[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29722-29723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 87, and 101

[WT Docket No. 99-327, FCC 01-151]


24 GHz Service; Licensing and Operation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document responds to two petitions for reconsideration of 
a previous decision to license the 24 GHz band by Economic Area (EA). 
Both petitions asked us to consider licensing the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 
25.05-25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band) by smaller geographic areas, such as 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and Rural Statistical Areas (RSA). 
In this document we deny these petitions because we believe that 
licensing the 24 GHz band by EA not only offers economies of scale, but 
also serves a wider range of entities, including both large and small 
service providers. We further believe that our adoption of a three-
tiered approach to bidding credits will enable small entities to 
participate in the auction. Also, we believe that our partitioning and 
disaggregation rules will further assist small and rural entities. This 
document terminates this proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy M. Zaczek, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, 
at (202) 418-7590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in WT Docket 99-327, FCC 01-151, adopted May 2, 2001 
and released May 17, 2001. The full text is also available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center (Courtyard level), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington DC 20554, and also may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS Inc.), (202) 
857-3800, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B400, Washington DC 20054. The full 
text of the Order on Reconsideration may also be

[[Page 29723]]

downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/FCC-01-151A1.doc.

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

    1. This Order on Reconsideration (Order) denies two petitions for 
reconsideration of the Report and Order in this proceeding (65 FR 
59350, October 5, 2000) regarding licensing the 24 GHz band by 176 EAs. 
In the Report and Order, the Commission decided to license the 24 GHz 
band by EAs because EAs not only offer economies of scale, but also 
serve the needs of a wider range of entities, including both large and 
small service providers. Also, the Commission decided to adopt a three-
tiered approach to bidding credits, under which very small businesses 
receive a 35 percent bidding credit, small businesses a 25 percent 
bidding credit, and entrepreneurs a 15 percent bidding credit.
    2. The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG) and the Office of 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) filed petitions for 
reconsideration objecting to licensing the 24 GHz band by EA. SBA and 
RTG maintained that EAs are too large and, therefore unaffordable, for 
either small businesses or rural telephone companies to participate at 
auction. Both RTG and SBA recommend that the Commission instead license 
the 24 GHz band by MSA and RSA, which are smaller than EAs and would 
result in licensing rural areas separately from urban areas. In 
contrast, EAs encompass both urban and rural areas.
    3. Contrary to the position of RTG and SBA on this issue, the 
Commission believes, based on its experience with the 39 GHz auction, 
that licensing the 24 GHz band by EAs will not discourage small 
businesses from participating at the 24 GHz auction. The 39 GHz auction 
used EA-based service areas. In that auction, small and very small 
businesses successfully bid for 849 licenses, or almost 40 percent of 
the licenses sold. In the 24 GHz auction, bidding credits will be made 
available to small businesses. Moreover, rural telephone companies were 
successful at the 39 GHz auction. All six qualified bidders that 
identified themselves in their short-form applications as rural 
telephone companies were successful in winning licenses, for a total of 
52 licenses. We conclude that licensing the 24 GHz band by EA will not 
discourage either small businesses or rural telephone companies from 
participating in the 24 GHz auction.
    4. RTG and SBA maintain that the Commission's reliance on post-
auction partitioning and disaggregation is misplaced and unworkable 
because of the costs involved and the reluctance of license holders to 
carve out portions of their licenses for rural carriers. The Commission 
notes that none of their comments specifically relate to the 24 GHz 
band. Thus, the Commission concludes that it is more appropriate to 
address SBA's and RTG's concerns in the context of the Secondary 
Markets proceeding, initiated by our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 
FR 81475, December 26, 2000) seeking comment on possible changes to our 
rules and policies allowing greater flexibility through ``spectrum 
leasing.''
    5. RTG maintains that licensing by EA would guarantee that rural 
areas of the country would not see the benefits of 24 GHz service 
because licensees would be able to meet the substantial service 
standard by serving the urban area within the EA. Instead of the 
substantial service standard, RTG recommends that the Commission 
require licensees to provide service to one-third of the population 
within five years and two-thirds of the population within ten years. In 
the alternative, RTG recommends the Commission adopt a fill-in policy 
in which, at the time of renewal, any party can apply for and provide 
service to any area in which the original licensee is not providing 
service. The Commission has already considered and rejected using 
minimum coverage requirements to establish substantial service, and RTG 
has reiterated the position it took earlier in the proceeding at the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage without presenting any new 
information on this issue. Consequently, the Commission affirms its 
prior decision in the Report and Order that the substantial service 
standard, in lieu of specific service requirements, best serves the 
public interest. The Commission concludes that this approach is 
consistent with the approach used in other wireless services and is 
sufficiently flexible to foster expeditious development and deployment 
of systems.
    6. With regard to providing service to rural areas, the Commission 
recognizes that section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 
1934, as amended, stresses the need for the Commission to encourage the 
rapid deployment of services to rural areas and to promulgate 
performance requirements that ensure prompt delivery of service to 
rural areas. In addition, the Commission notes that the statute 
includes ``rural telephone companies'' among the wide variety of 
applicants to which the Commission is to disseminate licenses. The 
Commission continues to believe, however, that licensing the 24 GHz 
band by EAs strikes the best balance among its various policy 
objectives for the 24 GHz band. The Commission believes that by 
adopting EA licenses for the 24 GHz band, it has achieved a means of 
providing service to rural areas while ensuring that the 24 GHz 
spectrum is put to the highest and best use.

Ordering Clauses

    7. Accordingly, It is Ordered that pursuant to section 4(i) and 405 
of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405, and 
Sec. 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petitions for 
Reconsideration filed by the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration and the Rural Telecommunications Group are denied.
    8. It is Further Ordered, pursuant to section 4(i) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the Commission's 
Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a 
copy of the Order on Reconsideration to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration.
    9. It is Further Ordered that this proceeding Is Terminated.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13717 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U