Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1223
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 
800 MHz Band – Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
by Comunicaciones Digitales del Norte, S.A. de 
C.V., Radio Sistemas de Tamaulipas, S.A. de 
C.V., Troncatel, S.A. de C.V., and Union Agricola 
Regional del Norte de Tamaulipas.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 02-55
ORDER
Adopted:  October 27, 2016 Released: October 27, 2016
By the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Chief, International Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On July 29, 2016, four Mexican radio licensees operating 800 MHz trunked mobile systems, 
Comunicaciones Digitales del Norte, S.A. de C.V., Radio Sistemas de Tamaulipas, S.A. de C.V., 
Troncatel, S.A. de C.V., and Union Agricola Regional del Norte de Tamaulipas (collectively, Petitioners),
jointly filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Petition) with the Commission.
1
  For the reasons set out 
below, we dismiss the Petition.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Petitioners operate 800 MHz trunked mobile systems in Mexico in the vicinity of the U.S.-
Mexico border.  Pursuant to the June 8, 2012, agreement between the United States and Mexico 
modifying the international allocation of 800 MHz spectrum in the U.S.-Mexico border region (Amended 
Protocol),
2
Petitioners and certain other Mexican 800 MHz licensees in the U.S.-Mexico “Sharing Zone” 
must change their operating frequencies to conform to a revised border area band plan contained within 
the Amended Protocol.
3
  To implement the Amended Protocol, the Instituto Federal de 
Telecomunicaciones (IFT), the Mexico telecommunications regulator, has ordered Petitioners to vacate 
their 800 MHz operating frequencies and move to the 400 MHz band.
4
                                                     
1
Comunicaciones Digitales del Norte, S.A. de C.V., Radio Sistemas de Tamaulipas, S.A. de C.V., Troncatel, S.A. de 
C.V., and Union Agricola Regional del Norte de Tamaulipas, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, filed July 29, 2016.
2
See Protocol Between the Department of State of the United States of America and the Secretariat of 
Communications and Transportation of the United Mexican States Concerning the Allotment, Assignment and Use 
of the 806-824/851-869 MHz and 896-901/935-940 MHz Bands for Terrestrial Non-Broadcasting 
Radiocommunication Services Along the Common Border (June 8, 2012) (Amended Protocol). 
3
The Sharing Zone is a region extending 110 kilometers from the border into each country.  See Improving Public 
Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Fifth Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4085, 4086 para. 2 (PSHSB 
2013).
4
See, Troncatel, S.A. de C.V. v. Plenary of the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT), Case 35/2016, Office of 
Common Correspondence of the District Courts and Collegial Courts in Specialized Administrative Matters in 
Economic, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications Competition and Auxiliary Center of the First Region (in 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1223
2
3. The Amended Protocol provides for Mexican incumbent operators that are required to 
relocate to be compensated for their “reasonable costs” to transition to replacement channels.
5
  It states 
that the U.S. and Mexican agencies implementing the Amended Protocol “shall insure that operators or 
related corporate entities operating in the co-primary allotment
6
cover all such reasonable costs of 
incumbent operators in Mexico that are associated with the transition to comparable facilities on the 
replacement channels.”
7
  If the Mexican incumbents are relocated outside the 800 MHz band – as IFT has 
directed in Petitioners’ case – the Amended Protocol provides for compensation “only up to an amount 
comparable to the reasonable cost of a transition inside the 806-824/851-869 MHz band.”
8
4. In their Petition, Petitioners seek a declaratory ruling from the Commission that Sprint 
Corporation (Sprint) and/or AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) be obligated to compensate Petitioners for their 
“reasonable costs” to reband or relocate their operations “as may be required by IFT.”
9
  Petitioners also 
request that the U.S.-Mexico Task Force, established by the Commission and IFT to implement the 
Amended Protocol, “engage in dialogue with Petitioners, IFT, Sprint Corporation, AT&T Mexico and any 
other party that the Task Force deems responsible for compensating and assisting implementation of the 
necessary transition actions of the Mexican licensees.”
10
5. In support of their request, Petitioners state that, on July 27, 2011, Sprint entered into an 
agreement with NII Holdings, Inc. (NII), pursuant to which NII’s subsidiary, Nextel Mexico, would 
“facilitate negotiations” with licensees operating on the Mexican side of the Sharing Zone and would pay 
up to $18 million in costs and expenses associated with rebanding or relocation by such licensees. (Sprint-
NII Agreement).
11
Petitioners recite that under the Sprint-NII agreement, Sprint agreed to reimburse 
Nextel Mexico if the cumulative cost of relocating Mexican licensees in the Sharing Zone exceeded $18 
million.
12
  Petitioners allege that, in 2014, Sprint “held various discussions with the Petitioners 
culminating in a meeting on October 5, 2014” in Dallas, Texas, at which Sprint orally “committed to 
compensate the Petitioners for their planned vacating of operations in the 800 MHz Spectrum” and 
“Petitioners agreed to the settlement amount that was communicated orally by Sprint.”
13
6. Petitioners also allege that following an announcement in January 2015 that AT&T was 
acquiring Nextel Mexico, Sprint “abandoned” discussions with Petitioners and “distanc[ed] itself” from 
its alleged oral compensation commitment, contending that Petitioners should seek compensation from 
AT&T as the acquirer of Nextel Mexico.
14
  Petitioners claim, however, that AT&T “has denied its 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Spanish)(Troncatel Order). (In its decision, the court acknowledged IFT’s order for Troncatel to relocate to the 400 
MHz band and stayed the IFT order on procedural grounds.)
5
Amended Protocol, Article V.
6
The Amended Protocol defines the co-primary allotment as the 818.5-824 MHz / 863.5-869 MHz segment of the 
band, in which the U.S. and Mexico may license “counterpart operators” to use the entire band segment, subject to 
signal strength limits at the border.  Amended Protocol, Article II, paras. 4-5.   
7
Amended Protocol, Article V.  
8
Id. 
9
Petition at 2.
10
Id.  The Amended Protocol calls for establishment of a bi-national Task Force to coordinate the transition of U.S. 
and Mexico licensees to their replacement frequencies.  Amended Protocol, Article V.   The Task Force consists of 
staff from the FCC, State Department, and IFT. 
11
Petition at 6.  
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id. at 6-7
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1223
3
assumptions of the obligation of Nextel-Mexico for compensation to the Mexican concessionaires.”
15
  
Petitioners state that in March 2016, they filed in the Mexican courts for an injunction to prevent IFT 
from relocating them to the 400 MHz band “because there had not been any payment as required under 
the Amended Protocol, and under Sprint’s oral contract with Petitioners, as well as IFT’s failure to
comply with other procedural requirements.”
16
  Petitioners contend that they “continue to have [the] right 
to operate within the 800 MHz Spectrum on the Mexican side of the Sharing Zone and therefore, there 
will be continued delays and disputes in implementing the Amended Protocol unless the Commission 
clarifies Sprint’s obligations under the Amended Protocol as requested herein.”
17
III. DISCUSSION
7. Under Section 1.2(a) of the rules, the Commission “may, in accordance with section 5(d) of 
the Administrative Procedure Act, on motion or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a 
controversy or removing uncertainty.”
18
  A declaratory ruling therefore is typically used to “clarify, 
interpret, or determine the appropriate application of a provision of the Communications Act (or other 
statute within its jurisdiction), the Commission’s rules or prior Commission orders.”
19
  
8. Here, however, Petitioners fail to identify any controversy or uncertainty relating to the 
Communications Act, other statutes within the Commission’s jurisdiction, or the Commission’s rules or 
prior orders. Instead, Petitioners’ core contention is that they have not received the compensation they 
claim to be entitled to under the Amended Protocol.
20
  To the extent that Petitioners seek redress under the 
Amended Protocol, however, their remedy lies in Mexico, not the United States.  As Petitioners
acknowledge, IFT is responsible for implementing the Amended Protocol in Mexico.
21
  Indeed, 
Petitioners state that they have sought redress against IFT in the Mexican courts,
22
and since the Petition 
was filed, one Petitioner has obtained a Mexican court injunction against IFT.
23
In short, implementation 
of the Amended Protocol as it applies to Mexican licensees such as Petitioners is a Mexican regulatory 
matter, over which the Commission has no more authority than Mexico has over implementation of the 
Amended Protocol in the United States.  We therefore decline to involve the Commission in a dispute 
between Petitioners and IFT that is being heard by the Mexican court. In so doing, we note that Section 
544(a)(4) of the Administrative Procedure Act states that adjudication of the kind requested by the 
Petitioners need not be undertaken when “there is involved . . . the conduct of military or foreign affairs 
functions.”
24
                                                     
15
Id. at 7.  Petitioners cite no evidence of AT&T’s alleged denial of Nextel Mexico’s obligations.  We note that
Nextel Mexico, now AT&T Mexico, remains subject to IFT’s regulatory authority and the terms of the Amended 
Protocol as a “counterpart operator.”
16
Id. at 7-8.
17
Id. at 8.
18
47 C.F.R. § 1.2(a).  See also 5 U.S.C. § 554(e); Harry S. Goodman, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC 
678, 678 (1948) (noting that the APA “makes the issuance of [declaratory rulings] discretionary”).  
19
Commnet Wireless, LLC, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4324, 4325 (WTB 2012).
20
Petition at 4, para. 6 (“Full transition on the Mexican side has been delayed because of a dispute concerning the 
costs associated with implementing the Amended Protocol requirements”).
21
Id. at 3, para. 3.
22
Id. at 7-8, paras. 23-24.  
23
See Troncatel Order, supra note 4.
24
5 U.S.C. § 554(a)(4).  The APA’s legislative history suggests that the purpose of the foreign affairs exception was 
“to allow more cautious and sensitive consideration of those matters which ‘so affect relations with other 
Governments that, for example, public rule-making provisions would provoke definitely undesirable international 
consequences.’”  American Ass’n of Exporters and Importers-Textile and Apparel Group v. U.S., 751 F.2d 1239, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1223
4
9. Petitioners also argue that the Commission should clarify the obligations of Sprint and/or
AT&T to compensate Petitioners, citing the Sprint-NII Agreement and the alleged oral commitment by 
Sprint to compensate Petitioners.
25
  We decline to do so.  As noted above, Petitioners’ rights to 
compensation under the Amended Protocol are a matter for the Mexican regulatory authority. To the 
extent that Petitioners claim that separate and apart from the Amended Protocol, either the Sprint-NII 
Agreement or the alleged oral commitment by Sprint entitles Petitioners to compensation, such claims are 
private and contractual in nature and do not raise regulatory issues that require Commission resolution.  
The Commission has a longstanding policy of declining to adjudicate contract law questions for which a 
forum exists elsewhere.
26
  That policy is appropriately applied here where Petitioners have judicial fora 
available to pursue their contract claims. 
10. The Commission has broad discretion whether or not to issue a declaratory ruling.
27
  Here, we 
conclude that this discretion should be exercised by dismissing the Petition.  In so doing, we emphasize 
that we remain committed to working with and assisting IFT to implement the requirements of the 
Amended Protocol so that the 800 MHz rebanding can proceed expeditiously in the Sharing Zone.  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
1249 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.2d 427, 437 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that the Section 
544(a)(4) exception would apply when, for example, agency action could impair relations with other countries); 
International Broth. of Teamsters v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (affirming reliance on foreign affairs 
exception of the APA in rejecting challenge to a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation without notice 
and comment that arose from a Memorandum of Understanding with that agency’s Mexican counterpart).  
25
Petition at 9.
26
See, e.g., Listeners’ Guild, Inc. v. FCC, 813 F.2d 465, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1987), citing, e.g., Agreements Between 
Broadcast Licensees and the Public, Report and Order, 57 FCC 2d 42 (1975); Carnegie Broadcasting 
Co.,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC 2d 882, 884 (1966); Transcontinent Television Corp., 44 FCC 2451, 
2461 (1961).
27
See, e.g., Yale B’cstg Co. v. FCC, 478 F.2d 594, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Motions for Declaratory Rulings 
Regarding Commission Rules and Policies,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12752, 12758 (1999); 
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 2035, 2039 (PSHSB 2011); see 
also, Inquiry Concerning Political Broadcast Requirements, Letter, 40 FCC 295, 295 (1958)(“Agencies are not 
required to issue [declaratory rulings] merely because a request is made therefor.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1223
5
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
11. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling, filed July 29, 
2016, by Comunicaciones Digitales del Norte, S.A. de C.V., Radio Sistemas de Tamaulipas, S.A. de 
C.V., Troncatel, S.A. de C.V., and Union Agricola Regional del Norte de Tamaulipas IS DISMISSED.
12. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.51, 0.191, 0.261 and 
0.392 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.51, 0.191, 0.261, 0.392; Section 1.2(a) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.2(a); and Section 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C.§ 554.
  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David G. Simpson, Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.)
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
Mindel De La Torre
Chief, International Bureau