

proposal and any proposed alternative 

approaches. 

32. Interference with operations below 

2180 MHz. The AWS–4 downlink band, 

2180–2200 MHz, is adjacent to the 

AWS–2 Upper J block, 2175–2180 MHz, 

which is itself adjacent to the AWS–3 

band, 2155–2175 MHz. The Commission 

has previously proposed that an 

attenuation of 43+10*log10(P) dB is an 

appropriate base station emission limit 

to prevent harmful electromagnetic 

interference in the AWS–2 and AWS–3 

bands. See, e.g., Service Rules for 

Advanced Wireless Services in the 

1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 

2155–2175 MHz, and 2175–2180 MHz 

Bands, 73 FR 35995 (2008). As the 

circumstances have not changed 

significantly since that attenuation level 

was proposed, we propose that no 

additional attenuation beyond 

43+10*log10(P) dB is needed below 2180 

MHz. We seek comment on this 

approach. Commenters should discuss 

and quantify the costs and benefits of 

this proposal and any proposed 

alternative approaches. 

33. Interference with opertions above 

2200 MHz. The proposed AWS–4 

downlink band, 2180–2200 MHz, is 

adjacent to Federal operations in 2200– 

2290 MHz. Federal operations in the 

band 2200–2290 MHz consist mainly of 

space, airborne telemetry, and fixed 

point-to-point microwave radio relay 

communications. The space 

communications in the band consist of 

the tracking, telemetry, scientific data 

communications, and control of U.S. 

spacecraft. The band is used by these 

agencies to operate space research, 

space operations, and Earth explorationsatellites for space-to-Earth 

communications, and in the case of 

NASA for space-to-space 

communications through their Tracking 

and Data Relay Satellite System 

(TDRSS). Federal agencies use this band 

for research; law enforcement video 

surveillance; control of robotic systems 

for explosive neutralization and 

disposal; and the testing of robotic 

ground vehicles. 

34. The Commission’s part 25 ATC 

rules require strict emissions limitations 

(¥100.6 dBW/4 kHz) in the 2180–2200 

MHz band, and prohibit the location of 

base stations within 820 meters of a 

Federal earth station operating in the 

2200–2290 MHz band. See 47 CFR 

25.252(a)(1), (a)(6). In 2009, the 

Commission waived the part 25 

emissions limit rule for MSS/ATC 

operator ICO, replacing it with the 

standard emission limit of 

43+10*log10(P) dB. See ICO Waiver 

Order. Specific to emissions limits and 

restrictions on base station locations 

with respect to the 2200–2290 MHz 

band, the waiver order required that ICO 

follow an operator-to-operator 

agreement that ICO had reached with 

several Federal agencies. Letter from 

Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, 

Office of Spectrum Management, 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, to Julius 

Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, Federal Communications 

Commission, File No. SES–LIC– 

20071203–01646, SES–AMD– 

20080118–00075, SES–AMD– 

20080219–00172, Call Sign: E070272, 

Attachment at 2 (Jan. 6, 2009) (ICO– 

Federal Agreement). Finally, TerreStar 

also requested a waiver of the part 25 

emission limit rules to the extent 

granted ICO, and is discussing an 

operator-to-operator agreement with 

Federal agencies. In summary, as it 

stands, ATC base stations in the 2190– 

2200 MHz block must meet ¥100.6 

dBW/4 kHz in 2200–2290 MHz 

throughout the licensed areas, while 

ATC base stations in 2180–2190 MHz 

must meet the limits set forth in the 

ICO–Federal Agreement. If the 

Commission adopts the proposals 

contained in this AWS–4 Notice, we 

expect that licensees will construct 

extensive cellular systems in this band. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We seek comment on whether such 

deployments would represent a material 

change in the expected density of 

deployment in the band. If so, we seek 

comment on the advantages and 

disadvantages of such a change. 

35. We seek comment on the 

appropriate emissions limits to protect 

Federal operations in the 2200–2290 

MHz band in light of the current state 

of affairs. We observe that the emissions 

limit of ¥100.6 dBW/4 kHz EIRP is 

considerably more stringent than the 

standard OOBE limit of 43+10*log10(P) 

dB and may limit flexible use of the 

AWS–4 band. We seek comment on 

whether licensees would be able to use 

their entire spectrum block for 

commercial terrestrial broadband base 

stations while meeting this limit, or, if 

not, how much spectrum would be 

unusable or usable only at a reduced 

power level (that is, would effectively 

become a guard band), as well as the 

extent of any such power reductions. 

We also seek comment on whether 

current, state-of-the-art base station 

filter design would feasibly be able to 

meet the OOBE limit of -100.6 dBW/4 

kHz in any portion of the 2200–2290 

MHz band, and the practicality, 

including the costs, of commercially 

deploying such filters. We seek 

comment on whether any internal guard 

band would affect the band plan 

proposal made in the previous section 

that guard bands would have on the 

band plan proposal. Finally, we seek 

comment on whether to carry forward 

the existing waivers of the part 25 

emissions limits into the part 27 regime 

(e.g., pursuant to the Commission’s 

license modification authority under 

section 316 of the Communications 

Act). Commenters should discuss the 

costs and benefits of their proposals. 

36. We seek comment on whether to 

prohibit the location of AWS–4 base 

stations within 820 meters of existing 

Federal earth stations, consistent with 

both the current part 25 rule and the 

ICO–Federal Agreement. Commenters 

should discuss and quantify the costs 

and benefits of their proposals. 

37. We also seek comment on whether 

there are any other part 25 MSS/ATC 

technical rules that we should 

incorporate into the AWS–4 technical 

rules. 

38. Other alternative approaches. We 

also seek comment on any other 

alternative approaches to protecting 

Federal stations above 2200 MHz while 

maximizing the usability of AWS–4 

spectrum. Commenters should discuss 

and quantify the costs and benefits of 

any proposed alternative approaches. 

39. PFD limits for protection of 

operations above 2200 MHz. We seek 

comment on an alternative approach of 

specifying an aggregate power flux 

density (PFD) that must be met at the 

protected site, which would enable the 

AWS–4 licensee to operate as long as 

this limit is met. We seek comment on 

what PFD limit will prevent harmful 

interference, what methods can be used 

to determine that such a limit is met 

(e.g., engineering studies), and the 

degree to which this approach would 

increase flexibility in the AWS–4 band 

while protecting Federal operations in 

the 2200 MHz band. 

40. Sliding scale for protection of 

operations above 2200 MHz. The 

emissions limit in the ICO–Federal 

Agreement changes from an emissions 

limit of 43+10*log10(P) dB of 

attenuation of the transmit power 

beyond a specified distance from the 

protected site to an EIRP limit of 

¥100.6 dBW/4 kHz within the specified 

distance. However, the attenuation 

needed and therefore the necessary 

emissions limit is a function of the 

isolation provided by the geographic 

separation of the protected site and the 

terrestrial base station, and therefore 

follows a curve as a function of the 

distance from the protected site. 

Therefore, we seek comment on an 

alternative approach where the OOBE 

limit is an interpolation between 

43+10*log10(P) dB and ¥100.6 dBW/4 

kHz as a function of distance. In this 

case it may be necessary for the 

interpolation to be linear in the 

logarithm of the distance. 

41. Global Positioning System (GPS). 

We note that the MSS/ATC rules 

contain provisions regarding 

interference with GPS systems operating 

at 1559–1610 MHz. See 47 CFR 

252(a)(7), (b)(3). We further note that 

different MSS/ATC bands are differently 

situated in terms of frequency 

separation from the GPS band. We 

request comment on whether any 

special interference rules protecting 

GPS are warranted for the 2 GHz band 

if we implement the AWS–4 proposals. 

We ask that commenters provide 

technical analysis supporting their 

views. We also seek comment on the 

costs and benefits associated with their 

proposals. 

2. Receiver Performance 

42. We invite comment on any 

potential for receiver overload 

interference between AWS–4 operations 

and operations above 2200 MHz, below 

2180 MHz, above 2020 MHz, and below 

2000 MHz. If such a risk exists, we 

request that parties provide whatever 

information may be available about the 

characteristics of the receivers operating 

in these frequencies, potential solutions 

to overload interference, and an 

assessment of the impact this might 

have on deployment of AWS–4 service. 

We also invite comment on any other 

receiver issues that should be 

considered in this proceeding that could 

affect the potential for harmful 

interference and usability of the AWS– 

4 spectrum. 

3. Power Limits 

43. We seek comment on appropriate 

power limits for terrestrial operations in 

the AWS–4 band. Specifically, as 

described below, we propose to apply 

existing AWS power limits to the AWS– 

4 band. We seek comment on this 

proposal, including the costs and 

benefits of the proposal. 

44. Base stations. The MSS/ATC rules 

limit ATC base station transmit power 

to 27 dBW EIRP in 1.23 MHz. The 

current AWS–1 rules limit base station 

power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts 

EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 

1 MHz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP 

for emission bandwidths greater than 1 

MHz, and double these limits (3280 

watts EIRP) in rural areas. The 

Commission has previously concluded 

that a power limitation of 32 dBW/MHz 

EIRP is appropriate for base stations in 

the 2180–2190 MHz band, and that a 

power limitation of 32 dBW EIRP is 

appropriate for base stations in the 

2190–2200 MHz band. Although neither 

of these limits aligns exactly with the 

AWS–1 rules, the 32 dBW EIRP level 

was specifically chosen because it 

approximates the 1640 watt EIRP limit 

of AWS–1 specified in § 27.50(d). The 

Commission did not consider whether 

the higher power level of 3280 watts 

EIRP allowed for rural AWS–1 base 

stations is appropriate for 2180–2200 

MHz. Although not fully aligned with 

AWS–1, the current power limits are 

very similar. The 32 dBW EIRP limit is 

the same as the AWS–1 limit of 1640 

watts EIRP for emissions under 1 MHz, 

but is more burdensome for larger 

bandwidths. Similarly, the 32 dBW/ 

MHz EIRP limit is the same as the 

AWS–1 limit of 1640 watts/MHz EIRP 

for emission over 1 MHz, but is more 

burdensome for emissions under 1 MHz. 

Changing both limits to the existing 

AWS–1 rule of 1640 watts EIRP for 

emissions less than 1 MHz and 1640 

watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 

MHz would best allow flexibility for the 

use of various bandwidths in the AWS– 

4 spectrum. 

45. Furthermore, allowing the 

increase of these power levels to the 

current AWS–1 rules of 3280 watts EIRP 

for emissions less than 1 MHz and 3280 

watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 

MHz in rural areas may promote the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22727 

Commission’s goals of furthering rural 

deployment of broadband services. 

Therefore, we propose that § 27.50(d)(1– 

2), which sets the AWS–1 power limits 

for base stations, should also apply to 

AWS–4. We seek comment on this 

proposal, including the costs and 

benefits of the proposal. 

46. The current AWS–1 rules also 

require that base stations with transmit 

power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 

watts/MHz EIRP must coordinate with 

licensees in adjacent AWS blocks 

located within 120 kilometers, BRS 

licensees in the 2155–2160 MHz band 

located within 120 kilometers, and 

satellite entities in the 2025–2110 MHz 

band. As AWS–4 is not adjacent to the 

2155–2160 MHz and 2025–2110 MHz 

bands, we do not see a need to carry 

these requirements over to AWS–4. 

Therefore, we propose only that AWS– 

4 base stations with transmit power 

above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/ 

MHz EIRP be required to coordinate 

with users in adjacent AWS blocks 

located within 120 kilometers. We seek 

comment on this proposal, including 

the costs and benefits of the proposal. 

47. Mobile stations. The part 25 ATC 

rules set a power limit of 1 dBW (1.25 

watts) EIRP in a bandwidth of 1.23 MHz 

for mobiles operating in 2000–2020 

MHz. The existing AWS–1 rules set a 

power limit of 1 watt EIRP for mobiles 

operating in AWS–1, which is 

somewhat more restrictive. In the 

interest of harmonizing the AWS rules, 

and given the similarity of these two 

limits, we propose that the more 

restrictive limit of § 27.50(d)(4), which 

is 1 watt EIRP, should apply to AWS– 

4. We seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

4. Antenna Height Restrictions 

48. We propose that the flexible 

antenna height rules that apply to 

AWS–1 should also apply to AWS–4. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

49. Base stations. Specific antenna 

height restrictions for AWS–1 base 

stations are not set forth in part 27 of 

our rules. However, all part 27 services 

are subject to § 27.56, which prevents 

antenna heights that would be a hazard 

to air navigation. See 47 CFR 27.56. 

Furthermore, the limitations of field 

strength at the geographical boundary of 

the license discussed below also 

effectively limit antenna heights. We 

propose that no unique antenna height 

limits are needed for AWS–4 facilities; 

rather, we believe that the general 

height restrictions are sufficient. We 

seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

50. Fixed stations. Section 27.50(d)(4) 

specifies a height restriction of 10 

meters for fixed stations operating in 

AWS–1 spectrum. 47 CFR 27.50(d). 

Given the similarity of the proposed 

AWS–4 use to AWS–1 use, we propose 

that this rule should be expanded to 

apply to AWS–4, as well. We seek 

comment on this proposal, including 

the costs and benefits of the proposal. 

5. Co-Channel Interference Among 

AWS–4 Systems 

51. If we ultimately decide to license 

the AWS–4 bands on the basis of 

geographic service areas that are less 

than nationwide, we will have to ensure 

that such licensees do not cause 

interference to co-channel systems 

operating along common geographic 

borders. The current rules for AWS–1 

address the possibility of harmful cochannel interference between 

geographically adjacent licenses by 

setting a field strength limit of 47 dBmV/ 

m at the edge of the license area. See 47 

CFR 27.55(a)(1). Due to the similarities 

between AWS–1 and AWS–4 spectrum 

use, we propose that this same signal 

strength limit is appropriate for AWS– 

4, and therefore that § 27.55(a)(1) should 

be expanded to include the 2180–2200 

MHz band. We seek comment on this 

proposal, including the costs and 

benefits of the proposal. 

6. Canadian and Mexican Coordination 

52. Section 27.57(c) of our rules 

indicates that AWS–1 operations are 

subject to international agreements with 

Mexico and Canada. See 47 CFR 

27.57(c). Until such time as any 

adjusted agreements between the United 

States, Mexico and/or Canada can be 

agreed to, operations must not cause 

harmful interference across the border, 

consistent with the terms of the 

agreements currently in force. We note 

that further modification (of the 

proposed rules) might be necessary in 

order to comply with any future 

agreements with Canada and Mexico 

regarding the use of these bands. We 

seek comment on this issue, including 

the costs and benefits of alternative 

approaches to this issue. 

7. Other Technical Issues 

53. There are several additional 

technical rules applicable to all part 27 

services. Specifically, these are: § 27.51 

Equipment authorization, § 27.52 RF 

safety, § 27.54 Frequency stability, 

§ 27.56 Antennas structures; air 

navigation safety, and § 27.63 

Disturbance of AM broadcast station 

antenna patterns. 47 CFR 27.51, 27.52, 

27.54, 27.56, 27.63. As AWS–4 will be 

a part 27 service, we propose that all of 

these rules should apply to all AWS–4 

licensees, including licensees who 

acquire their licenses through 

partitioning or disaggregation. We seek 

comment on this approach, including 

the costs and benefits of this approach. 

C. Protection of MSS Operations 

54. We propose to adopt a rule 

requiring an AWS–4 licensee to protect 

the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensee from 

harmful interference. The 2000–2020 

MHz band was allocated to MSS in 

1997; fourteen years later the 

Commission added the current coprimary terrestrial Fixed and Mobile 

allocations. In adding the co-primary 

Fixed and Mobile allocations in 2011, 

the Commission explained that ‘‘MSS 

remains co-primary in the 2 GHz MSS 

band.’’ Fixed and Mobile Services in the 

Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525– 

1559 MHz and 1626.5–1660.5 MHz, 

1610–1626.5 MHz and 2483.5–2500 

MHz, and 2000–2020 MHz and 2180– 

2200 MHz, 76 FR 31252 (2011) (2 GHz 

Band Co-Allocation Order). The 

Commission further explained that the 

addition of the new allocation ‘‘will not 

result in harmful interference, and 

would not inevitably lead to uses that 

would result in harmful interference,’’ 

impliedly because (other than the preexisting MSS/ATC rules) no terrestrial 

service rules yet existed for the band. 2 

GHz Band Co-Allocation Order. As we 

are now proposing service rules for the 

AWS–4 band, we propose to codify the 

determination that ‘‘adding co-primary 

Fixed and Mobile allocations in this 

band will not result in harmful 

interference’’ by requiring that AWS–4 

licensees protect the 2 GHz MSS 

licensee from harmful interference. Id. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

D. Assignment of AWS–4 License(s) 

55. The Commission concluded in 

2003 that it would grant additional ATC 

authority to the MSS incumbents. See 

Flexibility for Delivery of 

Communications by Mobile Satellite 

Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the 

L–Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 68 

FR 33640 (2003) (ATC Report and 

Order). The Commission reasoned that 

separately controlled MSS and 

terrestrial mobile operations (i.e., two 

ubiquitous mobile services) in the same 

band would be ‘‘impractical and illadvised’’ because the parties would not 

be able to overcome the technical 

hurdles to reach a workable sharing 

arrangement. In particular, the 

Commission stated: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

While * * * it may be theoretically 

possible for two different firms to own and 

operate the satellite and terrestrial portions of 

a single system, we believe that, in reality, no 

two operators are likely to succeed in 

organizing themselves to manage the highly 

complex coordination process required 

between both the MSS and the terrestrial 

component at the same time in the same 

band in the same region. To optimally 

balance the frequency usage of the terrestrial 

and satellite portions of the system, the ATC 

portion must be operated in a manner that 

controls the ATC terminal-to-MSS uplink 

interface while still providing ATC service. 

ATC Report and Order. 

Based on its technical analyses, the 

Commission also concluded that ‘‘we 

cannot grant to a third party the right to 

use licensed MSS spectrum for 

terrestrial use without impacting the 

rights of the existing satellite licensees.’’ 

ATC Report and Order. 

56. In the ATC proceeding, the 

Commission adopted a blanket 

authorization process to implement 

geographic area licensing of ATC base 

station facilities operating in the U.S. 

coverage of the MSS space segment, i.e., 

all 50 states and the U.S. territories and 

possessions. DBSD and TerreStar 

received ATC authority in 2009 and 

2010, respectively, allowing for the 

deployment of terrestrial base stations 

and collectively up to three million 

dual-mode MSS/ATC user terminals in 

the United States. Thus, in considering 

the impact that AWS–4 operations 

would have on the existing 2 GHz MSS 

licensee, we also consider the impact on 

the MSS licensee’s significant, albeit 

ancillary, authority to operate terrestrial 

stations in the 2 GHz band throughout 

the nation. 

57. Taken together, the above 

concerns appear to present strong 

reasons that lead us to propose that 

AWS–4 licenses in this band should be 

assigned to the incumbent MSS 

licensee. First, the complexities of 

coordination between MSS and 

terrestrial uses that the Commission 

identified in 2003 in the ATC Report 

and Order suggest that assignment of 

terrestrial licenses to an entity other 

than the incumbent MSS licensee 

remains impractical. Second, we expect 

that the interference problems 

associated with two or more distinct 

terrestrial licensees in the same band 

(i.e., distinct co-channel ATC and part 

27 licensees) point to assigning the 

AWS–4 licenses to the incumbent MSS 

licensee. Third, we observe that this 

result would not diminish the MSS 

licensee’s existing ability to provide 

terrestrial service in the band. 

58. We seek comment on these issues. 

In particular, commenters should 

address whether there have been 

technological advances or other 

developments since 2003 that would 

either reinforce or alter these points and 

provide detailed technical analysis 

supporting any information provided. 

Should the record show, contrary to our 

expectations, that same-band, separateoperator sharing is possible—between 

AWS–4 licensees and an MSS licensee’s 

satellite and ATC operations—then we 

seek comment on alternative approaches 

to licensing the new service under the 

Communications Act that would 

achieve our goal of making additional 

spectrum available for terrestrial mobile 

broadband use. In addition, we seek 

comment on what effect the spectrum 

shift alternatives proposed above would 

have on assigning AWS–4 licenses. We 

further seek comment on the impact, 

including the quantification of the costs 

and benefits that any method for 

assigning licenses would have on 

innovation, investment, and 

competition. 

1. Section 316 License Modification 

59. Based on our expectation that the 

Commission’s earlier technical findings 

are still sound, and mindful of the 2 

GHz MSS license holder’s existing 

rights to operate MSS in the AWS–4 

band and our proposal, above, to require 

protection of MSS uses, we propose to 

grant terrestrial authority to operate in 

the AWS–4 band to the current 2 GHz 

MSS licensee. We believe this would 

serve the public interest, convenience 

and necessity by making more spectrum 

available for broadband use and 

avoiding harmful electromagnetic 

interference. 

60. Legal Authority. Under section 

316 of the Communications Act, the 

Commission has the authority to modify 

a station license if ‘‘in the judgment of 

the Commission such action will 

promote the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity.’’ See 47 

U.S.C. 316(a)(1). As the D.C. Circuit 

explained in California Metro Mobile 

Communications v. FCC, ‘‘section 316 

grants the Commission broad power to 

modify licenses; the Commission need 

only find that the proposed 

modification serves the public interest, 

convenience and necessity.’’ California 

Metro Mobile Communications v. FCC, 

365 F.3d 38, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2004) For 

example, in that case, the court found 

that the Commission’s modification 

served the public interest, even though 

it was based on an analysis of potential 

rather than actual interference, and the 

modification could cause a minor 

disruption in the licensee’s operations. 

Here, we propose that, once the AWS– 

4 service rules are effective, we would 

issue an Order of Proposed 

Modification, under section 316 of the 

Communications Act, to modify the 

existing 2 GHz MSS licensee’s authority 

to operate in the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands by adding part 

27 terrestrial authority and obligations, 

which would apply to all the AWS–4 

service areas in these bands. We seek 

comment on this proposed approach, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

61. Public Interest Considerations. 

The incumbent MSS licensee holds 

exclusive authority to operate terrestrial 

base stations in the AWS–4 band 

nationwide. And existing Commission 

rules permit the MSS licensee to enter 

into spectrum manager leasing 

arrangements with spectrum lessees. We 

believe that modifying the 2 GHz MSS 

licensee’s authority as described herein, 

to have 2 GHz terrestrial operations 

governed under part 27, would remove 

outdated regulatory barriers that have 

frustrated the Commission’s goal of 

having the 2 GHz band used for 

terrestrial mobile broadband. 

Additionally, if the record developed in 

this proceeding confirms that current 

technology will not permit separate 

MSS and terrestrial mobile licensees, 

the envisioned section 316 license 

modification would serve the public 

interest, convenience and necessity, by: 

(1) Making more spectrum available for 

broadband use, and (2) avoiding 

harmful electromagnetic interference. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

62. The availability and quality of 

wireless broadband services will likely 

become constrained if additional 

spectrum does not become available to 

enable network expansion and 

technology upgrades. This could result 

in higher prices, poor service quality, an 

inability for the U.S. to compete 

effectively on an international basis, 

depressed demand and, ultimately, a 

drag on innovation. To address the need 

for broadband spectrum, the 

Commission has endeavored to promote 

the use of the 2 GHz MSS band, but 

there is virtually no current commercial 

use of this spectrum. 

63. We believe that modifying the 2 

GHz MSS licensee’s authority as 

described herein would enhance the 

licensee’s ability to offer high-quality, 

affordable terrestrial wireless broadband 

services, while retaining the right to 

offer MSS using the same spectrum; 

spectrum that is already licensed 

nationwide on an exclusive, primary 

basis for MSS. Thus, we propose that 

authorizing terrestrial operations will 

provide the 2 GHz MSS licensee with 

the possibility of achieving greater usage 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22729 

of the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands than are possible under the 

current regulations. We seek comment 

on this proposal. We also seek comment 

on the extent that this proposal would 

increase innovation and investment in 

mobile broadband use of this spectrum. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

64. The Commission may also modify 

licenses to achieve the public interest 

purpose of avoiding harmful 

interference. In 2003, the Commission 

concluded that separately controlled 

MSS and terrestrial operations (i.e., two 

ubiquitous mobile services) in the same 

band would be ‘‘impractical and illadvised’’ because the parties would not 

be able to overcome the technical 

hurdles to reach a workable sharing 

arrangement. If the record developed in 

this proceeding confirms that allowing 

terrestrial operations in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands 

independent from the MSS licensee 

would likely substantially compromise 

the effectiveness of both the mobile 

satellite and terrestrial services, we 

propose that the public interest would 

be best served by modifying the license 

to operate in the 2 GHz MSS band, as 

contemplated herein, rather than 

making the band available for initial 

terrestrial licenses under a sharing 

regime with MSS. We seek comment on 

this proposal and its effect on 

interference. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits of this proposal on eliminating 

harmful interference. 

65. Other Assignment Approaches. If, 

contrary to our expectations, the record 

developed in this proceeding reflects 

that it is now possible for separately 

authorized, independent AWS–4 

licensees to protect MSS including ATC 

operations, then we seek comment on 

other approaches to authorizing 

terrestrial use, upon creation of the new 

AWS–4 service. These other approaches 

may include the assignment of new 

initial licenses via competitive bidding, 

if mutually exclusive applications are 

received, under section 309(j) of the 

Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. 

309(j). Commenters should be mindful 

that existing MSS licensees would still 

retain MSS licenses and, therefore, any 

new terrestrial licensees would have to 

protect the incumbent 2 GHz MSS 

licensee from harmful interference. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify and costs and benefits 

associated with any alternative 

approaches. 

66. Applications for Any AWS–4 

Licenses Returned to the Commission. 

There is a potential, under proposals 

discussed herein or otherwise, for 

AWS–4 licenses to be terminated 

automatically or otherwise to become a 

part of the Commission’s spectrum 

inventory. Under such a scenario, we 

would resolve any mutually exclusive 

applications for such AWS–4 licenses 

using competitive bidding. We seek 

comment on the appropriate 

competitive bidding procedures below. 

67. Procedures for Any AWS–4 

Licenses Subject to Assignment by 

Competitive Bidding. Some of the 

scenarios on which we seek comment in 

this notice could result in the 

acceptance of mutually exclusive 

applications for licenses that would be 

resolved by competitive bidding. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on a 

number of proposals relating to 

competitive bidding for licenses for 

spectrum in the AWS–4 band. 

68. We propose that the Commission 

would conduct any auction for AWS–4 

licenses in conformity with the general 

competitive bidding rules set forth in 

part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission’s 

rules, and substantially consistent with 

the competitive bidding procedures that 

have been employed in previous 

auctions. See 47 CFR 1.2101–1.2114. 

Specifically, we propose to employ the 

part 1 rules governing competitive 

bidding design, designated entity 

preferences, unjust enrichment, 

application and payment procedures, 

reporting requirements, and the 

prohibition on certain communications 

between auction applicants. Under this 

proposal, such rules would be subject to 

any modifications that the Commission 

may adopt for its part 1 general 

competitive bidding rules in the future. 

In addition, consistent with our longstanding approach, auction-specific 

matters such as the competitive bidding 

design and mechanisms, as well as 

minimum opening bids and/or reserve 

prices, would be determined by the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

pursuant to its delegated authority. We 

seek comment on this approach, 

including the costs and benefits of this 

approach. We also seek comment on 

whether any of our part 1 rules would 

be inappropriate or should be modified 

for an auction of licenses in the AWS– 

4 bands. 

69. In authorizing the Commission to 

use competitive bidding, Congress 

mandated that the Commission ‘‘ensure 

that small businesses, rural telephone 

companies, and businesses owned by 

members of minority groups and women 

are given the opportunity to participate 

in the provision of spectrum-based 

services.’’ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(D). In 

addition, section 309(j)(3)(B) of the 

Communications Act provides that, in 

establishing eligibility criteria and 

bidding methodologies, the Commission 

shall promote ‘‘economic opportunity 

and competition * * * by avoiding 

excessive concentration of licenses and 

by disseminating licenses among a wide 

variety of applicants, including small 

businesses, rural telephone companies, 

and businesses owned by members of 

minority groups and women.’’ 47 U.S.C. 

309(j)(3)(B). One of the principal means 

by which the Commission fulfills this 

mandate is through the award of 

bidding credits to small businesses. 

70. In the Competitive Bidding 

Second Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, the Commission stated that it 

would define eligibility requirements 

for small businesses on a servicespecific basis, taking into account the 

capital requirements and other 

characteristics of each particular service 

in establishing the appropriate 

threshold. See Implementation of 

Section 309(j) of the Communications 

Act—Competitive Bidding, 59 FR 44272 

(1994) (Competitive Bidding Second 

Memorandum Opinion and Order). 

Further, in the Part 1 Third Report and 

Order, the Commission, while 

standardizing many auction rules, 

determined that it would continue a 

service-by-service approach to defining 

small businesses. See Amendment of 

Part 1 of Commission’s Rules— 

Competitive Bidding Procedures, 63 FR 

770 (1997) (Part 1 Third Report and 

Order). 

71. In the event that the Commission 

assigns exclusive geographic area 

licenses for terrestrial use of the AWS– 

4 band, we believe that this spectrum 

would be employed for purposes similar 

to those for which the AWS–1 band is 

used. We therefore propose to establish 

the same small business size standards 

and associated bidding credits for the 

AWS–4 bands as the Commission 

adopted for the AWS–1 band. Thus, we 

propose to define a small business as an 

entity with average annual gross 

revenues for the preceding three years 

not exceeding $40 million, and a very 

small business as an entity with average 

annual gross revenues for the preceding 

three years not exceeding $15 million. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

72. We propose to provide small 

businesses with a bidding credit of 15 

percent and very small businesses with 

a bidding credit of 25 percent, as set 

forth in the standardized schedule in 

part 1 of our rules. We seek comment on 

the use of these standards and 

associated bidding credits, with 

particular focus on the appropriate 

definitions of small businesses and very 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22730 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

small businesses as they may relate to 

the size of the geographic area to be 

served and the spectrum allocated to 

each license. Commenters should 

discuss and quantify any costs or 

benefits associated with these standards 

and associated bidding credits as they 

relate to the proposed geographic areas. 

In discussing these issues, commenters 

are requested to address and quantify 

the expected capital requirements for 

services in these bands and other 

characteristics of the service. 

Commenters are also invited to use 

comparisons with other services for 

which the Commission has already 

established auction procedures as a 

basis for their comments and any 

quantification of costs and benefits 

regarding the appropriate small business 

size standards. 

73. In establishing the criteria for 

small business bidding credits, we 

acknowledge the difficulty in accurately 

predicting the market forces that will 

exist at the time these frequencies are 

licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of 

services that will be offered over these 

bands may require adjustment 

depending upon ongoing technological 

developments and changes in market 

conditions. 

74. Finally, we seek comment on 

whether to use a different approach to 

bidding credits. To the extent 

commenters support a different 

approach to bidding credits than those 

discussed here, they should support 

their proposals with relevant 

information, including costs and 

benefits of their alternative proposals on 

the types of system architecture that are 

likely to be deployed in these bands, the 

availability of equipment, market 

conditions, and other factors that may 

affect the capital requirements of the 

types of services that may be provided. 

E. Performance Requirements 

75. The Commission establishes 

performance requirements to promote 

access to spectrum and the provision of 

service, including to rural areas. Over 

the years the Commission has applied 

different performance and construction 

requirements to different spectrum 

bands. For example, for licensees 

operating in the 2.3 GHz Wireless 

Communications Services (WCS) band, 

the Commission adopted performance 

requirements, which include 

population-based construction 

requirements (40 percent of the license 

area’s population within three-and-ahalf (3.5) years and 75 percent within 

six (6) years) and reporting 

requirements. See 47 CFR 27.14(p). 

76. We propose to establish 

performance requirements for AWS–4 

licensees. Our proposal is informed by 

proposals made in the proceeding on 

DISH’s request for waiver of certain 

ATC rules for the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands. Specifically, 

DISH proposed a buildout schedule 

based on ‘‘the buildout principles 

established in the Sprint/Nextel and 

Sprint/Clearwire transaction decisions’’ 

and ‘‘keyed to commercial availability 

of the LTE Advanced standard.’’ DISH, 

DBSD, TerreStar Consolidated 

Opposition to Petitions to Deny and 

Response to Comments, IB Docket Nos. 

11–149, 11–150, at 31 (Oct. 27, 2011) 

(internal citations omitted). The Sprint/ 

Nextel build-out requirements were to 

offer service to a population of 15 

million within four years and 30 million 

within 6 years; Applications of Nextel 

Communications, Inc., and Sprint 

Corporation For Consent to Transfer 

Control of Licenses and Authorizations, 

WT Docket No. 05–63, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13967, 

14028 paragraphs 164–65 (2005) the 

Sprint/Clearwire build-out requirement 

is to ‘‘cover 140 million people by the 

end of 2010,’’ slightly more than two 

years after the adoption of the order. 

Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire 

Corporation Applications for Consent to 

Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases, 

and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 08– 

94, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

23 FCC Rcd 17570, 17617 paragraph 119 

(2008). Alternatively, AT&T proposes 

that the Commission impose the build 

out conditions consistent with the 

March 2010 Harbinger/SkyTerra transfer 

of control. Letter from Joan Marsh, Vice 

President—Federal Regulatory, AT&T 

Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Sec’y, Federal Communications 

Commission, Docket No. 11–149, at 2 

(Jan. 26, 2012). In approving that 

transfer, the Commission required 

Harbinger (now operating as 

LightSquared) to build out its 4G 

terrestrial network according to 

Harbinger’s proposed build-out 

schedule of providing coverage to at 

least 100 million people in the United 

States by the end of 2012 (21 months 

after the transfer order), to at least 145 

million people by the end of 2013 (33 

months), and to at least 260 million 

people in the United States by the end 

of 2015 (57 months). SkyTerra 

Communications, Inc., Transferor, and 

Harbinger Capital Partners Funds, 

Transferee, Applications for Consent to 

Transfer of Control of SkyTerra 

Subsidiary, LLC, IB Docket No. 08–184, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order and 

Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd 3059, 

3085, 3088–89, 3098 at paragraphs 56, 

72, App. B at Att. 2, p.1 (2010). On 

February 15, 2012, the Commission 

proposed to modify LightSquared’s 

satellite license ‘‘to suspend indefinitely 

LightSquared’s underlying ATC 

authorization, first granted in 2004, to 

an extent consistent with the NTIA 

Letter.’’ International Bureau Invites 

Comment on NTIA Letter Regarding 

LightSquared Conditional Waiver, IB 

Docket No. 11–109, Public Notice, DA 

12–214 at 4 (Feb. 15, 2012). 

77. Build-out requirements. Building 

off of these approaches and in light of 

the unique circumstances of the AWS– 

4 band, including its interplay with the 

2 GHz MSS band located in the same 

frequencies, we propose to adopt a 

middle ground between these two 

proposals. We seek comment on the 

following build-out requirements for 

AWS–4 spectrum: 

• AWS–4 Interim Build-out 

Requirement: Within three (3) years, an 

AWS–4 licensee shall provide signal 

coverage and offer service to at least 

thirty (30) percent of their total AWS– 

4 population. A licensee’s total AWS–4 

population shall be calculated by 

summing the population of each of its 

license authorizations in the AWS–4 

band. 

• AWS–4 Final Build-out 

Requirement: Within seven (7) years, an 

AWS–4 licensee shall provide signal 

coverage and offer service to at least 

seventy (70) percent of the population 

in each of its license authorization 

areas. 

78. We propose these performance 

requirements in an effort to foster timely 

deployment in the AWS–4 band for the 

provision of wireless, terrestrial 

broadband service, and to enable the 

Commission to take appropriate 

corrective action should such 

deployment fail to occur. Specifically, 

the interim benchmark at three years 

would ensure that a licensee will begin 

deploying facilities quickly and thereby 

evidencing meaningful utilization of the 

spectrum. At the same time, by 

proposing a relatively low population 

threshold in the interim benchmark, we 

acknowledge that large-scale network 

deployment may ramp up over time as 

equipment becomes available and a 

customer base is established. In 

addition, by proposing a final build-out 

requirement timeline of seven years, we 

believe we allow a reasonable amount of 

time for any AWS–4 licensee to attain 

nationwide scale. Further, we propose 

geographic area based (i.e. EA based) 

requirements for the final milestone in 

order to encourage deployment in all 

areas of the country. We seek comment 

on the proposed build-out requirements. 

We encourage comment on whether our 

proposals represent the appropriate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22731 

balance between requirements that are 

too low as to not result in meaningful 

build-out and those that would be too 

high as to be unattainable. Would the 

DISH or AT&T proposals represent more 

appropriate requirements? Commenters 

should discuss and quantify how any 

supported buildout requirements will 

affect investment and innovation as well 

as discuss and quantify other costs and 

benefits associated with the proposal. 

79. Penalties for failure to meet 

construction requirements. Again, 

building on what we have learned from 

other bands and on the unique 

characteristics of the AWS–4 bands, we 

propose and seek comment, including 

the costs and benefits, on the following 

penalties in the event an AWS–4 

licensee fails to satisfy its build-out 

requirements: 

• In the event an AWS–4 licensee 

fails to meet the AWS–4 Interim Buildout Requirement, all of the licensee’s 

AWS–4 license authorizations shall 

terminate automatically without 

Commission action. 

• In the event an AWS–4 licensee 

fails to meet the AWS–4 Final Build-out 

Requirement in any of its license 

authorizations, its AWS–4 license for 

each license authorization areas in 

which it fails to meet the build-out 

requirement shall terminate 

automatically without Commission 

action. 

80. If the Commission assigns AWS– 

4 rights to the 2 GHz MSS licensee 

pursuant to a section 316 license 

modification, the license would include 

both part 27 terrestrial and part 25 

mobile satellite authorizations. In such 

a situation, we propose that the failure 

to satisfy a build-out requirement would 

trigger the automatic termination of the 

mobile satellite authorization in any 

area in which the terrestrial 

authorizations are terminated. 

Specifically, failure to meet the AWS– 

4 Interim Build-out Requirement would 

result in the AWS–4 and 2 GHz MSS 

licenses automatically terminating in all 

license areas (i.e., nationwide). Failure 

to meet the AWS–4 Final Build-out 

Requirement would result in the AWS– 

4 and 2 GHz MSS licenses automatically 

terminating in those areas where the 

licensee fails to meet the requirement. 

This proposal appears consistent with 

the 2 GHz MSS licensee’s assertion that 

the ability to offer stand-alone terrestrial 

service is critical to support the 

provision of MSS in this spectrum. We 

similarly expect that failure to satisfy 

terrestrial build-out requirements would 

be accompanied by failure to provide 

meaningful MSS. We seek comment on 

whether the protection that is afforded 

to MSS operations under our proposed 

rules should be modified if the MSS 

licensee fails to meet the AWS–4 Final 

Build-out Requirement and the costs 

and benefits to any modification. If so, 

to what extent should the interference 

protection be modified? 

81. We further propose that, in the 

event that a licensee’s authority to 

operate terminates, terrestrial spectrum 

rights would become available for 

reassignment pursuant to the 

competitive bidding provisions of 

section 309(j). Further, consistent with 

the Commission’s rules for other 

spectrum bands, including AWS–1, 700 

MHz, and Broadband Radio Service, we 

propose that any AWS–4 licensee who 

forfeits its license for failure to meet it 

performance requirements would be 

precluded from regaining it. See, e.g., 27 

CFR 27.14(a), (j), (o). We observe that for 

AWS–4 spectrum assigned under 

section 316, termination of individual 

AWS–4 area licenses for failure to 

satisfy the AWS–4 Final Build-out 

Requirement could result in an inability 

for the Commission to meaningfully 

reassign the spectrum rights should the 

Commission continue to require 

coordination of reassigned spectrum 

with the MSS operator. We request 

comment on the appropriate remedy in 

such circumstances, and commenters 

should discuss and quantify the costs 

and benefits or any proposed remedy. 

For example, should any subsequent 

Commission reassignment of the AWS– 

4 spectrum occur without a requirement 

to coordinate with, or protect MSS 

operations or should the MSS 

operations continue to receive 

interference protection? 

82. Compliance procedures. 

Consistent with § 1.946(d) of the 

Commission’s rules, we propose to 

require AWS–4 licensees to demonstrate 

compliance with the new performance 

requirements by filing a construction 

notification within 15 days of the 

relevant milestone certifying that they 

have met the applicable performance 

benchmark. See 47 CFR 1.946(d) 

(‘‘notification[s] must be filed with 

Commission within 15 days of the 

expiration of the applicable 

construction or coverage period’’). 

Further, we propose that each 

construction notification include 

electronic coverage maps and 

supporting documentation, which must 

be truthful and accurate and must not 

omit material information that is 

necessary for the Commission to 

determine compliance with its 

performance requirements. 

83. Electronic coverage maps must 

accurately depict the boundaries of each 

license area in the licensee’s service 

territory. If a licensee does not provide 

reliable signal coverage to an entire 

license area, we propose that its map 

must accurately depict the boundaries 

of the area or areas within each license 

area not being served. Further, we 

propose that each licensee also must file 

supporting documentation certifying the 

type of service it is providing for each 

licensed area within its service territory 

and the type of technology used to 

provide such service. Supporting 

documentation must include the 

assumptions used to create the coverage 

maps, including the propagation model 

and the signal strength necessary to 

provide reliable service with the 

licensee’s technology. 

F. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and 

Operating Rules 

84. We propose to provide AWS–4 

licensees with the flexibility to provide 

any fixed or mobile service that is 

consistent with the allocations for this 

spectrum, as we have generally done 

with other spectrum allocated or 

designated for licensed fixed and mobile 

services, e.g., AWS–1 spectrum. We also 

propose to license this spectrum under 

our market-oriented part 27 rules. We 

seek comment on these proposals. In 

addition, we seek comment on the 

appropriate regulatory framework for 

AWS–4 licenses, the license term, 

criteria for renewal, and other licensing 

and operating rules pertaining to these 

bands. We also seek comment on the 

potential impact of all of our proposals 

on competition. Commenters should 

also comment on how any proposal that 

they support enhances competition and 

results in rapid provisioning of 

competitive mobile broadband services 

to consumers. Commenters also should 

discuss the costs and benefits of these 

proposals and any alternative proposals. 

1. Flexible Use, Regulatory Framework, 

and Regulatory Status 

85. Flexible Use. We propose service 

rules for the AWS–4 band that would 

permit a licensee to employ the 

spectrum for any terrestrial use 

permitted by the United States Table of 

Frequency Allocations contained in part 

2 of our rules (i.e., fixed or mobile 

services). 47 CFR 2.106. Part 27 

licensees must also comply with other 

Commission rules of general 

applicability. See 47 CFR 27.3. These 

service rule proposals cover only the 

terrestrial use of the spectrum in this 

band. MSS use in this spectrum will 

continue to be governed by part 25. 

Congress recognized the potential 

benefits of flexibility in allocations of 

the electromagnetic spectrum and 

amended the Communications Act in 

1999 to add section 303(y). This section 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

provides the Commission with authority 

to provide for flexibility of use if: 

(1) such use is consistent with 

international agreements to which the United 

States is a party; and (2) the Commission 

finds, after notice and an opportunity for 

public comment, that (A) such an allocation 

would be in the public interest; (B) such use 

would not deter investment in 

communications services and systems, or 

technology development; and (C) such use 

would not result in harmful interference 

among users. 

47 U.S.C. 303(y). 

86. We believe that our proposal for 

flexibility meets these section 303(y) 

criteria. The public interest benefits of 

flexibility are manifold. The 

Commission has identified the 

establishment of maximum feasible 

flexibility in both allocations and 

service rules as a critical means of 

ensuring that spectrum is put to its most 

beneficial use. For example, in a 1999 

Policy Statement on spectrum 

management, the Commission observed 

that ‘‘[i]n the majority of cases, efficient 

spectrum markets will lead to use of 

spectrum for the highest value end use,’’ 

and that ‘‘[f]lexible allocations may 

result in more efficient spectrum 

markets.’’ See Principles for 

Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage 

the Development of 

Telecommunications Technologies for 

the New Millenium, FCC 99–354, Policy 

Statement, 14 FCC Rcd 19868, 19870 

paragraph 9 (1999). We would expect 

these economic efficiencies to foster— 

not deter—technology development and 

investment in communications services 

and systems. And the technical rules we 

are proposing here should prevent 

harmful interference among users. In 

addition, as discussed above, flexible 

use would be subject to bilateral 

discussions commonly undertaken 

whenever spectrum is put to use in 

border areas, but is consistent with 

applicable international agreements. 

Finally, in the 2 GHz Band CoAllocation Order, the Commission 

added co-primary Fixed and Mobile 

allocations, along with the pre-existing 

MSS allocation, in the 2 GHz band, 

expressly ‘‘lay[ing] the foundation for 

more flexible use of the band [and] 

* * * promoting investment in the 

development of new services and 

additional innovative technologies.’’ 2 

GHz Band Co-Allocation Order. 

87. We seek comment on our proposal 

to provide for flexible use of the AWS– 

4 band, especially in light of the section 

303(y) criteria noted above. If any 

restrictions are warranted, what should 

they be and why are they needed? 

Commenters should quantify the costs 

and benefits or any such restrictions. 

Are there trade-offs between flexibility 

and investment in technology and new 

services that we should consider? To the 

extent commenters believe flexibility 

will deter investment in these bands, 

they should also suggest specific 

restrictions on how spectrum should be 

used by a licensee, and provide detailed 

analysis and quantification of the 

economic tradeoffs between flexibility 

and investment that justify any 

particular recommended restriction on 

use. We also specifically seek comment 

on the types of uses that pose the 

greatest risk of interference to terrestrial 

or satellite use of this spectrum, and the 

quantification of these risks. 

88. Regulatory Framework. Because 

we propose to permit flexible use of 

these bands, we also propose licensing 

the spectrum under the flexible 

regulatory framework of part 27 of our 

rules. Unlike other rule parts applicable 

to specific services, part 27 does not 

prescribe a comprehensive set of 

licensing and operating rules for the 

spectrum to which it applies. Rather, for 

each frequency band under its umbrella, 

part 27 defines permissible uses and any 

limitations thereon, and specifies basic 

licensing requirements. The licensing 

requirements for a number of spectrum 

bands, including the AWS spectrum at 

1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 MHz 

and the Upper and Lower 700 MHz 

bands, are contained in part 27. In order 

to promote flexibility and permit market 

forces to determine what services are 

ultimately offered in these bands, we 

therefore seek comment on our proposal 

to license the AWS–4 band under part 

27 service and licensing rules, and any 

associated costs or benefits or doing so. 

89. Regulatory Status. We propose to 

apply the regulatory status provisions of 

§ 27.10 of the Commission’s rules to 

licensees in the AWS–4 band. The 

Commission’s current mobile service 

license application requires an 

applicant for mobile services to identify 

the regulatory status of the service(s) it 

intends to provide because service 

offerings may bear on eligibility and 

other statutory and regulatory 

requirements. Under part 27, the 

Commission permits applicants who 

may wish to provide both common 

carrier and non-common carrier services 

(or to switch between them) under a 

single license to request status as both 

a common carrier and a non-common 

carrier. Thus, a part 27 applicant is not 

required to choose between providing 

common carrier and non-common 

carrier services. We propose to adopt 

this same approach here. Licensees in 

the AWS–4 band would be able to 

provide all allowable services anywhere 

within their licensed area at any time, 

consistent with their regulatory status. 

We believe that this approach is likely 

to achieve efficiencies in the licensing 

and administrative process, and provide 

flexibility to the marketplace. We seek 

comment on this approach and the costs 

and benefits of this approach. 

90. We further propose that applicants 

and licensees in the AWS–4 band be 

required to indicate a regulatory status 

for any services they choose to provide. 

Apart from this designation of 

regulatory status, we would not require 

applicants to describe the services they 

seek to provide. We caution potential 

applicants that an election to provide 

service on a common carrier basis 

typically requires that the elements of 

common carriage be present; otherwise 

the applicant must choose non-common 

carrier status. If potential applicants are 

unsure of the nature of their services 

and their classification as common 

carrier services, they may submit a 

petition with their applications, or at 

any time, requesting clarification and 

including service descriptions for that 

purpose. We propose to apply this 

framework to AWS–4 licensees and seek 

comment on this proposal, including 

the costs and benefits of this proposal. 

91. We also propose that if a licensee 

were to change the service or services it 

offers such that its regulatory status 

would change, the licensee must notify 

the Commission. A change in a 

licensee’s regulatory status would not 

require prior Commission authorization, 

provided the licensee was in 

compliance with the foreign ownership 

requirements of section 310(b) of the 

Communications Act that would apply 

as a result of the change, consistent with 

the Commission’s rules for AWS–1 

spectrum. Consistent with our part 27 

rules, we propose to require the 

notification within 30 days of a change 

made without the need for prior 

Commission approval, except that a 

different time period may apply where 

the change results in the 

discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of the existing service. We 

seek comment on this proposal, 

including the costs and benefits of this 

proposal. 

2. Ownership Restrictions 

92. Foreign Ownership. We propose 

that the provisions of § 27.12 of the 

Commission’s rules should apply to 

applicants applying for licenses in the 

AWS–4 band. 47 CFR 27.12. Section 

27.12 implements section 310 of the 

Communications Act, as modified by 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

imposing foreign ownership and 

citizenship requirements that restrict 

the issuance of licenses to certain 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22733 

applicants. An applicant requesting 

authorization for services other than 

broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical 

en route, or aeronautical fixed services 

would be subject to section 310(a), but 

not to the additional prohibitions of 

section 310(b). An applicant requesting 

authorization for these particular 

services would be subject to both 

sections 310(a) and 310(b). As 

applicable to these bands, we do not 

believe that common carriers and noncommon carriers filing an application 

should be subject to varied reporting 

obligations. By establishing parity in 

reporting obligations, however, we do 

not propose a single, substantive 

standard for compliance. For example, 

we would be unlikely to deny a license 

to an applicant requesting authorization 

exclusively to provide services not 

enumerated in section 310(b), solely 

because its foreign ownership would 

disqualify it from receiving a license if 

the applicant had applied for a license 

to provide the services enumerated in 

section 310(b). We request comment on 

this proposal, including any costs or 

benefits of this proposal. 

93. Eligibility. In recent years the 

Commission determined in a number of 

services that eligibility restrictions on 

licenses may be imposed only when 

open eligibility would pose a significant 

likelihood of substantial harm to 

competition in specific markets and 

when an eligibility restriction would be 

effective in eliminating that harm. This 

approach relies on market forces absent 

a compelling showing that regulatory 

intervention to exclude potential 

participants is necessary. 

94. We propose not to apply any 

eligibility restrictions to AWS–4 

licenses. We believe that open eligibility 

in the AWS–4 band would not pose a 

significant likelihood of substantial 

harm to competition in any specific 

markets, and thus an eligibility 

restriction in these bands is not 

warranted. We also believe that open 

eligibility in these bands is consistent 

with our statutory mandate to promote 

the development and rapid deployment 

of new technologies, products, and 

services; economic opportunity and 

competition; and the efficient and 

intensive use of the electromagnetic 

spectrum. We seek comment on this 

approach. Commenters should discuss 

the costs and benefits of the open 

eligibility proposal on competition, 

innovation, and investment. 

95. Spectrum Aggregation. Spectrum 

is an essential input for the provision of 

mobile telephony/broadband services, 

and a service provider, in order to 

compete effectively, must have access to 

adequate spectrum. The Commission 

therefore closely examines the impact of 

spectrum aggregation on competition, 

innovation, and the efficient use of 

spectrum, generally on a case-by-case 

basis, upon establishing the relevant 

product and geographic markets. For 

example, in analyzing transactions, the 

Commission identifies markets where 

the spectrum amounts held provide 

reason for further competitive analysis. 

Thus, in this context, when evaluating 

the competitive effect of spectrum 

aggregation in bands that it has found 

available and suitable for the provision 

of mobile telephony/broadband 

services, the Commission conducts a 

market-by-market analysis of those 

markets identified by the initial screen 

to determine whether competitive 

harms would be likely to result. In 

addition, in 2008 the Commission 

determined that it would apply this 

standard competitive analysis to mobile 

spectrum acquired via competition 

bidding. 

96. We seek comment on whether the 

acquisition of AWS–4 spectrum should 

be subject to the same general spectrum 

aggregation policies currently applicable 

to frequency bands that the Commission 

has determined to be available and 

suitable for mobile telephony/ 

broadband services. Specifically, should 

the current spectrum screen for mobile 

telephony/broadband services be 

revised to include AWS–4 spectrum? 

Alternatively, depending on the specific 

rules and requirements that apply to 

AWS–4 spectrum, would there continue 

to be reasons to distinguish AWS–4 

spectrum from other bands evaluated 

pursuant to the spectrum aggregation 

policies applicable to mobile telephony/ 

broadband services? We seek comment 

generally on whether and how to 

address any spectrum aggregation 

concerns involving AWS–4 spectrum. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify any costs and benefits 

associated with alternative proposals on 

spectrum aggregation policies for AWS– 

4 spectrum on competition, innovation 

and investment. 

3. Secondary Markets 

97. Partitioning and Disaggregation. 

The Commission’s part 27 rules 

generally allow for geographic 

partitioning and spectrum 

disaggregation. See 47 CFR 27.15. 

Geographic partitioning refers to the 

assignment of geographic portions of a 

license to another licensee along 

geopolitical or other boundaries. 

Spectrum disaggregation refers to the 

assignment of discrete amount of 

spectrum under the license to another 

entity. Disaggregation allows for 

multiple transmitters in the same 

geographic area operated by different 

companies on adjacent frequencies in 

the same band. As the Commission 

noted when first establishing 

partitioning and disaggregation rules, 

allowing such flexibility could facilitate 

the efficient use of spectrum by 

providing licensees with the flexibility 

to make offerings directly responsive to 

market demands for particular types of 

services, increase competition by 

allowing market entry by new entrants, 

and expedite provision of services that 

might not otherwise receive service in 

the near term. 

98. We seek comment on allowing 

licensees in the AWS–4 band to 

partition their service areas or to 

disaggregate their spectrum into new 

licenses. Part 27 rules for terrestrial 

wireless service provide that licensees 

may apply to partition their licensed 

geographic service areas or disaggregate 

their licensed spectrum at any time 

following the grant of their licenses. The 

Commission’s rules also set forth the 

general requirements that apply with 

regard to approving applications for 

partitioning or disaggregation, as well as 

other specific requirements (e.g., 

performance requirements) that would 

apply to licensees that hold licenses 

created through partitioning or 

disaggregation. We seek comment on 

applying these general procedures and 

requirements to any permissible 

partitioning or disaggregation of AWS– 

4 licenses. In particular, we seek 

comment on the performance 

requirements that would apply to any 

license created through partitioning or 

disaggregation. To ensure that the 

public interest would be served if 

partitioning or disaggregation is 

allowed, we propose requiring each 

AWS–4 licensee who is a party to a 

partitioning, disaggregation or 

combination of both to independently 

meet the applicable performance and 

renewal requirements. We believe this 

approach would facilitate efficient 

spectrum use, while enabling service 

providers to configure geographic area 

licenses and spectrum blocks to meet 

their operational needs. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of these 

proposals on competition, innovation, 

and investment. 

99. We acknowledge, however, that 

there may be technical impediments to 

partitioning or disaggregating satellite 

spectrum and service. As noted above, 

we seek comment on the Commission’s 

earlier conclusion that the complexities 

of coordination between MSS and 

terrestrial operations render impractical 

assignment of terrestrial licenses to an 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

entrant other than the incumbent MSS 

licensee(s). Further, we seek comment 

on whether the actual capabilities of 

existing or future satellites make 

partitioning or disaggregation of 

spectrum difficult or problematic. We 

also acknowledge that part 25 of the 

Commission’s rules do not contain 

provisions governing the partition or 

disaggregation of MSS. We seek 

comment on the affect the answers to 

these questions should have on whether 

we should permit disaggregation or 

partition of AWS–4 spectrum or 

licenses. Would an affirmation of the 

Commission’s prior finding require us to 

not permit disaggregation or partition 

here? Conversely, if we find same-band, 

separate operator sharing possible and 

in the public interest, should that lead 

us apply the part 27 rules governing 

disaggregation and partition to AWS–4 

spectrum and licensees. In the event 

that we apply rule § 27.15 to AWS–4 

licensees (or otherwise permit 

partitioning or disaggregation for AWS– 

4 licensees), we seek comment on 

whether the part 25 rules should be 

amended to address partition and 

disaggregation of 2 GHz MSS spectrum 

by its licensees. Similarly, if we permit 

partitioning or disaggregation, should 

we require that any such arrangement 

apply to both the terrestrial and mobile 

satellite authorizations, but not to only 

one set of such authorizations? Should 

such a requirement only apply in the 

case where the AWS–4 authorizations 

are assigned to the same entity that 

holds the 2 GHz MSS rights? 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of 

allowing partitioning and disaggregating 

AWS–4 spectrum. 

100. We also seek comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

additional or different mechanisms to 

encourage partitioning and/or 

disaggregation of AWS–4 band spectrum 

and the extent to which such policies 

ultimately may promote more service, 

especially in rural areas. Commenters 

should discuss and quantify the costs 

and benefits of promoting more service 

using mechanisms to encourage 

partitioning and disaggregation AWS–4 

spectrum, including the effects of the 

proposal on competition, innovation, 

and investment. 

101. Spectrum Leasing. In 2003, in 

order to promote more efficient use of 

terrestrial wireless spectrum through 

secondary market transactions, while 

also eliminating regulatory uncertainty, 

the Commission adopted a 

comprehensive set of policies and rules 

to govern spectrum leasing 

arrangements between terrestrial 

licensees and spectrum lessees. These 

policies and rules enabled terrestriallybased Wireless Radio Service licensees 

holding ‘‘exclusive use’’ spectrum rights 

to lease some or all of the spectrum 

usage rights associated with their 

licenses to third party spectrum lessees, 

which then would be permitted to 

provide wireless services consistent 

with the underlying license 

authorization. Through these actions, 

the Commission sought to promote more 

efficient, innovative, and dynamic use 

of the terrestrial spectrum, expand the 

scope of available wireless services and 

devices, enhance economic 

opportunities for accessing spectrum, 

and promote competition among 

terrestrial wireless service providers. In 

2004, the Commission built upon this 

spectrum leasing framework by 

establishing immediate approval 

procedures for certain categories of 

terrestrial spectrum leasing 

arrangements and extending the 

spectrum leasing policies to additional 

Wireless Radio Services. Since then, the 

Commission has added more terrestrial 

services to this spectrum leasing 

framework, including the Advanced 

Wireless Services in 2003 (when the 

service rules were adopted for this new 

service) and the Broadband Radio 

Services and Educational Broadband 

Services in 2004 (when the rebanding 

plan for these services in the 2.5 GHz 

band was adopted). Most recently, in 

2011 in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation 

Order, the Commission extended the 

Commission’s secondary market 

spectrum leasing policies, procedures, 

and rules to MSS/ATC spectrum and 

licenses for spectrum manager lease 

arrangements; the Commission did not 

extend the secondary market regime to 

MSS/ATC de facto transfer lease 

arrangements because that would have 

been inconsistent with the need to have 

the same entity control both the 

terrestrial and satellite operations. 

102. We now seek comment on the 

extent to which we should extend the 

Commission’s secondary markets 

spectrum leasing policies and rules to 

AWS–4 spectrum. For the reasons 

articulated in the 2 GHz Band CoAllocation Order, we propose to extend 

spectrum manager lease arrangements to 

AWS–4 spectrum. With regard to de 

facto transfer lease arrangements, we 

propose to permit them only to the 

extent that we permit the disaggregation 

and partitioning of AWS–4 spectrum 

and licenses. To the extent that we find 

that the Commission’s earlier 

conclusion that the complexities of 

coordination between MSS and 

terrestrial operations renders 

impractical assignment of terrestrial 

licenses to an entrant other than the 

incumbent MSS licensee(s), we propose 

to not allow de facto transfer lease 

arrangements for AWS–4 spectrum or 

licenses. Alternatively, if the record we 

develop reflects that same-band, 

separate terrestrial and mobile operator 

sharing is possible and would benefit 

the public interest, we propose to 

permit de facto transfer lease 

arrangements for AWS–4 spectrum and 

licenses. We seek comment on these 

proposals. Commenters should discuss 

the costs and benefits of extending the 

Commission’s secondary spectrum 

leasing policies and rules to AWS–4 

spectrum on competition, innovation, 

and investment. 

4. License Term, Renewal Criteria, and 

Permanent Discontinuance of 

Operations 

103. License Term. We propose to 

establish a 10-year term for licenses in 

the AWS–4 band. The Communications 

Act does not specify a term limit for 

AWS band licenses. The Commission 

has adopted 10-year license term for 

most wireless radio services licenses. 

We propose that in the AWS–4 band the 

license term similarly be 10 years. We 

seek comment on this proposal, 

including any costs and benefits of the 

proposal. 

104. We also seek comment on 

whether a license term longer than 10 

years would better serve the public 

interest. We note that in the AWS–1 

Report and Order, we established an 

initial license term in the 1710–1755 

MHz and 2110–2155 MHz bands of 15 

years and subsequent renewal terms of 

10 years because of the relocation and 

band clearance issues that were 

associated with those bands. 

Commenters who favor a different 

license term for the AWS–4 band should 

specify a reasonable license term and 

the bases for the period proposed. AWS– 

1 Report and Order. Commenters should 

also address whether it would be 

possible to have different license terms, 

depending on the type of service offered 

by the licensee, including the costs and 

benefits of an alternative proposal. We 

seek comment on how we would 

administer such an approach, 

particularly if licensees provide more 

than one service in their service area, or 

decide to change the type of service they 

plan to offer. We also seek comment on 

whether we should match the license 

term to the 15-year term of the satellite 

licenses. How would this be 

accomplished given that the term of the 

two 2 GHz MSS licenses have different 

expiration dates, and what are the costs 

and benefits of this proposal? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22735 

105. Under our license term proposal, 

if a license in these bands is partitioned 

or disaggregated, any partitionee or 

disaggregatee would be authorized to 

hold its license for the remainder of the 

partitioner’s or disaggregator’s original 

license term. This approach is similar to 

the partitioning provisions the 

Commission adopted for BRS, for 

broadband PCS licensees, for the 700 

MHz band licensees, and for AWS–1 

licenses at 1710–1755 MHz and 2110– 

2155 MHz. We emphasize that nothing 

in our proposal is intended to enable a 

licensee, by partitioning or 

disaggregation, to be able to confer 

greater rights than it was awarded under 

the terms of its license grant; nor would 

any partitionee or disaggregatee obtain 

rights in excess of those previously 

possessed by the underlying 

Commission licensee. We seek comment 

on these proposals, including the cost 

and benefits of these proposals. 

106. Renewal Criteria. Pursuant to 

section 308(b) of the Communications 

Act, the Commission may require 

renewal applicants to ‘‘set forth such 

facts as the Commission by regulation 

may prescribe as to the citizenship, 

character, and financial, technical, and 

other qualifications of the applicant to 

operate the station’’ as well as ‘‘such 

other information as it may require.’’ 47 

U.S.C. 308(b). We propose to adopt 

AWS–4 license renewal requirements 

consistent with those adopted in the 700 

MHz First Report and Order and which 

form the basis of the renewal paradigm 

proposed in our recent Wireless Radio 

Services Renewal NPRM. See Service 

Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 

777–792 MHz Bands, 72 FR 24238 

(2007) (700 MHz First Report and 

Order); Amendment of parts 1, 22, 24, 

27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish 

Uniform License Renewal, 

Discontinuance of Operation, and 

Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum 

Disaggregation Rules and Policies for 

Certain Wireless Radio Services, 75 FR 

38959 (2010) (Wireless Radio Services 

Renewal NPRM). We emphasize that, as 

the Commission made clear in both of 

these items, a licensee’s performance 

showing and its renewal showing are 

two distinct showings. Broadly 

speaking, a performance showing 

provides a snapshot in time of the level 

of a licensee’s service. By contrast, a 

renewal showing provides information 

regarding the level and types of the 

licensee’s service offered over its entire 

license term. 

107. We propose that applicants for 

renewal of AWS–4 licenses file a 

‘‘renewal showing,’’ in which they 

demonstrate that they have and are 

continuing to provide service to the 

public, and are compliant with the 

Commission’s rules and policies and 

[with] the Communications Act. In the 

700 MHz First Report and Order, the 

Commission explained that in the 

renewal context, the Commission 

considers ‘‘a variety of factors including 

the level and quality of service, whether 

service was ever interrupted or 

discontinued, whether service has been 

provided to rural areas, and any other 

factors associated with a licensee’s level 

of service to the public.’’ 700 MHz First 

Report and Order. The WRS Renewals 

NPRM and Order also proposed to 

consider the extent to which service is 

provided to qualifying tribal lands. WRS 

Renewals NPRM and Order. We propose 

that these same factors should be 

considered when evaluating renewal 

showings for the AWS–4 band and seek 

comment on this approach. Commenters 

should discuss and quantify the costs 

and benefits of this approach on 

competition, innovation, and 

investment. 

108. As explained above, today we are 

proposing that AWS–4 licensees meet 

three and seven-year performance 

obligations. We therefore seek comment 

on whether the public interest would be 

served by awarding AWS–4 licensees 

renewal expectancies where they 

maintain the level of service 

demonstrated at the seven year 

performance benchmark through the 

end of their license term, provided that 

they have otherwise complied with the 

Commission’s rules and policies and the 

Communications Act during their 

license term. We also seek comment on 

whether AWS–4 licensees should obtain 

a renewal expectancy for subsequent 

license terms, if they continue to 

provide at least the level of service 

demonstrated at the seven year 

performance benchmark through the 

end of any subsequent license terms. 

Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits of this 

approach on competition, innovation, 

and investment. 

109. Finally, consistent with the 700 

MHz First Report and Order and the 

WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, we 

propose to prohibit the filing of 

mutually exclusive renewal 

applications, and that if a license is not 

renewed, the associated spectrum 

would be returned to the Commission 

for reassignment. We seek comment on 

these proposals, including the costs and 

benefits of these proposals. 

110. Permanent Discontinuance of 

Operations. We also request comment 

on the Commission’s rules governing 

the permanent discontinuance of 

operations, which are intended to afford 

licensees operational flexibility to use 

their spectrum efficiently while 

ensuring that spectrum does not lay idle 

for extended periods. Under 

§ 1.955(a)(3), an authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

‘‘permanently discontinued.’’ 47 CFR 

1.955(a)(3). For the AWS–4 band, we 

propose to define ‘‘permanently 

discontinued’’ as a period of 180 

consecutive days during which a 

licensee does not operate and does not 

serve at least one subscriber that is not 

affiliated with, controlled by, or related 

to the provider. We believe this 

definition strikes an appropriate balance 

between our twin goals of providing 

licensees operational flexibility while 

ensuring that spectrum does not lie 

fallow. Licensees would not be subject 

to this requirement until the date of the 

first performance requirement 

benchmark, which is proposed as 3 

years from the license grant, so they will 

have adequate time to construct their 

terrestrial network. In addition, 

consistent with § 1.955(a)(3) of the 

Commission’s rules, we propose that, if 

an AWS–4 licensee permanently 

discontinues service, the licensee must 

notify the Commission of the 

discontinuance within 10 days by filing 

FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting 

license cancellation. An authorization 

will automatically terminate without 

specific Commission action if service is 

permanently discontinued even if a 

licensee fails to file the required form. 

5. Other Operating Requirements 

111. Even though licenses in the 

AWS–4 band may be issued pursuant to 

one rule part, licensees in this band may 

be required to comply with rules 

contained in other parts of the 

Commission’s rules by virtue of the 

particular services they provide. For 

example: 

• Applicants and licensees would be 

subject to the application filing 

procedures for the Universal Licensing 

System, set forth in part 1 of our rules. 

• Licensees would be required to 

comply with the practices and 

procedures listed in part 1 of our rules 

for license applications, adjudicatory 

proceedings, etc. 

• Licensees would be required to 

comply with the Commission’s 

environmental provisions, including 

§ 1.1307. 

• Licensees would be required to 

comply with the antenna structure 

provisions of part 17 of our rules. 

• To the extent a licensee provides a 

Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such 

service would be subject to the 

provisions of part 20 of the 

Commission’s rules, including 911/E911 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and hearing aid-compatibility (HAC) 

requirements, along with the provisions 

in the rule part under which the license 

was issued. Part 20 applies to all CMRS 

providers, even though the stations may 

be licensed under other parts of our 

rules. 

• The application of general 

provisions of parts 22, 24, 27, or 101 of 

our rules would include rules related to 

equal employment opportunity, etc. 

112. We seek comment generally on 

any provisions in existing servicespecific rules that may require specific 

recognition or adjustment to comport 

with the supervening application of 

another rule part, as well as any 

provisions that may be necessary in this 

other rule part to fully describe the 

scope of covered services and 

technologies. We seek comment on 

applying these rules to the spectrum 

that is the subject of this AWS–4 Notice, 

and specifically on any rules that would 

be affected by our proposal to apply 

elements of the framework of these 

parts, whether separately or in 

conjunction with other requirements. 

113. We also seek comment generally 

on whether any conditions should 

govern the operation of a provider’s 

network if it is granted a license to 

operate in these bands. What are the 

potential problems that may be 

associated with the Commission’s 

adoption of any of these potential 

requirements, and how do they compare 

to the potential benefits? 

6. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and 

the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands 

114. The Commission currently has 

under consideration various provisions 

and policies intended to promote greater 

use of spectrum over Tribal lands. 

Improving Communications Services for 

Native Nations by Promoting Greater 

Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal 

Lands, 76 FR 18476 (2011). We propose 

to extend any rules and policies adopted 

in that proceeding to any licenses that 

may be issued through competitive 

bidding in this proceeding. We seek 

comment on this proposal, including 

any costs and benefits of this proposal. 

G. Relocation and Cost Sharing 

1. Emerging Technologies Policies 

115. Our Emerging Technologies (ET) 

procedures represent a broad set of tools 

that the Commission has used to aid the 

process of making spectrum available 

for new uses. Generally speaking, ET 

procedures are used when the 

Commission has made the decision that 

it is necessary to relocate incumbent 

licensees to introduce new services into 

a frequency band. The Commission sets 

a ‘‘sunset date’’—a date by which 

incumbent licensees may not cause 

interference to new band entrants. Prior 

to the sunset date, the new entrants may 

negotiate with incumbents to gain early 

entry into the band and, if necessary, 

may relocate the incumbents to 

comparable facilities. Because new 

entrants may have to relocate 

incumbents from a larger frequency 

range or greater geographic area than 

where the new entrants will operate, the 

Commission also typically establishes a 

companion set of cost sharing 

procedures. These procedures allow 

new entrants to be reimbursed a portion 

of their relocation expenses from other 

new entrants that benefit from the 

spectrum clearance. The specific 

relocation process we establish under 

the ET framework has varied for each 

frequency band, and has been based on 

the types of incumbent licensees and 

particular band characteristics. We 

discuss, below, the particular relocation 

and cost sharing procedures for the 

2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz 

bands. 

2. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 

2000–2020 MHz 

116. The lower portion of AWS–4 

(2000–2020 MHz) is part of the 1990– 

2025 MHz band that the Commission 

reallocated from the Broadcast Auxiliary 

Service (BAS) to emerging technologies 

such as PCS, AWS, and MSS. Consistent 

with the relocation principles first 

established in the Commission’s 

Emerging Technologies proceeding, 

each new entrant had an independent 

responsibility to relocate incumbent 

BAS licensees. Sprint Nextel (Sprint), 

which is licensed for 1990–1995 MHz, 

completed the BAS transition in 2010. 

Cost-sharing disputes between Sprint 

and the MSS licensees (for Sprint’s 

clearing of 2000–2020 MHz) have been 

settled privately. In light of this, if the 

Commission assigns terrestrial licenses 

under part 27, do any relocation and 

cost-sharing issues for the 2000–2020 

MHz band remain? In addition, should 

the Commission adopt either of the 

spectrum shift approaches that would 

include the 2020–2025 MHz block, we 

seek comment on any additional 

relocation or cost-sharing issues 

including this spectrum block would 

raise. 

3. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 

2180–2200 MHz 

117. Relocation. The upper portion of 

AWS–4 (2180–2200 MHz) is part of the 

2160–2200 MHz band that the 

Commission reallocated from the Fixed 

Microwave Services (FS) to emerging 

technologies. Our licensing records 

show approximately 700 active FS 

licenses in this band. Most of these 

incumbents appear to be state or local 

governmental entities, utilities, 

railroads, and other businesses with FS 

links licensed in the Microwave Public 

Safety Pool (MW) or the Microwave 

Industrial/Business Pool (MG) for 

private, internal communication. FS 

links in the 2180–2200 MHz band 

typically are paired, for two-way 

operation, with FS links in the 2130– 

2150 MHz band. The Commission 

previously adopted relocation and costsharing rules for AWS–1 licensees in the 

2110–2155 MHz band and we now 

propose to extend these rules to AWS– 

4 as discussed below. 

118. Prior to initiating operations 

from any base or fixed station, AWS–1 

licensees are required to coordinate 

their frequency usage with all cochannel and adjacent channel 

incumbents. If interference would 

occur, the AWS–1 licensee can initiate 

a mandatory negotiation period (two 

years for non-public safety, three years 

for public safety) during which each 

party must negotiate in good faith for 

the purpose of agreeing to terms under 

which the FS licensees would: (1) 

Relocate their operations to other fixed 

microwave bands or other media; or 

alternatively (2) accept a sharing 

arrangement with the AWS–1 licensee 

that may result in an otherwise 

impermissible level of interference to 

the FS operations. If no agreement is 

reached during the mandatory 

negotiation period, the AWS–1 licensee 

can initiate involuntary relocation 

procedures. We propose to revise these 

rules to apply them to AWS–4. 

119. Under the emerging technologies 

policies, the Commission sunsets the 

relocation obligation owed by new 

licensees in the band to the incumbents. 

For example, MSS/ATC relocation 

obligations to FS in the 2180–2200 MHz 

band will sunset in December 2013 (ten 

years after the mandatory negotiation 

period began for MSS/ATC operators). 

Similarly, for the 2110–2150 MHz, 

2160–2175 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz 

bands, the sunsets occur ‘‘ten years after 

the first ET license is issued in the 

respective band.’’ Thus, for AWS–1 

licenses in the 2110–2155 MHz band, 

which were first-issued in 2006, the 

sunset for relocation obligations for FS 

incumbents in the 2130–2150 MHz band 

will occur in 2016. For AWS–4, we 

propose to sunset AWS–4 relocation 

obligations ten years after the first 

AWS–4 license is issued in the band. 

We recognize that the 2013 sunset date 

applies to 2180–2200 MHz for MSS/ 

ATC but under our proposal to issue 

full-terrestrial licenses under part 27, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22737 

we believe it is appropriate to treat the 

AWS–4 band the same as other AWS 

bands by setting the sunset ten-years 

after we issue the first license in the 

band. Thus, we propose to revise 

§ 101.79(a)(2) to include part 27 sunset 

rules in the 2180–2200 MHz band. 

Under this proposal, should the 2 GHz 

MSS licensee receive full terrestrial 

authority under part 27 of the 

Commission’s rules, it would become 

the AWS–4 licensee responsible for 

relocating incumbent FS in the 2180– 

2200 MHz band. We seek comment on 

these proposals, including the costs and 

benefits of these proposals. We also 

propose to delete the reference to all 

Fixed and Mobile facilities operating on 

a secondary basis not later than 

December 9, 2013, in footnote NG168 in 

the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. 

Specifically, this would clarify that after 

the applicable sunset date grandfathered 

fixed microwave systems will be 

governed by the procedures in § 101.79. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

120. Cost-sharing. As noted above, FS 

links in the 2180–2200 MHz band 

typically are paired, for two-way 

operation, with FS links in the 2130– 

2150 MHz band. The Commission 

previously established a cost-sharing 

plan for MSS, MSS/ATC, and AWS–1 

licensees in these paired bands. Briefly, 

for terrestrial stations (AWS and MSS/ 

ATC), cost-sharing obligations are 

governed by §§ 27.1160 through 27.1174 

except that MSS/ATC operators are not 

obligated to reimburse voluntarily 

relocating fixed microwave service 

incumbents in the 2180–2200 MHz band 

while AWS reimbursement and costsharing obligations relative to 

voluntarily relocating FMS incumbents 

are governed by § 27.1166. The costsharing plan is administered by AWS 

clearinghouses selected by the 

Commission’s Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau under 

delegated authority. We propose to 

extend to the AWS–4 band the costsharing rules adopted for AWS–1 

licensees. Under this proposal, the costsharing plan will sunset for AWS–4 

licensees on the same date on which the 

relocation obligation sunsets. We also 

propose conforming amendments to 

parts 27 and 101 to include AWS–4 

under the relocation and cost-sharing 

rules generally and to delete references 

to MSS/ATC. We seek comment on 

these proposals, including the costs and 

benefits of these proposals. 

H. Ancillary Terrestrial Components in 

the 2 GHz MSS Band 

121. In order to provide more efficient 

and intensive use of the 2 GHz MSS 

band, we are proposing herein to 

authorize terrestrial operations under 

part 27 of the Commission’s rules for the 

AWS–4 band. If we ultimately adopt 

this proposal, we must consider the 

disposition of the current ATC 

regulations and authorizations in this 

band. We believe that, if we assign part 

27 rights pursuant to a license 

modification under section 316 of the 

Communications Act, authorizing both 

terrestrial operations and ATC 

operations in the 2 GHz MSS band 

would be redundant and confusing to 

operators. With changing circumstances 

in the 2 GHz MSS band, we believe that 

the ATC regulations would no longer be 

the best framework for development of 

terrestrial mobile broadband in this 

band. Accordingly, we believe that 

eliminating the ATC rules for this band 

will best encourage terrestrial 

broadband deployment in the 2 GHz 

MSS band. We therefore propose to 

eliminate the ATC regulations in the 2 

GHz MSS band and request comment on 

this proposal, including associated costs 

and benefits. In addition, because we 

are proposing to eliminate the ATC 

regulations in the 2 GHz band, we 

propose to delete footnote NG168 from 

the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

III. Notice of Inquiry: 2 GHZ Extension 

Band 

122. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 

we seek comment on a variation of the 

band plan proposed above. This 

alternative approach poses greater 

complexities with respect to 

coordination among existing users and 

any new licensees. However, provided 

these barriers could be overcome, it 

could release a greater quantity of 

usable spectrum into the marketplace, 

reduce the need for guard bands to 

protect against harmful interference, 

and extend the existing PCS and AWS 

bands. We therefore invite comment on 

this alternative band plan and its 

associated coordination and license 

assignment challenges. Because we do 

not intend that this Notice of Inquiry 

should impede the timely 

implementation of the proposed AWS– 

4 service, we also invite comment as to 

whether this alternative band plan 

could be realized as a subsequent step 

to that proposal. 

123. For purposes of facilitating 

discussion, and to avoid confusion with 

the foregoing AWS–4 proposal, we refer 

to this alternative as the ‘‘2 GHz 

Extension Band Concept.’’ The concept 

incorporates the NTIA proposal to 

reallocate the 1695–1710 MHz band 

from Federal to commercial use. It also 

builds upon the record generated in the 

Spectrum Task Force’s comprehensive 

examination of opportunities to make 

additional spectrum available for mobile 

broadband use in the 2 GHz band. 

124. Several assumptions inform the 2 

GHz Extension Band Concept: 

• The proposed ‘‘fast track’’ 

reallocation band (1695–1710 MHz) 

could become an extension to the 

existing AWS uplink band, although 

without a readily-available downlink 

pairing candidate. 

• Together, AWS–3 and the upper 

portion of the AWS–2 J block (2155– 

2170 MHz) could become an extension 

to the existing AWS downlink band. 

• The existing MSS downlink band 

(2180–2200 MHz) could further extend 

the existing AWS downlink band. 

• The existing MSS uplink band 

requires separation from the PCS 

downlink band to prevent uplink/ 

downlink interference issues between 

the MSS band and broadband PCS 

spectrum. This ‘‘zoning issue’’ currently 

hinders use of the upper portion of the 

AWS–2 H block (1995–2000 MHz), as 

well as a portion of the MSS uplink 

band itself (e.g., 2000–2010 MHz). 

• Extension of existing bands (i.e., 

PCS and AWS) may enable greater 

economies of scale—and therefore lower 

costs, increased interoperability, and 

greater technology availability—as 

compared to the creation of an all-new 

terrestrial band (i.e., AWS–4). 

We seek comment on the validity of 

these assumptions, and any associated 

costs and benefits. We emphasize that 

these are assumptions only for purposes 

of exploring the 2 GHz Extension Band 

Concept. The Commission has not made 

any determination of fact, one way or 

the other, with regard to these 

assumptions. 

125. The 2 GHz Extension Band 

Concept would involve the creation of 

two new blocks of spectrum, PCSExtension and AWS-Extension, totaling 

65 megahertz of usable bandwidth. A 35 

megahertz AWS-Extension block would 

consist of the existing MSS downlink 

band at 2180–2200 MHz paired on the 

uplink with the NTIA fast track band at 

1695–1710 MHz. A 30 megahertz PCSExtension block (which could be 

subdivided into smaller blocks) would 

consist of the existing MSS uplink band 

at 2000–2020 MHz, combined with the 

lower portion of the AWS–2 J block at 

2020–2025 MHz and the upper portion 

of the AWS–2 H block at 1995–2000 

MHz, all of which would be converted 

to downlink use. We note that the AWSExtension would abut the 2155–2180 

MHz frequencies (AWS–3 and the upper 

portion of AWS–2 J block) and would 

not affect their disposition from a 

licensing and auction perspective. We 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

seek comment on the technical viability 

and the economic costs and benefits of 

this 2 GHz Extension Band Concept as 

presented or with modifications as 

commenters deem appropriate. 

126. The 2 GHz Extension Band 

Concept would necessitate severing the 

existing 2000–2020 MHz pairing from 

2180–2200 MHz, spectrum for which 

there is an existing licensee. It may be 

appropriate, therefore, to consider 

moving that existing licensee from its 

currently assigned uplink spectrum in 

the 2000–2020 MHz band to 1695–1710 

MHz. The resulting license would 

contain paired terrestrial spectrum of 

1695–1710 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz. 

This would, however, likely result in 

the 2 GHz MSS licensee forgoing the 

mobile uplink portion of its existing 

satellite spectrum and thus converting 

its satellite spectrum to a one-way, 

satellite transmit, system (or needing to 

launch another satellite to provide MSS 

using 1695–1710 MHz (depending in 

part, on how the 1695–1710 MHz band 

is allocated)). We seek comment on this 

aspect of the Concept and the costs and 

benefits of this Concept on competition, 

innovation, and investment. 

127. On June 28, 2010, a Presidential 

Memorandum was issued directing the 

Department of Commerce, working with 

the Commission, to identify and make 

available 500 megahertz of spectrum 

over the next ten years for expanded 

wireless broadband use. Memorandum 

for the Heads of Executive Departments 

and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless 

Broadband Revolution, 75 FR 38387 

(Jul. 1, 2010). NTIA performed a 

technical study and determined that the 

1695–1710 megahertz band, with a 

limited number of exclusion zones to 

protect Federal meteorological satellite 

receive Earth stations, could be made 

available for wireless broadband. See 

An Assessment of the Near-Term 

Viability of Accomodating Wireless 

Broadband Systems in the 1675–1710 

MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, 3500–3650MHz, 

and 4200–4220 MHz, 4380–4400 MHz 

Bands, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

3–1 to 3–25, 5–1 to 5–2, and H–1 to H– 

5 (October 2010); see also Spectrum 

Task Force Requests Information on 

Frequency Bands Indentified By NTIA 

As Potential Broadband Spectrum, ET 

Docket No. 10–123, Public Notice, 24 

FCC Rcd 3486 (2011). The 1695–1710 

megahertz band has incumbent Federal 

and non-Federal users. We observe that 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 requires (1) that 

the Administration, within three years, 

‘‘begin the process of withdrawing or 

modifying the assignment’’ to Federal 

stations operating within 15 megahertz 

between 1675 and 1710 MHz, Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, Pub. L. 112–96, section 

6401(a)(1)(A) and (2) that the Secretary 

of Commerce, within one year, ‘‘submit 

to the President a report identifying 15 

megahertz of spectrum between 1675 

megahertz and 1710 megahertz for 

reallocation from Federal use to nonFederal use.’’ See Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

Pub. L. 112–96, section 6401(a)(3). We 

seek comment on how incumbent users 

might affect implementation of the 2 

GHz Extension Band Concept and what 

steps, if any, might be taken to expedite 

availability of the band. 

128. The 30 megahertz PCS-Extension 

block would be unpaired downlink 

spectrum. We seek comment on whether 

this spectrum could be paired with a 

matching uplink block. We also seek 

comment on the utility of licensing the 

spectrum as an unpaired downlink 

block. Commenters should discuss and 

quantify the costs and benefits for any 

approaches. 

129. We seek comment on assignment 

procedures that could effectuate the 2 

GHz Extension Band Concept. One 

possibility, as was suggested in the 2 

GHz Public Notice, might be to conduct 

an incentive auction for the MSS uplink 

band. However, the recently enacted 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 appears to require 

that a reverse auction for spectrum (the 

first step in an incentive auction) 

involve at least two ‘‘competing 

licensees’’, whereas, following the DISH 

Transfer Order there is only one 

licensee in the 2 GHz MSS band. New 

DBSD Satellite Service G.P., Debtor-inPossession, and TerreStar Licensee Inc., 

Debtor-In-Possession, Request for Rule 

Waivers and Modified Ancillary 

Terrestrial Component Authority, IB 

Docket Nos. 11–149, 11–150, Order, DA 

12–332 (Mar. 2, 2012) (DISH Transfer 

Order). We seek comment on whether 

an incentive auction could be used to 

effectuate the 2 GHz Extension Band 

Concept. 

130. Another possibility might be to 

relocate the existing MSS uplink into 

the 1695–1710 MHz band and to auction 

the resulting PCS-Extension band. 

Would an auction of 30 megahertz of 

downlink spectrum in an extended PCS 

band create more value than an auction 

of 15 megahertz of uplink spectrum 

adjacent in an extended AWS band? 

Commenters should quantify the value 

of this proposal. We note that the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 mandates an 

auction of 15 megahertz of spectrum in 

the 1675–1710 MHz band (to be 

identified by NTIA within one year). 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, 

section 6401. Does this provision 

preclude implementation of a ‘‘swap’’ 

with the 2 GHz MSS licensee? 

131. Alternatively, we seek comment 

on any other assignment or license 

modification approaches to enabling the 

2 GHz Extension Band Concept. Could 

the Commission implement the Concept 

as a section 316 license modification or 

pursuant to section 309 or other existing 

assignment authority? 

132. Finally, were the Commission to 

implement the 2 GHz Extension Band 

Concept, it would result in leaving a 

single five megahertz block of former 

AWS–2 spectrum unpaired and 

unassigned—the AWS–2 lower H block 

at 1915–1920 MHz. We seek comment 

on the disposition of this spectrum 

block under this scenario. We observe 

that the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 requires the 

Commission to allocate this spectrum 

for commercial use and grant flexible 

use licenses through a system of 

competitive bidding unless the 

Commission determines that this 

spectrum band ‘‘cannot be used without 

causing harmful interference to 

commercial mobile service licensees in 

the frequencies between 1930 megahertz 

and 1995 megahertz.’’ Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

Pub. L. 112–96, sections 6401(b)(2)(A), 

(b)(4). We seek comment on whether we 

would need to auction the AWS–2 

lower H block or whether its use as a 

licensed band would lead to harmful 

interference in the upper PCS band. We 

observe that the record in response to 

the AWS–2 NPRM indicated raised 

concerns about harmful interference 

between the AWS–2 lower H block and 

the PCS band. Should the Commission 

conclude that the band ‘‘cannot be used 

without causing harmful interference,’’ 

the statute prohibits us from 

‘‘allocate[ing] such band for commercial 

use * * * or * * * grant[ing] licenses 

* * * for the use of such band.’’ Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, Pub. L. 112–96, sections 

6401(b)(2)(A), (b)(4). In such an 

instance, we seek comment on whether 

the Commission should convert the 

1915–1920 MHz band to unlicensed use, 

perhaps by adding it to the existing 

UPCS band. Unlicensed use, among 

other things, might provide additional 

capacity for devices using the ETSI 

DECT standard, including cordless 

phones and wireless microphones. What 

would be the most effective and 

efficient use of the ‘‘orphaned’’ five 

megahertz block? Commenters should 

discuss and quantify the costs and 

benefits of alternative proposals for the 

AWS–2 lower H block. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22739 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

133. The proceedings this AWS–4 

Notice and NOI initiate 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 

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. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

134. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Inquiry (NPRM and NOI). 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines specified 

in the NPRM and NOI for comments. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM and NOI, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and NOI and 

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

135. The rapid adoption of 

smartphones and tablet computers, 

combined with deployment of highspeed 3G and 4G technologies, is 

driving more intensive use of America’s 

mobile networks. This explosive growth 

is creating an urgent need for more 

network capacity and, in turn, for 

suitable spectrum. Responding to this 

demand for additional spectrum, the 

National Broadband Plan recommended 

the Commission undertake to make 500 

megahertz of spectrum available for 

broadband use within ten years. The 

National Broadband Plan also 

recommended that 300 megahertz of 

this spectrum should be made available 

for mobile use within five years. The 

Commission has launched several 

proceedings to facilitate bringing 

spectrum suitable for wireless 

broadband to the commercial 

marketplace. More recently, Congress 

passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act of 2012, which grants 

the Commission new authority to 

conduct ‘‘voluntary incentive auctions,’’ 

a key pillar of the National Broadband 

Plan’s roadmap to bring more spectrum 

online for broadband. 

136. In this NPRM and NOI, we seek 

to increase the nation’s supply of 

spectrum for mobile broadband by 

removing unnecessary barriers to 

flexible use of spectrum currently 

assigned to the Mobile Satellite Service 

(MSS) in the 2 GHz band. This NPRM 

and NOI directly follows on the 2 GHz 

Band Co-Allocation Order, in which the 

Commission laid the predicate for full 

terrestrial use of the 2 GHz MSS band. 

In proposing terrestrial service rules for 

the band, which include technical rules 

to protect against harmful interference, 

licensing rules to establish geographic 

license areas and spectrum block sizes, 

and performance requirements to 

promote robust buildout, we advance 

toward enabling widespread 

deployment in the band. We do so by 

proposing service, technical, 

assignment, and licensing rules for this 

spectrum that generally follow the 

Commission’s part 27 rules that 

generally govern flexible use terrestrial 

wireless service. These proposals are 

designed to provide for flexible use of 

this spectrum by allowing licensees to 

choose their type of service offerings, to 

encourage innovation and investment in 

mobile broadband use in this spectrum, 

and to provide a stable regulatory 

environment in which broadband 

deployment would be able to develop 

through the application of standard 

terrestrial wireless rules. Additionally, 

the Notice of Inquiry seeks input on 

potential ways to free up additional 

valuable spectrum to address the 

Nation’s growing demand for mobile 

broadband spectrum. 

2. Legal Basis 

137. The proposed action is 

authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 

4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 

310, 316, 319, 324, 332 and 333 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

316, 319, 324, 332, and 333. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

138. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and policies, if 

adopted. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

which: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

139. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, 

affect small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. We therefore 

describe here, at the outset, three 

comprehensive, statutory small entity 

size standards. First, nationwide, there 

are a total of approximately 27.5 million 

small businesses, according to the SBA. 

In addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there 

were approximately 1,621,315 small 

organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

population of less than fifty thousand.’’ 

Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate 

that there were 89,476 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, as many as 88,506 entities may 

qualify as ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that 

most governmental jurisdictions are 

small. 

140. Satellite Telecommunications 

and All Other Telecommunications. 

Two economic census categories 

address the satellite industry. The first 

category has a small business size 

standard of $15 million or less in 

average annual receipts, under SBA 

rules. The second has a size standard of 

$25 million or less in annual receipts. 

141. The category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing telecommunications services 

to other establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Census Bureau 

data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite 

Telecommunications firms operated for 

that entire year. Of this total, 464 firms 

had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 18 firms had receipts of 

$10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of Satellite 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

142. The second category, i.e., ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ comprises 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Establishments 

providing Internet services or voice over 

Internet protocol (VoIP) services via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ For this category, Census 

Bureau data for 2007 show that there 

were a total of 2,383 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 

firms had annual receipts of under $25 

million and 12 firms had annual 

receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of All Other 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

143. Satellite Telecommunications/ 

Mobile Satellite Service Licensees. 

Neither the Commission nor the U.S. 

Small Business Administration has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for mobile satellite 

service licensees. The appropriate size 

standard is therefore the SBA standard 

for Satellite Telecommunications, 

which provides that such entities are 

small if they have $15 million or less in 

annual revenues. This industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications. Currently, the 

Commission’s records show that there 

are 31 entities authorized to provide 

voice and data MSS in the United 

States. The Commission does not have 

sufficient information to determine 

which, if any, of these parties are small 

entities. The Commission notes that 

small businesses are not likely to have 

the financial ability to become MSS 

system operators because of high 

implementation costs, including 

construction of satellite space stations 

and rocket launch, associated with 

satellite systems and services. 

144. However, the U.S. Census 

publishes data about Satellite 

Telecommunications generally, and this 

data may well be relevant to the 

estimate of the number of voice and data 

MSS. Census data for 2007 indicate that 

512 satellite telecommunications firms 

operated during that year. Of that 512, 

290 received annual receipts of $10.0 

million or less. Eighteen firms received 

annual receipts of between $10.0 

million and $24,999,999 and 30 

received annual receipts of $25.0 

million or more. Since the Census data 

does not distinguish between MSS and 

other types of satellite communications 

companies, it cannot be known 

precisely, based on Census data, how 

many of the 31 authorized MSS firms 

are small. However, since the majority 

of all satellite telecommunications 

companies were small under the 

applicable standard, a limited inference 

is possible that some of the 31 MSS 

firms are small. Since it is possible that 

some MSS companies are small entities 

affected by this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, we 

therefore include them in this section of 

the IFRFA. 

145. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite). The NPRM 

and NOI proposes to apply various 

Commission policies and rules to 

terrestrial service in the MSS bands. We 

cannot predict who may in the future 

become a licensee or lease spectrum for 

terrestrial use in these bands. In general, 

any wireless telecommunications 

provider would be eligible to become an 

Advanced Wireless Service licensee or 

lease spectrum from the MSS or AWS 

licensees. This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in operating and 

maintaining switching and transmission 

facilities to provide communications via 

the airwaves. Establishments in this 

industry have spectrum licenses and 

provide services using that spectrum, 

such as cellular phone services, paging 

services, wireless Internet access, and 

wireless video services. 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. Under 

the present and prior categories, the 

SBA has deemed a wireless business to 

be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this category, census 

data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of this total, 1,368 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees 

and 15 had employment of 1000 

employees or more. Similarly, according 

to Commission data, 413 carriers 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony services. Of these, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

146. The projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements resulting from the NPRM 

will apply to all entities in the same 

manner. The Commission believes that 

applying the same rules equally to all 

entities in this context promotes 

fairness. The Commission does not 

believe that the costs and/or 

administrative burdens associated with 

the rules will unduly burden small 

entities. The revisions the Commission 

adopts should benefit small entities by 

giving them more information, more 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22741 

flexibility, and more options for gaining 

access to valuable wireless spectrum. 

147. Applicants for AWS–4 licenses 

will be required to file license 

applications using the Commission’s 

automated Universal Licensing System 

(ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing 

system that also serves as a powerful 

information tool that enables potential 

licensees to research applications, 

licenses, and antennae structures. It also 

keeps the public informed with weekly 

public notices, FCC rulemakings, 

processing utilities, and a 

telecommunications glossary. AWS–4 

licensees must submit long-form license 

applications through ULS using Form 

601, FCC Ownership Disclosure 

Information for the Wireless 

Telecommunications Services using 

FCC Form 602, and other appropriate 

forms. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

148. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

149. The proposal to license the 

AWS–4 bands under Economic Areas 

(EA) geographic size licenses will 

provide regulatory parity with other 

AWS bands that are licensed on an EA 

basis, such as AWS–1 licenses. 

Additionally, assigning AWS–4 in EA 

geographic areas would allow AWS–4 

licensees to make adjustments to suit 

their individual needs. EA license areas 

are small enough to provide spectrum 

access opportunities for smaller carriers. 

EA license areas also nest within and 

may be aggregated up to larger license 

areas that have been used by the 

Commission for other services, such as 

Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and 

Regional Economic Area Groupings 

(REAGs) for those seeking to create 

larger service areas. Depending on the 

licensing mechanism we adopt, 

licensees may adjust their geographic 

coverage through auction or through 

secondary markets. This proposal 

should enable AWS–4 providers, or any 

entities, whether large or small, 

providing service in other AWS bands 

to more easily adjust their spectrum to 

build their networks pursuant to 

individual business plans. 

150. This NPRM and NOI makes 

several proposals to protect entities 

operating in nearby spectrum bands 

from harmful interference, which may 

include small entities. The technical 

rules proposed in section III.B of the 

NPRM and NOI are based on the rules 

for AWS–1 spectrum, with specific 

additions or modifications designed to 

protect broadband PCS services 

operating in the 1930–1995 MHz band, 

as well as future services operating in 

the 2020–2025 MHz band, and to 

protect Federal operations in the 2200– 

2290 MHz band from harmful 

interference from AWS–4 base stations. 

The technical analyses contained in the 

section III.B of the NPRM and NOI also 

proposes that no additional rule 

modifications to protect other spectrum 

bands are necessary, which may help 

minimize the impact on any small 

entities—both existing and potential 

small entities that may seek to provide 

services using AWS–4 spectrum—by 

streamlining regulations for operations 

in these spectrum bands. 

151. The NPRM and NOI proposals 

pertaining to how AWS–4 licenses will 

be assigned includes a focus on the cost 

and benefits such proposals would have 

on innovation, investment, and 

competition. While recognizing the 2 

GHz MSS license holder’s existing 

rights, the NPRM and NOI proposes to 

grant terrestrial authority to operate in 

the AWS–4 band to the current 2 GHz 

MSS licensee pursuant to a license 

modification. The NPRM and NOI 

further proposes that in certain 

alternative scenarios the Commission 

would allow the filing of applications 

for the terrestrial rights to the 2000– 

2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz band. In 

the event mutually exclusive 

applications were accepted, the 

Commission would use competitive 

bidding to assign terrestrial rights, as 

required by section 309(j) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. To assist small entities in 

competitive bidding, the NPRM and 

NOI proposes to employ part 1 rules 

such as governing competitive bidding 

design, designated entity preferences, 

and unjust enrichment. Furthermore, 

the NPRM and NOI proposes to assign 

exclusive geographic area licenses for 

terrestrial use of the AWS–4 band, and 

that this spectrum would be used for 

purposes similar to those for which the 

AWS–1 band is used. As such, the 

NPRM and NOI proposes to establish 

small business size standards and 

bidding credits that were adopted in the 

AWS–1 band. Specifically, the NPRM 

and NOI proposes to define a small 

business as an entity with average 

annual gross revenues for the preceding 

three years not exceeding $40 million, 

and a very small business as an entity 

with average gross revenues for the 

proceeding three years not exceeding 

$15 million. Additionally, the NPRM 

and NOI proposes bidding credits for 

both small and very small businesses, as 

set forth in the standardized schedule in 

part 1 of the Commission’s rules. 

Providing small businesses and very 

small businesses with bidding credits 

may help such entities acquire 

spectrum. In addition, included in the 

NPRM and NOI is a proposal that, in the 

event a licensee’s authority to operate 

terminates, terrestrial spectrum rights 

would become available for 

reassignment of any AWS–4 spectrum 

through the competitive bidding 

process. We believe these proposals will 

provide an economic benefit to small 

entities by making it easier for small 

entities to acquire spectrum or access to 

spectrum in these bands. 

152. The NPRM and NOI also 

proposes to provide AWS–4 licensees 

with the flexibility to provide any fixed 

or mobile service that is consistent with 

the allocations for this spectrum, which 

is consistent with other spectrum 

allocated or designated for licensed 

fixed and mobile services, e.g., AWS–1. 

The NPRM and NOI further proposes to 

license this spectrum under the 

Commission’s market-oriented part 27 

rules. These proposals include applying 

the Commission’s secondary market 

policies and rules to all transactions 

involving the use of AWS–4 bands for 

terrestrial services, which will provide 

greater predictability and regulatory 

parity with bands licensed for terrestrial 

mobile broadband service. This 

proposal should make it easier for 

AWS–4 providers to enter secondary 

market arrangements involving 

terrestrial use of their spectrum. The 

secondary market rules apply equally to 

all entities, whether small or large. As 

a result, we believe that this proposal 

will provide an economic benefit to 

small entities by making it easier for 

entities, whether large or small, to enter 

into secondary market arrangements for 

AWS–4 spectrum. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

153. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

154. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 

324, 332 and 333 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 that this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Inquiry are hereby adopted. 

155. It is further ordered that notice 

is hereby given of the proposed 

regulatory changes described in the 

AWS–4 Notice, and that comment is 

sought on these proposals. 

156. It is further ordered that the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

adopted. 

157. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

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. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 101 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

47 CFR 25 and 27 

Communications common carriers, 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Sheryl D. Todd, 

Deputy Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 

and 309. 

2. Amend § 1.949 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1.949 Application for renewal of license. 

* * * * * 

(c) Renewal Showing. An applicant 

for renewal of a geographic-area 

authorization in the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz service bands must 

make a renewal showing, independent 

of its performance requirements, as a 

condition of renewal. The showing must 

include a detailed description of the 

applicant’s provision of service during 

the entire license period and address: 

(1) The level and quality of service 

provided by the applicant (e.g., the 

population served, the area served, the 

number of subscribers, the services 

offered); 

(2) The date service commenced, 

whether service was ever interrupted, 

and the duration of any interruption or 

outage; 

(3) The extent to which service is 

provided to rural areas; 

(4) The extent to which service is 

provided to qualifying tribal land as 

defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and 

(5) Any other factors associated with 

the level of service to the public. 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

3. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

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

336, unless otherwise noted. 

4. Amend § 2.106 in the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, as follows: 

a. Page 36 is revised. 

b. In the list of non-Federal 

Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote 

NG168 is removed. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22743 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP17AP12.049</GPH>
22744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

5. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701–744. Interprets 

or applies sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 

and 332 of the Communications Act, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 

303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise 

noted. 

6. Amend § 25.143 by revising 

paragraphs (i) and (k) to read as follows: 

§ 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/ 

2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service and 2 GHz 

mobile-satellite service. 

* * * * * 

(i) Incorporation of ancillary 

terrestrial component base stations into 

a 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service 

network. Any licensee authorized to 

construct and launch a 1.6/2.4 GHz 

system may construct ancillary 

terrestrial component (ATC) base 

stations as defined in § 25.201 at its own 

risk and subject to the conditions 

specified in this subpart any time after 

commencing construction of the mobilesatellite service system. 

* * * * * 

(k) Aircraft. ATC mobile terminals 

must be operated in accordance with 

25.136(a). All portable or hand-held 

transceiver units (including transceiver 

units installed in other devices that are 

themselves portable or hand-held) 

having operating capabilities in the 

1610–1626.5 MHz/2483.5–2500 MHz 

bands shall bear the following statement 

in a conspicuous location on the device: 

‘‘This device may not be operated while 

on board aircraft. It must be turned off 

at all times while on board aircraft.’’ 

7. Amend § 25.149 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text, removing and 

reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i), 

and (b)(5)(i), and revising paragraphs (d) 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 25.149 Application requirements for 

ancillary terrestrial components in the 

mobile-satellites service networks 

operating in the 1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz 

mobile-satellite service. 

(a) * * * 

(1) ATC shall be deployed in the 

forward-band mode of operation 

whereby the ATC mobile terminals 

transmit in the MSS uplink bands and 

the ATC base stations transmit in the 

MSS downlink bands in portions of the 

1626.5–1660.5 MHz/1525–1559 MHz 

bands (L-band) and the 1610–1626.5 

MHz/2483.5–2500 MHz bands (Big LEO 

band). 

* * * * * 

(d) Applicants for an ancillary 

terrestrial component authority shall 

demonstrate that the applicant does or 

will comply with the provisions of 

§ 1.924 of this chapter and § 25.203(e) 

through (g) and with § 25.253 or 

§ 25.254, as appropriate, through 

certification or explanatory technical 

exhibit. 

(e) Except as provided for in 

paragraph (f) of this section, no 

application for an ancillary terrestrial 

component shall be granted until the 

applicant has demonstrated actual 

compliance with the provisions of 

paragraph (b) of this section. Upon 

receipt of ATC authority, all ATC 

licensees must ensure continued 

compliance with this section and 

§ 25.253 or § 25.254, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

§ 25.252 [Removed and Reserved]. 

8. Remove and reserve § 25.252. 

9. Amend § 25.255 by revising the 

section heading as follows: 

§ 25.255 Procedures for resolving harmful 

interference related to operation of ancillary 

terrestrial components operating in the 1.5/ 

1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands. 

* * * * * 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

10. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

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

307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise 

noted. 

11. Amend § 27.1 by adding 

paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1 Basis and purpose. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(10) 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz. 

* * * * * 

12. Amend § 27.2 by revising 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 27.2 Permissible communications. 

(a) Miscellaneous wireless 

communications services. Except as 

provided in paragraph (b) or (d) of this 

section and subject to technical and 

other rules contained in this part, a 

licensee in the frequency bands 

specified in § 27.5 may provide any 

services for which its frequency bands 

are allocated, as set forth in the nonFederal Government column of the 

Table of Allocations in § 2.106 of this 

chapter (column 5). 

* * * * * 

(d) 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands. Operators in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands may 

not provide the mobile-satellite service 

under the provisions of this part; rather, 

mobile-satellite service shall be 

provided in a manner consistent with 

part 25 of this chapter. 

13. Amend § 27.4 by revising the 

definition in ‘‘Advanced wireless 

service (AWS)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 27.4 Terms and definitions. 

* * * * * 

Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A 

radiocommunication service licensed 

pursuant to this part for the frequency 

bands specified in § 27.5(h) or § 27.5(j). 

* * * * * 

14. Amend § 27.5 by adding 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 27.5 Frequencies. 

* * * * * 

(j) 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands. The following frequencies 

are available for licensing pursuant to 

this part in the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz (AWS–4) bands: 

(1) Two paired channel blocks of 10 

megahertz each are available for 

assignment as follows: 

Block A: 2000–2010 MHz and 2190– 

2200 MHz; and 

Block B: 2010–2020 MHz and 2180– 

2190 MHz. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

15. Amend § 27.6 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 27.6 Service areas. 

* * * * * 

(i) 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands. AWS service areas for the 

2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz 

bands are based on Economic Areas 

(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

16. Amend § 27.13 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 27.13 License period. 

* * * * * 

(i) 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands. Authorizations for the 

2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz 

bands will have a term not to exceed ten 

years from the date of issuance or 

renewal. 

17. Amend § 27.14 by revising the 

first sentence of paragraphs (a), (f), and 

(k), and adding paragraph (q) to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.14 Construction requirements; 

Criteria for renewal. 

(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the 

exception of WCS licensees holding 

authorizations for Block A in the 698– 

704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22745 

Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734– 

740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 

MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 

746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, 

Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 788– 

793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305– 

2310 MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands, 

Block B in the 2310–2315 MHz and 

2355–2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 

2315–2320 MHz band, and Block D in 

the 2345–2350 MHz band, and with the 

exception of AWS licensees holding 

authorizations in the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands, must, as a 

performance requirement, make a 

showing of ‘‘substantial service’’ in their 

license area within the prescribed 

license term set forth in § 27.13. * * * 

* * * * * 

(f) Comparative renewal proceedings 

do not apply to WCS licensees holding 

authorizations for the 698–746 MHz, 

747–762 MHz, and 777–792 MHz bands 

and AWS licensees holding 

authorizations for the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands. * * * 

* * * * * 

(k) WCS and AWS licensees holding 

authorizations in the spectrum blocks 

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

(q) of this section, including any 

licensee that obtained its license 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (j) of this section, shall 

demonstrate compliance with 

performance requirements by filing a 

construction notification with the 

Commission, within 15 days of the 

expiration of the applicable benchmark, 

in accordance with the provisions set 

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

* * * * * 

(q) The following provisions apply to 

any AWS licensee holding an 

authorization in the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands (an ‘‘AWS– 

4 licensee’’): 

(1) An AWS–4 licensee shall provide 

signal coverage and offer service within 

three (3) years from the date of the 

initial license to at least thirty (30) 

percent of the total population in the 

aggregate service areas that it has 

licensed in the 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands (‘‘AWS–4 3-Year 

Buildout Requirement’’). For purposes 

of this subpart, a licensee’s total 

population shall be calculated by 

summing the population of each license 

authorization that a licensee holds in 

the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands; and 

(2) An AWS–4 licensee shall provide 

signal coverage and offer service within 

seven (7) years from the date of the 

initial license to at least to at least 

seventy (70) percent of the total 

population in each of its licensed areas 

(‘‘AWS–4 7-Year Buildout 

Requirement’’). 

(3) If any AWS–4 licensee fails to 

establish that it meets the AWS–4 

3-Year Buildout Requirement, all of the 

licensee’s 2000–2020 MHz and 2180– 

2200 MHz band license authorizations, 

including, if the AWS–4 license was 

assigned pursuant to a license 

modification, any licensed under part 

25 or any other part of these regulations, 

shall terminate automatically without 

Commission action. 

(4) If any AWS–4 licensee fails to 

establish that it meets the AWS–4 

7-Year Buildout Requirement for a 

particular license within seven (7) years 

of the date on which the original license 

was issued, that licensee’s authorization 

for the entire EA shall terminate 

automatically without Commission 

action, and the license will become 

available for reassignment by the 

Commission. 

(5) To demonstrate compliance with 

these performance requirements, 

licensees shall use the most recently 

available U.S. Census Data at the time 

of measurement and shall base their 

measurements of population served on 

areas no larger than the Census Tract 

level. The population within a specific 

Census Tract (or other acceptable 

identifier) will only be deemed served 

by the licensee if it provides signal 

coverage to and offers service within the 

specific Census Tract (or other 

acceptable identifier). To the extent the 

Census Tract (or other acceptable 

identifier) extends beyond the 

boundaries of a license area, a licensee 

with authorizations for such areas may 

only include the population within the 

Census Tract (or other acceptable 

identifier) towards meeting the 

performance requirement of a single, 

individual license. 

(6) Failure by any AWS–4 licensee to 

meet the performance requirements in 

this paragraph (q) will result in 

forfeiture of the license and the licensee 

will be ineligible to regain it. 

18. Amend § 27.15 by revising 

paragraph (d)(1)(i); adding paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii); revising paragraph (d)(2)(i); 

and adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read 

as follows: 

§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and 

spectrum disaggregation. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Except for WCS licensees holding 

authorizations for Block A in the 698– 

704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, 

Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734– 

740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 

MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the 

746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, 

or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 

788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees 

holding authorizations in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands; the 

following rules apply to WCS and AWS 

licensees holding authorizations for 

purposes of implementing the 

construction requirements set forth in 

§ 27.14. Parties to partitioning 

agreements have two options for 

satisfying the construction requirements 

set forth in § 27.14. Under the first 

option, the partitioner and partitionee 

each certifies that it will independently 

satisfy the substantial service 

requirement for its respective 

partitioned area. If a licensee 

subsequently fails to meet its substantial 

service requirement, its license will be 

subject to automatic cancellation 

without further Commission action. 

Under the section option, the partitioner 

certifies that it has met or will meet the 

substantial service requirement for the 

entire, pre-partitioned geographic 

service area. If the partitioner 

subsequently fails to meet its substantial 

service requirement, only its license 

will be subject to automatic cancellation 

without further Commission action. 

* * * * * 

(iii) For AWS–4 licensees holding 

authorizations in the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands, the 

following rules apply for purposes of 

implementing the construction 

requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each 

party to a geographic partitioning must 

individually meet any service-specific 

performance requirements (i.e., 

construction and operation 

requirements). If a licensee, including a 

partionee, fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or 

before the required date, its 

authorization will terminate 

automatically on that date without 

further Commission action pursuant to 

§ 27.14(q). 

(2) * * * 

(i) Except for WCS licensees holding 

authorizations for Block A in the 698– 

704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, 

Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734– 

740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 

MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the 

746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, 

or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 

788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees 

holding authorizations in the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands; the 

following rules apply to WCS and AWS 

licensees holding authorizations for 

purposes of implementing the 

construction requirements set forth in 

§ 27.14. Parties to disaggregation 

agreements have two options for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22746 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

satisfying the construction requirements 

set forth in § 27.14. Under the first 

option, the disaggregator and 

disaggregatee each certifies that it will 

share responsibility for meeting the 

substantial service requirement for the 

geographic service area. If the parties 

choose this option and either party 

subsequently fails to satisfy its 

substantial service responsibility, both 

parties’ licenses will be subject to 

forfeiture without further Commission 

action. Under the second option, both 

parties certify either that the 

disaggregator or the disaggregatee will 

meet the substantial service requirement 

for the geographic service area. If the 

parties choose this option, and the party 

responsible subsequently fails to meet 

the substantial service requirement, 

only that party’s license will be subject 

to forfeiture without further 

Commission action. 

* * * * * 

(iii) For AWS licensees holding 

authorizations in the 2000–2020 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands, the 

following rules apply for purposes of 

implementing the construction 

requirements set forth in § 27.14. Each 

party to a spectrum disaggregation must 

individually meet any service-specific 

performance requirements (i.e., 

construction and operation 

requirements). If a licensee, including a 

disagregatee, fails to meet any servicespecific performance requirements on or 

before the required date, its 

authorization will terminate 

automatically on that date without 

further Commission action pursuant to 

§ 27.14(q). 

19. Add § 27.17 to read as follows: 

§ 27.17 Discontinuance of Service in the 

2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands. 

(a) Termination of Authorization. A 

licensee’s authorization in the 2000– 

2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands 

will automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if it 

permanently discontinues service after 

meeting the AWS–4 3-Year Buildout 

Requirement as specified in § 27.14 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

(b) Permanent discontinuance of 

service is defined as 180 consecutive 

days during which an AWS–4 licensee 

does not operate or, in the case of a 

commercial mobile radio service 

provider, does not provide service to at 

least one subscriber that is not affiliated 

with, controlled by, or related to the 

providing carrier. 

(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of 

the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands that permanently 

discontinues service as defined in this 

section must notify the Commission of 

the discontinuance within 10 days by 

filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting 

license cancellation. An authorization 

will automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

permanently discontinued as defined in 

this section, even if a licensee fails to 

file the required form requesting license 

cancellation. 

20. Amend § 27.50 by: 

a. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising (d)(1) introductory text 

and redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(A) 

and (B) as paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii); 

c. Revising paragraph (d)(2) 

introductory text and redesignating 

paragraphs (d)(2)(A) and (B) as 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii); 

d. Revising paragraph (d)(4); and 

e. Adding paragraph (d)(7). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle. 

* * * * * 

(d) The following power and antenna 

height requirements apply to stations 

transmitting in the 1710–1755 MHz, 

2110–2155 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, and 

2180–2200 MHz bands: 

(1) The power of each fixed or base 

station transmitting in the 2110–2155 

MHz or 2180–2200 MHz bands and 

located in any county with population 

density of 100 or fewer persons per 

square mile, based upon the most 

recently available population statistics 

from the Bureau of the Census, is 

limited to: 

* * * * * 

(2) The power of each fixed or base 

station transmitting in the 2110–2155 

MHz or 2180–2200 MHz bands and 

situated in any geographic location 

other than that described in paragraph 

(d)(1) is limited to: 

* * * * * 

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

1755 MHz and 2000–2020 MHz bands 

are limited to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed 

stations operating in these bands are 

limited to a maximum antenna height of 

10 meters above ground. Mobile and 

portable stations operating in these 

bands must employ a means for limiting 

power to the minimum necessary for 

successful communications. 

* * * * * 

(7) A licensee operating a base or 

fixed station in the 2180–2200 MHz 

band utilizing a power greater than 1640 

watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/ 

MHz EIRP must be coordinated in 

advance with all AWS licensees 

authorized to operate on adjacent 

frequency blocks in the 2180–2200 MHz 

band. 

* * * * *. 

21. Amend § 27.53 by revising 

paragraph (h) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 27.53 Emission limits. 

* * * * * 

(h) Except as provided in section 

27.1134(e) for the 2180–2200 MHz band, 

for operations in the 1710–1755 MHz, 

2110–2155 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, and 

2180–2200 MHz bands, the power of 

any emission outside a licensee’s 

frequency block shall be attenuated 

below the transmitter power (P) by at 

least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB. For operations 

in the 2000–2020 MHz band, the power 

of any emissions between 1995 MHz 

and 2000 MHz shall be attenuated 

below the transmitter power (P) by at 

least a value as determined by linear 

interpolation from 70 + 10 log10(P) dB 

at 1995 MHz to 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at 

2000 MHz. 

* * * * * 

22. Amend § 27.55 by revising 

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

§ 27.55 Power strength limits. 

(a) * * * 

(1) 2110–2155, 2180–2200, 2305–2320 

and 2345–2360 MHz bands: 47 dBmV/m. 

* * * * * 

23. Amend § 27.57 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 27.57 International coordination. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operation in the 1710–1755 MHz, 

2110–2155 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, and 

2180–2200 MHz bands is subject to 

international agreements with Mexico 

and Canada. 

Subpart L—1710–1755 MHz, 2110–2155 

MHz, 2000–2020 MHz, and 2180–2200 

MHz bands 

24. Revise the heading of subpart L to 

read as set forth above. 

25. Add § 27.1103 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1103 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200 

MHz bands subject to competitive bidding. 

Mutually exclusive initial 

applications for 2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz band licenses are 

subject to competitive bidding. The 

general competitive bidding procedures 

set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q 

will apply unless otherwise provided in 

this subpart. 

26. Add § 27.1104 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1104 Designated Entities in the 2000– 

2020 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands. 

Eligibility for small business 

provisions: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22747 

(a)(1) A small business is an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, its 

controlling interests, the affiliates of its 

controlling interests, and the entities 

with which it has an attributable 

material relationship, has average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding 

$40 million for the preceding three 

years. 

(2) A very small business is an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, its 

controlling interests, the affiliates of its 

controlling interests, and the entities 

with which it has an attributable 

material relationship, has average 

annual gross revenues not exceeding 

$15 million for the preceding three 

years. 

(b) Bidding credits: A winning bidder 

that qualifies as a small business as 

defined in this section or a consortium 

of small businesses may use the bidding 

credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of 

this chapter. A winning bidder that 

qualifies as a very small business as 

defined in this section or a consortium 

of very small businesses may use the 

bidding credit specified in 

§ 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter. 

27. Revise § 27.1131 to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.1131 Protection of part 101 

operations. 

All AWS licensees, prior to initiating 

operations from any base or fixed 

station, must coordinate their frequency 

usage with co-channel and adjacent 

channel incumbent, Part 101 fixedpoint-to-point microwave licensees 

operating in the 2110–2155 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands. Coordination 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

the provisions of § 24.237 of this 

chapter. 

28. Amend § 27.1134 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1134 Protection of Federal 

Government operations. 

* * * * * 

(e) Protection of Federal operations in 

the 2200–2290 MHz band. 

(1) [Reserved.] 

(2) [Reserved.] 

29. Add § 27.1136 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1136 Protection of mobile satellite 

services in the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180– 

2200 MHz bands. 

An AWS licensee of the 2000–2020 

MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands must 

accept any interference received from 

duly authorized mobile satellite service 

operations in these bands. Any such 

AWS licensees must protect mobile 

satellite service operations in these 

bands from harmful interference. 

30. Amend § 27.1160 by revising the 

first sentence to read as follows: 

§ 27.1160 Cost-sharing requirements for 

AWS. 

Frequencies in the 2110–2150 MHz 

and 2160–2200 MHz bands listed in 

§ 101.147 of this chapter have been 

reallocated from Fixed Microwave 

Services (FMS) to use by AWS (as 

reflected in § 2.106) of this chapter. *** 

31. Amend § 27.1166 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, 

(b)(2), and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1166 Reimbursement under the CostSharing Plan. 

(a) * * * 

(1) To obtain reimbursement, an AWS 

relocator must submit documentation of 

the relocation agreement to the 

clearinghouse within 30 calendar days 

of the date a relocation agreement is 

signed with an incumbent. In the case 

of involuntary relocation, an AWS 

relocator must submit documentation of 

the relocated system within 30 calendar 

days after the end of the relocation. 

* * * * * 

(b) Documentation of expenses. Once 

relocation occurs, the AWS relocator, or 

the voluntarily relocating microwave 

incumbent, must submit documentation 

itemizing the amount spent for items 

specifically listed in § 27.1164(b), as 

well as any reimbursable items not 

specifically listed in § 27.1164(b) that 

are directly attributable to actual 

relocation costs. Specifically, the AWS 

relocator, or the voluntarily relocating 

microwave incumbent must submit, in 

the first instance, only the uniform cost 

data requested by the clearinghouse 

along with a copy, without redaction, of 

either the relocation agreement, if any, 

or the third party appraisal described in 

(b)(1), if relocation was undertaken by 

the microwave incumbent. AWS 

relocators and voluntarily relocating 

microwave incumbents must maintain 

documentation of cost-related issues 

until the applicable sunset date and 

provide such documentation upon 

request, to the clearinghouse, the 

Commission, or entrants that trigger a 

cost-sharing obligation. If an AWS 

relocator pays a microwave incumbent a 

monetary sum to relocate its own 

facilities, the AWS relocator must 

estimate the costs associated with 

relocating the incumbent by itemizing 

the anticipated cost for items listed in 

§ 27.1164(b). If the sum paid to the 

incumbent cannot be accounted for, the 

remaining amount is not eligible for 

reimbursement. 

* * * * * 

(2) Identification of links. The AWS 

relocator, or the voluntarily relocating 

microwave incumbent, must identify 

the particular link associated with 

appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may not 

be averaged over numerous links). 

Where the AWS relocator, or voluntarily 

relocating microwave incumbent 

relocates both paths of a paired channel 

microwave link (e.g., 2110–2130 MHz 

with 2160–2180 MHz and 2130–2150 

MHz with 2180–2200 MHz), the AWS 

relocator, or voluntarily relocating 

microwave incumbent must identify the 

expenses associated with each paired 

microwave link. 

* * * * * 

(f) Reimbursement for Self-relocating 

FMS links in the 2130–2150 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz bands. Where a 

voluntarily relocating microwave 

incumbent relocates a paired microwave 

link with paths in the 2130–2150 MHz 

and 2180–2200 MHz bands, it may not 

seek reimbursement from MSS 

operators, but is entitled to partial 

reimbursement from the first AWS 

beneficiary, equal to fifty percent of its 

actual costs for relocating the paired 

link, or half of the reimbursement cap 

in § 27.1164(b), whichever is less. This 

amount is subject to depreciation as 

specified § 27.1164(b). An AWS licensee 

who is obligated to reimburse relocation 

costs under this rule is entitled to obtain 

reimbursement from other AWS 

beneficiaries in accordance with 

§§ 27.1164 and 27.1168. For purposes of 

applying the cost-sharing formula 

relative to other AWS licensees that 

benefit from the self-relocation, the fifty 

percent attributable to the AWS entrant 

shall be treated as the entire cost of the 

link relocation, and depreciation shall 

run from the date on which the 

clearinghouse issues the notice of an 

obligation to reimburse the voluntarily 

relocating microwave incumbent. The 

cost-sharing obligations for MSS 

operators in the 2180–2200 MHz band 

are governed by § 101.82 of this chapter. 

32. Amend § 27.1168 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), 

(a)(3) introductory text, (a)(3)(ii), and (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 27.1168 Triggering a reimbursement 

obligation. 

(a) The clearinghouse will apply the 

following test to determine when an 

AWS entity has triggered a cost-sharing 

obligation and therefore must pay an 

AWS relocator, MSS relocator, or a 

voluntarily relocating microwave 

incumbent in accordance with the 

formula detailed in § 27.1164: 

* * * * * 

(2) An AWS relocator, MSS relocator 

or a voluntarily relocating microwave 

incumbent has paid the relocation costs 

of the microwave incumbent; and 

(3) The AWS or MSS entity is 

operating or preparing to turn on a fixed 

base station at commercial power and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22748 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the fixed base station is located within 

a rectangle (Proximity Threshold) 

described as follows: 

* * * * * 

(ii) If the application of the Proximity 

Threshold Test indicates that a 

reimbursement obligation exists, the 

clearinghouse will calculate the 

reimbursement amount in accordance 

with the cost-sharing formula and notify 

the AWS entity of the total amount of 

its reimbursement obligation. 

(b) Once a reimbursement obligation 

is triggered, the AWS entity may not 

avoid paying its cost-sharing obligation 

by deconstructing or modifying its 

facilities. 

33. Revise § 27.1170 to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.1170 Payment issues. 

Prior to initiating operations for a 

newly constructed site or modified 

existing site, an AWS entity is required 

to file a notice containing site-specific 

data with the clearinghouse. The notice 

regarding the new or modified site must 

provide a detailed description of the 

proposed site’s spectral frequency use 

and geographic location, including but 

not limited to the applicant’s name and 

address, the name of the transmitting 

base station, the geographic coordinates 

corresponding to that base station, the 

frequencies and polarizations to be 

added, changed or deleted, and the 

emission designator. If a prior 

coordination notice (PCN) under 

§ 101.103(d) of this chapter is prepared, 

AWS entities can satisfy the site-data 

filing requirement by submitting a copy 

of their PCN to the clearinghouse. AWS 

entities that file either a notice or a PCN 

have a continuing duty to maintain the 

accuracy of the site-specific data on file 

with the clearinghouse. Utilizing the 

site-specific data, the clearinghouse will 

determine if any reimbursement 

obligation exists and notify the AWS 

entity in writing of its repayment 

obligation, if any. When the AWS entity 

receives a written copy of such 

obligation, it must pay directly to the 

relocator the amount owed within 30 

calendar days. 

34. Revise § 27.1174 to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.1174 Termination of cost-sharing 

obligations. 

The cost-sharing plan will sunset for 

all AWS and MSS entities on the same 

date on which the relocation obligation 

for the subject AWS band (i.e., 2110– 

2150 MHz, 2160–2175 MHz, 2175–2180 

MHz, 2180–2200 MHz) in which the 

relocated FMS link was located 

terminates. AWS or MSS entrants that 

trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to 

the sunset date must satisfy their 

payment obligation in full. 

PART 101— FIXED MICROWAVE 

SERVICES 

35. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, and 303 unless 

otherwise noted. 

36. Amend § 101.69 by revising 

paragraph (e) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850–1990 MHz, 

2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHz bands 

from the fixed microwave services to 

personal communications services and 

emerging technologies. 

* * * * * 

(e) Relocation of FMS licensees by 

Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) licensees 

will be subject to mandatory 

negotiations only. 

* * * * * 

37. Amend § 101.73 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (d) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 101.73 Mandatory negotiations. 

(a) A mandatory negotiation period 

may be initiated at the option of the ET 

licensee. Relocation of FMS licensees by 

Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators 

and AWS licensees in the 2110–2150 

MHz and 2160–2200 MHz bands will be 

subject to mandatory negotiations only. 

* * * * * 

(d) Provisions for Relocation of Fixed 

Microwave Licensees in the 2110–2150 

and 2160–2200 MHz bands. A separate 

mandatory negotiation period will 

commence for each FMS licensee when 

an ET licensee informs that FMS 

licensee in writing of its desire to 

negotiate. Mandatory negotiations will 

be conducted with the goal of providing 

the FMS licensee with comparable 

facilities defined as facilities possessing 

the following characteristics: 

* * * * * 

38. Amend § 101.79 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and 

(a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees in 

the 1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 

2160–2200 MHz bands. 

(a) FMS licensees will maintain 

primary status in the 1850–1990 MHz, 

2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHz 

bands unless and until an ET licensee 

requires use of the spectrum. ET 

licensees are not required to pay 

relocation costs after the relocation rules 

sunset. Once the relocation rules sunset, 

an ET licensee may require the 

incumbent to cease operations, provided 

that the ET licensee intends to turn on 

a system within interference range of 

the incumbent, as determined by TIA 

TSB 10–F (for terrestrial-to-terrestrial 

situations) or TIA TSB 86 (for MSS 

satellite-to-terrestrial situations) or any 

standard successor. ET licensee 

notification to the affected FMS licensee 

must be in writing and must provide the 

incumbent with no less than six months 

to vacate the spectrum. After the sixmonth notice period has expired, the 

FMS licensee must turn its license back 

into the Commission, unless the parties 

have entered into an agreement which 

allows the FMS licensee to continue to 

operate on a mutually agreed upon 

basis. The date that the relocation rules 

sunset is determined as follows: 

* * * * * 

(2) For the 2180–2200 MHz band, for 

MSS/ATC December 8, 2013 (i.e., ten 

years after the mandatory negotiation 

period begins for MSS/ATC operators in 

the service), and for ET licensees 

authorized under part 27 ten years after 

the first part 27 license is issued in the 

band. 

* * * * * 

39. Amend § 101.82 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 101.82 Reimbursement and relocation 

expenses in the 2110–2150 MHz and 2160– 

2200 MHz bands. 

(a) Reimbursement and relocation 

expenses for the 2110–2130 MHz and 

2160–2200 MHz bands are addressed in 

§§ 27.1160–27.1174. 

* * * * * 

(d) Cost-sharing obligations among 

terrestrial stations. For terrestrial 

stations (AWS), cost-sharing obligations 

are governed by §§ 27.1160 through 

27.1174 of this chapter; provided, 

however, that MSS operators are not 

obligated to reimburse voluntarily 

relocating FMS incumbents in the 2180– 

2200 MHz band. (AWS reimbursement 

and cost-sharing obligations relative to 

voluntarily relocating FMS incumbents 

are governed by § 27.1166 of this 

chapter). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8405 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS