Federal Communications Commission 
Before the 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C. 
In the Matter of 
Service Rules for the 746-764 and 
776-794 MHz Bands, and 
Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
WT Docket No. 99-168 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 
Adopted: May 13, 1999; Released : June 3, 1999 
Comments Due: July 19, 1999 
Reply Comments Due: August 13, 1999 
By the Commission: 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
FCC 99-97 
Paragraph 
I. INTRODUCTION; BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
II. SERVICE RULES ................................................. 4 
A. In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
1. Permitted Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
2. Spectrum for Each License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
3. Size of Service Areas for Geographic-Area Licensing .................. 20 
B. Licensing Rules ......... .' .................................... 23 
1. Regulatory Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 
2. Eligibility; Spectrum Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 
11006 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
3. Foreign Ownership Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 
4. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 
5. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 
6. License Term; Renewal Expectancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
7. Public Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
C. Operating Rules . . . . .· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 
1. General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance ............ ·. . . . . . . . 48 
2. Equal Employment Oppo,rtunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
D. Technical Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
1. In-Band Interference Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
2. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 
3. RF Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 
4. Special Considerations for Use of Channels 66 and 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 
E. Competitive Bidding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 
1. Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 
2. Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules . . . . . . . . . 83 
3. Provisions for Designated Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 
a. Background . . . . . . . . . ~· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 
b. Small Business Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 
III. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 
A. Background .................... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 
B. Protection of TV Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 
C. Protection of DTV Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 
D. TV Protected Service Contour Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 
E. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 101 
v. 
A. · Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 
B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 
C. Ex Parte Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 
D. Pleading Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 04 
E. Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 
ORDERING CLAUSES 108, 110 
Appendix - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
11007 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
I. INTRODUCTION; BACKGROUND 
I. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) we propose new service rules for 
commercial licensing in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands that have been reallocated 
from use solely for the Broadcasting service. These proposed service rules include provisions for 
application licensing, technical and operating rules, and competitive bidding. The revised 
spectrum allocation in the Reallocation Report and Order1 provided for the potential provision of 
Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services on these bands. We here seek comment on the degree 
of flexibility that should be afforded new licensees using this spectrum, and the technical and 
other service rules that should govern the range of services enabled. We also seek comment on 
methods to assure continued protection of existing full service television stations that will 
continue to operate on these bands during the transition to digital television (DTV).2 
2. The 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands have been used by television stations on 
channels 60-62 and 65-67. The Balanced Budget Act of 19973 directed the Commission to 
complete the reallocation of this spectrum by December 31, 1997, and to commence competitive 
bidding for the commercial licenses of the reallocated spectrum after January I, 2001. 4 The 
BBA also expanded the Commission's competitive bidding authority to comprise mutually 
exclusive broadcast licenses, and the Commission recently implemented that authority in the 
Competitive Bidding (Broadcast) Order.5 
3. In the Reallocation Report and Order, adopted December 31, 1997, we implemented 
the specific spectrum management decisions enacted· by Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997. 6 We added the Fixed and Mobile allocation to the Broadcasting allocation in the 
746-806 MHz band. We designated channels 60-62 and 65-67 for commercial use, and 
designated channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 for the exclusive use of public safety. We also declined 
'Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Red 22953 (1998) (Reallocation Report and Order). 
2 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Red 21578 (1998) (Reallocation Reconsideration). 
3 See Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 337(a), as added by § 3004 of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997). 
4 See Section 337(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 337(b)(2). 
s Implementation of Section 3090) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial 
Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, MM Docket No. 97-234, Reexamination of the 
Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, GC Docket No. 92-52, Proposals to Reform the 
Commission's Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of Cases, GEN Docket No. 90-234, First 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 15920 (1998) (Competitive Bidding (Broadcast) Order), recon., FCC 99-74, 
released Apr. 20, 1999, 1999 WL 228239 (Competitive Bidding (Broadcast) Reconsideration). 
6 Balanced Budget Act of 1997, § 3004 (adding new§§ 337(a) and 337(b) of the Communications Act). 
11008 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
to adopt additional protections for low-power TV and TV translator stations beyond those 
adopted in the DTV Proceeding.1 We stated that no new applications will be considered for the 
provision of analog TV service in channels 60-69, but that current applicants, at a later date, 
would be afforded an opportunity to amend their applications to seek channels below 60. We 
subsequently denied petitions that sought reconsideration of our decision to grant no new licenses 
for TV service on these channels, and the decision to provide no additional protec~ion to low­
power TV and TV translator stations. 8 
II. SERVICE RULES 
A. In General 
1. Permitted Services 
4. The revised allocation of the Reallocation Report and Order permits Fixed, Mobile, 
and Broadcasting services on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We thus seek comment 
on whether our service rules should permit a licensee to use this spectrum for any use permitted 
within the United States Table of Frequency Allocations contained in Part 2 of the Commission's 
Rules (i.e., Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting services),9 subject to international requirements and 
coordination. 10 
5. Our allocation and designation decisions retained Broadcast services in the Table of 
Allocations, and so preserved the potential for service rules that would enable the full range of 
commercial broadcast services to the public - including radio; television, and low power and 
translator services. The potential flexibility established for these bands by the revisions to the 
7 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service (DTV 
Proceeding), MM Docket No. 87-268, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 12810 (1997), recon .. 13 FCC Red 
6860 (1998); Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 14588 (1997), recon., 13 FCC Red 7418 (1998). 
8 Reallocation Reconsideration, 13 FCC Red at 21582-83 (paras. 12-14). 
9 The United States Table of Frequency Allocations is at 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 2, 
Frequency Allocations and Ratio Treaty Matters; General Rules and Regulations. 
10 Section 303(y)(l) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(l), limits the Commission's authority to 
allocate spectrum so as to provide flexibility of use to situations in which "such use is consistent with 
international agreements to which the United States is a party." 
We use the tenn "sharing" herein to refer to the use of spectrum bands by a variety of services, under 
licensing rules that accord each licensee exclusive use of specific spectrum blocks. Because our proposals are 
based on the statutory requirement that these 36 megahertz of commercial spectrum be assigned by competitive 
bidding, and our expectation that the spectrum will be the subject of mutually exclusive applications, we do not 
consider in this context the sharing of specific spectrum blocks. 
11009 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
Table of Allocations will ultimately be realized by the service rules, respecting the statutory 
requirement that flexibility does not establish harmful interference or discourage investment and 
development of new technologies. 11 Our service rule proceedings, depending on the record 
developed in response to issues described below, may or may not establish rules that enable the 
full range ofservices included in the Table.12 
6. Before turning to consider the issues that arise directly from our effort to develop 
service rules, we emphasize the Commission's continued interest in broader aspects of spectrum 
management. While the allocations involved here were specifically mandated by the Balanced 
Budget Act, we encourage commenters to consider how innovative service rules developed for 
such a flexible use allocation might maximize the uses made of this spectrum. There is clear 
potential in this context for new technologies to affect the extent to which service rules 
effectively provide for flexible use. New technologies may blur both technical and regulatory 
distinctions, and shift the balance between licensee discretion and the extent of technical and 
operational regulations. We seek comment on how our rules might include provision for such 
developments. Commenters may wish to review spectrum management and service rule 
approaches presented at the Commission's en bane hearing on spectrum management, in 
developing techniques that might be applie~ to the spectrum under consideration here. 13 
Commenters who consider this issue should address what impact their suggested approaches 
would have on television broadcasters also using the band, both during the transition to DTV and 
to the extent the service rules may provide for new broa~cast services. 
7. Whether the service rules developed will provide for sharing between broadcast and 
fixed and mobile wireless services, including the prospect of audio, video, or data services that 
may not closely resemble existing broadcasting configurations, depends in part on our resolution 
of several issues that are not raised by flexible use allocations of narrower scope. These issues 
include the managing of interference between technically dissimilar services (at least in the 
familiar configurations of broadcast and wireless service), and the application of regulatory 
mechanisms suited to the range of services on these bands. To the extent that commenters 
suggest that our technical service rules enable services that closely resemble existing broadcast 
services, we start from the presumption ·that such services would be fully subject to Part 73 of 
our Rules. We ask that commenters consider whether there are any reasons that particular 
elements of Part 73 should not similarly be applied to such services when provided on these 
spectrum blocks. A prospective licensee could, however, also seek to offer a point-to ... multipoint 
datacast service that would distribute data such as financial and market reports or video or music 
streams to the general public, and intend to recoup its costs and profit by inserting commercial 
11 Section 303(y) of the Act is considered at paras. 11-15. 
12 See para. J 1. 
13 The transcript for that hearing is available at <http://www.fcc.gov/enbanc/040699/eb040699.html>. 
11010 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
messages or some other non-subscription mechanism. Such a service might, in its technical 
configuration, more closely resemble the existing fixed and mobile wireless services provided on 
other spectrum bands. As an initial matter we would expect such services are more appropriately 
regulated by the framework of Part 27. 
8. Another respect in which broadcast and non-broadcast services operate in different 
regulatory contexts are the distinctive approaches to accessibility. Section 713 of the Act, 14 for 
example, directs the Commission to establish captioning regulations applicable to video 
programming;15 Section 255,16 effective on enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
establishes an accessibility obligation for both equipment manufacturers and service providers, 
but in the telecommunications sector, not broadcasting. We ask whether and how these differing 
accessibility requirements should affect the development of service rules for these spectrum 
bands. We also seek comment on the implications of our service rule proposals, including 
technical and regulatory aspects, for implementation of third generation wireless technology in 
this spectrum. 
9. The full flexibility of use being considered for these bands, for example, may also 
require us to develop auction procedures tJ;iat recognize and reconcile the characteristic regulatory 
elements of broadcast and wireless licenses (i.e., the community of license and geographic area 
referents for licensing), and perhaps consider distinctive approaches. 17 In developing service rules 
for the commercial spectrum involved here, and determining the extent to which they can or 
should accommodate both familiar broadcast services and innovative services that would be 
licensed under Parts 73 and 27 of our Rules, 18 we are required by Section 303(y) of the Act to 
14 47 U.S.C. § 613. 
15 See Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, MM Docket No. 95-176, 
Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 3272 (1998), recon., 13 FCC Red 19973 (1998). 
16 47 u.s.c. § 255. 
17 Combinatorial auctions are discussed at paras. 22, 82. The procedures for individual broadcast auctions 
are set forth by public notice prior to the auction, 47 C.F.R. § 73.5001, and general procedures for wireless 
auctions are specified in Part l of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part I. 
18 The Table of Allocations permits a range of broadcast services, but the specific service rules will 
determine whether and to what extent specific services can or will be licensed. If the service rules ultimately 
include provision for broadcast services, the technical and regulatory issues raised by sharing this spectrum may 
result in service rules for licensees providing broadcast service under Part 27 that differ from existing Part 73 
broadcast service rules in varied respects. The term "broadcasting" is so broadly applied that its use has, among 
other examples, required the Commission to clarify that a limited number of non-scrambled signals, transmitted 
by a Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) licensee, would not alter the licensee's classification as a non-broadcast 
licensee. Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 95-168, PP 
11011 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
find that such a flexible approach would not result in harmful interference among users, would 
not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development, and 
that the allocation would be in the public interest. We recognize that proposals involving such a 
range of services make it especially important that our review of such "flexible use" allocations, 
mandated by Section 303(y) of the Act, examine the elements of that statutory review in light of 
the specific factual considerations raised by the scope of these proposals. 
10. We therefore initially propose to permit licensees to determine the services they will 
provide within their assigned spectrum and geographic areas, and to subject these licensees 
generally to Part 27 of our Rules, which governs Wireless Communications Service. Because 
Part 27 was originally developed with an architecture designed to accommodate flexible use, we 
believe it provides an appropriate licensing framework for the common elements of regulation 
that are applicable to wireless and broadcast services alike. 19 We ask whether broadcast services 
on these bands, to whatever extent they are subject to Part 73 in other respects, can or should be 
subject to the Part 27 licensing framework to facilitate our administrative coordination of these 
varied uses. Exceptions to this approach, if any, would arise from modifications we may adopt 
to reflect (1) the particular circumstances of this spectrum; and (2) statutory and other public 
interest requirements, gathered in Part 73 of our Rules, that govern broadcasting. We note that 
broadcast use of this spectrum would necessarily be subject to broadcast-specific statutory 
provisions, such as Sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Act.2° Commenters may address whether 
such broadcast services, if provided in the context of spectrum blocks governed generally by Part 
27, should be subject to different rules than now apply under Part 73 to broadcast licensees.21 
We request comment on the type of services that could be offered in this commercial spectrum, 
and our proposal generally to subject the spectrum to Part 27 and, when applicable, to other Parts 
of the rules, including Part 73. We also seek comment on alternative provisions that may mini­
mize the economic impact of the proposals, if any, on small entities. 
Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 11 FCC Red 9712, 9762 (para. 130)(1996). See also 47 C.F.R. Part 100. 
19 For wireless services, a Part 27 licensee could be subject to Part 22 if providing public mobile services, to 
Part 90 if providing private land mobile services, and to Part I 0 I if providing fixed microwave services. For 
broadcasting services, a Part 27 licensee could be subject to Part 73. 
20 Section 312(a)(7), 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7), authorizes the Commission to revoke licenses or construction 
permits for "willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable 
amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office 
on behalf of his candidacy." Section 315(a), 47 U.S.C. § 315(a), requires broadcast licensees that permit a 
legally qualified candidate to use their station to afford equal opportunities to "all other such candidates for that 
office in the use of such broadcasting station .... ". 
·
21 See 47 C.F.R. Part 73, Subpart H, Rules Applicable to All Broadcast Stations, 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1001-
73.4280. 
11012 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
11. We seek comment on whether this approach is consistent with Section 303(y)(2) of 
the Communications Act, as amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 22 This section 
grants the Commission authority to allocate spectrum for flexible use if the Commission finds 
that such an allocation (1) is in the public interest; (2) would not deter investment in 
communications services and systems, or technology development; and (3) would not result in 
harmful interference among users. Although Section 303(y) applies on its face to the allocation 
of spectrum rather than the development of service and operational rules,23 the allocation 
proceeding for the 746-806 MHz band began before enactment of Section 303(y) and neither the 
Reallocation Report and Order nor the Reallocation Reconsideration explicitly addressed Section 
303(y). In accord with past Commission practice, inclusion of specific services in the Table of 
Allocations does not necessarily entail that service rules will be drafted to accommodate each 
such service, or that even flexible service rules will enable provision of the full range of 
allocated services. Indeed, we believe that considering the domestic Section 303(y)(2) factors as 
part of our developm~nt of service and operational rules effectively furthers the legislative 
purpose, because it enables us to assess the statutory factors on a record that reflects the 
characteristics of particular spectrum bands more specifically.24 This is especially significant 
22 Section 303(y)(2) of the Communications Ac~ 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(2), requires, as a condition of 
Commission exercise of its authority to provide for flexibility of use of spectrum, that: 
(2) the Commission [first] finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that--
(A) such an allocation would be in the public iriterest; 
(B) such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or 
technology development; and 
(C) such use would not result in harmful interference among users. 
23 We note that the Commission stated in the 47 GHz Notice that: 
While we are proposing flexible use for the 47 GHz band, we are .not proposing to change any 
allocations for the band. We are proposing that the band may be used for all services permitted 
under the existing allocations. as reflected in the U.S. Table of Allocations. Consequently, we 
conclude that we need not make the findings required by Section 303(y) of the Act because 
Section 303(y) does not apply here. 
Amendment to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules To Revise Rules for Services in the 2.3 GHz Band and To 
Include Licensing of Services in the 47 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 98-136, Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 16947, 16971-72 (para. 60) (1998) (47 GHz 
Notice). 
24 The allocation of spectrum bands to a specific service is a separate action from the development of service 
rules that prescribe and authorize provision of that service. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules 
Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, Implementation of Section 
3090) of the Communications Act--Competitive Bidding, 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz, PP Docket No. 93-
11013 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
when, as here, we consider including broadcast services in the potential mix of wireless services. 
Therefore, we undertake a Section 303(y)(2) analysis in this Notice. 
12. We tentatively find that making the spectrum available for flexible commercial use 
under our Part 27 Rules is in the public interest because it will contribute to technological and 
service innovation, the creation of new jobs for the American workforce, the foste_ring of national 
economic growth, and the enhancement of opportunities for all Americans to utilize, and realize 
the benefits of, the national telecommunications infrastructure. We seek comment on this 
tentative finding. 
13. Section 303(y)(2)(B) of the Act, by requiring that such use "not deter investment in 
communications services and systems, or technology development," addresses the possibility that 
too broad an approach to flexibility in spectrum use may have the undesired effect of deterring 
those investments needed to provide communications services and encourage new technologies 
on the newly allocated spectrum. We solicit comments from interested parties concerning what 
restrictions, if any, should be placed on licensee flexibility in order to ensure that the needed 
investments are made. Where commenters suggest that we restrict how spectrum may be used 
by a licensee, we are particularly interesteq. in detailed quantitative analyses of the anticipated 
economic trade-offs between flexibility and investment that led to the proposed constraints. 
14. The potential sharing of this spectrum between Broadcast service licensees and.Fixed 
and Mobile wireless licensees further complicates these issues. We seek comment generally on 
the extent to which such sharing might affect investment in new technologies or more generally 
affect the development of non-broadcast services in these bands, and how those effects would 
affect the public. We also seek comment on ways to ensure that the technical rules for the 746-
764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands satisfy the requirement of Section 303(y)(2)(C), that flexible 
use allocations not result in harmful interference among users. 
15. Finally, we seek comment on the extent to which, consistent with the statute, the 
spectrum here can and should be available for private mobile and private fixed radio services. 
For example, we note that the Balanced Budget Notice seeks comment on whether a new class of 
licensee called a "Band Manager" should be established to implement licensing of private land 
253, Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 18600, 18615-16 {para. 26) (39 
GHz Report and Order). There, the Section 303(y) requirements respecting flexible use allocations are explicitly 
considered, and service rules that would effectuate the mobile service allocation arid provide for such operations 
are deferred until provisions for interference protection have been detennined. The Commission also recognized 
in its initial adoption of service rules for the 2.3 GHz band under Part 27 that out-of-band emission limits 
might, at least for the foreseeable future, make mobile operations in the affected spectrum technologically 
infeasible. Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service 
("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Red 10785, 10855 (para. 138) (1997) (Part 27 Report and Order). 
11014 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
mobile services through competitive bidding.25 We also note that the Land Mobile 
Communications Council (LMCC) has submitted supplemental comments to its pending petition 
for rule making (RM-9267), asking the Commission to allocate a portion of the 746-764 and 
776-794 MHz spectrum bands for private mobile radio services.26 Commenters in this 
proceeding who are interested in bidding on these bands in order to provide private mobile or 
private fixed services, functioning as a Band Manager or through some other mechanism, should 
address the range of issues raised by the Balanced Budget Notice in this regard. · 
16. We seek to develop service rules that are not based on a Commission prediction of 
how these bands will ultimately be used, but instead reflect a record that enables us to establish 
maximum practicable flexibility. We will determine whether implementing the full range of 
allocated services is practicable on the basis of the record developed with regard to both 
technical rules, including, e.g., the size of spectrum blocks, geographical licensing basis, and 
interference limits, and the application of policies and rules that are governed by the 
classification of the service in legal and administrative terms. 
2. Spectrum for Each License 
17. We request comment on the appropriate amount of spectrum to be provided for each 
licensee in the two 18 megahertz wide spectrum blocks, and the viability of licensees competing 
with existing fixed and mobile service providers. For example, we request comment on what size 
spectrum block may be needed to support, in part or fully, the provision of fixed wireless local 
loop services. We seek comment on whether the spectrum should be licensed as one large block, 
or broken down into two or more bandwidths, and whether there should be a mixture of spectrum 
blocks, depending on the service areas used for licensing. 27 
18. We seek comment on the minimum spectrum blocks needed to enable competitive 
commercial services. Spectrum blocks of 1 or 2 megahertz may be sufficient to provide for pag­
ing and other messaging services. Blocks of 6 or 9 megahertz may enable mobile voice service, 
analog or digital video services, or point-to-point microwave service. Existing analog and digital 
television broadcasters use 6 megahertz spectrum blocks. Commenters should also consider the 
relationship between the amount of spectrum per license and the ability to coordinate operations 
25 Implementation of Sections 3090) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, WT Docket 
No. 99-87, Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, RM-9332, 
Establishment of Public Service Radio Pool in·the Private Mobile Frequencies Below 800 MHz, Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, FCC 99-52, paras. 88-95, released Mar. 25, 1999 (Balanced Budget Notice), 1999 WL 
163011. 
26 LMCC Supplemental Comments in RM-9267, April 20, 1999. 
27 See paras. 20-21, infra. 
11015 
'· .. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
with other licensees in this spectrum, including the protection of existing broadc~t operations in 
this band during the transition to DTV. 28 
19. We tentatively conclude that this spectrum should be licensed on a paired basis. 
While broadcasting would not require paired spectrum, it is essential that the spectrum be paired 
to enable a viable commercial mobiie service. The separation of the 746-764 M~z and 776-794 
MHz bands by 30 megahertz of spectrum is optimal for paired, two-way operations. It may be 
easier for a licensee who does not desire paired operation to disaggregate one of the blocks than 
for a paired user to acquire two individual blocks. We request comment on whether the amount 
of spectrum for each license would affect the decision to have paired spectrum, and specifically 
whether a decision to license blocks large enough for conventional broadcast service should 
affect the decision to license paired spectrum. We particularly ask commenters to address how 
spectrum block issues relate to the findings required by review of flexible use allocations 
pursuant to Section 303(y) of the Act, as the potential sharing of spectrum between broadcast and 
wireless services involves a flexible use allocation of spectrum reallocated and redesignated by 
legislative direction. Whatever initial licensing approach is chosen, we propose to permit parties 
to bid for multiple licenses. The channelization plan that is adopted should encourage the 
investment in and rapid deployment of new- technologies and services. 29 We request comment on 
how the number of licensees and spectrum blocks established could affect the deployment of new 
services and technologies using these frequencies, and the extent to which new services offered 
in this spectrum would compete with other services. 
3. Size of Service Areas for Geographic-Area Licensing 
20. Part 27 spectrum is licensed based on one of two kinds of service areas.30 Spectrum 
in the C and D frequency blocks is licensed using the 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings 
(REAGs). Spectrum in the A and B frequency blocks is licensed using the 52 Major Economic 
Areas (MEAs). REAGs and MEAs are based on the 172 Economic Areas (EAs) defined by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, as modified by the Commission. 
21. Licensing Part 27 spectrum using REAGs and MEAs allowed us to balance compet­
ing needs.31 We have, however, licensed other wireless services occupying spectrum near the 
28 Commission records indicate that as of November, 1998, there were 105 full power TV licensees and 1232 
low power and translator TV licensees operating on these bands. 
29 See Section 3090)(4)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309G)(4)(C). 
30 Section 27.6 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.6; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC 
Red 10785, 10814-16 (paras. 54-60) (1997) . 
31 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10814-15 (para. 55). 
11016 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
newly allocated commercial spectrum using other service areas.32 We request comment on the 
type of service area or areas that should be used to license the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz 
bands. We also seek comment on how the possible use of this spectrum for broadcasting might 
affect our decision on service areas generally, and specifically on how we could apply the 
concept of a station's serving the needs and interests of its community of license to a Part 27 
service area, depending on our geographic area and spectrum block choices. The relation between 
geographic service area and spectrum block is especially germane to the sharing of these bands 
between Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and conventional broadcast services. which 
operate using significantly different power levels. We seek comment on how such sharing would 
affect the overall relation between service areas, spectrum channelization, and power levels, 
compared to service rules that would constrain or preclude broadcast use. 
22. We also seek comment on the possible usefulness of combinatorial bidding 
procedures in this respect. Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 33 considered 
generally at para. 82, requires the Commission to explore the application of procedures that 
would allow prospective bidders to bid on combinations or groups of licenses in a single bid, and 
to enter multiple alternative bids within a single bidding round. Such combinatorial procedures 
might, with respect to the determination of.geographic areas, permit the Commission to structure 
the initial licensing of this spectrum on the basis· of comparatively small geographic areas, while 
enabling licensees to pursue multiple licenses covering larger areas directly, as part of the 
bidding process. We seek comment on the merits of such procedures, as well as alternatives that 
would rely on licensing by geographic area, by community of license, or by some combination of 
these approaches. 
B. Licensing Rules 
1. Regulatory Status 
23. We seek comment on whether to apply the existing licensing framework for Part 27 
services to the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. The regulatory framework established in 
Part 27 for Wireless Communications Service fulfilled the Congressional mapdate expressed in 
Section 3001 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 to reallocate and assign 
the use of the frequencies at 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 megahertz.34 Part 27 was initially 
adopted to govern services offered on those bands, and accorded licensees the flexibility to 
32 See, e.g., Section 24.202 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.202 (usi_ng Major Trading Areas and 
Basic Trading Areas); Sections 90.661 and 90.681 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.661, 90.681 
(using Major Trading Areas and Economic Areas); Section 22.909 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
22.909 (using Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Rural Service Areas). 
33 Codified at 47 U.S.C. § 3090)(3). 
34 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). 
11017 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
provide any fixed, mobile or radiolocation service contained in the Table of Allocations in Part 2 
of the Commission's Rules.35 The regulatory framework of Part 27 includes, inter alia: (i) the 
limitation of eligibility requirements to foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of 
the Communications Act; (ii) exclusion of WCS spectrum holdings from application of the 
CMRS spectrum cap; (iii) flexibility to partition geographic service areas and disaggregate 
spectrum blocks; (iv) determination of regulatory status by licensee's designation 41 their long­
form applications; and (v) incorporation, with some exceptions, of the competitive bidding rules 
set forth in Part 1 of the Commission's Rules.36 We have since proposed application of the Part 
27 framework to development of service and operational rules for other spectrum bands.37 
24. The Communications Act applies requirements to broadcasters or common carriers 
that are not applied to other licensees. The licensing framework for Part 27 permits applicants to 
request common carrier status as well as non-common carrier status for authorization in a single 
license, rather than require the applicant to choose between common carrier and non-common 
services,38 and we propose that a licensee in these redesignated spectrum bands similarly be 
authorized to provide a variety or combination of fixed and mobile, common carrier and non­
common carrier, and broadcast services. The licensee will be able to provide all allowable 
services anywhere within its licensed area at any time, consistent with its regulatory status and 
protection requirements. We tentatively conclude that this approach, as applied to the range of 
fixed and mobile wireless services, is likely to achieve efficiencies in the licensing and 
administrative process. We consider the possible inclusion of broadcasting service more 
problematic with respect to licensing and administrative efficiencies, and seek comment on the 
effect that enabling such services would have on the· licensing and administrative process. In 
order to fulfill our enforcement obligations and ensure compliance with the statutory 
requirements of Titles II and III of the Communications Act, we propose to require applicants to 
identify whether they seek to provide common carrier services, broadcast service, or other service -
as permitted by our final Rules in this proceeding. Our current mobile service application form 
(Form 601) requires an applicant for mobile services to indicate whether it intends to provide 
CMRS, Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS), or both, but does not contemplate fixed or 
broadcast service. We seek comment on the need to modify Form 601 or any other appropriate 
35 Part 27 Report and Order. While mobile services were pennitted, we recognized that the Part 27 out-of­
band emission limits, established at levels necessary to protect prospective satellite DARS licensees from 
interference from WCS operations, would make mobile operations in the WCS spectrum technologically 
infeasible "at least in the foreseeable future." Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10854-57 (paras. 136-
144). 
36 Additionally, there are technical provisions in Part 27 specific to this framework, as well as other rule 
parts that may apply depending on the type of service provided by the licensee. 
37 See, e.g., 47 GHz Notice, 13 FCC Red at 16968 (para. 51). 
38 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10845-48 {paras. 118-122). 
11018 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
fonn(s) for an applicant seeking to provide broadcast service, either solely or in conjunction with 
other services under a single license. 
25. Under the existing Part 27 framework, the Commission does not require applicants to 
describe the services they seek to provide beyond designating their regulatory status; it is 
sufficient that an applicant indicate its choice for regulatory status in a streamline4 application 
process. 39 We propose that applicants and licensees in this 36 megahertz of commercial 
spectrum similarly be required only to indicate the regulatory status of any services they choose 
to provide, as permitted in our final rules. We also propose that licensees must notify the 
Commission within 30 days of service changes that alter the regulatory status of their services.40 
When the change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the existing service, a 
different approach may apply-for example, to implement the requirement in Section 214(a) of 
the Act that the Commission certify that the public convenience and necessity will not be 
adversely affected by such actions initiated by caniers.41 We also seek comment regarding 
whether the inclusion of broadcast services may sometimes require us to modify this approach. 
Conventional broadcast licensees are subject to different ownership rules and attribution standards 
than wireless licensees. For example, what procedures should apply when a licensee changes its 
offerings from broadcast to non-broadcast s,ervices? 
2. Eligibility; Spectrum Aggregation 
26. Sections 27.12 and 27.302 of the Commission's Rules42 impose no restrictions on 
eligibility, other than the foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the Commu­
nications Act and discussed in the next section. Consistent with these sections of the Part 27 
Rules, we propose that there be no restrictions on eligibility for a license in the 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz bands. We seek comment on our view that opening this spectrum to as wide 
a range of applicants as possible will encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop new technolo­
gies and services, while helping to ensure the most effiCient use of this spectrum. Commenters 
39 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10848 (para. 121); see also Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 
21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band. To Reallocate the 
19.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service And 
for Fixed Satellite Services, Petitions for Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the 
Commission's Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service Rules, CC Docket No. 92-297, Suite 12 
Group Petition for Pioneer Preference, PP-22, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, And Fifth 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 12545, 12644 (para. 223) (1997) (LMDS Second Report and 
Order); see 47 C.F.R. § 101.1013. 
40 See Sections 101.6l(b)(3) and 101.6l(c)(9) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.6l(b)(3), 
101.6l(c)(9). 
41 47 U.S.C. § 214(a). This is consistent with the Section 27.71 proposed in the 47 GHz Notice. 
42 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.12, 27.302. See also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10828-29 (paras. 80-83). 
11019 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
also should address whether our proposed policy of universal eligibility should apply to 
broadcasting.43 Character qualifications and foreign ownership for broadcasters are specifically 
discussed below. We also ask whether there are any reasons not to apply Part 73 multiple 
ownership rules to Part 27 licensees providing conventional broadcasting services. 
27. Another example of broadcast-specific issues involves character qualifications. While 
the character qualification standards applied to broadcasters have provided guidance in common 
carrier proceedings, we have said they are not "directly applicable" to that context.44 We seek 
comment on whether there is any reason that conventional broadcasters who share spectrum with 
Part 27 wireless services, including wireless common carrier offerings, should not be governed 
by the existing standards applied to Part 73 licensees. We also seek comment on whether there is 
any reason we cannot apply our current rules to decide whether an entity that has been 
disqualified from holding a conventional Part 73 broadcasting license pursuant to our character 
qualification rules sh9uld be eligible to provide non-broadcasting services pursuant to a Part 27 
license. 
28. Currently, Part 27 services do not count against the spectrum cap on CMRS spectrum 
licensees.45 The 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands may be used for mobile services that are 
comparable to the cellular, broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized 
Mobile Radio (SMR) spectrum for which the CMRS cap was devised. While we do not propose 
43 See, e.g., Section 73.3555 of the Commission's Rules, 47. C.F.R. § 73.3555. We have underway a review 
of our broadcast ownership rules. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of the Commission's 
Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, MM Docket No. 98-35, Notice of Inquiry, 13 FCC Red 11276 (1998). 
44 In issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability to MCI for premature and/or unauthorized construction, the 
Commission stated: "Although not directly applicable to common carriers, the character qualifications standards 
adopted in the broadcast context can provide guidance in the common carrier area as well." MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation, Petition for Revocation of Operating Authority, Order and Notice of Apparent 
Liability, 3 FCC Red 509, 515 n.14 (1988), Order, 3 FCC Red 3155 (1988), Supplemental Order, 4 FCC Red 
7299 (1988), appeal dismissed for lack of standing, 901 F.2d 1131 (Table), 1990 WL 58394 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 
45 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10832-34 (paras. 87-91). See Section 20.6(a) of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.6(a); see also Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules -
Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 
96-59, Amendment of the Commission's Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership Rule, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report 
and Order, 11 FCC Red 7824, 7869-76 (paras. 94-107) (1996) (PCS Competitive Bidding Report and Order). 
The Commission has initiated a review of spectrum cap policy. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Spectrum 
Aggregation Limits for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-205, Cellular 
Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from the 45 MHz CMRS Spectrum cap, 
Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules--Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 
332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-308, released 
Dec. 10, 1998, 1998 WL 853048. 
11020 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
a spectrum cap for Part 27 services generally, we seek comment on whether the commercial 
spectrum, if used to provide CMRS, should count against the 45 megahertz spectrum cap that ap­
plies to certain CMRS licensees. If the CMRS spectrum cap is applied to this spectrum, we seek 
comment on whether the spectrum cap should be adjusted in any way. We also seek comment 
on whether there should be any restriction on the amount of spectrum that any one licensee may 
obtain in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in the same licensed geographic service 
area. Commenters addressing this aggregation issue should consider the varying bandwidth 
requirements of the different types of services that could use the 36 megahertz of commercial 
spectrum. 
3. Foreign Ownership Restrictions 
29. Sections 310(a) and 310(b)ofthe Communications Act46 impose foreign ownership 
and citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to certain applicants. Section 
27.12 of the Commission's Rules, which implements Section 310 of the Act,47 would by its terms 
apply to applicants for licenses in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. An applicant 
requesting authorization only for non-common carrier or non-broadcast services would be subject 
to Section 310(a) but not to the additional,prohibitions of Section 310(b). An applicant 
46 47 U.S.C. §§ 3 lO(a), 3 IO(b). Section 3 IO(a) provides: 
(a) The station license required under this Act shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government 
or the representative thereof. 
Section 31 O(b) provides: 
(b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license 
shall be granted to or held by-
(I) any alien or the representative of any alien; 
(2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government; 
(3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or 
voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof of 
by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country; 
(4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more 
than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, 
or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the 
laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the 
refusal or revocation of such lice~se. 
47 47 C.F.R. § 27.12; see also Section 27.302 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.302. 
11021 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
requesting authorization for broadcast or common carrier services would be subject to both 
Section 310(a) and Section 310(b). 
30. The statutory foreign ownership restrictions will still be applicable to the extent the 
restrictions apply to a particular service being offered in this commercial spectrum. In response 
to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement, the Commission 
recently liberalized its policy for applying its discretion with respect to foreign oWnership of 
common carrier radio licensees under Section 310(b)(4).48 The Commission now presumes that 
ownership by entities from countries that are WTO members serves the public interest. 
Ownership by entities from countries that are not WTO members continues to be subject to the 
"effective competitive opportunities" test established by the Commission.49 
31. In the filing of an application under the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), 
satellite, and Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) rules, the Commission requires any 
applicant electing non-common carrier status to submit the same information that common carrier 
applicants submit to address the alien ownership restrictions under Section 31 O(b) of the Act. so 
We propose to follow the same approach in the case of applicants for the 746-764 MHz and 776-
794 MHz spectrum. Broadcasters, commqn carriers, and non-common carriers would not be 
subject to varied reporting obligations, but would all be required to file changes in foreign 
ownership information to the extent required by Part 27 of our Rules. In light of Part 27 
licensees' potential ability to provide broadcast, common carrier, and non-common carrier 
services,51 Commission rules would require all licensees, even non-common carriers, to report 
alien ownership on a consistent basis, to better enable the Commission to monitor compliance. 
By establishing parity in reporting obligations, however, we would not establish a single 
substantive standard for compliance. We, of course, do not and would not disqualify an 
applicant requesting authorization exclusively to provide non-common carrier and non-broadcast 
services from a licensee simply because its citizenship information would disqualify it from a 
common carrier or broadcast license. We request comment on this proposal. 
48 We did not amend our rules for broadcast licenses, which are not covered by the WTO Basic 
Telecommunications Agreement. 
4q See Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market and Market Entry 
and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, IB Docket Nos. 97-142 and 95-22, Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, 12 FCC Red 23891, 23935-47 (paras. 97-132) (1997). 
50 47 U.S.C. § 310(b). See Revisions to Part 21 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Multipoint 
Distribution Service, CC Docket No. 86-179, Report and Order, 2 FCC Red 4251, 4253 (para. 16) (1987) (MDS 
Report and Order); Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing 
Procedures, IB Docket No. 95-117, Report and Order, 11 FCC Red 21581, 21599 (para. 43) (1996) (Satellite . 
Rules Report and Order); LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12650-51 (para. 243). 
51 Satellite Rules Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21599 (para. 43); LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 
FCC Red at 12651 (para. 243). 
11022 
Federal Com111unications Commission FCC 99-97 
4. Performance Requirements 
32. Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's Rules requires Wireless Communications 
Service (WCS) licensees to provide "substantial service" to their service area within I 0 years of 
being licensed; a failure to meet this requirement results in forfeiture of the license and the 
licensee's ineligibility to regain it.52 The performance requirement arises from Se~tion 
309(j)(4)(B) of the Act, which states that competitive bidding procedures will include such 
provisions.53 The Part 27 Report and Order provided several examples of ••safe harbors" that 
would demonstrate substantial service. 54 
33. We have stated that the construction requirement provides licensees with the flexibili­
ty to offer the full range of services under the allocations table and accommodate new and inno­
vative services.55 We propose generally to subject licensees in the 36 megahertz of commercial 
spectrum to the same standard, and we propose and seek comment on the following "safe 
harbors" for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands: (1) For a licensee that chooses to offer 
fixed services or point-to-point services, the construction of four permanent links per one million 
people in its lice~ed service area at the I 0-year renewal mark would constitute substantial 
service; (2) For a licensee that chooses to Qffer mobile services or point-to-multipoint services, a 
demonstration of coverage to 20 percent of the population of its licensed service area at the 10-
year renewal mark would constitute substantial service. 
34. We also seek comment on distinct issues raised by applying this proposal to potential 
broadcast use of the spectrum. Broadcast permittees ·operating pursuant to Part 73 are required to 
construct their facilities within three years. 56 We request comment on whether there are any 
reasons not to apply these rules to broadcasters on these bands. 
52 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). This section defines substantial service as "service which is sound, favorable, and 
substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal." Part 27 Report 
and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10843-45 (paras. 111-115) (adopting 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a)). 
53 Section 309G)(4)(B) states that the competitive bidding methodologies implementing each class of licenses 
subject to auction: n(B) [shall] include perfonnance requirements, such as appropriate deadlines and penalties for 
performance failures, to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing 
of spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies 
and services ... " 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B). 
54 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10844 (para. 113). 
55 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10843 (para. 112). 
56 See Section 73.3598 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.3598; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -
Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, MM Docket No. 98-43, Policies and Rules 
Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Mass Media Facilities, MM Docket No. 94-149, Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Red 23056, 23087-93 (paras. 77-90) (1998). 
11023 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
35. We tentatively conclude that the existing Part 27 build-out requirements applied to 
wireless licensees, and the Part 73 construction requirements applied to Broadcast permittees, 
fulfill our obligations under Section 309G)(4)(B) of the Act.57 We also tentatively conclude that 
the auction rules that we propose to apply to these services, together with the service rules that 
we are proposing and our overall competition and universal service policies, constitute effective 
safeguards and performance requirements for licensing this spectrum. We would _also intend to 
reserve the right to review our construction requirements in the future· if we receive complaints 
related to Section 309G)(4)(B), or if a reassessment is warranted because spectrum is being 
warehoused or otherwise is not being used despite demand. We also will reserve the right to 
impose additional, more stringent construction requirements on licenses in the future in the event 
of actual anticompetitive or universal service problems. We solicit comment on these proposals 
and views regarding performance requirements. 
S. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses 
36. We propose to permit licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to 
partition their service areas and to disaggregate their spectrum. We tentatively conclude that 
geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation can result in efficient spectrum use and 
economic opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small business, rural telephone, 
minority-owned, and women-owned applicants, as req_uired by Section 3090)( 4 )(C) of the 
Communications Act.58 We also tentatively conclude that our proposed approach will provide a 
means to overcome entry barriers through the creation of smaller licenses that require less 
capital, thereby facilitating greater participation by rural telephone companies and other smaller 
entities, many of which are owned by minorities and women. 59 
37. Section 27.15 of the Commission's Rules60 provides that licensees may apply to 
partition their licensed geographic service areas or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any 
time following the grant of their licenses. 61 The Commission has deci_ded to permit geographic 
57 Part 27 Report and Order at 10844-45 (paras. 114-115) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 3090)(4)(8)); see also 
Melcher v. FCC, 134 F.3d 1143 (D.C.Cir. 1998)(reasonable to prohibit incumbent local exchange carriers from 
holding Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses in same area they provide telephone service, for 
three year period after LMDS auction). 
58 47 u.s.c. § 309G)(4)(C). 
59 See Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services 
.Licensees; Implementation of Section 257 of the Communications Act - Elimination of Market Entry Barriers, 
WT Docket No. 96-148, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, I I FCC Red 21831, 
21843-44 (paras. 13-17) (1996) (Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order). 
60 47 C.F.R. § 27.15. 
61 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10836-39 (paras. 96-103). 
11024 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
partitioning of any service area defined by the partitioner and partitionee, to permit spectrum 
disaggregation without restriction on the amount of spectrum to be disaggregated, and to permit 
combined partitioning and disaggregation.62 We request comment on our proposal that licensees 
in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be eligible to the same extent to partition service 
areas and disaggregate spectrum. 
38. Pursuant to Section 27.15, the partitioning licensee must include with its request a 
description of the partitioned service area and a calculation of the population of the partitioned 
service area and the licensed geographic service area.63 Section 27.15 also contains provisions 
against unjust enrichment.64 We propose to adopt these provisions, as well as the remaining 
provisions governing partitioning and disaggregation in Section 27.15, for licensees in the 746-
764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. 
39. We also propose to adopt the methods that the Commission adopted in the Part 27 
Report and Order for parties to partitioning, disaggregation, or combined partitioning and 
disaggregation agreements to meet construction build-out requirements.65 Specifically, we 
propose to allow parties to partitioning agreements to choose between two options for satisfying 
the construction requirements. Under the first option, the partitioner and partitionee would each 
certify that it will independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its respective 
partitioned area. If a licensee fails to meet its substantial service requirement during the relevant 
license term, the non-performing licensee's authorization would be subject to cancellation at the 
end of the license term. Under the second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will 
meet the substantial service requirement for the entire market. If the partitioner fails to meet the 
substantial service standard during the relevant license term, however, only its license would be 
subject to cancellation at the end of the license term. The partitionee's license would not be 
affected by that failure. 
40. Our proposal to offer two options to partitioning parties is based on our belief that 
Part 27 licensees may be motivated to enter into partitioning arrangements for different reasons 
and under various circumstances. For example, a Part 27 licensee might be motivated to 
partition its license in order to reduce its construction costs. In that case, the original licensee 
would have less population to cover in order to meet its substantial service requirement. Thus, it 
62 Id. at 10836-37, 10839 (paras. 97-99, 102), (citing Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 
FCC Red at 21847-48 (paras. 23-24)). 
63 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(b)(l). 
64 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(c)(1)(2); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111. 
65 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10836 (para. 96) ("We also conclude that the specific rules 
pertaining to partitioning and disaggregation in WT Docket No. 96-148 shall apply to WCS licensees."); see also 
Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21857, 21865 (paras. 42, 62-63). 
11025 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
may find the first option most attractive for its purposes. Under another scenario, a Part 27 
licensee that has met or is close to meeting its substantial service. requirement may be 
approached by another entity interested in serving a niche market in a portion of the service area. 
Under these circumstances, the second option may seem most attractive to the parties. 
41. Finally, we propose to allow parties to disaggregation agreements to ~hoose between 
two options for satisfying the construction requirements. Under the first option, the disaggregator 
and disaggregatee would certify that they each will share responsibility for meeting the 
substantial service requirement for the geographic service area. If parties choose this option, 
both parties' performance will be evaluated at the end of the relevant license term and both 
licenses could be subject to cancellation. The second option would allow the parties to agree 
that either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee would be responsible for meeting the substantial 
service requirement for the geographic service area. If parties choose this option, and the party 
responsible for meeting the construction requirement fails to do so, only the license of the non­
performing party would be subject to cancellation. 
6. License Term; Renewal Expectancy 
42. Part 27 of the Commission's Rules limits license terms to 10 years from the date of 
original issuance or renewal.66 Section 27.14(c) establishes a right to a renewal expectancy.67 
The Communications Act, however, states that the license term for a broadcast station shall not 
exceed eight years.68 In addition, the statute specifies renewal criteria for broadcast stations.69 
We seek comment on the appropriate license term for all licensees in the proposed 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz bands, including those potentially offering broadcast service. We seek 
comment on whether it would be appropriate to have different license terms, depending on the 
type of service offered by the licensee, and on the distinctions between the statutory and Part 73 
renewal criteria for conventional broadcast stations and our renewal expectancy for, e.g., 
datacasting and other wireless services. We also seek comment on how we would administer 
such an approach, particularly if licensees provide more than one service in their service area, or 
decide to change the type of service they plan to offer. 
43. We propose, in the event that a license is partitioned or disaggregated, that any 
partitionee or disaggregatee be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the original 
licensee's term, and that the partitionee or disaggregatee may obtain a renewal expectancy on the 
66 Section 27.13 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.13. 
67 Section 27.14(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(c). 
68 Section 307(a) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 307(a). 
69 Section 309(k) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309(k). 
11026 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
same basis as other Part 27 licensees (or, if subject to Part 73, on the same basis as other Part 73 
licensees). We further propose that all licensees meeting the substantial service requirement will 
be deemed to have met this facet of the renewal expectancy requirement regardless of which of 
the Part 27 construction options the licensees chose. We tentatively conclude that this approach 
is appropriate because a licensee, through partitioning, should not be able to confer greater rights 
than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant.70 We also seek comment on whether a 
non-broadcast renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding71 should include 
at a minimum the showing that the Commission adopted in Section 27.14(c) of the Commission's 
Rules to claim a renewal expectancy, and similarly, what showing a broadcast renewal applicant 
should include to claim the renewal expectancy established by Section 309(k) of the Act. 72 
7. Public Notice 
44. Section 109(b) and Section 309(d) of the Communications Act require public notice 
for initial applications and substantial amendments filed by broadcasters or radio common 
carriers.73 These requirements state that no such application shall be granted earlier than 30 days 
following the issuance of public notice by the Commission, and that the Commission may not 
require petitions to deny such applications to be filed earlier than 30 days following the public 
notice. The same provision also grants the Commission the authority to impose public notice 
requirements for other licenses, even though public notice is not required by the statute. 
However, the administrative procedures for spectrum auctions adopted by Section 3008 of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 199774 permit the Commission to shorten notice periods in the auction 
context to a five-day petition to deny period and a seven-day public notice period, 
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 309(b) of the Communications Act. 
'
0 See Sections 27.lS(a), 27.lS(d), 27.324(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.lS(a), 27.lS(d), 
27.324(b)(4); see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10840 (para. 106). 
71 See Section 27.14(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(b); see also Part 27 Report and Order, 
12 FCC Red at 10840, 10843-44 (paras. 106, 113). 
72 47 u.s.c. § 309(k). 
73 47 u.s.c. §§ 309(b), 309(d). 
74 47 U.S.C. § 309 nt. 
11027 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
45. In the Part 1 Third Report and Order75 the Commission exercised this statutory 
authority, and amended Section 1.2108(b) and Section 1.2108(c) of the Commission's Rules76 to 
provide for a five-day period for filing petitions to deny and a seven-day public notice period for 
all auctionable services. We tentatively conclude below that services in the 746-764 MHz and 
776-794 MHz spectrum will be auctionable services, so that the seven-day public notice period is 
applicable. We note, however, that in the Part 1 Second Further Notice the Commission has 
sought comment on whether longer periods should be generally applicable for some services.77 
46. In light of the potential for sharing of this spectrum between broadcast and wireless 
services, and the differences between their regulatory requirements, we seek comment on whether 
we should exercise our statutory discretion to require a minimum period of 15 days for public 
notice of applications of wireless common carriers and broadcast stations, in instances where our 
Rules establish a notice requirement, and a minimum period of 10 days for the filing of petitions 
to deny the applications of wireless common carriers and broadcast stations. 78 Commenters 
should address whether imposing a 15-day notice requirement would be an undue burden on such 
applicants, and whether it would be administratively useful by enabling us to ensure that any 
applicant filing for both common carrier and non-common carrier authorizations in a single 
license is in compliance with (I) the licensing requirements for common carriers and broadcasters 
established in Title III of the Communications Act; and (2) any related requirements we may 
adopt. Commenters also should address whether we should allow all licensees to make subse­
quent status changes under reduced notification requirements.79 
C. Operating Rules 
47. We propose to subject licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to the 
Part 27 rules that govern operations, except for modifications that we may adopt for this 
spectrum as a result of this proceeding. We seek comment generally on the applicability of these 
rules to this spectrum. We also seek comment on whether any operating rules contained in other 
75 Amendment of Part I of the Commission's Rules - Competitive Bidding Proceeding, WT Docket No. 97-
82, Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685 MHz. ET 
Docket No. 94-32, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 13 FCC Red 
374, 431 (para. 98) (1997) (Part I Third Report and Order) (Part I Second Further Notice). 
76 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2108(b), l.2108(c). 
77 Part I Second Further Notice, 13 FCC Red at 431 (para. 98). 
78 In implementing Balanced Budget Act amendments to Section 3090) that establish Commission authority 
to auction commercial broadcast licenses, the Commission established a petition to deny period of ten days for 
broadcast applications obtained through the competitive bidding process. Competitive Bidding (Broadcast) 
Order, 13 FCC Red at 15985 (para. 165). 
79 See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 12,649 (paras. 238-239). 
11028 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
Parts of the Commission's Rules should be adopted for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz 
bands. In addition, we ask comm.enters to suggest any alternatives to such regulations governing 
a licensee's operations in order to minimize the potential significant economic impact, if any, 
from such rules on small entities. 
1. Applicability of General Common Carrier Obligations 
48. Title II of the Communications Act imposes a variety of obligations on the 
operations of common carriers that are not otherwise imposed on wireless communications 
services. Non-common carrier wireless licensees, for example, are not subject to statutory 
requirements that rates be just and reasonable, or the statutory prohibition against unjust and 
unreasonably discriminatory rates, facilities, and other aspects of common carrier service. In 
addition to the alien ownership restrictions and the/licensing requirements for public notice in 
Title III of the Communications Act, discussed a]?ove, 80 there are a number of statutory 
operational requirements that apply generally 'to/'cbmmon carriers concerning the filing of tariffs, 
maintaining of records, liabilities, and discontinuance of service, among others. We have forborne 
from applying many of those requirements in certain situations.81 Under Section 332(c)(l)(A) of 
the Communications Act, the Commission ,exercised its authority to forbear from certain of the 
obligations in implementing the provisions establishing CMRS and Private Mobile Radio 
Service.82 Thus, common carriers that are providing mobile services under Part 27 and which are 
classified as CMRS must adhere to the Title II requirements specified in Section 20.15(a) of the 
Commission's Rules, 83 but, as specified in Section 20. l 5(b ), CMRS providers are not required to 
file contracts of service, seek authority for interlocking directors, submit applications for new 
facilities or discontinuance of existing facilities,84 and, as specified in Section 20.15(c), CMRS 
providers are prohibited from filing "tariffs for interstate service to their customers, or for 
so See paras. 29-31, 44-46, supra. 
81 Thus, for example, the Commission in 1997 determined to forbear from imposing tariff filing requirements 
on providers of interexchange access services other than incumbent local exchange carriers, and initiated a 
broader proceeding to consider detariffing of competitive local exchange carriers generally. Hyperion 
Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting Forbearance, CCB/CPD No. 96-3, Complete Detariffing for 
Competitive Access Providers and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 97-146, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 8596 (1997). 
82 Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of Mobile 
Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 1411, 1463-90 (paras. 124-213) 
(1994)(CMRS Second Report and Order), recon. pending. 
83 47 C.F.R. § 20.15. 
84 CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red at 1475-93, 1510-11 (paras. 164-219, 272) (authorizing 
forbearance from 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205, 211, 212, 214). 
11029 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
interstate access service."85 The Commission has also extended the deadline for CMRS providers 
to support service provider local number portability (LNP) until November 24, 2002.86 
Moreover, the Commission has forborne from requiring CMRS providers to file tariffs for most 
international services, and from applying Section 226 of the Act, relating to telephone operator 
services. 87 
. 49. The Communications Act provides the Commission with expanded authority to 
forbear from additional provisions of the Communications Act. 88 Under this authority, the 
Commission has required the "complete detariffing"89 of interstate, interexchange services offered 
by non-dominant interexchange carriers.90 In addition, as part of the Commission's biennial 
•s Section 20.15(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.15(c). 
16 Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from Commercial Mobile 
Radio Services Number Portability Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 
99-19, released Feb. 9, 1999, 1999 WL 58618. 
87 Personal Communications Industry Associatiop's Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliance's 
Petition for Forbearance For Broadband Personal Communications Services, Biennial Regulatory Review -
Elimination or Streamlining of Unnecessary and Obsolete CMRS Regulations, Forbearance from Applying 
Provisions of the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-100, 
Further Forbearance from Title II Regulation for Certain Types of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, 
GN Docket No. 94-33, GTE Petition for Reconsideration or Waiver of a Declaratory Ruling, MSD-92-14, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 16857 (1998), recon. 
pending. The Commission there initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on further 
forbearance from application of Section 226 and other regulations or provisions of the Act to wireless 
telecommunications carriers. 
88 47 u.s.c. § 160. 
89 "Complete detariffing" refers to a policy of neither requiring nor permitting non-dominant interexchange 
carriers to file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act for their interstate, domestic, 
. interexchange services. See, e.g., Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, 
Implementation of Section 245(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, 
Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Red 15014, 15016 (para. 2 n.5) (Detarifjing Reconsideration Order). 
90 Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 24S(g) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Report and Order, 11 FCC 
Red 20730 (1996) (Detariffing Second Report and Order). Following a stay of the Detariffing Second Report 
and Order by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and upon the petitions of a number of 
parties who claimed that the public disclosure requirement contained in that Order would lead to some of the 
same ills that prompted the Commission to order complete detariffing, the Commission eliminated the public 
disclosure requirement. Detariffing Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Red at 15,047-54 (paras. 59-73). Acting on 
petitions for reconsideration of that Order, the Commission subsequently concluded that consumers should have 
ready access to information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions governing the provision of interstate, 
interexchange services offered by non-dominant carriers. The Commission therefore reinstated the public 
disclosure requirement that was originally established in the Detariffing Second Report and Order, and also 
11030 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
review of regulations, pursuant to Section 11 of the Act,91 the Commission has eliminated Part 41 
requirements as they apply to franks for interstate and international services as issued by 
common carriers regulated by the Act to common carriers regulated by Act, as well as to 
common carriers not regulated by the Act; and also as they apply to any franks for interstate and 
international services as may be issued by wireless common carriers regulated by the Act to 
common carriers not regulated by the Act and to others. 92 These forbearance actipns will apply 
to common carriers operating under Part 27. The Commission has also eliminated prior approval 
tequirem~nts for most proforma transfer applications involving telecommunications carriers. 93 In 
the 47 GHz Notice, which proposed service rules for spectrum bands allocated to both fixed and 
mobile services, though not broadcast services, we sought comment on whether the exercise of 
forbearance authority in the CMRS Second Report and Order, under Section 332(c)(l)(A) of the 
Act, should be extended to fixed service carriers.94 
50. We similarly seek comment in this context on whether w~ should exercise our 
authority under Section l 0 of the Act to forbear from applying to non-CMRS licensees of this 
spectrum the specific Title II requirements that the Commission previously has dete~ined not to 
required carriers that have Internet Websites to post this information on-line. Policy and Rules Concerning the 
Interstate, Interexchange·Marketplace, Implementation of Section 245(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, As 
Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, FCC 99-47, released March 31, 
1999 (Detariffing Second Reconsideration Order), 1999 WL 176557. 
91 47 u.s.c. § 161. 
92 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review- Elimination of Part 41 Telegraph and Telephone Franks, CC Docket 
No. 98-119, Report and Order, FCC 98-344, released Feb. 3, 1999, 1999 WL 46911. 
93 Federal Communications Bar Association's Petition for Forbearance from Section 3 IO(d) of the 
Communications Act Regarding Non-Substantial Assignments of Licenses and Transfers of Control Involving 
Telecommunications Carriers Licensed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 13 FCC Red 6293 (1998). See also Biennial Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 
26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Development and Use of the 
Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 98-20, Report and 
Order, FCC 98-234, released Oct. 21, 1998, 1998 WL 735878. But see Rulemaking to Amend· Parts I, 2, 21, 
and 25 of the Commission's Rules To Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.5-
30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for 
Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Petitions for Further Reconsideration of the Denial of 
Application for Waiver of the Commission's Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service Rules, 
Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 11655, 11669-71 (paras. 27-29) (1998) (Partition and disaggregation 
agreements subject to formal assignment process). See also 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of 
Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, MM Docket No. 98-43, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 
FCC Red 11349, 11376-79 (paras. 72-82) (1998) (Section 310(d), 47 U.S.C. § 310(d), requires prior Commission 
approval of transfer or assignment "in any manner;" revisions to rules governing common carrier transfers and 
assignments distinguished as based on statutory forbearance authority.) 
94 The statutory sections affected by that Order are 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205, 211, 212 and 214. 
11031 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
apply to CMRS licensees. Specifically, we seek comment on application of each of the three 
conditions specified by Section 10 of the Act in the context of services in the 746-764 MHz and 
776-794 MHz bands. Under the :first two parts of the test, we request in particular comment on 
the definition of "consumer," what information we should consider when performing these 
evaluations, and examples of applying these tests in evaluating whether forbearance is 
appropriate. With respect to the third condition, we seek comment on the appropljate market that 
would apply to fixed, common carrier licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. 
We note that we have not forborne from regulation of fixed wireless services in service rule 
proceedings for the 24, 28, and 39 GHz bands.95 We therefore also ask commenters to address 
how, if at all, that should affect our forbearance decisions in this proceeding. For instance, 
should such determinations more appropriately be made, or necessarily be made, in service rule 
proceedings for individual bands, or should the Commission develop standards for determining 
the weight to be accorded (1) the circumstances of specific services and (2) the broader 
considerations of regulatory consistency? 
51. In light of the fact that it may take longer for the Commission to conduct a 
forbearance analysis than to adopt service rules for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, 
we propose during the interim: (1) to adopt .. a discontinuance provision that is consistent with 
common carrier obligations set forth in Subpart E of Part 1 and in Part 61 through Part 64 of the 
Commission's Rules;96 and (2) to aP,ply other parts of the Commission's Rules to ensure · 
compliance of fixed common carriers with Title II of the Communications Act. 
52. Section 214(a) of the Communications Act97 requires that no common carrier may 
discontinue, reduce, or impair service without Commission approval. We propose that if a fixed, 
common carrier Part 27 licensee voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or impairs service to a 
community or part of a community, it must obtain prior authorization as provided under Section 
63. 71 of the Commission's Rules, 98 but an application would be granted within 30 days after 
filing if no objections were received. We propose that if a non-common carrier Part 27 licensee 
voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or impairs service to a community or part of a community, it 
95 See, e.g .• Rulemaking to Amend Parts l, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 
- 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5 - 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies 
for Local Multipoint Distribution Services and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297. and Suite 12 
Group Petition for Pioneer's Preference, PP-22, Third Notice of Rulemaking and Supplemental Tentative 
Decision, 11 FCC Red 53, 65-66 (para.109) (1995) (LMDS Third Notice); 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC 
Red at 18636 (para. 76) (Common carriage permitted without discussion of forbearance). 
96 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart E, Parts 61-64. 
97 47 U.S.C. § 214(a). 
98 47 C.F.R. § 63.71. 
11032 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
must give written notice to the Commission within seven days.99 We also propose, however, that 
neither a fixed, common carrier, nor non-common carrier Part 27 licensee need surrender its 
license for cancellation if discontinuance is a result of a change in status from common carrier to 
non-common carrier or the reverse. 100 
53. We further propose that if the service provided by a fixed common cap:ier Part 27 
licensee is involuntarily discontinued, reduced, or impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the 
licensee must promptly notify the Commission, in writing, as to the reasons for the 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service, including a statement indicating when 
normal service is to be resumed. 101 We propose that when normal service is resumed, the 
licensee must promptly notify the Commission. We seek comment on these proposals. 
54. Section 312(g) of the Communications Act provides that the license of any 
broadcasting station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period 
expires as a matter of law at the end of that period. 102 In addition, Section 73.1750 of the 
Commission's Rules states that a licensee of a broadcast station shall notify the Commission of 
permanent discontinuance of operation at least two days before operation is discontinued. 103 We 
ask whether any considerations may suggest that we should adopt different provisions for 
broadcast services provided over this spectrum under Part 27. For example, how should we 
should treat a prolonged discontinuance of broadcast service licensed under Part 27 that would 
require termination of the license under Section 3 I 2(g), when a counterpart wireless service 
licensee, or an overall licensee who has chosen to use a portion of its spectrum block for 
broadcasting, would still have several years in which'tO demonstrate performance? 
2. Equal Employment Opportunity 
55. Part 27 does not include an explicit Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) provision. 
Nor do Parts 24 (PCS) or Part 26 (General Wireless Communications Service). We note that 
there are specific EEO provisions for fixed service providers in Parts 21 and 101, including both 
common carrier and non-common carrier LMDS licensees; 104 and for common carrier mobile 
99 This is consistent with the modification of Section 101.305(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
I01.305(c), adopted for LMDS. LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12655 (para. 254). 
100 See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12655 (para. 255). 
101 See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12654-55 (paras. 252-255). 
102 Section 312(g) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 312(g). 
103 47 C.F.R. § 73.1750. 
104 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 101.311. 
11033 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
service providers in Parts 22 and 90, though these latter provisions do not apply to PMRS 
providers because they are not common carriers. 105 In addition, Part 25 contains EEO rules for 
entities that use an owned or leased fixed satellite service facility to provide more than one 
channel of video programming directly to the public, 106 and Part 73 contains rules for 
broadcasters. 107 
56. We have initiated a rulemaking on our Part 73 EEO rules,108 and seek comment on 
whether there are any reasons not to apply Part 73 rules to conventional broadcasters operating in 
these spectrum bands and licensed under Part 27. As to non-broadcast services on these bands, 
we seek comment on whether we should include a separate EEO provision in Part 27 and, if so, 
which of our EEO rules we should adopt. Commenters should address the advisability of having 
different EEO requirements depending on the service a licensee provides. If commenters support 
adopting EEO requirements, we request comment on what statutory authority should be invoked 
to support these requirements and how these rules should be tailored. 
D. Technical Rules 
57. The application of general provisions of Part 27 would include rules related. to 
equipment authorization, frequency stability, antenna structures and air navigation, international 
coordination, environmental requirements, quiet zones, and disturbance of AM broadcast antenna 
patterns. 109 We seek comment on applying these rules to the spectrum that is the subject of this 
Notice, and specifically on any rules that would be affected by our proposal to apply elements of 
the Part 27 framework, whether separately or in conjunction with Part 73 requirements, to 
conventional broadcast services. We also seek comment on proposals to adopt the rules 
concerning in-band interference control, out-of-band and spurious emission limits, special 
considerations for use of channels 66 and 67, and Radiofrequency (RF) safety requirements, 
ros Sections 22.321, 90.168 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.321, 90.168. 
106 Section 25.601 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.601. 
'
07 Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080, was struck down as unconstitutional as 
respects the outreach portions of the Commission's EEO program requirements for broadcast stations and 
remanded to the Commission for a determination whether the non-discrimination rule is within its statutory 
authority. See Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, Case No. 97-1116, 141 F.3d 344, reh'g denied, 154 
F.3d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 
108 Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies, 
MM Docket No. 98-204, and Tennination of the EEO Streamlining Proceeding, MM Docket No. 96- l 6, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 23004 (1998). 
109 Sections 27.51, 27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61, 27.63 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.51, 
27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61, 27.63; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10848-65 (paras. 
123-161). 
11034 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
which are discussed below. We propose that all of these technical rules would apply to all 
licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, including licensees who acquire their 
licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. 
1. In-Band Interference Control 
58. We do not have reliable information at this time on the technical parameters for 
services that will be provided in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. Our allocation and 
designation decision permits the range of uses in the Allocation Table, and we cannot be certain 
what wireless services will be operating in adjacent spectrum. A broad range of technologies 
may share this spectrum, and the nature of the services and technologies can affect the potential 
for interference between licensees using the same spectrum in adjacent service areas. We are 
particularly interested in potential interference issues should the range of uses extend to full 
power broadcast service. 
59. We have permitted flexibility in services and technologies in other frequency bands. 
Examples include cellular service, PCS, and WCS. In these cases, we generally have controlled 
co-channel interference between licensees h1 adjacent geographic regions by establishing field 
strength limits at the edge of the service areas and by encouraging the licensees to coordinate 
their operations. 110 We also note that, in the absence of a consensus on appropriate power flux 
density or field strength, the Commission has recently concluded two rulemaking proceedings 
concerning Fixed services at 28 GHz and 39 GHz. m In those two proceedings, the Commission 
relied principally upon the use of coordination procedures to avoid harmful interference between 
co-channel operations of licensees in adjacent service areas. In deciding to use a coordination 
requirement instead of a field strength limit in the 39 GHz proceeding, the Commission noted a 
lack of consensus regarding the appropriate power flux density or field strength limit and 
expressed concern about adopting a limit without such information. 11 ~ 
60. We tentatively conclude that either a coordination or field strength method, when 
properly applied, can provide a satisfactory means of controlling harmful interference or 
determining the interaction between systems, although there may be reasons to pref er one over 
the other in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. For example, a general coordination 
requirement may minimize the potential for interference to coordinated facilities but may also 
impose unnecessary coordination costs for facilities with a low potential for interference and 
increase the potential for undesirable strategic or anti-competitive behavior. A field strength 
110 See, e.g., Sections 24.236 and 24.237 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.236, 24.237 
(Broadband PCS). 
111 LMDS Second Report and Order; 39 GHz Report and Order. 
112 39 GHz Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 18633 (para. 68). 
11035 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
limit, on the other hand, may reduce the need for coordination by giving licensees the ability 
unilaterally to deploy facilities in boundary areas as long as the limit is met, but by itself may 
provide insufficient assurance against interference to such facilities. Even with a boundary limit, 
some degree of coordination and joint planning between bordering licensees appears likely to be 
needed to ensure . efficient use across the boundary. 
61. While we have considered a range of approaches to managing interference in other 
service rule proceedings, the spectrum bands reallocat~d pursuant to Section 337 of the Act 
present an additional consideration. Section 337(d)(l) requires the Commission to establish 
"interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum block and service area. " 113 One possible 
interpretation of this provision is that the Commission is directed to adopt field strength limits, or 
some similarly generic requirement, even if it considers that a coordination approach establishes 
sufficient, and more flexible, protection against interference. 
62. Parties are therefore asked to provide their analysis of the advantages and 
disadvantages of both approaches, or approaches that combine a boundary limit and a 
· coordination procedure. Comments should address the advantages of different approaches in 
managing the electromagnetic environment.· at geographic boundaries in the 746-764 MHz and 
776-794 MHz bands, the kinds of incentives each may create for undesirable strategic or anti­
competitive behavior~ and the effects on licensee costs. 
63. We also seek comment regarding whether to permit licensees in adjacent service 
areas to coordinate their operations and agree to an alternative field strength along their shared 
border. We are aware that through coordination many steps can be taken to limit or prevent 
interference, such as use of robust technologies, partitioning the use of frequencies, taking 
advantage of terrain shielding and other propagation effects, and use of directional antennas. We 
invite comment on this approach to control of interference in the context of the 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz bands, both generally and if used in conjunction with power flux density or 
field strength standards. If commenters suggest that power flux densities or field strength 
standards should be established as interference limits, in conjunction with a coordination process, 
we ask that they propose specific values for such limits. Commenters should also address any 
special sharing considerations that might be appropriate in an environment where disparate ser­
vi~es might be using the same spectrum in adjacent service areas. 
64. Regarding whether a general coordination approach should be used, comments are 
invited on specific aspects of procedures, such as those contained in Section 101.103 of the 
Commission's Rules,114 that should apply. While we suggest that Section 101.103 can serve as a 
useful framework for coordination in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, our objective is 
113 47 u.s.c. § 337(d)(I). 
114 47 C.F.R. § 101.103. 
11036 
Federal Cdmmunications Commission FCC 99-97 
to ensure that licensees receive protection from harmful interference with the minimum 
regulation necessary. If we adopt a general coordination approach, we tentatively conclude that 
the coordination concepts of Section 101.103 generally should be applied to licensees in the 746-
764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands and should be incorporated into Part 27 of the Rules for these 
bands. We seek comment on the best way to effect this incorporation, including comment on 
which provisions of Section 101.103 may be appropriate for incorporation into Pai:t 27. We also 
note that for 28 GHz LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, the need for coordination is triggered based 
on the station's distance from the licensee's service area boundary.115 For purposes of our 
considering a coordination approach for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, we seek 
comment on what the appropriate distance should be to trigger this coordination, and whether 
there should be any other criteria, in addition to distance to the service area boundary, that would 
trigger a need to coordinate. 
65. We seek comment on what, if any, limits for equivalent isotopically radiated power 
(EIRP) are necessary or appropriate under either a coordination or field strength limit approach. 
We observe that transmitters used in the private land mobile service, cellular radio service, and 
fixed microwave services typically employ substantially different output powers. The substantial 
differences between these services, howeve~, are minor in comparison to the output powers of 
full power broadcast services. Accordingly, if commenters believe that power limits are 
necessary, we invite comments as to what those limits should be and the basis for the suggested 
limits. We also solicit views as to whether we should establish limits on output power for all 
transmitters, or just mobile equipment. 
66. Finally, Section 27.64 of the Commission's Rules 116 states generally that Part 27 
stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms . and 
conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for 
Commission action, after notice and hearing, to require modifications to eliminate significant 
interference. In view of the variety of services that might be provided by Part 27 licensees on 
these bands, including broadcasting, we solicit comment on whether we should apply this rule 
for this spectrum. We also seek comment regarding whether interference protection can be 
guaranteed and whether Section 27 .64 of our Rules, if retained, should be changed to direct 
adjacent service area licensees to cooperate to eliminate or ameliorate interference. This 
alternative would require each licensee ultimately to assume responsibility for protecting its own 
receiving system from interference from transmitters in adjoining areas that meet our standards. 
We also seek comment on whether we should apply any changes with respect to Section 27.64 to 
the 2.3 GHz band. 
115 LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12661-64 (paras. 273-281); 39 GHz Report and Order, 
12 FCC Red at 18632-33 (paras. 66-69). See Section 101.103 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 101.103. 
116 47 C.F.R. § 27.64. 
11037 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
2. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits 
67. Generally, different types of technical parameters would be used to limit out-of-band 
and spurious emissions to ensure interference protection of services outside the licensee's 
assigned spectrum, depending on whether the system involves fixed, mobile, or other communi­
cations. Because we may permit licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MH~ bands to use 
the spectrum for the various services in the Table of Allocations, it would appear we should de­
velop technical operating parameters that can accommodate each type of communications, as we 
did in adopting separate and different emissions limits in Section 27.53 of the Commission's 
Rules for the 2.3 GHz band. 117 
68. In addition to the characteristics of different technical approaches, Section 337(d}(4) 
of the Act emphasizes the general importance of avoiding harmful interference from television 
broadcasters to public safety licensees in adjacent bands.118 Section 337(d)(4) refers explicitly to 
the spectrum bands reallocated and reserved for public safety services,- and we have already 
adopted service rules for the public safety bands. 119 The potential for new broadcasting services 
on the commercial- 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, however, raises the further issue of 
whether a more stringent approach to interference may be required on the commercial bands to 
ensure that public safety licensees in adjacent bands do not experience harmful interference. We 
note that there are special considerations for the protection of the Global Navigation Satellite 
System (GNSS)120 from the second harmonic of stations that would operate on current TV 
channels 65, 66, and 67. This issue is specifically addressed in paras. 73 and 74 infra. We 
therefore seek comment on the relation of Section 337(d)(4) to protection of public safety 
licensees from interference caused by broadcast services that may be permitted to operate on the 
36 megahertz of commercial spectrum. -
117 Section 27.53 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R._ § 27.53; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC 
Red at 10854-57 (paras. 136-144). We were required to adopt a more stringent level of attenuation in order to 
adequately protect adjacent-band satellite OARS reception, among other concerns, from WCS transmissions. 
Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10855 (para. 138). 
118 47 u.s.c. § 337(d)(4). 
119 Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local 
Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Estab)jshment of Rules and 
Requirements for Priority Access Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-191, released Sept. 29, 1998, 1998 WL 667599 (Public Safety Spectrum Report 
and Order), recon. pending. 
120 The GNSS is a satellite system that provides worldwide position detennination, time, and velocity 
capabilities for multi-modal use. As currently envisioned, the GNSS will encompass aviation, maritime, and 
terrestrial use. 
11038 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
69. We propose to require licensees in the proposed commercial spectrum to attenuate 
the power below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) watts or 80 decibels, 
whichever is less, for any emission on all frequencies outside the licensee's authorized spectrum. 
We adopted this level in Section 27.53 for certain Part 27 operations, noting that this attenuation 
is commonly employed in other services and that it has been found adequate to prevent adjacent 
channel interference as a general matter.121 To implement sharing between conv~ntional 
broadcast and other commercial services, different interference limits may be indicated. We re­
quest comment on this proposal and any other emission limits that commenters believe are 
appropriate. 
3. RF Safety 
70. Section 27.52 of the Commission's Rules122 subjects licensees and manufacturers to 
the RF radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections l.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
the Commission's Rules, which list the services and devices for which an environmental 
evaluation must be performed. 123 In adopting the rule, the Commission concluded that routine 
environmental evaluations for RF exposure are required by applicants desiring to use the 
following types of transmitters: (1) fixed eperations, including base stations and radiolocation 
transmitters, when the effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than 1,000 watts; (2) all portable 
devices; and (3) mobile devices, if the ERP of the station, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5 
watts or greater. 124 
71. With regard to RF safety requirements, we propose to treat services and devices in 
the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in a comparable manner to other services and devices 
that have similar operating characteristics. We tentatively conclude that the requirements in 
Section 27 .52 that the Commission adopted for licensees in the 2.3 GHz band will apply to ~e 
same extent to licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. As the Commission has 
121 Section 27.53(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a){3); see also Part 27 Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Red at 10857 (para. 144) (citing Sections 22.359(iii), 22.917{e), 24.238 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.359(iii), 22.917(e), 24.238). 
122 47 C.F.R. § 27.52. 
123 47 C.F.R. §§ l.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093. The RF radiation exposure limits are set forth in 47 C.F.R. §§ 
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093, as modified in Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of 
Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62, Report and Order, 11 FCC Red 15123 (1996); First 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, II FCC Red 17512 (1997); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC 
Red 13494 (1997) (RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order). 
124 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10861 (para. 154 n.344), noting that 1,000 watts ERP equates 
to 1,640 watts EIRP. In the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission increased the 
exclusion threshold for mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts ERP. RF Guidelines 
Second Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Red at 13514 (para. 51). 
11039 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
previously stated, the Commission is providing guidance on acceptable methods of evaluating 
compliance with the Commission's exposure limits in OET Bulletin No. 65, which has replaced 
OST Bulletin No. 65.125 
72. The Commission adopted the 1,000 watts ERP threshold for 2.3 GHz to recognize 
the flexibility with respect to use, power, location, and other factors that was accqrded licensees 
operating in that band, and determined that this power limit was appropriate to ensure 
compliance with the Commission's RF exposure standards for most situations.126 Moreover, the 
Commission found the 1,000 watts ERP threshold consistent with its existing rules for 
transmitters and devices of comparable use and similar operating frequencies. For the same 
reasons, we propose to adopt the 1,000 watts ERP threshold for operations in the 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz bands. Consistent with the modifications the Commission adopted for the 2.3 
GHz band, we also propose to modify Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the 
Commission's Rules127 to include services and devices applicable to the 746-764 MHz and 776-
794 MHz bands. We invite comment on our proposals and any alternatives. 
125 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10862 (para. 154 n.346). OET Bulletin No. 65 (Edition 97-
01) was issued on August 25, 1997. It is available for downloading at the FCC Web Site: www.fcc.gov/ 
oet/rfsafety. Copies of OET Bulletin No. 65 also may be obtained by calling the FCC RF Safety Line at (202) 
418-2464. 
126 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10862 (para. 154 n.345), noting that, in a pending petition for 
reconsideration of the RF Guidelines Report and Order, the Commission was considering whether to revise the 
threshold for requiring routine evaluation of mobile devices above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts. This 
change was made in the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order. 
127 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093. 
11040 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
4. Special Considerations for Use of Channels 65, 66 and 67 
73. In the Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice on the use of channels 63, 64, 68, & 69 
by Public Safety128 we sought comment on the potential for interference to GLONASS129 and 
GPS 130 satellites from public safety systems operating in the 794-806 MHz band (TV channels 
68-69). 131 Specifically, we sought comment on the effects of second harmonic ~missions132 to 
· GPS and GLONASS receivers from public safety systems operating in this newly allocated band. 
The second harmonic transmissions of commercial services operating on TV channels 65-67 also 
fall within the bandwidth identified by NTIA as being used by the GPS (1563.42-1587.42 
MHz). 133 Therefore, the use of the band 776-794 MHz by commercial services raises many of 
these same concerns. NTIA recommends that stringent standards be adopted to ensure that 
equipment that operates in these bands does not cause radio frequency interference to the Global 
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)134 when used for precision approach and landing. We 
recognize that this issJ,le will be of critical importance to both navigation and commercial 
interests and therefore we desire to obtain as complete a record as possible before making a 
decision. We believe that additional information is needed before we arrive at a final decision 
with respect to this matter. Therefore, we seek comment on the impact of imposing the out-of-
128 See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and 
Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010; Establishment of Rules 
and Requirements of Priority Access Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 
FCC Red 17706 (1997) (Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice): 
129 GLONASS is the Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System which will use the 
1598-1605 MHz portion of the Radionavigation-Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) allocation at 1559-1610 MHz, 
when the GLONASS system reaches its final frequency configuration after 2005. 
130 GPS (Global Positioning System) is also in operation, and it will be the United States component of the 
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). GPS utilizes the lower portion of the Radionavigation-Satellite 
Service (space-to-Earth) allocation from 1559-1610 MHz on a primary basis, and is maintained by the United 
States Department of Defense. 
131 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17778-17779. 
132 Radio transmitters produce energy not only on the desired frequency (such as 794 MHz) but also lesser 
amounts of energy on multiples of the desired frequency, known as harmonics. In this example. the second 
harmonic (twice the desired frequency) would be 1588 MHz. Although most of the power generated is on the 
desired frequency, very sensitive receivers can detect the smaller amounts of power generated on the harmonic 
frequencies. 
133 See letter from William T. Hatch, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, 
NTIA, to Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, May 11, 1999. 
134 GNSS as currently envisioned will consist of the GPS and GLONASS systems that provide 
radionavigation satellite services worldwide. 
11041 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
, band emission limits recommended by NTIA on the design of commercial equipment for use in 
the 776-794 MHz band. 
74. Specifically, in its May 11, 1999 letter135 NTIA notes that the protection of spectrum 
used to support the GNSS is consistent with the U.S. commitment to the "continuous availability 
of GPS" announced in the ·Presidential Decision Directive of March 29, 1996, and enacted by 
Congress in the Defense Authorization Act of 1998.136 NTIA also notes that Congress further 
directed the Administration to "protect the integrity of the Global Positioning System frequency 
spectrum against interference and disruption" in the Defense FY99 Appropriations Conference 
Report, 137 and in the Commercial Space Act of 1998.138 
75. To protect these systems NTIA specifically advocates that out-of-band emissions be 
limited to -70 dBW /MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband emissions 
and -80 dBW/700 Hz for narrowband emissions139, and that these limits be applied to all spurious· 
emissions, including second harmonics in the 1559-1610 MHz range. These limits are based on 
international recommendations by RTCA and ETSI for mobile earth terminals in the Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS). 140 Additionally, we note that potential full power broadcast use of this 
spectrum could pose additional difficulties ,for the GNSS system. Because conventional full 
power broadcast stations would operate at powers several orders of magnitude larger than those 
used by commercial fixed and mobile stations, additional attenuation of out-of-band emissions 
may be required to protect the GNSS systems. NTIA has recommended, in this case, that an 
emission limit of -110 dB below the average transmitter power should be included as the 
135 NTIA's submission is exempt from the ex parte rules otherwise applicable to submissions received after 
Commission issuance of a Sunshine Agenda. See Section I.1204(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
l .1204(a)(5). 
136 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Pub. L. 105-85, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 
1629). 
137 H.R. Conf. Rep. 105-746, I05th Cong., 2d Sess. 1998. 
138 Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-303, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2843). 
139 For purposes ofNTIA's analysis, wideband interference was considered to have a bandwidth in the range 
of I 00 kHz to I MHz; narrowband interference was considered t~ have a bandwidth less than or equal to 700 
Hz. 
140 See RTCA Inc. Special Committee 159, Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the 
GNSS, Document No, RTCA/D0-235, January 27, 1997. The RTCA report contained two appendices - one was 
endorsed by the aviation community and the other by the MSS community. The MSS community arrived at a 
value that was less stringent (i.e., -54 dBW/MHz) than that arrived at by the aviation community with respect to 
protection of GLONASS. See also, European Testing and Standards Institute (ETSI) standards TBR-041 and 
TBR-042 for Mobile Earth Terminals in the 1.6/2.4 GHz·and 2.0 GHz range, respectively. 
11042 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
proposed unwanted emission limit, including harmonics, for DTV transmitters operating in the 
746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. NTIA notes that the current DTV mask requires that 
emissions, including harmonics that are more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, must be 
attenuated by this amount. It believes that this value is consistent with the current harmonic 
suppression levels that can be achieved by television transmitters and will protect GNSS 
precision approach landing operations. 
76. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the GNSS is protected adequately 
against interference. We note that the standard recommended by NTIA is necessary only to 
protect the GNSS band at 1559-1605 MHz. Based on the information before us at this time, we 
tentatively propose to adopt the NTIA recommended emissions limits, 141 but to apply them only 
to emissions that fall within the GNSS band. Outside the 1559-1605 MHz GNSS band, we 
propose that the standard addressed earlier in the section on out-of-band spurious emissions (i.e., 
43 + 10 log P) would apply. We believe that it is imperative that all parties fully understand the 
need for and ramifications of the NTIA proposed standard on use of the 700 MHz band for 
commercial wireless services. Therefore, we request comment on the standard recommended by 
NTIA to protect GNSS operations. We also invite comment as to whether extenuating conditions 
such as low antenna height, propagation losses, body suppression of signals, and wall attenuation 
should be taken into account in calculating the out-of-band emission requirements. In addition, 
we are interested in obtaiP..ing a better understanding of the levels of radio energy that currently 
exist in the GNSS spectrum as a result of spurious emissions from other communications systems 
and electronic equipment. This information will enable us to determine whether stringent limits 
for commercial equipment are necessary and likely to be effective in accomplishing the desired 
objective. 
77. We observe that stringent out-of-band emissions limits are generally more difficult to 
meet for mobile and hand-held transmitters than for base and control stations or for fixed service 
stations. Typical operation of mobile units in the cellular and broadband PCS services, for 
example, are required to suppress out-of-band emissions by approximately 50 dB below the 
transmitter carrier signal. 142 The standard recommended by NTIA would require approximately 
141 We propose, however, to adopt an absolute limit of -80 dBW on the e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less 
than 700 Hz bandwidth, rather than a limit on narrowband spectral power density. See Amendment of Pans 2 
and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of 
Understanding and Arrangements; Petition of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
to Amend Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Limits for Mobile and Portable Earth Stations 
Operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz Band,_:__, FCC 99-37, para. 78, released March 5, 1999 (GMPCS Notice). 
142 Cellular rules require that out-of-band emissions must be attenuated below the mean power of the 
unmodulated carrier (P) on any frequency twice, or more than twice, the fundamental frequency by 43 + IO log 
(P) dB. Broadband PCS emissions must be attenuated by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB on any frequency outside 
the licensee's frequency block. This gives a value of 47.8 dB attenuation for 3 watt mobiles. See Sections 
22.917 and 24.238 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.917 and 24.238. 
11043 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
85-90 dB suppression for typical full-power mobile equipment and approximately 75-80 dB for 
handhelds and portables.143 We are very much concerned about whether the proposed emissions 
standard would severely curtail the availability of the 36 megahertz of spectrum designated by 
Congress for commercial use. Specifically, we request factual data and technical information as 
to the impact this proposal may have on the use of the 700 MHz band for commercial wireless 
services. We also seek information on how the proposal may affect the equipme~t cost, size, 
weight and battery life of handheld or portable equipment. We are aware that Global Mobile 
Personal Communications via Satellite (GMPCS) terminals have been proposed to meet the same 
standard we have proposed herein. 144 We invite comment as to whether it is feasible for 
commercial fixed and mobile equipment to meet the same standards as these commercial mobile 
satellite systems. We solicit suggestions as to any and all alternative approaches or measures 
that the Commission can take to alleviate the impact of the proposed standard. For example, we 
invite comment as to whether there may be a way to restrict mobile use near airports. We also 
seek comment on whether a transition plan to more stringent levels would be appropriate to 
protect the future GNSS. 
78. In summary, we request comment on the risk of harmonic interference to GPS­
assisted landings from systems licensed under the rules proposed in this Notice, and whether the 
emissions limits noted above that have been recommended by NTIA would provide the necessary 
protection for GNSS systems from anticipated commercial fixed and mobile operations in these 
bands. We also request specific comment on how to address potential full power broadcast use 
of this spectrum, and whether the limits proposed by NTIA would be a serious burden on the use 
of this spectrum for full power broadcasting. 145 
E. Competitive Bidding 
1. Statutory Requirements 
79. Pursuant to Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, codified as Section 
337 of the Communications Act, the licenses for this proposed commercial spectrum are required 
to be granted through competitive bidding. Section 337(a)(2) directs how the commercial 
segment of the spectrum between 746 megahertz and 806 megahertz is to be assigned: "36 
143 For the purposes of the GLONASS standard, we have assumed the narrowband limit of -80 dBW as 
sufficient for commercial services bandwidths of up to 150 kHz. 
144 See GMPCS Notice. Section 25.213 (b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.213 (b), requires that 
MSS equipment operating in 1610-1626.5 MHz meet essentially these levels within the band 1574.397 -
1576.443 MHz. 
145 In this regard, we note that the Commission also has before it a waiver request filed March 3, 1999 by 
Harris Corporation, seeking relaxation of the 110 dB attenuation requirement in adjacent bands while continuing 
to protect the GPS bands. 
11044 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
megahertz of that spectrum for commercial use [is] to be assigned by competitive bidding 
pursuant to section 3090)."146 Section 337(b)(2) further directs the Commission to "commence 
competitive bidding for the commercial licenses created pursuant to subsection (a) after January 
I, 2001."147 The proposed commercial spectrum therefore is not to be licensed for the following 
purposes, which are excluded from the scope of our spectrum auction authority by Section 3002 
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997: (1) public safety radio services licenses, inc~uding (a) 
private internal radio services used by State and local government entities; and (b) emergency 
road ser\rices provided by not-for-profit organizations; (2) digital television service licenses to be 
provided by terrestrial broadcast licensees to replace their analog service licenses; or (3) non­
commercial educational broadcast stations or public broadcast stations. 148 
80. Although this spectrum is dedicated by statute for commercial rather than public 
safety licenses, consistent with the statutory mandate in Section 337, there still is the possibility, 
under our proposed application of the Part 27 rules to this spectrum, $at public safety entities 
could successfully bid for and be licensed to use the spectrum. We are concerned that the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 might: (1) preclude us from licensing a public safety entity that 
participated in an auction of commercial spectrum; or (2) nullify or otherwise adversely affect 
our authority to license the spectrum involved through competitive bidding, if public safety 
entities participate in such an auction. We determined in our LMS Reconsideration Order that 
Congress did not intend that individual license applicants, by asserting their interest in providing 
public safety services, could nullify a previous Commission determination that specific spectrum 
allocations were auctionable, noting that this would undermine Commission auction authority 
under the Budget Act. 149 In the present context, where the affected spectrum has been allocated 
and designated in response to the mandate of Section 337 of the Act, such an interpretation · 
would also run directly counter to the explicit statutory direction to auction these 36 megahertz 
for commercial use. 
81. Our determination that public safety applicants lack the power to unilaterally overturn 
Commission decisions respecting the auctionability of spectrum bands, however, did not require 
us to address the issue of whether public safety entities are prohibited from participation as 
bidders in an auction process. Our view is that such participation, subject to the same bidding 
and service rules applicable to commercial applicants, cannot compromise the Commission's 
146 47 U.S.C. § 337(a)(2). 
147 47 u.s.c. § 337(b)(2). 
148 See Section 3002(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, amending Sections 3090)(1) and 3090)(2) of 
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 3090)(1), 3090)(2). 
149 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle 
Monitoring Systems, PR Docket No. 93-61, Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, FCC 99-
3 (paras. 8-10), released Jan. 21, 1999 (LMS Reconsideration Order), 1999 WL 22950. 
11045 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
auction authority where, as here, that authority has been directly conferred by statute. We are 
considering in a separate proceeding the broader issue of exemption from our general auction 
authority of some public safety services. iso In light of the importance attached by the Congress 
to ensuring the availability of reallocated spectrum to public safety uses, however, we believe 
these commercial bands should be open to application by any public safety entities that are 
qualified and prepared to bid under the same rules applied to commercial applicai;its. We believe . 
this interpretation permits license applicants who intend to use commercial spectrum for public 
safety services to participate in auctions, at least for spectrum in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz bands, and that such participation would not be inconsistent with the Congressional 
mandate for the Commission's exercise of auction authority in this context. We therefore request 
comment on what effect the changes in Commission auction authority, made by the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, have on the possible participation of public safety entities in an auction of 
commercial spectrum, and on their eligibility to obtain a license through the subsequent 
acquisition of spectrum that was initially assigned by auction. 
82. Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act151 also directs the Commission to provide 
for the '1design and conduct (for purposes of testing) of competitive bidding using a contingent 
combinatorial bidding system that permits prospective bidders to bid on combinations or groups 
of licenses in a single bid and to enter multiple alternative bids within a single bidding round." 
The Commission has contracted for the development of such procedures.152 We seek comment 
on whether the auction of these spectrum bands, especially if our service rules provide for 
broadcast services, may present a suitable context for combinatorial procedures. We ask that 
commenters consider: (a) whether, absent the application of combinatorial rules, the existing 
standardized auction rules in Part 1 are adequate for the juxtaposition of broadcast and wireless 
bidding entities; or (b) whether modifications of standardized Part 1 auction rules, to facilitate 
participation by entities interested in providing broadcast service, are desirable. We especially 
seek comment on how, absent combinatorial rules, our auction methodology should recognize the 
divergence between geographic licensing applied to wireless spectrum bands, and the focus on 
individual communities of license in the assignment of broadcast spectrum. 
150 Balanced Budget Notice, supra n. 25. 
151 Codified as 47 U.S.C. § 3090)(3). 
152 Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 453 (para. 137); see also Wireless Bureau Begins Process 
of Designing a Combinatorial Bidding System for Future Commission Auctions, News Report No. WT 98-35 
(rel. Sept. 28, 1998). 
11046 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
2. Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules 
83. In the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission streamlined its auction 
procedures by adopting general competitive bidding rules applicable to all auctionable services153 
and, in the same proceeding, issued a Part 1 Second Further Notice concerning designated 
entities and attribution rules, among other issues.154 We propose to conduct the auction for initial 
licenses in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in conformity with the general competitive 
bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission's Rules, and substan~ially 
consistent with the bidding procedures that have been employed in previous Commission 
auctions. Specifically, we propose to employ. the Part 1 rules governing designated entities, 
application issues, payment issues, competitive bidding design, procedure and timing issues, and 
anti-collusion. These rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission adopts in 
relation to the Second Further Notice, or in response to pending petitions for reconsideration of 
the Part 1 Third Report and Order. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether any of 
our Part 1 Rules would be inappropriate in an auction for these spectrum blocks, especially with 
respect to possible inclusion of broadcast services in our auction methodology. 
3. Provisions for Designated Entities 
a. Background 
84. The Communications Act provides that, in developing competitive bidding 
procedures, the Commission shall consider various statutory objectives and consider several 
alternative methods for achieving them.155 Specifically, the statute provides that, in establishing 
eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall: 156 
promot[ e] economic opportunity and competition and ensur[ e] that new and 
innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people by avoiding 
excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide 
variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and 
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women. 
153 Part I Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 374-470 (paras. 4-169). 
154 Id. at 471-82 (paras. 170-195). 
155 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 3090)(3), 3090)(4). 
156 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B). 
11047 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 . 
b. Small Business Definitions 
85. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 
Commission stated that it would define eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service­
specific basis, taking into account the capital requirements and other characteristic.s of each 
particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. 157 The Part 1 Third Report and 
Order, while it standardizes many auction rules, provides that the Commission will continue a 
service-by-service approach to defining small businesses. For the 36 megahertz of commercial 
spectrum, we propose to adopt the definitions the Commission adopted for broadband PCS for 
small and very small businesses,158 which the Commission also adopted for 2.3 GHz and 39 GHz 
applicants. 159 We tentatively conclude that the capital requirements are likely to be similar to the 
capital requirements in those services. Specifically, we propose to define a small business as any 
firm with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $40 
million. 
86. We observe that the capital costs of operational facilities in the 746-764 MHz and 
776-794 MHz bands are likely to vary widely based on the services provided. Accordingly, we 
seek to adopt small business size standards that afford licensees the greatest flexibility. Thus, in 
addition to our proposal to adopt the general small business standard the Commission used in the 
case of broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, and 39 GHz licenses, we propose to adopt the definition for 
very small businesses used for 39 GHz licenses and for the PCS F Block licenses, namely, 
businesses with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $1 S 
million. 
87. We seek comment on the use of these standards for services licensed in the 36 
megahertz of commercial spectrum, with particular focus on the appropriate definitions of small 
and very small businesses as they relate to the size of the geographic area to be covered and the 
spectrum allocated to each license. For the proposed definitions of small business and very small 
business, we propose to include the entity's affiliates and controlling interests when determining 
157 Implementation of Section 3090) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Red 7245, 7269 (para. 145) (1994) (Competitive Bidding 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order). 
158 Implementation of Section 3090) of the Communications Act - Competitive·Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Red 403 (1994). 
159 Sections 27.210(b){l), 27.210(b)(2), and 101.1209(b){l)(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 
27.2 IO(b )( 1 ), 27 .21 O(b )(2), 10 l.1209(b )(1 )(i). 
11048 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
eligibility by gross revenue criteria.160 In discussing these issues, commenters are requested to 
address the expected capital requirements for services in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz 
bands. Commenters also are invited to use comparisons with other services for which the 
Commission has already established auction procedures as a basis for their comments regarding 
the appropriate definitions for small and very small businesses. We also seek comment on 
whether the proposed designated entity provisions, if adopted and applied to the s~rvices in these 
bands, would be sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities and by 
women, and participation by rural telephone companies. To the extent that commenters propose 
additional provisions to ensure participation by minority-owned and women-owned businesses, 
we also invite them to address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant 
standards of judicial review.161 In all other respects, we propose to apply the competitive bidding 
procedures that the Commission adopted in the Part I Third Report and Order, subject to any 
modifications the Commission adopts in response to the Second Further Notice and pending 
petitions for reconsideration of the Part I Third Report and Order. 162 
III. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES 
A. Background 
88. We discuss in this section technical requirements for protecting incumbent broadcast 
licensees and planned DTV allotments against interference. In the DTV Sixth Report and 
Order, 163 we stated that all analog TV and DTV operations in the 746-806 MHz band would be 
fully protected during the DTV transition period. In the Reallocation Notice164 we noted that 
new licensees in the band will have to protect both analog TV and DTV operations from 
interference. The Commission subsequently addressed the protection of TV and DTV operations 
in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz Public Safety bands (the 700 MHz band) in the Public 
160 See, e.g., Section 80.1252 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 80.1252 (designated entities in the 
coast station service). Section 1.21 lO(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.21 IO(b), describes affiliate 
and controlling interest relationships in the designated entity context generally. 
161 See Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). 
162 See Part I Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 386-409 (paras. 13-57). 
163 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM 
Docket No. 87-268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 14588, 14626-27 (para. 80)(1997)(DTV Sixth Report 
and Order). 
164 Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Red 14141, 14148 (para. 17)(1997)(Rea/location Notice). 
11049 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
Safety Spectrum Report and Order, which adopted service rules for public safety uses of this 
spectrum.16s · 
89. In reaching its decisions in that proceeding, the Commission noted that land mobile 
and TV stations have successfully shared the 470-512 MHz band (TV channels 14-20) in 11 
major metropolitan areas of the United States.166 In the 470-512 MHz band, the Commission 
relied on minimum separation distances based on the various heights and powers of the land 
mobile stations to prevent harmful interference.167 Since this method has been successful, the 
Commission decided to continue to administer protection criteria for these services in the 700 
MHz band in this same manner. In making that determination, the Commission examined the 
previous methodology with consideration of the more recent technological changes, the physical 
characteristics of the 700 MHz band, and the goals Congress established in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997. 168 
90. We tentatively conclude that the factors and considerations examined in the Public 
Safety Spectrum Report and Order are equally relevant here, at least with respect to the use of 
the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands for commercial mobile services. 169 We therefore 
propose to adopt the same criteria to protect TV and DTV operations from commercial mobile 
operations that were adopted in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order. 170 We recognize 
that there is a greater flexibility of use being proposed for the commercial spectrum at issue here 
that would allow both fixed and broadcasting services, in addition to mobile services. We 
tentatively conclude that the sharing criteria applicable to mobile service base stations would be 
sufficient to protect TV and DTV operations from fixed service operations also, but seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion. With respect to protection of TV and DTV operations 
165 See Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at paras. 146-164. 
166 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, at para. 148. 
167 See Further Sharing of the UHF Television Band by Private Land Mobile Radio Services, General Docket 
No. 85- I 72, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IO 1 FCC 2d 852, 865 (1985), proceeding suspended, 2 FCC Red 
6441 ( 1987). 
168 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at paras. 150-164. 
169 This would include consideration of TV stations outside of this spectrum, i.e., on Channel 59. The 
adjacent channel protection criteria established herein would apply equally to Channel 59 stations, and new 
licensees in the Channel 60 spectrum block will need to recognize the existence of such adjacent channel use in 
designing their systems and services. Moreover, use of Channel 59 ·may change as DTV service is relocated to 
the core channels. Any interference or protection criteria involvng different uses of Channel 59 would 
necessarily be established in a later proceeding. 
170 To the extent that our pending reconsideration of that Order results in subsequent changes to the rules 
adopted in that proceeding, those changes may need to be reflected as they apply· or are relevant here. 
11050 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
from new broadcast operations on these frequencies, however, the Public Safety Spectrum Report 
and Order provides no guidance, since new broadcasting stations and services are not permitted 
on the public safety frequencies. A different approach or criteria may therefore be appropriate 
depending on the types of broadcasting services permitted or provided. 
B. Protection of TV Stations 
91. The Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice proposed a 40 dB desired to undesired 
(D/U) signal ratio for co-channel operations and a 0 dB D/U signal ratio for adjacent channel 
operations to determine the geographic separation needed between public safety base stations and 
the Grade B service contours of co-channel and adjacent channel TV stations. 171 Based on its 
review of the record, the Commission concluded in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order 
that the use of a 40 dB signal ratio for co-channel operations and a 0 dB signal ratio for adjacent 
channel operations was supported by our experience with using this standard to protect TV 
service from interference from land mobile operations in the New York metropolitan area without 
serious adverse consequences, and that we would, therefore, adopt such. standards for calculating 
geographic separation requirements. 172 
92. The Commission concluded that the 40 dB D/U signal ratio is a reasonable value that 
will provide sufficient TV protection, as prescribed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 173 Co­
channel land mobile base station transmitters would be limited to producing a maximum signal 
strength at the hypothetical TV Grade B contour 40 dB below 64 dBu, or 24 dBu. 174 The 
Commission also adopted a 0 dB D/U signal ratio for adjacent channel operations. 175 Adjacent 
channel land mobile transmitters would be limited to a maximum signal that can equal the TV 
Grade B signal of 64 dBu at the TV station Grade B contour, defined here as 87. 7 km 
(55 miles). 176 A typical TV receiver's adjacent channel rejection is at least 10-20 dB, which 
would further safeguard TV from land mobile interference. We tentatively conclude that the 
171 See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and 
Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Establishment of Rules and 
Requirements for Priority Access Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
12 FCC Red 17706, 17803 (1997) (Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice). 
172 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at paras. 161-62. 
173 See 47 U.S.C. § 337(d). 
174 If other factors are held constant, a 40 dB D/U ratio rather than a 50 dB D/U ratio allows base stations to 
be located approximately 48.3 km (30 mi) closer to a co-channel TV station. See Section 90.309, Tables A & B, 
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.309, Tables A & B. 
175 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at para. 152. 
176 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.610. 
11051 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
same criteria should be applied to commercial mobile and fixed operations in the 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz .bands. We thus propose to adopt rules similar to those reflected in Section 
90.545 of the Commission's Rules, 177 as adopted in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, 
with the following proposed modification. Because we are not proposing any specific antenna 
height or transmitter power limitations for Part 27 licensees, Part 27 licensees who propose to 
operate stations with antenna heights or transmitter powers that exceed those specified in Section 
90.545(b) must provide to the Commission for approval a detailed technical analysis 
demonstrating that the required interference protection criteria are met prior to placing such 
stations into operation. We recognize that fixed operations can often be engineered to avoid 
causing interference even at relatively close distances. Accordingly, we invite comment as to the 
appropriate criteria that should be used to protect TV broadcasting against interference from fixed 
operations. 
C. Protection of DTV Stations 
93. In the Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, the Commission noted that its 
proposals were based on protecting analog TV, and asked for comments on the appropriate D/U 
signal ratios that should be applied to prot~ct DTV. 178 In doing so, the Commission stated that 
DTV transmissions could exhibit a greater resistance to interference than analog transmissions 
and therefore DTV stations may be able to accept a lesser standard of protection. 179 After 
examining the record, the Commission decided to apply similar criteria adopted in the Public 
Safety Spectrum Report and Order for protecting reception of analog TV stations to protecting 
DTV reception. 180 Since the Commission allocated DTV channels to replicate existing TV 
station service areas, 181 it allowed public safety stations to provide the same field strength at the 
equivalent Grade B contour of the DTV station as they do for an analog TV station, and adjust 
the D/U ratio accordingly. The Commission therefore provided for a TV station to have 
protection ratios of 40 dB for co-channel and 0 dB for adjacent channel at its 64 dBµ field 
strength contour. The equivalent ratios for a DTV station that has a Grade B signal strength 
contour of 41 dBµ are 17 dB and -23 dB, respectively. 
177
.47 C.F.R. § 90.545. 
178 Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17803-04 (paras. 232-239). 
179 Id at 17803-04 (para. 235). 
180 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at para. 155. A TV station's hypothetical Grade B contour is 
plotted based on a 64 dBµ signal strength using the F(50,50) curve. See Section 73.699 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.699. A DTV station's equivalent contour is based on a 41 dBµ signal strength using the 
F(50,90) curve. See Section 73.625 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.625. 
181 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 14681-82 (para. 206). 
11052 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
94. In making this determination, the Commission noted that in the DTV Sixth Report 
and Order the Commission specified a minimum geographic separation of 250 kilometers 
(155 miles) for co-channel operations between DTV stations and the city-center in the areas 
where there are existing land mobile operations.112 Section 90.305(a) -of the Commission's Rules 
provides that maximum facility land mobile base stations can be located up to 80.5 km (50 mi) 
from the city-center of one of the specified cities.183 Consequently, under the ge<;>graphic 
separation adopted in the DTV Sixth Report and Order, a maximum facility land mobile base 
station could choose to locate its station as close as 169.5 km (250 km - 80.5 km), or 105 mi. 
At this distance, the land mobile base station would provide a co-channel signal at the DTV 
station's 88.5 km (55 mi) equivalent Grade B contour that would provide less than a 40 dB D/U 
protection ratio to a DTV receiver. Thus, our decision to require 700 MHz land mobile systems 
to provide signal ratios for DTV stations that will allow approximately the same separation 
distance as we did for analog TV stations represented a reasonable balance between the needs of 
both DTV stations and public safety entities. 
95. We tentatively conclude that the same criteria should be applied to commercial 
mobile and fixed operations in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We thus propose to 
adopt rules similar to those reflected in Se.ction 90.545 of the Commission's Rules, 184 as adopted 
in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, with the following proposed modification. As 
we have proposed for the protection of analog TV stations above, 185 Part 27 licensees who 
propose to operate stations with antenna heights or transmitter powers that exceed those specified 
in Section 90.545(b) must provide to the Commission for approval a detailed technical analysis 
demonstrating that the required interference protecti<m criteria are met prior to placing such 
stations into operation. 
D. TV Protected Service Contour Alternatives 
96. In the Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, the Comni.ission raised the issue of 
whether to protect TV reception based on a geographic separation table or to use a case-by-case 
approach and protect TV stations based on their actual Grade B contour. The Commission listed 
two possible approaches for specifying the TV protected Grade B service contour: (I) use a 
standard 88.5 km (55 mi) Grade B service contour, as we did previously; or (2) use the 
112 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 14663-64 (paras. 163-164). See also Section 90.303(a) 
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.303(a), for the areas where TV/land mobile sharing is currently 
permitted. 
183 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.305(a). 
184 47 C.F.R. § 90.545. 
185 See para. 92, supra. 
11053 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
individual Grade B service contour based on the actual parameters of the TV license.116 Under 
the first approach, the minimum separation distances could be displayed in a table, thus 
simplifying communicatiOn system planning. This approach would also give broadcasters who 
are operating at less than the "standard" parameters some flexibility to modify their facilities 
during the transition period without raising interference concerns. The Commission noted, 
however, that in the event of a less than maximum antenna height and full power _station, the use 
of a standard Grade B service contour and geographic separation tables could unnecessarily 
inhibit public safety use of the spectrum by prohibiting stations that meet the D/U signal ratio 
requirement at the predicted Grade B field strength contour.187 To address this concern, the 
Commission discussed an alternative that bases protection on the actual operating parameters of a 
TV station (e.g., it provides more of a case-by-case approach to examining interference). 188 
Finally, the Commission discussed an additional option of permitting new licensees in this 
spectrum to reach agreements with licensees of protected TV stations that would be located 
closer than that permitted under the geographic separation requirements.189 
97. · In the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order the Commission concurred with the 
comments that a geographic separation distance table based on a standard 88.5 km Grade B 
service contour (equivalent Grade B for D'f.V) would be the most convenient form. 190 The 
Commission remained concerned, however, that limiting TV /land mobile separation to distances 
specified in a table may prevent public safety entities from fully utilizing the spectrum in a 
number of major metropolitan areas until after the transition period ends. The Commission 
believed that it was necessary to provide alternative methods that will give flexibility. to public 
safety entities to locate base stations closer than the distance specified in the separation table 
without causing excessive interference to TV /DTV stations. 191 Therefore, the Commission 
concluded that public safety applicants should be allowed to submit engineering studies showing 
how they propose to meet the appropriate D/U signal ratio at the existing TV station's authorized -
or applied for Grade B service contour or equivalent contour for DTV stations instead of the 
186 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17802-04 (paras. 232-239). The TV Grade B 
service contour is where the D/U signal ratio is applied. Thus, to detennine the minimum geographic separation 
needed between public safety base stations and TV stations you add the two distances together (the distance of 
the public safety base station to the contour that meets the appropriate D/U signal ratio and the distance of the 
Grade B service contour from the TV station). 
187 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17802-04 (paras. 233-237). 
188 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17804-05 (paras. 238-239). 
189 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17805 (para. 240). 
190 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at para. 158. 
191 Id. 
11054 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
hypothetical contour at 88.S km.192 This would pennit public safety applicants to take into 
account intervening terrain and engineering techniques such as directional and down-tilt antennas 
in determining the necessary separation to provide the required protection. Public safety 
applicants who used the engineering techniques must, however, consider the actual TV /DTV 
parameters and not base their study on the 88.S km hypothetical or equivalent Grade B 
contour.193 Finally, public safety applicants would also be allowed to "short spac;e" (i.e., locate 
closer than the Table permits) if they obtain the approval of the TV stations they are required to 
protect. 194 Thus, under the rules adopted by the Commission, public safety applicants could 
select one of three ways to meet the TV/DTV protection requirements: (1) utilize the geographic 
separation specified in the Table; (2) submit an engineering study to justify other separations, 
which is subject to Commission approval; or (3) obtain concurrence from any applicable 
TV/DTV station. We propose that these same alternatives be available to Part 27 licensees and 
we seek comment on this approach. 
98. Also, in the Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice the Commission requested 
comment on whether the size of the reference TV contour should be increased because some TV 
stations have facilities exceeding those upon which the 88.S km (SS mi) contour was based. 195 
The Commission stated that a TV station with parameters of S megawatts with an antenna height 
above average terrain (HAA n of 610 meters could have a Grade B contour distance of 107 km 
(66.5 mi). 196 In order to protect certain TV/DTV stations, which have extremely large contours 
due to unusual height situations, the Commission incorporated an additional factor that must be 
used by all public safety base, control, and mobile stations to protect these few TV /DTV stations 
and afford the land mobile stations the necessary protection from the TV /DTV stations. 197 We 
propose that this additional factor also be applicable to all Part 27 licensees operating in these 
bands. We thus propose to adopt a rule similar to that reflected in Section 90.545(c)(2)(iii) of 
the Commission's Rules,198 as adopted in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, to 
address this situation. 
mid. 
193 Id. 
194 Id. 
195 See Public Safety Spectrum Second Notice, 12 FCC Red at 17804 (para. 238). 
196 Id (para. 236 n405). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.683-73.684. 
197 Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at para. 159. 
191 47 C.F.R. § 90.545. 
11055 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
E. Other Issues 
99. In the DTV Sixth Report and Order, the Commission raised the possibility that, in 
negotiating among themselves for changes in allotments and assignments, TV licensees could 
include agreements for compensation.199 We propose to pennit new licensees in .this spectrum 
similarly to reach agreements with licensees of protected TV stations, including holders of 
construction permits, compensating them for converting to DTV transmission only before the end 
of the DTV transition period, accepting higher levels of interference than those allowed by the 
protection standards, or otherwise accommodating new licensees in these bands. We believe that 
these measures would benefit the public by accelerating the transition to DTV and clearing the 
746-806 MHz band for other new services. 
100. Finally, because we have proposed to license this spectrum for broadcasting, as well 
as for the fixed and mobile uses, we also request comment on interference protection standards 
for any new broadcast operations that may be licensed in this spectrum. 200 We further request 
comment on whether we should establish geographic separations standards for any TV 
broadcasting in this spectrum, authorized pursuant to this or a successor rulemaking proceeding, 
from current analog TV or new DTV stations authorized before this proceeding, whether we 
should treat any broadcast licenses on a case-by-case basis; or whether there are other approaches 
we should use to consider interference to and .from broadcast operations. 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
101. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),201 the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRF A) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities "of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. 
We request written public comment on the analysis. In order to fulfill the mandate of the 
Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRF A regarding the prevalence of small 
businesses in the affected industries. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing 
199 DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 14667 (para. 172). 
200 Stations transmitting broadcast signals are likely to produce interference effects to analog TV and DTV 
stations that differ from those of land mobile or fQCed stations. 
201 s u.s.c. § 603. 
11056 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
deadlines as comments filed in this proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRF A.· 
B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 
I 02. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains either a proposed or modified 
information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the 
Commission invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and Agency comments on the information 
collections contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due 60 days after publication of 
the summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. These comments 
should be submitted to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room l-A804, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet tolesmith@fee.gov. Comments 
on the information collections contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should address: 
(a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the 
functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 
the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology. 
C. Ex Parte Presentations 
103. For purposes of this permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding, 
members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
"Sunshine Agenda" period, provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules.202 
D. Pleading Dates 
104. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 203 interested 
parties may file comments on or before July 19, 1999, and reply comments on or before August 
13, 1999. Comments and reply comments should be filed in WT Docket No. 99-168. All 
relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken 
in this proceeding. To file formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies of all 
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested parties want each 
Commissioner to receive a personal cppy of their comments, they must file an original plus nine 
copies. Interested parties should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the 
202 See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, U206(a). 
203 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 
11057 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554, with a copy to Stan Wiggins, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are also encouraged to file a copy of all 
pleadings on a 3:5-inch diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format. 
105. Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Co~ent Filing 
System (ECFS).204 Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic 
submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their 
full name, Postal Service mailing address, and a reference to WT Docket No. 99-168. Parties 
may also submit an electronic comment by Internet E-Mail. To obtain filing instructions for E­
Mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the 
following words in the body of the message, "get form <your E-Mail address>." 
106. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regu­
lar business hours at the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 
Copies of comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's duplicating 
contractor: International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, 
Washington, D.C. 20037. 
E. Further Information 
107. For further information concerning this·rulemaking proceeding, contact Stan 
Wiggins or Ed Jacobs at (202) 418-1310, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
204 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). 
11058 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES 
108. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that these actions ARE TAKEN pursuant to Sections 
1, 4(i), 7, IO, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 309(k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 
331, 332 and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), .157. 160, 201, 
202. 208, 214, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 309(k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332, 336. 
109. IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed 
regulatory changes described in this Notice, and that comment is sought on these proposals. 
110. IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, 
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Pub. 
L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612 (1980). 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Magalie Roman Salas 
Secretary 
11059 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-97 
APPENDIX 
INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 
This rulemaking is being initiated to adopt certain service, licensing, and competitive bidding 
rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz segments of the 746-806 MHz band. The Congress 
directed the Commission, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to allocate 36 megahertz of this 
band for commercial use, and to license that spectrum by competitive bidding. In the 
Reallocation Report and Order, the Commission reallocated 36 megahertz of this band to 
commercial use and determined that the potential range of comercial services would include all 
services permitted under the U.S. Table of Allocations - Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcasting 
services. In this Notice, we propose to license the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz commercial 
bands under a flexible framework established in Part 27 of the Commission's Rules. We expect 
that provisions of Part 27 will be modified to reflect the particular characteristics and 
circumstances of services offered through the use of spectrum on these bands. Depending on the 
extent and nature of provisions in the serv-ice rules that enable broadcast services, these 
modifications may also reference or incorporate rules in other Parts of the Commission's Rules, 
such as Part 73 governing broadcast services. We believe that this flexible approach will 
encourage new and innovative services and technologies in this band without significantly 
limiting the range of potential uses for this spectrum. 
Our objectives for the Notice are: (1) to auction licenses for these commercial spectrum blocks as 
directed by the Balanced Budget Act; (2) to accommodate the introduction of new uses of 
spectrum and the enhancement of existing uses; (3) to implement the Section 303(y) requirement 
that flexible use allocations not create harmful interference or discourage investment; ( 4) to 
facilitate the awarding of licenses to entities that value them the most. The Commission seeks to 
develop a regulatory plan for these commercial spectrum blocsk that will allow for efficient 
licensing and intensive use of the band, eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens, enhance the 
competitive potential of the band, and provide a wide variety of radio services to the public. 
B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 
The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 
307, 308, 309(j), 309{k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332 and 336 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 
309(k), 311, 310, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332, 336. 
11060 
Federal Communications Commission 
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply 
FCC 99-97 
For the purposes of this Notice, the RF A defines a "small business" to be the same as a "small 
business concern" under the Small Business Act, 205 unless the Commission has developed one or 
more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.206 Under the Small Business Act~ a "small 
business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).207 
The proposals in this Notice affect applicants who wish to provide services in the 746-764 and 
776-794 MHz bands. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b), the Commission has defined "small 
entity" for Blocks C and F broadband PCS licensees as firms that had average gross revenues of 
less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This regulation defining "small entity" 
in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by the SBA. 208 With respect to 
applicants for licenses in the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands, we propose to use the small 
entity definition adopted in the Broadband ,PCS proceeding. 
The Commission, however, has not yet determined or proposed how many licenses will be 
awarded, nor will it know how many licensees will be small businesses until the auction is held. 
Even after that, the Commission will not know how many licensees will partition their license 
areas or disaggregate their spectrum blocks, if partitioning and disaggregation are allowed. In 
view of our lack of knowledge of the entities which will seek licenses in the 746-764 and 776-
794 MHz bands, we therefore assume that, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in the 
IRF A, all of the prospective licenses are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA or our • 
proposed definitions for these bands. 
We invite comment on .this analysis. 
205 15 u.s.c. § 632. 
206 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. § 
632). 
201 15 u.s.c. § 632. 
201 See Implementation of Section 3090) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 
93-253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 5532, 5581-82 (para. I 15)(1994). 
11061