Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32131 

1Title II, Pub. Law No. 108–494, 118 Stat. 3986, 

47 U.S.C. §§ 309 (j) (3), 921, 923, 928 and note 

(annual report requirement). 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review excluding 

any reported sales that entered during 

the gap period. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per– 

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that were not selected for 

individual review, the assessment rate 

will be based on the rate from the 

investigation or, if appropriate, a simple 

average of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 44.3 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15964 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 0906231085–91085–01] 

Relocation of Federal Systems in the 

1710–1755 MHz Frequency Band: 

Review of the Initial Implementation of 

the Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) seeks comment 

on the initial implementation of the 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement 

Act (CSEA).1 The CSEA, which was 

enacted in 2004, created an innovative 

funding mechanism allowing Federal 

agencies to recover the costs of 

relocating their radio systems from the 

proceeds of the auction of the radio 

spectrum vacated. The first auction 

under the CSEA, that of the 1710–1755 

MHz band, concluded in 2006, 

providing new opportunities for 

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS–1). 

Over two years into the relocation of 

Federal systems from this band, NTIA 

requests information on what 

implementation steps should be 

retained as best practices, what lessons 

have been learned, and what, if any, 

improvements should be made in future 

relocations under the CSEA. 

DATE: Comments are requested on or 

before August 21, 2009, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Parties may mail written 

comments to Gary Patrick, Spectrum 

Engineering and Analysis Division, 

Office of Spectrum Management, 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6725, 

Washington, DC 20230, with copies to 

Gina Harrison, Esq., Office of Spectrum 

Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

N.W., Room 4099, Washington, DC 

20230. Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted in Microsoft Word format 

electronically to 

csealessonslearned@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments will be posted on NTIA’s 

website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov and 

regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Patrick, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6725, 

Washington, DC 20230 or Gina 

Harrison, Esq., National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

N.W., Room 4099, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone (202) 482–9132 or 

(202) 482–2695; or email: 

gpatrick@ntia.doc.gov or 

rharrison@ntia.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

NTIA decided to reallocate the 1710– 

1755 MHz band to commercial use in 

32132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

2NTIA, Spectrum Reallocation Final Report: 

Response to Title IV-Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Feb. 1995), available at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/openness/contents.html. 

3CSEA, § 204, 118 Stat. 3994, 47 U.S.C. § 928. 

4 ‘‘800 MHz Transition May Drag on Until 2012, 

Some Say,’’ TR Daily (Feb. 17, 2009); Order, 

Improving Public Safety Communications in the 

800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02–55, FCC 08–253 

(rel. Oct. 30, 2008), available at 2008 Lexis 7625; 

Order, Improving Public Safety Communications in 

the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02–55, FCC 09– 

35 (Apr. 20, 2009), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.

gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC–09–35A1.doc. 

5There are 1,990 frequency assignments 

associated with the Federal systems to be relocated 

from the 1710–1755 MHz band. The 12 relocating 

agencies are Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Department of Defense, Department of Energy, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Department of the Interior, 

Department of Justice, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, Department of the Treasury, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, and United States 

Postal Service. As of December 2008, Federal 

agencies had spent $174,126,082 from the SRF. 

NTIA, 1710–1755 MHz Band Relocation: Second 

Annual Progress Report (Mar. 2009) (‘‘Second 

Annual Relocation Report’’), available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/ 

Final2ndAnnualRelocation Report20090416.pdf. 

6CSEA, § 202, 118 Stat. 3992, 47 U.S.C. § 923 (g) 

(4) (A). 

7Letter from Michael K. Powell, Chairman, 

Federal Communications Commission to the 

Honorable Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant 

Secretary for Communications and Information, and 

Administrator, National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (Dec. 29, 2004). 

8CSEA, § 202, 118 Stat. 2992–93, 47 U.S.C. § 923 

(g) (4) (A) (5). 

9Public Notice, ‘‘Commerce Releases Costs to 

Open Up Spectrum for Advanced Wireless 

Broadband Services,’’ available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2005/ 

relo_12282005.htm. See generally ‘‘1710–1755 MHz 

Introduction,’’ available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/ 

index.htm (updated list of affected Federal 

frequency assignments and other data). For a related 

discussion, see infra Section 2.a. 10Federal Communications Commission and 

NTIA — Coordination Procedures in the 1710–1755 

MHz Band, 21 FCC Rcd 4730 (Apr. 20, 2006) (‘‘Joint 

Public Notice’’). Access to a band by licensees prior 

to relocation of incumbents is sometimes referred 

to as ‘‘early entry.’’ 11 ‘‘Auction 66, Advanced Wireless Services 

(AWS–1),’’ available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/

auctions/default.htm?job=auction_factsheet&id=66. 12CSEA, § 204, 118 Stat. 3995, 47 U.S.C. § 928(d) 

(2). 13The CSEA provides that amounts transferred 

from the SRF to a Federal agency be credited to the 

appropriations ‘‘account’’ of the agency. Id. § 928 (e) 

(C). 14 ‘‘Report to Congress by the Office of 

Management and Budget on Agency Plans for 

Spectrum Relocation Funds Pursuant to the 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act’’ (Feb. 16, 

2007) available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/ 

2007/OMBSpectrumRelocationCongressional

Notification_final.pdf. 15CSEA, § 204 (d) (3), 118 Stat. 3995, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 928 (d) (3). NTIA may terminate a frequency 

authorization if it finds that an agency has 

unreasonably failed to comply with OMB-approved 

time lines. CSEA, §§ 202, 203(b), 118 Stat. 3993–94, 

47 U.S.C. §§ 923 (g) (6), 309(j) (15) (D). See generally 

Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal 

Radio Frequency Management (‘‘NTIA Manual’’), 

Chapter O, Relocation of Federal Government Radio 

Systems in Accordance with the Commercial 

Spectrum Enhancement Act, available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/O.pdf. 

1995.2 However, the decision could not 

be implemented until 2004, when 

enactment of the CSEA provided a 

streamlined means to pay for the 

relocation of Federal systems. The CSEA 

created the Spectrum Relocation Fund 

(SRF).3 The SRF uses the proceeds from 

the commercial auction of relinquished 

spectrum to reimburse Federal agencies 

required to vacate the spectrum. 

The CSEA and the SRF it created help 

solve a recurrent spectrum management 

dilemma, the problem of clearing 

incumbents from a portion of the 

spectrum. Such transition issues can 

stymie efforts to bring new, improved 

uses of spectrum into service.4 By 

enhancing the efficiency of the Federal 

relocation process, the CSEA provides 

three concurrent benefits. Commercial 

firms and consumers benefit from 

expediting the process for freeing 

additional radio frequencies for new or 

expanded services. Federal agencies 

benefit from the funds the SRF provides 

for state-of-the-art systems they will use 

in new spectrum locations. Finally, the 

CSEA assists in the Federal budget 

process by providing that unused 

spectrum auction receipts revert to the 

Treasury’s general fund. 

On September 18, 2006, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

concluded the first auction conducted 

under the CSEA, the AWS–1 auction, 

including 1710–1755 MHz. The auction 

of the Federal spectrum raised $6.85 

billion out of $13.7 billion in net 

winning bids from Federal and nonFederal auctioned spectrum combined. 

Opening the band to commercial use 

will spur new wireless services. 

In March 2007, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), in 

consultation with NTIA and based on 

Federal agency estimates of relocation 

costs, transferred slightly over $1 billion 

from the SRF to 12 Federal agencies to 

relocate their systems out of the 1710– 

1755 MHz band.5 This first 

implementation of the CSEA has been 

ongoing for over two years. NTIA takes 

this opportunity to solicit public 

comment on how the CSEA has 

functioned so far. 

This Notice of Inquiry (NOI) first 

invites interested parties to comment on 

the overall performance of the Federal 

relocation process. The NOI then 

divides the issues among those arising 

before and after the auction. Issues 

regarding the adequacy and 

transparency of data, sufficiency of 

communications, guidance with respect 

to the relocation process, and NTIA’s 

role, arise both ‘‘Pre-Auction’’ and 

‘‘Post-Auction.’’ The Post-Auction 

section addresses a number of 

additional issues, including ‘‘early 

entry’’ of licensees prior to a Federal 

agency’s scheduled date to vacate the 

band. In some cases, ‘‘Pre-Auction’’ 

events may have had ‘‘Post-Auction’’ 

effects. In other cases, ‘‘Post-Auction’’ 

circumstances may shed light on the 

value of pre-auction information and on 

the level of bidding. Thus, NTIA asks 

commenters to analyze CSEA 

implementation from both cause-andeffect and ‘‘feedback’’ perspectives. 

Chronology 

The CSEA requires the FCC to notify 

NTIA at least 18 months in advance of 

an auction of eligible frequency bands.6

In December 2004, the FCC notified 

NTIA that the auction of the 1710–1755 

MHz band would begin as early as June 

2006.7

Under the CSEA, at least six months 

prior to the auction, NTIA, on behalf of 

the Federal agencies and after review by 

OMB, must provide the FCC and 

Congress the estimated costs and time 

lines for relocating Federal agencies 

from affected spectrum.8 NTIA 

complied with these requirements in 

December 2005.9

In April 2006, prior to the auction, 

NTIA and the FCC published a Joint 

Public Notice providing guidance to 

assist AWS–1 licensees and Federal 

incumbents in the post-auction 

coordination process. One of the 

purposes of that Joint Public Notice was 

to permit licensees access to the band in 

advance of estimated relocation dates, 

subject to the completion of successful 

coordination with the incumbents.10

The FCC concluded the auction on 

September 18, 2006.11

On February 16, 2007, OMB reported 

the cost and time estimates of relocating 

incumbent systems in the 1710–1755 

MHz band to Congress. The CSEA 

provides that unless disapproved within 

30 days, SRF funds shall be available 

immediately.12 OMB consequently 

transferred funds from the SRF to 

individual agencies, and calculated the 

start time for relocation activities as the 

date the funds transferred to the 

agency’s account.13

The CSEA sets no firm date by which 

incumbent Federal agencies must vacate 

spectrum. Pursuant to the CSEA, 

however, Federal agencies in the 1710– 

1755 MHz band estimated relocation 

times from one to six years.14 The CSEA 

provides that eight years after deposit of 

auction proceeds into the SRF, any 

remaining proceeds revert to the general 

fund of the Treasury.15

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32133 

16NTIA, 1710–1755 MHz Relocation and 

Schedule Summary, available at http://www.ntia.

doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/pdf_20081209/

1710_1755_Relo_Costs_2008_12.pdf. One fixed 

microwave link and one land mobile link each 

comprise two Federal assignments. Fixed 

transportable and aeronautical mobile links each 

constitute a single assignment. 

17Report of the CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse, 

LLC (Jan. 30, 2009); Semi-Annual Report of the 

PCIA — The Wireless Infrastructure Association on 

the Status of the PCIA AWS Clearinghouse (Jan. 30, 

2009), both reports available at http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ (search Docket 02–353). 

18CSEA, § 202, 118 Stat. 3992–93, 47 U.S.C. § 923 

(g) (4) (A), (C). 

19CSEA, § 203 (b), 118 Stat. 3994, 47 U.S.C. § 309 

(j) (15) (B). ‘‘A ‘reserve price’ is defined as an 

absolute minimum price below which an auctioneer 

will not sell an object being auctioned.’’ 

Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules — 

Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Report and 

Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, ¶ 140 (1997), recon. 

denied, 15 FCC Rcd 15293 (2000). 

20See supra note 9. 

21 Id. 

22 Joint Public Notice, supra note 10. 

23See generally Commerce Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee (‘‘CSMAC’’): 

‘‘Recommendations for Improving the Process for 

Identifying Spectrum for Future Reallocation or 

Sharing,’’ at 12–15, 19 (Aug. 22, 2008) (‘‘CSMAC 

Reallocation Report’’) available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum/ 

meeting_files/ 

081508_csmac_WG3_Report_Revised_ 

(clean_final).pdf. 

24 Issues regarding the adequacy of information 

provided for purposes of coordinating early entry 

and permitting service initiation are discussed 

infra, Section 3. 

The time line below describes the 

principal stages in the 1710–1755 MHz 

band relocation. 

TIME LINE — PRINCIPAL STAGES IN THE 1710–1755 MHZ BAND RELOCATION

PRE-AUCTION | POST-AUCTION 

President 

Signs CSEA 

NTIA Releases 

1710-1755 

MHz Data Setting Auction 

Reserve Price 

FCC/ 

NTIA 

JPN 

AWS-1 

AUCTION 

CONCLUDES 

' 

OMB 

Report 

to Congress 

SRF 

Funds 

Transferred to 

Agencies 

' 

Early Entry 

————→ 

Agency Estimated Relocation Completion 

( 

——→ 

——→ 

Proceeds Revert to Treasury General 

Funds 

8 Years from 

Deposit of 

Auction Proceeds into 

SRF 

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 

Dec Dec April Sept Feb Mar/April Mar 

2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2013 

REQUEST FOR COMMENT: 

NTIA requests comment on the 

questions below to assist in identifying 

lessons to be learned and other issues 

and suggestions related to the 

implementation of the CSEA. These 

questions are not a limitation on 

comments that may be submitted. When 

references are made to studies, research, 

and other empirical data that are not 

widely published, commenters are 

asked to provide copies of the 

referenced material with the submitted 

comments. 

1. Overall Performance 

As of December 31, 2008, Federal 

agencies had relocated approximately 

933 or 47 percent of the 1,990 Federal 

frequency assignments in the 1710–1755 

MHz band.16 Also, as of December 31, 

2008, licensees registered expenses with 

private sector clearinghouses for 

relocating a total of approximately 765 

or approximately 15 percent of the 

approximately 5,000 non-Federal radio 

frequency links in the 2110–2155 MHz 

band, which was paired for auction with 

the 1710–1755 MHz band.17 NonFederal relocation typically occurs on a 

link-by-link basis at the initiation of the 

AWS–1 licensee, when attempts to 

‘‘engineer around’’ an incumbent 

microwave licensee fail. Apart from 

moves made in response to requests for 

early entry, Federal agencies relocate on 

a system-wide basis under established 

time frames and SRF funding. NTIA 

asks parties to provide their 

perspectives on the overall Federal 

relocation effort. NTIA also seeks 

comment on how the nature and speed 

of the Federal relocation process 

compares with relocation of private 

sector incumbents in the 2110–2155 

MHz band. 

2. Pre-Auction Issues 

a. Adequacy of Data 

The CSEA requires NTIA, at least six 

months prior to an auction, ‘‘[t]o the 

extent practicable and consistent with 

national security considerations’’ to 

provide the FCC with relocation cost 

and time estimates ‘‘by the geographic 

location of the Federal entities’ facilities 

or systems and the frequency bands 

used by such facilities or systems.’’18

The cost data are used to set the reserve 

price for the auction.19

NTIA compiled cost and time 

estimates developed by the agencies in 

compliance with this requirement, along 

with a list of affected Federal 

assignments and other information. 

NTIA submitted these to the FCC and to 

Congress in December 2005.20 NTIA 

also published these data on its website 

and updated these published data before 

and after the auction. NTIA continues to 

update the data periodically.21

In addition, prior to the auction, in 

April 2006, NTIA and the FCC 

published a Joint Public Notice. The 

Joint Public Notice detailed the early 

entry coordination process between 

AWS–1 licensees and Federal 

incumbents.22 The early entry process 

has raised a number of concerns from 

both Federal agencies and AWS–1 

licensees.23 Was the Joint Public Notice 

useful to AWS–1 auction bidders and, 

later, to licensees? How might future 

such Notices be improved? 

NTIA seeks comment on whether the 

information provided prior to the 

auction, both with respect to the Federal 

systems’ relocation plans and the 

process for early entry, was adequate.24

Commenters should specify the type of 

additional information, if any, that 

would have been helpful. What 

technical and operational information, if 

any, would have better described the 

nature of systems to be relocated? 

Would additional technical details, a 

glossary of spectrum management terms, 

references to the NTIA Manual, or a 

description of the geographic area 

authorized for each Federal system, 

have better apprised potential bidders of 

the various types of operations in the 

32134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

25Some AWS–1 licensees attempting early entry 

apparently were unprepared for the challenges 

involved in relocating incumbent video 

surveillance systems that use large bandwidths and 

are authorized for nationwide operation. These 

characteristics significantly complicate 

coordination. 

26For more explanation on this process, see the 

‘‘Chronology’’ section above. 

27See generally Executive Order No. 12,958, as 

amended by Executive Order No. 13,292 (2003); 68 

F.R. 15,315 (Mar. 28, 2003) (procedures for 

classifying, safeguarding and declassifying 

information) (‘‘Classification Order’’). 

28 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

29See generally ‘‘1710–1755 MHz Data — Prior to 

May 22, 2006,’’ available at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/specrelo/ 

pdf_Prior%20to%2020060614/data_2005.htm. 

30Under the FCC due diligence obligations 

applicable to the AWS–1 auction, potential bidders 

are solely responsible for investigating the factors 

that may bear on the value of the licenses. 

Applicants in the AWS–1 auction were cautioned 

that operations had to be protected or relocated and 

that such limitations could restrict the ability to use 

certain portions of the spectrum or to provide 

service in certain geographic areas. Public Notice, 

‘‘Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Scheduled 

for June 29, 2006,’’ AU Docket No. 06–30, FCC 06– 

47 (Apr. 12, 2006), ¶¶ 37–47, http://hraunfoss.fcc.

gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC–06–47A1.pdf, 

modified on other grounds, Public Notice, ‘‘Auction 

of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses 

Rescheduled for August 9, 2006,’’ AU Docket No. 

06–30, FCC 06–71 (May 19, 2006). 

31An NDA allowed an agency, prior to complete 

relocation, to share additional technical material on 

its operations as well as further information on 

sensitive operations, subject to certain conditions. 

See infra Section 3.a.v.B. 

32See generally ‘‘Memorandum for the Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies: Freedom of 

Information Act’’ (Jan. 21, 2009), available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ 

FreedomofInformationAct/. 

33 Issues related to the possible value of expanded 

communications with licensees after the auction in 

connection with early entry issues are discussed 

further infra Section 3.a.vi. 

34See infra Section 3.a.vi.B. 

35See Joint Public Notice, supra note 10. See also 

47 C.F.R. § 27.1134(b). The Joint Public Notice 

noted that the parties could agree to an alternative 

method where this standard did not apply. 

band?25 Should Federal agencies be 

required to highlight particular 

circumstances about which licensees 

might not otherwise know, such as the 

fact that replacement equipment is 

under development and is not 

commercially available, or the existence 

of nationwide, airborne, or classified 

systems? 

Under existing procedures, OMB 

reviews agency cost and time estimates 

in consultation with NTIA before they 

are submitted to Congress.26 Would 

future relocations benefit from more 

detailed information regarding agency 

transition plans in addition to what is 

currently incorporated in CSEA? 

Federal agencies have estimated time 

lines for vacating the spectrum to which 

they are expected to adhere. Are details 

regarding agency transition plans 

relevant primarily to an assessment of 

the possibility of early entry? If so, to 

what extent would the disclosure of 

such details prior to the auction affect 

auction bidding? 

b. Transparency 

i. Effect on bidding 

Security requirements necessitated 

the classification of some information 

regarding affected Federal systems. That 

information was therefore withheld 

prior to the auction.27 Other data in 

NTIA files related to many other Federal 

systems that have been treated 

previously as ‘‘Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) Exempt.’’28 However, to 

support the implementation of the 

CSEA, NTIA released these data prior to 

the auction.29

To what extent (if any) did a lack of 

access to ‘‘classified’’ information prior 

to the auction affect bidders’ ability to 

participate in the auction? Is there a way 

to ensure that commercial entities 

understand whether sharing with 

classified systems will be possible 

before Federal systems are fully moved? 

Can agencies, while avoiding prohibited 

disclosure of classified information, still 

objectively describe the risks that 

relocation time lines will not be met or 

that early entry coordination will not be 

possible? Must commercial entities have 

such an understanding in order to bid 

in the auction? Was the release of FOIAexempt information prior to the auction 

helpful? 

ii. Qualitative assessment 

Would bidders benefit from a 

qualitative assessment by NTIA of the 

ease or difficulty of early entry? What 

would such an assessment entail? What 

factors would need to be analyzed? 

What would make early entry ‘‘easy’’ or 

‘‘difficult’’? How would such an 

assessment affect auction bidders’ due 

diligence obligations?30

iii. Post-auction techniques 

After the AWS–1 auction, Federal 

agencies formulated Non-Disclosure 

Agreements (NDAs) and web-based 

capabilities for information 

dissemination. These steps provided 

additional information to a limited set 

of winning bidders/licensees in support 

of the early entry coordination 

process.31 These tools were not 

available prior to the auction. In some 

cases, they included information 

previously treated as FOIA exempt. No 

classified material was provided via 

these additional mechanisms. NTIA 

seeks comment on whether, subject to 

the appropriate restrictions, disclosure 

of such unclassified FOIA-exempt 

information could or should be made 

available prior to the auction.32 Could 

any additional post-auction techniques 

to provide additional information be 

used in advance of the auction? Parties 

commenting on this question should 

detail the types of practices and 

methods, including legal instruments 

and information technology-based 

mechanisms that would be helpful here. 

To what extent do pre-auction 

competitive and anti-collusion concerns 

hinder the use of such techniques? 

c. Communications 

i. Information exchange 

Prior to the AWS–1 auction, NTIA 

scheduled meetings with affected 

Federal agencies, and initially consulted 

with wireless associations regarding 

relocation efforts. Should NTIA expand 

its pre-auction procedures in the future 

to encompass regular information 

exchanges among potential bidders or 

wireless associations and affected 

agencies? How can NTIA ensure that it 

reaches small and minority-owned 

businesses that may benefit from 

purchasing auctioned spectrum? Would 

future relocation efforts benefit from 

outreach to wireless associations prior 

to the auction? Would such an effort 

help centralize, prioritize, and expedite 

requests for early entry from 

forthcoming auction winners?33 Parties 

commenting on this question should 

specify the type of information that 

should be exchanged, the appropriate 

parties and groups to be included, and 

the venue and frequency for such 

exchanges. 

ii. Standardization 

For AWS–1, some agencies developed 

templates and forms expanding the 

licensee data required in the Joint 

Public Notice and related FCC rules.34

Were these templates useful without 

being overly burdensome? What aspects 

of these forms should be retained? Are 

there ways in which they can be 

improved? Should they remain ad hoc 

in nature or be standardized across all 

agencies? Can such standardized forms 

be developed prior to future auctions, to 

eliminate any lag in the early entry 

coordination process? 

The 1710–1755 MHz band 

incumbents are largely fixed microwave 

operations. The Joint Public Notice and 

FCC rules require the interference 

analysis methodology and criteria 

specified in Telecommunications 

Industry Association (TIA) 

Telecommunications Systems (TSB) 

Bulletin 10–F.35 That analysis applies to 

sharing between fixed systems and 

between fixed and mobile systems. It 

was used to assess potential interference 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32135 

36See infra Section 3.a.vi.B for a related 

discussion from a post-auction perspective. 

37Executive Office of the President, Office of 

Management and Budget, Circular No. A–11, 

Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 

Budget, (June 2008 rev.), available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/ 

current_year/a_11_2008.pdf; Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and Budget, 

Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments 

and Agencies, M–09–01, available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/ 

memoranda/fy2009/m09–01.pdf. See infra Section 

3.b for a related discussion from the post-auction 

perspective. 

38CSEA, § 203 (b) 118 Stat. 3994, 47 U.S.C. § 309 

(j) (15) (B). 

39NTIA Manual, supra note 15, § 1.1. 

40See supra note 15. 

41See generally ‘‘1710–1755 MHz Introduction,’’ 

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/ 

reports/specrelo/index.htm. See also Section 2.a, 

supra. 

42CSEA, § 203 (b) (C), 118 Stat. 3994, 47 

U.S.C.§ 309 (j) (15) (c). The Joint Public Notice 

established coordination procedures for early entry. 

See ‘‘Chronology,’’ Section 2.a, and note 10, supra. 

43CSEA, § 202, 118 Stat. 3992, 47 U.S.C. § 923 (g) 

(3) (D). 

44CSEA, § 202, 118 Stat. 3992, 47 U.S.C. § 923 (g) 

(3) (E). 

45Agencies estimated relocation times from one 

to six years. See ‘‘Chronology,’’ supra. 

46CSMAC Reallocation Report, supra note 23, at 

18–21. 

47See generally id., at 19. 

48See generally id., at 18–21. 

arising from licensee operations prior to 

the scheduled relocation date. Did this 

analysis prove useful, and should it be 

used in future, similar auctions? If not, 

what would help? 

NTIA also seeks comment on how to 

address coordination between licensees 

and incumbents in future relocations 

where established sharing methodology 

or criteria does not exist. Would overthe-air testing prior to the auction and 

prior to a determination of winning 

bidders and their specific technical 

plans provide useful information?36

What role, if any, should NTIA play in 

any such testing? 

iii. Guidance 

Successful spectrum relocation under 

the CSEA necessitates that diverse 

Federal and non-Federal entities 

harmonize procedures and terminology. 

Is there a need for NTIA, the FCC, and 

OMB to provide clarifying guidance to 

both licensees and agencies before the 

auction beyond what has been provided 

in OMB Circular A–11 and OMB 

Memorandum M–09–01, as well as 

through informal channels such as 

interagency meetings?37 Would such 

guidance ensure that all affected parties 

understand terminology and processes? 

Should NTIA, alone or in 

collaboration with other oversight 

agencies, sponsor training for agency 

headquarters and field personnel? 

Should NTIA prepare or collaborate 

with wireless industry associations to 

provide training for relevant commercial 

entities? Such pre-auction training 

might also clarify terminology, 

interpretation, and procedure. Would 

such training improve the auction and 

early-entry processes? Interested parties 

are asked to comment on appropriate 

sponsors and topics for such training, 

and whether it should be mandatory. 

d. Starting the Clock 

Under the CSEA, the auction of 

Federal frequencies must raise at least 

110 percent of the estimated relocation 

costs of affected agencies, or the auction 

will be canceled.38 Until that threshold 

is reached, Federal agencies cannot be 

sure that their expenses will be 

reimbursed. Thus, an agency 

undertaking initial tasks in advance of 

an auction does so at the risk of not 

being recompensed. Such tasks may 

include project management, technical 

studies, training, development of 

software tools, or the hiring of 

additional personnel. Can Federal 

agencies draw from private-sector 

experience and methodology to ensure 

that their estimated costs and time lines 

are as accurate as possible, and that they 

are prepared to tackle relocation in a 

timely manner? If so, what should be 

done? 

e. NTIA’s Role 

NTIA regulates the Federal 

government’s use of radio stations and 

associated radio frequency spectrum.39

The CSEA confers oversight powers on 

NTIA, in consultation with OMB, with 

respect to relocation efforts.40 Prior to 

the AWS–1 auction, NTIA compiled 

estimated relocation costs and time 

lines, as the CSEA requires, and 

consulted with Federal agencies and the 

industry. NTIA published these data on 

its website and continues to update this 

material periodically.41 Parties are 

asked to comment on NTIA’s role in the 

pre-auction phase of CSEA 

implementation. Is there additional or 

different information NTIA should 

provide? In retrospect, was the 

information accurate? What could be 

done to make the information more 

accurate or useful? Are post-auction 

updates useful to licensees? To others? 

3. Post-Auction Issues 

a. Early Entry 

i. Background 

The CSEA permits the grant of an FCC 

license to auction winners on 

reallocated spectrum even if agencies 

continue to operate in the band, 

provided there is no harmful 

interference to agency operations.42

Under the CSEA, ‘‘eligible costs’’ subject 

to SRF reimbursement may include 

‘‘one-time costs of any modification of 

equipment’’ reasonably necessary to 

accommodate early entry.43 They also 

include costs associated with 

‘‘accelerated replacement’’ if necessary 

for ‘‘timely relocation of systems to a 

new frequency assignment.’’44

As permitted under the CSEA, several 

AWS–1 licensees sought to begin 

operations before the estimated 

relocation dates established by the 

agencies.45 Licensees particularly 

focused on major metropolitan areas. 

Licensees expressed frustration at the 

delays they encountered in coordinating 

with Federal agencies.46 On the other 

hand, it is NTIA’s understanding that 

Federal agencies found themselves 

overwhelmed by industry requests and 

pressure to allow early entry. Has early 

entry by licensees beginning to 

implement their systems proven 

important in the successful 

implementation of the CSEA? 

The Joint Public Notice provided a 

structured process for early entry 

coordination. Parties are asked to 

comment on whether this created a 

reasonable expectation of successful 

coordination. For Federal agencies, the 

CSEA requires that they meet their 

estimated relocation dates and 

coordinate in good faith for early entry 

prior to their scheduled moves. The 

agencies do not believe that the CSEA 

requires that they vacate the band prior 

to their estimated relocation dates at the 

licensee’s request, nor that the law 

guarantees successful early entry 

coordination.47 In some cases, licensees 

negotiated with Federal agencies in 

order to expedite band clearance. 

However, existing Federal operations 

sometimes precluded early entry by the 

licensees.48 Were Federal agencies 

reasonably diligent in their early 

relocation efforts? How could they be 

more so? Did an expectation of 

successful coordination form part of the 

basis for AWS–1 auction bids? Should 

bidders expect to bear all the risks 

associated with early entry? What 

options should be available to facilitate 

early entry? 

ii. FCC Process for Non-Federal 

Incumbents 

The FCC transitional rules applicable 

to non-Federal incumbents differ from 

the CSEA procedures described above. 

Under the FCC rules, AWS–1 licensees 

trigger the start of non-Federal 

incumbent relocation efforts in the form 

32136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

49This period is two years for fixed microwave 

incumbents and three years for Broadband Radio 

Service (BRS) licensees. 47 C.F.R. § 101.69; 47 

C.F.R. § 1250. Fixed microwave services operate in 

the 2110–2150 MHz band. BRS operates at 2150– 

2155 MHz. Parties are free to negotiate voluntarily 

at any time. If the parties fail to agree within the 

mandatory period, the AWS licensee may initiate 

involuntary relocation procedures. The microwave 

relocation rules sunset 10 years, and the BRS rules 

15 years, after the first AWS–1 license is issued. At 

this point, an AWS–1 licensee starting up service 

within interference range may require an incumbent 

to cease operation. 47 C.F.R. § 101.79(a)(1); 47 

C.F.R. § 27.1253. 

50AWS–1 licensees benefitting from another 

licensee’s relocation of an incumbent share in those 

expenses, pro-rata, subject to a ‘‘cap.’’ The FCC 

established maximum amounts or ‘‘caps’’ on what 

the clearinghouse could pay. ‘‘FAQs — AWS 

Licensees,’’ available at http:// 

ww.ctiaspectrumclearinghouse.org/ctia/aws-lic.jsp. 

51See also Section 1, supra. 

52See Section 3.a.1, supra. 

53CSMAC Reallocation Report, supra note 23 at 

24–25. 54 Joint Public Notice, supra note 10. 55For a discussion of how adequacy of this 

information might affect bidding, see supra Section 

2.a. 

56 Joint Public Notice, supra note 10, at 4. 

57The CSMAC has recommended the use of 

automated procedures or other secure online 

capabilities for facilitating the sharing of classified 

information. See CSMAC Reallocation Report, 

supra note 23, at 21–22. 

of mandatory negotiations.49 Private 

clearinghouses allow AWS–1 licensees 

to share commonly incurred 

reimbursement costs.50 An AWS–1 

licensee may pay a premium to expedite 

a non-Federal incumbent’s move. If the 

payment, however, exceeds the 

clearinghouse ‘‘cost-sharing cap,’’ other 

AWS–1 licensees also benefitting from 

the relocation would only have to make 

payments on a pro-rata basis up to the 

cap. We seek comment on how the 

Federal and non-Federal approaches to 

compensating incumbents for relocation 

expenses compare.51

iii. Incentives 

A. Market-based incentives 

NTIA seeks comment on whether any 

of the market-based incentives operative 

in the non-Federal clearance process 

could be applied to expedite Federal 

agency relocation. The CSEA allows 

recovery of some costs associated with 

interim changes accommodating early 

entry prior to scheduled Federal 

relocation. These include one-time costs 

of equipment modification necessary for 

early entry and costs associated with 

accelerated replacement of systems and 

equipment.52 Are these provisions 

sufficient? 

B. Benchmarks and other noneconomic approaches 

The CSEA requires agencies to 

estimate relocation times. Were 

relocation estimates for AWS–1 

generally accurate? How might they be 

improved in the future? NTIA seeks 

comment on whether standards, 

expressed or implied, for assessing the 

reasonableness of these times, can be 

drawn from the statute. How, as a 

practical matter, might NTIA and OMB 

ensure that relocation time estimates 

provide that agencies vacate the 

spectrum as expeditiously as possible? 

The Commerce Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee 

(CSMAC) recommended the adoption of 

‘‘benchmarks’’ or interim clearance 

requirements by which gradually 

increasing percentages of a Federal 

system would be vacated at certain 

specified dates.53 Should NTIA 

establish mandatory ‘‘benchmarks’’ or 

other non-market-based incentives for 

Federal agencies to use in vacating the 

spectrum? Would benchmarks of this 

nature help move relocation forward or 

provide meaningful certainty to 

bidders? What other benchmarks might 

be useful? Would benchmarks 

contradict the CSEA procedures 

allowing agencies to estimate their own 

relocation times, subject to OMB and 

NTIA review? Should any such 

benchmarks be service-specific, taking 

account of the relative ease or difficulty 

of relocating different types of 

operations? Parties advocating for 

benchmarks should indicate how an 

entrant would use them, point to 

analogous FCC or other precedent, and 

explain how benchmarks have been 

used in the past. In particular, NTIA 

seeks input on how benchmarks could 

be enforced in a meaningful way. 

iv. Adequacy of Data 

The Joint Public Notice detailed the 

coordination process for licensees to use 

in early entry. This process, if 

successful, permits AWS–1 licensees to 

access the 1710–1755 MHz band prior to 

the estimated agency relocation dates. 

The Joint Public Notice referenced 

additional material available on NTIA’s 

website providing geographic location, 

frequency bands, and other 

information.54 NTIA seeks comment on 

the adequacy of this information for 

purposes of coordinating early entry and 

permitting licensees to begin 

deployment.55 What information might 

be added? What aspects of the 

coordination process established in the 

Joint Public Notice succeeded and 

which might be improved? 

Parties are asked to detail any 

supplementary information that would 

facilitate sharing of the spectrum prior 

to the agency’s scheduled relocation 

time. Once winning bidders are 

determined, should commercial entities 

be required to exchange information 

regarding their operational plans as part 

of the coordination process? Such 

information might enable Federal 

agencies to reduce the additional agency 

data needed to facilitate early entry. 

Parties are asked to comment on this 

tentative view, and on any competitive 

or proprietary issues it may raise. What 

licensee information, if any, should be 

shared, and if so, at what point and by 

what mechanisms? 

v. Transparency 

A. Post-auction considerations 

After a successful auction, the number 

of commercial entities potentially 

interested in classified or otherwise 

restricted data on incumbent Federal 

operations narrows to a group of 

successful bidders with specific 

deployment plans and operational 

needs. The Federal agencies developed 

distinct techniques for releasing 

additional information to this smaller 

group. NTIA seeks comment on the 

validity of this general distinction 

between pre-auction and post-auction 

releasability of data. Does this 

distinction generally allow Federal 

agencies to provide more data after the 

auction? Did these post-auction 

techniques succeed, and how might 

they be improved? Should there be a 

standardized process for releasing 

otherwise restricted data after licenses 

are awarded? 

B. Non-disclosure agreements 

The Joint Public Notice provided that 

AWS–1 licensees could enter into NonDisclosure Agreements (NDAs) with 

Federal agencies after the auction.56 An 

NDA allowed an agency, prior to 

complete relocation, to share additional 

technical material on its operations as 

well as further information on otherwise 

sensitive data. NTIA seeks comment on 

whether this process should be retained. 

Can it be improved? If so, how? 

C. Other mechanisms 

NTIA seeks comment on other 

possible mechanisms for exchanging 

information on classified or otherwise 

restricted data. In lieu of NDAs, some 

agencies developed web-based 

capabilities to facilitate coordination 

with licensees.57 This allowed an 

assessment of potential interference to 

Federal systems without revealing 

restricted material. Were these 

techniques successful? Such web-based 

capabilities require licensees to provide 

detailed, accurate data regarding their 

operational plans. Provision of this data 

may permit an agency to assess 

accurately and quickly the potential for 

interference to their operations, and to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32137 

58See, e.g., Classification Order, supra note 27; 5 

U.S.C. § 552. 

59See generally CSMAC Reallocation Report, 

supra note 23 at 18–21. 

60See generally id., at 13, 19. 

61See also supra Section 3.a.v.C. 

62See supra Section 2.c.ii. 

63CSMAC Reallocation Report, supra note 23, at 

13. 

64 Id., at 23. 

65 Id. 

66See supra Section 3.b. 

67NTIA Manual, supra note 15, § 2.3.3. 

68The SRF may pay ‘‘relocation’’ costs. These 

include costs necessary to achieve ‘‘comparable 

capability’’ regardless if that entails a new 

frequency assignment or use of an alternative 

technology. CSEA, §§ 204 (c), 202, 118 Stat. 3994, 

3992, 47 U.S.C. §§ 928, 923 (g) (3). 

69One alternative might be to use the eight-year 

CSEA ‘‘sunset’’ date. See ‘‘Chronology,’’ supra. 

notify the licensee accordingly. Does 

this additional data demand raise 

competitive and proprietary concerns 

for licensees? If so, how can such 

concerns be lessened? 

Parties addressing the disclosure of 

classified or otherwise sensitive 

information should reference relevant 

Federal rules and statutes.58

Commenters are encouraged to cite 

specific examples of mechanisms that 

have either worked or failed. 

vi. Communications 

Both Federal agencies and licensees 

cite poor communications as a 

fundamental cause of early entry issues. 

It is NTIA’s understanding that Federal 

agencies noted intense pressure, floods 

of requests, and inaccurate data from 

licensees. Licensees, in turn, remark 

about bureaucratic delays, lack of 

assigned agency staff, and divergent 

agency practices.59 In general, how 

could communications related to early 

entry activities be improved? 

A. Information exchange 

NTIA has held monthly meetings 

among affected Federal agencies since 

the AWS–1 auction. Should NTIA 

expand these to include regular 

information exchanges among both 

licensees and agencies to address 

problems and assess progress? How 

would such meetings affect licensees’ 

competitive concerns? Parties are asked 

to comment on what the frequency and 

scope of such meetings would be. 

Agencies claim that they were 

inundated with simultaneous early 

entry requests.60 Would it help to 

require a date certain notification to 

agencies of license award, company, 

and contact information and the need 

for coordination? Should licensees be 

required to prioritize when submitting 

large numbers of such requests at the 

same time? 

Some agencies maintain that 

inadequate data from licensees for 

coordination purposes hindered early 

deployment. To what extent did this 

inadequacy proceed from competitive or 

proprietary concerns which hampered 

full information exchange? What types 

of data — for example, contact 

information, implementation schedules, 

network characteristics, technical 

parameters, duty cycles — would be of 

assistance? How can agencies correctly 

understand licensee early entry aims, 

while at the same time protect 

competitive sensitivities? What types of 

information or procedures might help? 

B. Standardization and 

centralization 

Parties are asked to comment on the 

value of automation in improving 

transparency of communications.61

Web-based capabilities and other 

Information Technology-based 

mechanisms may provide a way to 

streamline the coordination process. 

Should Federal agencies be encouraged 

to adopt these? Should OMB, the FCC, 

and NTIA create a centralized Federal 

website to provide uniform guidance on 

process, eligible costs, coordination, and 

other CSEA implementation matters? 

The methodology and interference 

criteria specified in TIA TSB 10–F 

provided a standard approach for 

assessing potential interference to 

Federal fixed microwave systems.62

Some agencies also developed templates 

and forms for licensee interactions, 

following agency-specific testing and 

determination of particular interference 

parameters. Such uniformity can help 

avoid time-consuming case-by-case 

analyses. Is there a way to standardize 

interference parameters across agencies 

for the same incumbent service? What if 

a widely accepted standard, such as the 

TIA TSB 10–F, is not available for the 

service at issue? 

Would it be useful to permit testing as 

a means of verifying the results of 

interference analyses in ‘‘real world’’ 

conditions? If so, when should such 

testing be permitted? 

b. Guidance 

Licensees have noted the lack of 

agency personnel dedicated to 

relocation matters, with the result that 

agency interactions may prove dilatory 

or unproductive.63 Section 2.c.iii above 

addresses the need for pre-auction 

training and guidance. Is there a need 

for ongoing and standardized guidance 

as the relocation process progresses 

post-auction? What sort of guidance 

would prove useful in answering 

specific or novel implementation 

questions regarding early entry and 

related matters as they occur? 

c. NTIA’s Role 

Where necessary, NTIA facilitated 

coordination efforts between AWS–1 

licensees and Federal incumbents, and 

left the ultimate decision-making to the 

parties themselves. On the non-Federal 

side, AWS–1 licensees are required to 

negotiate directly with individual 

incumbents. Please comment regarding 

the adequacy of NTIA’s efforts to 

support coordination. The CSMAC has 

suggested that relocation activities, 

including licensee interface, be 

centralized in NTIA.64 Do 

circumstances differ for direct licenseeFederal incumbent interaction such that 

NTIA should increase its leadership 

role? 

Throughout the 1710–1755 MHz 

relocation process, NTIA has served 

multiple roles. Often, NTIA acts as a 

liaison for licensees seeking additional 

information or accelerated clearance 

from agencies. NTIA also coordinates 

with OMB and the FCC regarding 

appropriate policies and procedures. 

NTIA provides guidance to the Federal 

agencies based on its own expertise, and 

the advice of OMB and the FCC. In light 

of NTIA’s institutional expertise, the 

CSMAC recommended that NTIA 

assume a greater leadership role in this 

process.65 NTIA seeks comment on its 

role as a liaison between AWS–1 

licensees and Federal agencies in early 

entry matters. What additional 

responsibilities or roles should NTIA 

assume in this process? What are the 

potential benefits or pitfalls of such 

additional responsibility(ies)? With 

respect to offering guidance on 

relocation policies and procedures, are 

there ways in which NTIA might 

improve its efforts?66

d. Other Funding and Administrative 

Issues 

i. Long-term lease costs 

Federal spectrum management 

policies encourage Federal agencies to 

use commercial services whenever 

feasible.67 One Federal agency replaced 

existing fixed microwave systems 

having an estimated 12-year life with 

commercial telephony leases entailing 

recurring monthly charges. However, in 

the 1710–1755 MHz relocation, payment 

of costs is limited to one-time relocation 

costs.68 Does this limitation hinder or 

delay the entry of commercial services 

in the band?69

ii. Spectrum-efficient technologies 

The CSEA is based on payment of 

costs to relocate Federal systems to new 

32138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

70See generally White House, Technology, ‘‘Drive 

Economic Growth and Solve National Problems by 

Deploying a 21st Century Infrastructure,’’ available 

at www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology; Press 

Release, NTIA, ‘‘Vilsack, Copps and Wade Kick Off 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s 

Broadband Initiative’’ (Mar. 10, 2009) available at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2009/ 

BTOP_RFI_090310.pdf. 

71See generally Second Annual Relocation 

Report, supra note 5, at A–1 and n. 2 (USDA 

extensions of relocation time lines in remote areas 

did not impact commercial deployment). 

spectrum. In the case of the 1710–1755 

MHz band, this involved moving 

Federal systems completely out of the 

allocated band. It is possible, however, 

that technological advances or more 

spectrum-efficient techniques, if 

implemented across all Federal agencies 

or entire services, may permit increased 

consolidation or sharing among Federal 

agencies. This, in turn, could result in 

release of additional spectrum that 

could be auctioned for commercial 

services. Under this approach the 

Federal users might still remain in the 

band. Could this approach result in the 

potential for increased opportunities to 

accommodate new commercial services? 

Are there other approaches to 

accommodating new commercial 

services in bands used by the Federal 

government? 

e. Urban versus Rural Relocation 

Federal policies favor nationwide 

availability of advanced services.70

Advanced wireless industry efforts to 

transition agencies thus far, however, 

appear to have concentrated on 

populated areas. To date, agencies in 

remote areas for the most part have been 

able to accommodate buildouts through 

the coordination process.71 In the 

future, should Federal/non-Federal 

sharing in remote regions substitute for 

outright reallocation? How would 

continued Federal use hinder 

commercial deployment in remote 

areas? 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Anna M. Gomez, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information. 

[FR Doc. E9–15870 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–S 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 3633–037] 

Alternative Energy Associates Limited 

Partnership; KC Brighton LLC; Notice 

of Application for Transfer of License, 

and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Protests 

June 26, 2009. 

On June 8, 2009, Alternative Energy 

Associates Limited Partnership 

(Transferor) and KC Brighton LLC 

(Transferee) filed a joint application for 

transfer of license of the Brighton Dam 

Project. The Project is located on the 

Patuxent River in Howard and 

Montgomery Counties, Maryland. 

Applicants seek Commission approval 

to transfer the license for Brighton Dam 

Project from Alternative Energy 

Associates Limited Partnership to KC 

Brighton LLC. 

Applicant Contact: For Transferor, 

Alternative Energy Associates Limited 

Partnership, Barbara Exter, Alternative 

Energy Associates Limited Partnership, 

123 Piano Drive, Newark, DE 19713– 

1984, telephone (302) 293–9544. 

For Transferee, KC Brighton LLC, 

Kelly W. Sackheim, KC Brighton LLC, 

5096 Cocoa Palm Way, Fair Oaks, CA 

95628–519, telephone (916) 267–5937. 

FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 

502–8735. 

Deadline for filing comments, 

protests, and motions to intervene: 30 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Comments and motions to intervene 

may be filed electronically via the 

Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) 

and the instructions on the 

Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable to be filed 

electronically, documents may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and eight 

copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. 

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 

more information on how to submit 

these types of filings please go to the 

Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. More information about 

this project can be viewed or printed on 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link of Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket 

number (P–3633–037) in the docket 

number field to access the document. 

For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– 

3372. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15892 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP09–433–000; PF09–4–000] 

Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC; 

Notice of Application 

June 26, 2009. 

Take notice that on June 15, 2009, 

Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC 

(Fayetteville Express), 500 Dallas Street, 

Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, filed 

an application in Docket No. CP09–433– 

000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA), and parts 157 

and 284 of the Commission’s regulations 

requesting: (1) Authorization to 

construct and operate a new 

approximately 185-mile, 42-inch natural 

gas pipeline located in Arkansas and 

Mississippi capable of transporting up 

to 2,000,000 Dth/day; (2) a blanket 

certificate authorizing Fayetteville 

Express to engage in certain selfimplementing routine activities under 

part 157, subpart F, of the Commission’s 

regulations; and (3) a blanket certificate 

authorizing Fayetteville Express to 

transport natural gas, on an open access 

and self-implementing basis, under part 

284, subpart G of the Commission’s 

regulations. Additionally, Fayetteville 

Express seeks approval of its proposed 

recourse rates, and pro forma tariff, all 

as more fully set forth in the application 

which is on file with the Commission 

and open for public inspection. 

Any questions regarding the 

applications should be directed to 

Ronald Brown, Vice President, 

Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC, 500 

Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston, 

Texas 77002; telephone: (713) 369–9290 

or e-mail: 

ronald_brown@kindermorgan.com. 

The filing is available for review at 

the Commission in the Public Reference 

Room or may be viewed on the 

Commission’s Web site Web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659.