Microsoft Word

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95,

and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal,

Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic

Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and

Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services

)

WT Docket No. 10-112

SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted: August 3, 2017 Released: August 3, 2017

Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)

Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)

By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners Clyburn and O’Rielly issuing separate statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

II. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER........................................................................................................ 5

A. Renewal Requirements for Wireless Radio Services....................................................................... 5

1. Renewal Standard...................................................................................................................... 8

2. Implementation of Renewal Standard ..................................................................................... 15

a. Site-based Licenses........................................................................................................... 18

b. Wireless Providers Using Geographic Licenses ............................................................... 20

c. Private Systems Using Geographic Licenses.................................................................... 22

d. Partitioned or Disaggregated Licenses.............................................................................. 24

3. Renewal Showing.................................................................................................................... 27

a. Implementation Timeline.................................................................................................. 35

b. Geographic and Site-based Licensed Services—Other Requirements ............................. 38

(i) Regulatory Compliance Demonstration ..................................................................... 39

(ii) Elimination of Comparative Renewal Rules for WRS............................................... 42

(iii) Return of Spectrum to Commission if Renewal Application Is Denied..................... 47

4. Wireless Radio Services Excluded From Rulemaking............................................................ 49

B. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations for Wireless Radio Services ........................................ 50

C. Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies .................................. 74

D. Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications and Resolution of Previously

Pending Competing Renewal Applications ................................................................................... 90

E. Transition From Interim Renewal Application Procedures ........................................................... 93

III. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING..................................................................... 98

A. Facilitating Additional Construction............................................................................................ 100

B. Renewal Term Construction Obligations..................................................................................... 105

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

C. Penalties and Relicensing ............................................................................................................ 113

D. Providing Incentives for Additional Buildout.............................................................................. 121

IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 124

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 124

B. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 126

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.......................................................................................... 127

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis......................................................................................... 128

E. Ex Parte Presentations ................................................................................................................. 129

F. Filing Requirements..................................................................................................................... 130

G. Contact Information..................................................................................................................... 132

V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 133

APPENDIX A—Final Rules

APPENDIX B—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX C—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX D—List of Commenters

APPENDIX E—Discussion of Selected Prior and Current WRS Renewal Rules

APPENDIX F—Discussion of Current Permanent Discontinuance Requirements

APPENDIX G—Site-based Services

APPENDIX H—Geographic Area Services

APPENDIX I—Wireless Radio Services Excluded From Rulemaking

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Today we implement a unified regulatory framework for the Wireless Radio Services

(WRS) that enhances competition and facilitates robust use of the nation’s scarce spectrum resources.

The harmonized regulatory approach we adopt today replaces the existing patchwork of service-specific

rules regarding renewal, comparative renewal, continuity of service, and partitioning and disaggregation

performance, with clear, consistent rules of the road for WRS licensees. By ensuring that licensees in

WRS bands operate under the same basic set of rules, we will promote investment in wireless networks

and further our mandate to make spectrum “available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United

States” regardless of where they live.

2. Our construction, renewal, and service continuity rules work in concert to ensure timely

construction of networks and intensive, continuous use of the spectrum. Under our new framework,

licensees must timely construct their networks consistent with the rules governing their service, and

thereafter must meet our renewal standard by continuing to use the spectrum over the entire license term.

Further, under our new rules, WRS licensees may temporarily discontinue use of the spectrum during the

license term, but face termination of the license if they permanently discontinue such use after meeting

the applicable construction requirements.

3. With these reforms, we achieve the major objectives identified by the Commission when

it began examining these issues seven years ago—apply rules consistently across services (to the extent

appropriate to do so) and to simplify the regulatory process for licensees.

The rules define WRS as “[a]ll radio services authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96,

97 and 101” of chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 47 CFR § 1.907 (defining “Wireless Radio

Services”). Thus, WRS is an umbrella designation covering a wide range of terrestrially-based wireless services.

47 U.S.C. § 151.

The action we take today does not apply to services that have no construction/performance obligation. See

Appendix I. Similarly, these policies do not extend to public safety licenses issued based on the applicant

demonstrating eligibility under sections 90.20 or 90.529, or public safety licenses issued in conjunction with a

waiver pursuant to section 337 of the Communications Act.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

4. Finally, while the Commission’s tailored, service-specific initial term construction

obligations for flexible-use geographic licenses have facilitated the rapid deployment of a wide variety of

wireless services over the past decade, there remains a real and growing digital divide between rural and

urban areas in the United States. In light of the Commission’s duty to facilitate access to scarce spectrum

resources and ensure that wireless communication networks are widely deployed,

today’s Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) takes a fresh look at potential construction obligations beyond

the initial license term. We seek comment on a range of possible actions that may advance our goal of

substantially increasing the number of Americans, especially those living in rural areas, with access to

wireless communications services.

II. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER

A. Renewal Requirements for Wireless Radio Services

5. Commission licensing records reflect that, over the next 10 years, we can expect more

than 50,000 renewal applications to be filed by geographic-area licensees and more than 625,000 by site-

based licensees. By this order, we implement standardized renewal requirements and expeditious renewal

procedures, while continuing to ensure that licenses are renewed in the public interest as required by the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).

We find that adoption of uniform renewal rules will

promote the efficient use of spectrum resources, serve the public interest by providing licensees certainty

regarding their license renewal requirements, encourage licensees to invest in new facilities and services,

and facilitate their business and network planning.

6. The Commission’s current renewal requirements vary widely, as discussed in Appendix

E. Some service rules include comprehensive filing and processing procedures, while others contain only

minimal guidance. For example, some radio services have evaluation criteria for a renewal applicant

involved in a comparative renewal proceeding but no procedures for filing competing applications. Some

services require a detailed showing that the licensee has provided substantial service during the license

term. The renewal rules for some of our newer services generally require the licensee to be providing

service or operating on an ongoing basis, after construction, during the license term.

7. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt renewal requirements for

numerous Wireless Radio Services based on the Commission’s model for the 700 MHz Commercial

Services Band licensees.

Under this three-part approach:

(1) renewal applicants would file a detailed renewal showing, demonstrating that they are

providing service to the public (or, when allowed under the relevant service rules or pursuant

to waiver, using the spectrum for private, internal communications) and substantially

complying with the Commission’s rules (including any applicable performance requirements)

and policies and the Act;

47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

Id. § 151 et seq.

We note that section 1.949(a) of the rules specifies two universal procedural requirements for license renewal

applications in the Wireless Radio Services. 47 CFR § 1.949(a). First, the rule establishes a 90-day filing period for

renewal applications, beginning 90 days prior to expiration of an authorization and ending on its expiration date.

Second, the rule requires applicants to use the “same form as applications for initial authorization in the same

service, i.e., FCC Form 601 or 605.” Section 1.949(a) further provides that “[a]dditional renewal requirements

applicable to specific services are set forth in the subparts governing those services.”

Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance

of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless

Radio Services; Imposition of a Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications for Certain Wireless Radio

Services and the Processing of Already-Filed Competing Renewal Applications, WT Docket No. 10-112, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 6996, 7002, para. 17 (2010) (WRS Reform NPRM and Order).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(2) competing renewal applications would be prohibited; and

(3) if a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum would be returned to the Commission for

reassignment.

For services licensed by site, the Commission proposed to modify the first part of this approach by

requiring affected licensees to certify that they are continuing to operate consistent with their applicable

construction notification(s) or authorization(s) (where the filing of construction notifications is not

required), rather than making a renewal showing.

1. Renewal Standard

8. As proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM,

the Commission today adopts uniform

requirements for the renewal of WRS licenses.

In particular, the Commission proposed that geographic

licensees “demonstrate that they have and are continuing to provide service to the public”

and that site-

based licensees “certify that they are continuing to operate consistent with the applicable filed

construction notification(s) (NT) or most recent authorization(s) (when no NT is required under the

Commission’s rules).”

9. We adopt a unified renewal standard for most Wireless Radio Services licensees, both

geographic and site-based. A clear, consistent standard will promote the efficient use of spectrum

resources and will serve the public interest by providing licensees certainty regarding their renewal

requirements. To qualify for renewal, each WRS licensee must demonstrate that over the course of its

license term, the licensee either: (1) provided and continues to provide service to the public, taking into

account the periods of time the applicable service-specific rules give licensees to construct facilities and

meet performance benchmarks, or (2) operated and continues to operate over the course of the license

term to address the licensee’s private, internal communications needs, again taking into account the

periods of time the applicable service-specific rules give licensees to construct facilities and meet

performance benchmarks.

10. More specifically, for renewal at the end of an initial license term, the licensee must

demonstrate that it timely constructed to any level(s) required by the service-specific rules and, thereafter,

consistent with our permanent discontinuance rules, continuously provided service or operated at or above

the required level(s) for the remainder of the license term. For subsequent renewals, the licensee must

Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure

Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules

Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,

and 90 To Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel

Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules;

Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development

of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety

Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 06-150; CC Docket No. 94-102; WT

Docket No. 01-309; WT Docket No. 03-264; WT Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 96-

86, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8093-94, paras. 75-77 (2007)

(700 MHz First Report and Order).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7002, para. 18.

Id. at 6997, para. 1.

Commenters expressed general support for the Commission’s efforts to streamline and harmonize the license

renewal process for Wireless Radio Service licensees. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; CTIA 2017 Comments at 2;

EWA Comments at 1; LightSquared Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at ii; Verizon 2017 Comments at 1; CCA

2017 Reply Comments at 2; T-Mobile 2017 Reply Comments at 2.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6998, para. 2 (emphasis added).

Id. at 7002, 7009, paras. 18, 33 (emphasis added).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

demonstrate that, over the license term at issue, it continuously provided service to the public or operated

under the license to meet the licensee’s private, internal communications needs, at or above the level

required to meet the final construction requirement during the initial term of the license. In all events, the

licensee also must certify that its service or operations are continuing. This requirement is reflected in the

new Section 1.949 we adopt today, which replaces separate renewal rules for each service in various rule

parts, as reflected in Appendix A.

11. The renewal standard we adopt today follows the approach the Commission adopted in

many of its proceedings for new wireless services over the past decade. Beginning with the 700 MHz

First Report and Order

in 2007, and continuing to the 2016 600 MHz Report and Order,

the

Commission has established that licensees “must demonstrate that they are providing adequate levels of

service over the course of their license terms.”

Most recently, the Commission applied the same

principles in the Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, concluding that Upper Microwave Flexible Use

Service (UMFUS) licensees would meet the renewal standard in their initial license terms if they met

certain performance benchmarks and were “using [their] facilities to provide service.”

For subsequent

license terms, the Commission concluded that it would “award a renewal expectancy for subsequent

license terms if the licensee continues to provide at least the initially-required level of service through the

end of any subsequent license terms.”

Today, we apply that policy across the board to most WRS

See Appendix A, § 1.949.

See 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093-94, paras. 75-77. See also Service Rules for Advanced

Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands; Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile

Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and

2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-

2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-70, ET Docket No. 10-142, WT

Docket No. 04-356, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16202, para. 271

(2012) (AWS-4 Report and Order); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--Implementing Section

6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000

MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 9567-68, para. 223 (2013) (H Block

Report and Order); Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710

MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN Docket 13-185, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4667,

para. 158 (2014) (AWS-3 Report and Order).

Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No.

12-268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6885-87, paras. 785-89 (2014) (600 MHz Report and Order).

Id. at 6886, para. 787.

Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Establishing a More Flexible Framework To

Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed

Wireless Communications Coalition To Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band; Amendment of Parts 1, 22,

24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and

Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services;

Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-

50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum To Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5

GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and

Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0- 38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, GN Docket No. 14-

177; IB Docket No. 15-256; RM-11664; WT Docket No. 10-112; IB Docket No. 97-95, Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8088, para. 206 (Spectrum Frontiers Report and

Order). See also id. at 8088-89, paras. 203-09. The Commission left to the instant proceeding renewal processes

for subsequent license terms. Id. at 8088, para. 205.

Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8078, para. 177. The term “renewal expectancy” in the

context of Wireless Radio Services derived from our comparative renewal process, where the Commission would

award a renewal expectancy to the incumbent licensee in the context of a comparative renewal hearing if certain

conditions were present. As discussed below, we are eliminating the comparative renewal process for all WRS

licenses. To avoid the potential for confusion, we will no longer refer to a “renewal expectancy” in our WRS rules

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

licenses, finding that these renewal requirements are in the public interest and their benefits outweigh any

likely costs.

12. As we have stated in a number of decisions, a licensee’s renewal obligations are distinct

from its performance (also known as construction or buildout) requirements.

Many of the

Commission’s specific service rules require performance showings to be made at the midpoint and end of

an initial license term regarding population or area covered.

For some services, licensees must

demonstrate, or may elect to demonstrate, substantial service as their performance requirement during

their initial license term.

Under our performance requirement rules, a licensee generally provides a

snapshot in time (usually a date in close proximity to, but no later than, the construction deadline) of the

level of service that it is providing to the public or its level of operation.

By contrast, the showing for

renewal—also sometimes referred to as a substantial service showing—requires more detailed

information regarding a licensee’s services or operations and related matters for its entire license period.

Thus, under our current rules, those licensees with a substantial service performance requirement at the

(Continued from previous page)

and policies. Instead, we adopt a “renewal standard” that must be met by a license’s expiration date either via

satisfaction of a safe harbor or by making a renewal showing.

See AWS-4 Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16202-03, para. 269; H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at

9567-68, para. 223; AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4667-68, para. 159; 600 MHz Report and Order, 29

FCC Rcd at 6886, para. 787.

See WRS Reform NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6997-98, 7004-11, paras. 2, 21-35; 600 MHz Report and

Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6886-87, para. 788; AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4668-69, para. 160; AWS-4

Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16202, para. 270; 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093, para.

75.

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 22.503(k)(1)-(2) (paging MEA and EA licenses), 24.103(a)-(c) (narrowband PCS licenses),

24.203(a)-(b) (broadband PCS licenses), 27.14(g)-(h) (WCS 700 MHz licenses), 90.155(d) (multilateration LMS EA

licenses), 90.665(c) (SMR MTA licenses), 90.685(b) (SMR EA licenses), 90.767 (220-222 MHz EA and Regional

licenses), 90.769 (220-222 MHz Phase II nationwide licenses), 101.1325 (MAS EA licensees), 101.1413 (MVDDS

licenses).

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 22.503(k)(3) (paging MEA and EA licenses), 22.873 (commercial aviation air-ground

licenses), 24.103(a)-(d) (narrowband PCS licenses), 24.203(d) (broadband PCS licenses), 27.14(a) (AWS and WCS

licenses), 80.49(a)(1) (VHF public coast station geographic area licenses), 80.49(a)(3) (AMTS licenses), 90.155(d)

(multilateration LMS EA licenses), 90.665(c) (SMR MTA licenses), 90.685(b) (SMR EA licenses), 90.767 (220-222

MHz EA and Regional licenses), 90.769 (220-222 MHz Phase II nationwide licenses), 95.833(a) (218-219 MHz

Service licenses), 101.143 (MVDDS licenses), 101.527 (24 GHz Service licenses), 101.1011 (LMDS licenses),

101.1325 (MAS EA licenses).

Some of the Commission’s performance rules require a licensee to provide service to a minimum percentage of

the population in a licensed market area or to a minimum portion of a geographic area. Other performance rules

require a licensee to demonstrate that it is providing substantial service in the licensed area. Still other rules require

a licensee to certify that it has constructed and is operating the facilities proposed in the underlying application.

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.14(b)-(c) (substantial service demonstration required to establish a right to a renewal

expectancy must include specific information regarding the level of investment and service during a licensee’s past

license term that is not required to demonstrate substantial service to satisfy the performance requirements under

section 27.14(a)), 90.743 (to demonstrate the provision of substantial service in support of a renewal application, a

220-222 MHz licensee must include specific information that is not required for a licensee to demonstrate that it has

provided substantial service to satisfy the performance requirements under either section 90.767 or 90.769),

101.1413(c) (to claim a renewal expectancy, an MVDDS licensee’s renewal application must include specific

information at the end of the ten-year license term that is not required to be submitted to demonstrate substantial

service at “the end of five years into the license term” pursuant to section 101.1413(b)), 101.1327 (requiring an

MAS EA renewal applicant to provide specific information at the end of the 10-year license term that is not required

for licensees that opt to satisfy their mid-term performance requirement via a substantial service showing pursuant to

section 101.1325(b)).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

end of their initial license term are subject to two distinct substantial service requirements, one to support

their renewal application and one for performance purposes.

The renewal standard we adopt today and

our explanation of its nature should make it more readily apparent to licensees that the showing required

for renewal is distinct from the showing required to meet a performance requirement.

13. As the Commission stated in the WRS Reform NPRM, the Wireless Radio Services that

are licensed by rule or on a “personal” basis or that have no construction/performance obligation are

beyond the scope of this proceeding

and are not encompassed within the renewal policies we adopt

today. Similarly, these policies do not extend to public safety licenses issued based on the applicant

demonstrating eligibility under Sections 90.20 or 90.529, or public safety licenses issued in conjunction

with a waiver pursuant to Section 337 of the Act.

We also exclude the Educational Broadband Service

(EBS) from application of the renewal requirements we articulate in this Second Report and Order since

this service presents unique issues that are under consideration in a separate, comprehensive EBS

rulemaking proceeding.

14. In contrast, we find it is no longer necessary to provide any sort of modified renewal

requirements for Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees as the Commission had proposed in the WRS

Reform NPRM.

Given that the BRS transition,

which began in 2010, is now complete, we conclude

that the BRS is appropriately included within our overall renewal framework at this time. We also reject

Motorola’s request that the partitioned and/or disaggregated Part 80 VHF Public Coast (VPC) Service

spectrum it acquired for the purpose of promoting public safety and private land mobile systems be

excluded from application of our generally applicable renewal framework.

We are not persuaded that

Pursuant to section 1.946(c) of the Commission’s rules, if a licensee in the Wireless Radio Services fails to

commence service or operations by the expiration of its construction period or to meet its coverage or substantial

service obligations by the expiration of its coverage period, its authorization terminates automatically, without

specific Commission action, on the date the construction or coverage period expires. 47 CFR § 1.946(c); see also id.

§ 1.955(a)(2) (“Authorizations automatically terminate (in whole or in part as set forth in the service rules), without

specific Commission action, if the licensee fails to meet applicable construction or coverage requirements.”).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7002, para. 18. See also Appendix I for a list of Wireless Radio Services that

are excluded from this proceeding.

47 CFR §§ 90.20, 90.529; 47 U.S.C. § 337. We decline to extend our new renewal policies to public safety

licensees as requested by EWA and LMCC. See Letter from Elizabeth R. Sachs, Counsel to Enterprise Wireless

Alliance, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (filed July 24, 2017); Letter from Mark E. Crosby, Land Mobile

Communications Council, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (filed July 21, 2017) (LMCC July 21, 2017 Ex

Parte); LMCC Comments at 3. The WRS Reform NPRM specifically proposed to exclude public safety licenses

from its purview. See WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7009-10, para. 34. No public safety entity has

commented in the proceeding requesting application of the renewal framework to public safety licensees. In fact, as

LMCC acknowledges, The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) no longer supports

LMCC’s position or recommendations in its July 21, 2017 Ex Parte letter. LMCC July 21, 2017 Ex Parte at 2, n.3.

See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules To Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and

Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,

et al., WT Docket Nos. 03-66, et al., Third Order On Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order

and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory

Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 5992 (2008) (BRS/EBS Second FNPRM).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7008-09, paras. 30-32.

See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules To Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and

Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands

et al., WT Docket No. 03-66 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd

14165 (2004) (BRS/EBS Report and Order and FNPRM).

Motorola Comments at 11-12. Motorola makes the same argument regarding the proposed permanent

discontinuance and partitioning and disaggregation rules. Motorola Comments at i.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

the characteristics of the Motorola-held VPC Service spectrum and its planned usage warrant different

treatment from other WRS licenses regarding the renewal rules, and thus we do not grant the exception

from the renewal policies sought by Motorola.

2. Implementation of Renewal Standard

15. Many commenters express concern that the renewal framework proposed in the WRS

Reform NPRM would cause uncertainty in the renewal process and create undue administrative burdens

for licensees and Commission staff.

Some commenters suggest that we apply a certification process for

all renewal applications.

CTIA, for example, recommends that the Commission employ the more

streamlined certification process proposed for site-based licenses, which “would harmonize the

Commission’s renewal requirements by providing a clear, streamlined and efficient process for all

wireless licensees referenced in the WRS Reform NPRM.”

Other commenters suggest that the

Commission should adopt some form of a safe harbor.

MetroPCS, for example, argues that, if the

Commission adopts the proposed renewal showing, “it should codify a safe harbor in order to avoid

unintended consequence[s] and protect the legitimate expectations of carriers deserving a renewal.”

16. We agree that clearer and more certain renewal processes will benefit both licensees and

the Commission. We conclude that adopting a set of safe harbors—based on licensee certifications—will

serve the public interest by reducing filing burdens on licensees and concentrating scarce Commission

resources on reviewing renewal filings that warrant close scrutiny. Accordingly, we adopt four safe

harbors to accommodate four license renewal scenarios by which a renewal applicant can meet the

renewal standard adopted in this Second Report and Order. These license renewal safe harbors are for (1)

site-based licenses; (2) wireless providers using geographic licenses; (3) private systems using geographic

licenses; and (4) partitioned or disaggregated licenses without a performance requirement. In a future

proceeding, the Commission may consider additional safe harbors as necessary and warranted.

If a

licensee is unable to meet the requirements of one of the enumerated safe harbors, the licensee must make

a more detailed “renewal showing” as part of its renewal application; the requirements for a renewal

showing are described following our discussion of the renewal safe harbors.

17. Each safe harbor scenario is based on three certifications, which are subject to the Form

601 condition that “[w]illful false statements made on this form or any attachments are punishable by fine

and/or imprisonment (U.S. Code, Title 18, § 1001) and/or revocation of any station license or

construction permit (U.S. Code, Title 47, § 312(a)(1)), and/or forfeiture (U.S. Code, Title 47, § 503).” If

the renewal applicant, in good faith, can make all three certifications, its renewal application will be

subject to routine processing, and no further detailed renewal showing will be required as part of the

renewal application. The first certification in each scenario addresses the renewal applicant’s ongoing

provision of service and/or operations, and is tailored to the particular nature of licenses covered under a

given safe harbor. The second certification requires the licensee to certify that no permanent

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 1; LightSquared Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at

9; CTIA Comments at 3; Fixed Wireless Reply Comments at 3; Sensus Reply Comments at 3; LightSquared Reply

Comments at 4; CTIA Reply Comments at 4.

See, e.g., RCA Reply Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 1-2; Sprint Comments at 8; EWA Reply Comments

at 2; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 4.

CTIA Comments at 17-18.

Sprint Comments at 8 (supporting a safe harbor similar to site-based license renewal certification); WCAI

Comments at 3 (noting that Commission has used statistically based safe harbors in connection with substantial

service showings); MetroPCS Comments at 26.

MetroPCS Comments at 26.

See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 9 (proposing safe harbor for licensees that provide broadband service to rural or

tribal areas).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

discontinuance of service or operation (as defined below as an unbroken failure to provide service or

operate over a specified period of days) occurred during the license term. The third certification requires

the licensee to certify that it has substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the

Act.

a. Site-based Licenses

18. Consistent with the Commission’s certification proposal in the WRS Reform NPRM for

the renewal of site-based licensees,

we adopt a safe harbor for site-based WRS licensees. With site-

based services, a licensee’s initial application for authorization provides the exact technical parameters of

its planned operations (such as transmitter location, particular frequency, and power levels), while the

licensee’s subsequent notification, that it has completed construction, confirms that the facilities have

been constructed consistent with its authorization (or with minor modifications as may be permitted by

the applicable service rules).

A licensee also may file to modify its license, which may lead to a

modified authorization and the submission of a subsequent construction notification.

Consequently, at

the time a site-based service provider files a renewal application, it should be operating as licensed.

19. A site-based WRS licensee will meet our renewal standard if it can certify that it is

continuing to operate consistent with the licensee’s most recently filed construction notification (or most

recent authorization, when no construction notification is required), and make the certifications regarding

permanent discontinuance and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are

applicable to all renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors.

Consistent with our treatment of wireless providers using geographic licenses as discussed below,

licensees who temporarily reduce their operations for fewer than 180 days may avail themselves of the

safe harbor.

We conclude that this safe harbor for site-based WRS licensees is in the public interest and

will expedite the renewal process for licensees, ensure spectrum is being used efficiently to provide

service to the public or for private internal needs, and allow Commission staff to concentrate scarce

resources on renewal applications that warrant heightened scrutiny. Moreover, applying the safe harbor

process to site-based services will ensure that renewed licenses in these services are being operated, and if

they are not, the licensee must submit a renewal showing as discussed below. This safe harbor may be

used by any site-based WRS license in the services listed in Appendix G.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7009-11, paras. 33-35. Industry stakeholders support a streamlined

certification renewal process for site-based licensed services. See, e.g., LMCC Comments at 4-5; Blooston

Comments at 20; EWA Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at 11-12; USCC Comments at 9.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7009, para. 33.

Id. We note that it is possible that a site-based licensee will have been granted a license modification for which

the construction will not need to be completed as of the renewal application filing date. In such a case, the licensee

will be able to include the authorized but not yet constructed facilities within the scope of the renewal application.

In the event that the license is renewed with the authorized but not yet constructed parameters, and the licensee fails

to construct pursuant to the modification authorization, the renewed license will no longer encompass those revised

parameters.

Id.

See Letter from Tamara Preiss, Vice President, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H.

Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 2 (filed July 27, 2017) (Verizon July 27, 2017 Ex

Parte) (requesting clarification that a geographic or site-based licensee may certify that it has met the level of

service during the license term requirement even if it has “fallen below the benchmark at some point during the

license term” if, for example, it took sites down for routine maintenance or technology upgrades or sites were down

due to a temporary service outage).

We codify this list of site-based license services in section 1.907 of our rules. See Appendix A § 1.907 (Covered

Site-based Licenses). We also note that in the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed to include Digital

Electronic Message Service (DEMS) within the renewal rules for site-based licensees. WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

b. Wireless Providers Using Geographic Licenses

20. We also find that it would be in the public interest to adopt a safe harbor for WRS

licensees that provide service to customers using geographic licenses. Many commenters urge the

Commission to adopt a streamlined certification process for renewal of geographic licenses similar to

what the Commission proposed for site-based licenses.

Most recently, Verizon argues that a

straightforward renewal certification “will obligate the licensee to verify that it is complying with the

terms of its authorization and Commission rules, including buildout, spectrum utilization, or other

performance requirements.”

Similarly, CTIA maintains that a certification for geographic license

renewal “would require that licensees verify that they have complied with all buildout, performance, and

other rules—demonstrating that they are providing service—without imposing unjustified burdens.”

Both Verizon and CTIA argue that a certification is consistent with the renewal standard adopted in the

Spectrum Frontiers Order for the millimeter wave spectrum bands at 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz.

We agree that a certification, as part of a comprehensive safe harbor for geographic licenses, will

streamline our renewal processes, ensure compliance with our rules, and provide clarity and certainty for

WRS licensees.

21. Accordingly, we adopt a safe harbor for WRS providers using geographic licenses

consistent with the approach taken in the Spectrum Frontiers Order.

A geographically-licensed WRS

licensee providing service to customers will meet our renewal standard if it can make the following

certifications. For a licensee in its initial license term

with an interim performance requirement, the

licensee must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance requirement and that over the portion of

the license term following the interim performance requirement (up until the deadline for meeting the

(Continued from previous page)

Rcd at 7010, para. 34. DEMS licenses are no longer authorized on a site-by-site basis. See Amendments to Parts 1,

2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, Report and Order, WT Docket No.

99-327, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16946, para. 24 (2000) (24 GHz Report and Order). Accordingly, we address DEMS

in the same context as other geographic licenses.

CTIA Comments at 17-18; RCA Reply Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 1-2; Sprint Comments at 8; EWA

Reply Comments at 2; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 4.

Verizon 2017 Comments at 2.

CTIA 2017 Comments at 2-3 (emphasis added).

Verizon 2017 Comments at 3, citing Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 8014; CTIA 2017

Comments at 6.

Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8077-78, paras. 174, 176-77 (awarding a “renewal

expectancy for subsequent license terms if the licensee continues to provide at least the initially-required level of

service through the end of any subsequent license terms”), 8088-89, para. 206 (for mobile and point-to-multipoint

services in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz (geographic area licenses only), and 39 GHz bands, a licensee will meet the license

renewal standard if it is providing coverage to 40 percent of the population of the license area and is “using the

facilities to provide service”), 8089, para. 208 (for fixed services in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, a

licensee will meet the renewal standard if it constructs and operates a certain number of links per population

benchmark, “these links must be part of a network that is actually providing service, whether to unaffiliated

customers, or private, internal uses, and all links must be present and operational at the end of the license term”)

(emphasis added).

For performance showing requirements at the end of the initial license term, there are two filing processes in ULS

depending on the service of the license. For some services, licensees file a notification of construction (NT) and a

separate renewal application. For other services, licensees include their performance showing as an exhibit to the

renewal application and do not file a separate NT. Under either filing method, the licensee would certify in its

renewal application that it has submitted a final performance showing in good faith, but acceptance of its safe harbor

renewal certification is contingent on the Commission’s review and acceptance of the performance showing. This is

true as well for private systems using geographic licenses.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

final performance requirement), the licensee continues to use its facilities

to provide at least the level of

service or operation required by its interim performance requirement,

and (2) it has met its final

performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required

by its final performance requirement through the end of the license term.

For a licensee in its initial

license term with no interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that it has met its final

performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required

by its final performance requirement through the end of the license term.

For a licensee in any

subsequent license term, the licensee must certify that it continues to use its facilities to provide at least

the level of service required by its last performance requirement through the end of any subsequent

license terms. Some commenters ask us to recognize that there are circumstances (e.g., network

upgrades, natural disasters, power outages, routine maintenance, temporary service outages) during which

a licensee may need to “reduce overall coverage below the level required by buildout requirements, or

briefly turn down service…for a limited period.”

CTIA maintains that “these events should not

disqualify a licensee from using the safe harbor.”

Thus, we clarify that licensees who temporarily drop

below their construction benchmark for fewer than 180 days may avail themselves of the safe harbor. In

addition, the licensee must make the certifications regarding permanent discontinuance and substantial

compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all renewal applicants seeking to

avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor may be used by geographic

licensees in the Wireless Radio Services listed in Appendix H.

c. Private Systems Using Geographic Licenses

22. We find that the public interest will be served by adopting a separate safe harbor for

private systems using geographic licenses. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission queried what

factors should be considered during renewal of licenses used for a licensee’s private, internal

communications needs.

Commenters generally object to applying the WRS Reform NPRM’s proposed

renewal framework to geographic licensees that deploy private, internal communications systems.

We determine that use of facilities includes operations under any spectrum leasing arrangement.

We note that any licensee that fails to meet its interim performance requirement will not be able to avail itself of

this safe harbor option at the end of the initial license term because it will be unable to certify that it has met its

interim performance requirement.

The service continuity certification encompasses a licensee with a final performance requirement deadline

coincident with license expiration as it does a licensee with a final performance requirement deadline that occurs

years prior to license expiration.

We recognize that a licensee may file a renewal application as early as 90 days prior to license expiration. 47

CFR § 1.949(a). We note that a licensee with a performance requirement deadline coincident with its license

expiration date must meet any applicable performance requirement before it can certify compliance with the safe

harbor requirements and file a renewal application.

Letter from Brian M. Josef, Assistant Vice President – Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 2 (filed July 27, 2017) (CTIA July 27, 2017 Ex Parte). See also

Verizon July 27, 2017 Ex Parte, at 2.

CTIA July 27, 2017 Ex Parte at 2.

We codify this list of geographic license services in section 1.907 of our rules. See Appendix A § 1.907 (Covered

Geographic Licenses).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7008, para. 28.

See, e.g., NYSEG Comments at 5 (arguing that “utility companies are in a unique position, which makes the

proposed rules more burdensome than on commercial wireless companies with core business objectives related to

wireless communications”); Blooston Comments at 18 (contending that the Commission’s proposed requirements

are based on demonstrations of service to the public and, therefore, are inappropriate for private, internal services);

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Instead, numerous commenters urge the Commission to adopt a certification for such licensees.

agree that a certification, as part of a comprehensive safe harbor for geographic licensees using their

licenses for private, internal purposes, will streamline our renewal processes, ensure compliance with our

rules, and provide clarity and certainty for such licensees.

23. Accordingly, we adopt a safe harbor for WRS licensees using their geographic licenses

for private, internal systems. A geographically licensed WRS licensee using its license for private,

internal purposes will meet our renewal standard if it can make the following certifications. For a

licensee in its initial license term with an interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that

(1) it has met its interim performance requirement and that over the portion of the license term following

the interim performance requirement (up until the deadline for meeting the final performance

requirement), the licensee continues to use its facilities to further the licensee’s private, internal business

or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its interim performance

requirement, and (2) it has met its final performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to

further the licensee’s private business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required

by its final performance requirement through the end of the license term. For a licensee in its initial

license term with no interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that it has met its final

performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to further the licensee’s private business or

public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required by its final performance requirement

through the end of the license term. For a licensee in any subsequent license term, the licensee must

certify that it continues to use its facilities to further the licensee’s private business or public

interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its last performance requirement.

Consistent with our treatment of wireless providers using geographic licenses as discussed above,

licensees who temporarily drop below their construction benchmark for fewer than 180 days may avail

themselves of the safe harbor. In addition, the licensee must make the certifications regarding permanent

discontinuance and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all

renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor may

be used by geographic area licensees in the Wireless Radio Services listed in Appendix H.

d. Partitioned or Disaggregated Licenses

24. As discussed in more detail below, our rules permit parties to partitioning or

disaggregation agreements to choose between two options to determine how the parties will satisfy any

relevant pending performance requirement for the license after it has been divided by geographic

partitioning

or spectrum disaggregation

arrangements. In cases where the original licensee has

satisfied the applicable performance requirement prior to partitioning or disaggregating the license,

however, the recipient of the partitioned area or disaggregated spectrum has no performance requirement

associated with the partitioned or disaggregated portion. This lack of a performance requirement is

relevant in the renewal context because, while the partitioner or disaggregator may be able to meet a safe

harbor (to demonstrate that over the course of its license term, the licensee provided and continues to

provide service to the public, or operated and continues to operate the license to meet the licensee’s

private, internal communications needs), the partitionee or disaggregatee will not be able to avail itself of

the safe harbors as adopted above because it cannot certify continuing service or operation consistent with

its final performance requirement because it has none. Accordingly, the safe harbor approach must be

(Continued from previous page)

AICC Reply Comments at 1 (concurring with Blooston’s conclusion that Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio

licensees should be exempt from the proposed rule changes).

E.g., Southern Comments at 4; Blooston Comments at 19; PacifiCorp Comments at 4.

“Partitioning” is the assignment of geographic portions of a license along geopolitical or other, potentially

undefined boundaries.

“Disaggregation” is the assignment of discrete portions of “blocks” of spectrum or specific frequencies licensed to

a geographic licensee or qualifying entity.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

adjusted to provide the partitionee or disagregatee with a mechanism for demonstrating compliance with

the renewal standard.

25. To this end, we adopt an approach that applies to WRS licensees with partitioned or

disaggregated licenses when there is no performance requirement. Such a licensee will meet our renewal

standard if it can satisfy the following safe harbor. The licensee must certify that it uses and continues to

use its facilities either to provide service to the public or to further the licensee’s private, internal business

or public interest/public safety needs. Thus, although we do not impose a specific performance

requirement for such licensees at renewal of the current license term, in order to avail itself of the

streamlined safe harbor renewal process for any subsequent license term, a licensee without a

performance requirement must demonstrate some level of service or operation over the subsequent license

term.

In addition, the licensee must make the certifications regarding permanent discontinuance (as

defined below) and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all

renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor may

be used by any WRS licensee with a partitioned or disaggregated license without an associated

performance requirement. Any licensee that cannot meet the requirements of the safe harbor must submit

a renewal showing as discussed below.

26. We recognize that this safe harbor, unlike the others, does not prescribe a specific level of

service or operation required for renewal. As the Commission has explained, however, “[t]he goal of our

construction requirements in both the partitioning and disaggregation contexts is to ensure that the

spectrum is used to the same degree that would have been required had the partitioning or disaggregation

transaction not taken place.”

In the scenario addressed here, the partitioner or disaggregator has already

met the associated performance requirement for the license; any additional construction undertaken by the

partitionee or disaggregatee exceeds the relevant performance benchmark for the original license and thus

does not contravene the goal of the Commission’s construction requirement in the partitioning and

disaggregation context. However, we contemplate taking action if it appears that parties to a partitioning

or disaggregation are attempting to abuse our rules.

3. Renewal Showing

27. We seek to provide licensees with certainty and clarity regarding the renewal process,

and thus have adopted four safe harbors to provide licensees with a streamlined mechanism for meeting

our renewal standard. We expect that most licensees will be able to avail themselves of our streamlined

safe harbor process and receive timely renewal grants. In the event a licensee is unable to meet the

requirements of any of the enumerated safe harbors, however, it must file a “renewal showing”

demonstrate how it meets the renewal standard we adopt in this Second Report and Order.

Examples of

As discussed more fully below, we will not require partitionees or disaggregatees without a performance

requirement to be operating in their current license terms. However, such licensees must demonstrate service or

operation over the license term in any subsequent license term in order to meet the safe harbor. See infra para. 62.

Our decision here, however, is subject to any requirements we may adopt in connection with the Further Notice.

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, GN Docket No. 96-113, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21831,

21864, para. 61 (1996).

To avoid the potential for confusion, we will no longer refer to “substantial service renewal showings” in our rules

and policies, as this may lead to confusion between renewal and performance requirements. Going forward, we will

use the term “renewal showing” to reflect the factors that the Commission will consider in the context of a renewal

application. See WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7006, para. 24.

Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission may require renewal applicants to “set

forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship, character, and financial,

technical, and other qualifications of the applicant to operate the station” as well as “such other information as it

may require.” 47 U.S.C. § 308(b).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

licensees that will not be able to meet a safe harbor, but for whom there nonetheless may be legitimate

bases that warrant renewal, include a licensee that no longer provides service or no longer operates at the

level required to meet its final performance requirement, or a licensee that has modified its service or

operations since its final performance requirement to offer novel services or employ a unique system

architecture. These scenarios warrant additional scrutiny before the Commission can determine whether

license renewal is in the public interest. We reiterate that we will not require renewal applicants to file a

renewal showing if they can meet our renewal standard via a safe harbor.

28. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed to require all renewal applicants to

meet our renewal standard by filing a detailed renewal showing to demonstrate that they are providing

service to the public (or, when allowed under the relevant service rules or pursuant to waiver, using the

spectrum for private, internal communication), and substantially complying with the Commission’s rules

(including any applicable performance requirements) and policies and the Act.

We now turn toward a

consideration of this proposed standard for cases in which a renewal applicant does not meet one of the

safe harbors we have adopted herein.

29. The renewal showing proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM followed the paradigm

adopted in the 700 MHz Report and Order.

After the release of the WRS Reform NPRM, the

Commission has adopted the 700 MHz Commercial Services renewal paradigm in four additional

services—AWS-4,

H Block,

AWS-3,

and 600 MHz.

Specifically, the Commission proposed to

consider the following factors when evaluating whether a renewal showing met the renewal standard:

(1) the level and quality of service provided by the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area served,

the number of subscribers, the services offered); (2) the date service commenced, whether service was

ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service is provided

to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided to tribal lands; and (5) any other factors

associated with a licensee’s level of service to the public.

30. Many commenters object to the adoption of this renewal showing for all WRS licensees.

These commenters argue that the proposed renewal showing is complex and would impose substantial

costs and burdens on licensees.

Other commenters assert that the proposed renewal process is unclear

and creates uncertainty for licensees.

Still other commenters maintain that the proposed process

requests information already in the Commission’s possession,

requests detailed information that

licensees do not maintain,

and may require disclosure of competitively sensitive information.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7002, para. 17.

Id. at 7006, para. 23.

AWS-4 Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16201-02, paras. 269-72.

H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9567-69, paras. 223-27.

AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4667-69, paras. 157-62.

600 MHz Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6885-87, paras. 785-90.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7006, para. 23, citing 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093,

para 75. See also WRS Reform NPRM, Appx. A, proposed section 1.949(c).

E.g., CTIA 2017 Comments at 2; MetroPCS Comments at 19, 22.

E.g., Sprint Comments at 7; WCAI Comments at 2; LMCC Comments at 10; USA Mobility Comments at 3;

EWA Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 1-2; USCC Comments at 1; MetroPCS Comments at 19, 22; Blooston

Comments at 15; Fixed Wireless Reply Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at 8; Sensus Reply Comments at 2.

E.g., Sprint Comments at 5-6; CTIA Comments at 16; Fixed Wireless Reply Comments at 3.

Verizon Comments at 4.

E.g., Sprint Comments at 5; T-Mobile Comments at 9-10; CTIA Comments at 14.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

acknowledge commenters’ many concerns regarding a general requirement that all WRS licensees submit

detailed renewal showings and have concluded that, in many cases, streamlined applications containing

the required certifications for safe harbor treatment will be sufficient to ensure that we renew licenses in

the public interest, consistent with the Act. We emphasize that licensees that can take advantage of one of

the “safe harbor” renewal applications described above will not be required to submit a renewal showing

as part of their renewal applications. Rather, only licensees that cannot satisfy one of the enumerated safe

harbors will be required to file a detailed renewal showing. To fulfill our statutory mandate to ensure

efficient spectrum use consistent with the public interest, where a licensee does not satisfy one of our

streamlined processes, we must undertake a closer examination of a licensee’s record of service or

operation over its license term. Consistent with the Commission’s conclusions in the AWS-4, H Block,

AWS-3, and 600 MHz proceedings, we find that the renewal showing we adopt today, applied in the

limited circumstances described herein, is in the public interest and its benefits outweigh any likely costs.

31. Accordingly, licensees that cannot satisfy our renewal standard under one of the

enumerated safe harbors can nonetheless meet the renewal standard by demonstrating that they are

providing service to the public (or, when allowed under the relevant service rules or pursuant to waiver,

using the spectrum for private, internal communication), using the following renewal showing, as

applicable:

(1) the level and quality of service/operation provided by the applicant (e.g., for service—the

population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered; for

operation—the number of users (if applicable), the operating area, the type of operation);

(2) the date service/operation commenced, whether service/operation was ever interrupted, and the

duration of any interruption or outage;

(3) the extent to which service/operation is provided to/in rural areas;

(4) the extent to which service/operation is provided to/in tribal lands; and

(5) any other factors associated with a licensee’s level of service to the public/level of operation.

32. Each of the factors listed above to be considered in a renewal showing directly relates to

the renewal standard we adopt today—service or operation over the license term. The Commission will

consider the totality of all the factors on a case-by-case basis to determine if a licensee has demonstrated

over the course of its license term that it has provided and continues to provide service to the public, or

has operated and continues to operate under the license to meet the licensee’s private, internal

communications needs.

33. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission also asked whether a variety of other factors

should be incorporated into our renewal rules.

Many commenters object to the collection of additional

data in support of a renewal showing.

CTIA, for example, asserts that “[r]equiring licensees to address

these additional criteria would add substantially more time to the renewal process for both the applicants

and the Commission, without any countervailing public interest benefits.”

On balance, we agree that the

costs of requesting additional information beyond the renewal showing we adopt today would outweigh

the benefits of such additional information. We thus decide not to add further factors at this time to our

renewal showing requirements. We find that our renewal framework strikes an appropriate balance

We note that our factors are modified from those proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM to accommodate private,

internal operation of WRS licenses in our renewal standard and renewal showing requirements. See WRS Reform

NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7008, para. 28 (querying whether the factors proposed for consideration in connection with

renewal of geographic-area licenses used to provide service should also be used where facilities are used to meet a

licensee’s private, internal communications needs).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7007-08, paras. 26-29.

E.g., T-Mobile Comments at 9-10; Sprint Comments at 6; CTIA Comments at 14; USCC Comments at 6;

MetroPCS Comments at 21.

CTIA Comments at 14.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

between our need for information to fully evaluate renewal applications that cannot meet our safe harbors

and minimizing burdens on licensees.

34. We disagree with commenters that argue that the option of filing a full renewal showing

would be contrary to the Commission’s original proposal for site-based services. Under the

Commission’s prior proposal, if a site-based licensee could not make the requisite certification, the

renewal application could not be granted and the spectrum would be returned to the Commission. Under

the renewal framework we adopt today, if a site-based licensee cannot meet the requirements of the safe

harbor, it may choose to file a renewal showing to explain why it should nonetheless retain its license,

thus providing additional flexibility to such a licensee.

a. Implementation Timeline

35. The renewal framework we adopt today represents, for some WRS licenses, a significant

change in how the Commission will evaluate and process renewal applications going forward.

For

licensees that already meet our renewal standard, our unified renewal paradigm presents a streamlined

process using safe harbors with minimal filing burdens and certain, timely renewal processing. We

recognize, however, that other licensees will need time to come into compliance with the renewal

standard. Accordingly, we adopt an implementation schedule that will make the benefits of our renewal

framework available immediately for those licensees most likely able to avail themselves of our

streamlined processes, but provide ample time for those licensees that may need to come into compliance

with our new rules.

In all instances, compliance with the renewal standard, via either a safe harbor or

renewal showing, will be assessed from the effective date of the new rules. Thus, for example, the

requirement to provide continuous service/operation does not cover periods before the effective date of

those rules. Nor does a licensee seeking safe harbor treatment need to certify that it met the necessary

criteria during time periods prior to the effective date.

36. Site-based Licenses. For site-based licensees, the new renewal paradigm is akin to their

existing renewal requirements. As discussed above, at the time a site-based service provider files a

renewal application, it should be operating as licensed. Thus, current renewal requirements for site-based

licensees are much like the safe harbor we adopt for such licensees. We find that our renewal standard

and renewal processes (whether streamlined or entailing an evaluation of the licensee’s full renewal

showing) should be made available to site-based licensees as soon as possible and thus determine that

such rules will be applied to those licensees without a transition period, with one exception, effective

upon their applicable effective dates. For microwave licenses in the Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-

Point Microwave Service,

licensees will not be required to comply with the revised renewal rules for

site-based licenses until October 1, 2018, in order to provide sufficient time for them to undertake a

compliance review necessary to make the required certification regarding operation.

Existing service-

specific renewal rules will remain in effect until the renewal rules adopted herein become effective.

Because substantial compliance with applicable FCC rules and policies and the Act is an ongoing obligation of

licensees, this will be assessed over the entire term of the license at renewal.

The clear renewal framework we adopt today coupled with a generous implementation timeline will provide

parties with ample time to adjust their business practices as necessary to accommodate our new rules. Armed with

an understanding of our renewal requirements, parties to transactions can examine the level of a licensee’s

continuing service or operations, satisfy for themselves whether they can make an appropriate safe harbor or renewal

showing at the license expiration date given the licensee’s operation, and act accordingly.

See Verizon July 27, 2017 Ex Parte at 1 (requesting clarification that licensees do not have to certify compliance

with any safe harbor criteria for periods of time prior to the effective date of the new rules); CTIA July 27, 2017 Ex

Parte at 3-4.

47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. I.

See Appendix A § 1.949(c).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Applications filed prior to the effective date of the new rules will be processed under the rules in effect

when they are filed.

37. Geographic-area Licenses. Given the inconsistency of our renewal rules across wireless

services, the Commission has seen markedly different renewal submissions by licensees describing the

level of service or operation in the various specific services within the WRS. Some licensees have

submitted renewal applications clearly demonstrating service or operation over the entire license term,

which would meet the renewal standard we adopt today. Others have filed applications that demonstrate

service or operation over significantly less than the entire license term, which would not meet our new

renewal standard contemplating ongoing service or operation during the license term. We seek to provide

sufficient time to geographic-area licensees that have yet to be subject to the renewal standard so that they

can comply with the new standard (indeed, some licensees are not yet required to even demonstrate

service over the license term). We determine that the renewal standard and the renewal framework will

take effect for such licensees on January 1, 2023, replacing the existing service-specific renewal rules,

giving licensees at least five years to comply with our new renewal rules (giving all licensees sufficient

time to show service over the license term, starting from the effective date of our new renewal rules).

Existing service-specific renewal rules will cease to be effective as of January 1, 2023. We note,

however, that licensees in the 700 MHz,

AWS-4,

H Block,

AWS-3,

and 600 MHz

services already

are subject to the renewal standard that we adopt today for all WRS geographic licenses. Accordingly,

we conclude that these licensees should be able to avail themselves of the safe harbors and associated

streamlined procedures that we adopt today. Thus, for licensees in the 700 MHz, AWS-4, H Block,

AWS-3, and 600 MHz services, our safe harbor rules will apply immediately upon their effective dates.

Existing service-specific renewal rules will remain in effect until the renewal rules adopted herein become

effective. Applications filed prior to the effective date of the new rules will be processed under the rules

in effect when they are filed.

b. Geographic and Site-based Licensed Services—Other Requirements

38. Consistent with the Commission’s proposal in the WRS Reform NPRM, we apply a single

regulatory compliance demonstration requirement to all renewal applicants, whether licensed by

geographic area or by site. In addition, we prohibit the filing of competing applications against such

renewal applications. Further, if a renewal application cannot be granted, the associated spectrum

generally will be returned to the Commission for re-licensing under the applicable processes.

(i) Regulatory Compliance Demonstration

39. In the 700 MHz First Report and Order, the Commission stated that, as part of their

renewal filing, renewal applicants must demonstrate “that they have substantially complied with all

applicable Commission rules, policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including any

applicable performance requirements.”

As the Commission stated in the WRS Reform NPRM, such a

regulatory compliance demonstration serves the public interest by facilitating the Commission’s

evaluation of the character and other qualifications of a renewal applicant.

47 CFR § 27.14(b)-(c).

47 CFR § 27.14(q)(7).

47 CFR § 27.14(r)(6).

47 CFR § 27.14(s)(6).

47 CFR § 27.14(t)(6).

See 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093, para. 75.

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7011, para. 37. See also 47 U.S.C. § 308(b).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

40. To aid in this evaluation, the Commission proposed a detailed submission of documents

regarding compliance by the licensee and certain defined affiliates.

Industry commenters uniformly

opposed adoption of the proposed regulatory compliance demonstration as a prerequisite to renewal on

the basis that it is onerous and unduly burdensome and could impose significant costs, particularly on

rural and regional carriers.

41. We have a statutory duty to ensure that licensees substantially comply with all applicable

Commission rules and policies and the Act. At the same time, where possible and practicable, we seek to

streamline the existing renewal application processes and minimize filing burdens on licensees. In lieu of

the regulatory compliance demonstration proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM, we conclude that we can

perform our duties and further our public interest goals effectively by requiring a renewal applicant to

certify that it has substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the Act.

If a

particular renewal applicant is unable to make the substantial compliance certification, it will need to

provide an explanation of the circumstances preventing such a certification and why renewal of the

subject license should still be granted.

(ii) Elimination of Comparative Renewal Rules for WRS

42. As proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM and consistent with the action we took in the

recent WRS Reform First Report and Order in this proceeding adopted in tandem with the Cellular

Reform Second Report and Order,

and in several other proceedings over the last decade, we prohibit the

filing of competing applications for all WRS and eliminate the remaining comparative renewal

procedures and requirements across various rule parts.

43. The WRS Reform NPRM proposed to prohibit the filing of competing renewal

applications for all WRS as part of its proposed uniform WRS renewal process.

The majority of

commenters support the Commission’s proposal to eliminate service-specific rules regarding the filing of

competing applications and the use of comparative hearings to resolve them.

100

A number of commenters

Id. at 7011-12, para. 38. If there were no FCC orders finding violations of the Communications Act or any FCC

rule or policy, the Commission proposed that a licensee certify the absence of any such findings as part of the

renewal application. Id. at 7012, para. 39.

T-Mobile Comments at 11-12; LightSquared Comments at 5; HITN Comments at 4; LMCC Comments at 7;

Fixed Wireless Reply Comments at 2-3; EWA Comments at 6-7; Clarendon Comments at 6; Blooston Comments at

11; CTIA Comments at 19; Verizon Comments at 13; Sprint Comments at 14; USCC Comments at 11; PacifiCorp

Comments at 8; Southern Comments at 6; Entergy Reply Comments at 4; Fixed Wireless Reply Comments at 3-4;

NCTA Reply Comments at 5; USCC Reply Comments at 7; RCA Reply Comments at 3; EWA Reply Comments at

We also note that renewal applicants, like other filers of the Form 601, will continue to be required to answer

three character qualifications questions on the form.

Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes

in Licensing of Unserved Area; Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part

27; Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications; Amendment of Parts 0, 1, and 22 of the

Commission's Rules with Regard to Frequency Coordination for the Cellular Service; Amendment of Part 22 of the

Commission's Rules Regarding Certain Administrative and Filing Requirements; Amendment of the Commission's

Rules Governing Radiated Power Limits for the Cellular Service; Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95,

and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and

Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; 2016 Biennial Review of

Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket Nos. 12-40, 10-112, and 16-138; RM Nos. 11510 and 11660, Second

Report and Order, Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2518, 2569-

70, para. 150 (2017) (Cellular Second Report and Order and WRS Reform First Report and Order).

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7012-13, paras. 40-42.

100

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 29-31; Blooston Comments at 4-5; CTIA Comments at 28-30; FiberTower

Comments at 4; LightSquared Comments at 6; MariTEL Comments at 1; MetroPCS Comments at 5, 7; Sprint

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

maintain that the comparative renewal process is an outdated vestige of licensing rules predating our

current reliance on auctions in many services.

101

44. We delete today the remaining service-specific comparative renewal rules and prohibit

the filing of competing renewal applications for all WRS. This approach is consistent with the

Commission’s determinations in many other commercial wireless service proceedings over the last ten

years—including those for the AWS-3 and AWS-4 Bands, the H Block, the 600 MHz Band, and the 700

MHz Commercial Services Band

102

—and with our elimination of comparative renewal rules applicable to

the Cellular Service. The same logic that the Commission used in exempting those bands from

comparative renewal applications likewise applies to the remaining WRS bands. The Commission

previously found, and commenters agree here, that the public interest is not served by the filing of time-

consuming and costly competing applications,

103

and a prohibition on competing applications will

“protect[] the public interest without creating incentives for speculators to file ‘strike’ applications.”

104

45. The few commenters that support retention of the comparative renewal application rules

argue that, without the ability to file competing applications, there is no way to discover disqualifying

facts about incumbent licensees.

105

We disagree. The renewal requirements we adopt today will provide

the Commission with ample information to determine whether a particular license renewal is in the public

interest.

106

Some commenters also argue that competing applications are rare, but this only strengthens

the rationale to eliminate the outdated rules. We find that the best course is to remove the comparative

renewal rules and harmonize our approach across spectrum bands—many of which, as discussed above,

already prohibit the filing of competing applications. In the event that an entity lacks standing to file a

petition to deny a WRS license renewal application,

107

it may still bring relevant facts to the attention of

the Commission by means of an informal filing.

46. If a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to the Commission as

discussed below, allowing parties that may have been inclined to file a competing application to

participate in the auction of spectrum recovered from geographic licensees or apply for spectrum

recovered from a Cellular or site-based licensee. Our experience and the record confirm the

(Continued from previous page)

Comments at 14-15; T-Mobile Comments at 3-4; Verizon Comments at 14-15; CTIA 2017 Comments at 8-9;

Verizon 2017 Comments at 7. The few commenters that support retention of the existing renewal rules argue that,

without the ability to file competing applications, there is no way to discover disqualifying facts about incumbent

licensees and, moreover, that there is no reason to eliminate the rules because competing applications are rare.

CommNet Comments at 6; Green Flag Comments at 7-9; USCC Comments at 8.

101

E.g., Blooston Comments at 4; FiberTower Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 15-16; T-Mobile Comments at

102

See 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8067, 8093-94, para. 76 (eliminating rules that permit

competing applications and comparative hearings for license renewal for 700 MHz Service licensees); AWS-4

Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16202, para. 272 (same, for AWS-4); H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at

9568, para. 224 (same, for H Block); AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4668, para. 162 (same, for AWS-3);

600 MHz Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6887, para. 790 (same, for 600 MHz).

103

See AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4668, para. 162 & n.485. See also Blooston Comments at 4; CTIA

Comments at 28; FiberTower Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 14.

104

700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093, para 76. See also AWS-4 Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd

at 16202, para. 272; H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9568, para. 224; 600 MHz Report and Order, 29

FCC Rcd at 6887, para. 790. See also AT&T Comments at 31; Blooston Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 28;

LightSquared Comments at 6-7; MetroPCS Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 14-15; T-Mobile Comments at 3.

105

CommNet Comments at 6; Green Flag Comments at 7-9; USCC Comments at 8.

106

See, e.g., AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4669, para. 162.

107

See CommNet Comments at 5-8.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Commission’s finding ten years ago in the 700 MHz First Report and Order that “[t]he existing petition

to deny process, coupled with the ability of a petitioner to participate in any subsequent auction to re-

license spectrum that is returned to the Commission for lack of renewal, creates sufficient incentives to

challenge inferior service or poor qualifications of licensees at renewal.”

108

(iii) Return of Spectrum to Commission if Renewal Application

Is Denied

47. Consistent with the Commission’s proposals in the WRS Reform NPRM,

109

we conclude

that, if a WRS licensee cannot meet the renewal standard and its license cannot be renewed, its licensed

spectrum will be returned automatically to the Commission.

110

For site-based licenses, we will continue

to apply our policy of having spectrum revert to a geographic area licensee, if applicable, if an underlying

site-based authorization is not renewed.

111

48. One overarching goal in this proceeding is to ensure that valued spectrum resources are

rapidly put to their highest and best use. Armed with clear information on renewal and service continuity

requirements, licensees and other interested parties may take appropriate actions relative to their business

plans. A second goal in this proceeding is to provide licensees with certainty and clarity regarding the

rules that apply to them and the consequences for failing to meet those rules. The Commission’s existing

spectrum reversion rule we employ today serves these dual goals. As CTIA aptly argues, the automatic

return of spectrum from non-renewed licenses “would help streamline and expedite the transition of the

licenses to new licensees, reduce administrative burdens, and minimize the amount of time the underlying

spectrum remains unused.”

112

We agree. If a licensee cannot meet the renewal standard (via safe harbor

or renewal showing) or it has permanently discontinued service, or its regulatory compliance certification

is insufficient, its renewal application cannot be granted, and its licensed spectrum will return

automatically to the Commission.

113

4. Wireless Radio Services Excluded From Rulemaking

49. Finally, we conclude that certain Wireless Radio Services should be excluded from the

renewal requirements we adopt today. Specifically, we will not apply the revised renewal paradigm to

Wireless Radio Services licenses that have no construction obligations, including services where

108

700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093, para. 76.

109

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7013-14, para. 43.

110

See Appendix A, § 1.949(g).

111

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.1206 (defining the Geographic Service Area (GSA) for incumbent site-based licensees of

BRS stations and stating that, “[i]f the license for an incumbent BRS station cancels or is forfeited, the GSA area of

the incumbent station shall dissolve and the right to operate in that area automatically reverts to the [geographic]

licensee . . . ”), 101.1331 (same concerning frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the 928/959

MHz bands (Multiple Address Systems)). See also id. §§ 80.385(c) (providing that any AMTS frequency blocks

that are “recovered” will “revert automatically to the holder of the geographic area license within which such

frequencies are included,” and “where there is no geographic area licensee,” the blocks will be “retained by the

Commission for future licensing”), 90.175(n) (same regarding any recovered channels in the 800 MHz SMR

service).

112

CTIA Comments at 30. We reject Sprint’s request that we place renewal applications with insufficient renewal

showings into the Termination Pending process, as doing so will add another layer of delay into the renewal

processing approach, with no adequate justification for doing so. Sprint Comments at 15. Licensees are responsible

for filing accurate, complete applications. If a renewal application is denied by the Commission, an applicant may

file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to 47 CFR § 1.106, or an application for review pursuant to 47 CFR

§ 1.115, as appropriate. 47 CFR §§ 1.106, 1.115.

113

See Appendix A, § 1.949(g).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

operations are licensed by rule (and thus there is no individual “license” to renew) or to Wireless Radio

Services that can be considered to involve a “personal” license . These services are listed in Appendix I.

B. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations for Wireless Radio Services

50. The Commission’s mandate to promote spectrum efficiency is furthered when wireless

licensees offer service to the public in a timely manner, consistent with our performance requirements,

and provide such services continuously. Indeed, all WRS licensees are currently subject to our Part 1 rule

governing permanent discontinuance, which provides that an authorization automatically terminates,

without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.”

114

To promote service

continuity, we here replace widely disparate service-specific rules dealing with permanent discontinuance

with a standardized rule for all WRS licensees. This rule will work in concert with our construction and

renewal obligations to ensure that licensees provide service in a timely manner, continue to provide

service over the term of the license, and do not discontinue service for such an extended period of time

that it should be deemed permanent.

51. Current service-specific rules do not clearly and consistently define permanent

discontinuance resulting in license termination, with a few services defining the term

115

and many services

completely lacking any definition.

116

Thus, after meeting any service-specific construction and renewal

requirements, some licensees in a service whose rules provide no definition of “permanent”

discontinuance might conclude that they are permitted to discontinue service for long periods of time, and

that such suspension of service would not trigger automatic license termination. In contrast, other

licensees/competitors in a service whose rules define “permanent” discontinuance as specific amount of

time during which operations were suspended (e.g., 90 days) would be subject to automatic license

termination if they discontinued service to subscribers for that specified length of time.

117

As the

Commission noted in the WRS Reform NPRM, the public interest is not served by such marked regulatory

disparities.

118

The Commission accordingly proposed to adopt a uniform discontinuance of service rule

for Parts 22, 24, 27, 80, 90, 95, and 101 Wireless Radio Services.

119

We find that the adoption of a

uniform regulatory framework governing the permanent discontinuance of operations for Wireless Radio

Services will serve the public interest by: (1) affording similarly situated licensees and like services

comparable regulatory treatment; (2) providing licensees and other interested parties clarity and certainty

to facilitate business and network planning; and (3) ensuring that valuable spectrum is not underutilized.

The rules we adopt today strike the appropriate balance between providing licensees with operational

flexibility and ensuring spectrum is not warehoused and does not lie fallow.

114

47 CFR § 1.955(a)(3). Section 1.955(a)(3) further provides that “[t]he Commission authorization or the

individual service rules govern the definition of permanent discontinuance for purposes of this section” and requires

licensees to “notify the Commission of the discontinuance of operations by submitting FCC Form 601 or 605

requesting license cancellation.” Id.

115

Part 22, for example, provides that a “station that has not provided service to subscribers for 90 continuous days

is considered to have been permanently discontinued.” 47 CFR § 22.317 (emphasis added). Section 90.157(a)

(applicable to most Part 90 services) provides that an authorization automatically cancels when a station has not

operated for 365 days. Id. § 90.157(a).

116

See WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7017-18, para. 52. Many services, including those authorized by

competitive bidding (such as our Part 24 Personal Communications Service rules and our Part 27 Miscellaneous

Wireless Communication Services rules) contain no definition of permanent discontinuance. The current service-

specific permanent discontinuance requirements are listed in Appendix F.

117

See WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7017, para. 50, citing 47 CFR § 22.317.

118

Id. at 7017-18, para. 52.

119

Id. at 7018, para. 53.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

52. Most but not all commenters support a uniform regulatory framework governing

permanent discontinuance.

120

Commenters disagree, however, on the appropriate discontinuance period

to be applied to the various Wireless Radio Services, with some commenters supporting the

Commission’s proposed time periods

121

while other commenters seek a 365-day discontinuance period for

all WRS licensees.

122

53. Commenters are generally supportive of the Commission’s proposal to apply the

permanent discontinuance rule commencing on the date a licensee makes its initial construction showing

or notification.

123

Some commenters, however, ask that we commence the permanent discontinuance

period on the date of a licensee’s construction deadline,

124

while Sprint suggests that we use a licensee’s

final construction deadline date.

125

54. Section 101.305 of our rules states that common carrier licensees in certain services must

notify the Commission of involuntary discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service within 48

hours,

126

and that voluntary discontinuance by a common carrier licensee in the identified services must

occur only with prior Commission approval, under the procedures of Part 63 of the Commission’s rules.

127

AT&T asks that we take this opportunity to delete Section 101.305, arguing that it is both obsolete and

duplicative of other rules, specifically Section 101.65

128

and that the rule’s concern for protecting

“communities” is misplaced.

129

55. After reviewing the extensive record in this proceeding, we find that the public interest

will be best served by adopting a uniform regulatory framework governing service continuity. We

therefore adopt new Section 1.953 as it appears in Appendix A and delete multiple rule sections

120

E.g., Blooston Comments at 24-25; CTIA Comments at 31; Sprint Comments at 16; T-Mobile 2017 Reply

Comments at 8; Verizon 2017 Comments at 7. But see USA Mobility Comments at 2, 4, 7 (arguing that the

proposed definition of permanent discontinuance is rigid and inflexible); Green Flag Comments at 11-12. See also

James Edwin Whedbee Comments at 6 (proposing licensees seek special temporary authorizations (STA) if they

wish to discontinue operations for limited periods of time).

121

E.g., LMCC Comments at 11-12; MetroPCS Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 16-17; Entergy Reply

Comments at 6-7.

122

E.g., NCTA Reply Comments at 5; Blooston Comments at 25-27; Verizon Comments at 15; LightSquared

Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at 32; Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, EVP & General Counsel, CCA, to

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 2, 4 (filed June 3, 2016) (CCA June 3, 2016

Ex Parte).

123

E.g., Verizon Comments at 16; CTIA Comments at 32.

124

See CCA June 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (recommending that any service continuity requirement be applied only after

any updated construction deadline(s) become effective). See also LightSquared Comments at 8-9 (maintaining that

for those Part 27 WRS licensees for which no interim construction showing prior to a first renewal is required, the

permanent discontinuance rule should apply after the first renewal).

125

Sprint Comments at 17-18.

126

47 CFR § 101.305(a).

127

47 CFR § 101.305(b). See also 47 CFR Part 63, “Extension of Lines, New Lines, and Discontinuance,

Reduction, Outage and Impairment of Service by Common Carriers; and Grants of Recognized Private Operating

Agency Status.”

128

AT&T Comments at 35. Section 101.65(a) provides that a license is automatically forfeited upon voluntary

removal or alteration of the facilities, such that the station does not operate for 30 days or more, while section

101.65(b) states that a station that does not operate for one year or more is considered to have been permanently

discontinued. 47 CFR § 101.65(a)-(b).

129

AT&T Comments at 36.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

governing permanent discontinuance in specific Wireless Radio Services.

130

As recognized by the

Commission in four other proceedings and by commenters in this proceeding, the approach we adopt

today strikes an appropriate balance between affording licensees operational flexibility and ensuring that

licensed spectrum is efficiently utilized.

131

As CTIA observes, a uniform discontinuance framework will

provide regulatory certainty that “can encourage investment and promote enhanced services.”

132

disagree with those commenters that oppose the adoption of any permanent discontinuance rules.

133

Allowing licensees unfettered discretion to determine how long scarce spectrum resources lie fallow after

meeting relevant construction requirements would be inconsistent with the intent of those requirements

and would directly contradict our statutory obligation to “prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum

by licensees or permittees.”

134

56. We conclude that these changes further one of the underlying goals in this proceeding—

to provide licensees and other interested parties with clarity and certainty regarding the service continuity

obligations under our rules.

135

Armed with this information, licensees can make rational decisions

regarding their business plans and network operations. We replace the existing hodgepodge of

discontinuance rules with a unified regulatory framework that ensures regulatory parity across services

and license types and applies the rules on a per-license basis. Under the rules we adopt today for all

geographically licensed radio services, permanent discontinuance of service for a given license will be

defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of WRS

licensees providing service to customers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not

affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.

136

The Commission adopted an identical

framework for AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz, which are all licensed on a geographic basis.

137

130

Section 90.157 of our rules addresses discontinuance of operations for Private Land Mobile Radio Services. 47

CFR § 90.157. We delete section 90.157(a), which addresses discontinuance generally, and move section 90.157(b),

which addresses certain administrative requirements for DSRCS Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5850-5925 MHz

band, to section 90.357(b) of our rules. 47 CFR § 90.357(b).

131

See, e.g., H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9572, para. 231; AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at

4667-68, para. 159; 600 MHz Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6886, para. 787.

132

CTIA Comments at 31.

133

See USA Mobility Comments at 4; Green Flag Comments at 11-12. Likewise, we disagree with USA Mobility’s

argument that our permanent discontinuance rules undermine our secondary markets framework. See USA Mobility

Comments at 4, citing Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of

Secondary Markets, First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20604 (2003) (Secondary Markets First Report and

Order); Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 17503 (2004). To the contrary,

setting limits on the amount of time a licensee can discontinue service will incentivize licensees to use their licenses

or promptly divest them to other parties that will use the spectrum in a timely fashion. Ensuring that spectrum is

timely put to its highest and best use is the basis for our secondary markets policies. Secondary Markets First

Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20609, para. 7.

134

See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B)-(C).

135

We determine that a licensee may attribute to itself the buildout or performance activities of its lessee(s) under a

spectrum manager leasing arrangement or under a long-term de facto transfer spectrum lease for purposes of

complying with our service continuity rules. See 47 CFR §§ 1.9020(d)(5)(i), 1.9030(d)(5)(i). We note, however,

that the licensee is accountable for any permanent discontinuance and “the rules will be enforced against the licensee

regardless of whether the licensee was relying on the activities of a lessee to meet particular performance

requirements.” Id. §§ 1.9020(d)(5)(i), 1.9030(d)(5)(iii).

136

See Appendix A, § 1.953(b). The Part 22 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service (Cellular Service) is treated

as a geographically licensed service for the purpose of the new section 1.953 that we adopt today, notwithstanding

Cellular licensees’ continued site-based access to Unserved Area to expand their existing licensed area (Cellular

Geographic Service Area (CGSA)).

137

See 47 CFR § 27.17.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

In addition, for all radio services licensed by site, permanent discontinuance of service for a given license

will be defined as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of WRS

licensees providing service to customers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not

affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.

138

A licensee’s authorization will

automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if it permanently discontinues service.

139

57. Our rules distinguish between wireless providers providing service to subscribers and

private licensee operation. In accordance with our proposal, for wireless providers, we define

“permanently discontinued” as a period of 180 or 365 consecutive days (for geographic and site-based

licenses, respectively) during which the licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is

not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider. We adopt a different approach for wireless

licensees that use their licenses for private, internal communications, however, because such licensees

generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers.

140

For such private, internal communications,

we define “permanent discontinuance” as a period of 180 or 365 consecutive days (for geographic and

site-based licenses respectively) during which the licensee does not operate.

141

58. After careful consideration, we conclude that the different rules we have crafted here for

geographic versus site-based licenses are warranted by their differing operational characteristics. Under a

geographic license, a licensee constructs and operates its entire network in the market under the umbrella

of its geographic license. As MetroPCS explains, wireless carriers constantly discontinue individual sites

or channels as they reconfigure their networks to increase and adjust capacity.

142

Our goal in this

proceeding is not to hamper a licensee’s normal network design and reconfiguration processes. Licensees

should continue to have the necessary flexibility to add or remove network facilities consistent with their

business strategies and network planning processes. Thus, for geographic licensees, the period of

discontinuance will not start for a given license until all network facilities operated under that license

within the licensed area are discontinued.

143

59. By contrast, site-based licensees do not have the same flexibility as geographic licensees

to decommission individual facilities. Site-based licensees are authorized to transmit from a particular

location or over a particular path and have little flexibility to alter these parameters; ceasing operation on

a frequency or band constitutes a total cessation of all service or operation under the site-based license

and, unless otherwise provided, would therefore start the clock for measuring the length of discontinued

service/operations on that licensed frequency/band at that location/path. Thus, to provide site-based

licensees with the necessary flexibility to repair, modify, or upgrade their sites without fear of triggering a

discontinuance period that could lead to the automatic termination of their license, we find that site-based

licensees should be afforded a 365-day discontinuance period.

60. We disagree with commenters that argue that geographic licensees need a 365-day

discontinuance period to adequately conduct technology upgrades and to avoid unfairly penalizing

138

See Appendix A, § 1.953(c).

139

See Appendix A, § 1.953(a).

140

See H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9570, para. 230 (citing WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7022,

para. 68, Appx. A § 1.953).

141

In other words, the rule that we adopt for private, internal communications does not include a requirement that

the licensee provide service to an unaffiliated subscriber to avoid triggering the permanent discontinuance rule. See

H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9571, para. 230 & n.726; see also WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at

7022, para. 68 & Appx. A § 1.953.

142

MetroPCS Comments at 9.

143

For existing Cellular licensees that have applied for, or have been granted, a CGSA expansion, “licensed area”

here means the licensee’s existing Cellular Service system, not counting the newly authorized but as yet unbuilt

expansion area or any Unserved Area being proposed in a pending CGSA-expansion application.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

licensees that operate in remote or highly seasonal areas of the country that may be uninhabited for more

than half the year.

144

Given the flexibility geographic licensees have to turn off individual facilities in

their licensed area so long as at least one facility continues to operate or continues to serve at least one

non-affiliated subscriber, we find that 180 days provides licensees with ample time to effectuate network

modifications without triggering a discontinuance period. Adoption of a 180-day discontinuance period

substantially increases the amount of time licensees can discontinue operations in some services.

145

However, we decrease the discontinuance period from one year to 180 days in certain services, for

example, certain Part 101 geographic licenses and 220-222 MHz geographic licenses (listed in Appendix

F).

146

Given the operational flexibility afforded geographic area licensees discussed above, we conclude

that this reduction will not create undue burdens on such licensees. Moreover, in the event additional

time is needed, as discussed below, our rules will provide for an automatic 30-day extension

147

licensees can file for a waiver under Section 1.925 of our rules if additional time is warranted.

148

61. We agree with commenters who propose that the discontinuance rule should begin to

apply on the date a licensee must meet its first performance requirement benchmark, i.e., the construction

deadline. Using the construction deadline, versus the date a licensee actually makes its construction

notification, will “avoid unduly punishing early adopters who are experimenting with certain business

models or technologies, and who later deploy a different technology.”

149

If a licensee files its notification

prior to the required construction deadline, the licensee should have the flexibility to alter its network as it

sees fit, including turning down the entire system to accommodate changes in business plans or network

design. If we were to apply the rule immediately upon the filing of a licensee’s construction showing or

notification, it would create a disincentive for licensees to deploy their networks prior to their

construction deadline. Such a result would be contrary to the Commission’s goal of rapid spectrum

deployment.

62. In most cases, the first performance requirement benchmark is the interim or final

construction deadline for geographic licenses, or the 12-month construction deadline for site-based

144

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 15; LightSquared Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at 32; Blooston Comments at

26-27; NCTA Reply Comments at 5.

145

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 22.317 (any station that has not provided service to subscribers for 90 continuous days is

considered to have been permanently discontinued, unless the applicant notified the FCC otherwise prior to the end

of the 90-day period and provided a date on which operation will resume, which date must not be in excess of 30

additional days). We note that the Commission adopted a new Cellular Service-specific rule governing permanent

discontinuance, Cellular Reform Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 2559, para. 112; 47 CFR § 22.947, and

exempted Cellular Service licensees from application of section 22.317. Cellular Reform Second Report and Order,

32 FCC Rcd at 2559-60, para. 115. Because both the new Cellular rule and revised section 22.317 are subject to

approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, they have not yet taken effect. See also 47 CFR § 90.631(f)

(with limited exception, an SMR licensee with facilities that have discontinued operations for 90 consecutive days is

presumed to have discontinued operations).

146

See 47 CFR §§ 101.65(b), 90.157. For any licensee with a shortened discontinuance period that is in

discontinued status for more than 180 days but less than 365 days when our new permanent discontinuance rule

takes effect, the period of discontinuance will begin as of the effective date of the new rule. Any such licensee that

remains in discontinued status for more than 180 days from the effective date of our new permanent discontinuance

rule will be found to have permanently discontinued and its license will automatically terminate.

147

See Appendix A, § 1.953(f).

148

47 CFR § 1.925. The small number of geographic licensees whose markets are truly uninhabited more than half

the year and that cannot maintain at least one operational facility during that period may avail themselves of our

newly adopted automatic extension or existing waiver processes.

149

CCA June 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

licenses.

150

In a few cases, licensees have partitioned and/or disaggregated their licenses under current

rules, and one or more of the resulting licenses does not have a construction deadline. Under the renewal

standard adopted herein, these licenses must be operating by the end of the next full renewal term after

their current license term to warrant renewal. As such, the discontinuance rules will apply to these

partitioned/disaggregated licenses at that date. This approach provides consistent treatment in that

licensees need only be concerned about permanent discontinuance after they are required to be operating

(whether at their next construction deadline or renewal). The Commission adopted the same approach for

AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz.

151

63. In services where our rules currently contain no definition of permanent discontinuance,

some licensees may have met their interim construction deadline, but have yet to reach their final

construction deadline and may have discontinued operations as part of a business strategy or network

plan. Absent a definition of permanent discontinuance, these licensees might have concluded that they

could discontinue service for a long period without fear of automatic license termination.

152

While all

covered WRS licensees must comply with our permanent discontinuance rules going forward, it is

equitable to provide certain existing licensees with additional time to come into compliance with our

rules, if necessary. Thus, in all services that do not currently have an explicit definition of permanent

discontinuance, licensees will be given until January 1, 2019 to come into compliance with the rules we

adopt today regarding permanent discontinuance.

153

If a licensee in these services is not providing service

or is not operational on January 1, 2019, the discontinuance period would start on that date. After that

date, a WRS licensee’s authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if

service is permanently discontinued as defined under our newly adopted rules.

154

64. We decline to adopt Sprint’s request to apply our permanent discontinuance rules only

after a licensee’s final construction date.

155

Our permanent discontinuance rules are designed to ensure

that once a licensee is required to begin operations or provide service to the public by, e.g., an interim

construction date, it continues to do so thereafter without substantial breaks in operation or service. If we

generally do not apply our permanent discontinuance rules until after a licensee’s final construction date,

a licensee would be permitted to initiate service at its interim date and then shut down all operations until

the final construction deadline. This result is contrary to our goal of promoting robust spectrum use.

However, for some services a failure to meet an interim construction date results in acceleration of the

final construction date and, in some cases, the license expiration date. For these services, if a licensee

fails to meet the interim construction date, the discontinuance rule will apply after the licensee’s

accelerated final construction date.

156

150

We emphasize that for Cellular licenses, for which there is no interim construction deadline (with one exception,

see 47 CFR § 22.960), the grant of a modification application to expand an existing CGSA does not establish a new

“required construction deadline” for purposes of application of the Part 1 permanent discontinuance rule that we are

adopting today.

151

See 600 MHz Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6889, para. 795; AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 4670-

71, para. 166; H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9570-71, paras. 230-33; see also AWS-4 Report and

Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16203, para. 274 (adopting substantially similar permanent discontinuance requirements).

152

See WRS Report NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7027-28, para. 52.

153

These services include Part 24 Personal Communications Services, certain Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless

Communications Services, Part 80 Safety and Special Radio Services, and Part 95 218-219 MHz Service.

154

See Appendix A, § 1.953(a).

155

Sprint Comments at 17-18.

156

Accord, 47 CFR § 27.17(a)(1)(2). Under current rules, the discontinuance rule is applicable to AWS-4 (i) after

the final buildout date if the AWS-4 licensee meets the interim buildout requirement or (ii) after the accelerated final

buildout date if the AWS-4 licensee does not meet the interim buildout requirement. All AWS-4 licenses are held

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

65. We exclude EBS from application of our new permanent discontinuance rule in light of

the fact that this service presents unique issues that are under consideration in a separate proceeding. We

find that we should consider EBS permanent discontinuance policies in the context of the comprehensive

EBS rulemaking.

157

For the reasons stated above in our discussion of the renewal policy rules, we find

that BRS licenses and the Motorola-held partitioned and/or disaggregated Part 80 VHF Public Coast

licenses should be subject to the rules and policies adopted herein regarding permanent discontinuance.

66. Section 101.305 contains a number of requirements related to discontinuance, reduction,

or impairment of services for some or all Part 101 services.

158

The bulk of these provisions relate to

involuntary and voluntary discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of public communications services

and required filings to be made with the Commission. In particular, Section 101.305(b) requires that

covered licensees subject to Title II of the Act

159

must obtain prior approval from the Commission

pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 63 of the Commission’s rules

160

before they may voluntarily

discontinue, reduce, or impair public communications services to a community or part of a community.

161

Because Section 101.305 implicates the provision of service pursuant to Title II of the Act and given the

limited record addressing this rule, we make no changes to this rule section at this time.

67. Notification of permanent discontinuance. We adopt the proposed filing requirement that

a licensee that permanently discontinues service must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within

10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation.

162

Such a self-reporting

requirement will facilitate timely and accurate recordkeeping of the Commission license and spectrum

inventory. We note, however, that even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license

cancellation, an authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service

is permanently discontinued as defined by our new rules.

163

We disagree with the two commenters who

ask that we extend the notification period to 30 days.

164

Neither commenter advances a compelling basis

for extending the notification period and the proposed 10-day period will ensure that our records are

updated on a timely basis.

68. Extension requests. In addition, we adopt our proposed extension request process under

which a request for a longer discontinuance period may be filed for good cause, subject to the requirement

that it be filed at least 30 days before the end of the discontinuance period. Under this process, the filing

of a request would automatically extend the discontinuance period a minimum of the later of an additional

30 days or the date upon which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) acts on the request.

165

Commenters support our proposed automatic process for extension requests.

166

Such an express process

(Continued from previous page)

by two affiliated licensees that did not meet their interim buildout requirement. Accordingly, as under the current

rule, the discontinuance rule will be applicable to AWS-4 after the accelerated final buildout date.

157

See BRS/EBS Second FNPRM.

158

47 CFR § 101.35.

159

47 U.S.C. Chapter 5, Subchapter II.

160

47 CFR pt. 63.

161

47 CFR § 101.35(b).

162

See Appendix A, § 1.953(e).

163

See id.

164

Blooston Comments at 25 (referring to 47 CFR § 1.65, which notes that a Commission applicant must, within 30

days, notify the Commission of significant and substantial changes in a pending application); Verizon Comments at

15.

165

See Appendix A, § 1.953(f).

166

E.g., CCA Comments at 8-9; CTIA Comments at 31-32; Sprint Comments at 17; Verizon 2017 Comments at 8.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

provides licensees with the flexibility to request a limited period of additional time for discontinuance of

operations as necessitated by the licensee’s business and operational needs and the certainty that they will

receive a minimum of 30 additional days to resume service.

69. We decline, however, to adopt CCA’s proposal for an automatic six-month extension

period or case-by-case review.

167

An automatic extension of the permissible discontinuance period of six

months runs contrary to our goals of timely and efficient use of the nation’s scare spectrum resources.

Although we understand that unique circumstances may arise that necessitate a period of discontinuance

beyond what is automatically permitted under our new rules, these circumstances can adequately be

addressed by our existing waiver processes.

168

70. Roaming. Several commenters ask that we clarify how our permanent discontinuance

rules apply to licensees that serve roamers.

169

Blooston asserts that providing service to roamers is

adequate to prevent permanent discontinuance of operations, noting that “[s]ome market-based licensees

have built their business case on providing service to roamers, especially when they first complete

construction,” and before building up their own customer base.

170

Likewise, Verizon asks the

Commission to confirm that providing roaming-only service is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a

licensee is serving at least one subscriber, and will not be in danger of losing its license for permanent

discontinuance.

171

To this end, CommNet urges us to clarify that the term “subscriber” in Sections

1.953(b) and (c) includes incoming roamers.

172

71. We conclude that, for purposes of our permanent discontinuance rule, the term “service”

includes service provided exclusively or incidentally to roamers even though such roamers are not

subscribers of the licensee providing roaming service. Including roaming within the definition of service

serves the underlying goal of our rules to ensure that licensees are actively using their spectrum—be it to

provide service to subscribers or roamers—and not allowing it to lie fallow. As Blooston notes, some

licensees implement business plans that rely solely on providing service to roamers.

173

We clarify,

however, that a WRS licensee must actually be providing service to a roamer and not merely have the

ability to provide service to roamers.

72. Channel keepers. We adopt our proposed rule that operation of so-called channel

keepers—devices that transmit test signals, tones, and/or color bars, for example—will not constitute

operation or service for the purposes of our permanent discontinuance rule.

174

As the Commission

167

Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, EVP & General Counsel, CCA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission, at 2 (filed Apr. 1, 2016); CCA June 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

168

See 47 CFR § 1.925. We see no need to clarify that the Commission retains the authority to grant an extension

filed less than 30 days prior to the end of the 180-day discontinuance period, as requested by MetroPCS. MetroPCS

Comments at 9. We may employ our existing waiver authority at any time.

169

Blooston Comments at 26; CommNet Comments at 3-4; Verizon Comments at 15.

170

Blooston Comments at 26.

171

Verizon Comments at 15.

172

CommNet Comments at 3-4.

173

Blooston Comments at 26.

174

See Appendix A, § 1.953(d). See also Application of San Diego MDS Company, Memorandum Opinion and

Order, 19 FCC Rcd 23120, 23124, para. 10 (2004) (“in order to provide a service a provider would, at a minimum,

need a customer or other person to serve”) (San Diego MDS); Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the

Commission’s Rules To Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other

Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands et al., WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, 00-

230; MM Docket No. 97-217; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket No. 00-258; Order on Reconsideration and Fifth

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5731, para. 310 (2006) (BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O) (favorably

citing San Diego MDS when affirming that “transmission of test signals and/or color bars by a BRS/EBS licensee or

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

explained in San Diego MDS, “it was clearly unreasonable . . . to believe that the periodic broadcasting of

signals that nobody received constituted ‘service’ within the meaning of the rule. Such an interpretation

is unreasonable; in order to provide a service a provider would, at a minimum, need a customer or other

person to serve.”

175

The Commission further noted in that case that the underlying purpose of ensuring

that spectrum is used efficiently and effectively, to prevent spectrum warehousing, would be frustrated if

an MDS licensee’s transmission of test signals or color bars constituted authorized service.

176

The same

rationale applies equally here. We thus adopt our rule regarding channel keepers as proposed.

73. Verizon asks the Commission to expand the definition of operation to include facilities

that are “available” to carry customer traffic but are in “standby” mode and only used on an “as-needed

basis depending on capacity demands.”

177

Verizon argues that these systems are needed to allow

licensees to maximize efficiency of their spectrum resources and network investment and maintain

optimal performance levels while providing seamless service to customers across multiple licenses in the

same market.

178

We decline to expand our definition of operation as requested by Verizon. As the

Commission explained in San Diego MDS, at a minimum, provision of service requires a customer or

other person to serve.

179

That a network is capable of service in “standby mode” or on an “as-needed

basis” without providing actual service to a customer or other person is insufficient to constitute service

for purposes of our permanent discontinuance rules. Moreover, the Commission does not license

spectrum on a network basis; rather, we evaluate operational obligations on a license-by-license basis,

180

and thus licensees must maintain continuity of service or operations on a license-by-license basis.

C. Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies

74. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed a new rule, Section 1.950, to

standardize and clarify its partitioning and disaggregation rules across services in which such activities

are permitted.

181

As part of this proposal, the Commission contemplated establishing consistent

performance obligations (i.e., construction and operation) for spectrum licenses that have been divided by

geographic partitioning or spectrum disaggregation arrangements. Specifically, the Commission

proposed that each party to such an arrangement would be individually required to meet any service-

specific performance requirements.

75. At present, there are a wide variety of Wireless Radio Services under the Commission’s

authority that are subject to equally varied construction and performance obligations. The Commission’s

current partitioning rules provide licensees several options to meet their construction obligations:

(1) Independent Construction—the parties may independently elect to satisfy the construction

requirements for their respective partitioned license areas and failure to perform subjects a licensee in this

(Continued from previous page)

lessee does not constitute substantial service”); H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9571, para. 233; AWS-4

Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16203, paras. 274-76. See also Verizon Comments at 16 (channel keepers that

simply transmit test signals, tones, and/or color bars should not constitute operation because these transmissions “do

not provide any service at any time to any customer”).

175

San Diego MDS, 19 FCC Rcd at 23124, para. 10.

176

Id.

177

Verizon Comments at 16.

178

Id.

179

San Diego MDS, 19 FCC Rcd at 23124, para. 10.

180

See Request of PTC-220, LLC for Waivers of Certain 220 MHz Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24

FCC Rcd 8537, 8542, para. 14 (WTB 2009), Cingular Interactive, L.P.; Showing of Substantial Service Pursuant to

Section 90.665(c), Order, 16 FCC Rcd 19200, 19203, para. 7 (WTB 2001).

181

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at - Appx. A, § 1.950.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

context to forfeiture of its partitioned license;

182

(2) Collective Construction—the parties may collectively

share responsibility for meeting the construction requirement for the entire geographic area and if the

parties collectively fail, then both will be subject to a range of penalties, including possible license

forfeiture;

183

or (3) Partitioner-only Construction—the partitioner may satisfy the construction

requirement for the entire pre-partitioned geographic area. Many services allow this third option, but the

repercussions for failure to perform vary significantly.

184

In some instances, partitionees must still satisfy

a substantial service requirement for the partitioned area at renewal.

185

In others, partitionees can argue

that they are not obligated to provide service to obtain license renewal since only the non-performing

partitioner is subject to forfeiture of its license at renewal.

186

76. Licensees also currently have multiple options under the Commission’s disaggregation

rules to meet applicable construction obligations: (1) One-party Construction—parties can assign

responsibility to either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee, and construction by that party is deemed

sufficient for both.

187

Generally, if the designated party fails to perform, only its license is subject to

forfeiture at renewal.

188

(2) Shared Construction Responsibility—parties may share responsibility for

meeting the construction requirements.

189

Depending on the service, failure to perform by either party

could result in forfeiture of both licenses.

190

By contrast, some service rules allow parties to a

disaggregation to satisfy the construction requirement in the aggregate rather than individually.

191

77. A majority of the commenters that addressed the partitioning and disaggregation

construction requirements in the WRS Reform NPRM disagree with the Commission’s proposal to require

that each party to such arrangements independently satisfy construction obligations.

192

They object

largely on the basis that the current rules already promote efficient spectrum use and changing them is

unnecessary, or worse, harmful.

193

They contend, among other things, that the new rules will curb interest

182

Id. at 7026, para. 79.

183

Id. at 7026, paras. 80-81.

184

Id. at 7026-27, paras. 82-85.

185

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 24.714(e)(1)(ii) (Broadband PCS).

186

See 47 CFR §§ 22.513(f)(1)(ii) (Paging and Radiotelephone Service), 90.813(e)(1)(ii) (900 SMR MHz Service);

see also 47 CFR §§ 27.15(d)(1)(i) (governing 1.4 GHz, 1.6 GHz, and 2.3 GHz bands), 80.60(d)(1) (Maritime Radio

Services), 101.1323(c)(2) (Multiple Address Systems (EAs)).

187

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7027-28, para. 87.

188

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 27.15(d)(2)(i) (most Part 27 services), 90.813(e)(2) (900 MHz SMR Service), 95.823(d)(2)

(218-219 MHz Service), 101.1323(c)(1) (MAS rule), 90.1019(d)(2) (220 MHz Service).

189

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7028-29, paras. 78-90.

190

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 90.1019(d)(2) (220-222 MHz Service).

191

See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 24.104(g)(1)(ii), (g)(4) (Narrowband PCS); 24.103(a) (Paging and Radiotelephone Service).

192

None of the commenters addressed any other provision in proposed section 1.950 beyond the proposed

performance requirements in subsection (g).

193

E.g., MetroPCS Comments at 31; Verizon Comments at 17; AT&T Comments at 2, 32; USCC Comments at 12.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

in secondary market opportunities,

194

particularly in rural areas,

195

and will disrupt existing private

contractual relationships.

196

78. The Commission’s experience with partitioning and disaggregation indicates that parties

can, and sometimes do, manipulate the current requirements in ways that result in spectrum in some

services lying fallow for long periods of time,

197

contrary to the Commission’s stated goal of maximizing

efficient spectrum use. For instance, under our current rules, parties have been free to disaggregate a

small sliver of a spectrum license over the entire geographic licensed area and assign the entire

construction requirement to that particular license. In that circumstance, only that small sliver of

spectrum has been subject to license termination or forfeiture, while the bulk of the license has not been

subject to any construction requirement.

198

We find that none of the comments effectively addresses the

Commission’s central rationale for proposing to modify the partitioning and disaggregation performance

requirements, i.e., preventing spectrum warehousing. We therefore amend our partitioning and

disaggregation rules to prevent spectrum warehousing.

79. We are also mindful, however, of the concerns expressed by industry commenters that

Section 1.950(g), as proposed, could unnecessarily deter secondary market activity or create more

extensive construction obligations for licensees than would have been required had the partitioning or

disaggregation not taken place. Therefore, in lieu of requiring each party to a partitioning or

disaggregation arrangement to certify that it will independently satisfy service-specific construction

and/or performance requirements, we will afford such parties the additional option of sharing service-

specific performance requirements.

199

Further, to ensure uniformity and clarity, we are adopting Section

1.950, largely as proposed, and Section 1.950(g), as revised herein, to replace separate partitioning and

disaggregation construction and performance rules for each service in various rule parts. We conclude

that these changes will provide WRS licensees with greater flexibility to configure their licenses

according to their operational needs, while still affording important safeguards against spectrum

warehousing.

80. Upon review, we agree with Verizon that imposing an independent construction

requirement on both parties to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement, as proposed in draft Section

194

E.g., CTIA Comments at 33; CTIA 2017 Comments at 7; USCC Reply Comments at 8; RCA Reply Comments at

4-5; AT&T Comments at 31-34; Blooston Comments at 28; Blooston Reply Comments at 16; MetroPCS Comments

at 31-32.

195

E.g., CTIA Comments at 33; CTIA 2017 Comments at 7; Verizon 2017 Comments at 8; RCA Reply Comments

at 4-5; Blooston Comments at 28; NTCA Reply Comments at 5; USCC Reply Comments at 8.

196

AT&T Comments at 32.

197

For example, in a case that came before the Commission on an application for extension of time to meet a

buildout requirement, a licensee holding hundreds of MAS licenses had previously disaggregated a small piece of

each license and assigned the buildout requirement to a third-party licensee. The assignee failed to meet the first

buildout requirement for all of its disaggregated licenses, and as a result, the Commission cancelled its licenses for

failure to perform and denied its requests for additional time. However, the original licensee, by disaggregating its

licenses and assigning away the buildout obligation, was able to delay construction for the balance of the license

term, despite the fact that it still held a substantial majority of the spectrum. In doing so, it successfully avoided

forfeiture.

198

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7023, para. 72.

199

Specifically, in section 1.950(g), as revised herein, we provide the parties to a partitioning and/or disaggregation

arrangement with two options for satisfying service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and

operation requirements). Under the first option, each party may individually satisfy any service-specific

requirements and, upon failure, must individually face any service-specific performance penalties. Under the second

option, both parties may agree to share responsibility for any service-specific requirements. Upon failure to meet

their shared service-specific performance requirements, both parties will be subject to any service-specific penalties.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

1.950(g) in the WRS Reform NPRM, might, under certain circumstances, unnecessarily impose additional

construction requirements on parties to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements that would not have

existed had the license not been partitioned or disaggregated.

200

To address this potential issue, we have

revised Section 1.950(g) to allow participants to share the construction requirement, which ensures that no

two parties to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement will be required to build out more than 100

percent of the requirement for any particular geographic area or spectrum block. Furthermore, the rule we

adopt today does not require that parties to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements continue

construction in cases where the original licensee has already satisfied the requirement for the license term.

However, to the extent that Section 1.950(g), as revised, requires that partitionees and disaggregatees

comply with interim and final construction benchmarks in addition to satisfying the renewal requirements

we adopt in this order, the Commission’s interest in preventing spectrum warehousing that is permitted

under current rules outweighs the potential added burden, if any, on these third-party licensees.

81. We find that the rule we adopt today adequately addresses arguments by CTIA and

several other commenters that proposed Section 1.950(g) would deter secondary market activity,

especially with respect to small, rural licensees for whom buildout requirements may be prohibitively

costly.

201

We also find that today’s rule adequately addresses Blooston’s arguments underlying its

recommendation that we exempt rural areas from the rule.

202

The revised rule we adopt today allows

parties to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements to share service-specific construction

requirements. We conclude that the additional flexibility of our revised rule will continue to enable

service providers to configure geographic area and spectrum block licenses to suit their unique

operational needs, which includes using partitioning and disaggregation to open up licensing

opportunities to rural carriers. However, it contravenes the Commission’s obligation to promote efficient

use of spectrum to allow arrangements that facilitate spectrum warehousing solely because the acquiring

entities lack the resources to develop that spectrum. Although we hope that the secondary markets

provide an opportunity for small, rural carriers to obtain access to spectrum in an amount, or over a

geographic area, that is consistent with their business plans, we are still obligated to ensure that spectrum

is put to use and not allowed to lie fallow, whatever the reason.

82. We also are unpersuaded by Blooston’s and NTCA’s recommendations that the

Commission retain “partitioner only” construction rules (wherein a partitioner can certify that it has met

or will meet the construction requirement for the entire pre-partitioned area) to encourage carriers to take

risks in rural markets.

203

This proposal would appear to allow a partitionee in certain services to hold a

license for the partitioned area without deploying facilities on the spectrum for a significant period of

time, even if the licensee must be able to certify that it is providing service at renewal, or otherwise make

a showing to justify license renewal. We conclude that the better way to promote service to rural markets

is to ensure that all license holders—at least during the initial license term, and in circumstances where

the original licensee has not previously satisfied the construction requirement for the entire geographic

area or spectrum block—have, directly or indirectly, an obligation to construct and operate facilities on

the spectrum. Adopting Section 1.950(g), as revised herein, is an essential tool to help us ensure that all

covered licensees are discouraged from warehousing spectrum and instead are putting the spectrum to

use.

83. We decline to adopt CTIA’s proposal that we should exempt a licensee’s wholly-owned

subsidiaries or commonly controlled affiliates when they partner with the licensee to divide the license.

204

200

Verizon Comments at 16-17.

201

CTIA Comments at 33; Blooston Reply Comments at 16; NTCA Comments at 3; RCA Reply Comments at 5;

AT&T Comments at 32-33.

202

Blooston Comments at 28; Blooston Reply Comments at 15-17.

203

Blooston Comments at 28; Blooston Reply Comments at 15-17; NTCA Reply Comments at 4-5.

204

CTIA Comments at 35.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Our experience has shown that this type of intra-corporate family partitioning and disaggregation has

proven particularly susceptible to manipulation for spectrum warehousing purposes simply because the

parties to the division are commonly controlled.

205

Adoption of CTIA’s proposal risks undermining rather

than advancing the Commission’s objective of eliminating spectrum warehousing. Moreover, the

addition of the new option to permit shared construction responsibility by a partitioner/partitionee or a

disaggregator/disaggregatee should largely address this concern.

84. We do not adopt the suggestions raised by MetroPCS

206

and Verizon

207

that we exempt

Broadband PCS from our proposed rule based on the argument that the substantial service requirement at

renewal discourages parties to a partitioning arrangement from warehousing spectrum in the manner the

Commission seeks to preclude.

208

We conclude that these licensees will be no worse off under a

regulatory framework that holds all licensees to comparable requirements. Many services still allow

parties to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement to assign the performance requirement to one of

the parties and thereby allow the other to delay or avoid construction in that party’s portion of the license

(whether geography or spectrum) if they so choose. This problem exists in numerous services, even if

some service rules may discourage so-called free riders.

209

By this Second Report and Order, we seek to

consolidate the services under a single set of rules and proscribe spectrum warehousing by all licensees in

the covered services, not just the few who hold spectrum subject to service rules that more effectively

prevent such warehousing.

85. We also decline to adopt CTIA’s proposal that the Commission narrowly focus its

independent construction requirement in a manner that would only target free rider behavior.

Specifically, CTIA suggests that the Commission prohibit parties from assuming construction and

performance obligations for an entire license area or spectrum block unless they also hold spectrum

covering a majority of that same geographic area or spectrum block.

210

CTIA does not provide evidence

demonstrating why this approach would be more effective at preventing spectrum warehousing than the

205

In one such case, a single licensee and its affiliated company disaggregated large portions of nearly 400 of their

220 MHz service licenses and assigned the majority shares of these licenses to several other affiliated companies.

For each of the subject licenses, the original licensees retained only a fraction (generally 20 percent or less) of the

original licensed spectrum, and in each case, the original licensees indicated that they (the assignors) would be

responsible for meeting Part 90 construction deadlines. As a result, the third-party recipients of these disaggregated

licenses received 80 percent of the spectrum without a corresponding construction obligation.

206

MetroPCS Comments at 31.

207

Verizon Comments at 17.

208

See 47 CFR § 24.714(e)(1)(i-v). Under this provision, either the partitionee certifies that it will satisfy the

construction requirement or the original licensee will retain responsibility for the construction requirement for the

entire area. In the latter context, the partitionee must still certify that it has satisfied the substantial service

requirement for the partitioned area by the end of the 10-year license period. Id. However, Broadband PCS

licensees that seek authority to disaggregate their spectrum license can elect which of the two parties will be

responsible for construction, allowing one or the other party to delay or avoid construction in that party’s portion of

the spectrum. See 47 CFR § 24.714(e)(2).

209

We note that the current rules for several services (e.g., 1.6 GHz, 1.4 GHz, and WCS – 2305-2320, 2345-2360 or

2.3 GHz bands) provide the option that each party to a partitioning arrangement may certify that it will

independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its partitioned area, and if it fails, face cancellation. See

47 CFR § 27.15(d)(1)(i). But these same service rules allow partitioners to accept full responsibility for the entire

area, absolving the partitionee from any repercussions for failure, and they allow parties to a disaggregation

arrangement to choose which of the two parties will be responsible for the substantial service requirement, again

exposing only the responsible party to potential forfeiture. See id. § 27.15(d)(2)(i). As the Commission suggested

in the WRS Reform NPRM, partitionees in these bands could argue that under section 27.15(d), they are not

obligated to provide service to obtain license renewal. WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7027, para. 84.

210

CTIA Comments at 34 & n.108.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

consistent approach envisioned by the partitioning and disaggregation rules adopted today, nor does it

acknowledge or address the potential administrative burdens that would be placed on applicants and on

Commission staff in addressing such arrangements. We believe that adoption of CTIA’s proposal would

provide greater uncertainty in the spectrum marketplace and would not consistently and successfully

prevent spectrum warehousing.

86. We do adopt the suggestions advanced by AT&T,

211

Sprint,

212

Verizon,

213

and CTIA

214

that we should exempt existing partitioning and disaggregation arrangements from application of the

requirements of Section 1.950(g) as adopted today, and apply the rule only prospectively and only to

future partitioning and disaggregation arrangements. By adopting Section 1.950(g) as revised, we intend

to prevent spectrum warehousing and ensure that future transactions facilitate the availability of spectrum

in the marketplace for licensees who are most highly motivated to use it. By this action, we seek to

resolve loopholes in our current partitioning and disaggregation rules that could be and have been

manipulated to avoid the very construction and substantial service obligations that promote efficient

spectrum use. However, we agree that our rules should not be applied retroactively to disrupt transactions

that have already been negotiated based on the pre-existing rules and submitted to the Commission for

approval. Specifically, Section 1.950(g) will be applied to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements

reflected in applications filed on or after the effective date of the new rule, and not to any arrangements

reflected in an already granted application or in an application filed before the effective date of new

Section 1.950(g).

87. We make no changes in response to AT&T’s argument that new entrants will be

discouraged from acquiring spectrum through partitioning or disaggregation when it is late in the original

license term, and there is little time to fulfill the construction obligation.

215

We conclude that this concern

is related not to partitioning and disaggregation rules, but to the Commission’s current build out rules,

which provide that the performance requirements associated with a license are not reduced or extended as

a result of any secondary market transaction, including one near the end of a license term. Today’s rule

modifications do not alter those obligations.

88. Finally, we do not address the suggestion by Sprint and AT&T that licensees that have

acquired previously partitioned and/or disaggregated licenses be allowed, as a matter of processing, to

consolidate the subdivided parts into the original license configuration.

216

We find this proposal to be

beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is narrowly focused on standardizing and clarifying the

Commission’s partitioning and disaggregation rules across services. The question of whether, and how, a

partitioned or disaggregated license can be reconstituted as a matter or processing can be addressed by

Commission staff under current rules and licensing systems.

89. Commenting parties in this proceeding that addressed proposed Section 1.950 focused

solely on proposed Section 1.950(g). Accordingly, based on the record in this proceeding, we adopt

section 1.950 largely as proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM, with the exception of Section 1.950(g). We

further conclude that adopting new Section 1.950(g), as revised herein, will most effectively balance our

competing obligations to: (1) remove potential barriers to entry by returning heretofore fallow spectrum

to the marketplace, and thereby increase competition; (2) encourage parties to use spectrum more

efficiently; and (3) speed service to unserved and underserved areas.

211

AT&T Comments at 32.

212

Sprint Comments at 19.

213

Verizon Comments at 17-18.

214

CTIA Comments at 34-35.

215

AT&T Comments at 33.

216

Sprint Comments at 19-20; AT&T Reply Comments at 12.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

D. Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications and Resolution of

Previously Pending Competing Renewal Applications

90. In the WRS Reform Order, the Commission imposed a freeze on the filing of competing

renewal applications and held in abeyance the already-filed competing renewal applications until the

conclusion of this proceeding. The Commission stated that, if it were to adopt the rules proposed in the

WRS Reform NPRM, it would “dismiss all pending mutually exclusive applications and related

correspondence filed with the Commission regarding those applications.”

217

91. At the time that the WRS Reform Order was adopted, the Commission had before it a

total of 151 renewal applications in three different service bands, and 178 applications competing with

those renewal applications.

218

Most of those competing applications—175 of 178—were filed in the 2.3

GHz Band against WCS licensees. These competing applications were dismissed by the Commission

after the relevant parties reached settlement agreements.

219

Of the remaining three competing

applications, two were against Cellular licensees’ renewal applications and one was against a Broadband

PCS licensee’s renewal application.

220

The two Cellular competing applications have since been

dismissed

221

or resolved.

222

The PCS competing application was withdrawn after the applicant obtained

the underlying license at issue via the license assignment process.

223

217

WRS Reform Order, 25 RCC Rcd at 7033-34, para. 100.

218

Id. at 7033, para. 100.

219

The vast majority of the competing WCS renewal applications were resolved by an agreement between Green

Flag Wireless, LLC (Green Flag); CWC License Holding, Inc.; Corr Investments I, LLC; James McCotter; and

Snapline Communications, LLC (the Competing Applicants), and AT&T and its subsidiaries (2012 Settlement

Agreement). The Commission approved the 2012 Settlement Agreement and its amendments and dismissed the

respective competing renewal applications throughout 2012-2014. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Approves Settlement Agreement and Dismisses Competing Renewal Applications, WT Docket 10-112, Public

Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 12940 (WTB 2012); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Dismisses Competing Applications,

WT Docket 10-112, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 4332 (WTB 2013) (2013 Dismissal Notice); Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau Dismisses Competing Application, WT Docket 10-112, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd

3760 (WTB 2014); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Approves Amendment to Settlement Agreement, Dismissal

of Competing Applications, and Withdrawal of Petitions for Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 10-112, Public

Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 16309 (WTB 2014). The Commission also in 2013 approved a settlement agreement between

Green Flag and Stratos Offshore Services Company (Stratos) for dismissal of competing applications against four

Stratos WCS authorizations in the Gulf of Mexico. See 2013 Dismissal Notice at 3. Today, there are no remaining

competing WCS renewal applications.

220

WRS Reform Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7034-35, paras. 103-05.

221

See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Approves Settlement Agreement, Public Notice, WT Docket No. 10-

112, 28 FCC Rcd 7907 (WTB 2013) (approving the settlement agreement that resolved N.E. Colorado Cellular

Inc.’s competing application for a Cellular Service authorization held by Sagir, Inc., and dismissing the competing

application).

222

Tisdale Telephone Company’s (Tisdale) competing application against the Cellular renewal application of

Kankakee Cellular LLC (Kankakee), ULS File No. 0003848206, was granted on April 24, 2013, after Kankakee

withdrew its renewal application for a Cellular license authorization in the Kankakee, Illinois market. See Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Action, Public Notice, Report No. 8649, at 16 (May 1, 2013),

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-320623A1.pdf (granting Tisdale’s amended application); see

also ULS File No. 0003637485 (withdrawal of Kankakee’s renewal application).

223

NTCH-CA, Inc. (NTCH-CA) filed in 2007 a competing application against incumbent licensee FB

Communications, Inc. (FB Communications). See ULS File No. 0003030420. The license was eventually assigned

to NTCH-CA, and NTCH-CA has since assigned the license to T-Mobile. See ULS File No. 0004411757 (pro

forma assignment from FB Communications to Besimanto Communications Corp. (Besimanto)); ULS File No.

0005032516 (assignment from Besimanto to NTCH-CA); ULS File No. 0005834009 (lead application for exchange

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

92. Because there are no remaining pending competing renewal applications, there is no

further action needed on the Commission’s part to dismiss such applications.

E. Transition From Interim Renewal Application Procedures

93. The Commission directed incumbent licensees to continue to file timely renewal

applications as required by applicable Commission rules during the pendency of this rulemaking.

224

The

Commission further directed that renewal applications routinely should continue to be placed on a Bureau

accepted for filing public notice, and that interested parties could continue to file petitions to deny

consistent with our rules.

225

In order to reduce uncertainty that might be caused by long-pending renewal

applications, the Commission directed the Bureau to routinely grant renewal applications during the

pendency of this proceeding, conditioned on the outcome of this rulemaking.

226

94. Notwithstanding the Commission’s statement in the WRS Reform Order that interested

parties may file petitions to deny consistent with the requirements of our rules, NTCH, Inc., now asks that

we provide an opportunity for a potential applicant to challenge a renewal applicant’s basic qualifications

at the close of this docket.

227

NTCH asserts that providing this opportunity to file petitions to deny

against conditionally granted renewal applications is necessary to avoid “permanently abrogat[ing] the

legal rights of parties interested in challenging the grant of a renewal application.”

228

We deny NTCH’s

request that we open a window for the filing of petitions to deny against licensees whose renewal

applications have been conditionally granted. The opportunity to file petitions to deny against renewal

applications has been present throughout the pendency of this proceeding, and NTCH has not offered a

persuasive legal or equitable argument in support of having a second shot at these renewal applications.

We accordingly decline to open a window for the filing of petitions to deny against renewal applications

that have been conditionally granted.

95. Petitions for reconsideration of the actions taken by the WRS Reform Order were filed by:

(1) Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., in connection with its wholly owned indirect subsidiary’s, Tisdale

Telephone Company, LLC, competing Cellular application with the Cellular renewal application filed by

Kankakee Cellular L.L.C.;

229

(2) CTIA, AT&T, Cricket, Rural Cellular Association, Sprint, T-Mobile, US

Cellular, and Verizon Wireless;

230

(3) Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC Licensing Holding, Inc., James

(Continued from previous page)

of licenses, including assignment of license at issue from NTCH-CA to T-Mobile License LLC). In light of these

events, NTCH-CA withdrew its competing application. See ULS File No. 0003030420.

224

WRS Reform Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7039, para. 112.

225

Id.

226

Id.

227

NTCH 2017 Comments at 6.

228

Id.

229

Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., and Tisdale Telephone Company, LLC, Petition for Partial Reconsideration and/or

Clarification of Order Regarding the Processing of Pending, Cut-Off Cellular Applications, WT Docket No. 10-112

(filed June 24, 2010); Supplement to Petition for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification of Order Regarding the

Processing of Pending, Cut-Off Cellular Applications, WT Docket No. 10-112 (filed July 27, 2010).

230

Petition for Reconsideration of CTIA – The Wireless Association®, AT&T Services, Inc., Cricket

Communications, Inc., Rural Cellular Association, Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile USA, United States

Cellular Corporation and Verizon Wireless, WT Docket No. 10-112 (filed Aug. 6, 2010) (CTIA Petition).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

McCotter, and NTCH-CA, Inc.;

231

and (4) Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

(WCAI).

232

96. The Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. petition has been mooted by the fact that Kankakee

withdrew its renewal application for a Cellular license authorization in the Kankakee, Illinois market, and

Tisdale was granted a Cellular license for that market.

233

The Commission previously approved the

withdrawal of the petition for reconsideration filed by Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding,

Inc., James McCotter, and NTCH-CA, Inc., along with another petition for reconsideration filed by the

same parties on October 22, 2010, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

234

The WCAI petition for partial

reconsideration was addressed by a public notice issued by the Bureau to clarify the conditional grant of

applications for renewal of license in the WRS Reform Order.

235

Subsequent to the release of the WRS

Reform Clarification Public Notice, CTIA, AT&T, Cricket, Rural Cellular Association, Sprint, T-Mobile,

US Cellular, and Verizon Wireless filed a motion to withdraw their petition for reconsideration.

236

find no reason to address the arguments in the CTIA Petition and accordingly will grant the request to

withdraw the CTIA Petition.

97. We direct the Bureau to take the necessary steps to cease conditioning the grant of

renewal applications on the outcome of this proceeding. In addition, we direct the Bureau to take the

necessary steps to remove the condition from already granted renewal applications or otherwise make

clear on the face of such licenses that such condition is no longer valid.

III. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

98. The Act directs the Commission to promote “the development and rapid deployment of

new technologies, products, and services . . . for those residing in rural areas.”

237

Further, the Act requires

that service rules for geographic licenses subject to auction “include performance 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 and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.”

238

A core Commission goal is to

facilitate access to scarce spectrum resources and ensure that wireless communications networks are

widely deployed so that every American, regardless of location, can benefit from a variety of

communications offerings made available by Commission licensees.

239

In pursuit of that goal, the

231

Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, Inc., James McCotter, and NTCH-CA, Inc., Petition for

Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 10-112 (filed Aug. 6, 2010).

232

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. Petition for Partial Reconsideration, WT Docket No.

10-112 (filed Aug. 6, 2010).

233

Tisdale Telephone Company, LLC, License for WQRD957, CMA273 – Kankakee, IL, granted Apr, 24, 22013

234

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Approves Amendment to Settlement Agreement, Dismissal of Competing

Applications, and Withdrawal of Petitions for Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 10-112, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd

16309 (WTB 2014).

235

Federal Communications Commission Clarifies Conditional Grant of Renewal Licenses Pursuant to the Wireless

Radio Services Order, WT Docket No. 10-112, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 4173 (2011) (WRS Reform Clarification

Public Notice).

236

Motion of CTIA – The Wireless Association®, AT&T Services, Inc., Cricket Communications, Inc., Rural

Cellular Association, Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile USA, United States Cellular Corporation and Verizon

Wireless To Withdraw Petition for Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 10-112 (filed May 31, 2011).

237

47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

238

Id. § 309(j)(4)(B).

239

See 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 (creating the FCC “[f]or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in

communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, . .

. a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Commission has, through various service rulemakings, created flexible-use geographic licenses and

established initial term construction obligations tailored to specific bands, many of which were adopted

with the stated intent of promoting service in rural areas.

240

99. Although the Commission’s efforts have facilitated the rapid development of a wide

variety of wireless services over the past decade, there remains a real and growing digital divide between

rural and urban areas in the United States.

241

While the construction obligations associated with

geographic licenses are intended to encourage wide deployment of wireless networks, those obligations

require licensees to provide service to only portions of the license area, not the entire area. Even the

Commission’s most aggressive initial term construction obligation, which requires certain licensees to

provide signal coverage and offer service over 70 percent of the geographic area of the license,

242

likely

leaves significant portions of rural America, where deployment costs may be higher and demand lower,

without meaningful mobile coverage. In addition, the Commission’s current rules do not require any

additional construction after the initial license term—that is, during subsequent renewal terms. In this

Further Notice, we take the opportunity to take a fresh look at construction obligations during license

renewal terms, and seek comment on a range of possible actions that may advance our goal of increasing

the number of rural Americans with access to wireless communications services.

A. Facilitating Additional Construction

100. In order to encourage investment in wireless networks, facilitate access to scarce

spectrum resources, and promote the rapid deployment of mobile services to rural Americans, we seek

comment on various steps the Commission could take to narrow existing gaps in the provision of wireless

communications services and facilitate construction. We seek comment in particular on whether renewal

term construction obligations beyond those applicable during a licensee’s initial license term would help

achieve our goal of increasing the number of Americans with access to wireless communications services.

With respect to any potential renewal term construction obligations, we seek comment on three methods

for applying those obligations: (1) applying any new obligations on a prospective basis only to new

licenses issued in the future; (2) establishing an “opt-in” framework to facilitate additional buildout; or (3)

applying any new obligations prospectively to all existing and future licensees of flexible geographic

licenses. We seek comment on the specific costs and benefits of each approach and the likelihood that

they will achieve the Commission’s goals of closing the digital divide and facilitating deployment of

mobile services across the United States.

(Continued from previous page)

reasonable charges . . . ”), 254(b) (directing the Commission to adopt universal-service policies so that “[c]onsumers

in all regions of the Nation, including . . . those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to

telecommunications and information services, . . . that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in

urban areas . . .”).

240

As an example, in 2004, the Commission established a rural safe harbor, whereby licensees in all wireless

services licensed on a geographic basis could meet construction obligations by demonstrating substantial service

through coverage of a certain percentage of geography in a percentage of rural areas within a licensed area. See

Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural

Telephone Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based Services et al., WT Docket No. 02-382 et al., Report and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19123-24 paras. 79-80 (2004) (Rural R&O). In

2007, the Commission, largely in an effort to expand the provision of rural service offerings, adopted geographic

area coverage requirements in lieu of population coverage benchmarks in certain 700 MHz spectrum blocks. See

Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands et al., WT Docket No. 06-150 et al., Second

Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15349-50, paras. 158-59 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report and Order).

241

See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a

Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and the Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 2016 Broadband

Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, 700-02, paras. 1-6 (2016).

242

See 47 CFR § 27.14(g).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

101. First, we seek comment on applying any of the additional renewal term construction

obligations discussed below on a prospective basis only to new geographic licenses issued in the future.

Should any new obligations apply to all such licenses issued in the future, or should we apply any

additional renewal term construction obligations only to licensees in bands authorized by the Commission

in the future? If the latter, how should the Commission define bands subject to those construction

obligations? Would they apply only to bands newly authorized for the provision of WRS services?

102. Another approach would be to provide licensees with the opportunity to voluntarily

undertake additional renewal term construction obligations in exchange for certain incentives. What

incentives would be sufficient for licensees to make long-term investments in additional construction,

specifically in rural areas? If so, when should licensees be permitted to opt-in? At their next renewal

term? During an existing license term?

103. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should apply any additional renewal term

construction obligations prospectively to all existing and future flexible geographic licenses. In the event

the Commission uses this approach, we seek comment on when during a renewal term any additional

construction obligations would apply.

104. We seek comment on these potential approaches for achieving our objectives of

increasing buildout during terms after a license’s initial term, as well as any other reasonable deadlines

for compliance, specifically in light of the various penalties for failure discussed below and our goal to

promote rapid investment and deployment of wireless communications services to rural areas. We seek

comment on the specific costs and benefits of each approach and any other considerations concerning the

timeframe for implementation that should inform the Commission’s decision. More generally, we seek

comment on applying any such obligations only to the license renewal terms that begin after the effective

date of those changes and any alternatives.

B. Renewal Term Construction Obligations

105. In the event we adopt additional renewal term construction obligations beyond a

licensee’s initial term requirements – whether on the opt-in or mandatory basis described above – we seek

comment on additional, reasonable construction obligations that will be most effective in achieving our

goals. First, we seek comment on an additional renewal term construction obligation whereby the

licensee would be required to exceed its original construction metric by an additional 10 percent in the

next full renewal term, and then by increments of five or 10 percent in subsequent renewal terms, up to a

certain threshold. For example, PCS licensees that are required to provide service to 67 percent of the

license population in the initial license term would be required to provide service to 77 percent (an

additional 10 percent) in their next full renewal term, then 82 or 87 percent (an additional five or 10

percent) in the subsequent term, and so on up to a certain threshold. We seek comment on the extent to

which such a requirement would further our goal of expanding service, or could be met in many instances

without significant additional deployment in rural areas. We seek comment on whether an increase of 10

percent during the next full renewal term, followed by incremental increases of five or 10 percent, is

sufficient to “ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of

spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to promote investment and rapid deployment of new

technologies and services.”

243

Should different increments apply to each type of license depending on the

license’s initial term construction obligations, which may vary widely?

244

Would a higher increment

more effectively carry out congressional intent? Or would a higher increment deter the effective and

efficient allocation of spectrum and unduly increase costs, potentially deterring needed infrastructure

upgrades to ease existing congestion? Similarly, should the increments vary depending on the

243

47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).

244

For example, certain PCS licensees are required to cover 25 percent of the license population, see 47 CFR

§ 24.203(b), while certain 700 MHz licensees are required to cover 75 percent of the license population, see id.

§ 27.14(g).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Commission’s chosen approach for applying the additional obligations – i.e., depending on whether the

obligations apply on an opt-in or mandatory basis? Further, at what threshold should buildout

requirements stop? At 100 percent? At 95 percent? 90 percent? How do we balance the benefits of

increased buildout to rural consumers against the cost incurred for such buildout? And how do we

account for the increased incentive to make use of otherwise fallow spectrum that comes with increased

buildout requirements? We also seek comment on how to treat cases in which a licensee may have met

the increased benchmark during their initial license term.

245

106. Similarly, for licensees that met a Commission-defined “safe harbor” (e.g., service to a

certain percentage of the population) to satisfy a substantial service requirement, we seek comment on

increasing the respective safe harbor metrics of those licenses by 10 percent in the next full renewal term,

and then by increments of five or 10 percent in subsequent renewal terms. Also, some licensees can meet

a safe harbor metric requiring construction of a discrete number of fixed links based on population – e.g.,

four links per million population. Increasing the number of links constructed would require adjusting the

ratio to reduce the number of persons covered per link.

246

In certain small market populations, this may

not actually require additional construction for many licensees, and may not be particularly effective at

determining the portion of the market that remains unserved. We seek comment on what alternate means

might be appropriate for adjusting the metric for this type of safe harbor. Additionally, some licensees

subject to an initial term substantial service requirement may have provided a descriptive showing of their

overall service or use

247

(rather than meeting a safe harbor metric). We seek comment on an appropriate

means for increasing that level of service or use. For example, is there an additional renewal term

construction obligation that could be applied to licensees with initial term substantial service requirements

that would be analogous to a 10 percent initial increase, followed by incremental increases of five or 10

percent? We seek comment on whether the appropriate means of increasing the construction obligations

for licensees that met a safe harbor or substantial service requirement should vary depending on the

Commission’s chosen method for applying those additional obligations. We seek comment on these and

any other relevant considerations for applying an additional construction obligation to licensees who

originally made a safe harbor or substantial service showing in their initial license term.

107. We also seek comment on other, targeted construction obligations that might achieve our

goal of expanded coverage with respect to spectrum bands used to provide service to consumers. For

example, should renewal term construction obligations contain a requirement for covering at least a

specific percentage of the rural population?

248

We seek comment on the market forces that drive

investment by wireless providers and on how these forces might inform our decision. Would a

requirement that licensees provide coverage to a certain percentage of the rural population be likely to

increase the number of wireless providers offering service in those areas and maximize service to rural

populations? We also seek comment on whether a requirement to cover a certain percentage of the

geographic area within a license area, instead of a specific percentage of the population, might be a more

effective metric to guarantee service to rural areas. If so, we seek comment on the appropriate percentage

245

We note that certain licensees—e.g., Cellular licensees expanding into unserved area and licensees of 700 MHz

unserved area acquired through relicensing—have the flexibility to file an application for the area they wish to serve

and have a 100 percent geographic coverage requirement for that licensed area. See 47 CFR §§ 22.946, 27.14(j)(3).

By virtue of their initial term 100 percent geographic coverage requirement, such licensees would already have

satisfied any additional renewal term construction requirements on which we seek comment herein.

246

If a service has a safe harbor of four links per million population (one link per 250,000 population), the ratio

could be adjusted by, for example, requiring one link per 225,000 population.

247

See supra para. 60, distinguishing between wireless providers that provide service to subscribers—e.g., providing

service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider—and licensees

that use their spectrum for private, internal communications.

248

The Commission defines “rural” as a county or census block with a population density of less than 100 people

per square mile. See Rural R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 19086-88, paras. 10-12.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

of the geographic area that licensees should be required to cover, and whether a geographic-based

requirement should vary depending on the size of the licensed area (e.g., CMA, PEA, EA, REAG).

Alternatively, would requiring service covering a certain percentage of rural road miles be an effective

metric of successful service to rural areas?

249

We seek comment on these and any other approaches that

will achieve our goal of increasing the number of Americans with access to wireless communications

services.

108. We also seek comment on when during a renewal term any additional construction

obligations would apply. One approach would be to require licensees to meet the additional construction

obligations at the end of the next full renewal license term. This method would provide licensees

significant time to meet any new requirements, but would delay the benefits of additional construction

and service, including service to rural areas. As an alternative, we seek comment on requiring licensees

to satisfy at least some additional renewal term construction obligations by a certain number of years into

their renewal term, e.g., five years into a ten-year renewal term. If commenters support this approach, we

seek comment on the number of years that would provide the most immediate results while also giving

licensees a sufficient amount of time to comply. We also seek comment on whether the deadlines for

compliance with any additional construction obligations should vary depending on the size of the license

area (e.g., CMA, EA, REAG).

109. We seek comment on these potential approaches, as well as any other reasonable

deadlines for compliance, specifically in light of the various penalties for failure discussed below and our

goal to promote rapid investment and deployment of wireless communications services to rural areas. We

seek comment on these and any other considerations concerning the timeframe for implementation that

will most effectively facilitate rapid deployment of wireless communications services to rural areas.

110. Scope of Subject Licenses. For several decades, the Commission has issued geographic

licenses in a wide range of spectrum bands with service rules and technical limits tailored to make the

most efficient use of each particular band. Some licenses, such as PCS, feature wide bandwidths and

provide licensees the option to offer a variety of mobile and fixed services.

250

In other cases, licensees’

service options are more limited due to such factors as: (1) the narrow bandwidths of the licenses (e.g.,

220 MHz),

251

(2) protection that must be afforded others in the band (e.g., M-LMS),

252

and (3) service

rules that dictate a particular set of use cases (e.g., 800 MHz Air-Ground).

253

In light of the wide variety

of flexible geographic licenses and their potential uses, we seek comment on whether to apply any

additional renewal term construction obligations—whether they are adopted through either an opt-in or

mandatory approach—to all flexible geographic licenses, or whether certain types of licenses should be

excluded. Similarly, we seek comment on whether any additional renewal term obligations should vary

depending on the type of license, or the specific band, to which they would apply, and, if so, why those

obligations should vary.

249

For example, in the sixteenth annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report, one of the metrics by which the

Commission reported rural coverage was by “rural road” miles, as defined using the “Rural Road” category

established by the U.S. Census Bureau. See Implementation of Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile

Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, 28 FCC Rcd 3700, 3941, para. 390, n.1186 (2013).

250

Other bands include the 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and AWS bands.

251

Other bands include the Narrowband PCS and Paging bands.

252

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 90.353 (limiting LMS licensees to operating on a secondary basis to federal and ISM users);

see also id. § 22.503(i) (paging licensees must provide co-channel interference protection to all authorized co-

channel facilities of exclusive licensees within the paging geographic area).

253

See, e.g., id. § 22.857 (certain 800 MHz paired bands are designated for nationwide exclusive assignment to

licensees providing services to persons on board aircraft); see also id. § 90.351 (operations in the LMS band are

restricted to using non-voice radio techniques used to determine the location and status of mobile radio units).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

111. Further, we note that licensees of flexible geographic licenses are free to use the spectrum

in any manner consistent with the rules. Some licensees in the same band, for example, could choose to

provide mobile or fixed services to consumers, provide fixed services to businesses, or use the license for

private internal communications. In this vein, in the event the Commission adopts additional renewal

term construction obligations through a mandatory approach applicable to either all licensees, or only new

licensees, we seek comment on whether those obligations should apply to all types of uses within a band,

or only particular types. We seek comment on these and any other considerations relevant to the scope of

licenses subject to any additional renewal term construction obligations. Commenters should identify the

costs and benefits of any particular approach they advocate.

112. Reporting. Finally, we seek comment on possible renewal reporting obligations that may

help achieve our goal of closing the digital divide, particularly in rural areas. For instance, even if a

licensee has deployed facilities to use a spectrum license, there may still be a lack of wireless broadband

adoption by consumers. Americans may choose not to adopt broadband service even in areas where

service is deployed based on factors, such as price and quality, that may be particularly important in rural

communities and other underserved areas. Thus, we seek comment on whether we should incorporate

broadband adoption and affordability reporting into the renewal process for WRS licenses or some subset

of licenses. Because mobile broadband service is provided to consumers today over multiple spectrum

bands, the price, quality, and adoption rates for mobile services are not tied to particular licenses.

However, is there some reporting, perhaps at the five-year mark of a license and in a renewal showing

that will provide insights into the adoption and affordability of the services being provided using that

spectrum and on steps that the Commission may need to take beyond requiring additional construction to

facilitate the closing of the digital divide? For instance, what steps has a licensee taken during the license

term to address these issues, including among different demographic sub-groups? How successful have

those efforts been? What metrics might the Commission specify that would prove helpful in this regard?

Finally, we seek comment on what role, if any, these considerations might play for a licensee to obtain

renewal.

C. Penalties and Relicensing

113. In the event we adopt additional renewal term construction obligations—whether through

an opt-in or mandatory approach—the implementation of those obligations requires appropriate penalties

should licensees fail to meet those obligations. We seek comment on the approaches that will most

effectively encourage investment and deployment in rural areas that otherwise would not see significant

mobile coverage. In the event that a particular penalty for failure to meet construction obligations

involves the return of a licensee’s spectrum to the Commission’s inventory, implementation will also

require an effective relicensing scheme for the reassignment of that spectrum. We therefore seek

comment on the potential approaches described below. Further, we seek comment on whether any of the

penalties described below should vary depending on the Commission’s chosen approach for applying the

additional renewal term construction obligation. Should different penalties apply for failure to satisfy

construction obligations that are mandatory, as opposed to obligations a licensee has assumed through an

opt-in approach?

114. Penalties. One possible penalty for failure to satisfy a construction obligation would be a

“keep-what-you-serve” penalty for failure to meet additional construction obligations after the initial

license term. Under this approach, a licensee’s authorization would terminate automatically for those

geographic portions of its license area in which the licensee is not providing service as of the additional

construction deadline, and those unserved areas would be returned to the Commission’s inventory for

reassignment.

254

The “keep-what-you-serve” approach eliminates the ability of licensees to retain

exclusive rights over areas that they do not serve and allows the Commission to reassign unused

254

See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15353, para. 170; see also 47 CFR § 27.14(g)(2), (h)(2),

(i)(2).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

spectrum, without loss of coverage to subscribers in areas where the licensee is providing service.

However, while this penalty promotes access to unused spectrum for those who would wish to serve rural

areas, it could potentially create an adverse incentive for licensees to serve the most desirable areas within

the license area and leave the rest unserved. Does the loss of authorization in unserved areas provide

licensees with sufficient incentive to meet the construction obligations? How well does it further our

public interest goal of increasing coverage to rural areas not constructed during a license’s initial term?

We seek comment on the costs and benefits of a “keep-what-you-serve” approach and how it might be

tailored to achieve our goal.

115. Second, we seek comment on a “use or offer” penalty. Under this approach a licensee

that fails to meet its additional construction obligation would retain its entire license area, but would be

required to negotiate in good faith with any third party seeking to acquire or lease spectrum in the

unserved areas of the license. Similar to the “keep-what-you-serve” approach, the “use or offer” penalty

prevents spectrum warehousing and provides access to unserved areas for third parties who wish to serve

them, while also preserving service to existing customers. However, like the “keep-what-you-serve”

penalty, this potential alternative could also create an adverse incentive for licensees to serve the most

desirable areas within the license area and leave the rest unserved. We seek comment on whether a “use

or offer” penalty, on its own, would be likely to provide significant incentive for wireless providers to

meet the additional construction obligations, since they would retain all licensed area they choose to

timely serve. We seek comment on the respective costs and benefits of this potential penalty and how it

might be tailored to achieve our goal. If commenters support the “use or offer” penalty, we seek

comment on whether there are transactional best practices or other indicia of good faith negotiations

255

—

e.g., model leases, sale agreements—that might reduce the administrative burdens of such an approach.

We also seek comment on whether there are standards other than good faith negotiation for implementing

this approach that would be more effective in increasing coverage to rural areas.

116. Third, we seek comment on total loss of the license or a reduction in license area,

including loss of areas that the licensee serves, as a penalty for failure to satisfy an additional construction

obligation in a renewal term. Given the potential loss of authority to operate in areas where the licensee

provides service and may have a customer base, this penalty could provide a significant incentive for

licensees to meet their additional construction obligations in renewal terms. Applying this penalty in a

renewal term for failure to meet an incremental increase could also harm consumers, however, as it could

result in loss of longstanding service to the licensee’s subscribers and the disruption of a network that

satisfied the renewal standard at the end of the initial license term. We seek comment on the respective

costs and benefits of this penalty and how it might be tailored to achieve our goal of incentivizing the

provision of service to rural areas. For example, in the event that a licensee loses authority to operate in

areas where it provides services to a customer base, are there certain ways of transitioning those

customers to other networks that could avoid significant interruptions in service and limit the potential

harm to consumers?

117. We generally seek comment on other penalties that could be used as alternatives to, or in

combination with, those described above. For instance, the Commission’s rules also provide for the

assessment of forfeitures where licensees fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the license,

including relevant rules and regulations.

256

Would forfeitures be an appropriate penalty for failure to meet

additional renewal term construction obligations? We seek comment on these and any other penalties that

255

See, e.g., AT&T Services, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 27.14(g), Letter Order, 2017 WL 239100, DA 17-63

(WTB Jan. 18, 2017) (applying “use or offer” as a condition of a waiver grant and noting, as an example, that good

faith negotiations require reasonable market-based rates).

256

See generally 47 CFR § 1.80. The Commission also provides for assessment of forfeitures within the service-

specific rules of certain bands. See, e.g., id. § 27.14(g)(2), (h)(2), (i)(2) (certain WCS licensees subject to forfeitures

for failing to meet construction obligations).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

would provide effective incentives to wireless providers to comply with additional construction

obligations and increase wireless communications service to rural areas.

118. Relicensing. In the event that the Commission ultimately adopts penalties that result in

the return of whole or partial licenses to the Commission’s inventory for reassignment, we seek comment

on various approaches for relicensing unused spectrum.

119. First, we seek comment on applying a two-phased on-demand relicensing approach, such

as the framework established by the Commission in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order,

257

under

which interested parties would be allowed to file applications to serve any amount of available unserved

area. Under the framework established there, there is a 30-day Phase 1 filing window during which only

the failing licensee is barred, followed by a Phase 2 window, which is open to all interested parties,

including the failing licensee, and runs until all unserved areas in the market are relicensed. This

framework provides customized access to unserved area, in which all interested parties may participate

and auction is only necessary when multiple entities seek the same area at the same time. Because

licensees who obtain authorizations through this process are required to cover 100 percent of the

geographic area of their chosen license area within one year from license issuance,

258

this framework

prevents spectrum warehousing and gives licensees the incentive to select only targeted areas that they

intend to immediately deploy. We note, however, that while this framework promotes access to unused

spectrum, it facilitates service to rural areas only to the extent that there are licensees who desire to serve

those areas. We seek comment on a two-phased application process for the relicensing of spectrum for

unserved area, including any variations to the framework adopted for certain 700 MHz licenses, that

might serve our rural coverage objectives.

120. Second, we seek comment on relicensing spectrum for unserved areas through a re-

auction framework that would offer all remaining unserved areas in the license together in a single

auction. This approach would limit direct access to available spectrum to the auction winner and, as with

the two-phased on-demand framework, facilitate service to rural areas only to the extent that there are

licensees who desire to serve those areas. In contrast to the two-phased on-demand relicensing approach,

all interested parties would have to participate in an auction, even in cases where the areas they intend to

serve do not overlap.

259

In implementing this approach, we would need to assess the appropriate

construction obligations for these partial geographic licenses, and whether the failing licensee should be

barred from participating in the auction of area it failed to serve.

260

We seek comment on these issues

pertaining to relicensing unserved areas through a re-auction framework and any additional or alternative

conditions that might be appropriate.

D. Providing Incentives for Additional Buildout

121. We also generally seek comment on other possible changes to our rules that might reduce

regulatory burdens to improve the renewal process and facilitate the efficient allocation and use of

spectrum. What, if any, other incentives could we add to this approach to encourage additional

257

See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15353-54, paras. 171-75; 47 CFR § 27.14(j)(1). The

Commission’s rules also provide for a separate, but similar, process for licensing Cellular Unserved Area. See id.

§ 22.949.

258

See 47 CFR § 27.14(j)(3).

259

For example, various licensees that neighbor a license with available unserved area may desire certain portions of

that available unserved area that do not overlap. In a two-phased relicensing approach, those neighboring licensees

could apply for and receive the non-overlapping portions of unserved area without going to auction. However, a

single reauction of the entire unserved area of the license would force such parties to compete at auction for all of

the unserved area as a whole, including the portions they do not necessarily desire or intend to serve.

260

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 24.203(a), (b), (d) (licensees that fail to meet construction requirements are ineligible to

regain the license).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

construction beyond licensees’ initial term obligations? Are there other incentives we can provide

licensees in order to facilitate acceptance of additional buildout obligations during the renewal period?

122. We seek comment as well on whether it may be appropriate to extend the license term,

upon renewal, of subject licenses. For example, a 10-year license term could be extended to 15 years, as

an alternative to or in combination with any other approach to the timeframe for implementation. Would

the certainty of a longer license term provide licensees with sufficient incentive to make long-term

investments in rural deployment? Should any such extension be tied to a licensee voluntarily undertaking

any additional construction obligations?

123. In addition, Verizon proposes that the Commission “adopt a presumption that band-

specific service rules or conditions will sunset at renewal, absent an affirmative finding that they are

necessary in the public interest.”

261

We seek comment on what types of rules or conditions should be

included under Verizon's proposed sunset presumption, including specific examples, and whether there

are categories of regulations that should be excluded from any sunset-at-renewal presumption. We seek

comment on the appropriate methodology for efficiently implementing such an approach, including the

process for determining whether rules or conditions have become obsolete or impractical, or whether such

rules remain necessary in the public interest. Should any sunset presumption be applied on a license-by-

license basis, where certain legacy service-specific obligations might sunset for specific licensees at

renewal? How and to what extent should the Commission continue to apply these same service-specific

obligations to similarly situated licensees whose license terms are not yet ripe for renewal? We also seek

detailed comment on the costs and benefits of adopting any rule sunset provision as Verizon proposes.

IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

124. This Second Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection

requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we previously sought

specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for

small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

125. We have assessed the effects of the policies adopted in this Second Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to information collection burdens on small business

concerns, and find that these policies will benefit many companies with fewer than 25 employees because

the revisions we adopt should reduce filing burdens for all WRS licensees, whether large or small. Also,

by ensuring, pursuant to the partitioning and disaggregation rules and the permanent discontinuance rules

we adopt today, that valuable spectrum will not lie fallow, these policies will provide small entities with

more opportunities to gain access to valuable spectrum. In addition, we have described impacts that

might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the

FRFA in Appendix B, infra.

B. Congressional Review Act

126. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order to Congress and the

Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.

§ 801(a)(1)(A).

261

Verizon July 27, 2017 Ex Parte at 3; Verizon 2017 Comments at 2.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

127. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies

that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.”

262

The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning the possible impact of the rule

changes contained in this Second Report and Order and the WRS Reform R&O is attached as Appendix

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

128. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the rule revisions

proposed in the Further Notice. The analysis is found in Appendix C. We request written public

comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments

filed in response to the Further Notice, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as

responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference

Information Center, will send a copy of the Further Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

E. Ex Parte Presentations

129. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in

accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.

263

Persons making ex parte presentations must file a

copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two

business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).

Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation

must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte

presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the

presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments

already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the

presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or

other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be

found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission

staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed

consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has

made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing

oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native

format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize

themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.

F. Filing Requirements

130. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,

264

interested parties may

file comments and reply comments concerning the Further Notice on or before the dates indicated on the

first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS.

265

262

5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.

263

47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.

264

47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419.

265

See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121-01 (1998).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the

ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

 Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each

filing.

 Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-

class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

o All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary

must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12

St., SW, Room TW-A325,

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries

must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be

disposed of before entering the building.

o Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority

Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

o U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12

Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille,

large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer and

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

131. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will

be publicly available online via ECFS.

266

These documents will also be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-

A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information

Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00

a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

G. Contact Information

132. For further information regarding the Second Report and Order, contact Joyce Jones at

(202) 418-1327 or [email protected], or Thomas Reed at (202) 418-0531 or [email protected].

For further information regarding the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, contact Anna Gentry at

(202) 418-7769 or [email protected].

V. ORDERING CLAUSES

133. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 301, 303, 307,

308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i),

154(j), 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 332, that this SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING in WT Docket No. 10-112 IS ADOPTED.

134. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101, ARE AMENDED as

specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register except as otherwise

provided herein.

135. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments adopted in this SECOND REPORT

AND ORDER, and specified in Appendix A, to Sections 1.949, 1.950, and 1.953, which contain new or

modified information collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after OMB review

266

Documents will generally be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

and approval, on the effective date specified in a notice that the Commission will have published in the

Federal Register announcing such approval and effective date.

136. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments adopted in this SECOND REPORT

AND ORDER, and specified in Appendix A, to paragraphs 27.14(e), 27.14(q)(7), 27.14(r)(6), 27.14(s)(6),

and 27.14(t)(6), WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after OMB review and approval of Section 1.949, on the

effective date specified in a notice that the Commission will have published in the Federal Register

announcing such approval and effective date.

137. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments adopted in this SECOND REPORT

AND ORDER, and specified in Appendix A, to Sections 22.317, 22.947, 27.17, 30.106, 74.632, 90.157,

90.631, and 101.65, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after OMB review and approval of Section 1.953, on

the effective date specified in a notice that the Commission will have published in the Federal Register

announcing such approval and effective date.

138. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR § 1.106, the Motion of CTIA – The Wireless Association®, AT&T Services, Inc., Cricket

Communications, Inc., Rural Cellular Association, Sprint Nextel Corporation, T-Mobile USA, United

States Cellular Corporation and Verizon Wireless To Withdraw Petition for Reconsideration, filed May

31, 2011, to withdraw their Petition for Reconsideration, filed Aug. 6, 2010, IS GRANTED.

139. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections

1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file

comments on the FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING on or before 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the

Federal Register.

140. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of the SECOND REPORT

AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING to Congress and to the

Government Accountability Office.

141. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental

Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the SECOND REPORT AND

ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX A

Final Rules

Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for Part 1 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 310, 332,

1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.

2. Amend section 1.907 to add the definitions of “Covered Geographic Licenses” and

“Covered Site-based Licenses” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

* * * * *

Covered Geographic Licenses. Covered geographic licenses consist of the following services:

1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I); 1.6 GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and Digital

Electronic Message Services (part 101, subpart G); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95, subpart F); 220-222

MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart T); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart

N); 700 MHz Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band Service (part 27,

subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized

Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart S); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); Air-

Ground Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart G); Broadband Personal

Communications Service (part 24, subpart E); Broadband Radio Service (part 27, subpart M); Cellular

Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart H); Dedicated Short Range Communications Service, excluding

public safety licenses (part 90, subpart M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint

Distribution Service (part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101,

subpart P); Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart M); Multiple Address

Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); Narrowband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart

D); Paging and Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF Public Coast

Stations, including Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (part 80, subpart J); Upper

Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30); and Wireless Communications Service (part 27, subpart D).

Covered Site-based Licenses. Covered site-based licenses consist of the following services: 220-

222 MHz Service (site-based), excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart T); 800/900 MHz (SMR

and Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool) (part 90, subpart S); Aeronautical Advisory

Stations (Unicoms) (part 87, subpart G); Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (General Aviation) (part 22,

subpart G); Alaska-Public Fixed Stations (part 80, subpart O); Broadcast Auxiliary Service (part 74,

subparts D, E, F, and H); Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point, Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I);

Industrial/Business Radio Pool (part 90, subpart C); Local Television Transmission Service (part 101,

subpart J); Multiple Address Systems (site-based), excluding public safety licenses (part 101, subpart H);

Non-Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart M); Offshore Radiotelephone

Service (part 22, subpart I); Paging and Radiotelephone Service (site-based) (part 22, subpart E); Private

Carrier Paging (part 90, subpart P); Private Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service,

excluding public safety licenses (part 101, subpart H); Public Coast Stations (site-based) (part 80, subpart

J); Radiodetermination Service Stations (Radionavigation Land Stations) (part 87, subpart Q);

Radiolocation Service (part 90, subpart F); and Rural Radiotelephone Service (including Basic Exchange

Telephone Radio Service) (part 22, subpart F).

3. Revise paragraphs 1.934(a)(1)(ii), 1.934(b), and 1.934(c) to read as follows:

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

§ 1.934 Defective applications and dismissal.

* * * * *

(1) * * * * *

(ii) If the applicant requests dismissal of its application without prejudice, the Commission will

dismiss that application without prejudice, unless it is an application for which the applicant submitted the

winning bid in a competitive bidding process.

* * * * *

(b) Dismissal of mutually exclusive applications not granted. The Commission may dismiss

mutually exclusive applications for which the applicant did not submit the winning bid in a competitive

bidding process.

the applicant to prosecute or for failure of the applicant to respond substantially within a specified time

period to official correspondence or requests for additional information. Such dismissal may be with

prejudice in cases of non-compliance with § 1.945 of this part. The Commission may dismiss

applications with prejudice for failure of the applicant to comply with requirements related to a

competitive bidding process.

4. Amend section 1.934 as follows:

a. Remove paragraphs 1.934(a)(1)(ii)(A) and 1.934(a)(1)(ii)(B).

b. Remove paragraph 1.934(a)(3).

c. Remove paragraphs 1.934(b)(1) and 1.934(b)(2).

5. Revise section 1.949 to read as follows:

§ 1.949 Application for renewal of authorization.

(a) Filing Requirements. Applications for renewal of authorizations in the Wireless Radio

Services must be filed no later than the expiration date of the authorization, and no sooner than 90 days

prior to the expiration date. Renewal applications must be filed on the same form as applications for

initial authorization in the same service, i.e., FCC Form 601 or 605.

(b) Common Expiration Date. Licensees with multiple authorizations in the same service may

request a common date on which such authorizations expire for renewal purposes. License terms may be

shortened by up to one year but will not be extended.

Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I), and Covered Geographic Licenses in the 600 MHz Service (part

27, subpart N); 700 MHz Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27,

subpart L) (AWS-3 (1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz) and AWS-4 (2000-2020

MHz and 2180-2200 MHz) only); and H Block Service (part 27, subpart K) must comply with paragraphs

(d) through (h) of this section. All other Covered Geographic Licenses must comply with paragraphs (d)

through (h) of this section beginning on January 1, 2023. Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point

Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I) must comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section

beginning on October 1, 2018.

(d) Renewal Standard. An applicant for renewal of an authorization of a Covered Site-based

License or a Covered Geographic License must demonstrate that over the course of the license term, the

licensee(s) provided and continue to provide service to the public, or operated and continue to operate the

license to meet the licensee(s)’ private, internal communications needs.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(e) Safe Harbors. An applicant for renewal will meet the Renewal Standard if it can certify that

it has satisfied the requirements of one of the following safe harbors:

(1) Covered Site-based Licenses. (i) The applicant must certify that it is continuing to operate

consistent with its most recently filed construction notification (or most recent authorization, when no

construction notification is required). (ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent discontinuance of

service occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered Site-based

License.

(2) Geographic licenses – commercial service. (i) For an applicant in its initial license term with

an interim performance requirement, the applicant must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance

requirement and that over the portion of the license term following the interim performance requirement,

the applicant continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required by its interim

performance requirement and (2) the licensee has met its final performance requirement and continues to

use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required by its final performance requirement

through the end of the license term. For an applicant in its initial license term with no interim

performance requirement, the applicant must certify that it has met its final performance requirement and

continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required by its final performance

requirement through the end of the license term. For an applicant in any subsequent license term, the

applicant must certify that it continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required

by its final performance requirement through the end of any subsequent license terms. (ii) The applicant

must certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. This safe

harbor may be used by any Covered Geographic License.

(3) Geographic licenses – private systems. (i) For an applicant in its initial license term with an

interim performance requirement, the applicant must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance

requirement and that over the portion of the license term following the interim performance requirement,

the applicant continues to use its facilities to further the applicant’s private business or public

interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its interim performance requirement and

(2) the applicant has met its final performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to provide at

least the level of operation required by its final performance requirement through the end of the license

term. For an applicant in its initial license term with no interim performance requirement, the applicant

must certify that it has met its final performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to provide

at least the level of operation required by its final performance requirement through the end of the license

term. For an applicant in any subsequent license term, the applicant must certify that it continues to use

its facilities to further the applicant’s private business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the

level required to meet its final performance requirement. (ii) The applicant must certify that no

permanent discontinuance of operation occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by

any Covered Geographic License.

(4) Partitioned or disaggregated license without a performance requirement. (i) The applicant

must certify that it continues to use its facilities to provide service or to further the applicant’s private

business or public interest/public safety needs. (ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent

discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered

Geographic License.

(f) Renewal Showing. If an applicant for renewal cannot meet the Renewal Standard in

paragraph (d) of this section by satisfying the requirements of one of the safe harbors in paragraph (e) of

this section, it must make a Renewal Showing, independent of its performance requirements, as a

condition of renewal. The Renewal Showing must specifically address the Renewal Standard by

including a detailed description of the applicant’s provision of service (or, when allowed under the

relevant service rules or pursuant to waiver, use of the spectrum for private, internal communication)

during the entire license period and address, as applicable:

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(1) the level and quality of service provided by the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area

served, the number of subscribers, the services offered);

(2) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any

interruption or outage;

(3) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas;

(4) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i)

of this chapter; and

(5) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.

(g) Regulatory Compliance Certification. An applicant for renewal of an authorization in the

Wireless Radio Services identified in paragraph (d) of this section must make a Regulatory Compliance

Certification certifying that it has substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

(h) Consequences of Denial. If the Commission, or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

acting under delegated authority, finds that a licensee has not met the Renewal Standard under paragraph

(d) of this section, or that its Regulatory Compliance Certification under paragraph (g) of this section is

insufficient, its renewal application will be denied, and its licensed spectrum will return automatically to

the Commission for reassignment (by auction or other mechanism). In the case of certain services

licensed site-by-site, the spectrum will revert automatically to the holder of the related overlay

geographic-area license. To the extent that an AWS-4 licensee also holds the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite

Service (MSS) rights for the affected license area, the MSS protection rule in section 27.1136 will no

longer apply in that license area.

6. Add new section 1.950 to read as follows:

§ 1.950 Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation.

(a) Definitions. The terms “County and County Equivalent,” “Geographic Partitioning,” and

“Spectrum Disaggregation” as used in this section are defined as follows:

(1) County and County Equivalent. The terms county and county equivalent as used in this part

are defined by Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 6-4, which provides the names and codes

that represent the counties and other entities treated as equivalent legal and/or statistical subdivisions of

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the possessions and freely associated areas of the United

States. Counties are the “first-order subdivisions” of each State and statistically equivalent entity,

regardless of their local designations (county, parish, borough, etc.). Thus, the following entities are

equivalent to counties for legal and/or statistical purposes: The parishes of Louisiana; the boroughs and

census areas of Alaska; the District of Columbia; the independent cities of Maryland, Missouri, Nevada,

and Virginia; that part of Yellowstone National Park in Montana; and various entities in the possessions

and associated areas. The FIPS codes and FIPS code documentation are available online at

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

(2) Geographic Partitioning. Geographic partitioning is the assignment of a geographic portion of

a geographic area licensee’s license area.

(3) Spectrum Disaggregation. Spectrum disaggregation is the assignment of portions of blocks of

a geographic area licensee’s spectrum.

(b) Eligibility. Covered Geographic Licenses are eligible for Geographic Partitioning and

Spectrum Disaggregation.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(1) Geographic Partitioning. An eligible licensee may partition any geographic portion of its

license area, at any time following grant of its license, subject to the following exceptions:

(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter.

(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service licensees must comply with § 22.948 of this chapter.

(iii) Multichannel Video & Distribution and Data Service licensees are only permitted to

partition licensed geographic areas along county borders (Parishes in Louisiana or Territories in Alaska).

(2) Spectrum Disaggregation. An eligible licensee may disaggregate spectrum in any amount, at

any time following grant of its license to eligible entities, subject to the following exceptions:

(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter.

(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service licensees must comply with § 22.948 of this chapter.

(iii) VHF Public Coast (156-162 MHz) spectrum may only be disaggregated in frequency pairs,

except that the ship and coast transmit frequencies comprising Channel 87 (see § 80.371(c) of this

chapter) may be disaggregated separately.

(iv) Disaggregation is not permitted in the Multichannel Video & Distribution and Data Service

12.2-12.7 GHz band.

disaggregation, or a combination of both must apply for a partial assignment of authorization by filing

FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter. Each request for geographic partitioning must include

an attachment defining the perimeter of the partitioned area by geographic coordinates to the nearest

second of latitude and longitude, based upon the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83). Alternatively,

applicants may specify an FCC-recognized service area (e.g., Basic Trading Area, Economic Area, Major

Trading Area, Metropolitan Service Area, or Rural Service Area), county, or county equivalent, in which

case, applicants need only list the specific FCC-recognized service area, county, or county equivalent

names comprising the partitioned area.

(d) Relocation of Incumbent Licensees. Applicants for geographic partitioning, spectrum

disaggregation, or a combination of both must, if applicable, include a certification with their partial

assignment of authorization application stating which party will meet any incumbent relocation

requirements, except as otherwise stated in service-specific rules.

(e) License Term. The license term for a partitioned license area or disaggregated spectrum

license is the remainder of the original licensee’s license term.

(f) Frequency Coordination. Any existing frequency coordination agreements convey with the

partial assignment of authorization for geographic partitioning, spectrum disaggregation, or a combination

of both, and shall remain in effect for the term of the agreement unless new agreements are reached.

(g) Performance Requirements. Parties to geographic partitioning, spectrum disaggregation, or a

combination of both, have two options to satisfy service-specific performance requirements (i.e.,

construction and operation requirements). Under the first option, each party may certify that it will

individually satisfy any service-specific requirements and, upon failure, must individually face any

service-specific performance penalties. Under the second option, both parties may agree to share

responsibility for any service-specific requirements. Upon failure to meet their shared service-specific

performance requirements, both parties will be subject to any service-specific penalties.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(h) Unjust Enrichment. Licensees making installment payments or that received a bidding credit,

that partition their licenses or disaggregate their spectrum to entities that do not meet the eligibility

standards for installment payments or bidding credits, are subject to the unjust enrichment requirements

of § 1.2111 of this chapter.

7. Add new section 1.953 to read as follows:

§ 1.953 Discontinuance of Service or Operations.

(a) Termination of Authorization. A licensee’s authorization will automatically terminate,

without specific Commission action, if the licensee permanently discontinues service or operations under

the license during the license term. A licensee is subject to this provision commencing on the date it is

required to be providing service or operating.

(b) 180-day Rule for Geographic Licenses. Permanent discontinuance of service or operations

for Covered Geographic Licenses is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not

operate or, in the case of commercial mobile radio service providers, does not provide service to at least

one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee.

Covered Site-based Licenses is defined as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate

or, in the case of commercial mobile radio service providers, does not provide service to at least one

subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.

(d) 365-day Rule for Public Safety Licenses. Permanent discontinuance of operations is defined

as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate. This 365-day rule applies to public

safety licenses issued based on the applicant demonstrating eligibility under Sections 90.20 or 90.529, or

public safety licenses issued in conjunction with a waiver pursuant to Section 337 of the Communications

Act.

(e) Channel Keepers. Operation of channel keepers (devices that transmit test signals, tones,

color bars, or some combination of these, for example) does not constitute operation or service for the

purposes of this section.

(f) Filing Requirements. A licensee that permanently discontinues service as defined in this

section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605

requesting license cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without specific

Commission action, if service or operations are permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even

if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.

(g) Extension Request. A licensee may file a request for a longer discontinuance period for good

cause. An extension request must be filed at least 30 days before the end of the applicable 180-day or

365-day discontinuance period. The filing of an extension request will automatically extend the

discontinuance period a minimum of the later of an additional 30 days or the date upon which the

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau acts on the request.

8. Amend section 1.955 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 1.955 Termination of authorizations.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

(3) Service discontinued. Authorizations automatically terminate, without specific Commission

action, if service or operations are permanently discontinued. See § 1.953.

* * * * *

PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES

9. The authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

10. Amend section 22.131 as follows:

a. Remove paragraph 22.131(b)(1).

b. Redesignate paragraphs 22.131(b)(2) through (b)(4) as paragraphs 22.131(b)(1) through

(b)(3).

c. Remove paragraph 22.131(c)(3)(i).

d. Redesignate paragraphs 22.131(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) as paragraphs 22.131(c)(3)(i) and

22.131(c)(3)(ii).

e. Remove paragraph 22.131(c)(4)(i).

f. Redesignate paragraphs 22.131(c)(4)(ii) through (c)(4)(iv) as paragraphs 22.131(c)(4)(i)

through (c)(4)(iii)

11. Remove section 22.317.

12. Remove paragraphs 22.513(f)(1) through (f)(4).

13. Remove paragraphs 22.513(g)(1) through (g)(4).

14. Remove section 22.947.

PART 24—PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

15. The authority citation for Part 24 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.

16. Remove section 24.16.

17. Remove paragraphs 24.104(f)(1) through (f)(4).

18. Remove paragraphs 24.104(g)(1) through (g)(4).

19. Remove paragraphs 24.714(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v).

20. Remove paragraph 24.714(e)(2).

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

21. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and

1452, unless otherwise noted.

22. Amend section 27.14 to revise the title and remove and reserve paragraphs (b), (c), (d),

(e), and (f) to read as follows:

§ 27.14 Construction requirements.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

* * * * *

(b) [Removed and Reserved].

(d) [Removed and Reserved].

(e) [Removed and Reserved].

(f) [Removed and Reserved]

* * * * *

23. Amend section 27.14 as follows:

a. Remove paragraph 27.14(q)(7).

b. Remove paragraph 27.14(r)(6).

c. Remove paragraph 27.14(s)(6)

d. Remove paragraph 27.14(t)(6).

24. Remove paragraph 27.15(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii).

25. Remove paragraph 27.15(d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(iii).

26. Remove section 27.17

PART 30—UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE

27. The authority citation for Part 30 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.

28. Remove paragraphs 30.105(d)(1) through (d)(2).

29. Remove section 30.106.

PART 74—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

30. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336 and 554.

31. Remove paragraph 74.632(g).

PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES

32. The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise

noted.

33. Amend section 80.60 as follows:

a. Remove paragraph 80.60(d)(1).

b. Remove paragraph 80.60(d)(2).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

c. Redesignate paragraph 80.60(d)(3) as paragraph 80.60(d).

34. Revise paragraph 80.60(d) as follows:

§ 80.60 Partitioned licenses and disaggregated spectrum.

* * * * *

(d) Partitioning and Disaggregation Construction Requirements for Site-based AMTS, and

nationwide or multi-region LF, MF, and HF public coast. Parties seeking to acquire a partitioned license

or disaggregated spectrum from a site-based AMTS, or nationwide or multi-region LF, MF, and HF

public coast licensee will be required to construct and commence “service to subscribers” in all facilities

acquired through such transactions within the original construction deadline for each facility as set forth

in § 80.49. Failure to meet the individual construction deadline will result in the automatic termination of

the facility’s authorization.

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

35. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.

36. Remove section 90.157.

37. Amend section 90.165 as follows:

a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(4)(i).

b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) as paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3).

c. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) through (c)(3)(iii) as paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(ii).

d. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) through (c)(4)(iv) as paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii).

e. Revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii) as follows:

§ 90.165 Procedures for mutually exclusive applications.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) If any mutually exclusive application filed on the earliest filing date is an application for

modification, a same-day filing group is used.

* * * *

38. Remove paragraphs 90.365(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(ii).

39. Remove paragraph 90.365(d)(2).

40. Amend section 90.375 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 90.375 RSU license areas, communication zones and registrations

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

* * * * *

(b) Applicants who are approved in accordance with FCC Form 601 will be granted non-

exclusive licenses for all non-reserved DSRCS frequencies (see § 90.377). Such licenses serve as a

prerequisite of registering individual RSUs located within the licensed geographic area described in

paragraph (a) of this section. Licensees must register each RSU in the Universal Licensing System (ULS)

before operating such RSU. RSU registrations are subject, inter alia, to the requirements of § 1.923 of

this chapter as applicable (antenna structure registration, environmental concerns, international

coordination, and quiet zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject to NTIA coordination (see

§ 90.371(b)) may not begin operation until NTIA approval is received. Registrations are not effective

until the Commission posts them on the ULS. It is the DSRCS licensee’s responsibility to delete from the

registration database any RSUs that have been discontinued.

* * * * *

41. Amend section 90.631 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 90.631 Trunked systems loading, construction and authorization requirements.

* * * * *

(f) If a station is not placed in permanent operation, in accordance with the technical parameters

of the station authorization, within one year, except as provided in § 90.629, its license cancels

automatically. For purposes of this section, a base station is not considered to be placed in operation

unless at least two associated mobile stations, or one control station and one mobile station, are also

placed in operation.

* * * * *

42. Amend section 90.685 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 90.685 Authorization, construction and implementation of EA licenses.

(a) EA licenses in the 809-824/854-869 MHz band will be issued for a term not to exceed ten

years.

* * * * *

43. Amend section 90.743 by revising the title and section to read as follows:

§ 90.743 Renewal Requirements.

Until January 1, 2023, all licensees seeking renewal of their authorizations at the end of their

license term must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of § 1.949 of this chapter.

Licensees must demonstrate, in their application, that:

(a) They have provided “substantial” service during their past license term. “Substantial” service

is defined in this rule as service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre

service that just might minimally warrant renewal; and

(b) They have substantially complied with applicable FCC rules, policies, and the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

44. Remove paragraphs 90.813(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v).

45. Remove paragraph 90.813(e)(2).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

46. Remove section 90.816.

47. Remove paragraphs 90.911(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(E).

48. Remove paragraphs 90.911(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(E).

49. Remove paragraphs 90.911(e)(2)(i)(A) through (e)(2)(i)(E).

50. Remove paragraph 90.911(e)(2)(ii).

51. Redesignate paragraph 90.911(f) as paragraph 90.911(e).

52. Remove paragraphs 90.1019(d)(1) and (d)(2).

PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES

53. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).

54. Remove paragraphs 95.1923(d)(1) through (d)(4).

55. Revise paragraphs 95.1933(a) and 95.1933(b) to read as follows:

§ 95.1933 Construction requirements.

(a) Each 218-219 MHz Service licensee must make a showing of “substantial service” within ten

years of the license grant. Until January 1, 2023, “substantial service” assessment will be made at

renewal pursuant to the provisions and procedures contained in § 1.949 of this chapter.

(b) Until January 1, 2023, each 218-219 MHz Service licensee must file a report to be submitted

to inform the Commission of the service status of its system. The report must be labeled as an exhibit to

the renewal application. At minimum, the report must include:

* * * * *

PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

56. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as follows:

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

57. Revise section 101.65 to read as follows:

§ 101.65 Termination of station authorizations.

In addition to the provisions of § 1.953 of this chapter, a site-based license will be automatically

terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon the voluntary removal or

alteration of the facilities, so as to render the station not operational for a period of 30 days or more. A

licensee is subject to this provision commencing on the date it is required to be providing service or

operating under § 101.63 of this chapter. This provision is inapplicable to blanket authorizations to

operate fixed stations at temporary locations pursuant to the provisions of § 101.31(a)(2) of this

chapter. See § 101.305 of this chapter for additional rules regarding temporary and permanent

discontinuation of service.

58. Revise section 101.527 to read as follows:

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

§ 101.527 Construction requirements for 24 GHz operations.

(a) Each licensee must make a showing of “substantial service” within ten years of its license

grant. “Substantial service” is a service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of

mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal during its past license term. Until January

1, 2023, “substantial service” assessment will be made at renewal pursuant to the provisions and

procedures set forth in § 1.949 of this chapter.

(b) Until January 1, 2023, each licensee must, at a minimum file:

* * * * *

59. Remove section 101.529.

60. Remove paragraph 101.535(d).

61. Revise section 101.1011 to revise the title and by removing paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to

read as follows:

§ 101.1011 Construction requirements.

LMDS licensees must make a showing of “substantial service” in their license area within ten

years of being licensed. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and

substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any

licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible

to regain it.

62. Remove paragraph 101.1111(e).

63. Amend section 101.1323 as follows:

a. Remove paragraphs 101.1323(c)(1), 101.1323(c)(2), and 101.1323(c)(3).

b. Redesignate paragraph 101.1323(c)(4) as 101.1323(c).

64. Remove section 101.1327.

65. Amend section 101.1413 by revising the title and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 101.1413 License term and construction requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Construction requirement. MVDDS licensees must make a showing of substantial service at

the end of five years into the license period and ten years into the license period. The substantial service

requirement is defined as a service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre

service which might minimally warrant renewal. At the end of five years into the license term and ten

years into the license period, the Commission will consider factors such as:

(1) Whether the licensee's operations service niche markets or focus on serving populations

outside of areas serviced by other MVDDS licensees;

(2) Whether the licensee's operations serve populations with limited access to

telecommunications services; and

(3) A demonstration of service to a significant portion of the population or land area of the

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

licensed area.

66. Remove paragraph 101.1415(f).

67. Amend section 101.1513 by revising the title to read as follows:

§ 101.1513 License term.

* * * * *

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX B

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),

an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Order in the 2010 WRS Reform proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-112, released in May 2010 (WRS Reform

NPRM).

The Commission sought public comment on the proposals in the WRS Reform NPRM, including

comments on the WRS Reform IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the WRS Reform IRFA in

WT Docket No. 10-112. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the

RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2. In today’s Second Report and Order, the Commission takes three actions. First, the

Commission adopts uniform renewal policies and procedures for licenses in Wireless Radio Services

(WRS)

to promote the efficient use of spectrum resources and to serve the public interest by providing

licensees certainty regarding their license renewal requirements. Specifically, the Commission generally

applies its 700 MHz Commercial Services Band framework,

with certain refinements, to services

licensed by geographic area and services licensed on a site-by-site basis. As part of this framework, the

Commission adopts rules prohibiting the filing of competing renewal applications for all WRS licenses

and eliminates the remaining comparative renewal procedures and requirements across various rule parts.

Second, the Commission harmonizes its rules regarding the permanent discontinuance of operations by

WRS licensees. A harmonized permanent discontinuance rule will work in concert with the

Commission’s construction and renewal obligations to ensure that licensees provide service in a timely

manner, continue to provide service over the term of the license, and do not discontinue service for

extended periods of time. Third, the Commission standardizes its requirements regarding the

responsibilities of parties to geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation arrangements in order to

facilitate efficient spectrum use, enable service providers to configure geographic area licenses and

spectrum blocks to meet their operational needs, and eliminate loopholes in its partitioning and

disaggregation rules that enable parties to avoid timely construction. All of these rule changes further the

Commission’s goal to make its rules clearer and consistent across services and to simplify the regulatory

process for licensees.

3. Today’s Second Report and Order adopts rules that harmonize the Commission’s

previous widely varying wireless license renewal requirements. Specifically, a WRS licensee, whether

See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance

of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless

Radio Services; Imposition of a Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications for Certain Wireless Radio

Services and the Processing of Already-Filed Competing Renewal Applications, WT Docket No. 10-112, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 6996, Appx. B (2010) (WRS Reform NPRM and Order).

See 5 U.S.C. § 604.

Section 1.907 of the Commission’s rules defines the term “Wireless Radio Services” as “[a]ll radio services

authorized in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or

private in nature.” 47 CFR § 1.907. We note that Part 26 no longer exists.

See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Report and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8092-94, paras. 73-77 (2007) (700 MHz First

Report and Order).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

geographic or site-based, that applies for renewal, must demonstrate that, over the course of its license

term, the licensee provided and continues to provide service to the public, or operated and continues to

operate the license to meet the licensee’s private, internal communications needs. For this purpose, the

Commission adopts a set of safe harbors that will serve the public interest by curtailing filing burdens on

licensees and concentrating scarce Commission resources on reviewing renewal filings that warrant close

scrutiny. Specifically, the Commission adopts four safe harbors to accommodate four license renewal

scenarios: (1) site-based licenses; (2) wireless providers using geographic licenses; (3) private systems

using geographic licenses; and (4) partitioned or disaggregated licenses without a performance

requirement. In each of these contexts, licensees will be able to obtain license renewal by making

service-specific certifications indicating, among other things, that they have satisfied all applicable

performance requirements (for geographic licensees) or that they continue to operate consistent with their

most recent construction notification (or authorization when no construction notification is required) (for

site-based licenses), that they have not discontinued service for extended periods of time, and that they

have substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended (Act). If a licensee is unable to satisfy our renewal standard under one of the enumerated safe

harbors, it may nonetheless meet the renewal standard by making the more detailed renewal showing set

forth in this Second Report and Order at Appendix A, Section 1.949(f)(1-5). Each of the factors listed in

Section 1.949(f) directly relates to service or operation over the license term.

4. The Commission’s experience with the comparative renewal process has shown that it

can result in protracted litigation that can be unduly burdensome for an incumbent licensee and strain

available resources, and therefore, the Commission has concluded that “the public interest is ill served if a

renewal applicant must operate under a cloud of litigation.”

Today’s Second Report and Order adopts

rules prohibiting the filing of competing renewal applications for all WRS and eliminates the remaining

comparative renewal procedures and requirements across various rule parts.

5. The Commission’s permanent discontinuance of operations rules are intended to provide

licensees operational flexibility, while preventing spectrum warehousing. The definition of permanent

discontinuance, however, varies by service, and some services contain no definition, enabling spectrum

warehousing. In today’s Second Report and Order at Appendix A, Section 1.953, the Commission adopts

a standardized approach to its discontinuance rules for all WRS licensees. These new rules strike the

appropriate balance between providing licensees with operational flexibility and ensuring spectrum is not

warehoused and does not lie fallow.

6. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed rules to conform and consolidate

construction and performance obligations for parties to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements in

order to facilitate efficient spectrum use while enabling service providers to configure geographic area

licenses and spectrum blocks to meet their operational needs.

At present, there are a wide variety of

wireless radio services under the Commission’s authority that are subject to equally varied construction

and performance obligations. The Commission has observed that some wireless licensees can, and

sometimes do, manipulate partitioning and disaggregation requirements to avoid construction obligations

and allow spectrum to lie fallow for long periods of time, contrary to the Commission’s stated goal of

maximizing efficient spectrum use.

Today’s Second Report and Order adopts Section 1.950 largely as

proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM, with the exception of Section 1.950(g), which the Commission

revised to address industry concerns that the rule proposed in the WRS Reform NPRM could potentially

deter secondary market activity or create more extensive construction obligations for licensees than would

have been required had the partitioning or disaggregation not taken place. Section 1.950, and Section

1.950(g), as revised herein, are crafted to provide comparable treatment across services and eliminate

WRS Reform NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 7012, para. 40.

Id. at 7025, para. 76.

Id. at 7023, para. 72.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

loopholes in the Commission’s partitioning and disaggregation rules that enable parties to avoid timely

construction.

7. All new and revised rules adopted in today’s Second Report and Order are set forth in

Appendix A (Final Rules).

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to IRFA

8. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies

presented in the WRS Reform IRFA. Nonetheless, the agency considered the potential impact of the rules

proposed in the WRS Reform IRFA on small entities and reduced the compliance burden for all small

entities (as discussed below in Section F) in order to reduce the economic impact of the rules enacted

herein on such entities. The Commission’s efforts to create consistent requirements for renewal of

licenses and consistent consequences for discontinuance of service, and to clarify construction obligations

for spectrum licenses that have been divided by geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation, will

reduce the burden on all WRS licensees, including small entity WRS licensees.

C. Response to Comments by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration

9. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the

Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the

proposed rules as a result of those comments.

10. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this

proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will

Apply

11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of—and where feasible, an estimate

of—the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.

The RFA generally

defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small

organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”

In addition, the term “small business” has the

same meaning as the term “small business concern” 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) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

12. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our

action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore

describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected

herein.

First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the

5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).

Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the

Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or

more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in

the Federal Register.”

15 U.S.C. § 632.

See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small

business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.

These types of small businesses

represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

Nationwide, as

of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations.

Finally, the small entity described as

a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships,

villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”

U.S. Census

Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 governmental jurisdictions in the United

States.

We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental

jurisdictions.”

Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. In completing this

FRFA, we recognize that small governmental jurisdictions may be WRS licensees.

13. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises

establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide

communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide

services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and

wireless video services.

The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, Census data for 2012 show that there were 967

firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus

under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of

wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

14. The Commission has determined from data available in its Universal Licensing System

that there are approximately 394,792 licensees in the Wireless Radio Services

affected by this Second

Report and Order, as of July 10, 2017; the Commission does not know how many licensees in these

See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small business?,”

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).

See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2—How many small business are there in

the U.S.?,” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).

5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).

5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2012 at 267, Table 428

(2011), http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/2012-statab.pdf (citing data from

2007).

The 2012 U.S. Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the

population in each organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in the Census Bureau data for

2012, which is based on 2007 data. As a basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government

organizations were small, we note that there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor

civil divisions) with populations over 50,000 in 2011. See U.S. Census Bureau, City and Town Totals Vintage:

2011, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that

meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.

NAICS Code 517210. See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?

lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.

This number includes licensees in the geographic-based services listed in Appendix H of this Second Report and

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the site-based services listed in Appendix G. Please note

that a licensee in one service may also be a licensee in another service, and thus the number of discrete licensees in

affected services may actually be smaller.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

services are small entities, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities.

The Commission notes that, under the rules it is adopting in this Second Report and Order, entities,

including small businesses, will have to comply with a single set of rules regarding license renewal in the

WRS. The Commission does not know how many entities that will file for WRS license renewal will be

small entities. Thus, the Commission assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that all prospective licensees

are small entities as that term is defined by the SBA or by our proposed small business definitions for

these bands, if any.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements for Small Entities

15. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements resulting

from the Second Report and Order will apply to all entities in the same manner. The rule modifications,

taken as a whole, should have a beneficial, if any, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance impact on

small entities because all WRS licensees may use the Commission’s new, streamlined renewal

procedures. We also expect today’s action to better enable all WRS licensees, no matter their size, to use

spectrum effectively in furtherance of the interests of the public and to configure geographic area licenses

and spectrum blocks to meet their own operational needs.

16. The primary changes are as follows: (1) we harmonize and consolidate the

Commission’s renewal policies and procedures for WRS licensees by (a) adopting four safe harbors to

accommodate four license renewal scenarios—site-based licenses, wireless providers using geographic

licenses, private systems using geographic licenses, and partitioned licenses without a performance

requirement—and establishing streamlined certification procedures and standards for licensees seeking

renewal, (b) establishing a more detailed, but uniform, renewal showing process for licensees that are

unable to satisfy the renewal standard under one of the enumerated safe harbors, and (c) adopting rules

prohibiting the filing of competing renewal applications for all WRS and eliminating the remaining

comparative renewal procedures and requirements across various rule parts; (2) we adopt a standardized

approach to our discontinuance rules for all WRS licensees, i.e., defining permanent discontinuance for

most geographic area licensees as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or

provide service and as 365 consecutive days for site-based licensees; and (3) we revise and consolidate

the rules governing partitioning and disaggregation of WRS licenses to provide consistent requirements

across services and require that both parties to such arrangements certify that they will either

independently satisfy any applicable construction and performance requirements for renewal purposes, or

that they will share any service-specific construction and performance requirements.

17. In paragraphs 15-25 of this Second Report and Order, the Commission sets forth the safe

harbor rules and procedures that WRS licensees must follow to certify that they satisfy our renewal

standard. These rules are generally applicable to all WRS licensees, large and small.

18. Site-based licensees. A site-based licensee must certify: (1) that it is continuing to

operate consistent with the licensee’s most recently filed construction notification (or most recent

authorization, when no construction notification is required); (2) that no permanent discontinuance of

service occurred during the license term; and (3) that it has substantially complied with all applicable

FCC rules, policies, and the Act.

19. Wireless Providers Using Geographic Licenses. A geographically licensed WRS

licensee providing service to customers will meet our renewal standard if it can satisfy the following safe

harbor for geographic licenses. First, for a licensee in its initial license term with an interim performance

requirement, the licensee must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance requirement and that

over the portion of the license term following the interim performance requirement, the licensee has

continued and continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service required by its interim

performance requirement, and (2) the licensee has met its final performance requirement. For a licensee

in its initial license term with no interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that it has

met its final performance requirement. For a licensee in any subsequent license term, the licensee must

certify that it has continued and continues to use its facilities to provide at least the level of service

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

required by its final performance requirement through the end of any subsequent license terms. Second,

the licensee must certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term.

Finally, the licensee must certify that it has substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies,

and the Act.

20. Private Systems Using Geographic Licenses. A geographically licensed WRS licensee

using its license for private, internal purposes will meet our renewal standard if it can satisfy the

following safe harbor. First, for a licensee in its initial license term with an interim performance

requirement, the licensee must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance requirement and that

over the portion of the license term following the interim performance requirement, the licensee has

continued and continues to use its facilities to further the licensee’s private business or public

interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its interim performance requirement and

(2) the licensee has met its final performance requirement. For a licensee in its initial license term with

no interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that it has met its final performance

requirement. For a licensee in any subsequent license term, the licensee must certify that it has continued

and continues to use its facilities to further the licensee’s private business or public interest/public safety

needs at or above the level required to meet its final performance requirement. Second, the licensee must

certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. Finally, the licensee

must certify that it has substantially complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the Act.

21. Partitioned or Disaggregated Licenses Without a Performance Requirement. Such a

licensee will meet our renewal standard if it can satisfy the following safe harbor. First, the licensee must

certify that it continues to use its facilities to provide service or to further the licensee’s private business

or public interest/public safety needs. Second, the licensee must certify that no permanent discontinuance

of service occurred during the license term. Finally, the licensee must certify that it has substantially

complied with all applicable FCC rules, policies, and the Act.

22. In paragraph 31 of this Second Report and Order, the Commission sets forth the detailed

renewal showing that must be made by any WRS licensee that cannot satisfy our renewal standard under

one of the enumerated safe harbors set forth above. These rules are also generally applicable to all WRS

licensees, large and small. Specifically, an incumbent geographic area WRS licensee that cannot satisfy

our renewal standard under an enumerated safe harbor, but still seeks to renew its license, can nonetheless

meet the renewal standard by demonstrating that it is providing service to the public (or, when allowed

under the relevant service rules or pursuant to waiver, using the spectrum for private, internal

communication), using the following renewal showing: (1) the level and quality of service/operation

provided by the applicant (e.g., for service—the population served, the area served, the number of

subscribers, the services offered; for operation—the number of users (if applicable), the operating area,

the type of operation); (2) the date service/operation commenced, whether service/operation was ever

interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service/operation is

provided to/in rural areas; (4) the extent to which service/operation is provided to/in tribal lands; and

(5) any other factors associated with a licensee’s level of service to the public/operation.

23. Harmonization of the rules in the affected wireless services will streamline the renewal

process. The Commission believes this action will have the effect of lessening the recordkeeping burden

by making the renewal process more straight-forward; this is particularly so for an FCC licensee with

authorizations in more than one of the affected services.

24. We also do not anticipate that the revised rules governing the renewal process for WRS

licensees will impose burdens beyond existing compliance costs for small entities. While the

Commission is not currently in a position to determine whether these rule changes will require small

entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals, we believe licensees will largely

be able to employ the compliance mechanisms they already have in place. Additionally, by streamlining

existing renewal requirements, adopting more flexible discontinuance and regulatory compliance rules,

clarifying partitioning and disaggregation obligations, and disallowing the filing of competing (i.e.,

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

mutually exclusive) renewal applications, the rules we adopt today will reduce existing reporting,

recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements.

25. We believe that applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes

fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with

the rules will unduly burden small entities. In fact, the revisions adopted by the Commission should

benefit small entities by reducing certain administrative burdens while simultaneously giving them more

flexibility in their WRS operations.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

26. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,

alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following

four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the

clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for

small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.”

27. We believe that the safe harbor provisions in today’s Second Report and Order

significantly reduce filing burdens for all WRS licensees seeking renewal, whether large or small.

Indeed, small entities derive particular benefit from these changes because they generally lack the kind of

staffing and economic resources that their larger counterparts rely on to manage filing and administrative

obligations. Furthermore, the partitioning and disaggregation rules we adopt today as well as the

permanent discontinuance rules, we believe, continue to facilitate the efficient use of spectrum while

preventing spectrum warehousing. By ensuring that spectrum is not allowed to lie fallow, we promote the

availability of a valuable, highly sought after resource, to entities in the market place that are willing and

able to put such spectrum to good use. These rules, we believe, will enable rather than undermine

secondary market activity, which in turn presents more opportunity to participate in the market for many

new entrants, including small entities.

28. We believe that today’s adoption of uniform renewal policies for licensees in the various

Wireless Radio Services and harmonization of its rules regarding the permanent discontinuance of

operations by WRS licensees will benefit all WRS applicants and licensees, regardless of size. We

believe that complying with the previous license renewal rules, varied as they were, had the potential to

place a particular burden on the limited financial resources of small businesses. We therefore believe that

uniform renewal rules throughout the Wireless Radio Services, and harmonizing its rules regarding the

definition of, and what constitutes, permanent discontinuance of operations, will have the intended

consequences of assisting small entities that are WRS licensees.

Report to Congress

29. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, including this FRFA,

in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

In addition, the Commission will

send a copy of this Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the SBA. A copy of this Second Report and Order and this FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be

published in the Federal Register.

5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).

5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX C

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),

the

Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). Written comments are requested on this IRFA.

Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments

on the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

In addition, the Further

Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2. Today’s Further Notice seeks comment on a range of possible actions that may advance

the Commission’s goal of increasing the number of rural Americans with access to wireless

communications services. A core Commission goal is to facilitate access to scarce spectrum resources

and ensure that wireless communication networks are widely deployed so that every American, regardless

of location, can benefit from a variety of communications offerings made available by Commission

licensees. In pursuit of that goal, the Commission has, through various service rulemakings, created

flexible-use geographic licenses and established initial term construction obligations tailored to specific

bands, many of which were adopted with the stated intent of promoting service in rural areas.

3. Although the Commission’s efforts have facilitated the rapid development of a wide

variety of wireless services over the past decade, there remains a real and growing digital divide between

rural and urban areas in the United States. While the construction obligations associated with geographic

licenses are intended to encourage wide deployment of wireless networks, those obligations require

licensees to provide service to only portions of the license area, not the entire area. Even the

Commission’s most aggressive initial term construction obligation, which requires licensees to cover 70

percent of the geographic area of the license,

likely leaves significant portions of rural America, where

deployment costs may be higher and demand lower, without meaningful mobile coverage. In addition,

the Commission’s current rules do not require any additional construction after the initial license term –

that is, during subsequent renewal terms.

4. Therefore, in order to encourage investment in wireless networks, facilitate access to

scarce spectrum resources, and promote the rapid deployment of mobile services to rural Americans, we

seek comment on additional, reasonable construction obligations during renewal terms that are targeted to

reach rural areas that lack adequate service. Specifically, we seek comment on an additional construction

obligation beyond a licensee’s initial term construction obligations, under which the licensee would be

required to exceed its original construction metric by an additional 10 percent in the next full renewal

term, followed by incremental increases of five or 10 percent in subsequent renewal terms. We also seek

comment on other, targeted construction obligations that might achieve our goal of expanded coverage

with respect to spectrum bands used to provide service to consumers. In light of the wide variety of

flexible geographic licenses and their potential uses, we seek comment on whether to apply any additional

renewal term construction obligations to all flexible geographic licenses, or whether certain types of

licenses should be excluded. Similarly, we seek comment on whether any additional renewal term

See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

See id.

See 47 CFR § 27.14(g).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

obligations should vary depending on the type of license, or the specific band, to which they would apply,

and, if so, why those obligations should vary.

5. In the event we adopt additional construction obligations for license renewal terms, the

Further Notice seeks comment on various implementation issues. First, we seek comment on requiring

licensees to meet the additional construction obligations at the end of the next full renewal license term.

As an alternative, we seek comment on requiring licensees to satisfy at least some additional renewal term

construction obligations by a certain number of years into their renewal term, e.g., five years into a ten-

year renewal term. Finally, we also seek comment on whether it may be appropriate to extend the license

term, upon renewal, of subject licenses. For example, a 10-year license term could be extended to 15

years, as an alternative to or in combination with any other approach to the timeframe for implementation.

We seek comment on these and any other considerations concerning the timeframe for implementation

that will most effectively facilitate rapid deployment of wireless communications services to rural areas.

We also seek comment on possible renewal reporting obligations that could provide insights into the

adoption and affordability of services being provided by wireless carriers and that may help achieve our

goal of closing the digital divide, particularly in rural areas.

6. In order to create incentives for additional license construction, including investment in

rural areas, the Further Notice seeks comment on appropriate penalties should licensees fail to meet those

obligations. First, we seek comment on the “keep-what-you-serve” penalty for failure whereby a

licensee’s authorization would terminate automatically for those geographic portions of its license area in

which the licensee is not providing service as of the construction deadline, and those unserved areas

would be returned to the Commission’s inventory for reassignment. Second, we seek comment on a “use

or offer” penalty whereby a licensee that fails to meet its construction obligation would retain its entire

license area, but would be required to negotiate in good faith with any third party seeking to acquire or

lease spectrum in the unserved areas of the license. Third, we seek comment on a penalty resulting in

total loss of the license or a reduction in license area, including loss of areas that the licensee serves.

Finally, we seek comment generally on other penalties, including forfeitures, that could be used as

alternatives to, or in combination with, those described above.

7. In the event that the Commission ultimately adopts penalties that result in the return of

whole or partial licenses to the Commission’s inventory for reassignment, we seek comment on various

approaches for relicensing unused spectrum. First, we seek comment on applying a two-phased on-

demand relicensing approach, such as the framework established by the Commission in the 700 MHz

Second Report and Order,

under which interested parties would be allowed to file applications to serve

any amount of available unserved area. Under the framework established there, there is a 30-day Phase 1

filing window during which only the failing licensee is barred, followed by a Phase 2 window, which is

open to all interested parties, including the failing licensee, and runs until all unserved areas in the market

are relicensed. In the alternative, we seek comment on relicensing spectrum for unserved areas through a

re-auction framework that would offer all remaining unserved areas in the license together in a single

auction. We seek comment on the respective costs and benefits of both approaches to relicensing and any

additional or alternative conditions that might serve our rural coverage objectives.

B. Legal Basis

8. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Further Notice is

contained in Sections 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332.

See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15353-54, para. 171-75; 47 CFR § 27.14(j)(1).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed

Rules Will Apply

9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of—and where feasible, an estimate

of—the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules, if adopted.

The RFA generally

defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small

organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”

In addition, the term “small business” has the

same meaning as the term “small business concern” 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) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

10. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our

action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore

describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected

herein.

First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the

regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small

business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.

These types of small businesses

represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

Nationwide, as

of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations.

Finally, the small entity described as

a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships,

villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”

U.S. Census

Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 governmental jurisdictions in the United

States.

We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental

jurisdictions.”

Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation

with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,

establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such

definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

15 U.S.C. § 632.

See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).

See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small business?,”

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).

See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2—How many small business are there in

the U.S.?,” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).

5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).

5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2012 at 267, Table 428

(2011), http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/2012-statab.pdf (citing data from

2007).

The 2012 U.S. Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the

population in each organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in the Census Bureau data for

2012, which is based on 2007 data. As a basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

11. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises

establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide

communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide

services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and

wireless video services.

The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967

firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer

employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.

Thus under this category and the

associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications

carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

12. The Commission has determined from data available in its Universal Licensing System

that there are approximately 32,483 licensees in the Wireless Radio Services

affected by this Further

Notice, as of July 10, 2017. The Commission does not know how many licensees in these bands are small

entities, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. The Commission

notes that, under the rules it proposes in this Further Notice, entities, including small businesses, will

have to comply with a single set of rules regarding license renewal in the WRS. The Commission does

not know how many entities that will file for WRS license renewal will be small entities. Thus, the

Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that all prospective licensees are small entities as that

term is defined by the SBA or by our proposed small business definitions for these bands, if any.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements for Small Entities

13. The potential rule changes proposed in this Further Notice if adopted, could, at least

initially, impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small

entities. In order to evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance

requirements that may result from the actions proposed in this Further Notice, the Commission has

sought input from the parties on various matters.

14. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks public comment on various actions to

increase the deployment of wireless communications services, specifically targeted to reach rural areas

that lack adequate access.

15. The Commission also seeks comment on requiring additional, incremental construction

obligations during a licensee’s renewal terms. Current construction obligations require licensees,

including small entities, to construct only portions of their license area (e.g., providing coverage to 67

percent of the population), not the entire area. Licensees are only subject to those construction

obligations during their initial license term, after which they retain exclusive spectrum rights to the entire

license area – even the unserved portions. In order to increase the number of Americans with access to

mobile coverage, especially those in unserved and underserved areas, the potential additional renewal

(Continued from previous page)

organizations were small, we note that there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor

civil divisions) with populations over 50,000 in 2011. See U.S. Census Bureau, City and Town Totals Vintage:

2011, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that

meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.

NAICS Code 517210. See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?

lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.

Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of

1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”

This number includes licensees in the geographic-based services listed in Appendix H of this Second Report and

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Please note that a licensee in one service may also be a licensee

in another service, thus the number of discrete licensees in affected services may actually be smaller.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

term construction obligations would increase construction obligations of all licensees, including small

entities, by 10 percent in a licensee’s next renewal term, followed by incremental increases of five or 10

percent in subsequent renewal terms. The additional compliance burden is prospective, in that it would

not apply until a licensee’s next full license term should they choose to renew their license.

16. In the event that the Commission adopts additional renewal term construction obligations,

small entities that are subject to the rules would be required to make the necessary filings with the

Commission to demonstrate compliance with the new obligations. Small entities are already required to

file construction notifications during their initial license terms, and will likely be able to allocate the same

resources they currently use in order to make the necessary filings under any new rules. Furthermore, the

filings will not increase in frequency as a result of any new additional renewal term construction

obligations, as today’s Second Report and Order already adopts rules requiring licensees to make renewal

term demonstrations of compliance with newly adopted renewal term requirements. If adopted, any

potential additional renewal term construction obligations discussed in this Further Notice, including any

possible reporting obligations concerning price and quality of services, would likely be integrated and

harmonized with the renewal term demonstrations adopted in today’s Second Report and Order.

17. We do not anticipate that the proposed additional renewal term construction obligations

will impose burdens beyond existing compliance costs for small entities. While the Commission is not

currently in a position to determine whether, if adopted, these additional obligations will require small

entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals, we believe licensees will largely

be able to employ the compliance mechanisms they already have in place. The Commission does not

believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with any potential additional renewal term

construction obligations will unduly burden small entities, but seeks comment on whether the obligations

should vary depending on the type of license, size of the license area, or the services the licensee

provides.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,

alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following

four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the

clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for

small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.”

19. To evaluate options and alternatives should there be a significant economic impact on

small entities as a result of actions that have been proposed in this Further Notice, the Commission has

sought comment from the parties. First, in this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on

renewal term construction obligations that would result in an increase of 10 percent over the construction

obligation a licensee was required to satisfy during its initial license term. Instead of requiring all

licensees to meet a specific metric (e.g., coverage to 95 percent of the population), we seek comment on

the 10 percent increase of the respective initial term construction obligations of each license in order to

avoid unduly burdening those licensees that may have had much lower initial term construction

obligations than others. Specifically for small entities, who may have fewer resources and less

established channels of infrastructure, this incremental approach provides licensees with an achievable

requirement that will promote the Commission’s goals within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, in

this Further Notice we seek comment on whether the obligations should vary depending on the type of

license, size of the license area, or the services the licensee provides. Because small entities typically

have smaller license areas and provide different types of services than large carriers, this potential

5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

variation would provide flexibility for small entities to comply with any additional construction

obligations.

20. Second, we seek comment on whether it may be appropriate to extend the license term,

upon renewal, of licenses subject to any new construction obligations. For example, we seek comment on

extending a 10-year license term to 15 years. Specifically for small entities who must allocate resources

carefully over the length of their license term and have more limited funds should they be required to

compete at auction for a particular license, the certainty of a longer license term would provide licensees

with sufficient incentive to make the long-term investments necessary for compliance.

21. Third, in order to tailor any new construction obligations to our goals and avoid imposing

undue burdens, the Commission seeks comment on whether to limit the scope of licensees subject to any

new rules. We seek comment on whether any additional renewal term obligations should vary depending

on the type of license, or the specific band, to which they would apply, and, if so, why those obligations

should vary. Furthermore, because some licensees in the same band, for example, could choose to

provide mobile or fixed services to consumers, provide fixed services to businesses, or use the license for

private internal communications, we seek comment on whether any additional renewal term construction

obligations should apply to all types of uses within a band, or only particular types. Because application

of any new rules to certain licensees may not actually achieve the Commission’s goals, the proposed

limited scope minimizes the impact on small entities and avoid unduly burdening small licensees.

22. Finally, in the event that the Commission ultimately adopts penalties that result in the

return of whole or partial licenses to the Commission’s inventory for reassignment, the Further Notice

seeks comment on various approaches for relicensing unused spectrum specifically with the goal of

increasing access for licensees – often small entities – that wish to serve unserved and underserved areas.

As discussed in the Further Notice, a two-phased on-demand relicensing framework would provide

customized access to unserved area, in which all interested parties may participate with no filing fee and

auction is only necessary when multiple entities seek the same area at the same time. For small entities

with limited funds to compete at auction, this approach would provide affordable access to unused

spectrum. It would also allow small entities, who may lack the necessary resources to meet construction

obligations for large license areas, to select targeted, small areas that are more manageable to construct

and maintain.

23. The Further Notice does not propose any exemption for small entities. The Commission

finds an overriding public interest in encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to

scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile services to rural Americans.

All licensees, including small entities, play a crucial role in achieving these goals. Therefore, while the

Further Notice seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, scope of subject

licenses, penalties for failure, and frameworks for relicensing unserved area that could accommodate the

needs and resources of small entities, an exemption would be contrary to the Commission’s overarching

goal.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

24. None.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX D

List of Commenters

In response to the WRS Reform NPRM and Order, the Commission received 33 comments and 19 reply

comments. On May 2, 2017, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice

requesting comments to update the record in this proceeding. In response, six parties filed comments and

four parties filed reply comments. In addition, following adoption of the NPRM, the Commission has

received ex parte filings from 10 parties.

2010 Comments

AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)

The Law Firm of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP (Blooston)

C&W Enterprises, Inc. (C&W)

The Catholic Television Network (CTN) and the National EBS Association (NESBA)

Clarendon Foundation, Inc. (Clarendon)

Clearwire Corporation (Clearwire)

CommNet Wireless, LLC (CommNet)

Compsec Corporation (Compsec)

CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA)

Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA)

FiberTower Corporation (FiberTower)

Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, LLC, and James McCotter (Green Flag)

Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. (HITN)

Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC)

LightSquared Inc. (LightSquared)

MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL)

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS)

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Viaero Wireless (Viaero)

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG)

PacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy Company, and Puget Sound, Inc. (PacifiCorp)

Sensus USA Inc. (Sensus)

Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern)

SpeedNet, LLC (SpeedNet)

Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint)

T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)

United States Cellular Corporation (USCC)

USA Mobility, Inc. (USA Mobility)

Verizon Wireless (Verizon)

The WCS Coalition (WCS Coalition)

The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI)

James Edwin Whedbee (Whedbee)

2010 Reply Comments

The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)

AT&T

Blooston

Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque Isle ESD (COPESD)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Clarendon

CTIA

Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy)

EWA

The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)

Green Flag

Horizon Wi-Com, LLC (Horizon)

LightSquared

The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA)

Rural Cellular Association (RCA)

Sensus

Snapline Communications, LLC (Snapline)

T-Mobile

USCC

WCS Coalition

Petitions for Reconsideration of the WRS Reform Order

Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc.

CTIA, AT&T, Cricket, Rural Cellular Association, Sprint, T-Mobile, USCC, Verizon, jointly

Green Flag, CWC Licensing, James McCotter, NTCH-CA, jointly

2017 Supplemental Comments

CTIA

CTN

EWA

NTCH, Inc. (NTCH)

Sensus

Verizon

2017 Supplemental Reply Comments

Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)

HITN

T-Mobile

USCC

Ex Parte Letters

AT&T

Blooston

CCA

CTIA

EWA

LMCC

Sprint

T-Mobile

USCC

Verizon

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX E

Discussion of Selected Prior and Current WRS Renewal Rules

1. Part 22. Prior to March 2017, the Part 22 Cellular Radiotelephone Service rules

established a detailed, two-step comparative hearing process for addressing a timely-filed renewal

application and all timely-filed mutually exclusive applications.

The rules required an administrative law

judge (ALJ) to conduct a threshold hearing to determine whether a Cellular renewal applicant was entitled

to a renewal expectancy.

If the ALJ determined that the applicant was entitled to a renewal expectancy

and was otherwise basically qualified, the license was renewed and any competing applications were

denied.

If the ALJ determined that a renewal expectancy was unwarranted, however, all mutually

exclusive applications in the renewal filing group were considered in a full comparative hearing.

March 2017, the Commission eliminated the Cellular Service comparative hearing process.

2. Part 24. The Part 24 Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) rules contain

virtually no guidance regarding comparative renewal applications, do not specify how or when competing

applications are to be filed against a renewal application, do not establish two-step hearings, and do not

enumerate procedures for evaluating renewal applications or what is required in a renewal expectancy

exhibit.

3. Part 27. The Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services rules, albeit

more detailed than Part 24, contain few specific rules addressing the possibility of competing renewal

applications, and affirmatively prohibit such filings against renewal applicants in the 700 MHz

Commercial Services, AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz bands.

Part 27 provides that renewal

applicants for services governed by Section 27.14(b)-(d) involved in a comparative renewal proceeding

will receive a renewal expectancy if they demonstrate that they have provided substantial service and

See former 47 CFR §§ 22.935-22.940.

A renewal expectancy would be awarded if the ALJ found that the renewal applicant had provided substantial

service, and substantially complied with the Commission’s rules, policies, and the Communications Act. See former

47 CFR §§ 22.935(c), 22.940(a). Additional issues (e.g., qualifications of the renewal applicant) also could be

specified for consideration by the ALJ. See former 47 CFR § 22.935(c).

See former 47 CFR § 22.935(c).

See former 47 CFR § 22.935(c). The specific elements to be considered by the ALJ in comparing the competing

applications were delineated in the rules. See former 47 CFR § 22.940.

Amendment of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the Cellular Service, Including Changes

in Licensing of Unserved Area; Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Relocation of Part 24 to Part

27, Interim Restrictions and Procedures for Cellular Service Applications; Amendment of Parts 0, 1, and 22 of the

Commission's Rules with Regard to Frequency Coordination for the Cellular Service; Amendment of Part 22 of the

Commission's Rules Regarding Certain Administrative and Filing Requirements; Amendment of the Commission's

Rules Governing Radiated Power Limits for the Cellular Service; Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95,

and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and

Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; 2016 Biennial Review of

Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 12-40; RM No. 11510; RM No. 11660; WT Docket No. 10-112;

WT Docket No. 16-138, Second Report and Order, Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 2518 (2017). The deletion of the Cellular comparative renewal hearing rules became

effective on May 12, 2017. Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area, 82 Fed. Reg. 17570

(April 12, 2017).

See 47 CFR § 24.16; see generally 47 CFR pt. 24.

See 47 CFR §§ 27.14(e), (f).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

have substantially complied with the Commission’s rules and policies and the Act.

Part 27, however,

does not specify what type of hearing procedures (two-step or otherwise) would apply to mutually

exclusive applications in the Part 27 renewal context. Unless a competing application is filed under

Section 27.14(b)-(d) of the rules, an applicant for renewal of a license under Section 27.14(b)-(d) has no

affirmative renewal filing obligation codified in the rules (other than the contemporaneous filing

obligation of demonstrating that it has met the ‘substantial service’ performance requirement in Section

27.14(a).”

4. Since the Commission adopted the WRS Reform NPRM in 2010, the Commission has

adopted service rules for four additional Part 27 services, AWS-4,

H Block,

AWS-3,

and 600 MHz.

For each service, the Commission adopted a renewal paradigm similar to the one proposed in the WRS

Reform NPRM, requiring renewal applicants to “demonstrate that they have been and are continuing to

provide service to the public, and are compliant with the Communications Act and with the

Commission’s rules and policies.”

Renewal applicants in those services must file a “renewal showing”

that includes “a detailed description of [the applicant’s] provision of service during the entire license

period.”

The Commission noted that licensees would be subject to the outcome of the instant

proceeding and any rule changes the Commission might adopt.

See 47 CFR § 27.14(b). Section 27.14(c) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 27.14(c), specifies the minimum

information to be included by a “WCS renewal applicant” involved in a comparative renewal proceeding to establish

a renewal expectancy, similar to the rules governing the Cellular service.

See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; Revision of the Commission's Rules To

Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules

Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,

and 90 To Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel

Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules;

Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development

of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety

Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 06-150; CC Docket No. 94-102; WT

Docket No. 01-309; WT Docket No. 03-264; WT Docket No. 06-169; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 96-

86, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8092, para. 74 (2007) (700

MHz First Report and Order).

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands; Fixed and

Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5

MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless

Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-

70, ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket No. 04-356, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC

Rcd 16102 (2012) (AWS-4 Report and Order).

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief

and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-357,

Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 9567-69, paras. 223-27 (2013) (H Block Report and Order).

Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780

MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN Docket 13-185, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4667-69, paras. 157-62

(2014) (AWS-3 Report and Order).

Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No.

12-268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6885-87, paras. 785-90 (2014) (600 MHz Report and Order).

Id. at 6885, para. 783.

Id. at 6885-86, para. 786. The renewal showing must discuss “(1) the level and quality of service provided

(including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, and the services offered); (2) the date

service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the

extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

5. Part 30. The Commission recently adopted service rules for Part 30 Upper Microwave

Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), including renewal rules addressing UMFUS licensees’ first license

terms.

Specifically, a UMFUS licensee must file a renewal application at the end of its initial license

term that demonstrates that the licensee has met its final performance requirement.

The Commission

deferred to the instant proceeding regarding renewal requirements for subsequent license terms.

6. Part 90. The Part 90 Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)

rules present another

situation. The Commission has stated that Part 90 CMRS licensees would be afforded a renewal

expectancy and that “[t]he applicable sections of Part 22 governing . . . renewal expectancy will be

incorporated into Part 90.”

At present, however, only two sections in Part 90 address CMRS renewal

situations.

7. Part 90 does include specific provisions regarding the renewal of 220-222 MHz licenses,

which are similar to the Part 27 rules in providing that renewal applicants must demonstrate that they

have provided substantial service during the past license term and have substantially complied with

applicable FCC rules and policies and the Act.

Section 90.743 further provides that, for a 220-222 MHz

renewal applicant to receive a renewal expectancy, it must include a description of its current service in

terms of geographic coverage and population served, an explanation of its record of expansion including a

timetable for new station construction to meet changes in service demand, a description of investments,

copies of any FCC orders finding that the renewal applicant has violated the Act or any FCC rule or

(Continued from previous page)

as defined in section 1.2110(f)(3)(i) of the Commission’s rules; and (5) any other factors associated with the level of

service to the public.” Id.

See, e.g., H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9569-70, para. 226; AWS-3 Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd

at 4667, para. 158, n.473; 600 MHz Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6885-86, para. 786, n.2214.

47 CFR § 30.104.

See id. See also Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services; Establishing a More Flexible

Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands; Petition for

Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band;

Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance

of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless

Radio Services; Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5

GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the

40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless

Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the37.0- 38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, GN

Docket No. 14-177; IB Docket No. 15-256; RM-11664; WT Docket No. 10-112; IB Docket No. 97-95, Report and

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8088, paras. 203-205 (Spectrum Frontiers

Report and Order).

Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8088, para. 205.

Section 332(d) of the Act defines commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) as any mobile service “that is

provided for profit and makes interconnected service available to (A) the public or (B) to such classes of eligible

users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the

Commission.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(d).

Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services,

GN Docket No. 93-252, Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8157, para. 386 (1994), citing 47 CFR § 22.940.

Section 90.165 addresses procedures for mutually exclusive applications, and includes provisions related to

defining and processing a “renewal filing group.” 47 CFR § 90.165(b)(1), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(4)(i).

47 CFR § 90.743(a).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

policy, and a list of any pending proceedings that relate to any such violation.

This section does not,

however, specify the procedures for processing competing renewal applications.

8. Part 101. Part 101 includes a number of renewal rules for geographically licensed

services that are similar to those found in Part 27. Section 101.1011(c), for example, requires a renewal

applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding for a local multipoint distribution service license

to file detailed information to demonstrate substantial service,

but such information is not required to

demonstrate substantial service as a performance requirement.

Part 101 rules addressing comparative

renewal procedures include Sections 101.529 (24 GHz), 101.1011 (local multipoint distribution service),

101.1327 (multiple address systems), and 101.1413 (multichannel video distribution and data service).

For renewal applicants not involved in a comparative renewal proceeding, these rules do not specify

renewal criteria separate from any performance requirement. In discussing similar rules under Part 27,

the Commission has explained that unless a competing application is filed, an applicant for renewal of a

license has no affirmative renewal filing obligation codified in the rules other than the contemporaneous

filing obligation of demonstrating that it has met the substantial service performance requirement.

47 CFR § 90.743(b).

47 CFR § 101.1011(c).

47 CFR § 101.1011(a).

47 CFR §§ 101.529, 101.1011, 101.1327, and 101.1413.

See 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8092, para. 74.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX F

Discussion of Current Permanent Discontinuance Requirements

1. Part 22 Public Mobile Services. The Commission’s Part 22 rules govern operations in

the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Rural Radiotelephone Service, Air-Ground Radiotelephone

Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, and Offshore Radiotelephone Service.

Under Part 22, “any

station that has not provided service to subscribers for 90 continuous days is considered to have been

permanently discontinued, unless the applicant notified the FCC otherwise prior to the end of the 90 day

period and provided a date on which operations will resume, which date must not be in excess of 30

additional days.”

“Service to subscribers” is defined as “[s]ervice to at least one subscriber that is not

affiliated with, controlled by or related to the providing carrier.”

2. Part 24 Personal Communications Services. Section 1.955(a)(3) provides that an

authorization will “automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is permanently

discontinued.”

The rule also provides that “[t]he Commission authorization or the individual service

rules govern the definition of permanent discontinuance for purposes of this section.”

For many of the

Commission’s services licensed by competitive bidding (such as PCS), the specific service rules do not

define permanent discontinuance of operations.

3. Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services. The Commission’s Part 27

Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services include: (1) 700 MHz Commercial Service (Lower

and Upper 700 MHz Bands);

(2) 700 MHz Guard Band Service;

(3) 1.4 GHz Service;

(4) 1.6 GHz

Service;

(5) Advanced Wireless Service (AWS-1, 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz);

(6) Wireless

Communications Service (WCS, 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz),

and (7) the Broadband Radio Service

and Educational Broadband Service.

Part 27 does not define permanent discontinuance for any of these

services. Section 27.66(b), however, requires fixed common carriers in any of these services to obtain

prior Commission authorization before voluntarily discontinuing service to a community or part of a

community, which will be granted “within 31 days after filing if no objections have been received.”

Fixed non-common carrier licensees, on the other hand, may voluntarily discontinue service without prior

47 CFR part 22, subpts. E, F, G, H, and I.

47 CFR § 22.317 (emphasis added). In March 2017, the Commission adopted a revision to section 22.317 such

that it would not apply to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, and adopted new 47 CFR § 22.947 governing

permanent discontinuance for Cellular licensees. Cellular Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 2559-60, paras.

113-15.

47 CFR § 22.99.

47 CFR § 1.955(a)(3).

Id.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. F.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. G.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. I.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. J.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. L.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. D.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. M.

47 CFR § 27.66(b), citing 47 CFR § 63.71.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

Commission authorization and need only provide the Commission notice within seven days of such

discontinuance.

4. Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services also include: (1) AWS-4

(2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz),

H Block (1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz),

AWS-3

(1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz),

and 600 MHz Services.

For licensees in

these services, the Commission adopted permanent discontinuance rules. Specifically, for licensees with

common carrier regulatory status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days

during which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,

controlled by, or related to the licensee in the individual license area.

For licensees with non-common

carrier status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a

licensee does not operate.

Further, a licensee that permanently discontinues service must notify the

Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license

cancellation.

However, an authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission

action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a licensee fails to file the

required form requesting license cancellation.

5. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. As noted above, in 2004,

the Commission implemented a new band plan for BRS and EBS. To enable licensees to transition to the

new band plan and deploy new and innovative wireless services, the Commission eliminated its

discontinuance of service rules, and adopted a substantial service standard under which all licensees were

required to demonstrate substantial service on or before May 1, 2011.

6. Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. The Commission recently adopted

service rules for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), including rules governing

permanent discontinuance. For licensees with common carrier regulatory status, permanent

discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not provide

service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee in the

individual license area.

For licensees with non-common carrier status, permanent discontinuance of

service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.

Further, a licensee

that permanently discontinues service must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days

by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation.

However, an authorization will

automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued as

defined in this section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.

47 CFR § 27.66(c).

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. L.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. K.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. L.

47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. N.

47 CFR § 27.17(b).

Id.

47 CFR § 27.17(c).

Id.

See BRS/EBS Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 14254, para. 231.

47 CFR § 30.106(b).

Id.

47 CFR § 30.106(c).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

The Commission stated that the permanent discontinuance rules would be implemented one year after the

initial license period ends.

7. Part 80 Safety and Special Radio Service. Part 80, which governs stations in the

Maritime Services, does not currently define permanent discontinuance of operations. We note that

Section 80.31 provides that “[w]ireless telecommunications carriers subject to this part [80] must comply

with the discontinuance of service provisions of part 63 of this chapter,”

but this rule has limited

applicability.

8. Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services. Section 90.157(a) provides that “[a]n

authorization shall cancel automatically upon permanent discontinuance of operations.”

The rule further

provides that “[u]nless stated otherwise in this part or in a station authorization, for the purposes of this

section, any station which has not operated for one year or more is considered to have been permanently

discontinued.”

This rule applies to all Part 90 services, except trunked Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)

Service, which is discussed below.

9. Part 90 Specialized Mobile Radio Service. Section 90.631(f), which governs permanent

discontinuance of trunked SMR Service operations, is like Section 22.317, governing permanent

discontinuance of operations for all Part 22 Public Mobile Services. The rule provides that an SMR

“licensee with facilities that have discontinued operations for 90 continuous days is presumed to have

permanently discontinued operations,” unless it notifies the Commission “prior to the end of the 90 day

period and provides a date on which operation will resume, which date must not be in excess of 30

additional days.”

Under the rule, a trunked SMR base station “is not considered to be placed in

operation unless at least two associated mobile stations, or one control station and one mobile station, are

also placed in operation.”

10. Part 95 218-219 MHz Service. Part 95 does not currently define permanent

discontinuance of operations for licensees in the 218-219 MHz Service.

11. Part 101 Fixed Microwave Services. Section 101.65(b) provides that any Part 101

“station which has not operated for one year or more is considered to have been permanently

discontinued.”

(Continued from previous page)

Id.

Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8093, para. 227.

47 CFR § 80.31.

In 1994, the Commission determined to forbear from applying section 214 market exit requirements to CMRS

providers. See 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 Rcd 1411, 1480-81, para. 182 (1994).

See also 47 CFR § 20.15(b)(3) (CMRS providers are not required to “[s]ubmit applications for new facilities or

discontinuance of existing facilities”). Section 80.31 thus only applies to Part 80 licenses to the extent they are

providing international (high seas) public coast service or fixed common carrier point-to-point service.

47 CFR § 90.157(a).

Id.

47 CFR § 90.631(f).

Id.

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. F.

47 CFR § 101.65(b).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX G

Site-based Services

The site-based safe harbor may be used by any site-based WRS licensee in the following services:

 220-222 MHz Service (site-based),

excluding public safety licenses;

 800/900 MHz (SMR and Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool);

 Aeronautical Advisory Stations (Unicoms);

 Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (General Aviation);

 Alaska-Public Fixed Stations;

 Broadcast Auxiliary Service;

 Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service;

 Industrial/Business Radio Pool;

 Local Television Transmission Service;

 Multiple Address Systems (site-based), excluding public safety licenses;

 Non-Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service;

 Offshore Radiotelephone Service;

 Paging and Radiotelephone Service (site-based);

 Private Carrier Paging;

The Commission initially included site-based Digital Electronic Message Services (DEMS) within its site-based

proposals in the WRS Reform NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 7010-11, para. 34. The Commission no longer licenses this

service by site. Existing DEMS stations are now licensed as part of the 24 GHz Service on a geographic basis and

we include those licenses within our rules for geographic licenses. 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16946,

para. 24.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. T.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. S.

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. G.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. G.

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. O.

See 47 CFR pt. 74, subpts. D, E, F, and H.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. I.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. C.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. J.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. H.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. M.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. I.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. E.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. P.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

 Private Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service, excluding public safety

licenses;

 Public Coast Stations (site-based);

 Radiodetermination Service Stations (Radionavigation Land Stations);

 Radiolocation Service;

and

 Rural Radiotelephone Service (including Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Service).

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. H.

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. J.

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. Q.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. F.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. F.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX H

Geographic Area Services

The geographic area safe harbors (for wireless providers using geographic licenses and private systems

using geographic licenses) may be used by licensees in the following Wireless Radio Services that are

licensed on a geographic-area basis:

 1.4 GHz Service;

 1.6 GHz Service;

 24 GHz Service and Digital Electronic Message Services;

 218-219 MHz Service (formerly Interactive Video Data Service);

 220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses;

 600 MHz Service;

 700 MHz Commercial Services;

 700 MHz Guard Band Service;

 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service;

 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service;

 Advanced Wireless Services;

 Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation);

 Broadband Personal Communications Service;

 Broadband Radio Service;

 Cellular Radiotelephone Service;

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. I.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. J.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. G.

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. F.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. T.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. N.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpts. F and H.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. G. The 700 MHz guard bands include Block A 757-758, 787-788 MHz, and Block B

775-776, 805-806 MHz.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. S.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpts. K and L.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. G.

See 47 CFR pt. 24, subpt. E.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. M.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

 Dedicated Short Range Communications Service,

excluding public safety licenses;

 H Block Service;

 Local Multipoint Distribution Service;

 Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service;

 Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service;

 Multiple Address Systems (EAs);

 Narrowband Personal Communications Service;

 Paging and Radiotelephone Service;

 VHF Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems;

 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service;

and

 Wireless Communications Service.

(Continued from previous page)

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. H.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. M. Non-reserved Dedicated Short Range Communications Service frequencies in the

5850-5925 MHz band are licensed on the basis of non-exclusive geographic areas. Such licenses serve as a

prerequisite for registering individual Roadside Units (RSUs) located within the licensed geographic area. See 47

CFR § 90.375.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. K.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. L.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. P.

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. M.

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. O.

See 47 CFR pt. 24, subpt. D.

See 47 CFR pt. 22, subpt. E; 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. P.

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. J.

See 47 CFR pt. 30.

See 47 CFR pt. 27, subpt. D.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

APPENDIX I

Wireless Radio Services Excluded From Rulemaking

The following licenses have no construction/performance requirement. These services therefore are

excluded from this rulemaking.

 70/80/90 GHz Service (licenses in these bands are non-exclusive and do not authorize

transmission unless/until each “pencil beam” link is registered in a private-sector database);

424

 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service;

425

 48

 Aeronautical Enroute Stations, Aeronautical Fixed Stations, and Aircraft Data Link Land Test

Stations;

426

 Aeronautical Multicom Stations;

427

 Aeronautical Search and Rescue Stations;

428

 Aeronautical Utility Mobile Stations;

429

 Aircraft Stations;

430

 Airport Control Tower Stations;

431

 Alaska-Private Fixed Stations

432

 Amateur Radio Service;

433

 Automatic Weather Stations;

434

 Aviation Support Stations;

435

 Citizens Band Radio Service;

436

 Commercial Radio Operator License Program;

437

424

See 47 CFR pt. 101, subpt. Q.

425

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. M.

426

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. I.

427

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. H.

428

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. M.

429

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. L.

430

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. F.

431

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. O.

432

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. O.

433

See 47 CFR pt. 97.

434

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. S.

435

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. K.

436

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. D.

437

See 47 CFR pt. 13.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

 Dedicated Short Range Communications Service (On-Board Units operating in the 5850-

5925 MHz band);

438

 Family Radio Service;

439

 Flight Test Stations;

440

 General Mobile Radio Service;

441

 Low Power Radio Service;

442

 Maritime Support Stations;

443

 Medical Device Radiocommunication Service;

444

 Multi-Use Radio Service;

445

 Part 80 Operational Fixed Stations;

446

 Part 87 Operational Fixed Stations;

447

 Personal Locator Beacons and Maritime Survivor Locating Devices;

448

 Private Coast Stations and Marine Utility Stations;

449

 Part 80 Radiodetermination Service Stations;

450

 Part 87 Radiodetermination Service Stations (Radiolocation Land Stations only);

451

 Radio Control Radio Service;

452

 Ship Stations;

453

 Wireless Broadband Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band (licenses in these bands are

nationwide, non-exclusive, and do not authorize transmission unless and until each fixed or

438

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. L (On-Board Units operating in the 5850-5925 MHz band are licensed by rule).

439

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. B.

440

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. J.

441

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. AAAE.

442

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. G.

443

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. N.

444

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. I.

445

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. J.

446

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. L.

447

See 47 CFR pt. 87, subpt. P.

448

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. K.

449

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. K.

450

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpt. M.

451

See 47 CFR pt. 959587, subpt. KKQ.

452

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. C.

453

See 47 CFR pt. 80, subpts. R-X.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

base station is registered; an unlimited number of base and fixed stations may be registered

(not licensed) in this band on a nationwide, non-exclusive basis);

454

and

 Wireless Medical Telemetry Service.

455

454

See 47 CFR pt. 90, subpt. Z.

455

See 47 CFR pt. 95, subpt. H.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

STATEMENT OF

CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI

Re: Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License

Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum

Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112.

Baseball has been with us for over a century. And fans regard its rules as sacrosanct. But for the

early years of its existence, during the 1800s, major rule changes occurred regularly, and it was common

for different leagues to play by different rules. For instance, in 1886, the National League required seven

balls for a walk, while the American Association required only six (the current four-ball rule was codified

in 1889). However, since the American League was formed in 1901, the rules have been consistent

across both leagues—except for the pesky Designated Hitter rule, which they can’t seem to agree on.

Needless to say, baseball’s been a huge success ever since.

This Report and Order has a similar aim of consistency. Today, the FCC has a patchwork for

handling the renewal of Wireless Radio Service spectrum licenses. Some renewal rules are service-

specific. There are different provisions on comparative renewals and continuity of service. We also have

partitioning and disaggregation performance rules. This patchwork isn’t optimal, to say the least.

We want to change all that by standardizing the framework. We’ll have a single step-by-step

process that will be applied across the board. This simplified process will reduce regulatory burdens so

resources can go towards investment in wireless networks and spurring innovation in all parts of America.

This item takes another step that, in my view, hits it out of the park. Too often, licensed spectrum

isn’t being used to benefit Americans who live in rural areas. That’s why I’m pleased that today’s

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks questions on how the FCC could promote greater buildout

in these areas. We want this public resource, once licensed, to benefit as many Americans as possible—

including those in hard-to-reach places. That’s an important component of closing the urban-rural divide

when it comes to connectivity.

My thanks to the FCC staff for their work on this item. In particular, thanks to John Barry, Steve

Buenzow, Lloyd Coward, Peter Daronco, Tom Derenge, Anna Gentry, Jessica Greffenius, Kathy Harris,

Joyce Jones, Roger Noel, Tom Reed, Mike Regiec, John Schauble, Jim Schlichting, Blaise Scinto, Scot

Stone, Nina Shafran, Cecilia Sulhoff, Alex Vetras, and Mary Claire York from the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau; Tracy Simmons and Michael Wilhelm from the Public Safety and

Homeland Security Bureau; Jason Koslofsky, Jeremy Marcus, and Aspa Paroutsas from the Enforcement

Bureau; Chana Wilkerson from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities; and David

Horowitz and Doug Klein from the Office of General Counsel.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN

Re: Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License

Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum

Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112

According to the Commission’s licensing records, more than 675,000 renewal applications are

expected to be filed by geographic and site-based licensees over the next decade. At a time when both the

Commission’s budget and staff appear to be shrinking, it behooves us to have a streamlined and efficient

process in place to review forthcoming applications. Such a process will not only promote efficient use of

our scarce spectrum resources, but will also provide licensees certainty when it comes to their license

renewal requirements.

In the item before us today, we replace a patchwork of service-specific rules with a uniform

renewal standard for most Wireless Radio Services licensees. Notably, we adopt a set of safe harbors that

will reduce licensee filing burdens and focus Commission resources on reviewing applications that merit

a closer look. We also make clear that if a licensee cannot meet the renewal standard and its license

cannot be renewed, its licensed spectrum will be automatically returned to the Commission.

At the heart of this proceeding, is the Commission’s duty to ensure that the nation’s valuable

spectrum resources are being responsibly and robustly deployed to meet the growing needs of consumers

and businesses. As we challenge ourselves, our federal partners, and industry stakeholders to free up

additional spectrum to meet our evolving wireless needs, we must be resolute and vigilant in ensuring that

already deployed spectrum is being put to its highest and best use.

In the Further Notice, we recognize the growing digital and opportunities divide in this country,

and seek comment on actions that can be taken to promote deployment of wireless services in rural areas.

These connectivity challenges were ones I experienced first-hand last month during my visit to Marietta,

Ohio. And it is with that experience in mind that I asked for the inclusion of questions relating to

affordability and adoption of broadband services in rural America. I am grateful to my colleagues for

agreeing to this request, which includes seeking comment on whether the Commission should incorporate

into the renewal process reporting requirements relating to affordability of services as well as steps

licensees have taken to address adoption deficiencies. I look forward to reviewing the record that

develops and remain committed to exploring all avenues to closing this divide.

I would like to thank the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for your sustained

efforts to ensure that our license renewal process is harmonized and promotes efficient use of scarce

spectrum resources.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY

Re: Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License

Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum

Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112

I do not undertake changing the terms or requirements for existing licenses lightly. Commission

licensees rely on our rules to formulate auction strategies and in making business decisions regarding

capital-intensive network builds. The stability of our successful auction policies and licensing paradigm,

including renewal expectancy and buildout requirements, have allowed our wireless providers – big and

small – the needed certainty to invest, construct, innovate, upgrade and expand their offerings, and

generally focus on providing the best service to their consumers. In fact, I have argued as much with

many of our international colleagues who occasionally seek to reauction licenses, modify buildout

policies or change course to meet conflicting policy goals. Such actions are usually at cross purposes to

producing the environment needed to actually get networks built.

Occasionally, however, there is a need to modify flawed or outdated rules. This is one of those

times. I can support today’s order because not only does it harmonize rules for spectrum bands offering

similar services, but, more importantly, it provides certainty that did not exist under our previous rules.

For instance, comparative hearings will finally and officially be a thing of the past, and there will no

longer be a debate about what exactly does the Commission mean by “substantial service.” Instead, these

are replaced with safe harbors. Generally, an entity that operates consistent with its last buildout

requirement, and can certify compliance with certain other rules, will be renewed.

If, for some reason, an entity can’t make such a certification, they can submit a detailed showing

supporting renewal. While I am not a fan of the case-by-case determinations that the in-depth renewal

showing entails, most entities should be covered by the safe harbor. In fact, over the last two weeks, a

few concerns were raised by industry participants that the safe harbor was written in such a way that

entities would be unable to use it. The item we vote today incorporates edits that should resolve these,

and other, issues. Hopefully, we struck the right balance.

Regarding the further notice, I agree with the underlying goals it is trying to achieve. I have been

a staunch supporter of strictly enforcing our buildout requirements and reconsidering our construction

benchmarks going forward. Therefore, I am supportive of seeking comment on strengthening

construction requirements for new licenses or providing current licensees with voluntary options, such as

increasing their coverage areas in exchange for longer license terms. These ideas are now teed up in the

notice, and I thank the Chairman for accepting my suggested edits. For this reason, I can vote to approve

the further notice.

However, I do want to raise serious concerns about possibly increasing the buildout requirements

for existing licenses, which I am unlikely to support such efforts if they move forward. Licensees made

decisions based on the rules at the time and bid accordingly. To consider altering these requirements for

licensees is beyond bad faith. We certainly wouldn’t have generated the auction bids or revenues we did

had participants been on notice, in advance of the auction, that we can alter the terms and conditions, and

we risk our sound auction policy, not to mention years of litigation, in the process.

Moreover, I also must ask how this fits in with our universal service fund efforts, such as

Mobility Fund. Basically, are we forcing licensees to absorb the costs of serving additional areas that we

previously have found in need of subsidization. Further, are we going to fund buildout and operations in

areas where we are going to require licensees to serve? Are we going to force companies receiving

subsidies to absorb the costs of expanding service to adjacent or additional areas where there is little

Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-105

business case for doing so? These and other questions need to be answered before ever going down this

route.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the precedent we are setting. If we can change licensees’

buildout requirements, what other modifications can be made to meet the various policy goals of the day.

Can a future Commission randomly add behavioral conditions like we do in the merger context, can we

force sharing or leasing, or can we decide that a current licensee just holds too much spectrum in a market

and force them to divest or take it back? Now I know this isn’t the intention of my colleagues, but this

slope seems to be mighty slippery and that is a risk I will just not be willing to take.