Reallocation of 470-512 MHz (T-Band) Spectrum
| Published date | 31 July 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 46047 |
| Record Number | 2020-15707 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46047-46063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15707]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27
[PS Docket No. 13-42; FCC 20-89; FRS 16931]
Reallocation of 470-512 MHz (T-Band) Spectrum
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on reallocating
spectrum associated with broadcast television channels 14-20 (470-512
MHz or T-Band), assigning new licenses by auction for the 6 megahertz
to 18 megahertz of spectrum that is potentially available in each of
the eleven urbanized areas, and relocating ``public safety eligibles''
from the T-Band. Specifically, the Commission proposes rules that would
allow for flexible use in the auctioned T-Band, including wireless
(fixed or mobile) use. The Commission also proposes to permit broadcast
operations and seeks comment on how best to facilitate this and other
potential uses. The Commission seeks comment on transition mechanisms
and costs for relocating public safety eligibles from the T-Band,
including whether to transition these licensees only where auction
revenues exceed anticipated transition costs. The Commission also
proposes an auction framework and licensing, operating, and technical
rules for the reallocated spectrum that would preserve the current
environment for incumbents remaining in the T-Band. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on how to best address the non-public safety
operations in the T-Band to maximize opportunities for new entrants,
including whether and how to transition non-public safety operations.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before August 31,
2020; and reply comments on or before September 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 13-42,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in
docket number PS Docket No. 13-42. See Electronic Filing of Documents
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 220701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
During the time the Commission's building is closed to the
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Conway,
[email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Mobility Division, (202) 418-2887. For additional information
concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an
email to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 13-42, FCC 20-89,
released on July 6, 2020. The complete text of the NPRM is available
for viewing via the Commission's ECFS website by entering the docket
number, PS Docket No. 13-42.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format),
[[Page 46048]]
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules (47 CFR 1.1200). Persons making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. It requests written public
comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix B to the NPRM. Comments must
be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in
response to the NPRM as set forth on the first page of this document,
and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Synopsis
Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 (T-Band Mandate) \1\ directs the Commission to reallocate T-Band
spectrum used by ``public safety eligibles'' and begin a system of
competitive bidding to grant new initial licenses for the use of the
spectrum by February 22, 2021, to relocate these public safety entities
from the T-Band no later than two years after completion of the system
of competitive bidding, and to make auction proceeds available to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to
make grants as necessary to cover relocation costs for the public
safety entities for which the statute requires relocation. This NPRM is
the commencement of the process to meet each of the statutory deadlines
and directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public
Law 112-96, section 6103, 126 Stat. 156, 205-206 (2012), (codified
at 47 U.S.C. 1413) (Spectrum Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Allocation and Use of T-Band Frequencies
In 1970, the Commission allocated spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band
in certain ``major urbanized areas'' for sharing between broadcast
television and ``public safety, industrial, and land transportation''
private land mobile radio services (PLMR). The Commission did so to
address spectrum shortages and congestion in certain urbanized areas
for those services and to anticipate future PLMR growth and spectrum
needs. Today, T-Band spectrum is assigned to Public Safety Pool and
Industrial/Business PLMR operations in the following eleven urbanized
areas: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Houston, TX; Los
Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York, NY/NE NJ; Philadelphia, PA;
Pittsburgh, PA; San Francisco/Oakland, CA; and Washington, DC/MD/VA.
Additionally, in some urbanized areas, T-Band spectrum within the
lowest 300 kilohertz of each broadcast television channel is designated
for part 22 public mobile service. Commission rules allow T-Band
licensees an operational radius of 128 kilometers (80 miles) from the
geographic center of each urbanized area.
Each television broadcast channel consists of a 6 megahertz block,
with the number and frequency range of broadcast channel(s) open for
assignment to T-Band users varying in each urbanized area. With limited
exceptions, T-Band frequency assignments within each broadcast channel
are available in the eleven urbanized areas for use by either type of
licensee. Paired frequencies are assigned in 12.5 kilohertz or 25
kilohertz bandwidths, with each frequency pair separated by 3 megahertz
to avoid interference. As a result, Public Safety frequency assignments
are interleaved with Industrial/Business frequency assignments in most
T-Band channels. T-Band spectrum consists of interleaved narrowband
channels and is heavily used by these entities across the eleven
urbanized areas. According to Commission licensing records, there are
approximately 925 Public Safety licensees with 3,000 stations, and
approximately 700 non-public safety entities with 1700 stations
throughout the T-Band spectrum. In addition, some entities in the T-
Band, both public safety and Industrial/Business, operate through
waivers of Sec. 90.305 of the Commission's rules governing location of
T-Band stations. The ratio of public safety to Industrial/Business
usage
[[Page 46049]]
varies from urbanized area to urbanized area.
B. Statutory Directive
In analyzing the T-Band Mandate's potential impact, the Government
Accountability Office concluded in 2019 that T-Band relocation poses
significant challenges, including uncertainty of available spectrum,
high cost, and interoperability concerns, and that implementation of
the T-Band Mandate could deprive first responders of their current
ability to communicate by radio. The National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council, in both a 2013 report and a 2016 updated
report, calculated the cost to relocate public safety operations from
the T-Band would be approximately $5.9 billion. The Commission's own
estimates from early 2019 indicated that relocating public safety users
from the T-Band would have an estimated cost between $5 and $6 billion
and that these estimated relocation costs would greatly exceed the
total expected revenues from an auction for both wireless use and the
provision of broadcast services.
Bipartisan Congressional opposition to the T-Band Mandate has
increased as the deadline approaches. Multiple bills have been
introduced that would repeal the T-Band Mandate. Congressional
statements calling for repeal note the critical nature of these public
safety communications as well as the substantial concern that the
potential value of the spectrum at auction would not cover relocation
costs.
In this proceeding, the Commission proposes an approach to
implement the T-Band Mandate for the 470-512 MHz band and address a
variety of issues, such as an expanded allocation, band plan, spectrum
block size, overlay license rights, and license area size, that would
allow new flexible-use licensees to make use of the spectrum vacated by
the mandatory transition of public safety eligibles. The Commission
also addresses issues related to the transition of public safety
incumbents out of the band, including which entities require
transition, and seek comment on potential paths forward for incumbent
Industrial/Business licensees and licensees operating in the T-Band
pursuant to part 22 of the Commission's rules, as the T-Band Mandate is
silent with regard to treatment of those licensees. Finally, the
Commission proposes rules that would allow for flexible use under part
27 of the Commission's rules in the auctioned T-Band spectrum.
C. Reallocation and Licensing of T-Band Spectrum for Flexible Use
The T-Band Mandate provides that the ``Commission shall . . .
reallocate the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band . . . currently used by
public safety eligibles as identified in Sec. 90.303'' of the
Commission's rules. In considering how to reallocate this spectrum, and
consistent with the Commission's approach to allocation of certain
other bands, the Commission seeks to provide flexibility for new T-Band
licensees, after relocation of public safety operations, to tailor the
use of the band to their specific operational needs and to maximize
network efficiency. The Commission therefore proposes a modification of
the current 470-512 MHz band co-primary allocations to provide for
Mobile Service, Fixed Service, and Broadcasting. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. In particular, the Commission asks whether
the expansion of the Land Mobile Service allocation for the 470-512 MHz
band to permit Mobile Service, which would include not only Land Mobile
Service, but Aeronautical Service and Maritime Service, would allow for
more efficient use of the spectrum? How might an expanded allocation
affect the resulting interference environment in the band, and would
additional protections be necessary? How should the addition of either
or both of these expanded allocations be reflected in the proposed
rules? Commenters should discuss in detail the costs and benefits of
any expanded allocations.
The Commission believes that its proposal meets the requirements
for the allocation of flexible use spectrum under section 303(y) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). That section allows the
Commission to allocate spectrum for flexible uses if the allocation is
consistent with international agreements and if it finds that: (1) The
allocation is in the public interest; (2) the allocation does not deter
investment in communications services, systems, or development of
technologies; and (3) such use would not result in harmful interference
among users. The proposed allocation is consistent with international
allocations for use of the 470-512 MHz band. Further, the proposed
licensing framework for the new T-Band operations could spur innovation
and investment in communications services, systems, and wireless
technologies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Band Plan. The Commission proposes the band plan below in Figure 1
that would accommodate an auction of geographic area licenses of six
megahertz blocks on a block-by-block basis in the 470-512 MHz band. The
Commission proposes that the following blocks will be available in the
listed urbanized areas, consistent with the current T-Band frequency
assignments set forth in Sec. Sec. 90.303 and 90.311 of our rules: A
Block (Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Pittsburgh); B
Block (Chicago, New York); C Block (Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco); D Block (Houston, San Francisco, Washington DC);
E Block (Pittsburgh, Washington, DC); F Block (Philadelphia): G Block
(Los Angeles, Philadelphia), shown in Figure 2. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposed band plan and any appropriate alternatives, as
well as the costs and benefits of any alternatives.
[[Page 46050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY20.011
The Commission emphasizes that it is not proposing any changes to
the other, non-public safety allocations in the band at this time.
Spectrum Block Size and Overlay Licensing. In proposing the
spectrum block sizes for new licenses in the 470-512 MHz band, the
Commission is mindful of the existing spectral environment. The T-Band
Mandate requires that the Commission use competitive bidding to grant
new initial licenses for the use of spectrum currently used by public
safety eligibles as identified in Sec. 90.303 of the Commission's
rules and to relocate those public safety licensees from the T-Band.
This approach would necessarily limit available channels to discrete
frequency pairings within the six megahertz block in a given urbanized
area, and would exclude from competitive bidding all frequencies
currently authorized to Industrial/Business licensees pursuant to part
90 of the Commission's rules and all frequencies currently authorized
to licensees for point to multi-point operation pursuant to part 22 of
the Commission's rules. In the event that the Commission accepts
mutually exclusive applications for licenses in the band, it will grant
the licenses through a system of competitive bidding, consistent with
section 309(j) of the Act. Further, to facilitate increased
flexibility, the Commission proposes to use its authority pursuant to
the T-Band Mandate and section 309(j) of the Act to make available for
licensing through competitive bidding in a given urbanized area the
full six megahertz blocks in the 470-512 MHz band as an overlay
authorization. An overlay license authorizes operations for a
geographic area ``overlaid'' on existing incumbent licensees,
consisting in the T-Band of part 90 Industrial/Business and Public
Safety Pool licensees, and part 22 point to multi-point licensees. This
approach requires the overlay licensee to protect existing incumbents
from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the incumbent rights are
relinquished. The Commission concludes that offering overlay licenses
will best protect the rights of incumbent licensees that might remain
in the band.
Consistent with an overlay approach, any new licensee operation on
a frequency pair within the six megahertz is fully dependent upon
whether an incumbent licensee is relocated from the T-Band spectrum.
The Commission proposes that, as required by the T-Band Mandate, only
``public safety eligibles'' using T-Band spectrum are to be mandatorily
relocated from the T-Band at this time. Would issuing overlay
authorizations for the current six megahertz spectrum block, with only
public safety eligibles proposed to be relocated from the T-Band, allow
for both the provision of potential new services and the maintenance of
a status quo incumbent interference environment for existing
operations? The Commission seeks comment in general on the overlay
auction approach with public safety eligibles relocating from the T-
Band. The Commission seeks specific comment on whether this approach
would lay the foundation for promoting the most efficient and intensive
use of the spectrum and the recovery for the public of a portion of the
value of the public spectrum resource. The Commission also seeks
comment any alternatives approaches and the associated costs and
benefits.
The Commission proposes that an overlay licensee in the T-Band
would have a right to operate within the channel block to the extent:
(1) A frequency is not assigned to an incumbent (either for shared or
exclusive use); (2) the incumbent vacates the frequency, whether as
required by the T-Band Mandate,
[[Page 46051]]
voluntary transition, acquisition, failure to renew, or permanent
discontinuance; or (3) the incumbent and overlay licensee reach an
agreement permitting such operation. The Commission also proposes that
for a frequency to be considered vacated, the overlay licensee must
clear all incumbents, such that there would be no overlap in authorized
bandwidth of incumbent and overlay licensee transmissions.
Additionally, given the need to protect adjacent broadcast
licensees, the Commission does not find feasible, and therefore do not
propose, that an overlay licensee can operate co-channel on a frequency
licensed to an incumbent by meeting, for example, a specified minimum
mileage separation, or through an interference protection showing
relying on contour calculations. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach and whether we should adopt an alternative methodology whereby
a technical showing could be made supporting co-channel operation of an
overlay licensee while protecting existing incumbents in the same
geographic area.
Geographic License Area Size. The Commission proposes to license
the 470-512 MHz band on a geographic area basis with a 128-kilometer
(80-mile) operational radius for each urbanized area based on the
geographic centers set forth in Sec. Sec. 90.303 and 90.305 of our
rules. The Commission considers promoting a range of objectives when
designing a system of competitive bidding and determining the
appropriate geographic license size, including: (1) Facilitating access
to spectrum by a wide variety of providers, including small entities
and rural providers; (2) providing for the efficient use of spectrum;
(3) encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers;
and (4) promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new
technologies and services. Other relevant factors here are the presence
of incumbent broadcast operations and of non-public safety, Industrial/
Business PLMR operations. In light of these factors, the Commission
proposes to license the 470-512 MHz band with a geographic area
consistent with the current T-Band operational radius.
The Commission seeks comment on this geographic-area licensing
approach, and on any alternative licensing approach, including the
costs and benefits of adopting such a licensing approach. Commenters
also should address how any alternative licensing approach would be
consistent with the requirements of section 309(j) and the statutory
objectives that the Commission seeks to promote in establishing
methodologies for competitive bidding.
Licensing Trigger. The T-Band Mandate provides that auction
proceeds shall be available to cover relocation costs of public safety
entities from the T-Band. As noted above, prior assessments predict
that the cost of relocating public safety licensees may approach $6
billon. The Commission thus proposes to issue licenses only where net
winning bids would exceed the total estimated relocation costs for all
public safety T-Band licensees subject to mandatory relocation, as
informed by earlier analyses in the record and the detailed comment we
expect to receive in response to this NPRM regarding the costs of
providing comparable facilities to relocated public safety licensees.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as on the
statutory meaning of certain terms that will inform the likelihood that
net winning bids will in fact exceed total estimated relocation costs.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the term ``proceeds,'' as used
in the T-Band Mandate, should be limited to monies paid for licenses
covering spectrum ``currently used by public safety eligibles as
identified in Sec. 90.303.'' The Commission also seeks comment on
whether the term ``relocation costs,'' should be defined consistent
with the its approach in other proceedings.
Commenters should address how this approach, or any alternative,
would or would not be consistent with the statutory requirements of
section 309(j) and with the T-Band Mandate's statutory directives. For
example, the Commission seeks comment on how to address any deficit in
net winning bids--should it require public safety licensees to relocate
on a city-by-city basis if the bids for a particular urbanized area
meet or exceed the cost estimates to relocate public safety licensees
in that particular area? Similarly, should licensees be required to
relocate on a channel-by-channel basis within urbanized areas where
bids for that channel meet or exceed the cost of clearing the channel?
Are there alternative spectrum block sizes, licensing areas, or band
plans that would meet the statutory directives, result in a status quo
inference environment, and nonetheless ensure efficient use of
spectrum? Commenters offering alternate methods should address the
costs and benefits of a proposed alternate method.
D. Transition of Incumbents From T-Band Spectrum
1. Public Safety Transition
As directed by the T-Band Mandate, the Commission proposes to
relocate from T-Band spectrum all ``public safety eligibles as
identified in Sec. 90.303'' of our rules, and to do so ``not later
than 2 years after the date on which the system of competitive bidding
described in [the statute] is completed.'' The Commission also proposes
to require that comparable facilities be provided to relocated
licensees, and notes that transition of Public Safety licensees out of
the T-Band to such facilities is subject to reimbursement from auction
proceeds to ``cover relocation costs.'' The Commission seeks comment on
this approach and on the availability of a suitable spectrum
destination(s) for Public Safety entities relocated from the T-Band.
The Commission emphasizes that it is committed under any scenario to
ensuring the continuity of such licensees' public safety mission-
critical communications.
Public Safety Entities. Section 6103(a)(2) requires the auction of
``the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band . . . currently used by public
safety eligibles as identified in Sec. 90.303 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations.'' Section 90.303 states that frequency assignments
in the 482-488 MHz band (broadcast television channel 16) are available
``for use by eligibles in the Public Safety Radio Pool'' in Los
Angeles; New York City; Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties in
New York State; and Bergen County, New Jersey. Section 90.303 also
provides that other frequencies are available for assignment in eleven
specific urbanized areas, and that these frequencies are listed in
Sec. 90.311. Section 90.311, in turn, provides that 470-512 MHz Band
frequencies are available to listed ``categories of users,'' including
``[p]ublic safety (as defined in Sec. 90.20(a)) [the Public Safety
Pool].'' The Commission thus interprets ``public safety eligibles'' to
include the entities named in Sec. 90.303(b) and (c) and the entities
referenced by Sec. 90.303 that operate on frequencies assigned to the
public safety category of users by Sec. 90.311. The Commission seeks
comment on this statutory interpretation and any alternatives that are
consistent with the T-Band Mandate.
Following passage of the T-Band Mandate, the Bureaus imposed a
freeze on future licensing or expanded operations in the 470-512 MHz
band, thus preventing significant changes to the composition of the T-
Band. The Commission interprets the statute's reference to spectrum
``currently used
[[Page 46052]]
by public safety eligibles'' as limiting the reallocation and auction
required by the T-Band Mandate to those frequencies in use by the
public safety eligibles in the T-Band at the time the freeze was
imposed, as opposed to frequencies in use by non-public safety
licensees or that are unassigned. The Commission seeks comment on this
interpretation and, with respect to the applicable licensing timeframe,
whether it should interpret ``currently used'' as the time of the
statute's enactment (i.e., February 22, 2012), which would not take
into account subsequent licensing changes in the T-Band.
The Commission reiterates that some public safety licensees operate
in the T-Band pursuant to waiver on channels not listed or referenced
in Sec. 90.303 of our rules, and thus are arguably outside the scope
of the T-Band Mandate. For example, the 476-482 MHz block (broadcast
television channel 15) in Los Angeles currently is used by public
safety incumbents pursuant to a waiver, and 476-482 MHz is specifically
excluded from the list of available frequencies identified in Sec.
90.303. In addition, other T-Band public safety entities have received
waivers of Sec. 90.305 of the Commission's rules or are operating via
frequency pair assignments classified as Industrial/Business, pursuant
to waivers of Sec. 90.311(a)(2) of the rules. The Commission seeks
comment on whether it should interpret the statute to require it to
auction T-Band spectrum licensed to public safety entities under the
aforementioned waivers, and to require these licensees to relocate out
of the T-Band.
The Commission seeks comment on any issues that may arise if public
safety waiver licensees or those operating through Industrial/Business
assignments are allowed to remain in the T-Band. For example, what
would be the effect on interoperability between public safety systems
operating with and without waivers if only public safety licensees not
subject to waiver were subject to relocation? Similarly, if a public
safety waiver licensee has base station operations both inside and
outside the 50-mile radius for base stations, would any operations
outside the area authorized by the rules function as a splintered or
partial system? Or should such a public safety waiver licensee be
required to relocate all operations from the T-Band? Finally, if public
safety waiver licensees are not relocated from the T-Band, what
criteria would be appropriate to ensure interference is minimized
between such licensees and auction licensees?
Comparable Facilities. Consistent with its approach to mandatory
relocation in other services, the Commission proposes that public
safety licensees relocated from the T-Band will be compensated for
reasonable relocation costs and provided with comparable facilities.
Provision of comparable facilities should ensure that public safety
eligibles are not unduly burdened and that their operations are not
inordinately disrupted by mandatory relocation from the T-Band.
Importantly, the Commission seeks to ensure that, in providing
comparable facilities, the relocation process does not result in
degradation of existing service or cause an adverse effect on important
public safety communications operations. The Commission proposes to
define ``comparable facility'' as a replacement system that is at least
equivalent to the public safety eligible's existing T-Band system with
respect to the following four factors: (1) System, (2) capacity, (3)
quality of service, and (4) operating costs. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
The Commission also proposes guidelines on how these factors would
apply in providing a comparable facility and seek comment on each
factor. The Commission proposes that a comparable system would be
functionally determined from the end user's point of view (i.e., base
station facilities operating on an integrated basis to provide service
to a common end user, and all associated mobile units). The Commission
proposes that a system may include multiple-licensed facilities
operated as a unified system if the end user can access all such
facilities.
The Commission proposes that comparable channel capacity must have
the same overall capacity as the original configuration, including
equivalent signaling capacity, baud rate, and access time, and must
achieve coextensive geographic coverage with that of the original
system.
The Commission proposes that comparable quality of service would
require the end user to enjoy the same level of interference
protection. Quality of service necessarily requires reliability, or the
degree to which information is transferred accurately within the
system. For analog or digital voice transmissions, this would be
measured by the percent of time that audio signal quality meets an
established threshold.
With respect to operating costs, the Commission proposes that
compensable costs would include all reasonable engineering, equipment,
site and Commission fees, as well as any reasonable, additional costs
that the covered incumbent may incur as a result of mandatory
relocation. Should the Commission assume that the compensation regime
would provide for recovery of all costs associated with relocation,
including planning and administrative costs, or should it limit
compensable costs to only the cost of retuning and/or replacing
equipment? Should the Commission establish a rebuttable presumption or
guideline regarding soft costs, including potentially establishing a
cap on soft costs as a percentage of hard costs, to determine what is
reasonably and unavoidably incurred, and thus properly compensable,
consistent with other recent proceedings?
Relocation Cost Grants. The T-Band Mandate provides that
``[p]roceeds (including deposits and upfront payments from successful
bidders) from the competitive bidding system described in subsection
(a)(2) shall be available to the Assistant Secretary [of NTIA] to make
grants in such sums as necessary to cover relocation costs for the
relocation of public safety entities from the T-Band spectrum.'' The
statute refers solely to NTIA's responsibility for the issuance of
grants, appearing to leave responsibility with the Commission to
determine reimbursable amounts with respect to costs of relocation,
including the provision of comparable facilities. The Commission seeks
comment on whether Congress intended for the Commission to rely on its
expertise to determine the appropriate grant amounts based on both the
provision of comparable facilities as well as on other individual
licensee relocation costs. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment
on whether Congress intended NTIA to issue rules regarding eligible
entities and eligible costs in accordance with the statute. Under this
alternative reading, the Commission seeks comment on how the its
expertise could be leveraged to inform the NTIA grant program.
The Commission seeks comment on additional relocation costs public
safety licensees are likely to incur to relocate out of the T-Band,
with the caveat that the destination spectrum bands are not yet
determined. Should relocation costs for each licensee be determined
based on a cost model, such as the model developed by the National
Public Safety Telecommunications Council in its T-Band Report? The
Commission seeks recommendations on formulas and calculation methods,
and what parameters should be considered.
Relocation Spectrum. The T-Band Mandate does not identify spectrum
bands to which public safety entities
[[Page 46053]]
could be relocated. Prior submissions in the extensive record in this
proceeding have discussed the availability of the FirstNet public
safety broadband network; the 450-470 MHz band; the 700 MHz band; the
800 MHz band; and the 900 MHz band, though many of these submissions
and GAO have questioned whether sufficient alternative spectrum is
available to accommodate relocation of any T-Band public safety
licensees. The Commission therefore seeks detailed comment on the
suitability of these or any other spectrum bands to serve as relocation
spectrum, what characteristics must be present to consider a band a
viable relocation option--for example, capacity, readily available
equipment, and similar propagation characteristics--and the costs and
benefits of relocating public safety licensees to a particular band(s).
Are there relocation alternatives other than replacement spectrum that
we should consider, such as third-party service or other media?
Relocation Deadline. The T-Band Mandate imposes a specific
completion deadline, directing that ``[r]elocation shall be completed
not later than 2 years after the date on which the system of
competitive bidding . . . is completed.'' The Commission seeks comment
on what constitutes the completion of relocation for purposes of
section 6103(c). Commenters should discuss the steps a public safety
entity must take to relocate its system, and the estimated timelines
for these steps. For example, the Commission expects a transition would
require a T-Band public safety licensee to develop, test, and commence
operations in destination spectrum band(s) before discontinuing
operations in the T-Band. Commenters should provide details of
transition planning and specific anticipated timeframes for each phase.
In the alternative, the Commission asks whether relocation would be
completed once the Public Safety incumbent commences operations on its
replacement frequencies, even if the incumbent has not completed all
the tasks associated with the relocation.
2. Non-Public Safety Transition
The T-Band Mandate does not require relocation nor provide for
reimbursement of non-public safety licensees operating in the T-Band.
Therefore, under the Commission's proposal, the T-Band would remain
encumbered with part 90 Industrial/Business licensees on interleaved
frequencies and with part 22 licensees in the lowest 300 kHz of most
six megahertz blocks. Allowing non-public safety incumbents to remain
in the T-Band would result in continued co-channel use of spectrum in a
limited geographic area, which likely will prevent broadcast or
wireless use by an overlay licensee. In light of these considerations
and the statutory mandate to use auction proceeds to fund the
relocation of Public Safety incumbents, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring a mandatory transition of all non-public safety incumbents
(i.e., part 90 Industrial/Business licensees and part 22 licensees) out
of the T-Band, subject to payment of relocation costs, including
provision of comparable facilities, by the overlay licensee.
Section 316(a)(1) of the Act provides that ``[a]ny station license
. . . may be modified by the Commission . . . if in the judgment of the
Commission such action will promote the public interest, convenience
and necessity.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether making
contiguous spectrum available for auction, enhancing the usefulness of
the spectrum and promoting auction competition, and thus increasing the
chances of a successful auction so that the directives of section 6103
may be executed, would support a determination that ordering license
modifications of non-public safety incumbents (e.g., entities that
section 6103 does not take into consideration) would promote the public
interest, convenience, and necessity, given all the relevant
circumstances, including such factors as the effects on all the
incumbent licensees and the costs and benefits to the public that are
likely to result from the reconfiguration of this spectrum.
The Commission also seeks comment on potential other transition or
realignment approaches that could meet the statutory mandate to fund
public safety relocation costs from auction proceeds and to allow for
efficient use of spectrum without requiring a full transition from the
T-Band. For example, should the Commission instead realign interleaved
Industrial/Business and part 22 licensees in order to create more
contiguous spectrum for auction, either within single channel blocks or
by relocating Industrial/Business and part 22 operations to a single
channel in a city with multiple T-Band channels, resulting in at least
one unencumbered six-megahertz channel? The Commission notes that, as 3
MHz separation between base and mobile transmit frequencies is required
to prevent intra-system interference, any realignment within a channel
would still leave two portions of a six-megahertz channel block
encumbered. Should the Commission sunset the 2012 waiver of the
narrowbanding requirement for T-Band licensees and set new
narrowbanding deadlines for Industrial/Business licensees in the T-
Band? Commenters advocating for realignment or other approaches should
also address transition mechanisms, technical issues, such as ease of
retuning existing radios, timing and cost considerations, and whether
additional protections or rules might be necessary to protect
incumbents, whether part 90 Industrial/Business, part 22, or broadcast,
from harmful interference.
The T-Band Mandate does not confer authority to use T-Band auction
revenues to fund non-Public Safety relocation or realignment, whether
out of the T-Band, within a T-Band channel, or to different channels
within the band. However, the Commission has authority to condition
licenses in the public interest, such as by requiring overlay licensees
to pay for the costs associated with license modifications and has used
this authority in prior proceedings. To the extent that the Commission
may require T-Band part 90 Industrial/Business and part 22 licensees to
relocate from their current frequency assignments, it seeks comment on
whether to require an overlay licensee to pay for relocation costs of
such licensees to comparable facilities. As with mandatory relocation
of public safety licensees above, ``comparable facilities'' would
require that a replacement system be provided to an incumbent during
mandatory relocation that is at least equivalent to the incumbent's
existing T-Band system with respect to: (1) System, (2) capacity, (3)
quality of service, and (4) operating costs.
The Commission also seeks comment on spectrum bands to which part
90 Industrial/Business and part 22 entities could be relocated. As with
public safety entity relocation, the Commission seeks comment on
whether there are spectrum bands that can accommodate relocation of
these incumbents. Are there additional bands that would be more
suitable for part 90 Industrial/Business or part 22 licensees, but
potentially less appropriate for public safety licensee relocation? The
Commission seeks comment on the characteristics required to consider a
band a viable relocation option--for example, capacity, readily
available equipment, and similar propagation characteristics--and the
costs and benefits of relocating part 90 Industrial/Business and part
22 licensees to a particular band(s). Are there relocation alternatives
other than replacement spectrum that the Commission should
[[Page 46054]]
consider, such as third-party service or other media?
E. Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues
Given the Commission's proposal to auction T-Band licenses on a
block-by-block basis for fixed and mobile use, the Commission proposes
to designate the new T-Band spectrum as a Miscellaneous Wireless
Communications Service governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission therefore proposes that all future licensees in the T-
Band would be required to comply with licensing and operating rules
applicable to all part 27 services, including assignment of licenses by
competitive bidding, flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership
reporting, compliance with construction notification requirements,
renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance of operations, partitioning
and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. The Commission seeks comment
on its approach and asks commenters to identify any aspects of its
general part 27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate
the particular characteristics of the T-Band.
The Commission has also sought comment in this NPRM regarding
potential broadcast use of the T-Band, or if there are other uses of T-
Band outside of flexible wireless use. How should the Commission modify
its licensing and operating rules if there are broadcast or other uses
in the band?
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on service-specific rules
for the T-Band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum holdings
policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits associated with these proposals and any proposed alternatives.
In the alternative, the Commission asks commenters to address whether
new T-Band licensees should be regulated under part 90 of our rules so
that new T-Band licensees and incumbent PLMR licensees would be subject
to a single set of rules. Commenters favoring this approach should
identify the part 90 rules that would need to be amended and suggest
specific rule language.
1. Eligibility
Consistent with established Commission practice, the Commission
proposes to adopt an open eligibility standard for licenses in the T-
Band. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on whether adopting an open eligibility
standard for the licensing of the T-Band would encourage the
development of new technologies, products, and services, while helping
to ensure efficient use of this spectrum. The Commission notes that an
open eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, character, or
other generally applicable qualifications that may apply under our
rules. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the open
eligibility proposal on competition, innovation, and investment.
Finally, a person that, for reasons of national security, has been
barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant ``is
ineligible to hold a license that is required by [the Spectrum Act] to
be assigned by a system of competitive bidding under section 309(j) of
the Communications Act.'' This eligibility restriction would apply to
the auction of spectrum ``currently used by public safety eligibles as
identified in Sec. 90.303'' of our rules. The Commission seeks comment
on how this eligibility restriction would apply to the auction of
spectrum blocks used by a mixture of Public Safety, Industrial/
Business, and part 22 incumbents.
2. Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies
Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile wireless
services, and the Commission has developed policies to ensure that
spectrum is assigned in a manner that promotes competition, innovation,
and efficient use. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether
and how to address any mobile spectrum holdings issues involving T-Band
spectrum to meet our statutory requirements and ensure competitive
access to the band. Similar to the Commission's approach in the 2017
Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM and the 1675-1680 MHz NPRM, the
Commission proposes not to adopt a pre-auction, bright line limit on
the ability of any entity to acquire spectrum in the T-Band through
competitive bidding at auction. Since such pre-auction limits may
restrict unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and
acquire spectrum in an auction, the Commission is not inclined to adopt
such limits absent a clear indication that they are necessary to
address a specific competitive concern, and seeks comment on any
specific concerns of this type.
The Commission does not propose that this band be included in the
Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to identify those markets
that may warrant further competitive analysis, when evaluating proposed
secondary market transactions. Instead, the Commission proposes to
review spectrum holdings on a case-by-case basis when applications for
initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure that the public
interest benefits of having a threshold on spectrum applicable to
secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. Commenters
should discuss and quantify any costs and benefits associated with any
proposals on the applicability of mobile spectrum holdings policies to
T-Band spectrum.
The Commission notes that its rules contain restrictions on the
common ownership of commercial full power television stations both in a
particular local market and nationwide, as well as restrictions on the
cross-ownership of such stations with other media outlets. To the
extent that a successful bidder seeks to operate a full power
television station on the reallocated spectrum awarded as a result of
this auction, the Commission seeks comment on whether the permittee of
such new station would need to comply with its existing media ownership
rules.
3. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Term Construction
Obligations
License Term. For licensees other than those providing broadcast
services, the Commission proposes a 15-year initial term for new
flexible-use T-Band licenses, and a ten-year term for subsequent
renewals, given that relocation, and clearance, and initial performance
requirements will have been satisfied upon renewal of a given T-Band
license. The Commission believes that 15 years affords licensees
sufficient time to make long-term investments in deployment and seek
comment on the costs and benefits of this proposal. The Commission
invites commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate
license term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs
and benefits. Importantly, the Commission notes that, in the event this
spectrum is used for broadcast services, the license term is
statutorily limited to eight years and that shorter term will apply.
Performance Requirements. The Commission seeks comment on adopting
specific quantifiable benchmarks as an important component of our
performance requirements for licensees not providing broadcast
services. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a new T-Band
licensee, planning to provide mobile or point-to-multipoint service in
accordance with our part 27 rules, to
[[Page 46055]]
provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 45% of
the population in each of its license areas within six years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least 80%
of the population in each of its license areas within 12 years from the
license issue date (second performance benchmark). For a licensee
deploying point-to-point service, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring it to demonstrate within six years of the license issue date
(first performance benchmark) that it has four links operating and
providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If
the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, the
Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee deploying point-to-
point service to demonstrate that it has at least one link in operation
and that it is providing service per every 67,000 persons within a
license area. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee
deploying point-to-point service to demonstrate within 12 years of the
license issue date (final performance benchmark) that it has eight
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a licensee
deploying point-to-point service to demonstrate that it is providing
service and that it has at least two links in operation per every
67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission seeks comment on
whether in order to be eligible to be counted under the point-to-point
buildout standard, a point-to-point link must operate with a transmit
power greater than +43 dBm. The Commission notes that the proposed
period for complying with these performance requirements would begin on
the date that the license is issued, irrespective of the extent to
which the incumbent licensees have been relocated out of the T-Band.
The Commission believes that 12 years will provide sufficient time
for any T-Band licensee to meet the proposed coverage requirements. The
Commission proposes that a T-Band licensee, after satisfying the 12-
year second performance benchmark, be required to continue providing
reliable signal coverage, or point-to-point links, as applicable, and
offering service at or above that level for the remaining three years
in the proposed 15-year license term in order to obtain license
renewal. Establishing such benchmarks before the end of the license
term will allow us time to verify, to the extent needed, that the
performance benchmarks have been met before licensees need to renew
their licenses. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal.
The Commission recognizes that new T-Band licensees will have the
flexibility to provide a range of services, including broadcast
services. In the event that T-Band spectrum is used for broadcast
services, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a broadcast station
to be constructed and operational through the transmission of broadcast
signals within the initial eight-year license term. Are there other
parameters that should be included to ensure the efficient and
effective use of T-Band spectrum for broadcast services (e.g., a
specific level of market penetration)? The Commission seeks comment on
this and any other requirements to achieve our goal of ensuring
spectrum use. The Commission also seeks comment on whether services
potentially less suited to a population coverage metric (e.g., Internet
of Things-type fixed and mobile services) would benefit from an
alternative performance benchmark, for example, geographic coverage
benchmarks. Commenters should discuss the appropriate metric to
accommodate such service offerings or other innovative services in the
T-Band, as well as the costs and benefits of an alternative approach.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposals
discussed above achieve the appropriate balance between license-term
length and a significant final buildout requirement. The Commission
seeks comment on the proposed buildout requirements and any potential
alternatives. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of the T-Band. The Commission
asks proponents of the various approaches described above whether there
are issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. For
example, given the potential use of the T-Band by private wireless
users such as electric utilities or other Industrial/Business Pool
eligibles, should it adopt specific performance requirements tailored
to account for potential use of the spectrum for private internal
business purposes? The Commission also seeks comment on whether small
entities face any special or unique issues with respect to buildout
requirements such that they would require certain accommodations or
additional time to comply. Finally, commenters should discuss and
quantify how any supported buildout requirements will affect investment
and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other costs and
benefits associated with the proposals.
Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements. Along with
performance benchmarks, the Commission seeks to adopt meaningful and
enforceable penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The
Commission seeks comment on which penalties will most effectively
ensure timely build-out. Specifically, the Commission proposes that, in
the event a T-Band licensee fails to meet the first performance
benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be
reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license
term) and reducing its initial license term to 13 years. The Commission
further proposes that, in the event a T-Band licensee fails to meet the
second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its license
for each license area in which it fails to meet the performance
benchmark shall terminate automatically without Commission action. How
should the Commission modify this proposal in the event the spectrum is
used for broadcast services and is subject to an 8-year license term?
The Commission proposes that, in the event a T-Band licensee's
authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's
rules for other part 27 licenses, the Commission proposes that any T-
Band licensee that forfeits its license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be precluded from regaining that
license. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other performance
requirements and enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure
timely buildout.
Compliance Procedures. In addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the Commission proposes a
rule requiring that such electronic coverage maps accurately depict
both the boundaries of each licensed area and the coverage boundaries
of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service or in the
case of a fixed deployment, the locations of the fixed transmitters
associated with each link. If a licensee does not provide reliable
signal coverage to an entire license area, we propose that it must
provide a map that
[[Page 46056]]
accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas within each
license area that are not being served. The Commission further proposes
that each licensee must file supporting documentation certifying the
type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its
service territory and the type of technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the
signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the
licensee's technology. The Commission believes that such procedures
will confirm that the spectrum is being used consistently with the
performance requirements. The Commission seeks comment on its
proposals. In the event this T-Band spectrum is used for broadcast
services, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it should
modify the proposed compliance procedures.
Renewal Term Construction Obligation. In addition to, and
independent of, the general renewal requirements contained in Sec.
1.949 of our rules, which apply to all Wireless Radio Services (WRS)
licensees, the Commission also seeks comment on application of specific
renewal term construction obligations to new T-Band licensees. The WRS
Renewal Reform FNPRM sought comment on various renewal term
construction obligations, such as incremental increases in the
construction metric in each subsequent renewal term--e.g., by 5 or
10%--up to a certain threshold. In the event that licensees fail to
satisfy any additional renewal term construction obligations, the
Commission sought comment on a range of penalties and on methods for
reassigning the unused spectrum, including automatic termination,
``keep-what-you-serve,'' and ``use or share'' approaches.
The WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted in
that proceeding to all flexible geographic licenses. Given the
Commission's proposal to license this band on a geographic basis for
flexible use, any additional renewal term construction obligations
proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also would apply to licenses
in the T-Band. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are unique
characteristics of the T-Band that might require a different approach
from the proposals contained in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM. For
example, the Commission proposes geographic areas consisting solely of
urbanized areas and the discussion of renewal term construction
obligations was tailored to ensuring rural build-out. Further, while
many existing wireless radio services have 10-year license terms, here
the Commission proposes and seeks comment on a 15-year initial license
term with 10-year renewal terms for T-Band licensees providing non-
broadcast services (eight years for licensees providing broadcast
services). Do any of the proposals for this band necessitate a more
tailored approach than the rules of general applicability proposed in
the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM? For instance, should the Commission
require buildout to 85% of the population by the end of second license
term, given the increased length of the initial license term?
Similarly, in the event the Commission permits licensees to demonstrate
compliance with initial term performance requirements by providing IoT
services, should an applicant deploying IoT applications in the T-Band
be required to exceed its original construction metric by an additional
5%? If a T-Band license is issued for broadcast use, how would this
effect renewal term obligations? Commenters advocating rules specific
to the T-Band should address the costs and benefits of their proposed
rules. Further, they should discuss how a given proposal would
encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise
benefit from significant wireless coverage.
4. Competitive Bidding Procedures
Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the Commission
has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes to conduct any
auction for licenses for spectrum in the T-Band in conformity with the
general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of
the Commission's rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
any of our Part 1 rules or other competitive bidding policies would be
inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of T-Band licenses.
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of these
proposals.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether to make bidding
credits for designated entities available for this band. If the
Commission decides to offer small business bidding credits, it seeks
comment on how to define a small business. In recent years, for other
flexible use licenses, the Commission has adopted bidding credits for
the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the
Commission's Part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on defining a small business
as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding five years
not exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with
average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20
million. A qualifying ``small business'' would be eligible for a
bidding credit of 15% and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be
eligible for a bidding credit of 25%. The Commission also seeks comment
on whether the unique characteristics of these frequencies and its
proposed licensing model suggest that it should adopt different small
business size standards and associated bidding credits than the
Commission has in the past.
Because new licenses in this band will only be available in eleven
urbanized areas within an operational radius of the geographic center
of each area, the Commission proposes not to offer rural service
bidding credits and seeks comment on this proposal.
F. Technical Rules
The Commission's goal is to establish technical rules that maximize
flexible use of the new T-Band spectrum licenses while appropriately
protecting incumbent operations. Many of the technical rules proposed
below are based on the rules adopted for the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz
bands, which are similar to T-Band in terms of flexible use,
propagation characteristics, and ability to accommodate wideband
technologies. The Commission believes that the proposed technical rules
regarding transmitter power, antenna height, and out-of-band emissions
(OOBE) limits, together with existing interference protection rules,
will maintain a status quo interference environment, where an overlay
licensee is not permitted to cause harmful interference to any
operations that remain in or are adjacent to the 470-512 MHz band
(e.g., on broadcast television channel 21 or operations below 470 MHz).
The Commission seeks comment on its proposed technical rules and
whether they best achieve its objectives of permitting more flexible
use of this spectrum, while at the same time protecting co-channel and
adjacent spectrum users from harmful interference.
1. Out-of-Band Emissions Limit
Under the proposal, the Commission would license T-Band spectrum in
certain geographic areas in six megahertz blocks on a block-by-block
basis. Therefore, the Commission must consider how to address potential
harmful interference between adjacent blocks within the T-Band, and
between T-Band spectrum and adjacent bands.
The Commission previously has concluded that attenuating
transmitter
[[Page 46057]]
out-of-band emissions (OOBE) by 43 + 10 log (P) dB, where P is the
transmit power in watts, is appropriate to minimize harmful
electromagnetic interference between operators. The Commission adopted
this approach in other bands suited for flexible services, including
the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz bands used for wireless broadband
services. To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules
generally specify details on how to measure the power of the emissions,
such as the measurement bandwidth. For the 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz
bands, the measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this
limit for both mobile stations and base stations is 100 kHz, with some
modification within the first 100 kHz. Similarly, the Commission
believes that it is reasonable to apply this procedure to both mobile
and base transmissions in the T-Band.
Accordingly, to address potential harmful electromagnetic
interference immediately outside each T-Band block, the Commission
proposes to apply Sec. 27.53(g) of the Commission's rules, which
includes OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log (P) dB and the associated
measurement procedure, to the T-Band. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal, and on whether it would need to modify this proposal if
licenses are issued in the band for broadcast operations. The
Commission also seeks comment on the effect of the proposed OOBE
attenuation on the existing interference environment. For instance, how
will the OOBE attenuation affect the current interference environment
on any remaining part 90 public safety, Industrial/Business, or part 22
point to multi-point operations? How will the OOBE attenuation affect
the separation distance to protect adjacent TV channels? And how will
the OOBE attenuation affect the current interference environment on
PLMR operations at the upper edge of the 450-470 MHz band?
2. Transmitter Power Limits
The Commission proposes to apply transmitter power limits for T-
Band operations that generally are consistent with the 600 MHz and
lower 700 MHz bands, while taking into consideration that the proposed
band plan for the T-Band does not have a predetermined uplink and
downlink. Accordingly, the Commission proposes an effective radiated
power (ERP) not to exceed 1,000 watts for fixed and base stations
transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less, with
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. For base stations
transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz,
the Commission proposes an ERP not to exceed 1,000 watts/MHz with the
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether we should limit the ERP for fixed
and base stations to 1,000 watts/MHz for any emission bandwidth, with
maximum permissible power decreasing as the antenna height above
average terrain (HAAT) rises above 305 meters. The Commission seeks
comment on whether this alternate approach would provide sufficient
power for narrowband operations in the T-Band. The Commission also
proposes to afford additional flexibility for licensees seeking to
operate at transmit powers higher than it has proposed, provided they
comply with a power flux density limit and the notice requirement
specified in our rules to mitigate the risk of harmful interference.
This produced power flux density must not exceed 3,000 microwatts per
square meter on the ground over the area extending to 1 km from the
base of the antenna mounting structure. The Commission further notes
that the maximum ERP in the current T-Band rules is limited by the
distance to the closest co-channel TV station. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach, including costs and benefits, noting that our
proposal varies from current T-Band rules, but is consistent with other
flexible services, specifically 600 MHz and lower 700 MHz. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether modifications to this proposal
are necessary if licenses are issued in the band for broadcast
operations.
The Commission notes that it did not propose to include a rural
component to the power limits for the T-Band, as it has included for
other services, because under our proposal T-Band base stations would
not be permitted to be located more than 80 kilometers (50 miles) from
the geographic center of the urbanized areas listed in Sec. 27.6 of
the Commission's rule.
3. Co-Channel Interference Between T-Band Licensees and TV Systems
Since the Commission proposes to license the T-Band on a geographic
area basis with an 80-mile operational radius, the Commission seeks to
ensure that T-Band licensees do not cause interference to TV co-channel
systems operating along common geographic borders. The Commission's 600
MHz and lower 700 MHz rules address the possibility of harmful co-
channel interference between geographically adjacent licenses. The rule
provides that the predicted or measured median field strength shall not
exceed 40 dB[mu]V/m at any location on the edge of the geographical
border of the licensee's service area, unless the adjacent affected
service area licensee agrees to a different field strength. Given the
similarities between the T-Band, lower 700 MHz, and 600 MHz bands, the
Commission proposes to apply the signal strength limit currently set
forth in Sec. 27.55(a)(2) of our rules to the T-Band. The Commission
also proposes to allow licensees in adjacent areas to agree to
alternate field strength limits. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach, including any costs and benefits, and also seeks comment on
whether any modifications to this proposal are necessary if licenses
are issued in the T-Band for broadcast operations.
4. Antenna Height Limits
The Commission proposes to apply the flexible 600 MHz and lower 700
MHz antenna height rules, as set forth in Sec. 27.50(c) of our rules,
to the T-Band. Although the existing antenna rules for those bands do
not set specific antenna height restrictions, ERP reductions are
required for base or fixed stations with a height above average terrain
(HAAT) exceeding 305 meters and will be applied to T-Band licensees. In
addition, other rules effectively limit antenna heights. For example,
all part 27 services are subject to rule Sec. 27.56, which prevents
antenna heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. Also, the
Commission's proposed co-channel interference rules effectively limit
antenna heights because of the limitation on field strength at the
boundary of a licensee's service area. The Commission believes that the
general antenna height restrictions are sufficient to afford necessary
protections, and therefore does not propose any band-specific
limitations on new T-Band licensees. The Commission seeks comment on
this approach, including the costs and benefits, and also seeks comment
on whether this approach requires modification if licenses are issued
in the band for broadcast operations.
5. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
Under the Commission's current proposal to license the T-Band on a
geographic area basis with an 80-mile operational radius, the
Commission does not believe that new T-Band licenses will require
coordination with either Canada or Mexico as the areas
[[Page 46058]]
under consideration are sufficiently separated from the border areas so
as to pose no international interference issues. However, if larger
geographic license areas are adopted in a future proceeding,
international coordination may be required. The Commission notes that
Sec. 27.57(c) of its rules provides that all part 27 Wireless
Communications Services operations are subject to international
agreements between the U.S. and Mexico and between the U.S. and Canada.
6. Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the T-Band From
Wireless Operations
The Commission proposes to apply to the T-Band the protections of
current broadcast TV rules that are consistent with those applied to
600 MHz band licensees. Specifically, the Commission proposes that
licensees authorized to operate wireless services in this band be
prohibited from causing harmful interference to public reception of the
signals of broadcast television stations transmitting co-channel or on
an adjacent channel. The Commission proposes that such wireless
operations comply with the desired to undesired (D/U) ratios in Table 5
in OET Bulletin No. 74, Methodology for Predicting Inter-Service
Interference to Broadcast Television from Mobile Wireless. If a
licensee in this band causes harmful interference within the noise-
limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television station
that is operating co-channel or on an adjacent channel, the Commission
proposes to require the licensee to eliminate the harmful interference.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach, whether additional
protections might be necessary, and the cost and benefits of any such
modifications.
In the event that a new initial T-Band licensee intends to use the
license for provision of broadcast services, the Commission seeks
comment on whether such licensees should be subject to part 73 rules
regarding television-to-television protection criteria. If so, the
Commission seeks comment on what criteria should apply in situations
where adjacent licensees hold licenses governed by part 73 and part 27
rules, respectively.
7. Other Technical Issues
Part 27 contains several additional technical rules applicable to
all part 27 services, including Sec. Sec. 27.51 (Equipment
authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (Frequency stability), and
27.56 (Antenna structures; air navigation safety). The Commission
proposes to apply all of these part 27 technical rules to new T-Band
licensees, including those acquiring licenses through assignment,
partitioning or disaggregation. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach, including the costs and benefits, and it also seeks comment
on whether modifications to this proposal are necessary if licenses are
issued in the band for broadcast operations.
Ordering Clauses
It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2,
4(i), 303, 309 and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 154(i), 303, 309, and 316, by section 6103 of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126
Stat. 156 (2012), section 6103, and Sec. 1.411 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers,
Communications common carriers, Radio, Table of frequency allocations,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 27
as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(j) The Wireless Communications Service in the 470-512 MHz band and
the 698-746 MHz band (part 27 of this chapter);
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by
revising page 29 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE P
[[Page 46059]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY20.012
BILLING CODE C
[[Page 46060]]
* * * * *
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
5. 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.
0
6. Section 27.1 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(16) 470-512 MHz.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 27.5 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(n) 470-512 MHz band. Seven unpaired channel blocks of 6 megahertz
each are available for assignment. The following frequencies are
available for licensing pursuant to this part in the 470-512 MHz band:
Block A: 470-476 MHz;
Block B: 476-482 MHz;
Block C: 482-488 MHz;
Block D: 488-494 MHz;
Block E: 494-500 MHz;
Block F: 500-506 MHz; and
Block G: 506-512 MHz.
0
8. Section 27.6 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(n) 470-512 MHz band. The following table lists specific urbanized
areas with T-Band frequency bands and blocks that are available for
assignment. The available frequencies are listed in Sec. 27.5. The
service area for the 470-512 MHz band extends 128 kilometers (80 miles)
from the geographic centers of the urban areas listed below:
Table 3 to Paragraph (n)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic center
Urbanized area ---------------------------------------------------- Bands (MHz) TV channels Blocks
North latitude West longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston, MA........................ 42[deg]21'24.4'' 71[deg]03'23.2'' 470-476, 482-488.... 14, 16.............. A, C.
Chicago, IL....................... 41[deg]52'28.1'' 87[deg]38'22.2'' 470-476, 476-482.... 14, 15.............. A, B.
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX............. 32[deg]47'09.5'' 96[deg]47'38.0'' 482-488............. 16.................. C.
Houston, TX....................... 29[deg]45'26.8'' 95[deg]21'37.8'' 488-494............. 17.................. D.
Los Angeles, CA................... 34[deg]03'15.0'' 118[deg]14'31.3'' 470-476, 482-488, 14, 16, 20.......... A, C, G.
506-512.
Miami, FL......................... 25[deg]46'38.4'' 80[deg]11'31.2'' 470-476............. 14.................. A.
New York, NY/NE NJ................ 40[deg]45'06.4'' 73[deg]59'37.5'' 470-476, 476-482, 14, 15, 16.......... A, B, C.
482-488.
Philadelphia, PA.................. 39[deg]56'58.4'' 75[deg]09'19.6'' 500-506, 506-512.... 19, 20.............. F, G.
Pittsburgh, PA.................... 40[deg]26'19.2'' 79[deg]59'59.2'' 470-476, 494-500.... 14, 18.............. A, E.
San Francisco/Oakland, CA......... 37[deg]46'38.7'' 122[deg]24'43.9'' 482-488, 488-494.... 16, 17.............. C, D.
Washington, DC/MD/VA.............. 38[deg]53'51.4'' 77[deg]00'31.9'' 488-494, 494-500.... 17, 18.............. D, E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3 to paragraph (n): Coordinates are referenced to the North
American Datum 1983 (NAD83).
0
9. Section 27.13 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(n) 470-512 MHz band. Authorization for the 470-512 MHz band will
have a term not to exceed fifteen years from the date of issuance and
ten years from the date of any subsequent license renewal, except that
initial authorizations for a part 27 licensee that provides broadcast
services, whether exclusively or in combination with other services,
will not exceed eight years.
0
10. Section 27.14 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraphs (a) and (k), and adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 470-512 MHz band, 600 MHz band, Block A
in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz
and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or
C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310
MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360
MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345-2350
MHz band, and in the 3700-3980 MHz band, and with the exception of
licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz bands, the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 1695-1710 MHz,
1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands, must, as a performance
requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in their license
area within the prescribed license term set forth in Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), (v)
and (w) of this section, including any licensee that obtained its
license pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this
section, shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by
filing a construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days
of the expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(w) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an
authorization in the 470-512 MHz band:
(1) Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service
shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within eight
(8) years from the date of the initial license to at least 45 percent
of the population in each of its license areas (``First Buildout
Requirement''). Licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and
offer service within 12 years from the date of the initial license to
at least 80 percent of the population in each of its license areas
(``Second Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on point-to-point
service shall demonstrate within eight years of the license issue date
that they have four links operating and providing service to customers
or for internal use if the population within the license area is equal
to or less than 268,000 and, if the population is greater than 268,000,
that they have at least one link in operation and providing service to
customers, or for internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a
license area (``First Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on
point-to-point
[[Page 46061]]
service shall demonstrate within 12 years of the license issue date
that they have eight links operating and providing service to customers
or for internal use if the population within the license area is equal
to or less than 268,000 and, if the population within the license area
is greater than 268,000, shall demonstrate they are providing service
and have at least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons
within a license area (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
(2) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced
by two years. If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action,
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later date.
(3) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of
population or geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census
Tract level. The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or
other acceptable identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only
if it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within
the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the
extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond
the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for
such areas may include only the population or geographic area within
the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the
performance requirement of a single, individual license. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area,
the license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries
of the area or areas within each license area not being served. Each
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of
service it is providing for each licensed area within its service
territory and the type of technology used to provide such service.
Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create
the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's
technology.
(4) License Renewal. After satisfying the 12-year, final
performance benchmark, a licensee must continue to provide coverage and
offer service at or above that level for the remaining three years of
the 15-year license term in order to warrant license renewal.
0
11. Section 27.50 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text, (c)(2), (4), (5), and (10), and headings for tables 1 and 3 to
read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(c) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 470-512 MHz band, the 600 MHz band and the
698-746 MHz band:
* * * * *
(2) Fixed and base stations, except for fixed and base stations
operating in the 470-512 MHz band, located in a county with population
density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less
must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m
HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted
if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts ERP in accordance with
Table 2 of this section;
* * * * *
(4) Fixed and base stations, except for fixed and base stations
operating in the 470-512 MHz band, located in a county with population
density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz
must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m
HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted
if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with
Table 4 of this section;
(5) Licensees, except for licensees operating in the 470-512 MHz
band and the 600 MHz downlink band, seeking to operate a fixed or base
station located in a county with population density of 100 or fewer
persons per square mile, based upon the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, and transmitting a
signal at an ERP greater than 1000 watts must:
* * * * *
(10) Portable stations (hand-held devices) in the 470-512 MHz band,
the 600 MHz uplink band and the 698-746 MHz band, and fixed and mobile
stations in the 470-512 MHz and 600 MHz uplink band are limited to 3
watts ERP.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 27.50--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base
and Fixed Stations in the 757-758 and 775-776 MHz Bands and for Base
and Fixed Stations in the 470-512 MHz Band, 600 MHz, 698-757 MHz, 758-
763 MHz, 776-787 MHz and 788-793 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal With
an Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less
* * * * *
Table 3 to Sec. 27.50--Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for Base
and Fixed Stations in the 470-512 MHz Band, 600 MHz, 698-757 MHz, 758-
763 MHz, 776-787 MHz and 788-793 MHz Bands Transmitting a Signal With
an Emission Bandwidth Greater Than 1 MHz
* * * * *
0
12. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(g) For operations in the 470-512 MHz band, the 600 MHz band and
the 698-746 MHz band, the power of any emission outside a licensee's
frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) within the licensed band(s) of operation,
measured in watts, by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. Compliance with this
provision is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing
a resolution bandwidth of 100 kilohertz or greater. However, in the 100
kilohertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to a licensee's
frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least 30 kHz may be
employed.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a) * * *
(2) The 470-512 MHz band, 600 MHz, 698-758, and 775-787 MHz bands:
40 dB[micro]V/m.
* * * * *
(b) Power flux density limit for stations operating in the 470-512
MHz band and 698-746 MHz bands. For base and fixed stations operating
in the 470-512 MHz band and 698-746 MHz band in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 27.50(c)(6), the power flux density that would be
produced by such stations through a combination of antenna height and
vertical gain pattern must
[[Page 46062]]
not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over the area
extending to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting structure.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 27.57 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(b) Wireless operations in the 470-608 MHz, 614-763 MHz, 775-793
MHz, and 805-806 MHz bands are subject to current and future
international agreements between the United States and Canada and the
United States and Mexico. Unless otherwise modified by international
treaty, licenses must not cause interference to, and must accept
harmful interference from, television broadcast operations in Mexico
and Canada, where these services are co-primary in the band.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 27.75 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.75 Basic interoperability requirement.
(a) * * *
(2) Mobile and portable stations that operate on any portion of
frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band must be capable of
operating on all frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band
using the same air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any
frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 27.1310 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), (b) introductory text,
(b)(1), (c), and (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1310 Protection of Broadcast Television Service in the 470-
512 MHz band and 600 MHz band from wireless operations.
(a) Licensees authorized to operate wireless services in the 470-
512 MHz band and 600 MHz band must cause no harmful interference to
public reception of the signals of broadcast television stations
transmitting co-channel or on an adjacent channel.
* * * * *
(2) If a 470-512 MHz band or 600 MHz band licensee causes harmful
interference within the noise-limited contour or protected contour of a
broadcast television station that is operating co-channel or on an
adjacent channel, the 470-512 MHz band or the 600 MHz band licensee
must eliminate the harmful interference.
(b) A licensee authorized to operate wireless base stations in the
470-512 MHz band, or authorized to operate wireless services in the 600
MHz downlink band:
(1) Is not permitted to deploy wireless base stations within the
noise-limited contour or protected contour of a broadcast television
station licensed on a co-channel or adjacent channel in the 470-512 MHz
band or 600 MHz downlink band;
* * * * *
(c) A licensee authorized to operate wireless mobile or portable
devices in the 470-512 MHz band, or authorized to operate wireless
services in the 600 MHz uplink band must limit its service area so that
mobile and portable devices do not transmit:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Co-channel operations in the 470-512 MHz band and 600 MHz band
are defined as operations of broadcast television stations and wireless
services where their assigned channels or frequencies spectrally
overlap;
* * * * *
0
17. Section 27.1320 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1320 Notification to white space database administrators.
To receive interference protection, the 470-512 MHz band and 600
MHz licensees shall notify one of the white space database
administrators of the areas where they have commenced operation
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 15.713(j)(10) and 15.715(n) of this chapter.
0
18. Add subpart P, consisting of Sec. Sec. 27.1500 through 27.1504, to
read as follows:
Subpart P--470-512 MHz Band
Sec.
27.1500 470-512 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1501 Designated entities in the 470-512 MHz band.
27.1502 Comparable facilities.
27.1503 Overlay licensee rights.
27.1504 Permanent discontinuance of service in the 470-512 MHz band.
Subpart P--470-512 MHz Band
Sec. 27.1500 470-512 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 470-512 MHz band
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1501 Designated entities in the 470-512 MHz band.
Eligibility for small business provisions.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
(1) Small business. A small business is an entity that, together
with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of
its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $55
million for the preceding five (5) years.
(2) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $20 million for the preceding five (5) years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
businesses may use the bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter, subject to the cap specified
in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a
consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit of 25
percent, as specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter,
subject to the cap specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
Sec. 27.1502 Comparable facilities.
To be considered comparable facilities under this subpart, a
replacement system provided to a public safety licensee during a
mandatory relocation from the 470-512 MHz band must be at least
equivalent to the licensee's existing system with respect to the
following four factors:
(a) System;
(b) Capacity;
(c) Quality of service; and
(d) Operating costs.
Sec. 27.1503 Overlay licensee rights.
(a) A licensee authorized under part 27 to operate in the 470-512
MHz band shall be permitted to construct and operate on its authorized
frequencies within its geographic license area provided:
(1) A frequency is not assigned to a part 90 or part 22 licensee
(either for shared or exclusive use);
(2) The part 90 or part 22 licensee vacates the frequency, whether
by mandatory transition pursuant to Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156
(2012) (Act), section 6103, voluntary transition, acquisition, failure
to renew its license, or permanent discontinuance. A frequency is
considered vacated where
[[Page 46063]]
all part 90 and part 22 licensees are no longer operational, such that
there would be no overlap in authorized bandwidth of part 90 or part 22
licensees with part 27 overlay licensee transmissions; or
(3) The part 90 and/or part 22 licensee and the part 27 licensee
reach an agreement permitting such operation.
Sec. 27.1504 Permanent discontinuance of 470-512 MHz licenses.
A 470-512 MHz band licensee that permanently discontinues service
as defined in Sec. 1.953 of this chapter must notify the Commission of
the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 requesting
license cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate,
without specific Commission action, if service is permanently
discontinued as defined in Sec. 1.953 of this chapter, even if a
licensee fails to file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
[FR Doc. 2020-15707 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
