41580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

material comments which VA has 

accepted. 

SBA, Office of Advocacy, objected to 

the proposed rule on various grounds 

including that it fails to provide an 

adequate basis in its Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) certification 

concerning the proposed rule’s impact 

on small business entities. VA’s RFA 

language provided that ‘‘VA estimates 

the cost to an individual business to be 

less than $100.00 for 70–75 percent of 

the businesses seeking verification, and 

the average cost to the entire population 

of veterans seeking to become verified is 

less than $325.00 on average.’’ In its 

comment, SBA stated that ‘‘[o]ne of the 

most important provisions with the RFA 

requires that the promulgating agency 

give the public some idea of the number 

of small entities that any proposed rule 

will impact. VA’s proposed certification 

does not provide any indication of the 

number of small businesses that may be 

impacted by the proposed change.’’ 

After considering this comment, VA 

procured a survey to better demonstrate 

that the proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. 

SBA also objected to the proposed 

rule to the extent that it failed to 

provide statutory or other legal 

authority following each cited 

substantive provision. SBA, in its 

comment, stated that the proposed rule 

does not comply with 38 U.S.C. 501 in 

that the proposed rule does not ‘‘contain 

citations to the particular section or 

sections of statutory law or other legal 

authority upon which such issuance is 

based.’’ After considering the SBA’s 

comment, VA seeks to withdraw the 

proposed rule and to republish at a later 

date to ensure that each substantive 

revision is followed immediately by 

supporting statutory or other legal 

authority. 

Fourteen comments spoke to potential 

violations of due process through the 

immediate removal of a company 

without allowing the company an 

opportunity to refute the allegations, 

such as owners accused of criminal 

offenses. The proposed amendment to 

38 CFR 74.2(b) provides that 

‘‘[i]ndividuals having an ownership or 

control interest in VetBiz verified 

businesses must have good character. 

Concerns owned or controlled by a 

person(s) who is formally accused of a 

crime involving business integrity are 

ineligible for VetBiz VIP Verification. If, 

after verifying a participant’s eligibility 

the person(s) controlling the participant 

is found to lack good character, CVE 

will remove the participant from the VIP 

database immediately . . .’’ One 

commenter, SBA, commented that 

‘‘Section 74.2(b) of the proposed 

regulation would seem to deny an 

applicant due process of law . . . [and] 

. . . would seem to indicate that if an 

applicant is formally accused of an 

offense, that person is not eligible for 

Vet Biz Verification.’’ Another 

commenter stated ‘‘I would . . . 

question if being ‘formally accused’ and 

not actually proven guilty of any crime, 

is proper.’’ After considering these and 

other similar comments, VA seeks to 

remove the portion of the proposed rule 

prescribing the immediate removal of 

companies, under certain 

circumstances, prior to allowing such 

affected company a chance to refute the 

allegations. 

Six comments were lodged 

complaining that the increase of the 

waiting period following a denial of 

verification from 6 months to 12 months 

does not (i) benefit the Veteran, (ii) is 

unnecessarily long, and (iii) punitive in 

nature. One commenter stated that 

‘‘extending the waiting period from six 

to 12 months does not allow sufficient 

time for ineligible concerns to address 

significant issues’’ any more than the 

current rule does. The current rule 

requires a minimum wait of six 

months—if issues require more time to 

address, the eligible veteran can make 

that determination and simply wait 12 

months—or 16 months—to reapply. 

Second, the extended wait time will not 

incentivize applicants to avail 

themselves of CVE resources. In fact, 

lengthening the wait period will result 

in lost momentum and is described in 

the preamble as a form of punishment 

for veterans that do not use CVE 

resources. VA should not take this 

approach. Finally, the program will be 

no more efficient in the long run with 

a 12 month waiting period. Applications 

from concerns that are denied or 

cancelled will not decrease, they will 

only be filed in 12 months rather than 

in six.’’ After considering these and 

other similar comments, VA seeks to 

withdraw the portion of the proposed 

rule that increases the waiting period 

from 6 to 12 months, following a denial 

of verification. 

VA understands that in order to 

proceed forward without withdrawing 

the proposed rule and republishing, the 

proposed modifications to the proposed 

rule must be considered a logical 

outgrowth. Considering the extent of the 

revisions as outlined in this publication 

and that VA proposes to include 

additional modifications to the rule, it is 

unlikely that the proposed rule as 

modified would be considered a logical 

outgrowth. Because of the adverse 

comments received during the comment 

period, VA is withdrawing the proposed 

rule. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina 

S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on June 23, 

2017, for publication. 

Approved: June 23, 2017. 

Jeffrey Martin, 

Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation 

Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18543 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 

90, 95, and 101 

[WT Docket No. 10–112; FCC 17–105] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules To Establish Uniform License 

Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, 

and Geographic Partitioning and 

Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and 

Policies for Certain Wireless Radio 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission seeks 

additional comment on a range of 

possible actions that may advance the 

Commission’s goal of increasing the 

number of rural Americans with access 

to wireless communications services. In 

order to encourage investment in 

wireless networks, facilitate access to 

scarce spectrum resources, and promote 

the rapid deployment of mobile services 

to rural Americans, the Commission 

seeks comment on additional, 

reasonable construction obligations 

during renewal terms that are targeted to 

reach rural areas that lack adequate 

service. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before October 2, 2017, 

and reply comments on or before 

October 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 10–112, by 

any of the following methods: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41581 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS): http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Generally 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. 

Commenters are only required to file 

copies in GN Docket No. 13–111. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anna Gentry, Anna.Gentry@fcc.gov, of 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418– 

2887. For additional information 

concerning the PRA information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Cathy Williams 

at (202) 418–2918 or send an email to 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 10–112, 

FCC 17–105, released on August 3, 

2017. The complete text of the FNPRM 

is available for viewing via the 

Commission’s ECFS Web site by 

entering the docket number, WT Docket 

No. 10–112. The complete text of the 

FNPRM is also available for public 

inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday 

through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, fax 202–488–5563. 

This proceeding shall continue to be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules (47 CFR 

1.1200 et seq.). 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. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

The FNPRM seeks comment on a 

range of possible actions that may 

advance the Commission’s goal of 

increasing the number of rural 

Americans with access to wireless 

communications services. A core 

Commission goal is to facilitate access 

to scarce spectrum resources and ensure 

that wireless communication networks 

are widely deployed so that every 

American, regardless of location, can 

benefit from a variety of 

communications offerings made 

available by Commission licensees. In 

pursuit of that goal, the Commission 

has, through various service 

rulemakings, created flexible-use 

geographic licenses and established 

initial term construction obligations 

tailored to specific bands, many of 

which were adopted with the stated 

intent of promoting service in rural 

areas. 

Although the Commission’s efforts 

have facilitated the rapid development 

of a wide variety of wireless services 

over the past decade, there remains a 

real and growing digital divide between 

rural and urban areas in the United 

States. While the construction 

obligations associated with geographic 

licenses are intended to encourage wide 

deployment of wireless networks, those 

obligations require licensees to provide 

service to only portions of the license 

area, not the entire area. Even the 

Commission’s most aggressive initial 

term construction obligation, which 

requires licensees to cover 70 percent of 

the geographic area of the license, likely 

leaves significant portions of rural 

America, where deployment costs may 

be higher and demand lower, without 

meaningful mobile coverage. In 

addition, the Commission’s current 

rules do not require any additional 

construction after the initial license 

term—that is, during subsequent 

renewal terms. 

Therefore, in order to encourage 

investment in wireless networks, 

facilitate access to scarce spectrum 

resources, and promote the rapid 

deployment of mobile services to rural 

Americans, the FNPRM seeks comment 

on whether additional, reasonable 

construction obligations during renewal 

terms that are targeted to reach rural 

areas that lack adequate service would 

help achieve the Commission’s goals. 

The FNPRM seeks comment on three 

methods for applying any such 

obligations: (1) Applying any new 

obligations on a prospective basis only 

to new licenses issued in the future; (2) 

establishing an ‘‘opt-in’’ framework to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
41582 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

facilitate additional buildout; or (3) 

applying any new obligations 

prospectively to all existing and future 

licensees of flexible geographic licenses. 

In the event the Commission adopts 

construction obligations beyond a 

licensee’s initial term requirements— 

whether on the opt-in or mandatory 

basis described above—the FNPRM 

seeks comment on the obligations that 

would be most effective to achieve the 

Commission’s goals. Specifically, the 

FNPRM seeks comment on an additional 

construction obligation beyond a 

licensee’s initial term construction 

obligations, under which the licensee 

would be required to exceed its original 

construction metric by an additional 10 

percent in the next full renewal term, 

followed by incremental increases of 

five or 10 percent in subsequent renewal 

terms. The FNPRM also seeks comment 

on other, targeted construction 

obligations that might achieve the 

Commission’s goal of expanded 

coverage with respect to spectrum bands 

used to provide service to consumers. In 

light of the wide variety of flexible 

geographic licenses and their potential 

uses, the FNPRM seeks comment on 

whether to apply any additional 

renewal term construction obligations to 

all flexible geographic licenses, or 

whether certain types of licenses should 

be excluded. Similarly, the FNPRM 

seeks comment on whether any 

additional renewal term obligations 

should vary depending on the type of 

license, or the specific band, to which 

they would apply, and, if so, why those 

obligations should vary. 

In the event the Commission adopts 

additional construction obligations for 

license renewal terms, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on various implementation 

issues. First, the FNPRM seeks comment 

on requiring licensees to meet the 

additional construction obligations at 

the end of the next full renewal license 

term. As an alternative, the FNPRM 

seeks comment on requiring licensees to 

satisfy at least some additional renewal 

term construction obligations by a 

certain number of years into their 

renewal term, e.g., five years into a tenyear renewal term. The FNPRM seeks 

comment on these and any other 

considerations concerning the 

timeframe for implementation that will 

most effectively facilitate rapid 

deployment of wireless communications 

services to rural areas. The FNPRM also 

seeks comment on possible renewal 

reporting obligations that could provide 

insights into the adoption and 

affordability of services being provided 

by wireless carriers and that may help 

achieve our goal of closing the digital 

divide, particularly in rural areas. 

In order to create incentives for 

additional license construction, 

including investment in rural areas, the 

FNPRM seeks comment on appropriate 

penalties should licensees fail to meet 

those obligations. First, the FNPRM 

seeks comment on the ‘‘keep-what-youserve’’ penalty for failure whereby a 

licensee’s authorization would 

terminate automatically for those 

geographic portions of its license area in 

which the licensee is not providing 

service as of the construction deadline, 

and those unserved areas would be 

returned to the Commission’s inventory 

for reassignment. Second, the FNPRM 

seeks comment on a ‘‘use or offer’’ 

penalty whereby a licensee that fails to 

meet its construction obligation would 

retain its entire license area, but would 

be required to negotiate in good faith 

with any third party seeking to acquire 

or lease spectrum in the unserved areas 

of the license. Third, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on a penalty resulting in total 

loss of the license or a reduction in 

license area, including loss of areas that 

the licensee serves. Finally, the FNPRM 

seeks comment generally on other 

penalties, including forfeitures, that 

could be used as alternatives to, or in 

combination with, those described 

above. 

In the event that the Commission 

ultimately adopts penalties that result in 

the return of whole or partial licenses to 

the Commission’s inventory for 

reassignment, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on various approaches for 

relicensing unused spectrum. First, the 

FNPRM seeks comment on applying a 

two-phased on-demand relicensing 

approach, such as the framework 

established by the Commission in the 

700 MHz Second Report and Order, 

under which interested parties would be 

allowed to file applications to serve any 

amount of available unserved area. 

Under the framework established there, 

there is a 30-day Phase 1 filing window 

during which only the failing licensee is 

barred, followed by a Phase 2 window, 

which is open to all interested parties, 

including the failing licensee, and runs 

until all unserved areas in the market 

are relicensed. In the alternative, the 

FNPRM seeks comment on relicensing 

spectrum for unserved areas through a 

re-auction framework that would offer 

all remaining unserved areas in the 

license together in a single auction. the 

FNPRM seeks comment on the 

respective costs and benefits of both 

approaches to relicensing and any 

additional or alternative conditions that 

might serve our rural coverage 

objectives. 

Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment 

on other possible changes to the 

Commission’s rules that might reduce 

regulatory burdens to improve the 

renewal process and facilitate the 

efficient allocation and use of spectrum. 

The FNPRM seeks comment on whether 

it may be appropriate to extend the 

license term, upon renewal, of subject 

licenses. For example, a 10-year license 

term could be extended to 15 years, as 

an alternative to or in combination with 

any other approach to the timeframe for 

implementation. In addition, Verizon 

proposed that the Commission ‘‘adopt a 

presumption that band-specific service 

rules or conditions will sunset at 

renewal, absent an affirmative finding 

that they are necessary in the public 

interest.’’ The FNPRM seeks comment 

on what types of rules or conditions 

should be included under Verizon’s 

proposed sunset presumption, including 

specific examples, and whether there 

are categories of regulations that should 

be excluded from any sunset-at-renewal 

presumption. 

II. Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 603), 

the Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules proposed in this document. 

We request written public comment on 

the IRFA. Comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same deadlines as 

comments filed in response to the 

FNPRM as set forth on the first page of 

this document, and have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

The FNPRM contains proposed new 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

OMB to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by PRA. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41583 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18500 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 74 

[GN Docket No. 14–166, ET Docket No. 14– 

165, GN Docket No. 12–268: FCC 17–95] 

Promoting Spectrum Access for 

Wireless Microphone Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to permit 

professional theater, music, performing 

arts, or similar organizations that 

operate wireless microphones on an 

unlicensed basis and that meet certain 

criteria to obtain a license to operate in 

the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service 

band during the post-auction transition 

period), thereby allowing them to 

register in the white spaces databases 

for interference protection from 

unlicensed white space devices at 

venues where their events/productions 

are performed. In addition, the 

Commission proposes to permit these 

same users, based on demonstrated 

need, also to obtain a license to operate 

on other bands available for use by 

wireless microphone licensees provided 

that they meet the applicable 

requirements for operating in those 

bands. This proposed action promotes 

the Commission’s goal of 

accommodating wireless microphone 

users’ needs through access to spectrum 

resources following the incentive 

auction and reconfiguration of the TV 

bands. 

DATES: Comments are due October 2, 

2017. Reply comments are due October 

16, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Murray, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, 202–418–0688, 

Paul.Murray@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN 

Docket No. 14–166, ET Docket No. 14– 

165, GN Docket No 12–268, FCC 17–95, 

adopted July 13, 2017, and released July 

14, 2017. The full text of this document 

is available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: http://transition.fcc.gov/ 

Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/ 

db0714/FCC-17-95A1.pdf. 

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). 

Synopsis 

1. Background. As an alternative to its 

request for reinstatement of a 

reservation system for certain 

unlicensed wireless microphone users, 

wireless microphone manufacturer 

Shure requested in its petition for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

2015 Wireless Microphones R&O, 80 FR 

71702, November 17, 2015, that the 

Commission provide a more limited 

reservation system that would make 

registration for interference protection 

for wireless microphone users in the TV 

bands available in special circumstances 

requiring a high degree of reliability for 

a user that does not typically use 50 or 

more microphones. Shure pointed out 

that recent Commission decisions, 

including the elimination of two 

‘‘reserved’’ TV channels for wireless 

microphones in the TV bands following 

the incentive auction, has resulted in 

unlicensed wireless microphone users 

having access to fewer vacant TV 

channels that would be free from 

interference from white space devices. 

2. Under the Commission’s part 74 

Low Power Auxiliary Stations (LPAS) 

rules, licensed operations of wireless 

microphones are permitted on the TV 

band frequencies on a secondary, nonexclusive basis, with license eligibility 

restricted to a limited set of specified 

entities. Prior to 2014, eligibility was 

restricted to licensees of radio and 

broadcast television stations, broadcast 

television network entities, certain cable 

television system operators, and motion 

picture and television program 

producers. In the TV Bands Wireless 

Microphones Second R&O, 79 FR 40680, 

July 14, 2014, the Commission provided 

for a limited expansion of eligibility 

under part 74, Subpart H, to include 

professional sound companies and 

venues that routinely use 50 or more 

wireless microphones for major events/ 

productions where use of such devices 

is an integral part of these events/ 

productions. When using frequencies in 

the TV bands, these licensed wireless 

microphone users may also register with 

the white spaces databases to receive 

interference protection from unlicensed 

white space devices in the TV bands at 

specified locations when these events/ 

productions are performed. 

3. In providing for this limited 

expansion of license eligibility, the 

Commission explained that these 

particular entities share the need of the 

other eligible entities for regular and 

reliable high quality audio services that 

are free from interference, and often 

require a large number of wireless 

microphones to meet their needs. In 

particular, the Commission concluded 

that professional sound companies and 

venues that routinely use 50 or more 

wireless microphones at events/ 

productions generally have the same 

needs for interference protection as 

existing part 74 wireless microphone 

licensees, particularly given the 

spectrum requirements associated with 

use of a large number of wireless 

microphones. The Commission found 

that these types of professional users 

have experience in coordinating 

wireless microphone uses among 

themselves at venues or events, even in 

congested markets, and have similar 

needs to existing part 74 wireless 

microphone licensees, and concluded 

that routine use of 50 microphones was 

a reasonable threshold for identifying 

entities that are more likely to require 

interference protection in order to 

ensure high quality audio services. 

4. In the 2015 Wireless Microphones 

R&O, the Commission adopted various 

revisions in with regard to licensed 

wireless microphone operations under 

the part 74 LPAS rules. With respect to 

the TV bands, it revised the rules to 

provide more opportunities for licensed 

wireless microphone users to access 

spectrum by allowing greater use of 

VHF channels, and by providing for 

closer co-channel operation without the 

need for coordination where the 

licensed wireless microphone user 

determines that the TV signals fell 

below a specified threshold (such that 

wireless microphone operations would 

pose little risk of causing harmful 

interference to TV service). The 

Commission also expanded eligibility 

for licensed use of the 600 MHz duplex 

gap to all entities eligible to hold part 

74 wireless microphone licenses for 

using TV band spectrum. In addition, 

outside of the TV bands the Commission 

opened up additional portions of the 

900 MHz band (portions of the 941–944 

MHz and 952–960 MHz bands on each 

side of the 944–952 MHz band), as well 

as portions of the 1435–1525 MHz band 

(with special equipment and 

coordination requirements) and the 

6875–7125 MHz band, to permit use by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS