41530 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Title: First Amendment to Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement for the 

Collocation of Wireless Antennas. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, not-for-profit institutions, 

and State, local, or Tribal governments. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 71 respondents; 765 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 

hour–5 hours. 

Frequency of Response: Third-party 

disclosure reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 301, 

303, 309, and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

157, 301, 303, 309, 332, and section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 306108. 

Total Annual Burden: 2,869 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $82,285. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

No known confidentiality between third 

parties. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: There 

are no impacts under the Privacy Act. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission 

requested OMB approval for new 

disclosure requirements pertaining to 

the First Amendment to Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement for the 

Collocation of Wireless Antennas (First 

Amendment) to address the review of 

deployments of small wireless antennas 

and associated equipment under section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 

306108 (formerly codified at 16 U.S.C. 

470f). The FCC, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (Council), and 

the National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers 

(NCSHPO) agreed to amend the 

Nationwide Programmatic Agreement 

for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas 

(Collocation Agreement) to account for 

the limited potential of small wireless 

antennas and associated equipment, 

including Distributed Antenna Systems 

(DAS) and small cell facilities, to affect 

historic properties. The Collocation 

Agreement addresses historic 

preservation review for collocations on 

existing towers, buildings, and other 

non-tower structures. Under the 

Collocation Agreement, most antenna 

collocations on existing structures are 

excluded from section 106 historic 

preservation review, with a few 

exceptions defined to address 

potentially problematic situations. On 

August 3, 2016, the Commission’s 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

ACHP, and NCSHPO finalized and 

executed the First Amendment to the 

Collocation Agreement, to tailor the 

Section 106 process for small wireless 

deployments by excluding deployments 

that have minimal potential for adverse 

effects on historic properties. 

The following are the information 

collection requirements in connection 

with the amended provisions of 

Appendix B of Part 1 of the 

Commission’s rules (47 CFR pt.1, App. 

B): 

• Stipulation VII.C of the amended 

Collocation Agreement provides that 

proposals to mount a small antenna on 

a traffic control structure (i.e., traffic 

light) or on a light pole, lamp post or 

other structure whose primary purpose 

is to provide public lighting, where the 

structure is located inside or within 250 

feet of the boundary of a historic 

district, are generally subject to review 

through the section 106 process. These 

proposed collocations will be excluded 

from such review on a case-by-case 

basis, if (1) the collocation licensee or 

the owner of the structure has not 

received written or electronic 

notification that the FCC is in receipt of 

a complaint from a member of the 

public, an Indian Tribe, a SHPO or the 

Council, that the collocation has an 

adverse effect on one or more historic 

properties; and (2) the structure is not 

historic (not a designated National 

Historic Landmark or a property listed 

in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places) or 

considered a contributing or compatible 

element within the historic district, 

under certain procedures. These 

procedures require that applicant must 

request in writing that the SHPO concur 

with the applicant’s determination that 

the structure is not a contributing or 

compatible element within the historic 

district, and the applicant’s written 

request must specify the traffic control 

structure, light pole, or lamp post on 

which the applicant proposes to 

collocate and explain why the structure 

is not a contributing element based on 

the age and type of structure, as well as 

other relevant factors. The SHPO has 

thirty days from its receipt of such 

written notice to inform the applicant 

whether it disagrees with the applicant’s 

determination that the structure is not a 

contributing or compatible element 

within the historic district. If within the 

thirty-day period, the SHPO informs the 

applicant that the structure is a 

contributing element or compatible 

element within the historic district or 

that the applicant has not provided 

sufficient information for a 

determination, the applicant may not 

deploy its facilities on that structure 

without completing the Section 106 

review process. If, within the thirty-day 

period, the SHPO either informs the 

applicant that the structure is not a 

contributing or compatible element 

within the historic district, or the SHPO 

fails to respond to the applicant within 

the thirty-day period, the applicant has 

no further Section 106 review 

obligations, provided that the 

collocation meets the certain volumetric 

and ground disturbance provisions. The 

First Amendment to the Collocation 

Agreement establishes new exclusions 

from the section 106 review process for 

physically small deployments like DAS 

and small cells, fulfilling a directive in 

the Commission’s Infrastructure Report 

and Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015, to 

further streamline review of these 

installations. These new exclusions will 

reduce the cost, time, and burden 

associated with deploying small 

facilities in many settings, and provide 

opportunities to increase densification 

at low cost and with very little impact 

on historic properties. Facilitating these 

deployments thus directly advances 

efforts to roll out 5G service in 

communities across the country. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Amy Brett, 

Associate Chief, Competition and 

Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18565 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–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] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission adopts 

rules to streamline and harmonize the 

Commission’s license renewal and 

service continuity rules for the Wireless 

Radio Services (WRS). This unified 

regulatory framework includes: 

establishing a consistent standard for 

renewing wireless licenses; setting forth 

safe harbors providing expedited 

renewal for licensees that meet their 

initial term construction requirement 

and generally remain operating at or 

above that level; adopting consistent 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41531 

service continuity rules, which provide 

for automatic termination of any license 

on which a licensee permanently 

discontinues service or operation; 

eliminating unnecessary, legacy 

‘‘comparative renewal rules’’; and 

requiring that when portions of 

geographic licenses are sold, both 

parties to the transaction have a clear 

construction obligation and penalty in 

the event of failure, closing a loophole 

used to avoid the Commission’s 

construction requirements. This action 

will enhance competition and facilitate 

robust use of the nation’s scarce 

spectrum resources. 

DATES: Effective October 2, 2017, except 

for the amendments to §§ 1.949, 1.950, 

and 1.953, which contain information 

collection requirements that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), and which the 

Commission will announce by 

publishing a document in the Federal 

Register. The amendments to 

paragraphs (e), (q)(7), (r)(6), (s)(6), and 

(t)(6) of § 27.14 will become effective 

after OMB review and approval of 

§ 1.949, which the Commission will 

announce by publishing a document in 

the Federal Register; and the 

amendments to §§ 22.317, 22.947, 27.17, 

30.106, 74.632, 90.157, 90.631, and 

101.65 will become effective after OMB 

review and approval of § 1.953, and 

which the Commission will announce 

by publishing a document in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Jones at joyce.jones@fcc.gov, of the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Mobility Division, (202) 418–1327. 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 Second 

Report and Order (Order) in WT Docket 

No. 10–112, FCC 17–105, released on 

August 3, 2017. The complete text of the 

Order, including all Appendices, is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–A157, Washington, DC 

20554, or by downloading the text from 

the Commission’s Web site at https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ 

FCC-17-105A1.pdf. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Consumer and Government 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

The Commission will send a copy of 

the Order in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

I. Second Report and Order 

A. Renewal Requirements for Wireless 

Radio Services 

1. Commission licensing records 

reflect that, over the next 10 years, the 

Commission can expect more than 

50,000 renewal applications to be filed 

by geographic-area licensees and more 

than 625,000 by site-based licensees. By 

its Order, the Commission implements 

standardized renewal requirements and 

expeditious renewal procedures, while 

continuing to ensure that licenses are 

renewed in the public interest as 

required by the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (Act). The 

Commission finds that adoption of 

uniform renewal rules will promote the 

efficient use of spectrum resources, 

serve the public interest by providing 

licensees certainty regarding their 

license renewal requirements, 

encourage licensees to invest in new 

facilities and services, and facilitate 

their business and network planning. 

2. The Commission’s current renewal 

requirements vary widely. Some service 

rules include comprehensive filing and 

processing procedures, while others 

contain only minimal guidance. For 

example, some radio services have 

evaluation criteria for a renewal 

applicant involved in a comparative 

renewal proceeding but no procedures 

for filing competing applications. Some 

services require a detailed showing that 

the licensee has provided substantial 

service during the license term. The 

renewal rules for some of the 

Commission’s newer services generally 

require the licensee to be providing 

service or operating on an ongoing basis, 

after construction, during the license 

term. 

3. In an NPRM released on May 25, 

2010 (WT Docket No. 10–112) (WRS 

Reform NPRM), the Commission 

proposed to adopt renewal requirements 

for numerous Wireless Radio Services 

based on the Commission’s model for 

the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band 

licensees. Under this three-part 

approach: (1) Renewal applicants would 

file a detailed renewal showing, 

demonstrating that they are providing 

service to the public (or, when allowed 

under the relevant service rules or 

pursuant to waiver, using the spectrum 

for private, internal communications) 

and substantially complying with the 

Commission’s rules (including any 

applicable performance requirements) 

and policies and the Act; (2) competing 

renewal applications would be 

prohibited; and (3) if a license is not 

renewed, the associated spectrum 

would be returned to the Commission 

for reassignment. For services licensed 

by site, the Commission proposed to 

modify the first part of this approach by 

requiring affected licensees to certify 

that they are continuing to operate 

consistent with their applicable 

construction notification(s) or 

authorization(s) (where the filing of 

construction notifications is not 

required), rather than making a renewal 

showing. 

4. Renewal Standard. The 

Commission adopts a unified renewal 

standard for most Wireless Radio 

Services licensees, both geographic and 

site-based. A clear, consistent standard 

will promote the efficient use of 

spectrum resources and will serve the 

public interest by providing licensees 

certainty regarding their renewal 

requirements. To qualify for renewal, 

each WRS licensee must demonstrate 

that over the course of its license term, 

the licensee either: (1) Provided and 

continues to provide service to the 

public, taking into account the periods 

of time the applicable service-specific 

rules give licensees to construct 

facilities and meet performance 

benchmarks, or (2) operated and 

continues to operate over the course of 

the license term to address the 

licensee’s private, internal 

communications needs, again taking 

into account the periods of time the 

applicable service-specific rules give 

licensees to construct facilities and meet 

performance benchmarks. 

5. More specifically, for renewal at the 

end of an initial license term, the 

licensee must demonstrate that it timely 

constructed to any level(s) required by 

the service-specific rules and, thereafter, 

consistent with the Commission’s 

permanent discontinuance rules, 

continuously provided service or 

operated at or above the required 

level(s) for the remainder of the license 

term. For subsequent renewals, the 

licensee must demonstrate that, over the 

license term at issue, it continuously 

provided service to the public or 

operated under the license to meet the 

licensee’s private, internal 

communications needs, at or above the 

level required to meet the final 

construction requirement during the 

initial term of the license. In all events, 

the licensee also must certify that its 

service or operations are continuing. 

This requirement is reflected in the new 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41532 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1.949 the Commission adopts today, 

which replaces separate renewal rules 

for each service in various rule parts, as 

reflected in the final rules. 

6. The renewal standard the 

Commission adopts today follows the 

approach the Commission adopted in 

many of its proceedings for new 

wireless services over the past decade. 

Beginning with the 700 MHz First 

Report and Order in 2007 (WT Docket 

No. 06–150), and continuing to the 2016 

600 MHz Report and Order (GN Docket 

No. 12–268), the Commission has 

established that licensees ‘‘must 

demonstrate that they are providing 

adequate levels of service over the 

course of their license terms.’’ Most 

recently, the Commission applied the 

same principles in the Spectrum 

Frontiers Report and Order (GN Docket 

No. 14–177), concluding that Upper 

Microwave Flexible Use Service 

(UMFUS) licensees would meet the 

renewal standard in their initial license 

terms if they met certain performance 

benchmarks and were ‘‘using [their] 

facilities to provide service.’’ For 

subsequent license terms, the 

Commission concluded that it would 

‘‘award a renewal expectancy for 

subsequent license terms if the licensee 

continues to provide at least the 

initially-required level of service 

through the end of any subsequent 

license terms.’’ Today, the Commission 

applies that policy across the board to 

most WRS licenses, finding that these 

renewal requirements are in the public 

interest and their benefits outweigh any 

likely costs. 

7. As the Commission has stated in a 

number of decisions, a licensee’s 

renewal obligations are distinct from its 

performance (also known as 

construction or buildout) requirements. 

Many of the Commission’s specific 

service rules require performance 

showings to be made at the midpoint 

and end of an initial license term 

regarding population or area covered. 

For some services, licensees must 

demonstrate, or may elect to 

demonstrate, substantial service as their 

performance requirement during their 

initial license term. Under the 

Commission’s performance requirement 

rules, a licensee generally provides a 

snapshot in time (usually a date in close 

proximity to, but no later than, the 

construction deadline) of the level of 

service that it is providing to the public 

or its level of operation. By contrast, the 

showing for renewal—also sometimes 

referred to as a substantial service 

showing—requires more detailed 

information regarding a licensee’s 

services or operations and related 

matters for its entire license period. 

Thus, under the Commission’s current 

rules, those licensees with a substantial 

service performance requirement at the 

end of their initial license term are 

subject to two distinct substantial 

service requirements, one to support 

their renewal application and one for 

performance purposes. The renewal 

standard the Commission adopts today 

and the accompanying discussion 

should make it more readily apparent to 

licensees that the showing required for 

renewal is distinct from the showing 

required to meet a performance 

requirement. 

8. As the Commission stated in the 

WRS Reform NPRM, the Wireless Radio 

Services that are licensed by rule or on 

a ‘‘personal’’ basis or that have no 

construction/performance obligation are 

beyond the scope of this proceeding and 

are not encompassed within the renewal 

policies the Commission adopts today. 

Similarly, these policies do not extend 

to public safety licenses issued based on 

the applicant demonstrating eligibility 

under §§ 90.20 or 90.529, or public 

safety licenses issued in conjunction 

with a waiver pursuant to section 337 of 

the Act. The Commission also excludes 

the Educational Broadband Service 

(EBS) from application of the renewal 

requirements articulated in the Order 

since this service presents unique issues 

that are under consideration in a 

separate, comprehensive EBS 

rulemaking proceeding (See WT Docket 

No. 03–66). 

9. In contrast, the Commission finds 

it is no longer necessary to provide any 

sort of modified renewal requirements 

for Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 

licensees as the Commission had 

proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM. 

Given that the BRS transition, which 

began in 2010, is now complete, the 

Commission concludes that the BRS is 

appropriately included within the 

overall renewal framework now. The 

Commission also rejects Motorola’s 

request that the partitioned and/or 

disaggregated Part 80 VHF Public Coast 

(VPC) Service spectrum it acquired for 

the purpose of promoting public safety 

and private land mobile systems be 

excluded from application of the 

Commission’s generally applicable 

renewal framework. The Commission is 

not persuaded that the characteristics of 

the Motorola-held VPC Service 

spectrum and its planned usage warrant 

different treatment from other WRS 

licenses regarding the renewal rules, 

and thus the Commission does not grant 

the exception from the renewal policies 

sought by Motorola. 

10. Implementation of Renewal 

Standard. Many commenters express 

concern that the renewal framework 

proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM 

would cause uncertainty in the renewal 

process and create undue administrative 

burdens for licensees and Commission 

staff. Some commenters suggest that the 

Commission apply a certification 

process for all renewal applications. 

Other commenters suggest that the 

Commission should adopt some form of 

a safe harbor. 

11. The Commission agrees that 

clearer and more certain renewal 

processes will benefit both licensees 

and the Commission and concludes that 

adopting a set of safe harbors—based on 

licensee certifications—will serve the 

public interest by reducing filing 

burdens on licensees and concentrating 

scarce Commission resources on 

reviewing renewal filings that warrant 

close scrutiny. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopts four safe harbors to 

accommodate four license renewal 

scenarios by which a renewal applicant 

can meet the renewal standard adopted 

in this Order. These license renewal safe 

harbors are for (1) site-based licenses; 

(2) wireless providers using geographic 

licenses; (3) private systems using 

geographic licenses; and (4) partitioned 

or disaggregated licenses without a 

performance requirement. In a future 

proceeding, the Commission may 

consider additional safe harbors as 

necessary and warranted. If a licensee is 

unable to meet the requirements of one 

of the enumerated safe harbors, the 

licensee must make a more detailed 

‘‘renewal showing’’ as part of its 

renewal application; the requirements 

for a renewal showing are described 

following the discussion of the renewal 

safe harbors. 

12. Each safe harbor scenario is based 

on three certifications, which are subject 

to the Form 601 condition that ‘‘[w]illful 

false statements made on this form or 

any attachments are punishable by fine 

and/or imprisonment (18 U.S.C. 1001) 

and/or revocation of any station license 

or construction permit (47 U.S.C. 

312(a)(1)), and/or forfeiture (47 U.S.C. 

503).’’ If the renewal applicant, in good 

faith, can make all three certifications, 

its renewal application will be subject to 

routine processing, and no further 

detailed renewal showing will be 

required as part of the renewal 

application. The first certification in 

each scenario addresses the renewal 

applicant’s ongoing provision of service 

and/or operations, and is tailored to the 

particular nature of licenses covered 

under a given safe harbor. The second 

certification requires the licensee to 

certify that no permanent 

discontinuance of service or operation 

(as defined below as an unbroken failure 

to provide service or operate over a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41533 

1For performance showing requirements at the 

end of the initial license term, there are two filing 

processes in ULS depending on the service of the 

license. For some services, licensees file a 

notification of construction (NT) and a separate 

renewal application. For other services, licensees 

include their performance showing as an exhibit to 

the renewal application and do not file a separate 

NT. Under either filing method, the licensee would 

certify in its renewal application that it has 

submitted a final performance showing in good 

faith, but acceptance of its safe harbor renewal 

certification is contingent on the Commission’s 

review and acceptance of the performance showing. 

This is true as well for private systems using 

geographic licenses. 

2The Commission determines that use of 

facilities includes operations under any spectrum 

leasing arrangement. 

3The Commission notes that any licensee that 

fails to meet its interim performance requirement 

will not be able to avail itself of this safe harbor 

option at the end of the initial license term because 

it will be unable to certify that it has met its interim 

performance requirement. 

4The Commission recognizes that a licensee may 

file a renewal application as early as 90 days prior 

to license expiration. 47 CFR 1.949(a). The 

Commission notes that a licensee with a 

performance requirement deadline coincident with 

its license expiration date must meet any applicable 

performance requirement before it can certify 

compliance with the safe harbor requirements and 

file a renewal application. 

specified period of days) occurred 

during the license term. The third 

certification requires the licensee to 

certify that it has substantially complied 

with all applicable FCC rules, policies, 

and the Act. 

13. Site-based Licenses. Consistent 

with the Commission’s certification 

proposal in the WRS Reform NPRM for 

the renewal of site-based licensees, the 

Commission adopts a safe harbor for 

site-based WRS licensees. With sitebased services, a licensee’s initial 

application for authorization provides 

the exact technical parameters of its 

planned operations (such as transmitter 

location, frequency, and power levels), 

while the licensee’s subsequent 

notification, that it has completed 

construction, confirms that the facilities 

have been constructed consistent with 

its authorization (or with minor 

modifications as may be permitted by 

the applicable service rules). A licensee 

also may file to modify its license, 

which may lead to a modified 

authorization and the submission of a 

subsequent construction notification. 

Consequently, at the time a site-based 

service provider files a renewal 

application, it should be operating as 

licensed. 

14. A site-based WRS licensee will 

meet the Commission’s renewal 

standard if it can certify that it is 

continuing to operate consistent with 

the licensee’s most recently filed 

construction notification (or most recent 

authorization, when no construction 

notification is required), and make the 

certifications regarding permanent 

discontinuance and substantial 

compliance with Commission rules and 

policies that are applicable to all 

renewal applicants seeking to avail 

themselves of one of the renewal safe 

harbors. Consistent with the 

Commission’s treatment of wireless 

providers using geographic licenses as 

discussed below, licensees who 

temporarily reduce their operations for 

fewer than 180 days may avail 

themselves of the safe harbor. The 

Commission concludes that this safe 

harbor for site-based WRS licensees is in 

the public interest and will expedite the 

renewal process for licensees, ensure 

spectrum is being used efficiently to 

provide service to the public or for 

private internal needs, and allow 

Commission staff to concentrate scarce 

resources on renewal applications that 

warrant heightened scrutiny. Moreover, 

applying the safe harbor process to sitebased services will ensure that renewed 

licenses in these services are being 

operated, and if they are not, the 

licensee must submit a renewal showing 

as discussed below. This safe harbor 

may be used by any site-based WRS 

license in the services listed in 

Appendix G of the Order. 

15. Wireless Providers Using 

Geographic Licenses. The Commission 

also finds that it would be in the public 

interest to adopt a safe harbor for WRS 

licensees that provide service to 

customers using geographic licenses. 

Many commenters urge the Commission 

to adopt a streamlined certification 

process for renewal of geographic 

licenses like what the Commission 

proposed for site-based licenses. Most 

recently, Verizon argues that a 

straightforward renewal certification 

‘‘will obligate the licensee to verify that 

it is complying with the terms of its 

authorization and Commission rules, 

including buildout, spectrum 

utilization, or other performance 

requirements.’’ Similarly, CTIA 

maintains that a certification for 

geographic license renewal ‘‘would 

require that licensees verify that they 

have complied with all buildout, 

performance, and other rules— 

demonstrating that they are providing 

service—without imposing unjustified 

burdens.’’ Both Verizon and CTIA argue 

that a certification is consistent with the 

renewal standard adopted in the 

Spectrum Frontiers Order for the 

millimeter wave spectrum bands at 28 

GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz. The 

Commission agrees that a certification, 

as part of a comprehensive safe harbor 

for geographic licenses, will streamline 

its renewal processes, ensure 

compliance with its rules, and provide 

clarity and certainty for WRS licensees. 

16. Accordingly, the Commission 

adopts a safe harbor for WRS providers 

using geographic licenses consistent 

with the approach taken in the 

Spectrum Frontiers Order. A 

geographically-licensed WRS licensee 

providing service to customers will 

meet the renewal standard if it can make 

the following certifications. For a 

licensee in its initial license term 1 with 

an interim performance requirement, 

the licensee must certify that (1) it has 

met its interim performance 

requirement and that over the portion of 

the license term following the interim 

performance requirement (up until the 

deadline for meeting the final 

performance requirement), the licensee 

continues to use its facilities 2 to 

provide at least the level of service or 

operation required by its interim 

performance requirement,3 and (2) it has 

met its final performance requirement 

and continues to use its facilities to 

provide at least the level of service 

required by its final performance 

requirement through the end of the 

license term. For a licensee in its initial 

license term with no interim 

performance requirement, the licensee 

must certify that it has met its final 

performance requirement and continues 

to use its facilities to provide at least the 

level of service required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of the license term.4 For a licensee 

in any subsequent license term, the 

licensee must certify that it continues to 

use its facilities to provide at least the 

level of service required by its last 

performance requirement through the 

end of any subsequent license terms. 

Some commenters ask the Commission 

to recognize that there are 

circumstances (e.g., network upgrades, 

natural disasters, power outages, routine 

maintenance, temporary service 

outages) during which a licensee may 

need to ‘‘reduce overall coverage below 

the level required by buildout 

requirements, or briefly turn down 

service . . . for a limited period.’’ CTIA 

maintains that ‘‘these events should not 

disqualify a licensee from using the safe 

harbor.’’ Thus, the Commission clarifies 

that licensees who temporarily drop 

below their construction benchmark for 

fewer than 180 days may avail 

themselves of the safe harbor. In 

addition, the licensee must make the 

certifications regarding permanent 

discontinuance and substantial 

compliance with Commission rules and 

policies that are applicable to all 

renewal applicants seeking to avail 

themselves of one of the renewal safe 

harbors. This safe harbor may be used 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41534 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

by geographic licensees in the Wireless 

Radio Services listed in Appendix H of 

the Order. 

17. Private Systems Using Geographic 

Licenses. The Commission finds that the 

public interest will be served by 

adopting a separate safe harbor for 

private systems using geographic 

licenses. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission queried what factors 

should be considered during renewal of 

licenses used for a licensee’s private, 

internal communications needs. 

Commenters generally object to 

applying the WRS Reform NPRM’s 

proposed renewal framework to 

geographic licensees that deploy 

private, internal communications 

systems. Instead, numerous commenters 

urge the Commission to adopt a 

certification for such licensees. The 

Commission agrees that a certification, 

as part of a comprehensive safe harbor 

for geographic licensees using their 

licenses for private, internal purposes, 

will streamline its renewal processes, 

ensure compliance with its rules, and 

provide clarity and certainty for such 

licensees. 

18. Accordingly, the Commission 

adopts a safe harbor for WRS licensees 

using their geographic licenses for 

private, internal systems. A 

geographically licensed WRS licensee 

using its license for private, internal 

purposes will meet the renewal 

standard if it can make the following 

certifications. For a licensee in its initial 

license term with an interim 

performance requirement, the licensee 

must certify that (1) it has met its 

interim performance requirement and 

that over the portion of the license term 

following the interim performance 

requirement (up until the deadline for 

meeting the final performance 

requirement), the licensee continues to 

use its facilities to further the licensee’s 

private, internal business or public 

interest/public safety needs at or above 

the level required to meet its interim 

performance requirement, and (2) it has 

met its final performance requirement 

and continues to use its facilities to 

further the licensee’s private business or 

public interest/public safety needs at or 

above the level required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of the license term. For a licensee 

in its initial license term with no 

interim performance requirement, the 

licensee must certify that it has met its 

final performance requirement and 

continues to use its facilities to further 

the licensee’s private business or public 

interest/public safety needs at or above 

the level required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of the license term. For a licensee 

in any subsequent license term, the 

licensee must certify that it continues to 

use its facilities to further the licensee’s 

private business or public interest/ 

public safety needs at or above the level 

required to meet its last performance 

requirement. Consistent with the 

treatment of wireless providers using 

geographic licenses as discussed above, 

licensees who temporarily drop below 

their construction benchmark for fewer 

than 180 days may avail themselves of 

the safe harbor. In addition, the licensee 

must make the certifications regarding 

permanent discontinuance and 

substantial compliance with 

Commission rules and policies that are 

applicable to all renewal applicants 

seeking to avail themselves of one of the 

renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor 

may be used by geographic area 

licensees in the Wireless Radio Services 

listed in Appendix H of the Order. 

19. Partitioned or Disaggregated 

Licenses. As discussed in more detail 

below, the Commission’s rules permit 

parties to partitioning or disaggregation 

agreements to choose between two 

options to determine how the parties 

will satisfy any relevant pending 

performance requirement for the license 

after it has been divided by geographic 

partitioning or spectrum disaggregation 

arrangements. In cases where the 

original licensee has satisfied the 

applicable performance requirement 

prior to partitioning or disaggregating 

the license, however, the recipient of 

the partitioned area or disaggregated 

spectrum has no performance 

requirement associated with the 

partitioned or disaggregated portion. 

This lack of a performance requirement 

is relevant in the renewal context 

because, while the partitioner or 

disaggregator may be able to meet a safe 

harbor (to demonstrate that over the 

course of its license term, the licensee 

provided and continues to provide 

service to the public, or operated and 

continues to operate the license to meet 

the licensee’s private, internal 

communications needs), the partitionee 

or disaggregatee will not be able to avail 

itself of the safe harbors as adopted 

above because it cannot certify 

continuing service or operation 

consistent with its final performance 

requirement because it has none. 

Accordingly, the safe harbor approach 

must be adjusted to provide the 

partitionee or disagregatee with a 

mechanism for demonstrating 

compliance with the renewal standard. 

20. To this end, the Commission 

adopts an approach that applies to WRS 

licensees with partitioned or 

disaggregated licenses when there is no 

performance requirement. Such a 

licensee will meet the renewal standard 

if it can satisfy the following safe 

harbor. The licensee must certify that it 

uses and continues to use its facilities 

either to provide service to the public or 

to further the licensee’s private, internal 

business or public interest/public safety 

needs. Thus, although the Commission 

does not impose a specific performance 

requirement for such licensees at 

renewal of the current license term, in 

order to avail itself of the streamlined 

safe harbor renewal process for any 

subsequent license term, a licensee 

without a performance requirement 

must demonstrate some level of service 

or operation over the subsequent license 

term. In addition, the licensee must 

make the certifications regarding 

permanent discontinuance (as defined 

below) and substantial compliance with 

Commission rules and policies that are 

applicable to all renewal applicants 

seeking to avail themselves of one of the 

renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor 

may be used by any WRS licensee with 

a partitioned or disaggregated license 

without an associated performance 

requirement. Any licensee that cannot 

meet the requirements of the safe harbor 

must submit a renewal showing as 

discussed below. 

21. The Commission recognizes that 

this safe harbor, unlike the others, does 

not prescribe a specific level of service 

or operation required for renewal. As 

the Commission has explained, 

however, ‘‘[t]he goal of our construction 

requirements in both the partitioning 

and disaggregation contexts is to ensure 

that the spectrum is used to the same 

degree that would have been required 

had the partitioning or disaggregation 

transaction not taken place.’’ In the 

scenario addressed here, the partitioner 

or disaggregator has already met the 

associated performance requirement for 

the license; any additional construction 

undertaken by the partitionee or 

disaggregatee exceeds the relevant 

performance benchmark for the original 

license and thus does not contravene 

the goal of the Commission’s 

construction requirement in the 

partitioning and disaggregation context. 

However, the Commission contemplates 

taking action if it appears that parties to 

a partitioning or disaggregation are 

attempting to abuse its rules. 

22. Renewal Showing. The 

Commission seeks to provide licensees 

with certainty and clarity regarding the 

renewal process, and thus have adopted 

four safe harbors to provide licensees 

with a streamlined mechanism for 

meeting the renewal standard. The 

Commission expects that most licensees 

will be able to avail themselves of its 

streamlined safe harbor process and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41535 

receive timely renewal grants. In the 

event a licensee is unable to meet the 

requirements of any of the enumerated 

safe harbors, however, it must file a 

‘‘renewal showing’’ to demonstrate how 

it meets the renewal standard the 

Commission adopts in this Order. 

Examples of licensees that will not be 

able to meet a safe harbor, but for whom 

there nonetheless may be legitimate 

bases that warrant renewal, include a 

licensee that no longer provides service 

or no longer operates at the level 

required to meet its final performance 

requirement, or a licensee that has 

modified its service or operations since 

its final performance requirement to 

offer novel services or employ a unique 

system architecture. These scenarios 

warrant additional scrutiny before the 

Commission can determine whether 

license renewal is in the public interest. 

The Commission reiterates that it will 

not require renewal applicants to file a 

renewal showing if they can meet the 

renewal standard via a safe harbor. 

23. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission proposed to require all 

renewal applicants to meet its renewal 

standard by filing a detailed renewal 

showing to demonstrate that they are 

providing service to the public (or, 

when allowed under the relevant 

service rules or pursuant to waiver, 

using the spectrum for private, internal 

communication), and substantially 

complying with the Commission’s rules 

(including any applicable performance 

requirements) and policies and the Act. 

The Commission now turns toward a 

consideration of this proposed standard 

for cases in which a renewal applicant 

does not meet one of the safe harbors 

adopted herein. 

24. The renewal showing proposed in 

the WRS Reform NPRM followed the 

paradigm adopted in the 700 MHz 

Report and Order. After the release of 

the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission has adopted the 700 MHz 

Commercial Services renewal paradigm 

in four additional services—AWS–4, H 

Block, AWS–3, and 600 MHz. 

Specifically, the Commission proposed 

to consider the following factors when 

evaluating whether a renewal showing 

met the renewal standard: (1) The level 

and quality of service provided by the 

applicant (e.g., the population served, 

the area served, the number of 

subscribers, the services offered); (2) the 

date service commenced, whether 

service was ever interrupted, and the 

duration of any interruption or outage; 

(3) the extent to which service is 

provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to 

which service is provided to tribal 

lands; and (5) any other factors 

associated with a licensee’s level of 

service to the public. 

25. Many commenters object to the 

adoption of this renewal showing for all 

WRS licensees. These commenters argue 

that the proposed renewal showing is 

complex and would impose substantial 

costs and burdens on licensees. Other 

commenters assert that the proposed 

renewal process is unclear and creates 

uncertainty for licensees. Still other 

commenters maintain that the proposed 

process requests information already in 

the Commission’s possession, requests 

detailed information that licensees do 

not maintain, and may require 

disclosure of competitively sensitive 

information. The Commission 

acknowledges commenters’ many 

concerns regarding a general 

requirement that all WRS licensees 

submit detailed renewal showings and 

have concluded that, in many cases, 

streamlined applications containing the 

required certifications for safe harbor 

treatment will be sufficient to ensure 

that the Commission renews licenses in 

the public interest, consistent with the 

Act. The Commission emphasizes that 

licensees that can take advantage of one 

of the ‘‘safe harbor’’ renewal 

applications described above will not be 

required to submit a renewal showing as 

part of their renewal applications. 

Rather, only licensees that cannot 

satisfy one of the enumerated safe 

harbors will be required to file a 

detailed renewal showing. To fulfill the 

Commission’s statutory mandate to 

ensure efficient spectrum use consistent 

with the public interest, where a 

licensee does not satisfy one of the 

streamlined processes, the Commission 

must undertake a closer examination of 

a licensee’s record of service or 

operation over its license term. 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

conclusions in the AWS–4, H Block, 

AWS–3, and 600 MHz proceedings, the 

Commission finds that the renewal 

showing it adopts today, applied in the 

limited circumstances described herein, 

is in the public interest and its benefits 

outweigh any likely costs. 

26. Accordingly, licensees that cannot 

satisfy the renewal standard under one 

of the enumerated safe harbors can 

nonetheless meet the renewal standard 

by demonstrating that they are 

providing service to the public (or, 

when allowed under the relevant 

service rules or pursuant to waiver, 

using the spectrum for private, internal 

communication), using the following 

renewal showing, as applicable: 

(1) The level and quality of service/ 

operation provided by the applicant 

(e.g., for service—the population served, 

the area served, the number of 

subscribers, the services offered; for 

operation—the number of users (if 

applicable), the operating area, the type 

of operation); 

(2) the date service/operation 

commenced, whether service/operation 

was ever interrupted, and the duration 

of any interruption or outage; 

(3) the extent to which service/ 

operation is provided to/in rural areas; 

(4) the extent to which service/ 

operation is provided to/in tribal lands; 

and 

(5) any other factors associated with a 

licensee’s level of service to the public/ 

level of operation. 

27. Each of the factors listed above to 

be considered in a renewal showing 

directly relates to the renewal standard 

the Commission adopts today—service 

or operation over the license term. The 

Commission will consider the totality of 

all the factors on a case-by-case basis to 

determine if a licensee has 

demonstrated over the course of its 

license term that it has provided and 

continues to provide service to the 

public, or has operated and continues to 

operate under the license to meet the 

licensee’s private, internal 

communications needs. 

28. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission also asked whether a 

variety of other factors should be 

incorporated into the renewal rules. 

Many commenters object to the 

collection of additional data in support 

of a renewal showing. On balance, the 

Commission agrees that the costs of 

requesting additional information 

beyond the renewal showing as adopted 

would outweigh the benefits of such 

additional information. The 

Commission thus decides not to add 

further factors at this time to the 

renewal showing requirements. The 

Commission finds that its renewal 

framework strikes an appropriate 

balance between the need for 

information to fully evaluate renewal 

applications that cannot meet the safe 

harbors and minimizing burdens on 

licensees. 

29. The Commission disagrees with 

commenters that argue that the option of 

filing a full renewal showing would be 

contrary to the Commission’s original 

proposal for site-based services. Under 

the Commission’s prior proposal, if a 

site-based licensee could not make the 

requisite certification, the renewal 

application could not be granted and the 

spectrum would be returned to the 

Commission. Under the renewal 

framework the Commission adopts 

today, if a site-based licensee cannot 

meet the requirements of the safe 

harbor, it may choose to file a renewal 

showing to explain why it should 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41536 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

5Because substantial compliance with applicable 

FCC rules and policies and the Act is an ongoing 

obligation of licensees, this will be assessed over 

the entire term of the license at renewal. 

nonetheless retain its license, thus 

providing additional flexibility to such 

a licensee. 

30. Implementation Timeline. The 

renewal framework represents, for some 

WRS licenses, a significant change in 

how the Commission will evaluate and 

process renewal applications going 

forward.5 For licensees that already 

meet the renewal standard, the unified 

renewal paradigm presents a 

streamlined process using safe harbors 

with minimal filing burdens and 

certain, timely renewal processing. The 

Commission recognizes, however, that 

other licensees will need time to come 

into compliance with the renewal 

standard. Accordingly, the Commission 

adopts an implementation schedule that 

will make the benefits of the renewal 

framework available immediately for 

those licensees most likely able to avail 

themselves of the streamlined processes, 

but provide ample time for those 

licensees that may need to come into 

compliance with the new rules. In all 

instances, compliance with the renewal 

standard, via either a safe harbor or 

renewal showing, will be assessed from 

the effective date of the new rules. Thus, 

for example, the requirement to provide 

continuous service/operation does not 

cover periods before the effective date of 

those rules. Nor does a licensee seeking 

safe harbor treatment need to certify that 

it met the necessary criteria during time 

periods prior to the effective date. 

31. Site-based Licenses. For site-based 

licensees, the new renewal paradigm is 

akin to their existing renewal 

requirements. As discussed above, at the 

time a site-based service provider files 

a renewal application, it should be 

operating as licensed. Thus, current 

renewal requirements for site-based 

licensees are much like the safe harbor 

the Commission adopts for such 

licensees. The Commission finds that 

the renewal standard and renewal 

processes (whether streamlined or 

entailing an evaluation of the licensee’s 

full renewal showing) should be made 

available to site-based licensees as soon 

as possible and thus determines that 

such rules will be applied to those 

licensees without a transition period, 

with one exception, effective upon their 

applicable effective dates. For 

microwave licenses in the Common 

Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave 

Service, licensees will not be required to 

comply with the revised renewal rules 

for site-based licenses until October 1, 

2018, in order to provide sufficient time 

for them to undertake a compliance 

review necessary to make the required 

certification regarding operation. 

Existing service-specific renewal rules 

will remain in effect until the renewal 

rules adopted herein become effective. 

Applications filed prior to the effective 

date of the new rules will be processed 

under the rules in effect when they are 

filed. 

32. Geographic-area Licenses. Given 

the inconsistency of the Commission’s 

renewal rules across wireless services, 

the Commission has seen markedly 

different renewal submissions by 

licensees describing the level of service 

or operation in the various specific 

services within the WRS. Some 

licensees have submitted renewal 

applications clearly demonstrating 

service or operation over the entire 

license term, which would meet the 

renewal standard the Commission 

adopts today. Others have filed 

applications that demonstrate service or 

operation over significantly less than 

the entire license term, which would 

not meet the Commission’s new renewal 

standard contemplating ongoing service 

or operation during the license term. 

The Commission seeks to provide 

sufficient time to geographic-area 

licensees that have yet to be subject to 

the renewal standard so that they can 

comply with the new standard (indeed, 

some licensees are not yet required to 

even demonstrate service over the 

license term). The Commission 

determines that the renewal standard 

and the renewal framework will take 

effect for such licensees on January 1, 

2023, replacing the existing servicespecific renewal rules, giving licensees 

at least five years to comply with the 

new renewal rules (giving all licensees 

sufficient time to show service over the 

license term, starting from the effective 

date of the new renewal rules). Existing 

service-specific renewal rules will cease 

to be effective as of January 1, 2023. The 

Commission notes, however, that 

licensees in the 700 MHz, AWS–4, H 

Block, AWS–3, and 600 MHz services 

already are subject to the renewal 

standard that it adopts today for all 

WRS geographic licenses. Accordingly, 

the Commission concludes that these 

licensees should be able to avail 

themselves of the safe harbors and 

associated streamlined procedures prior 

to January 1, 2023. Thus, for licensees 

in the 700 MHz, AWS–4, H Block, 

AWS–3, and 600 MHz services, the safe 

harbor rules will apply immediately 

upon their effective dates. Existing 

service-specific renewal rules will 

remain in effect until the renewal rules 

adopted herein become effective. 

Applications filed prior to the effective 

date of the new rules will be processed 

under the rules in effect when they are 

filed. 

33. Geographic and Site-based 

Licensed Services—Other Requirements. 

Consistent with the Commission’s 

proposal in the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission applies a single regulatory 

compliance demonstration requirement 

to all renewal applicants, whether 

licensed by geographic area or by site. 

In addition, the Commission prohibits 

the filing of competing applications 

against such renewal applications. 

Further, if a renewal application cannot 

be granted, the associated spectrum 

generally will be returned to the 

Commission for re-licensing under the 

applicable processes. 

34. Regulatory Compliance 

Demonstration. In the 700 MHz First 

Report and Order, the Commission 

stated that, as part of their renewal 

filing, renewal applicants must 

demonstrate ‘‘that they have 

substantially complied with all 

applicable Commission rules, policies, 

and the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, including any applicable 

performance requirements.’’ As the 

Commission stated in the WRS Reform 

NPRM, such a regulatory compliance 

demonstration serves the public interest 

by facilitating the Commission’s 

evaluation of the character and other 

qualifications of a renewal applicant. 

35. To aid in this evaluation, the 

Commission proposed a detailed 

submission of documents regarding 

compliance by the licensee and certain 

defined affiliates. Industry commenters 

uniformly opposed adoption of the 

proposed regulatory compliance 

demonstration as a prerequisite to 

renewal on the basis that it is onerous 

and unduly burdensome and could 

impose significant costs, particularly on 

rural and regional carriers. 

36. The Commission has a statutory 

duty to ensure that licensees 

substantially comply with all applicable 

Commission rules and policies and the 

Act. At the same time, where possible 

and practicable, the Commission seeks 

to streamline the existing renewal 

application processes and minimize 

filing burdens on licensees. In lieu of 

the regulatory compliance 

demonstration proposed in the WRS 

Reform NPRM, the Commission 

concludes that it can perform its duties 

and further its public interest goals 

effectively by requiring a renewal 

applicant to certify that it has 

substantially complied with all 

applicable FCC rules, policies, and the 

Act. If a particular renewal applicant is 

unable to make the substantial 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41537 

compliance certification, it will need to 

provide an explanation of the 

circumstances preventing such a 

certification and why renewal of the 

subject license should still be granted. 

37. Elimination of Comparative 

Renewal Rules for WRS. As proposed in 

the WRS Reform NPRM and consistent 

with the action the Commission took in 

the WRS Reform First Report and Order 

in this proceeding adopted in tandem 

with the Cellular Reform Second Report 

and Order on March 23, 2017 (WT 

Docket No. 12–40), and in several other 

proceedings over the last decade, the 

Commission prohibits the filing of 

competing applications for all WRS and 

eliminates the remaining comparative 

renewal procedures and requirements 

across various rule parts. 

38. The WRS Reform NPRM proposed 

to prohibit the filing of competing 

renewal applications for all WRS as part 

of its proposed uniform WRS renewal 

process. The majority of commenters 

support the Commission’s proposal to 

eliminate service-specific rules 

regarding the filing of competing 

applications and the use of comparative 

hearings to resolve them. A number of 

commenters maintain that the 

comparative renewal process is an 

outdated vestige of licensing rules 

predating the Commission’s current 

reliance on auctions in many services. 

39. The Commission deletes the 

remaining service-specific comparative 

renewal rules and prohibits the filing of 

competing renewal applications for all 

WRS. This approach is consistent with 

the Commission’s determinations in 

many other commercial wireless service 

proceedings over the last ten years— 

including those for the AWS–3 and 

AWS–4 Bands, the H Block, the 600 

MHz Band, and the 700 MHz 

Commercial Services Band—and with 

the elimination of comparative renewal 

rules applicable to the Cellular Service. 

The same logic that the Commission 

used in exempting those bands from 

comparative renewal applications 

likewise applies to the remaining WRS 

bands. The Commission previously 

found, and commenters agree here, that 

the public interest is not served by the 

filing of time-consuming and costly 

competing applications, and a 

prohibition on competing applications 

will ‘‘protect[] the public interest 

without creating incentives for 

speculators to file ‘strike’ applications.’’ 

40. The few commenters that support 

retention of the comparative renewal 

application rules argue that, without the 

ability to file competing applications, 

there is no way to discover disqualifying 

facts about incumbent licensees. The 

renewal requirements the Commission 

adopts today, however, will provide it 

with ample information to determine 

whether a particular license renewal is 

in the public interest. Some commenters 

also argue that competing applications 

are rare, but this only strengthens the 

rationale to eliminate the outdated 

rules. The Commission finds that the 

best course is to remove the comparative 

renewal rules and harmonize the 

approach across spectrum bands—many 

of which, as discussed above, already 

prohibit the filing of competing 

applications. In the event that an entity 

lacks standing to file a petition to deny 

a WRS license renewal application, it 

may still bring relevant facts to the 

attention of the Commission by means 

of an informal filing. 

41. If a license is not renewed, the 

associated spectrum will be returned to 

the Commission as discussed below, 

allowing parties that may have been 

inclined to file a competing application 

to participate in the auction of spectrum 

recovered from geographic licensees or 

apply for spectrum recovered from a 

Cellular or site-based licensee. 

42. Return of Spectrum to 

Commission if Renewal Application Is 

Denied. Consistent with the 

Commission’s proposals in the WRS 

Reform NPRM, the Commission 

concludes that, if a WRS licensee cannot 

meet the renewal standard and its 

license cannot be renewed, its licensed 

spectrum will be returned automatically 

to the Commission. For site-based 

licenses, the Commission will continue 

to apply the policy of having spectrum 

revert to a geographic area licensee, if 

applicable, if an underlying site-based 

authorization is not renewed. 

43. One overarching goal in this 

proceeding is to ensure that valued 

spectrum resources are rapidly put to 

their highest and best use. A second 

goal in this proceeding is to provide 

licensees with certainty and clarity 

regarding the rules that apply to them 

and the consequences for failing to meet 

those rules. The Commission’s existing 

spectrum reversion rule employed today 

serves these dual goals. If a licensee 

cannot meet the renewal standard (via 

safe harbor or renewal showing) or it 

has permanently discontinued service, 

or its regulatory compliance 

certification is insufficient, its renewal 

application cannot be granted, and its 

licensed spectrum will return 

automatically to the Commission. 

44. Wireless Radio Services Excluded 

from Rulemaking. The Commission 

concludes that certain Wireless Radio 

Services should be excluded from the 

new renewal requirements. Specifically, 

the Commission will not apply the 

revised renewal paradigm to Wireless 

Radio Services licenses that have no 

construction obligations, including 

services where operations are licensed 

by rule (and thus there is no individual 

‘‘license’’ to renew) or to Wireless Radio 

Services that can be considered to 

involve a ‘‘personal’’ license. These 

services are listed in Appendix I of the 

Order. 

B. Permanent Discontinuance of 

Operations for Wireless Radio Services 

45. All WRS licensees are currently 

subject to the Part 1 rule governing 

permanent discontinuance, which 

provides that an authorization 

automatically terminates, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

‘‘permanently discontinued.’’ To 

promote service continuity, the 

Commission replaces disparate servicespecific rules dealing with permanent 

discontinuance with a standardized rule 

for all WRS licensees. This rule will 

work in concert with construction and 

renewal obligations to ensure that 

licensees provide service in a timely 

manner, continue to provide service 

over the term of the license, and do not 

discontinue service for such an 

extended period of time that it should 

be deemed permanent. 

46. Current service-specific rules do 

not clearly and consistently define 

permanent discontinuance resulting in 

license termination, with a few services 

defining the term and many services 

completely lacking any definition. Thus, 

after meeting any service-specific 

construction and renewal requirements, 

some licensees in a service whose rules 

provide no definition of ‘‘permanent’’ 

discontinuance might conclude that 

they are permitted to discontinue 

service for long periods of time, and that 

such suspension of service would not 

trigger automatic license termination. In 

contrast, other licensees/competitors in 

a service whose rules define 

‘‘permanent’’ discontinuance as specific 

amount of time during which operations 

were suspended (e.g., 90 days) would be 

subject to automatic license termination 

if they discontinued service to 

subscribers for that specified length of 

time. As the Commission noted in the 

WRS Reform NPRM, the public interest 

is not served by such marked regulatory 

disparities. The Commission 

accordingly proposed to adopt a 

uniform discontinuance of service rule 

for Parts 22, 24, 27, 80, 90, 95, and 101 

Wireless Radio Services. The 

Commission finds that the adoption of 

a uniform regulatory framework 

governing the permanent 

discontinuance of operations for 

Wireless Radio Services will serve the 

public interest by: (1) Affording 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41538 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

similarly situated licensees and like 

services comparable regulatory 

treatment; (2) providing licensees and 

other interested parties clarity and 

certainty to facilitate business and 

network planning; and (3) ensuring that 

valuable spectrum is not underutilized. 

The rules the Commission adopts today 

strike the appropriate balance between 

providing licensees with operational 

flexibility and ensuring spectrum is not 

warehoused and does not lie fallow. 

47. Most but not all commenters 

support a uniform regulatory framework 

governing permanent discontinuance. 

Commenters disagree, however, on the 

appropriate discontinuance period to be 

applied to the various Wireless Radio 

Services, with some commenters 

supporting the Commission’s proposed 

time periods while other commenters 

seek a 365-day discontinuance period 

for all WRS licensees. 

48. Commenters are generally 

supportive of the Commission’s 

proposal to apply the permanent 

discontinuance rule commencing on the 

date a licensee makes its initial 

construction showing or notification. 

Some commenters, however, ask that 

the Commission commence the 

permanent discontinuance period on 

the date of a licensee’s construction 

deadline, while Sprint suggests that the 

Commission use a licensee’s final 

construction deadline date. 

49. Section 101.305 of the rules states 

that common carrier licensees in certain 

services must notify the Commission of 

involuntary discontinuance, reduction, 

or impairment of service within 48 

hours, and that voluntary 

discontinuance by a common carrier 

licensee in the identified services must 

occur only with prior Commission 

approval, under the procedures of part 

63 of the Commission’s rules. AT&T 

asks that the Commission take this 

opportunity to delete § 101.305, arguing 

that it is both obsolete and duplicative 

of other rules, specifically § 101.65 and 

that the rule’s concern for protecting 

‘‘communities’’ is misplaced. 

50. After reviewing the extensive 

record in this proceeding, the 

Commission finds that the public 

interest will be best served by adopting 

a uniform regulatory framework 

governing service continuity. The 

Commission therefore adopts new 

§ 1.953 as it appears in Appendix A of 

the Order and deletes multiple rule 

sections governing permanent 

discontinuance in specific Wireless 

Radio Services. As recognized by the 

Commission in four other proceedings 

and by commenters in this proceeding, 

the approach the Commission adopts 

strikes an appropriate balance between 

affording licensees operational 

flexibility and ensuring that licensed 

spectrum is efficiently utilized. The 

Commission disagrees with those 

commenters that oppose the adoption of 

any permanent discontinuance rules. 

Allowing licensees unfettered discretion 

to determine how long scarce spectrum 

resources lie fallow after meeting 

relevant construction requirements 

would be inconsistent with the intent of 

those requirements and would directly 

contradict the Commission’s statutory 

obligation to ‘‘prevent stockpiling or 

warehousing of spectrum by licensees or 

permittees.’’ 

51. The Commission replaces the 

existing hodgepodge of discontinuance 

rules with a unified regulatory 

framework that ensures regulatory 

parity across services and license types 

and applies the rules on a per-license 

basis. Under the new rules for all 

geographically licensed radio services, 

permanent discontinuance of service for 

a given license will be defined as 180 

consecutive days during which a 

licensee does not operate or, in the case 

of WRS licensees providing service to 

customers, does not provide service to 

at least one subscriber that is not 

affiliated with, controlled by, or related 

to the providing carrier. The 

Commission adopted an identical 

framework for AWS–4, H Block, AWS– 

3, and 600 MHz, which are all licensed 

on a geographic basis. In addition, for 

all radio services licensed by site, 

permanent discontinuance of service for 

a given license will be defined as 365 

consecutive days during which a 

licensee does not operate or, in the case 

of WRS licensees providing service to 

customers, does not provide service to 

at least one subscriber that is not 

affiliated with, controlled by, or related 

to the providing carrier. A licensee’s 

authorization will automatically 

terminate, without specific Commission 

action, if it permanently discontinues 

service. 

52. The rules distinguish between 

wireless providers providing service to 

subscribers and private licensee 

operation. In accordance with the 

Commission’s proposal, for wireless 

providers, the Commission defines 

‘‘permanently discontinued’’ as a period 

of 180 or 365 consecutive days (for 

geographic and site-based licenses, 

respectively) during which the licensee 

does not provide service to at least one 

subscriber that is not affiliated with, 

controlled by, or related to, the 

provider. The Commission adopts a 

different approach for wireless licensees 

that use their licenses for private, 

internal communications, however, 

because such licensees generally do not 

provide service to unaffiliated 

subscribers. For such private, internal 

communications, the Commission 

defines ‘‘permanent discontinuance’’ as 

a period of 180 or 365 consecutive days 

(for geographic and site-based licenses 

respectively) during which the licensee 

does not operate. 

53. The Commission concludes that 

different rules for geographic versus 

site-based licenses are warranted by 

their differing operational 

characteristics. Under a geographic 

license, a licensee constructs and 

operates its entire network in the market 

under the umbrella of its geographic 

license. As MetroPCS explains, wireless 

carriers constantly discontinue 

individual sites or channels as they 

reconfigure their networks to increase 

and adjust capacity. The Commission’s 

goal in this proceeding is not to hamper 

a licensee’s normal network design and 

reconfiguration processes. Licensees 

should continue to have the necessary 

flexibility to add or remove network 

facilities consistent with their business 

strategies and network planning 

processes. Thus, for geographic 

licensees, the period of discontinuance 

will not start for a given license until all 

network facilities operated under that 

license within the licensed area are 

discontinued. 

54. By contrast, site-based licensees 

do not have the same flexibility as 

geographic licensees to decommission 

individual facilities. Site-based 

licensees are authorized to transmit 

from a particular location or over a 

particular path and have little flexibility 

to alter these parameters; ceasing 

operation on a frequency or band 

constitutes a total cessation of all 

service or operation under the site-based 

license and, unless otherwise provided, 

would therefore start the clock for 

measuring the length of discontinued 

service/operations on that licensed 

frequency/band at that location/path. 

Thus, to provide site-based licensees 

with the necessary flexibility to repair, 

modify, or upgrade their sites without 

fear of triggering a discontinuance 

period that could lead to the automatic 

termination of their license, the 

Commission finds that site-based 

licensees should be afforded a 365-day 

discontinuance period. 

55. The Commission does not find 

that geographic licensees need a 365- 

day discontinuance period to 

adequately conduct technology 

upgrades and to avoid unfairly 

penalizing licensees that operate in 

remote or highly seasonal areas of the 

country that may be uninhabited for 

more than half the year. Given the 

flexibility geographic licensees have to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41539 

turn off individual facilities in their 

licensed area so long as at least one 

facility continues to operate or 

continues to serve at least one nonaffiliated subscriber, the Commission 

finds that 180 days provides licensees 

with ample time to effectuate network 

modifications without triggering a 

discontinuance period. Adoption of a 

180-day discontinuance period 

substantially increases the amount of 

time licensees can discontinue 

operations in some services. However, 

the Commission decreases the 

discontinuance period from one year to 

180 days in certain services, for 

example, certain Part 101 geographic 

licenses and 220–222 MHz geographic 

licenses (listed in Appendix F of the 

Order). Given the operational flexibility 

afforded geographic area licensees 

discussed above, the Commission 

concludes that this reduction will not 

create undue burdens on such licensees. 

Moreover, in the event additional time 

is needed, as discussed below, the rules 

will provide for an automatic 30-day 

extension or licensees can file for a 

waiver under § 1.925 of the 

Commission’s rules if additional time is 

warranted. 

56. The Commission agrees with 

commenters who propose that the 

discontinuance rule should begin to 

apply on the date a licensee must meet 

its first performance requirement 

benchmark, i.e., the construction 

deadline. Using the construction 

deadline, versus the date a licensee 

actually makes its construction 

notification, will ‘‘avoid unduly 

punishing early adopters who are 

experimenting with certain business 

models or technologies, and who later 

deploy a different technology.’’ If a 

licensee files its notification prior to the 

required construction deadline, the 

licensee should have the flexibility to 

alter its network as it sees fit, including 

turning down the entire system to 

accommodate changes in business plans 

or network design. If the Commission 

were to apply the rule immediately 

upon the filing of a licensee’s 

construction showing or notification, it 

would create a disincentive for licensees 

to deploy their networks prior to their 

construction deadline. Such a result 

would be contrary to the Commission’s 

goal of rapid spectrum deployment. 

57. In most cases, the first 

performance requirement benchmark is 

the interim or final construction 

deadline for geographic licenses, or the 

12-month construction deadline for sitebased licenses. In a few cases, licensees 

have partitioned and/or disaggregated 

their licenses under current rules, and 

one or more of the resulting licenses 

does not have a construction deadline. 

Under the new renewal standard these 

licenses must be operating by the end of 

the next full renewal term after their 

current license term to warrant renewal. 

As such, the discontinuance rules will 

apply to these partitioned/disaggregated 

licenses at that date. This approach 

provides consistent treatment in that 

licensees need only be concerned about 

permanent discontinuance after they are 

required to be operating (whether at 

their next construction deadline or 

renewal). The Commission adopted the 

same approach for AWS–4, H Block, 

AWS–3, and 600 MHz. 

58. In services where the 

Commission’s rules currently contain no 

definition of permanent discontinuance, 

some licensees may have met their 

interim construction deadline, but have 

yet to reach their final construction 

deadline and may have discontinued 

operations as part of a business strategy 

or network plan. Absent a definition of 

permanent discontinuance, these 

licensees might have concluded that 

they could discontinue service for a 

long period without fear of automatic 

license termination. While all covered 

WRS licensees must comply with the 

permanent discontinuance rules going 

forward, it is equitable to provide 

certain existing licensees with 

additional time to come into compliance 

with the rules, if necessary. Thus, in all 

services that do not currently have an 

explicit definition of permanent 

discontinuance, (e.g., Part 24 Personal 

Communications Services, certain Part 

27 Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services, Part 80 

Safety and Special Radio Services, and 

Part 95 218–219 MHz Service) licensees 

will be given until January 1, 2019 to 

come into compliance with the rules 

adopted today regarding permanent 

discontinuance. If a licensee in these 

services is not providing service or is 

not operational on January 1, 2019, the 

discontinuance period would start on 

that date. After that date, a WRS 

licensee’s authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

permanently discontinued as defined 

under the newly adopted rules. 

59. The Commission declines to adopt 

Sprint’s request to apply the permanent 

discontinuance rules only after a 

licensee’s final construction date. The 

permanent discontinuance rules are 

designed to ensure that once a licensee 

is required to begin operations or 

provide service to the public by, e.g., an 

interim construction date, it continues 

to do so thereafter without substantial 

breaks in operation or service. If the 

Commission generally does not apply 

the permanent discontinuance rules 

until after a licensee’s final construction 

date, a licensee would be permitted to 

initiate service at its interim date and 

then shut down all operations until the 

final construction deadline. This result 

is contrary to the Commission’s goal of 

promoting robust spectrum use. 

However, for some services a failure to 

meet an interim construction date 

results in acceleration of the final 

construction date and, in some cases, 

the license expiration date. For these 

services, if a licensee fails to meet the 

interim construction date, the 

discontinuance rule will apply after the 

licensee’s accelerated final construction 

date. 

60. The Commission exclude EBS 

from application of the new permanent 

discontinuance rule because this service 

presents unique issues that are under 

consideration in a separate proceeding. 

The Commission finds that it should 

consider EBS permanent discontinuance 

policies in the context of the 

comprehensive EBS rulemaking. For the 

reasons stated above in the discussion of 

the renewal policy rules, the 

Commission finds that BRS licenses and 

the Motorola-held partitioned and/or 

disaggregated Part 80 VHF Public Coast 

licenses should be subject to the rules 

and policies adopted herein regarding 

permanent discontinuance. 

61. Section 101.305 contains a 

number of requirements related to 

discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of services for some or all 

Part 101 services. The bulk of these 

provisions relate to involuntary and 

voluntary discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of public communications 

services and required filings to be made 

with the Commission. In particular, 

§ 101.305(b) requires that covered 

licensees subject to Title II of the Act 

must obtain prior approval from the 

Commission pursuant to the procedures 

set forth in part 63 of the Commission’s 

rules before they may voluntarily 

discontinue, reduce, or impair public 

communications services to a 

community or part of a community. 

Because § 101.305 implicates the 

provision of service pursuant to Title II 

of the Act and given the limited record 

addressing this rule, the Commission 

makes no changes to this rule section at 

this time. 

62. Notification of permanent 

discontinuance. The Commission 

adopts the proposed filing requirement 

that a licensee that permanently 

discontinues service must notify the 

Commission of the discontinuance 

within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 

or 605 requesting license cancellation. 

Such a self-reporting requirement will 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41540 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

facilitate timely and accurate 

recordkeeping of the Commission 

license and spectrum inventory. 

However, even if a licensee fails to file 

the required form requesting license 

cancellation, an authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if service is 

permanently discontinued as defined by 

the new rules. The Commission 

disagrees with the two commenters who 

ask that the notification period be 

extended to 30 days. Neither commenter 

advances a compelling basis for 

extending the notification period and 

the proposed 10-day period will ensure 

that the Commission’s records are 

updated on a timely basis. 

63. Extension requests. In addition, 

the Commission adopts the proposed 

extension request process under which 

a request for a longer discontinuance 

period may be filed for good cause, 

subject to the requirement that it be 

filed at least 30 days before the end of 

the discontinuance period. Under this 

process, the filing of a request would 

automatically extend the 

discontinuance period a minimum of 

the later of an additional 30 days or the 

date upon which the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) 

acts on the request. Commenters 

support the proposed automatic process 

for extension requests. Such an express 

process provides licensees with the 

flexibility to request a limited period of 

additional time for discontinuance of 

operations as necessitated by the 

licensee’s business and operational 

needs and the certainty that they will 

receive a minimum of 30 additional 

days to resume service. 

64. The Commission declines, 

however, to adopt CCA’s proposal for an 

automatic six-month extension period 

or case-by-case review. An automatic 

extension of the permissible 

discontinuance period of six months 

runs contrary to the goals of timely and 

efficient use of the nation’s scare 

spectrum resources. Although unique 

circumstances may arise that necessitate 

a period of discontinuance beyond what 

is automatically permitted under the 

new rules, these circumstances can 

adequately be addressed by the existing 

waiver processes. 

65. Roaming. Several commenters ask 

that the Commission clarify how its 

permanent discontinuance rules apply 

to licensees that serve roamers. The 

Commission concludes that, for 

purposes of the permanent 

discontinuance rule, the term ‘‘service’’ 

includes service provided exclusively or 

incidentally to roamers even though 

such roamers are not subscribers of the 

licensee providing roaming service. 

Including roaming within the definition 

of service serves the underlying goal of 

the Commission’s rules to ensure that 

licensees are actively using their 

spectrum—be it to provide service to 

subscribers or roamers—and not 

allowing it to lie fallow. The 

Commission clarifies, however, that a 

WRS licensee must actually be 

providing service to a roamer and not 

merely have the ability to provide 

service to roamers. 

66. Channel keepers. The Commission 

adopts its proposed rule that operation 

of so-called channel keepers—devices 

that transmit test signals, tones, and/or 

color bars, for example—will not 

constitute operation or service for the 

purposes of the permanent 

discontinuance rule. As the Commission 

explained previously, ‘‘it was clearly 

unreasonable . . . to believe that the 

periodic broadcasting of signals that 

nobody received constituted ‘service’ 

within the meaning of the rule. Such an 

interpretation is unreasonable; in order 

to provide a service a provider would, 

at a minimum, need a customer or other 

person to serve.’’ The Commission thus 

adopts the rule regarding channel 

keepers as proposed. 

67. Verizon asks the Commission to 

expand the definition of operation to 

include facilities that are ‘‘available’’ to 

carry customer traffic but are in 

‘‘standby’’ mode and only used on an 

‘‘as-needed basis depending on capacity 

demands.’’ Verizon argues that these 

systems are needed to allow licensees to 

maximize efficiency of their spectrum 

resources and network investment and 

maintain optimal performance levels 

while providing seamless service to 

customers across multiple licenses in 

the same market. The Commission 

declines to expand its definition of 

operation as requested by Verizon. As 

the Commission explained previously, 

at a minimum, provision of service 

requires a customer or other person to 

serve. That a network is capable of 

service in ‘‘standby mode’’ or on an ‘‘asneeded basis’’ without providing actual 

service to a customer or other person is 

insufficient to constitute service for 

purposes of the Commission’s 

permanent discontinuance rules. 

Moreover, the Commission does not 

license spectrum on a network basis; 

rather, it evaluates operational 

obligations on a license-by-license basis, 

and thus licensees must maintain 

continuity of service or operations on a 

license-by-license basis. 

C. Geographic Partitioning and 

Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and 

Policies 

68. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the 

Commission proposed a new rule, 

§ 1.950, to standardize and clarify its 

partitioning and disaggregation rules 

across services in which such activities 

are permitted. As part of this proposal, 

the Commission contemplated 

establishing consistent performance 

obligations (i.e., construction and 

operation) for spectrum licenses that 

have been divided by geographic 

partitioning or spectrum disaggregation 

arrangements. Specifically, the 

Commission proposed that each party to 

such an arrangement would be 

individually required to meet any 

service-specific performance 

requirements. 

69. At present, there are a wide 

variety of Wireless Radio Services under 

the Commission’s authority that are 

subject to equally varied construction 

and performance obligations. The 

Commission’s current partitioning rules 

provide licensees several options to 

meet their construction obligations: (1) 

Independent Construction—the parties 

may independently elect to satisfy the 

construction requirements for their 

respective partitioned license areas and 

failure to perform subjects a licensee in 

this context to forfeiture of its 

partitioned license; (2) Collective 

Construction—the parties may 

collectively share responsibility for 

meeting the construction requirement 

for the entire geographic area and if the 

parties collectively fail, then both will 

be subject to a range of penalties, 

including possible license forfeiture; or 

(3) Partitioner-only Construction—the 

partitioner may satisfy the construction 

requirement for the entire prepartitioned geographic area. Many 

services allow this third option, but the 

repercussions for failure to perform vary 

significantly. In some instances, 

partitionees must still satisfy a 

substantial service requirement for the 

partitioned area at renewal. In others, 

partitionees can argue that they are not 

obligated to provide service to obtain 

license renewal since only the nonperforming partitioner is subject to 

forfeiture of its license at renewal. 

70. Licensees also currently have 

multiple options under the 

Commission’s disaggregation rules to 

meet applicable construction 

obligations: (1) One-party 

Construction—parties can assign 

responsibility to either the disaggregator 

or the disaggregatee, and construction 

by that party is deemed sufficient for 

both. Generally, if the designated party 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41541 

6Specifically, in § 1.950(g), as revised herein, the 

Commission provides the parties to a partitioning 

and/or disaggregation arrangement with two 

options for satisfying service-specific performance 

requirements (i.e., construction and operation 

requirements). Under the first option, each party 

may individually satisfy any service-specific 

requirements and, upon failure, must individually 

face any service-specific performance penalties. 

Under the second option, both parties may agree to 

share responsibility for any service-specific 

requirements. Upon failure to meet their shared 

service-specific performance requirements, both 

parties will be subject to any service-specific 

penalties. 

fails to perform, only its license is 

subject to forfeiture at renewal. (2) 

Shared Construction Responsibility— 

parties may share responsibility for 

meeting the construction requirements. 

Depending on the service, failure to 

perform by either party could result in 

forfeiture of both licenses. By contrast, 

some service rules allow parties to a 

disaggregation to satisfy the 

construction requirement in the 

aggregate rather than individually. 

71. A majority of the commenters that 

addressed the partitioning and 

disaggregation construction 

requirements in the WRS Reform NPRM 

disagree with the Commission’s 

proposal to require that each party to 

such arrangements independently 

satisfy construction obligations. They 

object largely on the basis that the 

current rules already promote efficient 

spectrum use and changing them is 

unnecessary, or worse, harmful. They 

contend, among other things, that the 

new rules will curb interest in 

secondary market opportunities, 

particularly in rural areas, and will 

disrupt existing private contractual 

relationships. 

72. The Commission’s experience 

with partitioning and disaggregation 

indicates that parties can, and 

sometimes do, manipulate the current 

requirements in ways that result in 

spectrum in some services lying fallow 

for long periods of time, contrary to the 

Commission’s stated goal of maximizing 

efficient spectrum use. For instance, 

under the current rules, parties have 

been free to disaggregate a small sliver 

of a spectrum license over the entire 

geographic licensed area and assign the 

entire construction requirement to that 

particular license. In that circumstance, 

only that small sliver of spectrum has 

been subject to license termination or 

forfeiture, while the bulk of the license 

has not been subject to any construction 

requirement. The Commission finds that 

none of the comments effectively 

addresses the central rationale for 

proposing to modify the partitioning 

and disaggregation performance 

requirements, i.e., preventing spectrum 

warehousing. The Commission therefore 

amends the partitioning and 

disaggregation rules to prevent spectrum 

warehousing. 

73. In lieu of requiring each party to 

a partitioning or disaggregation 

arrangement to certify that it will 

independently satisfy service-specific 

construction and/or performance 

requirements, the Commission will 

afford such parties the additional option 

of sharing service-specific performance 

requirements.6 Further, to ensure 

uniformity and clarity, the Commission 

adopts § 1.950, largely as proposed, and 

§ 1.950(g), as revised, to replace separate 

partitioning and disaggregation 

construction and performance rules for 

each service in various rule parts. The 

Commission concludes that these 

changes will provide WRS licensees 

with greater flexibility to configure their 

licenses according to their operational 

needs, while still affording important 

safeguards against spectrum 

warehousing. 

74. The Commission agrees with 

Verizon that imposing an independent 

construction requirement on both 

parties to a partitioning or 

disaggregation arrangement, as proposed 

in draft § 1.950(g) in the WRS Reform 

NPRM, might, under certain 

circumstances, unnecessarily impose 

additional construction requirements on 

parties to partitioning and 

disaggregation arrangements that would 

not have existed had the license not 

been partitioned or disaggregated. To 

address this potential issue, the 

Commission revises § 1.950(g) to allow 

participants to share the construction 

requirement, which ensures that no two 

parties to a partitioning or 

disaggregation arrangement will be 

required to build out more than 100 

percent of the requirement for any 

particular geographic area or spectrum 

block. In addition, parties to 

partitioning and disaggregation 

arrangements are not required to 

continue construction in cases where 

the original licensee has already 

satisfied the requirement for the license 

term. However, to the extent that 

§ 1.950(g), as revised, requires that 

partitionees and disaggregatees comply 

with interim and final construction 

benchmarks in addition to satisfying the 

renewal requirements the Commission 

adopts in this order, the Commission’s 

interest in preventing spectrum 

warehousing that is permitted under 

current rules outweighs the potential 

added burden, if any, on these thirdparty licensees. 

75. The Commission finds that the 

new rule adequately addresses 

commenters’ arguments that proposed 

§ 1.950(g) would deter secondary market 

activity, especially with respect to 

small, rural licensees for whom buildout 

requirements may be prohibitively 

costly. The Commission also finds that 

its rule adequately addresses Blooston’s 

arguments underlying its 

recommendation that the Commission 

exempt rural areas from the rule. The 

revised rule allows parties to 

partitioning and disaggregation 

arrangements to share service-specific 

construction requirements. The 

Commission concludes that the 

additional flexibility of the revised rule 

will continue to enable service 

providers to configure geographic area 

and spectrum block licenses to suit their 

unique operational needs, which 

includes using partitioning and 

disaggregation to open up licensing 

opportunities to rural carriers. 

76. The Commission declines to retain 

‘‘partitioner only’’ construction rules 

(wherein a partitioner can certify that it 

has met or will meet the construction 

requirement for the entire prepartitioned area) to encourage carriers to 

take risks in rural markets. This 

proposal would appear to allow a 

partitionee in certain services to hold a 

license for the partitioned area without 

deploying facilities on the spectrum for 

a significant period of time, even if the 

licensee must be able to certify that it is 

providing service at renewal, or 

otherwise make a showing to justify 

license renewal. The Commission 

concludes that the better way to 

promote service to rural markets is to 

ensure that all license holders—at least 

during the initial license term, and in 

circumstances where the original 

licensee has not previously satisfied the 

construction requirement for the entire 

geographic area or spectrum block— 

have, directly or indirectly, an 

obligation to construct and operate 

facilities on the spectrum. 

77. The Commission declines to adopt 

CTIA’s proposal that the Commission 

should exempt a licensee’s wholly 

owned subsidiaries or commonly 

controlled affiliates when they partner 

with the licensee to divide the license. 

The Commission’s experience has 

shown that this type of intra-corporate 

family partitioning and disaggregation 

has proven particularly susceptible to 

manipulation for spectrum warehousing 

purposes simply because the parties to 

the division are commonly controlled. 

Adoption of CTIA’s proposal risks 

undermining rather than advancing the 

Commission’s objective of eliminating 

spectrum warehousing. Moreover, the 

addition of the new option to permit 

shared construction responsibility by a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41542 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

partitioner/partitionee or a 

disaggregator/disaggregatee should 

largely address this concern. 

78. The Commission does not adopt 

the suggestions raised by MetroPCS and 

Verizon that the Commission exempt 

Broadband PCS from the proposed rule 

based on the argument that the 

substantial service requirement at 

renewal discourages parties to a 

partitioning arrangement from 

warehousing spectrum in the manner 

the Commission seeks to preclude. The 

Commission concludes that these 

licensees will be no worse off under a 

regulatory framework that holds all 

licensees to comparable requirements. 

Many services still allow parties to a 

partitioning or disaggregation 

arrangement to assign the performance 

requirement to one of the parties and 

thereby allow the other to delay or avoid 

construction in that party’s portion of 

the license (whether geography or 

spectrum) if they so choose. This 

problem exists in numerous services, 

even if some service rules may 

discourage so-called free riders. By this 

Order, the Commission seeks to 

consolidate the services under a single 

set of rules and proscribe spectrum 

warehousing by all licensees in the 

covered services, not just the few who 

hold spectrum subject to service rules 

that more effectively prevent such 

warehousing. 

79. The Commission also declines to 

adopt CTIA’s proposal to prohibit 

parties from assuming construction and 

performance obligations for an entire 

license area or spectrum block unless 

they also hold spectrum covering a 

majority of that same geographic area or 

spectrum block. CTIA does not provide 

evidence demonstrating why this 

approach would be more effective at 

preventing spectrum warehousing than 

the consistent approach envisioned by 

the partitioning and disaggregation rules 

adopted today, nor does it acknowledge 

or address the potential administrative 

burdens that would be placed on 

applicants and on Commission staff in 

addressing such arrangements. The 

Commission believes that adoption of 

CTIA’s proposal would provide greater 

uncertainty in the spectrum marketplace 

and would not consistently and 

successfully prevent spectrum 

warehousing. 

80. The Commission also declines to 

exempt existing partitioning and 

disaggregation arrangements from 

application of the requirements of 

§ 1.950(g) as adopted today, and apply 

the rule only prospectively and only to 

future partitioning and disaggregation 

arrangements. By adopting § 1.950(g) as 

revised, the Commission intends to 

prevent spectrum warehousing and 

ensure that future transactions facilitate 

the availability of spectrum in the 

marketplace for licensees who are most 

highly motivated to use it. By this 

action, the Commission seeks to resolve 

loopholes in the current partitioning 

and disaggregation rules that could be 

and have been manipulated to avoid the 

very construction and substantial 

service obligations that promote 

efficient spectrum use. However, the 

Commission agrees that its rules should 

not be applied retroactively to disrupt 

transactions that have already been 

negotiated based on the pre-existing 

rules and submitted to the Commission 

for approval. Specifically, § 1.950(g) will 

be applied to partitioning and 

disaggregation arrangements reflected in 

applications filed on or after the 

effective date of the new rule, and not 

to any arrangements reflected in an 

already granted application or in an 

application filed before the effective 

date of new § 1.950(g). 

81. The Commission makes no 

changes in response to AT&T’s 

argument that new entrants will be 

discouraged from acquiring spectrum 

through partitioning or disaggregation 

when it is late in the original license 

term, and there is little time to fulfill the 

construction obligation. The 

Commission concludes that this concern 

is related not to partitioning and 

disaggregation rules, but to the current 

build out rules, which provide that the 

performance requirements associated 

with a license are not reduced or 

extended as a result of any secondary 

market transaction, including one near 

the end of a license term. The rule 

modifications do not alter those 

obligations. 

82. Finally, the Commission does not 

address the suggestion by Sprint and 

AT&T that licensees that have acquired 

previously partitioned and/or 

disaggregated licenses be allowed, as a 

matter of processing, to consolidate the 

subdivided parts into the original 

license configuration. The Commission 

finds this proposal to be beyond the 

scope of this proceeding, which is 

narrowly focused on standardizing and 

clarifying the Commission’s partitioning 

and disaggregation rules across services. 

The question of whether, and how, a 

partitioned or disaggregated license can 

be reconstituted as a matter or 

processing can be addressed by 

Commission staff under current rules 

and licensing systems. 

83. Commenting parties in this 

proceeding that addressed proposed 

§ 1.950 focused solely on proposed 

§ 1.950(g). Accordingly, based on the 

record in this proceeding, the 

Commission adopt § 1.950 largely as 

proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM, 

with the exception of § 1.950(g). The 

Commission further concludes that 

adopting new § 1.950(g), as revised 

herein, will most effectively balance its 

competing obligations to: (1) remove 

potential barriers to entry by returning 

heretofore fallow spectrum to the 

marketplace, and thereby increase 

competition; (2) encourage parties to use 

spectrum more efficiently; and (3) speed 

service to unserved and underserved 

areas. 

D. Freeze on the Filing of Competing 

Renewal Applications and Resolution of 

Previously Pending Competing Renewal 

Applications 

84. In the WRS Reform Order, the 

Commission imposed a freeze on the 

filing of competing renewal applications 

and held in abeyance the already-filed 

competing renewal applications until 

the conclusion of this proceeding. The 

Commission stated that, if it were to 

adopt the rules proposed in the WRS 

Reform NPRM, it would ‘‘dismiss all 

pending mutually exclusive 

applications and related correspondence 

filed with the Commission regarding 

those applications.’’ 

85. At the time that the WRS Reform 

Order was adopted, the Commission 

had before it a total of 151 renewal 

applications in three different service 

bands, and 178 applications competing 

with those renewal applications. Most 

of those competing applications—175 of 

178—were filed in the 2.3 GHz Band 

against WCS licensees. These competing 

applications were dismissed by the 

Commission after the relevant parties 

reached settlement agreements. Of the 

remaining three competing applications, 

two were against Cellular licensees’ 

renewal applications and one was 

against a Broadband PCS licensee’s 

renewal application. The two Cellular 

competing applications have since been 

dismissed or resolved. The PCS 

competing application was withdrawn 

after the applicant obtained the 

underlying license at issue via the 

license assignment process. 

86. Because there are no remaining 

pending competing renewal 

applications, there is no further action 

needed on the Commission’s part to 

dismiss such applications. 

E. Transition From Interim Renewal 

Application Procedures 

87. The Commission directed 

incumbent licensees to continue to file 

timely renewal applications as required 

by applicable Commission rules during 

the pendency of this rulemaking. The 

Commission further directed that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41543 

renewal applications routinely should 

continue to be placed on a Bureau 

accepted for filing public notice, and 

that interested parties could continue to 

file petitions to deny consistent with the 

rules. In order to reduce uncertainty that 

might be caused by long-pending 

renewal applications, the Commission 

directed the Bureau to routinely grant 

renewal applications during the 

pendency of this proceeding, 

conditioned on the outcome of this 

rulemaking. 

88. Notwithstanding the 

Commission’s statement in the WRS 

Reform Order that interested parties 

may file petitions to deny consistent 

with the requirements of its rules, 

NTCH, Inc., now asks that the 

Commission provide an opportunity for 

a potential applicant to challenge a 

renewal applicant’s basic qualifications 

at the close of this docket. NTCH asserts 

that providing this opportunity to file 

petitions to deny against conditionally 

granted renewal applications is 

necessary to avoid ‘‘permanently 

abrogat[ing] the legal rights of parties 

interested in challenging the grant of a 

renewal application.’’ The Commission 

denies NTCH’s request that it open a 

window for the filing of petitions to 

deny against licensees whose renewal 

applications have been conditionally 

granted. The opportunity to file 

petitions to deny against renewal 

applications has been present 

throughout the pendency of this 

proceeding, and NTCH has not offered 

a persuasive legal or equitable argument 

in support of having a second shot at 

these renewal applications. The 

Commission accordingly declines to 

open a window for the filing of petitions 

to deny against renewal applications 

that have been conditionally granted. 

89. Petitions for reconsideration of the 

actions taken by the WRS Reform Order 

were filed by: (1) Atlantic Tele-Network, 

Inc., in connection with its wholly 

owned indirect subsidiary’s, Tisdale 

Telephone Company, LLC, competing 

Cellular application with the Cellular 

renewal application filed by Kankakee 

Cellular L.L.C.; (2) CTIA, AT&T, Cricket, 

Rural Cellular Association, Sprint, TMobile, US Cellular, and Verizon 

Wireless; (3) Green Flag Wireless, LLC, 

CWC Licensing Holding, Inc., James 

McCotter, and NTCH–CA, Inc.; and (4) 

Wireless Communications Association 

International, Inc. (WCAI). 

90. The Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. 

petition has been mooted by the fact 

that Kankakee withdrew its renewal 

application for a Cellular license 

authorization in the Kankakee, Illinois 

market, and Tisdale was granted a 

Cellular license for that market. The 

Commission previously approved the 

withdrawal of the petition for 

reconsideration filed by Green Flag 

Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, 

Inc., James McCotter, and NTCH–CA, 

Inc., along with another petition for 

reconsideration filed by the same parties 

on October 22, 2010, pursuant to a 

settlement agreement. The WCAI 

petition for partial reconsideration was 

addressed by the WRS Reform 

Clarification Public Notice, (WT Docket 

No. 10–112) on March 18, 2011, issued 

by the Bureau to clarify the conditional 

grant of applications for renewal of 

license in the WRS Reform Order. 

Subsequent to the release of the WRS 

Reform Clarification Public Notice, 

CTIA, AT&T, Cricket, Rural Cellular 

Association, Sprint, T-Mobile, US 

Cellular, and Verizon Wireless filed a 

motion to withdraw their petition for 

reconsideration. The Commission finds 

no reason to address the arguments in 

the CTIA Petition and accordingly will 

grant the request to withdraw the CTIA 

Petition. 

91. The Commission directs the 

Bureau to take the necessary steps to 

cease conditioning the grant of renewal 

applications on the outcome of this 

proceeding. In addition, the 

Commission directs the Bureau to take 

the necessary steps to remove the 

condition from already granted renewal 

applications or otherwise make clear on 

the face of such licenses that such 

condition is no longer valid. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

92. The Order contains modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under § 3507(d) of the PRA. 

OMB, the general public, and other 

Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. In addition, the 

Commission notes that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific 

comment on how it might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

93. The Commission assessed the 

effects of the policies adopted in the 

Order with regard to information 

collection burdens on small business 

concerns, and found that these policies 

will benefit many companies with fewer 

than 25 employees because the revisions 

the Commission adopts should reduce 

filing burdens for all WRS licensees, 

whether large or small. Also, by 

ensuring, pursuant to the partitioning 

and disaggregation rules and the 

permanent discontinuance rules the 

Commission adopts today, that valuable 

spectrum will not lie fallow, these 

policies will provide small entities with 

more opportunities to gain access to 

valuable spectrum. In addition, the 

Commission has described impacts that 

might affect small businesses, which 

includes most businesses with fewer 

than 25 employees, in the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

in Appendix B of the Order. 

B. Congressional Review Act 

94. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Order to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the Commission will 

send a copy of the Order, including the 

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). 

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

95. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice and comment rulemakings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

prepared a FRFA, set forth in Appendix 

B of the Order, concerning the possible 

impact of the rule changes. 

D. Ex Parte Presentations 

96. This proceeding shall continue to 

be treated as ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41544 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) 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. 

97. 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). 

III. Ordering Clauses 

98. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 

301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

154(j), 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

332, that this second report and order in 

WT Docket No. 10–112 is adopted. 

99. It is further ordered that parts 1, 

22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR parts 

1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101, 

are amended, effective October 2, 2017 

except as otherwise provided herein. 

100. It is further ordered that the 

amendments adopted in this second 

report and order, and to §§ 1.949, 1.950, 

and 1.953, which contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements that require review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, will become effective after OMB 

review and approval, on the effective 

date specified in a notice that the 

Commission will have published in the 

Federal Register announcing such 

approval and effective date. 

101. It is further ordered that the 

amendments adopted in this second 

report and order, and to paragraphs (e), 

(q)(7), (r)(6), (s)(6), and (t)(6) of § 27.14, 

will become effective after OMB review 

and approval of § 1.949, on the effective 

date specified in a notice that the 

Commission will have published in the 

Federal Register announcing such 

approval and effective date. 

102. It is further ordered that the 

amendments adopted in this second 

report and order, and to §§ 22.317, 

22.947, 27.17, 30.106, 74.632, 90.157, 

90.631, and 101.65, will become 

effective after OMB review and approval 

of § 1.953, on the effective date specified 

in a notice that the Commission will 

have published in the Federal Register 

announcing such approval and effective 

date. 

103. It is further ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 405, and § 1.106 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.106, the 

Motion of CTIA—The Wireless 

Association®, AT&T Services, Inc., 

Cricket Communications, Inc., Rural 

Cellular Association, Sprint Nextel 

Corporation, T-Mobile USA, United 

States Cellular Corporation and Verizon 

Wireless To Withdraw Petition for 

Reconsideration, filed May 31, 2011, to 

withdraw their Petition for 

Reconsideration, filed Aug. 6, 2010, is 

granted. 

104. It is further ordered that, 

pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send 

a copy of the second report and order 

to Congress and to the Government 

Accountability Office. 

105. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the second report and order, including 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis and the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 

24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 

Communications common carriers, 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 22, 

24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 as 

follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 310, 

332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.907 by adding the 

definitions of ‘‘Covered Geographic 

Licenses’’ and ‘‘Covered Site-based 

Licenses’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 1.907 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Covered Geographic Licenses. 

Covered geographic licenses consist of 

the following services: 1.4 GHz Service 

(part 27, subpart I of this chapter); 1.6 

GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz 

Service and Digital Electronic Message 

Services (part 101, subpart G); 218–219 

MHz Service (part 95, subpart F); 220– 

222 MHz Service, excluding public 

safety licenses (part 90, subpart T); 600 

MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 

MHz Commercial Services (part 27, 

subparts F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band 

Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz 

Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 

90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized 

Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart 

S); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, 

subparts K and L); Air-Ground 

Radiotelephone Service (Commercial 

Aviation) (part 22, subpart G); 

Broadband Personal Communications 

Service (part 24, subpart E); Broadband 

Radio Service (part 27, subpart M); 

Cellular Radiotelephone Service (part 

22, subpart H); Dedicated Short Range 

Communications Service, excluding 

public safety licenses (part 90, subpart 

M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); 

Local Multipoint Distribution Service 

(part 101, subpart L); Multichannel 

Video Distribution and Data Service 

(part 101, subpart P); Multilateration 

Location and Monitoring Service (part 

90, subpart M); Multiple Address 

Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); 

Narrowband Personal Communications 

Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and 

Radiotelephone Service (part 22, 

subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF 

Public Coast Stations, including 

Automated Maritime 

Telecommunications Systems (part 80, 

subpart J); Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service (part 30); and Wireless 

Communications Service (part 27, 

subpart D). 

Covered Site-based Licenses. Covered 

site-based licenses consist of the 

following services: 220–222 MHz 

Service (site-based), excluding public 

safety licenses (part 90, subpart T of this 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41545 

chapter); 800/900 MHz (SMR and 

Business and Industrial Land 

Transportation Pool) (part 90, subpart 

S); Aeronautical Advisory Stations 

(Unicoms) (part 87, subpart G); AirGround Radiotelephone Service 

(General Aviation) (part 22, subpart G); 

Alaska-Public Fixed Stations (part 80, 

subpart O); Broadcast Auxiliary Service 

(part 74, subparts D, E, F, and H); 

Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point, 

Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I); 

Industrial/Business Radio Pool (part 90, 

subpart C); Local Television 

Transmission Service (part 101, subpart 

J); Multiple Address Systems (sitebased), excluding public safety licenses 

(part 101, subpart H); NonMultilateration Location and Monitoring 

Service (part 90, subpart M); Offshore 

Radiotelephone Service (part 22, 

subpart I); Paging and Radiotelephone 

Service (site-based) (part 22, subpart E); 

Private Carrier Paging (part 90, subpart 

P); Private Operational Fixed Point-toPoint Microwave Service, excluding 

public safety licenses (part 101, subpart 

H); Public Coast Stations (site-based) 

(part 80, subpart J); Radiodetermination 

Service Stations (Radionavigation Land 

Stations) (part 87, subpart Q); 

Radiolocation Service (part 90, subpart 

F); and Rural Radiotelephone Service 

(including Basic Exchange Telephone 

Radio Service) (part 22, subpart F). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.934 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 1.934 Defective applications and 

dismissal. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) If the applicant requests dismissal 

of its application without prejudice, the 

Commission will dismiss that 

application without prejudice, unless it 

is an application for which the 

applicant submitted the winning bid in 

a competitive bidding process. 

* * * * * 

(b) Dismissal of mutually exclusive 

applications not granted. The 

Commission may dismiss mutually 

exclusive applications for which the 

applicant did not submit the winning 

bid in a competitive bidding process. 

(c) Dismissal for failure to prosecute. 

The Commission may dismiss 

applications for failure of the applicant 

to prosecute or for failure of the 

applicant to respond substantially 

within a specified time period to official 

correspondence or requests for 

additional information. Such dismissal 

may be with prejudice in cases of noncompliance with § 1.945. The 

Commission may dismiss applications 

with prejudice for failure of the 

applicant to comply with requirements 

related to a competitive bidding process. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 1.949 to read as follows: 

§ 1.949 Application for renewal of 

authorization. 

(a) Filing requirements. Applications 

for renewal of authorizations in the 

Wireless Radio Services must be filed 

no later than the expiration date of the 

authorization, and no sooner than 90 

days prior to the expiration date. 

Renewal applications must be filed on 

the same form as applications for initial 

authorization in the same service, i.e., 

FCC Form 601 or 605. 

(b) Common expiration date. 

Licensees with multiple authorizations 

in the same service may request a 

common date on which such 

authorizations expire for renewal 

purposes. License terms may be 

shortened by up to one year but will not 

be extended. 

(c) Implementation. Covered Sitebased Licenses, except Common Carrier 

Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service 

(part 101, subpart I of this chapter), and 

Covered Geographic Licenses in the 600 

MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 

MHz Commercial Services (part 27, 

subpart F); Advanced Wireless Services 

(part 27, subpart L) (AWS–3 (1695–1710 

MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 

MHz) and AWS–4 (2000–2020 MHz and 

2180–2200 MHz) only); and H Block 

Service (part 27, subpart K) must 

comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) 

of this section. All other Covered 

Geographic Licenses must comply with 

paragraphs (d) through (h) of this 

section beginning on January 1, 2023. 

Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point 

Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I) 

must comply with paragraphs (d) 

through (h) of this section beginning on 

October 1, 2018. 

(d) Renewal Standard. An applicant 

for renewal of an authorization of a 

Covered Site-based License or a Covered 

Geographic License must demonstrate 

that over the course of the license term, 

the licensee(s) provided and continue to 

provide service to the public, or 

operated and continue to operate the 

license to meet the licensee(s)’ private, 

internal communications needs. 

(e) Safe harbors. An applicant for 

renewal will meet the Renewal Standard 

if it can certify that it has satisfied the 

requirements of one of the following 

safe harbors: 

(1) Covered Site-based Licenses. (i) 

The applicant must certify that it is 

continuing to operate consistent with its 

most recently filed construction 

notification (or most recent 

authorization, when no construction 

notification is required). 

(ii) The applicant must certify that no 

permanent discontinuance of service 

occurred during the license term. This 

safe harbor may be used by any Covered 

Site-based License. 

(2) Geographic licenses—commercial 

service. (i) For an applicant in its initial 

license term with an interim 

performance requirement, the applicant 

must certify that it has met its interim 

performance requirement and that over 

the portion of the license term following 

the interim performance requirement, 

the applicant continues to use its 

facilities to provide at least the level of 

service required by its interim 

performance requirement; and the 

licensee has met its final performance 

requirement and continues to use its 

facilities to provide at least the level of 

service required by its final performance 

requirement through the end of the 

license term. For an applicant in its 

initial license term with no interim 

performance requirement, the applicant 

must certify that it has met its final 

performance requirement and continues 

to use its facilities to provide at least the 

level of service required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of the license term. For an applicant 

in any subsequent license term, the 

applicant must certify that it continues 

to use its facilities to provide at least the 

level of service required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of any subsequent license terms. 

(ii) The applicant must certify that no 

permanent discontinuance of service 

occurred during the license term. This 

safe harbor may be used by any Covered 

Geographic License. 

(3) Geographic licenses—private 

systems. (i) For an applicant in its initial 

license term with an interim 

performance requirement, the applicant 

must certify that it has met its interim 

performance requirement and that over 

the portion of the license term following 

the interim performance requirement, 

the applicant continues to use its 

facilities to further the applicant’s 

private business or public interest/ 

public safety needs at or above the level 

required to meet its interim performance 

requirement; and the applicant has met 

its final performance requirement and 

continues to use its facilities to provide 

at least the level of operation required 

by its final performance requirement 

through the end of the license term. For 

an applicant in its initial license term 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41546 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

with no interim performance 

requirement, the applicant must certify 

that it has met its final performance 

requirement and continues to use its 

facilities to provide at least the level of 

operation required by its final 

performance requirement through the 

end of the license term. For an applicant 

in any subsequent license term, the 

applicant must certify that it continues 

to use its facilities to further the 

applicant’s private business or public 

interest/public safety needs at or above 

the level required to meet its final 

performance requirement. 

(ii) The applicant must certify that no 

permanent discontinuance of operation 

occurred during the license term. This 

safe harbor may be used by any Covered 

Geographic License. 

(4) Partitioned or disaggregated 

license without a performance 

requirement. (i) The applicant must 

certify that it continues to use its 

facilities to provide service or to further 

the applicant’s private business or 

public interest/public safety needs. 

(ii) The applicant must certify that no 

permanent discontinuance of service 

occurred during the license term. This 

safe harbor may be used by any Covered 

Geographic License. 

(f) Renewal Showing. If an applicant 

for renewal cannot meet the Renewal 

Standard in paragraph (d) of this section 

by satisfying the requirements of one of 

the safe harbors in paragraph (e) of this 

section, it must make a Renewal 

Showing, independent of its 

performance requirements, as a 

condition of renewal. The Renewal 

Showing must specifically address the 

Renewal Standard by including a 

detailed description of the applicant’s 

provision of service (or, when allowed 

under the relevant service rules or 

pursuant to waiver, use of the spectrum 

for private, internal communication) 

during the entire license period and 

address, as applicable: 

(1) The level and quality of service 

provided by the applicant (e.g., the 

population served, the area served, the 

number of subscribers, the services 

offered); 

(2) The date service commenced, 

whether service was ever interrupted, 

and the duration of any interruption or 

outage; 

(3) The extent to which service is 

provided to rural areas; 

(4) The extent to which service is 

provided to qualifying tribal land as 

defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of this 

chapter; and 

(5) Any other factors associated with 

the level of service to the public. 

(g) Regulatory Compliance 

Certification. An applicant for renewal 

of an authorization in the Wireless 

Radio Services identified in paragraph 

(d) of this section must make a 

Regulatory Compliance Certification 

certifying that it has substantially 

complied with all applicable FCC rules, 

policies, and the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. 

(h) Consequences of denial. If the 

Commission, or the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau acting 

under delegated authority, finds that a 

licensee has not met the Renewal 

Standard under paragraph (d) of this 

section, or that its Regulatory 

Compliance Certification under 

paragraph (g) of this section is 

insufficient, its renewal application will 

be denied, and its licensed spectrum 

will return automatically to the 

Commission for reassignment (by 

auction or other mechanism). In the case 

of certain services licensed site-by-site, 

the spectrum will revert automatically 

to the holder of the related overlay 

geographic-area license. To the extent 

that an AWS–4 licensee also holds the 

2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 

rights for the affected license area, the 

MSS protection rule in § 27.1136 of this 

chapter will no longer apply in that 

license area. 

■ 5. Add § 1.950 to read as follows: 

§ 1.950 Geographic partitioning and 

spectrum disaggregation. 

(a) Definitions. The terms ‘‘county and 

county equivalent,’’ ‘‘geographic 

partitioning,’’ and ‘‘spectrum 

disaggregation’’ as used in this section 

are defined as follows: 

(1) County and county equivalent. The 

terms county and county equivalent as 

used in this part are defined by Federal 

Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 

6–4, which provides the names and 

codes that represent the counties and 

other entities treated as equivalent legal 

and/or statistical subdivisions of the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and the 

possessions and freely associated areas 

of the United States. Counties are the 

‘‘first-order subdivisions’’ of each State 

and statistically equivalent entity, 

regardless of their local designations 

(county, parish, borough, etc.). Thus, the 

following entities are equivalent to 

counties for legal and/or statistical 

purposes: The parishes of Louisiana; the 

boroughs and census areas of Alaska; 

the District of Columbia; the 

independent cities of Maryland, 

Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia; that 

part of Yellowstone National Park in 

Montana; and various entities in the 

possessions and associated areas. The 

FIPS codes and FIPS code 

documentation are available online at 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/ 

index.htm. 

(2) Geographic partitioning. 

Geographic partitioning is the 

assignment of a geographic portion of a 

geographic area licensee’s license area. 

(3) Spectrum disaggregation. 

Spectrum disaggregation is the 

assignment of portions of blocks of a 

geographic area licensee’s spectrum. 

(b) Eligibility. Covered Geographic 

Licenses are eligible for geographic 

partitioning and spectrum 

disaggregation. 

(1) Geographic partitioning. An 

eligible licensee may partition any 

geographic portion of its license area, at 

any time following grant of its license, 

subject to the following exceptions: 

(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must 

comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter. 

(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

licensees must comply with § 22.948 of 

this chapter. 

(iii) Multichannel Video & 

Distribution and Data Service licensees 

are only permitted to partition licensed 

geographic areas along county borders 

(Parishes in Louisiana or Territories in 

Alaska). 

(2) Spectrum disaggregation. An 

eligible licensee may disaggregate 

spectrum in any amount, at any time 

following grant of its license to eligible 

entities, subject to the following 

exceptions: 

(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must 

comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter. 

(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

licensees must comply with § 22.948 of 

this chapter. 

(iii) VHF Public Coast (156–162 MHz) 

spectrum may only be disaggregated in 

frequency pairs, except that the ship 

and coast transmit frequencies 

comprising Channel 87 (see § 80.371(c) 

of this chapter) may be disaggregated 

separately. 

(iv) Disaggregation is not permitted in 

the Multichannel Video & Distribution 

and Data Service 12.2–12.7 GHz band. 

(c) Filing requirements. Parties 

seeking approval for geographic 

partitioning, spectrum disaggregation, or 

a combination of both must apply for a 

partial assignment of authorization by 

filing FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948. 

Each request for geographic partitioning 

must include an attachment defining the 

perimeter of the partitioned area by 

geographic coordinates to the nearest 

second of latitude and longitude, based 

upon the 1983 North American Datum 

(NAD83). Alternatively, applicants may 

specify an FCC-recognized service area 

(e.g., Basic Trading Area, Economic 

Area, Major Trading Area, Metropolitan 

Service Area, or Rural Service Area), 

county, or county equivalent, in which 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41547 

case, applicants need only list the 

specific FCC-recognized service area, 

county, or county equivalent names 

comprising the partitioned area. 

(d) Relocation of incumbent licensees. 

Applicants for geographic partitioning, 

spectrum disaggregation, or a 

combination of both must, if applicable, 

include a certification with their partial 

assignment of authorization application 

stating which party will meet any 

incumbent relocation requirements, 

except as otherwise stated in servicespecific rules. 

(e) License term. The license term for 

a partitioned license area or 

disaggregated spectrum license is the 

remainder of the original licensee’s 

license term. 

(f) Frequency coordination. Any 

existing frequency coordination 

agreements convey with the partial 

assignment of authorization for 

geographic partitioning, spectrum 

disaggregation, or a combination of 

both, and shall remain in effect for the 

term of the agreement unless new 

agreements are reached. 

(g) Performance requirements. Parties 

to geographic partitioning, spectrum 

disaggregation, or a combination of 

both, have two options to satisfy 

service-specific performance 

requirements (i.e., construction and 

operation requirements). Under the first 

option, each party may certify that it 

will individually satisfy any servicespecific requirements and, upon failure, 

must individually face any servicespecific performance penalties. Under 

the second option, both parties may 

agree to share responsibility for any 

service-specific requirements. Upon 

failure to meet their shared servicespecific performance requirements, both 

parties will be subject to any servicespecific penalties. 

(h) Unjust enrichment. Licensees 

making installment payments or that 

received a bidding credit, that partition 

their licenses or disaggregate their 

spectrum to entities that do not meet the 

eligibility standards for installment 

payments or bidding credits, are subject 

to the unjust enrichment requirements 

of § 1.2111. 

■ 6. Add § 1.953 to read as follows: 

§ 1.953 Discontinuance of service or 

operations. 

(a) Termination of authorization. A 

licensee’s authorization will 

automatically terminate, without 

specific Commission action, if the 

licensee permanently discontinues 

service or operations under the license 

during the license term. A licensee is 

subject to this provision commencing on 

the date it is required to be providing 

service or operating. 

(b) 180-day Rule for Geographic 

Licenses. Permanent discontinuance of 

service or operations for Covered 

Geographic Licenses is defined as 180 

consecutive days during which a 

licensee does not operate or, in the case 

of commercial mobile radio service 

providers, does not provide service to at 

least one subscriber that is not affiliated 

with, controlled by, or related to the 

licensee. 

(c) 365-day Rule for Site-based 

Licenses. Permanent discontinuance of 

service or operations for Covered Sitebased Licenses is defined as 365 

consecutive days during which a 

licensee does not operate or, in the case 

of commercial mobile radio service 

providers, does not provide service to at 

least one subscriber that is not affiliated 

with, controlled by, or related to the 

providing carrier. 

(d) 365-day Rule for public safety 

licenses. Permanent discontinuance of 

operations is defined as 365 consecutive 

days during which a licensee does not 

operate. This 365-day rule applies to 

public safety licenses issued based on 

the applicant demonstrating eligibility 

under § 90.20 or § 90.529 of this chapter, 

or public safety licenses issued in 

conjunction with a waiver pursuant to 

section 337 of the Communications Act. 

(e) Channel keepers. Operation of 

channel keepers (devices that transmit 

test signals, tones, color bars, or some 

combination of these, for example) does 

not constitute operation or service for 

the purposes of this section. 

(f) Filing requirements. A licensee that 

permanently discontinues service as 

defined in this section must notify the 

Commission of the discontinuance 

within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 

or 605 requesting license cancellation. 

An authorization will automatically 

terminate, without specific Commission 

action, if service or operations are 

permanently discontinued as defined in 

this section, even if a licensee fails to 

file the required form requesting license 

cancellation. 

(g) Extension request. A licensee may 

file a request for a longer 

discontinuance period for good cause. 

An extension request must be filed at 

least 30 days before the end of the 

applicable 180-day or 365-day 

discontinuance period. The filing of an 

extension request will automatically 

extend the discontinuance period a 

minimum of the later of an additional 

30 days or the date upon which the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

acts on the request. 

■ 7. Amend § 1.955 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1.955 Termination of authorizations. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Service discontinued. 

Authorizations automatically terminate, 

without specific Commission action, if 

service or operations are permanently 

discontinued. See § 1.953. 

* * * * * 

PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 

332. 

§ 22.131 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 22.131 as follows: 

■ a. Remove paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (4) as paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3); 

■ c. Remove paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

■ d. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) 

and (iii) as paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii); 

■ e. Remove paragraph (c)(4)(i); and 

■ f. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) 

through (iv) as paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (iii). 

§ 22.317 [Removed] 

■ 10. Remove § 22.317. 

§ 22.513 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 22.513 by removing 

paragraphs (f) and (g). 

§ 22.947 [Removed] 

■ 12. Remove § 22.947. 

PART 24—PERSONAL 

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 24 

continues to read as follows: 

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

309 and 332. 

§ 24.16 [Removed] 

■ 14. Remove § 24.16. 

§ 24.104 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 24.104 by removing 

paragraphs (f) and (g). 

§ 24.714 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 24.714 by removing 

paragraph (e). 

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

SERVICES 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

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

307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, 

and 1452, unless otherwise noted. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41548 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b) through (f); and 

■ c. Removing paragraphs (q)(7), (r)(6), 

(s)(6), and (t)(6). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 27.14 Construction requirements. 

* * * * * 

§ 27.15 [Amended] 

■ 19. Amend § 27.15 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

§ 27.17 [Removed] 

■ 20. Remove § 27.17. 

PART 30—UPPER MICROWAVE 

FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 30 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 

301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302. 

§ 30.105 [Amended] 

■ 22. Amend § 30.105 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

§ 30.106 [Removed] 

■ 23. Remove § 30.106. 

PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, 

AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST 

AND OTHER PROGRAM 

DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES 

■ 24. The authority citation for part 74 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 

309, 310, 336 and 554. 

§ 74.632 [Amended] 

■ 25. Amend § 74.632 by removing 

paragraph (g). 

PART 80—STATIONS IN THE 

MARITIME SERVICES 

■ 26. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 

332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 

U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless 

otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 

1064–1068, 1081–1105, as amended; 47 

U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 

4726, 12 UST 2377. 

■ 27. Amend § 80.60 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 80.60 Partitioned licenses and 

disaggregated spectrum. 

* * * * * 

(d) Partitioning and disaggregation 

construction requirements for site-based 

AMTS, and nationwide or multi-region 

LF, MF, and HF public coast. Parties 

seeking to acquire a partitioned license 

or disaggregated spectrum from a sitebased AMTS, or nationwide or multiregion LF, MF, and HF public coast 

licensee will be required to construct 

and commence ‘‘service to subscribers’’ 

in all facilities acquired through such 

transactions within the original 

construction deadline for each facility 

as set forth in § 80.49. Failure to meet 

the individual construction deadline 

will result in the automatic termination 

of the facility’s authorization. 

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

■ 28. The authority citation for part 90 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), 

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 

303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 

156. 

§ 90.157 [Removed] 

■ 29. Remove § 90.157. 

■ 30. Amend § 90.165 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (4) as paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3); 

■ c. Removing paragraph (c)(3)(i); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) 

and (iii) as paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii); 

■ e. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii); 

■ f. Removing paragraph (c)(4)(i); and 

■ g. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) 

through (iv) as paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (iii). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 90.165 Procedures for mutually 

exclusive applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) If any mutually exclusive 

application filed on the earliest filing 

date is an application for modification, 

a same-day filing group is used. 

* * * * * 

§ 90.365 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend § 90.365 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

■ 32. Amend § 90.375 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 90.375 RSU license areas, 

communication zones and registrations. 

* * * * * 

(b) Applicants who are approved in 

accordance with FCC Form 601 will be 

granted non-exclusive licenses for all 

non-reserved DSRCS frequencies (see 

§ 90.377). Such licenses serve as a 

prerequisite of registering individual 

RSUs located within the licensed 

geographic area described in paragraph 

(a) of this section. Licensees must 

register each RSU in the Universal 

Licensing System (ULS) before 

operating such RSU. RSU registrations 

are subject, inter alia, to the 

requirements of § 1.923 of this chapter 

as applicable (antenna structure 

registration, environmental concerns, 

international coordination, and quiet 

zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations 

subject to NTIA coordination (see 

§ 90.371(b)) may not begin operation 

until NTIA approval is received. 

Registrations are not effective until the 

Commission posts them on the ULS. It 

is the DSRCS licensee’s responsibility to 

delete from the registration database any 

RSUs that have been discontinued. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Amend § 90.631 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 90.631 Trunked systems loading, 

construction and authorization 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) If a station is not placed in 

permanent operation, in accordance 

with the technical parameters of the 

station authorization, within one year, 

except as provided in § 90.629, its 

license cancels automatically. For 

purposes of this section, a base station 

is not considered to be placed in 

operation unless at least two associated 

mobile stations, or one control station 

and one mobile station, are also placed 

in operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Amend § 90.685 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 90.685 Authorization, construction and 

implementation of EA licenses. 

(a) EA licenses in the 809–824/854– 

869 MHz band will be issued for a term 

not to exceed ten years. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Revise § 90.743 to read as follows: 

§ 90.743 Renewal requirements. 

Until January 1, 2023, all licensees 

seeking renewal of their authorizations 

at the end of their license term must file 

a renewal application in accordance 

with the provisions of § 1.949 of this 

chapter. Licensees must demonstrate, in 

their application, that: 

(a) They have provided ‘‘substantial’’ 

service during their past license term. 

‘‘Substantial’’ service is defined in this 

rule as service that is sound, favorable, 

and substantially above a level of 

mediocre service that just might 

minimally warrant renewal; and 

(b) They have substantially complied 

with applicable FCC rules, policies, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41549 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

§ 90.813 [Amended] 

■ 36. Amend § 90.813 by removing 

paragraph (e). 

§ 90.816 [Removed] 

■ 37. Remove § 90.816. 

§ 90.911 [Amended] 

■ 38. Amend § 90.911 by removing 

paragraphs (e) and redesignating 

paragraph (f) as (e). 

§ 90.1019 [Amended] 

■ 39. Amend § 90.1019 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO 

SERVICES 

■ 40. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 307(e). 

§ 95.1923 [Amended] 

■ 41. Amend § 95.1923 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

■ 42. Amend § 95.1933 by revising 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 95.1933 Construction requirements. 

(a) Each 218–219 MHz Service 

licensee must make a showing of 

‘‘substantial service’’ within ten years of 

the license grant. Until January 1, 2023, 

‘‘substantial service’’ assessment will be 

made at renewal pursuant to the 

provisions and procedures contained in 

§ 1.949 of this chapter. 

(b) Until January 1, 2023, each 218– 

219 MHz Service licensee must file a 

report to be submitted to inform the 

Commission of the service status of its 

system. The report must be labeled as an 

exhibit to the renewal application. At 

minimum, the report must include: 

* * * * * 

PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE 

SERVICES 

■ 43. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 44. Revise § 101.65 to read as follows: 

§ 101.65 Termination of station 

authorizations. 

In addition to the provisions of 

§ 1.953 of this chapter, a site-based 

license will be automatically terminated 

in whole or in part without further 

notice to the licensee upon the 

voluntary removal or alteration of the 

facilities, so as to render the station not 

operational for a period of 30 days or 

more. A licensee is subject to this 

provision commencing on the date it is 

required to be providing service or 

operating under § 101.63. This provision 

is inapplicable to blanket authorizations 

to operate fixed stations at temporary 

locations pursuant to the provisions of 

§ 101.31(a)(2). See § 101.305 for 

additional rules regarding temporary 

and permanent discontinuation of 

service. 

■ 45. Amend § 101.527 by revising 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 101.527 Construction requirements for 

24 GHz operations. 

(a) Each licensee must make a 

showing of ‘‘substantial service’’ within 

ten years of its license grant. 

‘‘Substantial service’’ is a service which 

is sound, favorable, and substantially 

above a level of mediocre service which 

just might minimally warrant renewal 

during its past license term. Until 

January 1, 2023, ‘‘substantial service’’ 

assessment will be made at renewal 

pursuant to the provisions and 

procedures set forth in § 1.949 of this 

chapter. 

(b) Until January 1, 2023, each 

licensee must, at a minimum file: 

* * * * * 

§ 101.529 [Removed] 

■ 46. Remove § 101.529. 

§ 101.535 [Amended] 

■ 47. Amend § 101.535 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

■ 48. Revise § 101.1011 to read as 

follows: 

§ 101.1011 Construction requirements. 

LMDS licensees must make a showing 

of ‘‘substantial service’’ in their license 

area within ten years of being licensed. 

‘‘Substantial’’ service is defined as 

service which is sound, favorable, and 

substantially above a level of mediocre 

service which might minimally warrant 

renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet 

this requirement will result in forfeiture 

of the license and the licensee will be 

ineligible to regain it. 

§ 101.1111 [Amended] 

■ 49. Amend § 101.1111 by removing 

paragraph (e). 

■ 50. Amend § 101.1323 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 101.1323 Spectrum aggregation, 

disaggregation, and partitioning. 

* * * * * 

(c) Construction requirements. 

Responsible parties must submit 

supporting documents showing 

compliance with the respective 

construction requirements within the 

appropriate construction benchmarks 

set forth in § 101.1325. 

* * * * * 

§ 101.1327 [Removed] 

■ 51. Remove § 101.1327. 

■ 52. Amend § 101.1413 by revising the 

section heading, paragraph (b) 

introductory text, and paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 101.1413 License term and construction 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) As a construction requirement, 

MVDDS licensees must make a showing 

of substantial service at the end of five 

years into the license period and ten 

years into the license period. The 

substantial service requirement is 

defined as a service that is sound, 

favorable, and substantially above a 

level of mediocre service which might 

minimally warrant renewal. At the end 

of five years into the license term and 

ten years into the license period, the 

Commission will consider factors such 

as: 

* * * * * 

(c) The renewal application of an 

MVDDS licensee is governed by § 1.949 

of this chapter. 

§ 101.1415 [Amended] 

■ 53. Amend § 101.1415 by removing 

paragraph (f). 

■ 54. Amend § 101.1513 by revising the 

section heading to read as follows: 

§ 101.1513 License term. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18501 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90 

[GN Docket Nos. 14–166, 12–268, ET Docket 

No. 14–165; FCC 17–95] 

Promoting Spectrum Access for 

Wireless Microphone Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission addresses several petitions 

for reconsideration regarding recent 

decisions regarding wireless 

microphones. Specifically, the 

Commission makes technical revisions 

to the spurious emission limits that it 

had adopted for licensed wireless 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES