# Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-20147

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 20, 2013
- **Citation:** 78 FR 51560

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 27
[GN Docket No. 13-185; FCC 13-102; WT Docket Nos. 07-195, 04-356, 07-16, and 07-30; FCC 13-102]
Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, we propose rules for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that would make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services. The additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. Consistent with the Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) and sound spectrum policy, our goal remains to clear and allocate spectrum in these bands for exclusive commercial use to the maximum extent feasible. Where clearing is not possible, this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
explores novel approaches to spectrum sharing between commercial and Federal operators. This is another step in implementing the Congressional directive in the Spectrum Act to allocate for commercial use and grant new initial licenses for flexible use in certain bands.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before September 18, 2013. Submit reply comments on or before October 16, 2013. Written comments on the proposed information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13, should be submitted on or before October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov
or via fax at 202-395-5167. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 13-102, or by GN Docket No. 13-185, by any of the following methods:

•
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•
People with Disabilities:
Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

•
Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Spencer of the Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS, or Michael Ha, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2099. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via email at
PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration,
FCC 13-102, adopted and released on July 23, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-13-102A1doc.
Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via email to
bmillin@fcc.gov.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings should reference the docket number in this proceeding, GN Docket No. 13-185 or by FCC 13-102.

•
Electronic Filers:
Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//.

•
Paper Filers:
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one active docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before
entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

•
People with Disabilities:
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

• Document
FCC 13-102
contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via email at
PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov
or via fax at 202-395-5167.

• To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
(2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

This document contains proposed new or modified 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), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number:
3060-1030.

Title:
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands.

Form Number:
N/A.

Type of Review:
Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:
Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents:
1050 respondents; 2,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:
1.6 hours (average).

Frequency of Response:
Annual, semi-annual, one time, and on occasion reporting requirements; and third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond:
Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Total Annual Burden:
40,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost:
$1,004,000.

Privacy Impact Assessment:
N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses:
The Commission is submitting this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget as a revision of a currently approved information collection 3060-1030. The Commission is changing its third-party disclosure requirement as proposed in §§ 27.1134(e) and (f) (Protection of Federal operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band
).
These proposed new or modified information collection requirements will be used by the Commission staff to ensure that the Federal Government communications systems operating in the 1755-1780 MHz band be protected, comply with default out-of-band emissions limits, and that out-of-band emissions limits may be modified by the private contractual agreement of licensees of AWS-3 operating authority and Federal government entities operating in the 1755-1780 MHz band. A licensee of AWS-operating authority who is a party to such an agreement must maintain a copy of the agreement in its station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS-3 assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, to Federal operators, and to the Commission.

I. Introduction and Summary

1. We propose rules for spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that would make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). We will refer to these four bands collectively as “AWS-3.” The additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. Consistent with the Spectrum Act and sound spectrum policy, our goal remains to clear and allocate spectrum in these bands for exclusive commercial use to the maximum extent feasible. Where clearing is not possible, this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
explores novel approaches to spectrum sharing between commercial and Federal operators. Today's action is another step in implementing the Congressional directive in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) to allocate for commercial use and grant new initial licenses for flexible use in certain bands.

2. We propose to license the 2155-2180 MHz band for downlink/base station operations and to license the 2020-2025 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations. Both of these bands are currently allocated for non-Federal, commercial use and are in the Commission's inventory of bands available for licensing. We propose to license the 1755-1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on a shared basis with Federal incumbents, if clearing is not feasible. We note that the record of the instant proceeding will be informed by recommendations of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which has tasked the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) with studying the potential for Federal/non-Federal spectrum sharing. NTIA anticipates receiving final reports from CSMAC working groups shortly. If NTIA endorses these reports, we will add them to the record and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's forthcoming recommendations in comments, reply comments, or
ex parte
presentations, as appropriate, depending on the timing. We also propose to allocate and license the 1695-1710 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on a shared basis with Federal incumbents within specified Protection Zones recommended by NTIA, if clearing is not feasible. Commercial operation outside of these Protection Zones would not require coordination with Federal incumbents.

3. For all of the AWS-3 spectrum within the scope of this NPRM,
i.e.,
spectrum for which we seek comment regarding service rules for non-Federal use, we propose to assign licenses by competitive bidding, offering five megahertz blocks that can be aggregated using Economic Areas (EAs) as the area for geographic licensing. We also seek comment on whether, and if so how, to pair any of the AWS-3 spectrum.

II. Background

Demand for Mobile Spectrum

4. Wireless broadband represents a critical component of economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness because consumers are increasingly using wireless broadband services to assist them in their everyday lives.

Demand for wireless broadband services and the network capacity associated with those services is surging, resulting in a growing demand for spectrum to support these services. Similarly, the number and type of devices being used by consumers to access content over wireless broadband networks has proliferated. For example, the total number of mobile wireless connections now exceeds the total U.S. population. As of the second quarter of 2012, 55 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers owned smartphones, compared to 41 percent in July 2011. Ownership of tablets, which were first introduced in the market in January 2010, nationwide, is also increasing. Pew Internet research surveys, as of June 2013, show that 34 percent of American adults own a tablet computer, up from 18 percent in September 2010. Tablets generated on average approximately 2.4 times the amount of mobile traffic as the average smartphone in 2012. By 2017, just four years from now, Internet Protocol (IP) traffic from wireless and mobile devices will likely exceed traffic from wired devices, according to some analyses. One forecast projects that wired devices will account for 45 percent of IP traffic, while Wi-Fi and mobile devices will account 55 percent of IP traffic. Global mobile data traffic is anticipated to grow thirteen-fold between 2012 and 2017. All of these trends are resulting in more demand for network capacity and for capital to invest in the infrastructure, technology, and spectrum to support this capacity. The demand for increased wireless spectrum, moreover, is expected to continue increasing. In response, the Commission continues to work to make available additional licensed and unlicensed spectrum to meet this growing demand.

National Broadband Plan and Presidential Memoranda

5. Both Congress and the President have recognized the importance of wireless broadband to the national interest. In 2009, Congress directed the Commission to develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability. The National Broadband Plan, released in 2010, recommended that the Commission make 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years, of which 300 megahertz of spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within five years. The National Broadband Plan recognized that to achieve this goal some of this spectrum would come from spectrum allocated for Federal use. It recommended that NTIA, in consultation with the Commission, conduct an analysis, of the possibility of reallocating a portion of the 1755-1850 MHz band, which is adjacent to the AWS-1 uplink/mobile band at 1710-1755 MHz and currently allocated for Federal use, to pair with the 2155-2175 MHz band, which is currently allocated for services that support commercial use.

6. On June 28, 2010, the President released a memorandum entitled “Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution.” The 2010 Presidential Memorandum stated that “America's future competitiveness and global technology leadership depend, in part, upon the availability of additional spectrum.” The memorandum stressed that there are few technological developments that hold as much potential to enhance America's economic competitiveness, create jobs, and improve the quality of our lives as wireless high-speed access to the Internet. Expanded wireless broadband access will trigger the creation of innovative new businesses, provide cost-effective connections in rural areas, increase productivity, improve public safety, and allow for the development of mobile telemedicine, telework, distance learning, and other new applications that will transform American's lives. The memorandum also stated that spectrum and the new technologies it enables are essential to the Federal Government, which relies on spectrum for important activities, such as emergency communications, national security, law enforcement, aviation, maritime, space communications, and numerous other Federal functions. It further stated that spectrum is also critical for many state, local, and tribal government functions. The 2010 Presidential Memorandum directed NTIA to collaborate with the Commission to “make available a total of 500 megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum over the next ten years, suitable for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.”

7. On June 14, 2013, the President released another memorandum, “Expanding America's Leadership in Wireless Innovation” stating that although existing efforts will almost double the amount of spectrum available for wireless broadband, we must make available even more spectrum and create new avenues for wireless innovation. The 2013 Memorandum further stated that where technically and economically feasible, spectrum sharing can and should be used to enhance efficiency among all users and to expedite commercial access to additional spectrum bands, subject to adequate interference protection for Federal users, especially users with national security, law enforcement, and safety-of-life responsibilities.

NTIA Fast Track and 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Reports

8. In response to the 2010 Presidential Memorandum, NTIA undertook a “fast-track” review of several bands that could be reallocated to mobile use, including the 1675-1710 MHz band and the 1755-1780 MHz band, and proposed exploring Federal/non-Federal sharing of the 1755-1850 MHz band. NTIA recommended that the 1695-1710 portion of the 1675-1710 MHz band be made available for non-Federal wireless broadband systems, subject to geographic sharing requirements based on “Exclusion Zones” around specified Federal meteorological earth station sites. NTIA deferred making recommendations concerning the 1755-1780 MHz band, however, because it could not complete its evaluation of the 1755-1780 MHz band by the October 2010 “fast track” deadline. NTIA then invited Federal agencies with operations in the larger 1755-1850 MHz band to assess the feasibility of relocating from the 1755-1850 MHz band within ten years and to determine whether their respective systems could transition out of the 1755-1780 MHz band within five years, the conditions under which relocation could be accomplished, and the costs associated with the corresponding relocation.

9. Based on the assessments from these Federal agencies, NTIA concluded in March 2012, in the
NTIA 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Report,
that while it would be possible to repurpose all 95 megahertz of the 1755-1850 MHz band, a number of significant challenges would have to be met. These included the high cost and long timeline of repurposing 95 megahertz of spectrum, estimated at approximately $18 billion over 10 years, assuming relocation of most existing Federal users, not including costs to relocate incumbent non-Federal users in the Federal agencies' preferred destination bands. In light of the critical challenges related to the estimated timelines, costs, and complexities of completely clearing Federal users currently in the 1755-1850 MHz band, NTIA proposed a new path forward for consideration “that relies on a combination of relocating Federal users and sharing spectrum between Federal agencies and commercial users while ensuring no loss to critical capabilities.” Additionally, NTIA states that a review of the agency evaluations indicates it is

feasible to make the 1755-1780 MHz band available for commercial broadband wireless in five years—subject to exclusion zones and new allocations for Federal use of other spectrum bands, including 2025-2110 MHz and 5091-5250 MHz. NTIA did not evaluate the possibility for exclusive non-Federal use of the 1755-1780 MHz band in the
NTIA 1755-1850 MHz Assessment Report.

Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act

10. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Spectrum Act). The Spectrum Act includes several provisions designed to make more spectrum available for commercial use. The Spectrum Act established, among other things, deadlines applicable to both the Secretary of Commerce and the Commission to identify, reallocate, auction, and license, under flexible use service rules, spectrum for commercial use. Specifically, the Spectrum Act requires the allocation of spectrum in the following bands for services that support commercial use:

• 25 megahertz at 2155-2180 MHz;

• an additional contiguous 15 megahertz to be identified by the Commission;

• 15 megahertz between 1675-1710 MHz, to be identified by NTIA by February 22, 2013;

• up to 10 megahertz at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, if the Commission finds no harmful interference into the neighboring Personal Communications Service (PCS) band.

The Spectrum Act states that the Commission shall grant new initial licenses for all of these bands by February 2015. In June 2013 the FCC adopted service rules for certain bands listed above (1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz) in a separate FCC proceeding.

11. The Spectrum Act also amended the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA). In 2004, the CSEA created the Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) to streamline the process by which Federal incumbents can recover the costs associated with relocating their spectrum-dependent systems from spectrum bands authorized to be licensed under the Commission's competitive bidding authority. The Spectrum Act extended the CSEA cost reimbursement mechanism for Federal incumbents to include sharing as well as relocation costs, and to facilitate Federal incumbents sharing of spectrum with commercial users by expanding the types of expenditures that can be funded or reimbursed from the SRF. These changes now permit agencies to receive funds associated with planning for Commission auctions and relocations, spectrum sharing, the use of alternative technologies, the replacement of existing government-owned equipment with state-of-the-art systems, and the research, engineering studies, and economic analyses conducted in connection with spectrum sharing arrangements, including coordination with auction winners. The Spectrum Act also created a new category of allowable pre-auction costs that may, in certain circumstances, be funded before the start of a Commission auction of licenses for applicable eligible frequencies. The Spectrum Act expresses Congress' priority for relocation over sharing, stating: “In evaluating a band of frequencies for possible reallocation for exclusive non-Federal use or shared use, the NTIA shall give priority to options involving reallocation of the band for exclusive non-Federal use and shall choose options involving shared use only when it determines, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, that relocation of a Federal entity from the band is not feasible because of technical or cost constraints.”

12. The conclusion of any auction of eligible frequencies reallocated from Federal use to non-Federal use or from Federal use to shared use, however, is contingent on the cash proceeds attributable to such spectrum reaching 110 percent of the total estimated relocation or sharing costs provided to the Commission by NTIA. Once the relocation and sharing costs of the Federal incumbents are covered, the remainder of the proceeds attributable to eligible Federal spectrum, as well as the proceeds attributable to the 2155-2180 MHz non-Federal band, must be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and then used to fund the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network to be established by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).

FCC CSEA Notification Letter and NTIA Response

13. The CSEA also requires the Commission to notify NTIA at least 18 months before the start of an auction of eligible frequencies and for NTIA to notify the Commission of estimated relocation and sharing costs, and timelines for such relocation or sharing, at least 6 months before the start of the auction. Accordingly, on March 20, 2013, the Commission notified NTIA that it “plans to commence the auction of licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band and the 1755-1780 MHz band as early as September 2014” in order to satisfy the Spectrum Act licensing deadline of February 2015. On April 19, 2013, NTIA responded with several requests to the Commission. In particular, NTIA notes that the Department of Defense (DoD) has identified the 2025-2110 MHz band as the preferred option to relocate most of its operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band and that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and DoD identified the 5150-5250 MHz band as a comparable destination band for its aeronautical mobile telemetry systems.

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and Related Efforts

14. In May 2012, NTIA established five joint government/industry working groups within its Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) to facilitate the implementation of services that support commercial wireless broadband in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz bands. Working Group 1 was charged with addressing sharing issues related to the 1675-1710 MHz band, while Working Groups 2-5 were charged with addressing sharing issues related to Federal operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band. A critical decision for each working group, according to NTIA, was to determine whether incoming non-Federal licensees would be able to share use of the spectrum with particular incumbent Federal systems. If a working group were to find that sharing is feasible, NTIA directed the group to explain the proposed manner of sharing in a way that could potentially be incorporated into service rules.

15.
1695-1710 MHz.
Working Group 1 (WG1) (Meteorological-Satellite) completed its final report in February 2013 and the full CSMAC adopted it on February 21, 2013. The
WG1 Final Report
recommends that the Commission adopt a framework for reallocating the 1695-1710 MHz band for commercial use with “Protection Zones,” rather than the “Exclusion Zones” originally contemplated in the
NTIA Fast Track Report.
Under this framework, commercial operations could be freely deployed outside of the “Protection Zones.” Operations inside the “Protection Zones,” however, would require prior Federal coordination. In February 2013, as required by the Spectrum Act, NTIA issued the
NTIA 1695-1710

MHz Identification Report,
in which it reaffirmed its recommendation that the Commission reallocate the 1695-1710 MHz segment of the 1675-1710 MHz band for wireless broadband use on a shared basis. On

April 19, 2013, NTIA recommended that the Commission use the
WG1 Final Report
recommendations in drafting proposed rules to implement shared use of the 1695-1710 MHz band.

16.
1755-1850 MHz.
NTIA established CSMAC Working Groups 2-5, comprised of representatives and experts from industry and Federal agencies, to facilitate information sharing among the interested stakeholders. In May 2012, NTIA asked each CSMAC working group to focus on the following tasks:

• Working Group 2 (WG2) (Law Enforcement Surveillance, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and other short distant links)—the correlation of agency city-by-city transition plans with industry implementation priorities, and prioritizing vacating the 1755-1780 MHz sub-band;

• Working Group 3 (WG3) (Satellite Control and Electronic Warfare)—the definition and specification (including any interference acceptance rules) of zones around satellite sites, and coordination path rules for electronic warfare development and training;

• Working Group 4 (WG4) (Tactical Radio and Fixed Microwave)—the definition and specification (including any interference acceptance rules) of zones around Department of Defense sites that require access, and relocation process of fixed microwave links starting from 1755-1780 MHz; and

• Working Group 5 (WG5) (Airborne Operations (Air Combat Training System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Precision-Guided Munitions, Aeronautical Telemetry))—the determination of protection requirements for Federal operations and understanding of the periodic nature of airborne operations and the impact to commercial wireless systems from government airborne operations.

17. Of the four working groups concentrating on the 1755-1850 MHz band, only WG2 has issued a final report, which the full CSMAC adopted on February 21, 2013. The
WG2 Final Report
found that Federal incumbents with video surveillance systems plan to transition operations from the 1755-1780 MHz band within five years, once funding and comparable spectrum is available. WG2 also developed two lists of areas for agencies with transitioning video surveillance systems to consider based on priorities established by the wireless industry. The first list addresses the 1755-1780 MHz band, while the second list addresses the 1780-1850 MHz band. On April 19, 2013, NTIA endorsed the recommendations contained in the
WG2 Final Report.

18. In addition to the work of the CSMAC working groups, commercial wireless carriers are working with the Department of Defense (DoD) to monitor and gather information about several systems identified in NTIA's
1755-1850 MHz Assessment Report
that appear to be the most difficult, costly, or time consuming to relocate. The carriers also requested special temporary experimental authority from the Commission to conduct tests in the 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands for commercial mobile broadband services, and to examine technical co-existence with a limited number of incumbent Federal operations, in a defined number of geographic locations that may remain in the band indefinitely, consistent with the CSMAC working groups' efforts. On August 14, 2012, the Commission announced that it had granted the first authorization of testing in the 1755-1780 MHz band.

19. We are advancing proposals in today's NPRM in tandem with NTIA's work to ensure that the statutory deadline under Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act can be met, and in light of the importance of making needed spectrum available as soon as practicable. Today's proposals are subject to revision in light of the recommendations we receive from NTIA after its evaluation of the output of these working groups. We intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or
ex parte
presentations, as appropriate, depending on the timing.

Additional Recent Developments

1. Developments Regarding the 2095-2110 MHz Band

20.
CTIA's Request to Auction 2095-2110 MHz.
As discussed above, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to identify 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum for commercial use. On March 13, 2013, CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA) urged the Commission to designate spectrum currently used for Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) at 2095-2110 MHz as the fifteen megahertz of contiguous spectrum required to be identified by the Commission under the Spectrum Act. CTIA argues that the 2095-2110 MHz band is ideal for this purpose because it is a contiguous band with propagation characteristics ideally suited to mobile broadband and adjacent to current mobile broadband spectrum. These characteristics make it suitable for modern mobile broadband technologies, such as the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard. CTIA states that the 2095-2110 MHz band can be paired with the 1695-1710 MHz band that NTIA identified for reallocation under the Spectrum Act and is likely to generate significant revenues through a competitive bidding process. CTIA acknowledges that BAS currently uses the 2095-2110 MHz band and that, in addition to hosting BAS, the larger 2025-2110 MHz band is also home to the Federal space operation service, the earth exploration-satellite service, and the space research service. CTIA notes that the Commission requires coordination between Federal and non-Federal users of the 2095-2110 MHz band and that terrestrial transmitters used for BAS not be high-density systems. CTIA avers that issues between Federal and non-Federal users can be addressed by band clearing, sharing, and rule changes.

21.
Federal and non-Federal Opposition to Commercial Wireless in 2095-2110 MHz.
On July 22, 2013, NTIA transmitted to the Commission a Feasibility Assessment for accommodation of mobile broadband Long Term Evolution (LTE) systems in the 2025-2110 MHz band prepared by NASA and recently submitted by the United States to I International Telecommunications Union—Radio Telecommunications Sector Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7. NTIA states that, recognizing the interest in the potential for use of the band for wireless broadband, NASA performed a compatibility study examining the potential for commercial broadband systems employing LTE technology on a shared basis with forward link transmissions from NASA geostationary Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites to some typical satellite users, which are in Low Earth Orbit. NTIA states that the results of the study show that high-density terrestrial base stations or user equipment operating co-frequency in the 2025-2110 MHz band will exceed established protection criteria for the TDRSS spaceborne receivers by an average of 16.4dB to 40.7 dB and that analysis of sharing with satellite systems of other administrations will likely show similar results. As requested by NTIA, we are adding this assessment to the record of this proceeding and seeking comment on it. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) has also expressed opposition. SBE states that allowing commercial use of 2095-2110 MHz, as CTIA suggests, would delete two of seven shared channels used heavily for BAS, LTTS, and CARS.

According to SBE, “there is simply not enough residual spectrum available between 2025 MHz and 2095 MHz to permit [Electronic News Gathering] to continue.” SBE opines that other sources of fifteen megahertz of contiguous spectrum should be studied such as portions of the 2360-2390 MHz band.

2. Developments Regarding 1755 MHz and Related Bands

22.
Industry Roadmap.
Recently, T-Mobile filed a wireless industry proposal (Industry Roadmap) for making the 1755-1780 MHz band available for commercial use in time to auction the band at the same time as the 2155-2180 MHz band, which the Spectrum Act requires to be auctioned and licensed by February 2015. The Industry Roadmap assesses Federal operations in the 1.7 GHz band and proposes a combination of sharing, relocation, and channel prioritization for the majority of Federal operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band to provide industry early access to the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band. The Industry Roadmap also acknowledges that additional study is necessary.

23.
DoD Alternative Proposal.
On July 22, 2013, NTIA transmitted to the Commission correspondence to NTIA from the Chief Information Officer of the DoD that outlines a proposal for making 1755-1780 MHz available for auction and licensing in the near term, while protecting critical DoD capabilities and preserving the necessary flexibility to address the long-term status of the 1780-1850 MHz portion of the band. Among other things, DoD proposes to share the 2025-2110 MHz band, proposes not to seek access to the 5150-5250 MHz band for telemetry, and estimates the cost of implementing its proposal at $ 3.5 billion.

III. Discussion

Overview

24. First, we briefly describe spectrum bands that we could include in the group of AWS-3 bands and, where applicable, proposals or questions on which we are seeking comment. Next, we seek comment on configuration issues such as downlink/uplink designations, pairing, block size, and service areas for AWS-3. Because of the parallel CSMAC process, there are a number of different options for proceeding in a manner consistent with the Spectrum Act. For purposes of this notice, we have described the bands and configurations in a modular way. Commenters may put forward specific options that involve all or a subset of the bands described below, and may contemplate paired or unpaired bands. Because non-Federal use of the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands is proposed on a shared basis with Federal users if clearing is not feasible, we also consider recommendations and issues related to Federal Band Reallocation, Sharing, and Coordination that aim to maximize commercial use of these bands.

25. For the 1695-1710 MHz band, we seek comment on NTIA's recommendations in the
WG1 Final Report,
which reflects the significant progress that was made “to refine interference analysis and develop a deeper understanding of the issues and options available for maximizing access to the spectrum for commercial services while protecting incumbent Federal operations in the 1695-1710 MHz and the adjacent 1675-1695 MHz bands.” We propose to adopt the sharing framework described in the
WG1 Final Report
including the recommended Protection Zones within which all non-Federal use must be coordinated successfully with Federal incumbents prior to operation. We also propose to adopt the coordination methodology of the
WG1 Final Report,
including the recommendations to consider certain refinements to the methodology. Additionally, we seek comment on coordination procedures.

26. For the 1755-1780 MHz band, we anticipate the possibility of a “hybrid” recommendation, in which some operations would be relocated, some would share the band with commercial licensees, and some would not share the band (in certain geographic protection zones or exclusion zones). In light of that possibility, and assuming that NTIA may endorse the CSMAC recommendations, we seek comment on adopting Protection Zones, Exclusion Zones, and other sharing measures or alternatives. Finally, we seek comment on technical, licensing, and operational rules as well as regulatory issues.

27. Our proposals regarding the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands incorporate the significant study and analysis conducted through the CSMAC's multi-stakeholder process. We reiterate the priority in the Spectrum Act for relocation over sharing, and our goal remains to clear and allocate spectrum for exclusive commercial use. In general, we seek comment on the potential for clearing (both in the short and long term) for each band and the extent to which the sharing approaches described in the CSMAC reports maximize commercial use of the spectrum. We encourage commenters to suggest alternative approaches for maximizing the commercial use of these bands, to the extent technically and economically feasible.

28. In general, our discussion proceeds as follows. We first describe these proposed bands, configurations, sharing arrangements, and licensing and service rules. We then propose specific changes to our Table of Frequency Allocations for them, where necessary to implement the requirements of section 6401 of the Spectrum Act. We seek comment on various considerations in the course of this discussion.

Proposed Bands for AWS-3 Service Rules

29. We begin our discussion by considering the various bands that might be subject to AWS-3 service rules and other bands that have been implicated by related discussions in CSMAC, through letters to the Commission, and other public fora.

30.
2155-2180 MHz.
The 2155-2180 MHz band is already allocated for exclusive non-Federal fixed and mobile use with a longstanding designation for emerging technologies such as AWS. The band is immediately above the AWS-1 downlink band (2110-2155 MHz) and immediately below the AWS-4 downlink band (2180-2200 MHz). We are proposing downlink/base station use of 2155-2180 MHz under rules similar to the AWS-1 and AWS-4 rules. We tentatively find that having additional spectrum that is adjacent to that used for like services will promote efficiency in broadband deployment. As T-Mobile observed in an earlier proceeding, “the creation of an additional AWS allocation immediately adjacent to the current AWS-1 allocation will allow for more immediate equipment development and deployment.” We do not propose to modify the allocation for this band, but in paragraph 174 below, we do propose several changes to related footnotes in the Table of Frequency Allocations.

31.
1695-1710 MHz.
NTIA identified 1695-1710 MHz for services that support commercial use in accordance with the Spectrum Act's mandate to identify new commercial spectrum for auction. The 1695-1710 MHz band is immediately below the AWS-1 uplink band at 1710-1755 MHz. The lower part of the band (1675-1700 MHz) is allocated to the meteorological aids service, restricted to radiosonde operation, and to the meteorological-satellite service, restricted to space-to-Earth operation, on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The upper part of the band (1700-1710 MHz) is allocated to the meteorological-satellite service, restricted to space-to-Earth

operation, on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. The 1700-1710 MHz band is also allocated to the fixed service on a primary basis for Federal use and on a secondary basis for non-Federal use. We discuss possible changes to these allocations in paragraphs 171-172 below.

32.
1755-1780 MHz.
Internationally, the 1755-1850 MHz band, which is part of the larger 1710-1930 MHz band, is allocated on a primary basis to the fixed and mobile services for all three International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regions. Domestically, the 1755-1850 MHz band is currently allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis for Federal use and assigned to a wide range of military and other government uses. NTIA reports that the Federal government uses the entire 1755-1850 MHz band across the nation and that the majority of Federal services that operate in the 1755-1780 MHz band also operate in the larger 1755-1850 MHz band. In total, NTIA reports that over 20 agencies use more than 3100 individual frequency assignments in the band, many of which cover multiple systems and operating areas and that there are few bands to consider for repurposing and few comparable bands to which Federal agencies can relocate their operations. Specifically, the Federal government uses the 1755-1850 MHz band for the following services: (1) Conventional fixed point-to-point microwave communications systems; (2) military tactical radio relay systems; (3) air combat training systems; (4) precision guided munitions; (5) high-resolution video data links, and other law enforcement video surveillance applications; (6) tracking, telemetry, and command for Federal Government space systems; (7) data links for short-range unmanned aerial vehicles; (8) land mobile robotic video functions (
e.g.,
explosive ordnance and hazardous material investigations and disposals); (9) control links for various power, land, water, and electric power management systems; and (10) aeronautical mobile telemetry.

33. From a non-Federal, commercial perspective, the 1755-1780 MHz band holds potential as an extension to existing AWS spectrum. The band has several characteristics that make it especially appealing for commercial wireless use. First, it is located adjacent to the AWS-1 uplink/mobile band at 1710-1755 MHz and thus, offers the benefits of contiguous bands. Second, it is regionally and internationally harmonized for mobile broadband, raising the potential for commercial operators to benefit from economies of scale achieved by equipment manufacturers developing equipment for a global market. Third, it could be paired with the 2155-2180 MHz band to symmetrically extend the AWS-1 band. The National Broadband Plan favored pairing the 1755-1780 MHz band with the 2155-2180 MHz band for similar reasons.”

34. We propose uplink mobile use of 1755-1780 MHz under technical rules similar to AWS-1 uplinks in the adjacent 1710-1755 MHz band, subject to Federal requirements including coordination with incumbent Federal users, that emerge from the CSMAC process, if transmitted by NTIA. As mentioned above, however, CSMAC working groups 3-5 have not yet issued final reports for NTIA's consideration. We will consider CSMAC's recommendations, if NTIA accepts them, to inform the service rules for the 1755-1780 MHz band, including terms of sharing and required protections to the extent that relocation and clearing is not feasible. We intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or written
ex partes,
as appropriate, depending on the timing. We discuss these issues in greater detail below in paragraphs 73-77. Allocation issues are discussed in para. 175.

35.
2020-2025 MHz.
The 2020-2025 MHz band is already allocated for the non-Federal fixed and mobile services and is part of the 35 megahertz (1990-2025 MHz) that the Commission repurposed in 2000 from BAS to emerging technologies such as Personal Communications Services (PCS), AWS, and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). This repurposing was possible because BAS converted nationwide from seven analog channels (each 17-18 megahertz wide) to seven digital channels (each 12 megahertz wide). In 2004, the Commission proposed to license 2020-2025 MHz for uplink/mobile use paired with 2175-2180 MHz. The Commission did not adopt this proposal and, in 2008 it proposed instead to combine 2175-2180 MHz and 2155-2175 MHz, to make a larger unpaired block at 2155-2180 MHz. The Commission did not make a further proposal for the 2020-2025 MHz band immediately above the AWS-4 uplink band (2000-2020 MHz). Today, we propose uplink/mobile use of 2020-2025 MHz under rules similar to the AWS-4 rules. We do not propose to modify the allocation for this band but, as described in paragraph 173 below, we propose changes to several related footnotes in the Table of Frequency Allocations.

Additional Bands, Including the Requirement To Identify 15 MHz of Contiguous Spectrum for Commercial Use

36. As discussed above, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to identify an additional 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum for commercial use. We seek comment on an appropriate candidate for that choice, including, for example, the 1755-1780 MHz band identified above. As an alternative, we also seek general comment on the allocation of other frequencies in order to meet or surpass this requirement of the Spectrum Act, and more specific comment on those listed below. Parties that advocate licensing any of the spectrum below or any alternative spectrum for wireless broadband should describe in detail the technical, operational, and licensing rules that we should apply. For example, could the service rules that we are proposing for 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, or 2155-2180 MHz, be applied? If so, would modifications be necessary to address issues related to specifically identified bands? Issues related to the need for changes to the Table of Allocations are treated separately in paragraphs 171-179 below.

37.
1780-1850 MHz.
The 1780-1850 MHz band, which is part of the larger 1755-1850 MHz band, is allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis for Federal use and assigned to a wide-range of military and other government uses. As noted above, NTIA reports that the Federal government uses the entire 1755-1850 MHz band across the nation and that the majority of Federal services that operate in the 1755-1780 MHz band also operate in the larger 1755-1850 MHz band. Although the commercial wireless industry appears primarily interested in the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the 1755-1850 MHz band to pair with the 2155-2180 MHz band, NTIA has been studying the entire 1755-1850 MHz band and industry has not entirely dismissed the possibility of seeking access to this spectrum in the long term. NTIA reports that it appreciates the Commission's “recognition of the potential need to address rules to accommodate the phased relocation of the entire 95 megahertz of the 1755-1850 MHz band.”

38. Because of the commercial industry's focus on the 1755-1780 MHz band, NTIA makes several requests of the Commission. First, NTIA requests consideration of the potential for a phased transition to facilitate commercial access to the 1755-1780

MHz band in a shorter timeframe while preserving longer-term repurposing and transition opportunities for the entire 1755-1850 MHz band. Second, NTIA requests that if a Commission auction of the 1755-1780 MHz band results in the relocation of or sharing with Federal systems that currently have access to the entire 1755-1850 MHz band, agency transition plans for the lower 25 megahertz account for those systems, even if the Commission holds multiple auctions over time. Third, NTIA requests that, if necessary, the Commission assist NTIA in identifying and reallocating replacement spectrum to accommodate displaced Federal operations unless these agencies can maintain comparable capability of systems via sharing or utilizing alternative technology. We invite comment on the NTIA plan for ultimately making the entire 1755-1850 MHz band available for wireless broadband based on a phased transition. How could this spectrum be used in ways that would significantly answer the need for additional wireless spectrum? Should different portions of the band be made available with different service rules, including, for example, technical rules, and sharing/coordination provisions?

39.
2095-2110 MHz.
As discussed above, CTIA recommends that the Commission consider identifying 2095-2110 MHz as the additional 15 megahertz for reallocation under this statutory provision. We invite comment on CTIA's recommendation. We note that footnote 5.391 to the Table of Frequency Allocations states administrations shall not introduce high-density mobile systems into this band. Parties that advocate licensing 2095-2110 for wireless broadband should explain how such use can be reconciled with the footnote 5.391, including the underlying need to protect U.S. and foreign space systems, and describe in detail the technical, operational, and licensing rules that we should apply. Commenters should also describe potential effects on incumbent BAS users and Federal users, particularly given that this proposal would appear to conflict with use of two of the seven BAS channels available in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Additionally, as described above, NASA appears to strongly oppose sharing this band with commercial cellular operations. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) also opposes CTIA's proposal. We also observe that Federal agencies have identified the 2025-2110 MHz band as a potential relocation band for various Federal operations. We seek comment on these considerations.

40.
Other Frequencies.
We invite commenters to propose any other band that would meet the Spectrum Act's requirement for the Commission to identify 15 contiguous megahertz of spectrum. We encourage commenters to identify specific bands, to explain what the band is currently used for, and how it might be allocated and transitioned for commercial use under flexible use service rules for operations such as wireless broadband service.

Band-Use Configurations

41.
Base vs. Mobile Transmissions.
As discussed further below, we propose to allow the use of each AWS-3 band in a manner that is compatible with the use of adjacent bands. Doing so reduces the risk of harmful interference to co-channel or adjacent band operations or the need for highly restrictive technical limits that would leave some AWS-3 spectrum underutilized. We believe our band-use proposals maximize the potential usability of these bands. We seek comment on our proposals and invite commenters to propose alternatives.

42.
Base Transmit.
In 2008, the Commission proposed to allow base and mobile operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band to support Time Division Duplex (TDD) operations. To protect base operations in the adjacent AWS-1 band from harmful interference due to mobile operations in the AWS-3 band, strict power and out-of-band-emission (OOBE) limits were placed on AWS-3 mobiles. These measures included a slightly lower than normal mobile power limit and a mobile OOBE limit below 2155 MHz of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB. Recently, in the AWS-4 proceeding, the Commission addressed a similar base/mobile adjacency scenario that was unavoidable because AWS-4 spectrum (2000-2020 MHz), which is next to the H Block downlink band (1995-2000 MHz), was already the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) uplink band (and thus could only be used for AWS-4 mobiles). The Commission concluded that certain assumptions underlying the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB proposal are outdated: to protect contemporary AWS uses, the Commission found that a 70 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit is necessary along with significant power reductions in the first five megahertz of the uplink/mobile band that significantly limit mobile operations to provide adequate isolation between adjacent mobile and base station operations.

43. Unlike AWS-4, here we have the option to avoid designating uplink next to downlink, which in turn avoids the need for guard bands or significant technical limits that mitigate interference between uplink and downlink. As we recently concluded in connection with AWS-4, having mobiles (or base and mobile TDD transmissions) requires significant power reductions and OOBE limits to prevent harmful interference to adjacent bands. Allowing mobile transmit operations would appear to leave significant portions of the 2155-2180 MHz band underutilized. Moreover, in addition to interference with adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4 base station transmissions, allowing mobiles in the 2155-2180 MHz band appears to create the potential for harmful mobile-to-mobile interference among AWS-3 licensees with dissimilar operations in adjacent blocks or service areas. Accordingly, we propose to allow base and fixed (downlink), but not mobile, operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band. Such operations are compatible with similar downlink operations in the adjacent AWS-1 band (2110-2155 MHz) and AWS-4 band (2180-2200 MHz). By designating downlink next to downlink, we avoid having to impose guard bands or significant technical limits between adjacent services, thereby increasing the amount of usable spectrum. We seek comment on this proposal. We invite commenters who disagree with this proposal to submit test data and specific technical analyses in support of the OOBE, power, and other technical limits they recommend. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

44.
Mobile Transmit.
We propose to allow mobile transmit operations (but to prohibit high-power fixed and base station operations) in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2020-2025 MHz bands. Again, we intend to reduce the risk of harmful interference to adjacent band operations or the need for highly restrictive technical limits that could leave some AWS-3 spectrum underutilized. Each of these bands is adjacent, on one or both sides, to AWS uplink/mobile bands. The 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands are adjacent to the AWS-1 uplink/mobile band (1710-1755 MHz) and the 2020-2025 MHz band is adjacent to the AWS-4/MSS uplink/mobile band (2000-2020 MHz). Authorizing high-power base stations in these AWS-3 bands would appear to raise the potential for base-to-base interference to the adjacent band AWS-1 and AWS-4 services. Possibly, base-to-base interference could be controlled by measures such as power limits, OOBE limits, siting restrictions,

and coordination, but these measures would appear to be burdensome and might result in a less robust use of these AWS-3 bands.

45. Another potential impediment to high-power use of two of these bands—1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz—arises because AWS-3 use might be shared with Federal services. NTIA's recommendations for sharing 1695-1710 MHz are predicated on the use of low-power AWS-3 mobiles, as is CSMAC's ongoing analysis of potential sharing of the 1755-1850 MHz band. AWS-3 base stations in these Federal bands have not been analyzed, to date, and proposing such operations herein would appear to result in additional delay, costs, and the possibility of NTIA concluding that Federal/non-Federal sharing is impossible, or feasible only under severe restrictions on high-power AWS-3 use of these two bands.

46. For these reasons, we propose to permit only low-power, mobile-to-base transmissions in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2020-2025 MHz bands. We seek comment on this proposal. We invite commenters who disagree with this proposal to submit test data and specific technical analyses in support of the OOBE or other technical limits they recommend. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

47.
Spectrum Block Sizes.
In determining the spectrum block sizes for the AWS-3 bands, we seek to maximize utility and allow for efficient use of these bands. We believe that a minimum bandwidth of five megahertz is required to accommodate the fullest range of wireless services. Five-megahertz blocks can be used for new technologies and can be used for some data services, including broadband Internet access. The Commission has also found that five-megahertz blocks would provide entry opportunities for small and rural service providers, and can be aggregated to provide greater capacity where needed. We therefore propose to license the AWS-3 spectrum in five-megahertz blocks, and seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternatives.

48.
Spectrum Block Configuration.
We have generally licensed other bands that support mobile broadband services on a paired basis, matching specific downlink and uplink bands. We recognize that the new AWS bands proposed in this
NPRM
could be configured in any number of pairings or even auctioned on an unpaired basis. We therefore seek comment on a range of options. Should we pair any of the AWS-3 band segments discussed in this
NPRM,
and if so how should they be paired? Or should we not specify pairing? Are there likely to be competitive effects of our choice that we should consider? If we adopt the unpaired approach, are any administrative measures necessary to keep track of how spectrum blocks are being used? Additionally, if the unpaired spectrum is used to support asymmetrical downlink operations, are there particular bands with which carrier aggregation could most easily be accommodated? Are there bands with which carrier aggregation of AWS-3 spectrum is not advisable due to potential intermodulation or other interference? In any event, we seek comment on requiring uplink/mobiles in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands to transmit only when controlled by an associated base station whose location can be coordinated with relevant Federal users should they be required to implement Protection Zones described in paragraphs 58-59. For example, the Protection Zones for the 1695-1710 MHz band are premised on the distance between the incumbent Federal operations and non-Federal base station(s) that will enable the AWS-3 uplink/mobile operations. Thus, even though the base station does not transmit in the 1695-1710 MHz band, its location inside a Protection Zone triggers the coordination requirement. We invite comment on what approach to take, and the costs and benefits of particular approaches.

Service Areas

49.
Geographic Area Licensing.
We propose to license all AWS-3 spectrum blocks using a geographic area licensing approach, and we seek comment on this proposal. A geographic licensing approach appears well suited for the types of fixed and mobile services that would likely be deployed in these bands. Additionally, geographic licensing appears consistent with the licensing approach adopted for other bands that support mobile broadband services. Moreover, adopting a geographic areas licensing approach would seem to allow the Commission to assign new initial licenses in these bands through a system of competitive bidding in accordance with the Spectrum Act. We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a geographic area licensing scheme. In the event that a party does not support using geographic licensing for a given band, it should explain its position, describe what type of licensing scheme it supports and identify the costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing proposal. Commenters should also address how an alternative licensing approach would be consistent with the statutory requirement to assign licenses in these bands through a system of competitive bidding and the statutory objectives that the Commission is required to promote in establishing methodologies for competitive bidding.

50.
Service Area Size.
If we use a geographic area approach for licensing these bands, we must determine the appropriate size(s) of service areas on which licenses should be based. We seek to adopt a service area for all bands that meets several statutory goals. These include facilitating access to spectrum by both small and large providers, providing for the efficient use of the spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers, especially those in rural areas and tribal lands, and promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services consistent with our obligations under section 309(j) of the Communications Act.

51. Of the various geographic areas we might adopt here, Economic Areas (EAs) represent a natural market unit for local or regional service areas. The Bureau of Economic Analysis defines an EA as “one or more economic nodes—metropolitan areas or similar areas that serve as centers of economic activity—and the surrounding counties that are economically related to the nodes.” EAs nest within and may be aggregated up to larger license areas, such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) for operators seeking larger service areas. EAs also represent a close match to the geographic licensing approach used for the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. Given their spectral proximity, the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands appear to be the most likely candidates for
ad hoc
operational consolidation with AWS-3 spectrum, in those cases where such consolidation may occur. Using a compatible geographic licensing approach may therefore result in more efficient opportunities for available spectrum to be put to use where needed.

52. We therefore propose to license the AWS-3 bands on an EA basis (176 EAs) and seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives. We ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of licensing on an EA or other basis. We also seek comment on whether there are costs and benefits to adopting our proposed EA

licensing approach for bands shared with Federal users. For example, to what extent do the Protection Zones of incumbent Federal operations extend across EA boundaries and, if they do, is this a relevant factor to consider in adopting EA licensing? We seek comment on alternative geographic area sizes that could be used as the basis for licensing spectrum in these bands. Although we propose to separately license the Gulf of Mexico separately consistent with AWS-1, AWS-4, and H Block, all of which license the Gulf as a separate EA license, we also invite comment on whether to include the Gulf of Mexico as part of larger service areas, as the Commission did for the Upper 700 MHz band. Commenters who advocate a separate service area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf licensees.

Federal/non-Federal Sharing and Coordination

53. Several of the bands included in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
are presently allocated for Federal use and are used by various Federal agencies to carry out their missions. Therefore, enabling commercial access to these bands, if clearing is not practicable, may require some combination of reallocation, relocation, sharing, and/or coordination. We seek comment on the most appropriate solutions for particular bands, including those specifically identified below, that maximize commercial access to these bands. These solutions may include clearing and reallocating, or where not feasible, facilitating shared access to the bands. As noted above, NTIA intends for its CSMAC process to generate actionable recommendations regarding non-Federal access to these bands. We intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations, including corresponding rules and procedures the Commission should adopt to effectuate them, in comments, reply comments, or written
ex partes,
as appropriate, depending on the timing.

54.
1695-1710 MHz—Federal/non-Federal Sharing Framework.
As noted above, in accordance with the Spectrum Act's mandate that NTIA identify 15 megahertz of spectrum for reallocation from Federal to non-Federal use, NTIA identified the 1695-1710 MHz band and recommended that the Commission reallocate it for commercial use. In making this recommendation, NTIA cited conclusions in the
NTIA Fast Track Report,
as well as recommendations then being drafted by CSMAC Working Group 1 (WG1), that this band segment could be reallocated for commercial use subject to the sharing framework described further below. On April 19, 2013, NTIA recommended that the Commission use the
WG1 Final Report
recommendations in drafting proposed rules to implement shared use of the 1695-1710 MHz band. Accordingly, we propose that shared Federal and non-Federal use of the 1695-1710 MHz band follow the sharing framework recommended by NTIA. This approach allows for exclusive commercial operations outside predetermined Protection Zones without any Federal coordination, and for commercial operations inside the Protection Zones after coordination to protect incumbent Federal operations. We seek comment generally on the extent to which the proposed framework appropriately follows Congress' prioritization of relocation over sharing, except where technically or financially prohibitive. We seek comment on more specific aspects of these recommendations below, as well as on any other sharing and coordination issues or alternative approaches that are outside the scope of CSMAC's analyses and recommendations.

55. The
WG1 Final Report
sets out a framework for sharing the band that protects both the polar-orbiting satellites (POES) that operate in the 1695-1710 MHz band as well as the geostationary satellite earth stations that operate predominately in the adjacent 1675-1695 MHz band, but which overlap slightly with the 1695-1710 MHz band. Additionally, WG1 established interference protection criteria defining the allowed Interference Power Spectral Density (IPSD) levels, tailored to each receiver's RF characteristics. WG1 also refined the interference analysis methodology previously used for the
NTIA Fast Track Report
to more realistically model the operation of commercial LTE networks and draw the parameters of the Protection Zones. The methodology used to derive the Protection Zones is provided in Appendix 7 of the
WG1 Final Report,
but more work is needed to create all of the methods and procedures necessary for the coordination process. As explained in the
WG1 Final Report:

Details of the coordination framework are outline[d] in [
WG1 Final Report
] Appendix 1. To create this coordination process, NTIA and FCC, in conjunction with the affected federal agencies, need to establish: (1) A nationally-approved interference prediction model, associated input parameters, and distribution of aggregate IPSD limit among commercial licensees; (2) coordination procedures, including an automated process, to the extent possible, to assess if the proposed commercial network will meet the IPSD limits, to facilitate coordination allowing commercial licensee operations within the Protection Areas; and (3) procedures for implementing on-going real-time monitoring to ensure IPSD limits are not being exceeded and that commercial operations can be adjusted immediately if they are. The framework stipulates that the criteria and procedures for coordination and operation within the Protection Zones, as well as enforcement mechanisms, must still be clearly defined and subsequently codified in the FCC rules and the NTIA manual, as appropriate.

56. The Commission has implemented a number of different coordination approaches in other services with the aim of efficiently and expeditiously balancing access to spectrum against the need to prevent harmful interference. For example, in the non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service, prospective earth station licensees must coordinate with Federal government users prior to operating. Similarly, our part 101 rules for the Fixed Microwave Services set forth detailed frequency coordination procedures and interference protection criteria. As discussed in greater detail below, our part 27 rules for the Advanced Wireless Services outline a coordination process that permits both grandfathered Federal and non-Federal users to operate in the AWS-1 band. In general, our coordination rules take as foundational that all parties subject to coordination will work in good faith to accurately assess the potential for interference. We aim to provide flexibility to the parties involved to conduct the interference analysis in an agreed-upon manner with an eye towards continually improving accuracy.

57. Based on the Commission's experience with coordination, we tentatively agree with NTIA's sharing framework recommendation, which is premised on coordination (assuming sharing is necessary because relocation is not possible). In seeking comment on how to further develop and implement NTIA's recommended sharing framework, we recognize, as did NTIA's recommendation, that some criteria, procedures and mechanisms would be codified in the Commission's rules, while others would be codified in the NTIA manual. We also note that some matters may be appropriately addressed as part of the FCC-NTIA coordination

process and/or in jointly released documents.

58.
Protection Zones for Incumbent Federal Operations.
The framework for Federal and non-Federal shared operations in the band is predicated on defined Protection Zones where commercial operations must meet strict coordination standards so as to protect incumbent co-channel Federal polar orbiting satellites and adjacent Federal geo-stationary operations in the 1675-1695 MHz band. NTIA's earlier Fast Track report had identified the 1695-1710 MHz band for reallocation subject to 18 Exclusion Zones that covered larger geographic areas where non-Federal operations would be prohibited, thereby limiting commercial operations in the band. WG1 conducted further analyses, and refined the technical parameters for conducting interference analyses, including LTE system parameters, propagation models, and Federal systems parameters to more accurately depict real world operation of LTE networks and their interaction with the incumbent systems. WG1's analysis also assumed that 1695-1710 MHz would be a mobile uplink band. Overall, the analysis resulted in a significant reduction in the anticipated distance at which an LTE system would potentially cause harmful interference to a Federal earth station receiver. Additionally, given the wide range of measures that can be taken to further mitigate the potential interference, WG1 recommended the use of Protection Zones (coordination areas) rather than Exclusion Zones. The WG1 effort focused on the 18 sites identified in the
NTIA Fast Track Report
and some locations the
NTIA Fast Track Report
considered as single locations but included multiple antennas that are widely spaced. With the reductions in the separation distances in the
NTIA Fast Track Report,
the
WG1 Final Report
notes that it may be necessary to list each of these antennas separately to ensure adequate protection. Additionally, Government participants in WG1 identified additional sites that they believe warrant protection and stated that they intend to raise the issue with NTIA. The agencies identified an additional 22 sites operating in and adjacent to the 1695-1710 MHz band. On June 18, 2013, WG1 reported to the CSMAC that it completed its analysis to compute protection distances for the new sites and consolidated sites with overlapping zones, reducing the number of new sites to nine for a total of 27 sites that require protection. Although the full CSMAC and NTIA have not yet approved the revised list, our proposal assumes that CSMAC and NTIA will approve/endorse a final list of Protection Zones substantially as recommended by Working Group 1 but interested parties should be aware that neither assumption can be guaranteed, in which case the final list of Protection Zones could differ from our proposal.

59. As previously stated, reflecting WG1's latest analysis, we are proposing to allow uplink/mobile and low power fixed operations in this band when enabled by a base station(s) that is (1) not located within a Protection Zone, or (2) located within a Protection Zone and successfully coordinated with Federal incumbents. These Protection Zones that we proposed to adopt provide maximum protection distances. We seek comment on this proposal.

60.
Coordination Interference Analysis; Potential Refinements.
As noted above, to create this coordination process for Federal Earth Stations, NTIA and the FCC in conjunction with the affected Federal agencies, need to establish a nationally-approved interference prediction model, associated input parameters, and distribution of aggregate IPSD limits among commercial licensees. WG1 established interference protection criteria (defined as IPSD limits), setting permitted power spectral density levels at the inputs to the protected meteorological satellite receivers. WG1 adopted an interference-based approach to coordination, requiring that the commercial operator not be allowed to operate within the defined Protection Zones unless an engineering analysis demonstrated that the proposed operations would not cause interference in excess of the prescribed power spectral density limits. The Protection Zones themselves were developed based on an interference analysis of a theoretical grid-based network of base stations, according to the methodology documented in the report. NTIA recognized that some of the initial technical parameters and techniques that WG1 developed were conservative, but adequate for providing a first order estimation of potential interference sufficient for triggering coordination. Potential refinements include interference protection criteria, application thereof where multiple operators may coexist with a single Federal receiver, refinement of the propagation model, and use of clutter and terrain. We therefore seek general comment on the interference analysis described in the
WG1 Final Report,
including potential clarifications or solutions to unresolved issues identified in the report. We also seek comment on potential refinements to this methodology.

61. WG1 placed particular emphasis on the interference prediction model to be used for the analysis as a critical area in need of improvement. There was considerable discussion on the appropriate propagation model to incorporate in the analysis. The central issues raised in determining the appropriate propagation model were how to account for clutter losses and time variability of interference, and predicting the impact of the length of the transmission paths. With respect to the proper propagation modeling to be used, the
WG1 Final Report
noted that “differences in propagation models and application of terrain and clutter losses has a dramatic impact on results and can vary results by as much as 40 dB.” Incorporation of appropriate improvements in the methodology and the accuracy of the technical parameters used could free up substantial proportions of the Protection Zones for commercial operations. Ultimately, the propagation model used to determine the distances for the Protection Zones was the point-to-point Irregular Terrain Model (ITM). WG1 was unable to agree upon the incorporation of clutter losses in the ITM model and concluded that “the analysis results would be accurate enough for the intended purpose of recommending Protection Zones.” Is the ITM model, configured as described in the
WG1 Final Report,
sufficient for the purposes of coordination? How should clutter be addressed? What other propagation models, as defined by standards bodies or other organizations, are appropriate for use in coordination? Can measurement data be used in place of predictions for particular sites or situations? Are there other commercial software products that would be more suitable to conduct the interference analyses required? A number of concerns about the propagation model are noted in the discussion in Appendix 7, particularly concerns from the Federal users about long term fading effects and atmospheric ducting which may under predict interference in some of the models proposed by industry. We seek comment on these issues and encourage proponents of any particular propagation model(s) to specifically address any concerns previously raised by Federal or non-Federal users, as applicable.

62. WG1 adopted interference protection criteria based on an interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) of −10 dB. In its report, WG1 identified that further consideration was needed regarding the application of the criteria. The interference protection criterion

WG1 developed for its analysis is fairly well-defined in the report. Specifically, the total power level of acceptable interference to government receivers was limited to 10 dB below the protected receiver's effective system noise floor as measured at the receiver IF stage. The
WG1 Final Report
specifically raised the question of whether a 10 dB I/N target would be sufficient in the presence of multiple commercial operators. One case where this may occur is when a protected receiver is located near the geographic boundary between two commercial operators where the interference could aggregate from multiple service providers. Should the interference levels provided in Table 4 of Appendix 7 of the
WG1 Final Report
be adopted as the required protection criteria for a single commercial operator? That is, a request for coordination would not be rejected as long as the predicted aggregate interference from that operator fell below the levels in Table 4. Alternatively, should an I/N of −10 dB be applied to the total interference from all operators whose base stations lie within the protection zone? If so, how should the interference be apportioned among multiple operators? We seek comment on the appropriate interference criteria. We also seek comment on how to apply these interference criteria in the case of multiple operators.

63. The
WG1 Final Report
recommended that coordination within the Protection Zones address both in-band and adjacent band interference issues but did not clearly identify requirements for the protection of adjacent operations. We believe that clarifying this recommendation would be helpful to both Federal and non-Federal operators. For example, should protection distances or interference criteria be different for adjacent channel operations versus co-channel operations? The only mention of adjacent channel operations refers to the GOES satellite earth stations. It is clear, that not only must the POES systems operating in the 1695-1710 MHz band be protected, but also the GOES systems operating primarily in the 1675-1695 MHz band. While WG1 categorized the GOES system as an adjacent band operation, some of the operations are actually co-channel. The emission of GOES systems overlaps into the 1695-1710 MHz band by 250 kilohertz. The methodology used in the interference analysis accounts for both the selectivity of the satellite receivers and the out-of-band emission levels of the mobiles operating outside of the earth station's operating band. Thus, there are existing mechanisms in the methodology that can address adjacent channel concerns. There is a question as to whether purely adjacent channel operations could exist. For example, are there cases where GOES and POES receivers are not co-located or all POES carriers are not in use at a particular site and thus may not be co-channel to a particular commercial operator using one of the three 5 megahertz blocks proposed under the band plan? Are further refinements to the methodology needed to account for adjacent channel scenarios? We propose that all commercial operators within the specified protection distance of a protected receiver, whether they are co-channel or adjacent channel (operating within the 1695-1710 MHz band) coordinate with the Federal users in the band. Should this proceeding be used to establish Protection Zones and guidelines for adjacent channel operations as well?

64. One example of an expected change to the methodology is the commercial system base station configuration. In developing the interference calculation methodology for coordination, WG1 performed a basic analysis using a network of base stations placed along a uniform grid. However, it is expected that any coordination will use the actual site locations for planned base station deployments. This raises the question of whether other modifications of the methodology may be needed to provide a more realistic assessment of the interference calculation. With the goal of facilitating a fair and equitable coordination process, should the Commission jointly establish with NTIA minimum requirements for the interference analysis and/or a set of best practices for conducting the engineering analysis? If so, what requirements are needed? Are there additions or improvements to these parameters that should be considered? Are there any other technical requirements or techniques that should be set in this proceeding? Are there established models and methodologies in existing standards or regulatory bodies that could be adopted? Commenters are asked to discuss the pros and cons of the recommended methodology, and provide detailed arguments on any improvements that can be made to the recommended analysis.

65.
Coordination Procedures.
We seek comment on what coordination procedures would best effectuate the recommendations of the
WG1 Final Report.
As noted above, the Commission has employed a variety of coordination models in different wireless and satellite services. We seek comment on whether any existing coordination models—or elements of those coordination models—may be applicable to the 1695-1710 MHz band. To the extent that existing models do not or only partially apply, we seek comment on other approaches that address the unique circumstances surrounding Federal/non-Federal sharing in this band. We especially seek comment on any and all issues related to coordination that are expressly mentioned in the
WG1 Final Report.

66.
Process Initiation.
We ask commenters to propose methods by which a licensee can initiate the coordination process. Should we provide any guidance on coordination timelines? Should we set a specific time frame by which licensees are required to initiate the coordination process,
i.e.,
how much advance notice should a licensee provide prior to commencing operations? Should there be time limits established on various phases of the coordination process itself? If a licensee intends to alter operating plans after reaching a coordination agreement, should it have to fully re-coordinate with the applicable Federal agencies? How should the Commission coordinate with NTIA in facilitating an effective coordination procedure, consistent with our respective roles under the Spectrum Act?

67.
AWS-1 Precedent.
In particular, we seek comment on whether the coordination procedures established for non-Federal licensees to gain early access to adjacent AWS-1 uplink band (1710-1755 MHz) could serve as a model for coordination in the 1695-1710 MHz band. In AWS-1, recognizing the importance of protecting the Federal operations while opening up the spectrum to newly licensed commercial users, the Commission worked closely with NTIA to craft a coordination procedure before the full band transition was completed. Prior to operating, the AWS-1 licensee was required to contact the appropriate Federal agency to get information necessary to perform an interference analysis. The AWS-1 licensee would first perform the interference analysis and then send it to the appropriate designated agency contact for review. At the end of 60 days, if the Federal agency raised no objection, the AWS-1 licensee was permitted to commence operations. NTIA required Federal agencies to cooperate with AWS-1 licensees and provide, within 30 days of a request from an AWS-1 licensee wishing to operate within a coordination zone, site-specific technical information that

would allow the licensee to complete the interference analysis. NTIA also required agencies that disapprove of an interference analysis submitted by an AWS-1 licensee to provide the licensee with a detailed rationale for its disapproval. Finally, Federal agencies were required to work in good faith to identify the source of the harmful interference and work with AWS-1 licensees to eliminate or mitigate the interference. Would a similar procedure work here? If so, what exact procedures and timelines would be appropriate? What is the best way to ensure balanced treatment of Federal and non-Federal users' interests? Commenters are asked to provide the reasoning for their suggestions, and to discuss our authority to implement these suggestions, where applicable.

68.
Appeals.
We seek comment on whether we should adopt an appeals process for licensees whose coordination proposals are rejected by the government agency or the final decision maker in the coordination process. If so, who should adjudicate the appeals and what should be the criteria for reversal?

69.
Interference Power Spectral Density (IPSD) Limits.
To facilitate coordination, the
WG1 Final Report
also recommended, to the extent possible, an automated process with the ability to assess if proposed commercial networks will meet predetermined IPSD limits. We seek comment on the extent to which such a process is possible and, if so, how best to implement this recommendation. Are there automated processes already in place that we could adapt to this situation? How much of the coordination process can be automated? What are the challenges associated with such an approach and are they surmountable? Would the benefits of implementation exceed the associated costs? The
WG1 Final Report
also recommended establishment of a testing program that would “demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of proposed protection and mitigation methods before commercial licensees may begin operations within a Protection Zone.” We seek comment on establishing such a program. What would it entail? Are there existing testing programs that can serve as a model?

70.
Enforcement.
The
WG1 Final Report
states that clear enforcement procedures must be established in order to protect Federal operations within the Protection Zones. We seek comment on ways to deter and terminate commercial operations from causing harmful interference to Federal operations through violations of the rules or of a coordination agreement. How should commercial operators be notified to cease operations in such a situation? What can or should be done in the event that there is a dispute between the parties as to the actual source of interference? Do our existing enforcement procedures provide adequate remedies or do the special circumstances of this band require additional enforcement mechanisms? What remedies, above and beyond notice to stop operations, are appropriate in such circumstances? Would fines and/or loss of license be appropriate in this case? Commenters are encouraged to propose adequate enforcement mechanisms that will ensure that incumbent Federal operations do not suffer harmful interference.

71. The
WG1 Final Report
notes that real-time monitoring of IPSD limits with automated adjustments would be ideal in order to ensure that the established interference limits are not being exceeded. Ideally, this real-time monitoring could quickly detect violations and facilitate immediate adjustments to commercial operations so as to prevent harmful interference to Federal operations. However, a real-time monitoring system would not necessarily determine the source of the problem. We seek comment on whether establishing a real-time monitoring mechanism is possible and feasible. If so, commenters are invited to describe how this can be accomplished.

72.
Relocating Federal government receive locations in the 1695-1710 MHz band.
Some of the Protection Zones set forth in Table 1 above are located in highly populated urban areas where there is a continuously rising demand for commercial broadband services. NTIA did not have the opportunity to study the possibility of relocating Federal receive sites in the band. Accordingly, and in response to an industry suggestion, NTIA recommends that before auction, the feasibility and cost impact of relocating Federal operations in the 1695-1710 MHz band be explored for the top 100 markets, with the goal of creating an environment where there would be less restricted commercial use of the band within the Protection Zones. If any studies consistent with this recommendation are conducted, we intend to incorporate them into the record of this proceeding. Further, NTIA has identified some challenges that a Federal receiver relocation study should address. These include ensuring that:

(1) A receive site is located in a suitable area to capture necessary data, (2) the location is in a rural enough area to minimize the size of or need for Protection Zones in high population areas, (3) reliable power is available, (4) adequate and redundant backhaul facilities can be established to ensure highly reliable reception of data, (5) any delay in receiving raw satellite data introduced by a remote receiver is minimal and does not negatively impact the government mission, and (6) any suitable site is able to meet applicable environmental statutory regulatory requirements to build-out such a facility.

We seek comment on how to address these challenges, again, within the restricted time frame. Commenters should also address, if possible, anticipated relocation/installation costs and timelines for relocation. We also ask commenters to address whether, if we proceed to formulate regulations and conduct an initial auction based on the recommended Protection Zones, it still would be appropriate and feasible to conduct the relocation study thereafter, or whether there would be no benefits to such a study subsequent to an initial auction of 1695-1710 MHz with the associated Protection Zones.

73.
1755-1780 MHz.
NTIA established CSMAC Working Groups 2-5 to analyze ways to facilitate commercial operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band. To date, NTIA has endorsed the recommendations of Working Group 2 (Federal law enforcement surveillance systems, explosive ordnance disposal systems, and other short distant links). We anticipate that Working Groups 3-5 will, in the coming months, present their recommendations to NTIA, which will, in turn, make recommendations addressing the remaining Federal systems in the band to the Commission. We seek comment on appropriate relocation or sharing arrangements for these systems if relocation is not feasible. As noted above, we intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or
ex parte
presentations, as appropriate, depending on the timing.

74. As mentioned above, NTIA endorses the recommendations of WG2 that Federal law enforcement surveillance systems, explosive ordnance disposal systems, and other short distant links can be relocated out of the band within five years, once funding and comparable spectrum are available. NTIA also endorses Working Group 2's recommendations ranking Economic Areas to be transitioned according to industry implementation priorities. NTIA notes that while industry would prefer Federal relocation based on the ranking of

economic areas (EAs) on the suggested list, the agencies will need to establish their timelines for clearing based on their operational requirements and that, in some cases, operational needs may require clearing larger geographic areas. Accordingly, NTIA clarifies that the prioritized list of EAs will serve as an input for consideration as the agencies develop their transition plans. Furthermore, due to the agencies' challenges in planning and implementing the transition of these systems without impacting operational requirements, NTIA states that prospective bidders should understand that agencies may not be able to vary significantly from the timelines in their published transition plans, unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves accelerated implementation payments.

75. In the event that clearing is not feasible, we must prepare for the possibility that CSMAC may present a “hybrid” recommendation, in which some operations would be relocated, some would share the band with commercial licensees, and some (in geographic exclusion zones) would not share the band. If so, and if the NTIA endorses the CSMAC recommendations, we could adopt Protection Zones, Exclusion Zones, and other sharing measures to clearly define the potential for Federal and commercial operations to share the 1755-1780 MHz band (spectrally, geographically, temporally, dynamically, or any combination of these). We seek comment on what sharing measures would appropriately maximize commercial access to the spectrum. We intend to incorporate NTIA's forthcoming recommendations into the record of this proceeding and anticipate that commenters will discuss NTIA's recommendations in comments, reply comments, or
ex parte presentations,
as appropriate, depending on the timing. We also expect that commenters will discuss the CSMAC's specific recommendations as well as various implementation details, including on the coordination processes required for shared use of the band.

76. Anticipating the possibility that CSMAC and NTIA are unable to recommend clearly defined sharing parameters, we also seek comment on whether to issue “overlay” licenses that would permit new licensees to gain access to the 1755-1780 MHz band only if they are able to reach coordination agreements with affected Federal users,
i.e.,
“operator-to-operator” coordination. Under this alternative, we would adopt rules to license the 1755-1780 MHz band on a non-harmful interference basis to, and subject to accepting harmful interference from, Federal incumbents that are not relocating or, if they are relocating, until they are relocated under an approved plan. We seek comment on this proposal.

77. Finally, as another alternative, we seek comment on the possibility that the 1755-1780 MHz band remain for exclusive Federal use and how that would affect the band configurations described in paragraphs 41-46 and our Spectrum Act obligation to identify an additional 15 megahertz of contiguous spectrum to allocate and auction for commercial use.

78.
Industry Roadmap.
As noted above, T-Mobile recently filed a wireless industry proposal (Industry Roadmap) for making the 1755-1780 MHz band available for commercial use in time to auction the band at the same time as the 2155-2180 MHz band, which the Spectrum Act requires to be auctioned and licensed by February 2015. The Industry Roadmap assesses Federal operations in the 1.7 GHz band and proposes a combination of sharing, relocation, and channel prioritization for the majority of Federal operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band to provide industry early access to the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band. The Industry Roadmap also acknowledges that additional study is necessary. We add this filing to the record of this proceeding and seek comment on the Industry Roadmap.

79.
DoD Alternative Proposal.
Also, as noted above, on July 22, 2013, NTIA transmitted to the Commission correspondence to NTIA from the Chief Information Officer of the DoD that outlines a proposal for making 1755-1780 MHz available for auction and licensing in the near term, while protecting critical DoD capabilities and preserving the necessary flexibility to address the long-term status of the 1780-1850 MHz portion of the band. NTIA states that it only recently received this proposal and is not in a position to endorse it at this time. According to DoD, under its proposal:

1. DoD retains access to the 1780-1850 MHz band.

2. DoD is provided shared access to 2025-2110 MHz band, removing the need to relocate broadcasters.

3. DoD is not provided access to 5150-5250 MHz for telemetry, leaving the band available for Wi-Fi consideration.

4. DoD will modify selected systems to operate at both 1780- 1850 MHz & 2025-2110 MHz. These include Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, Tactical Targeting Network. Technology, Tactical Radio Relay, and High Resolution Video systems.

5. DoD will modify selected systems to operate in other existing Federal bands as. identified: Precision Guided Munitions to 1435-1525 MHz, Point-to-Point Microwave. Links to 7125-8500 MHz, and DoD Video Surveillance/Robotics to 4400-4940 MHz.

6. DoD systems will share spectrum with commercial users in the 1755-1780 MHz band as follows: Satellite Operations (SA TOPS), Electronic Warfare (EW), Air Combat Training System (ACTS) (where required), and Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) at 6 sites.

7. DoD will compress remaining operations into 1780-1850 MHz.

8. Estimate of DoD costs is* $3.5B for 25 MHz.

In the interest of obtaining input from all interested stakeholders on this proposal, as NTIA has requested, we are adding this correspondence to the record of this proceeding and seeking public comment on it as part of the AWS-3 rulemaking.

Increased Federal Access to Spectrum Through Sharing

80. The 2013 Presidential Memorandum strongly encourages the FCC, in collaboration with NTIA, where appropriate, to enable innovative and flexible commercial uses of spectrum, including broadband, to be deployed as rapidly as possible. The 2013 Presidential Memorandum also encourages a number of steps including identifying spectrum allocated for non-Federal uses that can be made available for Federal agencies, on a shared or exclusive basis.

81.
Federal Use of AWS-3 Spectrum including 2155-2180.
Shared use of spectrum bands by Federal and non-Federal users could facilitate the increased use of “commercial-off-the-shelf” (COTS) communication technologies to support important government missions, including military uses. By allowing government users to tap into global scale economies of the commercial market, the use of COTS devices, networks, and components could potentially help improve the performance and cost of certain government communications systems, where appropriate. Moreover, the use of such technologies might also increase electromagnetic compatibility with commercial uses, thereby facilitating greater shared use of spectrum. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether Federal users should be able to access the AWS-3 band(s), including spectrum not presently allocated for Federal use (
e.g.,

2155-2180 MHz), on Federal lands or properties that are generally unserved by commercial wireless networks. We seek comment on the benefits and drawbacks of this proposal. We would expect that such locations might include, for example, military training ranges in otherwise unpopulated areas and that Federal use of the band would be on terms and conditions consistent with the commercial service rules we establish in this proceeding and in future proceedings. We seek comment on specific locations where such access would be appropriate or inappropriate, as well as comment on a regulatory framework that would enable such use in a manner consistent with the Communications Act and the ongoing commercial use of these bands. We seek specific comment on any amendments to Section 2.103 of our rules or any other rules that might be appropriate for Federal use of such bands.

82.
Increased Federal access to 2025-2110 MHz and 5150-5250 MHz bands.
As noted above, NTIA indicates that in certain Federal relocation scenarios, DoD and other Federal incumbents in the 1755-1850 MHz band would need access to other bands specifically, that certain aeronautical systems could relocate to the 2025-2110 MHz and 5150-5250 MHz bands. NTIA subsequently transmitted a more recent proposal from DoD that implicates the 2025-2110 MHz band but not the 5150-5250 MHz band. We seek comment on these and any alternative relocation concepts, including the viability of repacking incumbents into the 1780-1850 MHz band, recognizing that most commenters will not have access to information about Federal system characteristics or mission requirements. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the potential benefits and costs of implementing such a relocation, particularly with respect to existing and potential future uses of those bands. In paragraph 176 below we seek comment on any changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations that would be necessary.

Technical Rules

83. Our rules for the AWS-3 bands must take account of the potential for permissible operations to cause harmful interference to operations in other service areas, blocks or bands. In the proposed band plan, AWS-3 spectrum would be licensed in five-megahertz blocks using EA licenses. Interference must therefore be considered between adjacent AWS-3 blocks,
e.g.,
between 2155-2160 MHz and 2160-2165 MHz, as well as between AWS-3 operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and services in the adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. Similarly, AWS-3 mobiles could interfere with proximate Federal or non-Federal operations in the same or nearby bands.

84. Two predominant types of adjacent channel interference can occur. The first is caused by out-of-band emissions (OOBE) that fall directly within the passband of an adjacent-band receiver. Such emissions cannot be “filtered out,” and can only be mitigated by: (1) Providing sufficient physical separation between the transmitter and receiver; and/or (2) suppressing OOBE at the source (
i.e.,
the transmitter). The second type of interference is caused by “receiver overload.” Receiver overload interference occurs when a strong signal from an adjacent band transmission falls just outside the passband of a receiver, where the front-end filter of the receiver can provide only limited attenuation of the unwanted signal. There are three ways to minimize receiver overload interference: (1) Improve the receiver performance including filtering; (2) limit the power of the transmitter; and (3) provide physical separation between the transmitter and receiver.

85. We seek comment on possible technical and operational rules to protect these various services from harmful interference. Where possible, we propose to adopt for AWS-3 the same technical requirements as apply to AWS-1, where our experience indicates that the requirements have facilitated good service while minimizing undesirable interference, and to AWS-4. We are especially interested in whether specific AWS-3 spectrum considerations may warrant different requirements. We also ask commenters to address any specific technical rules that would be required for specific AWS-3 bands that they propose, other than the ones identified in this notice.

1. OOBE Limits

86. Section 27.53(h) of our rules requires that out-of-band emissions from transmissions in the AWS-1 bands be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB outside of the licensee's frequency block. The same rule also specifies the measurement procedure required to determine compliance with this OOBE standard. We seek comment on extending the scope of § 27.53(h) to apply to AWS-3 as well, except as discussed otherwise below.

87.
Interference between Adjacent Block AWS-3 Licensees.
We anticipate that the characteristics of the future AWS-3 band systems will be essentially identical to those of AWS-1. For this reason, we believe that the normal OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB outside of the licensee's frequency block is appropriate to protect AWS-3 services operating in adjacent spectrum blocks. We seek comment on this conclusion. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.

88.
Interference with Services in Other Bands—Uplink Stations Operating in 1695-1710, 1755-1780 and 2020-2025 MH
z.
Interference with operations below 1695 MHz:
The 1695-1710 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to satellite downlink spectrum at 1675-1695 MHz, which is allocated for Federal and non-Federal satellite use. The rules for the AWS-1 uplink band at 1710-1755 MHz include an OOBE attenuation limit of our standard 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB in order to protect satellite downlink spectrum currently below 1710 MHz. We believe that the services used in these adjacent AWS bands will be similar, and that the repurposing of 1695-1710 MHz essentially just shifts the boundary between AWS uplink and satellite downlink services down from 1710 to 1695 MHz. We therefore propose to apply the same standard OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB to future AWS-3 operations at 1695-1710 MHz with respect to spectrum below 1695 MHz. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

89.
Interference with operations above 1710 MHz.
The 1695-1710 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710-1755 MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in the adjacent AWS-3 and AWS-1 uplink bands will be similar, we propose that the appropriate OOBE limit for the AWS-3 uplink band at 1695-1710 MHz is 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.

90.
Interference with operations below 1755 MHz.
The 1755-1780 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is also adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710 -1755 MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in the adjacent AWS-3 and AWS-1 uplink bands will be similar, we again propose that the appropriate OOBE limit for the AWS-3 uplink band at 1755-1780 MHz is 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

91.
Interference with operations above 1780 MHz.
The 1755-1780 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to Federal operations at 1780-1850 MHz. We propose the standard OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB to address this adjacency, the same limit as the AWS-1 rules now provide for protecting Federal spectrum above 1755 MHz. Like the situation described in paragraph 88 above, where the boundary between AWS use and adjacent spectrum moves, but there is no significant change in the uses on either side of the boundary, we believe it is appropriate to maintain the existing OOBE limit at the new boundary. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any alternative approaches.

92.
Interference with operations below 2020 MHz.
The 2020-2025 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-4/MSS uplink spectrum at 2000-2020 MHz. The rules applicable to AWS-4 mobile stations operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band include a general OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB between the AWS-4 A and B blocks and above 2020 MHz. We anticipate the services in the adjacent AWS-3 and AWS-4 bands will be similar in use. Accordingly we propose that the OOBE limits on operations in the 2020-2025 MHz band mirror those of AWS-4,
i.e.,
43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB below 2020 MHz. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.

93.
Interference with operations above 2025 MHz.
The 2020-2025 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to the 2025-2110 MHz band, which includes BAS and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) operations, as well as certain Federal government operations. As noted above, for AWS-4 uplinks at 2000-2020 MHz, the Commission recently adopted the 43 + 10 log
10
(P) standard above 2020 MHz. Prior to AWS-4, the same OOBE limit was applicable to 2000-2020 MHz MSS/ATC uplinks above 2020 MHz. We also note that in the AWS-4 proceeding, the Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (“EIBASS”) stated that it did not object to a 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB OOBE attenuation factor above 2025 MHz from low power, mobile type devices. Accordingly, we propose to apply the standard 43 + 10 log
10
(P) OOBE limit above 2025 MHz and seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches, and whether the closer proximity of the 2020-2025 MHz band warrants any additional protection.

94.
Interference with Services in Other Bands—Base Stations Operating in 2155-2180 MHz. Interference with operations below 2155 MHz and above 2180 MHz:
The 2155-2180 MHz AWS-3 downlink band is adjacent to the AWS-1 downlink spectrum at 2110-2155 MHz and to the AWS-4/MSS downlink spectrum at 2180-2200 MHz. Because we anticipate that operations in 2155-2180 MHz and in the adjacent downlink bands will be similar, we believe the standard attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log
10
(P) dB will be sufficient to protect AWS-1 and AWS-4/MSS receivers operating in the bands adjacent to AWS-3. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this and any proposed alternative approaches.

95.
Measurement of OOBE.
To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules generally specify how to measure the power of the emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth. For AWS-1 and AWS-4, the measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for fixed, mobile, and base stations is generally one megahertz, with some modification within the first megahertz. We believe that it is reasonable to apply this same procedure to all transmissions in the AWS-3 bands. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this proposal and any proposed alternative approaches.

96.
Antenna Height Restrictions.
We propose, as discussed below, that the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1 should generally also apply to AWS-3. Additionally, because we do not propose to authorize fixed operation in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands, we do not expect any special antenna height restrictions are needed for those bands.

97.
Base stations.
Specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-1 base stations are not set forth in Part 27 of our rules. However, all part 27 services are subject to § 27.56, which bans antenna heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. Furthermore, the limitations of field strength at the geographical boundary of the license discussed below also effectively limit antenna heights. We similarly propose that no unique antenna height limits are needed for AWS-3 facilities; rather, we believe that the general height restrictions are sufficient. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any alternatives.

98.
Fixed stations.
Section 27.50(d)(4) specifies a height restriction of 10 meters for fixed stations operating in AWS-1 spectrum, and was deemed necessary to protect Federal operations in the 1710-1755 MHz and adjacent Federal bands. The height restriction was not applied to the AWS-4 band. Here, the 1695-1710 and 1755-1780 MHz bands are adjacent to the AWS-1 band and the Federal operations that necessitated a height limitation for AWS-1 fixed stations, whereas the 2020-2025 MHz band is not. Moreover, in defining the Protection Zones, CSMAC's assumptions did not include commercial fixed uplinks. We therefore propose not to authorize fixed stations in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands; thus no height limit is necessary. We believe no such limit is necessary for fixed stations in the 2020-2025 MHz band, and we propose to apply the same rules that govern low-power fixed stations in the adjacent AWS-4 band. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of this proposal and of any proposed alternatives.

99.
Power Limits.
As discussed below, we generally propose to apply existing AWS-1 power limits to the AWS-3 downlink and 2020-2025 MHz uplink bands, which CSMAC did not analyze. For AWS-3 uplink bands with NTIA recommended Protection Zones, within which commercial use must be coordinated successfully with Federal users prior to operation, CSMAC made technical assumptions about commercial operations that are set forth in Appendix 3 of the
WG1 Final Report.
Specifically, CSMAC assumed baseline LTE uplink characteristics. We are not proposing technical rules to require AWS-3 licensees to comply with any particular industry standard such as LTE. Nonetheless, we believe some technical rules must accommodate CSMAC's assumptions, or the Protection Zones might have to be redrawn.

100.
Base Stations.
The current AWS-1 and AWS-4 rules limit base station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than one megahertz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than one megahertz, and double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. The same limits apply to broadband PCS stations, and in our experience have provided good service while avoiding harmful interference. Further, the higher power limit for rural areas may promote the Commission's goals of furthering rural deployment of broadband services.

Therefore, we propose that § 27.50(d)(1)-(2), which set the power limits for AWS-1 and AWS-4 base stations, should also apply to AWS-3 base stations operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any alternatives.

101. The current AWS-1 rules also require that base stations with transmit power greater than the non-rural limits described above (1640 Watts EIRP or 1640 watts/MHz EIRP) be coordinated with licensees in adjacent AWS blocks and Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees in the 2150-2160 MHz band authorized within 120 kilometers (75 miles), and with satellite entities operating in the 2025-2110 MHz band. The AWS-4 rules require similar coordination between adjacent AWS-4 blocks within 120 kilometers, but do not require coordination with BRS or with satellite operators in the 2025-2110 MHz band because these bands are not adjacent to the AWS-4 uplink band. As AWS-3 base station operations will be co-channel with BRS and directly adjacent to the AWS-1 and AWS-4 downlink bands, but situated at least 45 MHz away from the 2025-2110 MHz satellite band, consistent with the rationale in the Commission's decision in the
AWS-4 Service Rules R&O,
we do not see a need to carry all of these requirements over to AWS-3. We propose that AWS-3 base stations with transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with the following licensees authorized to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station operating in this band: all BRS licensees authorized in the 2155-2160 MHz band and all AWS licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the AWS-3 band, the 2110-2155 MHz band or the 2180-2200 MHz band. Because of the spectral separation between the 2155-2180 MHz band and the 2025-2110 MHz satellite band, however, we do not propose to require coordination with these operators. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any alternatives.

102.
Mobile and Portable (handheld) Stations.
The part 27 AWS rules specify a power limit of 1 watt EIRP for the AWS-1 uplink band, and 2 watts EIRP for the AWS-4 uplink band. The lower AWS-1 power limit was intended to simplify coordination with Government operations that would remain in the 1710-1755 MHz band, a situation that the AWS-4 band did not present. The three AWS-3 uplink bands present the same distinction: the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands both contain Government operations, while the 2020-2025 MHz band does not. In other respects, we anticipate that the services in the AWS-3 bands will be similar to those in the AWS-1 and AWS-4 bands. The existence or not of Government operations, however, dictates different power limits. In particular, as described above, the Protection Zones that trigger coordination are based in part on CSMAC's assumption that typical commercial user equipment will be LTE devices. We further note that the LTE standard sets a maximum transmitter power output (TPO) of 23 dBm. CSMAC's analysis indicates that such devices will have an actual EIRP varying between −40 dBm and 20 dBm EIRP, due to power control and typical

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-20147. Public record. Not legal advice.