**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum ) WT Docket No. 96-148

Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile )

Radio Services Licensees )

)

)

Implementation of Section 257 of the ) GN Docket No. 96-113

Communications Act \-- )

Elimination of Market Entry Barriers )

)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 7, 2000 Released: April 13, 2000**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Paragraph No]{.underline}.

.

**I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1**

**II. BACKGROUND 2**

**III. DISCUSSION 6**

**A. The Rural Telco Restriction 6**

**B. Entrepreneur Block Spectrum Swaps 10**

**C. Submission of Contracts for Sale 13**

**IV. CONCLUSION 15**

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES 16**

# 

# I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1\. On December 13, 1996, we adopted rules for geographic
partitioning[^1] and spectrum disaggregation[^2] for broadband Personal
Communications Services (PCS).[^3] On February 5, 1997, the National
Telephone Cooperative Association and the Independent Alliance (NTCA)
and Omnipoint Corporation (Omnipoint) filed Petitions for
Reconsideration of the *Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and
Order*.[^4] On February 20, 1997, the Rural Telecommunications Group
(RTG) filed a Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review (RTG Motion) to
stay the effective date of the rules. In this *Memorandum Opinion and
Order,* we deny the Petitions for Reconsideration and dismiss RTG\'s
motion as moot.[^5] We also affirm our decisions to eliminate the
restriction permitting partitioning only to rural telephone
companies,[^6] to prohibit entrepreneur block licensees from swapping
spectrum blocks with non-entrepreneur block licensees in the same
geographic market, and to require the filing of the associated contract
for sale and related documents together with any partitioning and/or
disaggregation application that is filed within the first three years
following issuance of a new PCS license through competitive bidding.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. Our initial rules for broadband PCS were adopted in the *Broadband
PCS Second Report and Order*[^7] and amended in the *Broadband PCS
Memorandum Opinion and Order*.[^8] In the *Broadband PCS Memorandum
Opinion and Order*, we declined to permit broadband PCS licensees to
engage in unrestricted partitioning of their licenses. We perceived a
significant risk that partitioning could be used to circumvent
construction requirements. [^9] In the *Competitive Bidding Fifth Report
and Order* in 1996, however, we permitted broadband PCS licensees to
partition their licenses if the proposed assignee was a rural telephone
company (\"rural telco\").[^10] In the *NPRM* in this docket, we
addressed the issue of whether to amend our PCS partitioning and
disaggregation rules.[^11] Our goal was to enable a wide variety of PCS
applicants, including small businesses, rural telcos, and businesses
owned by members of minority groups and women to overcome entry barriers
through the creation of smaller, less capital intensive licenses that
are within the reach of smaller entities.[^12] We sought to promote
technical advancement and participation by diverse entities, facilitate
the efficient use of broadband PCS spectrum, increase competition, and
expedite the provision of broadband PCS to areas that may not otherwise
receive PCS or other wireless services in the near term.[^13]

3\. In our *Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and Order* released
on December 20, 1996, we adopted partitioning and disaggregation rules
for broadband PCS licensees in order to provide all broadband PCS
licensees with the flexibility to use their spectrum more
efficiently.[^14] We therefore permitted broadband PCS licensees in the
A, B, D, and E blocks to partition their license areas at any time and
eliminated the requirement that partitioning be limited to rural
telcos.[^15] Entrepreneur block (C and F block) licensees were permitted
to partition to other entities similarly qualified as entrepreneurs
during the first five years of their license term.[^16] We further
provided that after the first five years, entrepreneurs could partition
to non-entrepreneurs; however, the partitioner would be required to pay
the U.S. Government an unjust enrichment payment based on the population
of the partitioned area.[^17] We concluded that relaxing our PCS
partitioning rules would help to: (1) remove potential barriers to
entry, thereby increasing competition in the PCS marketplace; (2)
encourage parties to use PCS spectrum more efficiently; and (3) speed
service to unserved and underserved areas.[^18]

4\. Prior to the adoption of our *Partitioning and Disaggregation*
*Report and Order*, we had prohibited the disaggregation of spectrum by
broadband PCS licensees until January 1, 2000.[^19] In the *Partitioning
and Disaggregation* *Report and Order*, we removed the prohibition on
disaggregation for non-entrepreneur block licensees.[^20] We further
allowed entrepreneur block licensees to disaggregate spectrum to
qualifying entrepreneurs and applicants at any time; however, we
prohibited disaggregation by entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs for the
first five years of their initial license term.[^21] We determined that
allowing unrestricted entrepreneur block disaggregation would be
inconsistent with our five-year restriction on full license transfers to
non-entrepreneurs.[^22] We declined to adopt a proposal by Omnipoint to
permit entrepreneur block licensees to swap equivalent blocks of
spectrum with non-entrepreneurs in the same geographic market, finding
that the administrative burden of tracking such arrangements would far
outweigh any benefit to the public.[^23]

5\. Finally, in our *Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and
Order*, we decided that broadband PCS licensees entering into
partitioning or disaggregation arrangements within three years of
initial licensing would be subject to the reporting requirements set
forth in section 1.2111(a) of the rules, which apply to full license
assignments or transfers of control of auctions licenses.[^24] Section
1.2111(a) states that an applicant seeking approval for a transfer of
control or assignment of license application within three years of
receiving a new license through competitive bidding must submit the
associated contract for sale, option agreements, management agreements,
or other documents (referred to jointly herein as \"sales agreements\")
disclosing the total consideration that the applicant would receive in
return for the transfer or assignment of its license.[^25] Therefore,
parties seeking approval of a broadband PCS partitioning and/or
disaggregation application must submit a copy of their sales agreement
if such application is submitted within three years of the award of the
original broadband PCS license.

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Elimination of the Rural Telco Restriction**

6\. [Background]{.underline}. In our *Partitioning and Disaggregation
Report and Order*, we broadened the partitioning rules to allow entities
other than rural telcos to obtain partitioned licenses.[^26] We found
that continuing to restrict eligibility for partitioned licenses to
rural telcos would prevent additional small businesses and other
entities from using partitioning to enter the broadband PCS market and
any such restriction would unreasonably reduce the number of potential
entrants into the PCS marketplace without any corresponding public
interest benefit.[^27] We concluded that increasing the number of
parties that may obtain partitioned PCS licenses would lead to more
efficient use of broadband PCS spectrum and would speed service to
underserved or rural areas.[^28] We further rejected the argument raised
by the rural telcos that unrestricted partitioning would effectively
deprive them of any opportunity to obtain broadband PCS licenses.

7\. [Discussion]{.underline}. Rural telcos have not presented any
evidence that the expansion of our partitioning rules has deprived them
of opportunities to obtain broadband PCS licenses. AT&T argues, and we
agree, that the measures we have adopted are sufficient to provide rural
telcos with opportunities to provide broadband PCS. AT&T cites the
*Broadband PCS Memorandum Opinion and Order*, where we increased the
cellular attribution threshold for rural telcos, and our *Competitive
Bidding Fifth Report and Order* decision to allow rural telcos to form
bidding consortia and, pursuant to pre-auction agreements, to partition
among themselves.[^29] As AT&T and U.S. West also observe, partitioning
is not the only means available to ensure the participation of rural
telcos in the provision of broadband PCS.[^30] We note that prior to
amendment of our partitioning rules, we had already taken action to
ensure the participation of small businesses, including rural telcos, in
the provision of broadband PCS through the establishment of the
entrepreneurs block auctions. By restricting participation in the C and
F block auctions to entrepreneurs with average gross annual revenues of
less than \$125 million and total assets of less than \$500 million, our
rules provided an opportunity for small businesses, including rural
telcos, to win broadband PCS licenses at auction. In addition, we have
established broadband PCS frequency blocks of varying sizes (30 MHz, 15
MHz, and 10 MHz) and service areas of varying sizes (larger Major
Trading Areas and smaller Basic Trading Areas) to ensure that entities
with limited capital resources can participate in PCS.[^31] We have also
made bidding credits available to small businesses, and such credits
have provided substantial aid to rural telcos.

8\. We also disagree with NTCA\'s argument that rural telcos will not
have an opportunity to obtain a broadband PCS license if partitioning is
extended to other entities. NTCA contends that because the partitioning
rules were adopted on December 13, 1997, five months after the deadline
for participation in the D, E, and F block broadband PCS auction, rural
telco business plans were harmed by adoption of the expanded
partitioning rule. The auction results refute NTCA\'s claim that rural
telcos had no opportunity to bid in the auction and were relying on
partitioning as the sole means of acquiring broadband PCS licenses.
Thirty-two rural telcos were winning bidders of 167 licenses in the D,
E, and F block auction. This fact demonstrates that not all rural telcos
were relying on partitioning to obtain broadband PCS licenses. Our
records indicate that rural telcos accounted for 24 of the 88 winners of
F block licenses in the original D, E, and F block broadband PCS auction
(Auction 11), and 22 of those rural telcos qualified for small business
bidding credits. Rural telcos also accounted for 12 of the 56 winners of
C and F block licenses in the C, D, E, and F block broadband PCS auction
held this year (Auction 22), and 10 of those rural telcos qualified for
small business bidding credits. These auction results confirm that our
rules have served to provide opportunities for rural telcos to obtain
PCS licenses. Moreover, as we note above, those rural telecos that were
relying on partitioning to obtain licenses will still be able to use
this method and will continue to have the opportunity to use their
unique market position to obtain partitioned PCS licenses in rural
areas.

9\. Accordingly, we do not agree with NTCA\'s argument that by changing
our broadband PCS partitioning rule, we have abandoned our Congressional
mandate to develop opportunities for rural telcos to provide broadband
PCS services.[^32] Moreover, we find that open and unrestricted
partitioning will better serve \"to further the rapid deployment of new
technologies for the benefit of the public including those residing in
rural areas, to promote economic opportunity and competition, and to
ensure the efficient use of spectrum.\"[^33] In light of these
considerations, there is no basis for NTCA\'s claim that our amended
partitioning rule violates section 309(j). We do not agree that rural
telcos must be singled out for preferential treatment under our
partitioning rules to satisfy our statutory obligations under section
309(j). Our broadband PCS auction rules have provided ample
opportunities for rural telcos without resorting to exclusive
preferences for those companies. Section 309(j) requires us, in
designing auction rules for spectrum-based services, to maintain certain
objectives, including the promotion of economic opportunity and
competition.[^34] We are required to ensure that the American people
have access to new and innovative technologies, by avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide
variety of applicants, such as rural telcos.[^35] Section 309(j) does
not specifically mandate exclusive partitioning of broadband PCS for
rural telcos. We therefore affirm our decision to eliminate the rural
telco restriction for broadband PCS partitioning and deny NTCA\'s
Petition.

**B. Entrepreneur Block Spectrum Swaps**

10\. [Background]{.underline}. In our *Partitioning and Disaggregation*
*Report and Order* in this proceeding we permitted entrepreneur block
licensees (broadband PCS blocks C and F) to disaggregate their spectrum
to other parties qualifying as entrepreneurs at any time.[^36]
Entrepreneur block licensees were not permitted to disaggregate spectrum
to non-entrepreneur block licensees (broadband PCS blocks A, B, D, and
E) for the first five years of their initial license term.[^37]
Omnipoint suggested that in the A, B, and C blocks we permit spectrum
swaps between entrepreneur block and non-entrepreneur block licensees
for the same licensed area in order to permit broadband PCS licensees to
negotiate with other licensees in the market to avoid adjacent channel
interference issues.[^38] Omnipoint argued that permitting in-market
spectrum swaps would lead to more efficient management of licenses and
quicker introduction of broadband PCS services.[^39] In our
*Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, we declined to adopt
Omnipoint\'s proposal.[^40] We found that the administrative burden of
keeping track of such arrangements would far outweigh any benefit to the
public.[^41]

11\. [Discussion]{.underline}. In its Petition, Omnipoint raises the
same spectrum swap argument for the D, E, and F blocks that it raised,
and the Commission declined to adopt, for the A, B, and C blocks in the
*Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*.[^42] Omnipoint
proposes that we permit F block entrepreneur licensees to swap spectrum
with D and E block non-entrepreneur licensees in the same market area at
any time, contending that such swapping will allow licensees to avoid
adjacent channel interference issues.[^43]

12\. We disagree with Omnipoint that the purported benefits of
permitting F block licensees to swap spectrum with D or E block
licensees in the same market during the initial five years of a license
term outweigh other public interest considerations. As noted in the
*Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, the PCS entrepreneur
block spectrum is subject to a five-year prohibition on license
transfers to non-entrepreneurs, and to unjust enrichment payment
obligations where such a transfer occurs after the five-year
period.[^44] Under Omnipoint's proposal, an F block entrepreneur
licensee would be allowed to transfer its license to a non-entrepreneur
without regard to these restrictions or obligations, and would
furthermore be able to "port" the financial benefits that attached to
its entrepreneurs' license into a spectrum block in which such benefits
are not available to other licensees. We believe this proposal would be
inconsistent with our original determination that special provisions for
entrepreneurs in broadband PCS should be limited to the C and F
blocks.[^45]

13\. In addition, as we noted in the *Partitioning and Disaggregation
Report and Order*, the administrative burden of tracking spectrum swaps
outweighs any benefit to the public.[^46] In order to facilitate PCS
licensing, the Universal Licensing System (ULS) is currently programmed
to process entrepreneur licenses differently than other licenses,
particularly in connection with assignments and transfers. Among other
things this enables the Commission to track the ownership of
entrepreneurs licenses for financial recordkeeping purposes and for
reporting to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. To
maintain the integrity of these functions while implementing Omnipoint's
proposal would require significant reprogramming of ULS to account for
licenses that were originally non-entrepreneur licenses becoming
entrepreneur licenses as a result of a swap. Thus, allowing spectrum
swaps in the D, E, and F blocks would pose the same problems that led
the Commission to reject Omnipoint's identical proposal for the A, B,
and C blocks without any additional benefit to the public. Because
Omnipoint has failed to raise any new arguments, or evidence of adjacent
channel interference in the absence of swaps, that would lead us to
reconsider the Commission's prior decision, we decline Omnipoint's
request that we reconsider this aspect of the *Partitioning and
Disaggregation Report and Order*.

**C. Submission of Contracts for Sale**

14\. [Background]{.underline}. In our *Partitioning and Disaggregation*
*Report and Order*, we concluded that broadband PCS partitioning and
disaggregation applications should be subject to the same procedures as
full assignment or transfers of control applications.[^47] As a result,
PCS partitioning or disaggregation applicants are required, among other
things, to comply with section 1.2111(a) of our rules.[^48] Section
1.2111(a) states that applicants seeking approval of a transfer of
control or assignment of license within three years of the grant of a
new license through our competitive bidding procedures must file the
associated contract for sale, option agreements, management agreements,
or other documents (referred to jointly herein as \"sales agreements\")
disclosing the total consideration that the applicant would receive in
return for the transfer or assignment of its license.[^49]

15\. [Discussion]{.underline}. Omnipoint argues that we should not
require partitioning and disaggregation applications to include copies
of their sales agreements.[^50] We decline, however, to eliminate this
requirement. Partitioning and disaggregation applications are similar to
all other assignment applications to which the sales agreement
submission requirement applies. There are no unique circumstances in the
partitioning and disaggregation context that would warrant adopting a
special exception to section 1.2111(a). The submission requirement is a
valuable tool for ensuring compliance not only with our unjust
enrichment requirements, as Omnipoint has noted,[^51] but also with
other assignment and transfer requirements such as verification of the
*bona fides* of ownership and control.[^52] With respect to Omnipoint\'s
concern that parties may not want to submit such documents for fear of
public disclosure, such parties may follow our rules on confidential
treatment of Commission submissions and request that these documents be
withheld from public disclosure.[^53] We therefore deny Omnipoint\'s
Petition.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

16\. We believe the rule changes we adopted in our *Report and Order*
will allow more competitors to enter the marketplace and provide service
to the public quickly and efficiently. These rule changes provide
opportunities for rural telcos and other small businesses to provide
broadband PCS to the public without increasing the administrative burden
on the Commission. Thus, we affirm the rules adopted in the
*Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and Order.*

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

17\. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(r), and
332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
154(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a)(2), the Petitions for Reconsideration
filed on February 5, 1997, by the National Telephone Cooperative
Association and the Independent Alliance and Omnipoint Corporation ARE
DENIED.

18\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 4(i), Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), the Motion for Stay Pending
Judicial Review, filed on February 20, 1997, by the Rural
Telecommunications Group IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

[Petitions for Reconsideration]{.underline}

National Telephone Cooperative Association and

the Independent Alliance (NTCA)

Omnipoint Corporation (Omnipoint)

[Oppositions]{.underline}

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)

GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

U.S. West, Inc. (U.S. West)

[Replies]{.underline}

NTCA

*[Ex Parte Filings]{.underline}*

Adams Telephone Cooperative

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

Five Areas Telephone Cooperative Organization, Inc.

Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

[Other Pleadings]{.underline}

Rural Telecommunications Group: \"Motion for Stay Pending Judicial
Review\"

[Oppositions]{.underline}

AT&T

GTE

Personal Communications Industry Association

[Response]{.underline}

3 Rivers PCS, Inc.

[^1]: \"Partitioning\" is the assignment by a licensee of geographic
    portions of its license to a third party.

[^2]: \"Disaggregation\" is the assignment by a licensee of discrete
    portions or \"blocks\" of spectrum licensed to a geographic area
    licensee or qualifying entity.

[^3]: Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial
    Mobile Radio Service Licensees, WT Docket No. 96-148, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd. 21831
    (1996) (*Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and Order*). The
    effective date of the new rules was March 7, 1997.

[^4]: Referred to herein as the NTCA Petition and Omnipoint Petition,
    respectively. Oppositions to the Petitions for Reconsideration were
    filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T), GTE Service
    Corporation (GTE), and U.S. West, Inc. (U.S West) on April 2, 1997.
    In addition, NTCA filed a Reply on April 14, 1997. Various parties
    have submitted ex parte filings (See Appendix).

[^5]: AT&T, GTE, the Personal Communications Industry Association and 3
    Rivers PCS, Inc., opposed RTG\'s Motion. In its Motion, RTG noted
    that it had filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 5, 1997, and it requested
    that the Commission stay the effectiveness of the new rules to
    preserve the *status quo* until the Court had the opportunity to
    pass on the validity of the *Report and Order*. *See* RTG Motion at
    1-2; *Rural Telecommunications Group v. FCC*, D.C. Cir. No. 97-1077.
    On February 27, 1997, RTG filed an Emergency Motion for Stay with
    the Court (RTG Emergency Motion). The Commission filed its
    Opposition to the Emergency Motion on March 4, 1997. The Court
    denied RTG\'s Emergency Motion on March 5, 1997, and the new rules
    went into effect as scheduled on March 7, 1997. *See Rural
    Telecommunications Group v. FCC*, D.C. Cir. No. 97‑1077 (issued
    March 6, 1997). Given the Court\'s action, RTG\'s Motion and the
    responsive pleadings are moot.

[^6]: A rural telephone company (rural telco) is a local exchange
    carrier operating entity to the extent that such entity: (1)
    Provides common carrier service to any local exchange carrier study
    area that does not include either; (i) Any incorporated place of
    10,000 inhabitants or more, or any part thereof, based on the most
    recently available population statistics of the Bureau of the
    Census; or (ii) Any territory, incorporated or unincorporated,
    included in an urbanized area, as defined by the Bureau of the
    Census as of August 10, 1993; (2) Provides telephone exchange
    service, including exchange access, to fewer than 50,000 access
    lines; (3) Provides telephone exchange service to any local exchange
    carrier study area with fewer than 100,000 access lines; or (4) Has
    less than 15 percent of its access lines in communities of more than
    50,000 on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
    1998. 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(e) (1998). *See* former section 24.714 of
    the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.714 (1996), for the geographic
    partitioning rule for rural telcos.

[^7]: Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Second Report and
    Order*, 8 FCC Rcd. 7700 (1993) (*Broadband PCS Second Report and
    Order*).

[^8]: Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. 4957 (1994 *) (Broadband PCS Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*).

[^9]: *Id*. at 4990, ¶ 83.

[^10]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -
    Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Fifth Report and Order*,
    9 FCC Rcd. 5532, 5597-99, ¶¶ 150-52 (1994) (*Competitive Bidding
    Fifth Report and Order*); 47 C.F.R § 24.714 (1996).

[^11]: See Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services Licensees, WT Docket No. 96-148,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd. 10187 (1996) (NPRM).

[^12]: *NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd. at 10195, ¶ 11.

[^13]: *Id*. at 10197, ¶ 15.

[^14]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation* *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21833, ¶ 2.

[^15]: *Id*. at 21848, ¶ 27.

[^16]: *Id*. at 21851-2, ¶¶ 31-32.

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id*. at 21843, ¶ 13.

[^19]: *Broadband PCS Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. at 4985
    ¶ 69; 47 C.F.R. § 24.229(c) (1996).

[^20]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21858, ¶ 46.

[^21]: *Id*. at 21861, ¶ 53.

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *Id*. at 21862, ¶ 54.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.839(a).

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(a).

[^26]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21843-21845.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id*. at 21843, ¶ 14.

[^29]: AT&T Opposition at 2 (*citing Competitive Bidding Fifth Report
    and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. at 5597-99).

[^30]: AT&T Opposition at 2; U.S. West Opposition at Attachment, p. 7.

[^31]: *Broadband PCS Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. at 4988,
    ¶¶ 77-78.

[^32]: NTCA Petition at 2.

[^33]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21843, ¶ 15 (*citing* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A), (B), and (D)).

[^34]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^36]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21861, ¶ 53.

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: Omnipoint Comments at 11-13.

[^39]: *Id*. at 12.

[^40]: *See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd. at 21862, ¶ 54.

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: Omnipoint Petition at 2.

[^43]: *Id*.

[^44]: *See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd. at 21862, ¶ 53.

[^45]: We note that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has released
    *Public Notices* seeking comment on requests to allow
    non-entrepreneurs to participate in the upcoming C and F block
    auction. *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    SBC Communications Inc.'s Request for Waiver of the Eligibility
    Requirements for Participation in the Upcoming PCS C and F Block
    Auction," *Public Notice*, DA 00-145 (rel. January 31, 2000);
    "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Nextel
    Communications, Inc.'s Petition Regarding PCS C and F Block
    Spectrum," *Public Notice*, DA 00-191 (rel. February 3, 2000); and
    "Extension of Filing Deadline For Comments To the Petitions Filed by
    SBC Communications, Inc. and Nextel Communications, Inc. Regarding
    PCS C and F Block Rules," *Public Notice*, DA 00-271 (rel. February
    11, 2000). The Commission's actions in the present rulemaking
    proceeding should not be construed to prejudge any action the
    Commission or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau might take in
    connection with the foregoing *Public Notices*.

[^46]: *Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd.
    at 21862, ¶ 54.

[^47]: *Id.* at 21867-8, ¶¶ 70-71.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111(a).

[^49]: *Id*.

[^50]: Omnipoint Petition at 5-7.

[^51]: *Id* at 6.

[^52]: *See* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Second Report and
    O*rder, 9 FCC Rcd. 2348, 2385 (1994).

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457-0.459.